NEWS CENTER – In a new series of articles, the English Nûçe Ciwan will be publishing the 3 English translated works of the Manifesto for Democratic Civilization by Rêber APO (Abdullah Ocalan) chapter by chapter every 2 days.
Today we will start with the first work:
“Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization: The Age of Masked Gods and Disguised Kings”
Continuation…
Scientific socialism collapsed from within and the systems derived from it transformed themselves from state capitalist institutions to private capitalist institutions. This was due to the scientific method and its fundamental concept of objectivity. I shall discuss this later in more detail but let me just say here that I have never for a moment doubted the good intentions, beliefs and efforts of those who contributed to the struggle for socialism. All scientific structures that regard the distinction between subject and object as fundamental also assert the right to freedom —in some cases even to the extent that they claim not to be bound by any social values. These claims have resulted in enormous distortions by science. The level of integration between science and the ruling system is alarming. The world of science has become the power that constructs, legitimizes, and protects the system’s methods and contents. The scientific method of the capitalist age and the sciences based on it thus have provided the power for the profitable functioning of the system. This in turn has caused wars, crises, hunger, unemployment, environmental disasters and population explosion. The innocuous aphorism “knowledge is power” proudly claims this reality. Therefore, if capitalist modernity signals discontinuity in all its parameters, then the biggest blame can be laid on the “scientific method” that it rests upon.
It thus becomes very important that critique of the system is directed against this method and the “scientific disciplines” based on it. The fundamental weakness of all system critique, including socialist critique, is that it uses the very method that the capitalist system rests upon. Any society built on this method will encounter the same consequences. Hence, despite their criticism, all opponents to the system —including scientific socialism— have suffered the same consequences as the capitalist society. My analysis of the characteristics of class and society is based on the subjectobject dichotomy, because these two seemingly innocent concepts are the ontological reasons for the unsustainability of modernity. This notion of nature and subject is as obsessive as the dogmatic method of the Middle Ages. Despite popular belief, scientific progress cannot be reduced to these two concepts. On the contrary, such a clear-cut subject-object distinction leads to a more material and primitive understanding of life than that of the Middle Ages. While the dogmatic method deprived human life of freedom, capitalist modernity has torn it apart on the basis of this distinction. A deep division in all fields of life is being constructed. Science has torn apart the whole —right down to its smallest unit. Hence, the integrity of social life and its indivisibility with time and location were lost to us. There is nothing worse than a life detached from its essence.
This critique does not entail that I propose a new method, nor does it entail that I propose a total lack of methodology. What I am saying is that we should take note of what is signified by this method, and by the laws it claims all life — including human life— and inanimate matter are bound by. Should we persist with the notions and method of the scientific approach, we may deprive ourselves and nature of development and freedom. I do not envisage the existence of universes without method and law. At the same time, I do not believe that the universe rests on the mathematical order of the Cartesian mechanism. I detect striking similarities in, attitude between adherents of this theory and the Sumerian priests, and in my opinion they represent the same civilization.
But more important than denouncing a particular method or searching for an alternative is investigating the possible interpretations of the concept of free life. If the aim of employing a specific method is to arrive at a meaningful life, then the method should indeed facilitate this. But the enormous industry and state that emerged with the scientific method have brought war and destruction on humanity, not happiness. The big accumulators have always initiated intolerance toward life. Society, on the other hand, has always regarded accumulation with suspicion. Successfully addressing the question of method requires a proper investigation into the relevant era and civilization. Without a radical critique of the methodology and scientific disciplines that have shaped capitalism, all efforts to reconstruct a science that will foster a meaningful, free life are in vain. I do not wish to contribute to the discussion on modernity and post-modernity. I have much respect for many of the opinions expressed on this topic but I am in agreement with the widely held belief that we are still far from the essence of the problem.
I wish to present my own interpretation under the notion regime of truth. It is not an endeavor for an alternative method but rather an endeavor to find a solution to the problems that a life detached from the values of freedom creates. Undoubtedly, there has always been a quest for truth by humanity; throughout the ages, various options-from mythology to religion, from philosophy to contemporary science-have been hailed as holding the answer. But, although we cannot perceive of a life outside of these fields, we also cannot deny that many of our problems stem from them.
However, contemporary modernity is unique in that it has reached an unsustainable level: the proliferation of nuclear weapons, population explosion, exhaustion of resources, environmental destruction, excessive growth of social rifts, disintegration of moral bonds and a stressful life that has lost its charm and lyricism are but a few examples that demonstrate that our regimes of truth have failed. To prevent us from falling into a state of silent desperation, we need to remedy the situation. To find a solution, we have to question when and where we have made the enormous mistakes that led to these aberrations. Mighty struggles have been waged against capitalist modernity to no avail —we all know what happened to the systems that claimed they were alternatives. Does this mean that the world we live in is the final and eternal one, precisely as the system proclaims? Is another world not possible? Attempting to answer these questions is my duty to the values of freedom.
I am convinced that capitalist modernity acquires most of its power from erroneous social construction. Our reasoning has been weakened and distorted by the juxtaposing of the dualistic pairs subject-object, idealist-materialist, dialectical-metaphysical, philosophical-scientific and mythological-religious. The intense polarization of these dichotomies constitutes the fundamental methodological error that has led to capitalist modernity. Though this reasoning has reached its peak in capitalism, rulers and exploiters through the ages have encouraged beliefs and arguments based on these dichotomies because of the fundamental role they have played in legitimizing the continuation of ruling systems. If the human mind were not conditioned to these distinctions, exploitative systems would not have been so successful. The continuation of the intellectual wars they cause leads to the desire for more power and more exploitation. Those in pursuit of the truth will receive acclaim from rulers and exploiters only for success in developing these dichotomies: “Truth is power, power is truth.” Such a regime of truth is the strongest possible ally of the political and exploitative regime. The consequence of such an alliance is more oppression and exploitation, which in turn means the loss of a free and meaningful life.
Such a regime of truth should not be tolerated any longer. We need to reject the system’s regime of truth on all fronts. In other words, I am not talking about merely opposing the system but about developing an alternative system based on the analysis of the flawed system. By resisting not only the power networks but also the exploitation centers and by developing the ability to build communities, the system can be attacked at its most vulnerable spot. Every social construction is the product of a specific mentality. All important events, all periods of development and their resulting structures have been the work of influential minds and their will. Thus, indeed, the world we live in does not have to be the final and eternal one; another world is possible. One of the biggest errors of the Marxian method was that the proletariat, who were already under daily oppression and exploitation, were expected to bring about the new societal construction without the necessary mental revolution having been initiated. Marxists failed to see that the proletariat consisted of reconquered slaves; the Marxists themselves fell for the “free worker” fallacy. Thus, what is the world-view that needs to be acquired? In order to answer this question clearly we need to have a clear understanding of the present mentality, originating from the subject-object dichotomy.
Firstly, despite claims to this regard, objectivity is not purely an expression of the laws of nature and society. Profound research will show that the so-called“objective laws” are nothing but the modern equivalent of the “Word of God” of antiquity. The voice of the powers that transcend nature and society have always echoed in this objectivity. If we dig deeper, we will find the source of this voice to be the domination of tyrant and exploiter. The objective mind and the orders given by the voice are closely connected to the systems of civilization. It has been disciplined by and made familiar to these systems. Even if new information is extracted from an object, it is immediately adjusted to conform to the system. If resistance is shown, the culprits are punished by the gods of the system, just like Adam and Abraham, Mani and Mansur Al-Hallaj, Saint Paul and Giordano Bruno. If, on the other hand, objectivity is that which we perceive intuitively, objectivity is very valuable-it may even lead to true wisdom when aligned with the values of free life. But in order to achieve this type of objectivity, one has to be as brave as Mansur Al-Hallaj or Giordano Bruno.
We need to be aware that we can reach two sets of conclusions through “objectivity” and that it requires great effort and resistance to understand which represents the established, dominant system and which represents the truth. If objective thought cannot be freed from analytical intelligence, if it cannot be coupled with the momentary, intuitive thought originating from emotional intelligence, then it will play a terrible role in history. The ancient Leviathan has been replaced by the monster that bore the atomic bomb-a monster equipped with the analytic thinking structures of capitalist modernity. Later, when we examine the mask-less new god-the nation-state-the capabilities of objective analytic thought Will become clear. Subjectivism, which positions itself on the opposite side of objectivity, claims that truth is to be attained through insight and contemplation rather than through scrupulous study of the subject matter alone. Subjectivism is another version of Platonism and is in danger of repeating the erroneous and obsessive aspects of the latter, expressed in the dictum: “Truth is only that which can be felt and sensed.” This attitude may even lead to existentialism, which considers a human being to be whatever he makes of himself. When it comes to its perception of nature and society, subjectivism is a strong advocate of individualism and has played a significant role in turning modernity’s individual into an egoist.
Instead of fostering a healthy “I” it brings forth a selfish individual, firmly enchained to the consumptive society. And, as does its opposite, subjectivism does not hesitate to take its place within the system. In fact, the capitalist system owes much to this way of thinking. This attitude has been reflected primarily in the arts, particularly in literature and through the use of the art industry, which has formed a whole new virtual world; it keeps the whole of society under its influence. In this way, it provides the system its much needed legitimacy. Society is continuously bombarded with the sentiments of a virtual world and thus faces losing the possibility of self-reflectivity. The truth is reduced to a world of simulation. It is no longer meaningful to distinguish between the original and the copy. The only positive aspect of subjectivism (as an insight) is its close link with emotional intelligence, due to the fact that feeling and intuition play a major role in subjectivism.
In Sufism and Middle Eastern wisdom an attempt was made to capture the unity of nature and society through the method of contemplation. Much progress was indeed made and it could still be utilized, as it is a substantial source. Eastern subjectivity is superior to Western objectivity when it comes to ts moral approach to nature and society. But subjectivity, just as objectivity, has often fallen into the trap of presenting itself as the god’s voice. In this respect the two attitudes converge. This very aspect of their inner and transcendental gods, together with their conceptions of nature and society, cannot but end up serving the system’s disguised or naked kings, who are the masked or mask-less gods.
Objectivity with all its academic institutions on the one hand, and subjectivism with its various spiritual and religious institutions on the other hand, breed a two-way legitimacy for capitalist modernity. Instead of playing their roles as regimes or methods of truth. they become the system’s sycophants. The cadres and institutions that legitimize power and exploitation play a role as vital as that of the institutions of brute force and exploitation. Yet again we encounter the forces of the system that have been unified with the aphorisms “power is truth” and “knowledge is power.” Hence, the quest for truth becomes the name of the game played by the triumvirate of capital, science and politics. Any quest for truth outside of this game is the enemy of the system and it must either be annihilated or absorbed into the system. We are besieged by the most advanced stage of the material world and we face an enormous loss of meaning. How are we to break free from this power circle of capital, science and politics? The answer to this has been searched for by philosophers of freedom such as Nietzsche and Foucault, but there is no ready answer. We should truly understand these philosophers who, when evaluating modernity, proclaimed the death of man and the castration of society. The existence of death camps, atomic bombs, wars of ethnic cleansing, destruction of the environment and increased cancer and AIDS not only confirms these judgments, but necessitates an urgent counter-quest for truth. I must reiterate that social democrats, national liberation movements and even scientific socialism, although seen as the strongest opposition, have long ago abandoned this role and have taken their position as denominations of modernity. It has also been understood that many post-modern quests are indeed modernist thoughts in disguise.
Systems begin to dissolve when they have reached their climax and then start to decline. The 1970 is the period when capitalist modernity began its decline and its chosen method began losing esteem. Ecological consideration, feminist trends and ethno-cultural movements gained prominence. This was possible because criticism of the scientific method had paved the way for alternative schools of thought and independent interpretation. It is important that we understand the value of periods like these —periods that are often called “chaotic”— and appreciate the different intellectual groupings in their own right as centers of resistance.
We have to understand that such historical periods are intellectually productive in terms of new and different methods and in terms of construction of truth because this insight will increase the chances of a successful reconstruction of society at the community level. One of our practical responsibilities today is to see to the materialization of our utopias of freedom and equality by building these ideals into social structures. To obtain this, we need to realize the scientific importance of the chosen path and we need the strength of will to obtain freedom. We have arrived at a time where the love for truth is the only guarantee of free life. Our slogan then becomes “Truth is love; love is free life!” Thus, if we are not filled with love for a free life-which is both the method to obtain truth and the regime of truth-then we can neither attain the necessary knowledge nor build our desired social world.
Let us now examine the leading structures and knowledge in the light of this hypothesis. We start off by rejecting the progenitors of the Bacons and Descartes-taking the human being as our basis may be more appropriate than the subject-object, spirit-body dichotomy. I am not pleading for a human-centric world-view, nor for a humanistic approach. I am referring to the totality of facts that comprises the human being, facts such as:
- Atoms, the building blocks of matter, have their richest existence and composition —both in terms of number and arrangement— in the human being.
- The human being has the advantage of representing all the plant and animal structures of the biological world.
- The human being has realized the most advanced forms of social life.
- The human being has access to a very elastic and free intellectual world.
- 5. The human being is capable of metaphysical thought.
Clearly, the human being constitutes a unique source of knowledge, where all these characteristics are intertwined, occurring simultaneously and functioning as a unit. The understanding of this source in its entirety, in its wholeness, is equal to understanding the known material universe (or, at the very least, it is a correct first step in that direction). I will now discuss the five points set out above in more detail.
