💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › document › abdullah-ocalan-re-evaluating-anarchism captured on 2023-03-20 at 21:44:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Re-evaluating Anarchism Subtitle: (Anarşizmi Yeniden Değerlendirmek) Date: 2002 Source: Retrieved on 2020-04-13 from [[https://twitter.com/TA_Anarsist/status/1228660057295982593][twitter.com]] Authors: Abdullah Öcalan, Abdullah Ocalan Topics: democratic confederalism, Tekoşîna Anarşîst Published: 2020-04-13 05:23:09Z
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;
1. They criticize the capitalist system from the most left position. They 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.
2. They have a more comprehensive and realistic approach towards the 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.
3. Their foresight, that centralist nation-state would be a disaster for 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.
4. Their ideas and criticisms on bureaucratism, industrialism and 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.
5. Their criticisms towards the real socialism is also verified by the 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.
<right>
Abdullah Öcalan
Imrali prision, 2002
</right>