# Definition of Democratic Civilization

From 'The Sociology of Freedom: Manifesto of the Democratic
Civilization, Volume 3' by Abdullah Ocalan.

Annotations are our own. The text is otherwise unchanged.

## What is the subject of moral and political society?

The school of social science that postulates the examination of the
existence and development of social nature on the basis of moral and
political society could be defined as the democratic civilization
system. The various schools of social science base their analyses
on different units.  Theology and religion prioritize society. For
scientific socialism, it is class.  The fundamental unit for liberalism
is the individual. There are, of course, schools that prioritize
power and the state and others that focus on civilization.  All these
unit-based approaches must be criticized, because, as I have frequently
pointed out, they are not historical, and they fail to address the
totality. A meaningful examination would have to focus on what is
crucial from the point of view of society, both in terms of history
and actuality. Otherwise, the result will only be one more discourse.

Identifying our fundamental unit as moral and political society is
significant, because it also covers the dimensions of historicity
and totality.  Moral and political society is the most historical and
holistic expression of society. Morals and politics themselves can
be understood as history.  A society that has a moral and political
dimension is a society that is the closest to the totality of all its
existence and development. A society can exist without the state,
class, exploitation, the city, power, or the nation, but a society
devoid of morals and politics is unthinkable. Societies may exist as
colonies of other powers, particularly capital and state monopolies,
and as sources of raw materials. In those cases, however, we are
talking about the legacy of a society that has ceased to be.

## Individualism is a state of war

There is nothing gained by labeling moral and political society—the
natural state of society—as slave-owning, feudal, capitalist,
or socialist.  Using such labels to describe society masks
reality and reduces society to its components (class, economy, and
monopoly). The bottleneck encountered in discourses based on such
concepts as regards the theory and practice of social development
stems from errors and inadequacies inherent in them. If all of the
analyses of society referred to with these labels that are closer to
historical materialism have fallen into this situation, it is clear
that discourses with much weaker scientific bases will be in a much
worse situation. Religious discourses, meanwhile, focus heavily on
the importance of morals but have long since turned politics over to
the state.  Bourgeois liberal approaches not only obscure the society
with moral and political dimensions, but when the opportunity presents
itself they do not hesitate to wage war on this society. Individualism
is a state of war against society to the same degree as power and the
state is. Liberalism essentially prepares society, which is weakened
by being deprived of its morals and politics, for all kinds of attacks
by individualism. Liberalism is the ideology and practice that is
most anti-society.

## The rise of scientific positivism

In Western sociology (there is still no science called Eastern
sociology) concepts such as society and civilization system are
quite problematic.  We should not forget that the need for sociology
stemmed from the need to find solutions to the huge problems of
crises, contradictions, and conflicts and war caused by capital and
power monopolies. Every branch of sociology developed its own thesis
about how to maintain order and make life more livable. Despite
all the sectarian, theological, and reformist interpretations
of the teachings of Christianity, as social problems deepened,
interpretations based on a scientific (positivist) point of view
came to the fore. The philosophical revolution and the Enlightenment
(seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) were essentially the result
of this need.  When the French Revolution complicated society’s
problems rather than solving them, there was a marked increase in
the tendency to develop sociology as an independent science. Utopian
socialists (Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon), together with Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim, represent
the preliminary steps in this direction.  All of them are children
of the Enlightenment, with unlimited faith in science. They believed
they could use science to re-create society as they wished. They
were playing God. In Hegel’s words, God had descended to earth
and, what’s more, in the form of the nation-state. What needed to
be done was to plan and develop specific and sophisticated “social
engineering” projects. There was no project or plan that could not be
achieved by the nation-state if it so desired, as long as it embraced
the “scientific positivism” and was accepted by the nation-state!

## Capitalism as an iron cage

British social scientists (political economists) added economic
solutions to French sociology, while German ideologists contributed
philosophically.  Adam Smith and Hegel in particular made major
contributions.  There was a wide variety of prescriptions from
both the left and right to address the problems arising from the
horrendous abuse of the society by the nineteenth-century industrial
capitalism. Liberalism, the central ideology of the capitalist
monopoly has a totally eclectic approach, taking advantage of any
and all ideas, and is the most practical when it comes to creating
almost patchwork-like systems. It was as if the right- and left-
wing schematic sociologies were unaware of social nature, history,
and the present while developing their projects in relation to the
past (the quest for the “golden age” by the right) or the future
(utopian society). Their systems would continually fragment when they
encountered history or current life. The reality that had imprisoned
them all was the “iron cage” that capitalist modernity had slowly
cast and sealed them in, intellectually and in their practical way
of life. However, Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas of metaphysicians
of positivism or castrated dwarfs of capitalist modernity bring us
a lot closer to the social truth. Nietzsche leads the pack of rare
philosophers who first drew attention to the risk of society being
swallowed up by capitalist modernity. Although he is accused of
serving fascism with his thoughts, his foretelling of the onset of
fascism and world wars was quite enticing.

The increase in major crises and world wars, along with the division of
the liberal center into right- and left-wing branches, was enough to
bankrupt positivist sociology. In spite of its widespread criticism
of metaphysics, social engineering has revealed its true identity
with authoritarian and totalitarian fascism as metaphysics at
its shallowest.  The Frankfurt School is the official testimonial
of this bankruptcy. The École Annales and the 1968 youth uprising
led to various postmodernist sociological approaches, in particular
Immanuel Wallerstein’s capitalist world-system analysis. Tendencies
like ecology, feminism, relativism, the New Left, and world-system
analysis launched a period during which the social sciences
splintered. Obviously, financial capital gaining hegemony as
the 1970s faded also played an important role. The upside of these
developments was the collapse of the hegemony of Eurocentric thought.
The downside, however, was the drawbacks of a highly fragmented
social sciences.

## The problems of Eurocentric sociology

Let’s summarize the criticism of Eurocentric sociology:

1. Positivism, which criticized and denounced both religion and
metaphysics, has not escaped being a kind of religion and metaphysics
in its own right. This should not come as a surprise.  Human culture
requires metaphysics. The issue is to distinguish good from bad
metaphysics.

2. An understanding of society based on dichotomies like primitive vs.
modern, capitalist vs. socialist, industrial vs. agrarian, progressive
vs. reactionary, divided by class vs. classless, or with a state
vs. stateless prevents the development of a definition that comes
closer to the truth of social nature. Dichotomies of this sort distance
us from social truth.

3. To re-create society is to play the modern god. More precisely, each
time society is recreated there is a tendency to form a new capital
and power-state monopoly. Much like medieval theism was ideologically
connected to absolute monarchies (sultanates and shāhanshāhs),
modern social engineering as recreation is essentially the divine 
disposition and ideology of the nation-state. Positivism in this 
regard is modern theism.

4. Revolutions cannot be interpreted as the re-creation acts of
society. When thusly understood they cannot escape positivist
theism. Revolutions can only be defined as social revolutions to
the extent that they free society from excessive burden of capital
and power.

5. The task of revolutionaries cannot be defined as creating any
social model of their making but more correctly as playing a role in
contributing to the development of moral and political society.

6. Methods and paradigms to be applied to social nature should not be
identical to those that relate to first nature. While the universalist
approach to first nature provides results that come closer to the
truth (I don’t believe there is an absolute truth), relativism in
relation to social nature may get us closer to the truth. The universe
can neither be explained by an infinite universalist linear discourse
or by a concept of infinite similar circular cycles.

7. A social regime of truth needs to be reorganized on the basis of
these and many other criticisms. Obviously, I am not talking about
a new divine creation, but I do believe that the greatest feature of
the human mind is the power to search for and build truth.

## A new social science

In light of these criticisms, I offer the following suggestions in
relation to the social science system that I want to define:

### A more humane social nature

1. I would not present social nature as a rigid universalist truth with
mythological, religious, metaphysical, and scientific (positivist)
patterns. Understanding it to be the most flexible form of basic
universal entities that encompass a wealth of diversities but are
tied down to conditions of historical time and location more closely
approaches the truth. Any analysis, social science, or attempt to make
practical change without adequate knowledge of the qualities of social
nature may well backfire. The monotheistic religions and positivism,
which have appeared throughout the history of civilization claiming
to have found the solution, were unable to prevent capital and power
monopolies from gaining control. It is therefore their irrevocable
task, if they are to contribute to moral and political society,
to develop a more humane analysis based on a profound self-criticism.

2. Moral and political society is the main element that gives social
nature its historical and complete meaning and represents the unity in
diversity that is basic to its existence. It is the definition of moral
and political society that gives social nature its character, maintains
its unity in diversity, and plays a decisive role in expressing its
main totality and historicity. The descriptors commonly used to define
society, such as primitive, modern, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist,
socialist, industrial, agricultural, commercial, monetary, statist,
national, hegemonic, and so on, do not reflect the decisive features
of social nature. On the contrary, they conceal and fragment its
meaning. This, in turn, provides a base for faulty theoretical and
practical approaches and actions related to society.

### Protecting the social fabric

3. Statements about renewing and re-creating society are part of
operations meant to constitute new capital and power monopolies in
terms of their ideological content. The history of civilization, the
history of such renewals, is the history of the cumulative accumulation
of capital and power. Instead of divine creativity, the basic action
the society needs most is to struggle against factors that prevent the
development and functioning of moral and political social fabric. A
society that operates its moral and political dimensions freely,
is a society that will continue its development in the best way.

4. Revolutions are forms of social action resorted to when society
is sternly prevented from freely exercising and maintaining its
moral and political function. Revolutions can and should be accepted
as legitimate by society only when they do not seek to create new
societies, nations, or states but to restore moral and political
society its ability to function freely.

5. Revolutionary heroism must find meaning through its contributions
to moral and political society. Any action that does not have this
meaning, regardless of its intent and duration, cannot be defined as
revolutionary social heroism. What determines the role of individuals
in society in a positive sense is their contribution to the development
of moral and political society.

6. No social science that hopes to develop these key features through
profound research and examination should be based on a universalist
linear progressive approach or on a singular infinite cyclical
relativity. In the final instance, instead of these dogmatic approaches
that serve to legitimize the cumulative accumulation of capital and
power throughout the history of civilization, social sciences based
on a non-destructive dialectic methodology that harmonizes analytical
and emotional intelligence and overcomes the strict subject-object
mold should be developed.

## The framework of moral and political society

The paradigmatic and empirical framework of moral and political
society, the main unit of the democratic civilization system, can be
presented through such hypotheses. Let me present its main aspects:

1. Moral and political society is the fundamental aspect of human
society that must be continuously sought. Society is essentially
moral and political.

2. Moral and political society is located at the opposite end of the
spectrum from the civilization systems that emerged from the triad
of city, class, and state (which had previously been hierarchical
structures).

3. Moral and political society, as the history of social nature,
develops in harmony with the democratic civilization system.

4. Moral and political society is the freest society. A functioning
moral and political fabric and organs is the most decisive dynamic
not only for freeing society but to keep it free. No revolution or
its heroines and heroes can free the society to the degree that the
development of a healthy moral and political dimension will.  Moreover,
revolution and its heroines and heroes can only play a decisive role
to the degree that they contribute to moral and political society.

5. A moral and political society is a democratic society. Democracy
is only meaningful on the basis of the existence of a moral and
political society that is open and free. A democratic society where
individuals and groups become subjects is the form of governance
that best develops moral and political society. More precisely,
we call a functioning political society a democracy. Politics and
democracy are truly identical concepts. If freedom is the space within
which politics expresses itself, then democracy is the way in which
politics is exercised in this space. The triad of freedom, politics,
and democracy cannot lack a moral basis. We could refer to morality
as the institutionalized and traditional state of freedom, politics,
and democracy.

6. Moral and political societies are in a dialectical contradiction
with the state, which is the official expression of all forms of
capital, property, and power. The state constantly tries to substitute
law for morality and bureaucracy for politics. The official state
civilization develops on one side of this historically ongoing
contradiction, with the unofficial democratic civilization system
developing on the other side. Two distinct typologies of meaning
emerge.  Contradictions may either grow more violent and lead to war
or there may be reconciliation, leading to peace.

7. Peace is only possible if moral and political society forces
and the state monopoly forces have the will to live side by side
unarmed and with no killing. There have been instances when rather
than society destroying the state or the state destroying society,
a conditional peace called democratic reconciliation has been
reached. History doesn’t take place either in the form of democratic
civilization—as the expression of moral and political society—or
totally in the form of civilization systems—as the expression of
class and state society. History has unfolded as intense relationship
rife with contradiction between the two, with successive periods of
war and peace. It is quite utopian to think that this situation, with
at least a five-thousand-year history, can be immediately resolved
by emergency revolutions. At the same time, to embrace it as if it
is fate and cannot be interfered with would also not be the correct
moral and political approach.  Knowing that struggles between systems
will be protracted, it makes more sense and will prove more effective
to adopt strategic and tactical approaches that expand the freedom
and democracy sphere of moral and political society.

8. Defining moral and political society in terms of communal,
slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, and socialist attributes serves
to obscure rather than elucidate matters. Clearly, in a moral and
political society there is no room for slave-owning, feudal, or
capitalist forces, but, in the context of a principled reconciliation,
it is possible to take an aloof approach to these forces, within
limits and in a controlled manner. What’s important is that moral
and political society should neither destroy them nor be swallowed up
by them; the superiority of moral and political society should make
it possible to continuously limit the reach and power of the central
civilization system. Communal and socialist systems can identify
with moral and political society insofar as they themselves are
democratic. This identification is, however, not possible, if they
have a state.

9. Moral and political society cannot seek to become a nation-state,
establish an official religion, or construct a non-democratic
regime. The right to determine the objectives and nature of society
lies with the free will of all members of a moral and political
society. Just as with current debates and decisions, strategic
decisions are the purview of society’s moral and political will and
expression. The essential thing is to have discussions and to become
a decision-making power. A society who holds this power can determine
its preferences in the soundest possible way. No individual or force
has the authority to decide on behalf of moral and political society,
and social engineering has no place in these societies.

## Liberating democratic civilization from the State

When viewed in the light of the various broad definitions I
have presented, it is obvious that the democratic civilization
system—essentially the moral and political totality of social
nature—has always existed and sustained itself as the flip side of
the official history of civilization. Despite all the oppression and
exploitation at the hands of the official world-system, the other face
of society could not be destroyed. In fact, it is impossible to destroy
it. Just as capitalism cannot sustain itself without noncapitalist
society, civilization— the official world system— also cannot
sustain itself without the democratic civilization system. More
concretely the civilization with monopolies cannot sustain itself
without the existence of a civilization without monopolies. The
opposite is not true. Democratic civilization, representing the
historical flow of the system of moral and political society, can
sustain itself more comfortably and with fewer obstacles in the
absence of the official civilization.

I define democratic civilization as a system of thought, the
accumulation of thought, and the totality of moral rules and political
organs. I am not only talking about a history of thought or the social
reality within a given moral and political development. The discussion
does, however, encompass both issues in an intertwined manner. I
consider it important and necessary to explain the method in terms of
democratic civilization’s history and elements, because this totality
of alternate discourse and structures are prevented by the official
civilization. I will address these issues in subsequent sections.
