💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › abdullah-ocalan-re-evaluating-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:25:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Re-evaluating Anarchism Author: Abdullah Öcalan Date: 2002 Language: en Topics: Tekoşîna Anarşîst, democratic confederalism Source: Retrieved on 2020-04-13 from https://twitter.com/TA_Anarsist/status/1228660057295982593
After the dissolution of real socialism, or rather integrating of it
with the system, the anarchist movements which are as old as real
socialism and find their roots in French Revolution deserve a
re-evaluation. Today it is better understood that the famous
representatives of anarchism, Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin were not
completely wrong in their criticisms regarding the system and real
socialism. They are salient (catch attention) with being located at the
most opposite pole to the system, as being a movement who criticizes
capitalism not only as private and state monopoly, but also as
modernity.
The critiques they make towards the power, in both moralist (ethical)
and political ways carry important level of truth inside. The social
structures they come from effects the movement in obvious ways. The
“class” reactions of aristocratic groups who lost power and city
artisans who got relatively worse situation due to capitalism, reflect
this very reality. The facts that they remain at an individual level,
can not find grassroots and cannot develop a counter-system are strongly
connected to their social structures. They know well what capitalism
does, but they do not know well what they should do. If we summarize
shortly their view;
comprehend better that this system destroys the moral and political
society. They do not attribute progressive role to capitalism, as
Marxists do. Their approach to the societies destroyed by capitalism is
more positive. They do not see those societies as backwards and obliged
to decline, but find the survival of those more moral and political.
power and the state compared to Marxists. Bakunin is the one who said
power is the absolute evil. However, demanding removal of power and
state immediately at any rate is utopian and an approach which does not
have so much chance to be realized in practice. They were able to
foresee that socialism cannot be built based on the state and power, and
that might end up in more dangerous and bureaucratic capitalism.
all working class and popular movements and would crush their hopes, is
realistic. They also turned out to be right in their critiques towards
Marxists regarding the unification of Germany and Italy. Their statement
about history developing in favor of nation-states would mean big loss
for the utopia of freedom and equality, their criticizing Marxists for
taking position at the side of the nation-state and blaming them with
betrayal are important aspects to emphasize. They defended
confederalism.
urbanization are verified up to a certain level. In their developing
anti-fascist and ecologist stance at an early stage, those ideas and
critiques played an important role.
dissolution of the system. They are the fraction who diagnosed best that
what was built was not socialism but state capitalism.
Despite their all those important and verified ideas and criticisms, it
is quite puzzling that they could not massify themselves (become a mass
movement, original in turkish: kitleselleşme) and find the chance of
practical implementation. I believe this comes from serious deficiency
and infirmity (lack of firmness) in their theory. The lack in their
analysis of civilization and inability to develop an applicable system
played an important role in this. Historical analysis of society and
analysis of solutions were not developed.
Furthermore, they themselves carry the impact of positivist philosophy.
It cannot be so much said that they were able to diverge from
Euro-centric social sciences. Their biggest failure, according to me, is
not being able to go into a systematic thought and structure regarding
the democratic politics and modernity. They did not put the detailed
effort in systematizing and practicing (implementation), which they put
into correctness of their ideas and critiques. Maybe their class
position hindered this.
Another important obstacle is the reaction they show against every kind
of authority, in their theoretical views and in their practical lives.
Projecting the rightful reaction they have against the power and the
state authority into every form of authority and order, had impact on
them not bringing democratic modernity into question in theory and in
practice. I believe for them the most important aspect of self-critique
is not seeing the legitimacy of democratic authority and necessity of
democratic modernity.
In addition, not developing the option of democratic nation instead of
nation-state is an important missing point and subject of self-critique.
Without doubt, anarchists had an important impact in the dissolution of
real socialism, development of feminist and ecologist movements, and
growing of “civil society-ism” (original in turkish: sivil toplumculuk)
in the left. However, repeating that they’ve been proven right does not
mean a lot. The question they have to answer is why they did not develop
an assertive activity and construction of a system. This brings our
minds the deep gap between the theory and their lives. Were they
actually able to overcome the modern life they criticize a lot? Or, how
coherent are they in this? Are they able to leave the Euro-centric life
and step into a real global democratic modernity?
It is possible to multiply similar question and critiques. It is a
movement which showed great sacrifices in the history, which carried
important thinkers within, took important space in the intellectual
arena with its important idea and criticisms. The important thing is to
gather this movement and the legacy of it inside of a coherent and
growable counter-system. Compared to the real socialists, it is more
possible for anarchists to trend towards daily praxis via self critique.
It is still important that they take the place they deserve in economic,
social, political, intellectual and ethical struggle. In the struggles
which gained speed and came forward with the cultural aspects in the
ground of Middle East, it is possible for anarchists to both renew
themselves and make strong contributions. They are one of the important
forces that is needed to collaborate with in the works of
re-construction of democratic modernity.
Abdullah Öcalan
Imrali prision, 2002