This paper will examine the philosophical background to the setting up and growth of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), not from the point of view of previous politically motivated studies which have sought primarily to categorise the PKK and its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, either as revolutionary fighters for national liberation or as brainwashed terrorists, depending on the standpoint of the commentator, but from the position that the enterprise undertaken by Ocalan is primarily a humanistic, rather than a nationalistic one.

To lay the basis for this examination, we will first compare and contrast previous revolutions of both a bourgeois and 'socialist' character. Ultimately not only the bourgeois, but also the 'socialist' revolutions will be found wanting as, although they sought to, and indeed did, change the social relations of production, the individuals who composed the bodies or parties which carried out those revolutions brought with them too much 'baggage' from the societies they sought to supersede.

In this study, although we shall rely in part on Marxism and a materialist view of history, we shall also draw on Plato and the notion that human beings can 'perfect' themselves. We shall look at the way in which Ocalan trains and develops his pupils in the context of creating better men and women in order to make a better revolution, a better movement and a better world for the future.

Also from Plato comes the notion of the 'philosopher-ruler', the leader who is both thinker and doer. This paper will assert that Abdullah Ocalan, President of the PKK, is a leader in this mould, and will back up that assertion with extensive quotation from interviews with Ocalan, some previously published, some specially undertaken by the current author for the purpose of this dissertation.

Finally, taking as our basis the anthropological contention that human life originated in Mesopotamia, that here was the 'cradle of civilisation', we shall reflect on the PKK's attempts to begin to undo the damage and degeneration which humankind has undergone in the several millennia since that birth, and we will examine its endeavours to recreate a humanity which, while educated and experienced, preserves the innocence of childhood or of early civilisation.

Formation of individuals' personality

Down the ages, to the present day the transformation of human beings or of human nature has been a subject of continuing dispute among philosophers and political theorists. They have been able to argue as endlessly about the 'changeability' and 'immutability', or 'perfectibility' and 'imperfectibility' of the true essence of humankind, as they have about determination and free will. There are persuasive theses in abundance on both sides, providing a wealth of concrete examples and experiences. Likewise, continual argument about the differentiation of men or the fundamental traits which distinguish human beings from other species as rational self-conscious beings, occupies a crucial place in the scope of social sciences.

Every social matter, in a positive or negative sense - from the most disturbing and complex international question to achievements within a family can be, in the final analysis, related to the mental and spiritual structures of individuals. Conversely, the mental and spiritual formation of individuals is inextricably linked to the material and moral structures of society. These two 'opposite' diagnoses, despite their contradictory appearance at first glance, constitute two fundamental parts of a combined whole. The defects - and also the extraordinary acheivements - in human personality and society are intimately related and interdependent. In other words, the question of the personality of individuals and the question of society are directly dependent on one another. As frequently stated in excerpts concerning this subject, one of the major conclusions of the materialist conception of history is that man is both the producer and the product of society.

On the subject of human nature, one of the fundamental trends in the field of philosophy, Idealism, suggests that man is a passionate being whose major motivations are not within his control; that it is man's appetites, aversions and passions which determine human behaviour. It is these desires and passions which motivate man to be self-regarding and which present the 'natural' basis for all wars. The eventual conclusion of this school of thought is, in short, that 'man is by nature self-regarding and can never be otherwise'. Consequently, there are plenty of derivative conclusions which are used to justify all the injustices and inequalities of class-based societies and which contend to demonstrate the inevitability and eternity of the existing, - or 'new' - world order.

There are, of course, enough convincing reasons for being in favour of the above-mentioned theory, which tends to suggest that this world cannot be changed - apart from the transformation from primitive brutality into technological brutality - because this is how mankind was made. Furthermore, all written histories of hitherto existing society (which Marx and Engels described as the 'history of class struggle' at the beginning of the Communist Manifesto of 1848) have produced extremely impressive and persuasive fuel for proponents of this metaphysical approach to human nature. Thus, these kinds of determined rational or imperfectibilist conceptions of human nature, which reached such 'absolute' conclusions as that 'man is by nature self-regarding and can never be otherwise' or 'man is inherently unable to attain complete self-mastery', may not be easily belittled. In particular such analysis has been prevalent since the collapse of the 'communist regimes' of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union - the direct and indirect outcome of the October Revolution of 1917.

At this stage it is useful to the development of my argument to make a brief comparison between the October Revolution under the leadership of the Bolsheviks and the bourgeois French Revolution.

The October Revolution and its predecessors

Some commentators see similarities between the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917. Whether such diagnoses are deliberate or sentimental, the truth is that the only analogy between the two is that both were the first proper examples of a class seizing power.

However, it is vital to explain that the bases of these revolutions are strictly different. Considering the recent 'explosions' in the former 'socialist' states during the last few years, and their earthquake-like effect, it is most important for political theorists to discuss and specify what these vital differences are.

I am not suggesting that the angle which should be discussed is the question of the abolition of private property in the means of production or, in other words, changing the productive relations, as repeatedly written about by Marx and proponents of Marxism. In so saying, I do not intend to conclude that the relations of production are not important, nor do I forget that the fundamental factor, which has played a major role in motivating the changes and developments which have shaped the history of humanity, is the conflict between the productive forces (the material productive forces of society and the social forces of production) and the relations of production. Nor do I wish to ignore the fact that the base (economic structure) determines the superstructural institutions of society. But, admittedly, there are certain historical periods and circumstances in which the superstructure might dynamite the base, just as, on relevant occasions, the effect could be the reverse, therefore causing a lot of pain to mankind. That the effect is temporary and that we are unable to turn back the clock of history, do not reduce this pain, because such a period, which is, from my point of view, definitely a temporary one, may be an instant in the history of mankind but a lifetime for the individual.

Following the French Revolution there were other bourgeois revolutions which had similar goals. Yet many feudal sovereignties realised that the process was unstoppable and either adapted to the 'young' capitalism or capitulated to the growing bourgeoisie before it was too late. Within under 120 years capitalism had developed, spread beyond national borders, gradually matured and also aged. Namely it reached its 'ageing' stage, the stage of imperialism as defined by Lenin, over more a less a century. Lenin defined this stage of capitalism as 'dying capitalism', 'monopolist capitalism,' and 'the highest stage of capitalism'. And it has been living out this 'aged' period for the past 80-90 years.

One should not jump to the easy conclusion that Lenin was wrong in labelling it 'dying capitalism'. Imperialism is basically monopolistic capitalism, as well as the highest level of capitalism, and it is intensely contradictory, inevitably engendering a tendency to stagnate and decay. These truths remain valid. The changing periods of societies do not exactly resemble those of human life. Thus it will not motivate scientific reasoning towards reaching scientific conclusions about the nature of human beings, but will only benefit the privileged parasites who manipulate the whole world to ignore the fact that if an ageing capitalism still has its bright moments, the fundamental reason behind this is that the 'communists' of socialist states continued to act according to all sorts of instincts inherited from class societies.

When we look at the aftermath of the October Revolution, we see that the first socialist state in the history of mankind had to defend itself for 20 years against all the imperialist powers and their intrigues, at the same time as consolidating its power. Subsequently, in the Second World War, it pushed back the fascist attack at the cost of the lives of millions of people. Thanks to the prestige which communism gained through this victory and with the assistance of public opinion, as well as the involvement of the victorious Red Army, progressive parties and movements gained the opportunity to come to power in several East European states. This was the turning point for world socialism, which entered the 'socialist camp' phase. The subsequent victories of the Chinese, Cuban and Vietnamese revolutions strengthened socialism world-wide, creating fears for imperialism. But when one looks at the situation 40 years on - 70 years after Lenin's Communist Party of the Soviet Union achieved revolution - the masses are running away from communism with sentiments of primitive nationalism and the peoples of socialism are slaughtering one another. Republics chose to sever their links with the USSR and eventually it was dissolved. And in some East European states the mass of the people seem to be saying, 'Why on earth did you give us this communism?' as statues of Lenin are pulled down by cranes one after the other.

By effecting a move from the villages to the cities, from craftsmanship to factory output, from agriculture to a national and later international market, a widely spread trade network and farming mass production, the aim of the French and other bourgeois revolutions was to intensify and systematise exploitation. The bourgeoisie was chanting the words 'liberty, equality', but in fact its goal was more exploitation, more profit, and a more privileged life for itself at the expense of the working class. In reality the bourgeoisie was lying, hypocritical and selfish. It was inevitable, therefore, that it would create a culture, a morality, a system of justice and an idea of jurisprudence appropriate to its nature. The ground for such superstructural values and institutions had already been prepared by preceding systems of class societies because lying, cheating, hypocrisy and selfishness were intrinsic qualities of those systems as well. In those systems too, for instance, landlords told the peasants: 'If it were not for my land, where else would you work? Your livelihoods come from me. I shall protect you.' All the capitalist had to do was put this culture, which was based on falsehoods and deceit, into his own words. For market purposes, nationalism was included. In short, the cultural and moral foundations of bourgeois society and all other previous class societies, lie in hypocrisy, corruption and lies. The 'sacred duty' was to conceal the exploitation and make injustice, discrimination and the privileged life-style of the ruling class look fair. Naturally an appropriate idea of justice and an appropriate judicial system were developed.

For example, in the laws of these societies, there does not appear to be such a crime as lying and one cannot find a punishment for it. I am no legal expert, but if such a law does technically exist, it is still bound to be hypocritical, as such laws are only ever enforced against the poor, and never against the ruling class.

The claims of socialism and 'Eastern bloc' socialism

When we look at the October Revolution or at socialist revolutions in general, we see an entirely different situation. The tasks of the socialist revolution do not end with the transformation of the productive relations. In particular, the socialist relations of production are not simply about nationalisation or the appropriation of the means of production by the proletarian state. In the case of capitalism, the surplus value which is created by private ownership of the means of production goes into the pockets of the bourgeoisie. If, under socialism, the proletarian state does not systematically redirect surplus value to society, to constructing a higher living standard for the mass of the people, then changing whose hands the means of production are in, moving from private to state ownership, does not reflect a socialist mode of production. If such 'state-capitalist' measures are considered to be socialist, then the state enterprises of monopolist capitalist states could equally be considered as socialist! This would be a ridiculous conclusion to reach.

The purpose of socialism is to eradicate exploitation and create a classless society. Therefore, while a party which takes power is constructing socialist relations of production, it must also create a new culture. The October Revolution, as well as building its relations of productions, also faced such a task; indeed this was even harder to accomplish. What the October Revolution faced was not simply a need to establish new relations of production which would transform exploitation from one form to another. It could not accomplish its aims by simply translating the cheating, deceit, hypocrisy and selfishness of previous societies into its own terminology. It had to create an entirely new terminology and new institutions, particularly superstructural institutions. And, of course, it could not achieve such a transformation by speaking at meetings, schools, seminars, on TV and radio, or by writing brilliant books on the subject. The masses could only understand and adopt the new way, if the socialist mode of production became their daily way of life. And, before even this could be achieved, the masses had to witness the existence of an entirely new culture and morality within the party and within the lifestyle of its members. For this reason, a party of the working class needs to start the construction of the new way from inside the party, with its own members and basic structure. And it cannot just decide to implement this once it is in power; it is in the course of the struggle for power that the new must be practised and tested. Otherwise, socialism will never be able to re-emerge from the whirlpool it has found itself sucked into.

I once had a conversation with a Polish youth, a worker - not one of those bourgeois children who gathered all their belongings and fled Poland, or a minister's son, educated at a private college; this young man earned his living by carrying stuff around in a green-grocer's shop. I said to him, 'Look, Solidarity is dragging you towards capitalism and you will be in a worse position than you are now.' His response was straightforward and unchallengeable: 'No, I was born and brought up with socialism. It is only beautiful in the books.' I was in no position to convince him otherwise.

The masses will be attracted to the new by the practical gains it will bring them. And when a labour movement takes power, the labour force does not consist only of those who are fighting for the aims of socialism. For this reason, a party of the proletariat which strives to come to power must, above all, establish and develop mechanisms which will create and improve an appropriate culture and morality for the new society. If not, the very same people will bring down the 'party of the working class', using the slogans of capitalism and of the bourgeoisie. Then it will not only be the lives and property of the degenerate bureaucrats which will be lost.

Despite all the distinctive characteristics of these two revolutions and despite all the gains which the Russian Bolshevik Revolution brought about for the Soviet people, they are, in the final analysis, actually quite similar. Because these two revolutions, while appearing to be in sharp contrast, are basically executed by human beings of the same spiritual structure. When A. Gog, director of the national radio of the former Armenian Republic of the Soviet Union, states regretfully, 'If I had not refused to attend higher education at the school of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I would be a millionaire by now,' and when A Ocalan, the president of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, convincingly asserts that Russia wielded socialism in order to develop its own form of capitalism, they were both expressing the essential similarity between the French and Russian revolutions.

After the collapse of the 'socialist states' of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, there are some remnants of 'socialist regimes' in several parts of the world: China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam etc. But there are no indications of a process geared towards the renewal of humanisation; and I exclude here those efforts at managing to subsist under the bombardment of capitalism's all-consuming bestialisation, or to adapt to the New World Order by going their own way or, yet again, efforts which are directed at wielding socialism in order to extend the sovereignty of the new class in its own form.

In brief, those states and communist parties which have survived the disaster of 'Eastern Bloc socialism', are forced instead to orientate themselves towards the 'irresistible' capitalism of the New World Order, so that they may continue to survive further. Regrettably, despite the intensification of such efforts - including the changing of their full names - it seems that nothing can reverse or stop or divert the weakening process of those ruling powers.

Nevertheless, a party founded by a 'handful of bandits', who insist on identifying themselves as socialist, achieved notable progress in the years during which the Soviet Union was collapsing, and continued to grow as a mass movement immediately after the total collapse of 'socialism' in the early months of 1990. Moreover, it is still continuing to grow in strength; so much so that it has forcibly changed the Middle Eastern policies of the major imperialist states and eventually compelled President Clinton to brand it, 'the most dangerous terrorist organisation in the world'. So, while the existing classic communist parties are in their death throes under the ruins of 'Eastern bloc socialism', such a party has managed to grow in strength through the ruins of 'current socialism'; ruins which are even more disturbing considering the pervasive culture and raw nationalist tendencies among the Kurdish population.

What is the secret factor or factors in the equation? Is it a basically nationalist motive which determine the result? Nationalistic sentiment, national honour, national dignity? Or is it an understandable reaction against the Turkish government's primitive and savage policies on the Kurdish issue which continues to strengthen the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Kurdish National Liberation Movement which it leads? Of course, these and other similarly undeniable factors have been part of its process of development. However, these same factors are in evidence in the development of the other groups and parties in the region, in particular the long-standing major organisations of south Kurdistan (northern Iraq), the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which were offered a 'safe haven' by the Western allies.

No, from my point of view, there must be another basic determining factor which produces the results which it has in the Kurdistan Workers party (PKK).

Existing Works on The Kurds and 'Apo'

Several books and many articles have been published about the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and its leader, Abdullah Ocalan (Apo). These include a long interview, published in book form and entitled Diriliin yks (The Story of Revival) by Turkish political historian, Professor Yalcin Kk. Generally these books tend to propagandise on one side or the other, a trap I am conscious of attempting to avoid myself, particularly given my ethnic background. I shall attempt to avoid such subjectivism by citing the relevant interview extracts unedited.

'Humanisation Movement'

In a statistical survey carried out among PKK fighters, I came across an interesting question and an even more interesting response from a woman guerrilla:

- As briefly as possible, how would you define the PKK?

- Humanisation movement.

She did not say 'Kurdish national independence movement' or 'Kurdistan freedom movement' or 'movement of revival of the Kurdish nation', as emphasised by Professor Y. Kk., who made it the title of his book. The movement, of course, encompasses the targets of national freedom and independence, but the inquirer here was after the briefest possible response The respondent was asked to express the most fundamental feature or most distinctive characteristic of the organisation for which she is prepared to sacrifice her life, in as few words as possible.

I do not believe that the answer 'humanisation movement' was simply an impromptu, accidental response. Since immediately after the collapse of 'Eastern Bloc socialism' the PKK's publications have had a noticeable emphasis on questions of humanity. In a 1992 speech, A. Ocalan suggested that they will complete the October Revolution, which was interrupted at the half-way stage: 'This is our humanistic and international task'. In the subsequent years it has become clear what he meant by the “incompleted half" of the October Revolution.

When I interviewed Abdullah Ocalan, I began by asking him:

- At its outset, your movement appeared to be an attempt to revitalise the Kurdish nation, which had been 'buried in concrete' by the young Turkish Republic, an attempt to smash that 'concrete' to pieces. Later, however, particularly now in the 1990s, it has acquired a more universal and humanistic dimension. Now you focus on human nature, human personality and the spiritual structure of human beings. What has caused this progression from national identity to the quest for humanisation?

I have to confess that his answer surprised me:

- It would be very difficult for any ordinary social scientist to comprehend me. I think that, despite all your efforts, you are not going to be able to understand. In fact, my method does not fit into the imagination of ordinary human beings. Only I, so far, know how and who I am fighting. I have said, therefore, that if any researcher or scientist from where you have come from [implying the West] has sufficient self-confidence, they may attempt to learn and understand. You have tried but I fear that you will return with empty hands.

- I do not believe that my hands will be completely empty. I wanted to know how or why you have redirected your emphasis from rediscovering a buried national identity to the point of universal re-appropriation of the human essence.

- These were only key words. You have to place the key in the door and turn it in the relevant direction before you can open the door and see inside the room. These words were not the whole edifice. The subsequent developments are well worth looking at.

- Yet, when we first met you spoke of a sort of contemporary prophetical offensive.

- This is style, a figure of speech… I express the truth through philosophical narration.

The answer I was expecting when I formulated the question regarding the basic cause of the diversion from nationality to humanity was that this was the prospect which confronted him when he 'opened the door'. But what surprised me was that he did not seem to have been diverted at all. His implication was that he was manoeuvring into position in order to proceed in the direction originally set, by wielding the national key words. It would certainly be implausible to deny the national and democratic purposes of the revolution for which he organised the party; however these appear to be secondary aims, or even the means to an end.

The contentious point will be clarified in further lines of the interview.

I tried to pull him towards my sphere of interest:

- On my way here the thought which was uppermost in my mind was the prevailing propensity throughout the world for distancing mankind from being a social being. In the hands of unchallenged capitalism this situation becomes increasingly disturbing and ugly for humanity. Accordingly, I tried to look at the situation of 3,000 years ago and, in that light, to examine the approach which you have to the subject of human problems. For example, I looked at Plato, the pupil of Socrates…

- Am I like him?

- In a sense, yes. You ask the question, 'How should man live?' which forms the foundation of Plato's work. I do not know whether you have read it or not…

- I have not read it at all.

- I do not believe that it is a coincidence.

- I have not even read a single line of it. So you say that 'it is similar'.

- Plato skirts around the edges of the question of 'how man ought to live'. One of the fundamental suggestions which he makes for ending the troubles of humanity is either transforming kings into philosophers or letting philosophers become kings, namely making the philosophers strong and powerful. [I tried to give a brief interpretation of L Stevenson's conclusion, which he draws from Plato, on the fundamental treatment for the problems of human nature and 'how men ought to live' and of Plato's famous prescription, which he quotes from Socrates in the Republic: 'Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures which pursue either one to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils - no, nor the human race, as I believe, - and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day…']

- But I do not only advocate and advise. I combine the two halves of your equation in a way which is astonishing. For a long while, philosophy has been intertwined with politics and politics with philosophy. The ruler and the philosopher have been united, but unfortunately there are few who understand this.

- It is on this subject that I would like to focus my attention. In the course of my work I have tried to distinguish the details of the philosopher's life-style. Exceptions aside, the end results were always either madness, depression, retreat into one's own space or becoming the target of the anger and aggression of ruling powers or governments. So, finally, as you also remarked concerning Marx, their endings were 'pathetic' and wretched. But, in your case, as far as I understand, particularly after reaching this point, you have, in this human history which seeks humanity and beauty, sought a tactical philosophisation, bringing this to power, making it strong and empowering those people who have gathered the beautiful things together within their personalities. I believe that you are in the process of becoming a philosopher-ruler and that you live in a philosophical way.

-You say 'tactical philosophisation'. You evaluate it as tactical philosophisation, or as the politicisation of the philosopher, when the philosopher descends into actual life, in my experience that is to say, when the philosopher acquires the power to change things.

- If I were to give a concrete example, it is like moving from the phase where Marx conducted an analytic examination, diagnosing the source of questions, looking for the way to solutions, to the phase where one moves to actually solving the questions by becoming the ruling power, which is equivalent to bringing Marx to power.

- Marx only says his words. Of course my situation is quite different; saying something is the most basic element in my case. Lenin speaks about the essential components of organisation and it is also simple for me to speak about the elements of organisation. They speak of class struggle and for me to speak of class struggle is also quite basic. All of these things I have learned a long time ago as ABC and put to one side. I have gone beyond this.

- There is a parallel point with Lenin which I detect: for example, when you spoke about the collapse of 'real socialism', saying that 'Lenin started the revolution with Politburo members who he was deeply anxious about but, despite serious conflicts between him and almost all of the other members of the Politburo, he was obliged to execute the revolution with them, because there was no other way out, and what this means is that even from the early stages of the Bolshevik movement, the revolution was faced with suffocation'. You also say frequently, when you refer to Stalin, 'I place the weight on the militants right to the ultimate , criticise them intensively, but I never liquidate them'. Isn't there a parallel here?

All right. Or, in other words, carry out the revolution with problematic personalities of cadres, but Lenin is not as profound as ourselves on this matter and perhaps did not accord it as much weight. But on this point we are a real expert. Many things which he did not take into account, we have put into practice. Lenin is also limited, as far as solving internal problems within the organisation goes, and he is even helpless. In these matters he appears to be a sort of intellectual. But mine is a stormy warfare. This is warfare to the marrow, to the very cells. It would never have happened to Lenin, nor to Mao. We are much further ahead. On the level of struggle and of the organisation, we have definitely gone further. We are quite different from what is encompassed by the framework of Leninism. Our situation cannot be explained by the crude outlook of Lenin's organisation. There may be a similarity but it is superseded.

- When we first met, I think I had a sense of what you are now saying about supersession and I could feel the difference which you are describing . There is a new arrival here, a friend from Hinis. He has been a student of religious education. In the classroom with his fellow travellers this friend was so excited it was as though he had not read the writing in his hand. But when we arrived together to see you, after your first words I realised that he was comfortable around you, so I asked him what his first impressions were. He replied, 'It feels very natural to be near the President. I feel very much at ease'. Then, after a pause, while he searched for the right words, he said, 'He is not like other people in this world'. And I remembered something which you said about the time when the PKK first emerged: 'When we first appeared, everybody, whether on the left or right, looked down on us. They made such remarks as, “Did they come down from the sky into a basket of rushes?" “They resemble nobody." and “Where did they come from? Who are they like?" Of course, there is something natural in this, whether their motives were good or bad, whether we were friends or enemies, because when we first appeared on the scene we too looked at ourselves and asked questions of ourselves: Who are we? What are we? If we change our society, according to what [model] will we transform it and what will things be turned into? And, as a result of this questioning, we focused attention on ourselves and, after a period of time, we became different…' Naturally, at the outset, this differentiation manifested itself , together with a combination of historical, social, local, domestic and personal components, in the framework of your individual characteristics. These gradually passed to your fellow comrades, that 'handful of bandits'. It brought the following analogy into my mind: think of the way in which milk turns into yoghurt as the transformation of societies, namely the transformation of a class-based society into a classless society - a society without oppression, without hypocrisy, without all sorts of wars and their horror, a society with a just order, a humane order, an order which returns to the true essence of human beings, - such a transformation from 'milk' to 'yoghurt' would be a qualitative development and would require the addition of a fermantative material. This fermantative material is composed of qualitatively different molecules - if we think of a human being as the 'molecules' or the 'cells' which make up society - in other words, the molecules need to be found to create the ferment; if not it somehow has to be made out of molecules of the existing milk. Consequently, the need for some molecules which will constitute the fermentative material is certain - even if this is a very insignificant or minor ingredient, it will still be necessary. Can we therefore say that the emergence of the PKK, in this sense, and its current transformation, constitute a similar process of the realisation of a ferment, a 'social ferment', in opposition to the cumulative effects of thousands of years of inheritance from all previous class-based societies?

Before quoting the answer to this question, I need to underline some points. Firstly, in general Mr Ocalan made rapid responses to my questions - indeed, he sometimes did not let me finish what I was saying - but in response to the question above, he replied with an unusual hesitation, which lasted nearly a minute. (It was unusual in my experience but I have been told by one of his regular listeners that he occasionally walks around in front of hundreds of his pupils - or militants - saying nothing for a quarter or half an hour in the silent classroom. Thus it was not altogether unusual after all.) Secondly, if I am not mistaken, I discerned that he sometimes refrains from some points of discussion, such as not being drawn on the question of how men ought to live, which I must confess I do not have any answers to. Whereas elsewhere he has frequently referred to this question, even in defining the movement by saying, 'Our revolution and the history of the PKK as an arduous attempt to respond to the question of “how men ought to live" . He has even published a book of two volumes in length entitled How men ought to live, consisting of some 600 pages. However, he expressed interesting thoughts on the subject in his replies without actually mentioning the term itself.

Here is the answer to the above question, given after a short period of hesitation:

- Now, in our case, we did not contemplate moulding our humanity or personalities according to such principles of civilisation, but according to natural principles. In other words, this was not according to the rules for the development of a class society, but according to very natural principles. What are these natural principles? In some cases it was the principle of childhood or of the earliest days of mankind. We did not lose sight of this. It was part of my strategy for action.

- You say, 'I grow up without betraying the longings and utopias of my childhood' or 'If a child does not betray his/her longings and utopias, s/he will never be a bad adult'…

- Yes, not betraying childhood, getting 'back' to the principles of conduct from the earliest human societies, taking these principles as fundamental guidelines and within that framework, examining civilisation, class societies, politics and art, diligently and with focus. This approach is at the same time very easy and very difficult. It is difficult to become as pure as either the first human being or as a child, but it is more basic. It is very difficult for those who have been brought up according to the principles of civilisation but it is also very attractive and pleasant for those who are interested by the concept of human naturalness. And, in this sense, we do have a philosophical approach and effect.

For example, unlike you, I do not lose myself. If we analyse you on this basis, who knows what state you are in. Who knows to which principles of civilisation your personality is moulded; of course you need to be analysed. You have become the victim of certain principles and, consequently, you have great difficulties. Take myself, for example, I am not like that. My greatest advantage is that I have never yet buckled under and become such a victim. I am very fastidious. I did not sell my soul and part of what I am explaining is that one must not destroy one's naturalness. But, in your case, and in the way you have been brought up, you have long since submitted to the principles of civilisation. These young people [implying the PKK militants] are the same. This is the source of my extra-ordinariness. I have protected myself carefully ever since childhood. There is a very interesting story which someone wrote about this; a young girl said: 'Every day we are becoming more and more like a society which is prostituting itself, but it seems to me as if the leadership is becoming more like a virgin'. It is true that I can say to myself that I am like a virgin being - a virgin of human naturalness. You, however, live according to the class society's production mechanisms, goods and property - prostitution to the last degree. But, myself in particular, I direct myself to live overwhelmingly as a 'virgin' and am careful not to involve myself in anything unclean. I derive my strength from avoiding everything unclean, not getting mixed up in human dirty work. But you have taken the lower role: that is the reasoning of an occupier; that is an action, an idea of property, a habit in life, an inclination…If we consider all these sorts of things as elements in leading people astray, there are thousands of situations you live through every day. The difference between us lies there. I define this as a 'purification movement'. Of course it requires a purification process. My movement, therefore, is a movement which creates clean human beings. And, as a matter of fact, whoever comes close to us sees the PKK in this way. This is what is so interesting about the PKK. Its emancipation lies in this.

In the course of an earlier conversation with some of his female pupils and me, following an instant of hesitation, he suddenly said, with hatred, 'There is something very perplexing. Despite all my massive influence and power of action, still everybody…yes, everybody, thinks that they can easily deceive me'. He did not give any clues as to what he was referring to.

I looked for the answer in the 'live dialogue'.

- Why do you think people feel that they are still able to deceive you so easily when your tactics are so extraordinary and when there is such progress of tactical philosophisation?

- This is because of the Satanic force of civilisation leading humankind astray. It is the other side to the deception of civilisation's devilry. The devilish side of civilisation deceives in such a way that everybody believes that they can deceive me. The root of the devil is, in any case, a deception, an action of robbery. But my own position is the exact opposite of this. And, because of that there is an unbelievable amount of intrigue inside the organisation. I understand the position that those friends are in. Their code for living is treacherous and is considered by those who take part in intrigue as fundamental. But there is also resistance amongst us. The resistance action is very well rooted against this intrigue. I am not a sleeping angel; like the prophets of the time, I am involved in a great war. That is to say, our action may be defined as acting prophetically, rather than as a philosophical work. To put it differently, the other side of this philosophical coin is that you act like the prophets. I understand this better now. The greatest difficulty of the ages - you call it a 3,000 year descent - if this is correct, then it is necessary to answer in some senses like a prophet. Of course I am not seeing myself in the same way in which people understand a prophet. But it resembles a prophetical offensive in some respects.

In 1992 elections were held for Kurds in Great Britain and Europe, in order to constitute the Kurdish National Assembly in Exile. Some candidates were also elected in the strictest secrecy from within the Kurdish region of Turkey. One of these was an official imam in a borough of Diyarbakir, the major city of north Kurdistan, who managed to join the final stage of the election held in a town in Germany. I met him there and listened to him in solid bewilderment for several minutes, while he explained how much of a prophet 'Apo' was.

I told Apo himself about this while he was explaining how much of a prophet he is!

- I came across a religious person in Germany who thought this way about you.

- But of course. It is not enough just to interpret us as a philosopher. Nor am I a religious devotee. I am working with the special and prophet-like features of the times. You must discuss this subject in depth. It is an important way of life. We did not lose faith in humanity nor in life's beauty; more exactly, even if you put the world before me I would not be interested in these ways of life of yours. I do not appreciate it. Such thoughts or tendencies as comfort, money; most of these things seem like torture to me. What is more, a life-style in which all our friends are influenced by comfort is only a life of reaction for me. What I am searching for lies in the heavens. I am looking for something more successful, richer, more attractive, bigger still. What you are looking for is so impoverished. One feels sorry. I think to myself: 'How are these paupers so condescending?' I hope that you will set your sights on this richness and will strive for the high and the virtuous. You will overcome that shallow life, I hope. It is important to become the kind of person that I will admire. The men of 'messiah' which you spoke about, that is the emergence of the type of person who one can admire. Of course, this is not something which can be acquired by violence or with money. I explained this a little earlier; this is the kind of particularity which is required for us to be interested..

Many indications - various anthropological researches and studies in search of the origins of human civilisation, and some other similar scientific inquiries into the subject - reveal, or at least suggest, that the homeland of primitive humanisation is more or less upper Mesopotamia. Andrew Collins, best-selling author of The Black Alchemist and The Seventh Sword, printed a 'chilling warning' as the final sentence on the back cover of his latest book:

'Both Egypt's high civilisation and the Watchers of Kurdistan have left as a legacy to humanity a chilling warning that the world ignores at its peril.'

And, at the beginning of the book, he writes: 'This book is dedicated to the People of Kurdistan, Keepers of the Cradle of Civilisation.'

I do not intend to intervene in the dispute between determinism and free-will within the limited framework of this study; however it seems to me that the philosophical and prophetical face of today's Kurdish offensive has been brought about by the dramatic degeneration of the human race in the homeland of human civilisation - in 'The Cradle of Civilisation'. It may be an emergence of rehumanisation 'from the ashes of angels', by the descendants of the earliest human beings from its 'cradle', in response to this seemingly endless decline of humanity.

'Jash: People like myself'

A Turkish journalist, Rafet Balli, has an experience to provide a clue about the frontiers (if any) of descent or destruction in the personality of a 'keeper of the cradle of civilisation'. During the Gulf War he went to Northern Iraq to interview the major Kurdish leaders for his book Krt Dosyas (The Kurdish File). Before he reached the leaders he interviewed a peshmerga commander who was responsible for a district near the Turkish border. He used a Kurdish interpreter from northern Kurdistan (the Turkish-occupied part) who was a village guard fighting against the PKK guerrillas with the Turkish state forces. During the interview the commander said, 'aggressors cannot stand out against us because they are jash (traitors)'. And the village guard tried to translate this sentence into Turkish. From here on, I quote Balli himself:

'When our interpreter came to the sentence he hesitated and stopped. Then he put all his effort into finding a relevant word for 'jash'…In fact, I knew what the word meant from my years at university…He was still arduously searching for a Turkish word for 'jash'. Even my interference by saying, “ OK, I understand" did not persuade him to give up. After he had consumed all existing effort and language skills, he eventually found the way out! Here is his verdict:

“Jash. . Namely, people like myself."

Despite rapidly reconnecting all the fuses in my nervous system, I could not prevent my whole body from shaking. My God, neither a Catholic nor a traditional Leninist would venture into such tyrannical self-criticism!

Do not get me wrong. My intention is not to call some people “traitor" or “collaborator". I am dealing with how these human beings see themselves.

The only remaining alternative from my point of view was to be ashamed of myself. Because, at the end of the day, I am a journalist in that region, where human beings have such deformed and destroyed personalities.

What do you think? Does the subject need to be elaborated on by psychologists?

The Kurdish Offensive and Mesopotamia

It seems to me that this particular social aspect of the region, which fundamentally reveals the spiritual structure of the Kurdish nation, is worth assiduous research and also needs to be taken into consideration, in order to analyse and define this new Kurdish offensive. Despite Mr Ocalan's hesitant reply in which he said, 'But I think that there is not much historical influence on me', in the context of his whole answer he confirmed my argument, in his own particular style. I asked him how he relates his movement with the 'cradle of civilisation'.

- I do not think that it is a coincidence that you meet here in Mesopotamia; that you have appeared on the scene in what is known as the 'cradle of civilisation'. Can there be a reason for this, or a connection?

- To be a Mesopotamian…or what is the influence of the land of our birth? Above all, I have a characteristic which is not to be easily separated from the land. If my birth place is Mesopotamia, it is necessary to know what it means by not being easily separated from Mesopotamia. In fact, I do not know how close the links are between the reality of Mesopotamia and the storms created by the problems contingent on such a break. But I think there is not much historical influence on me. Because history had ended in our social reality, when I began to act. Perhaps for all of you there was something, but for myself there is not. When it was my turn, history, society, philosophy, art and manners had been finished, consumed. After that I became myself. It is very interesting; perhaps for all of you there was something but for me there was nothing to withstand. I am the person who sprouted up from beyond the pale. How should one interpret this? You must all know how to think about it. Even those ordinary villagers looked on my situation as something painful: 'A child with no hope…' 'My god, don't make anybody's child like him'. This was how they described me. It was wounding for even the most simple villager. Let us not fool ourselves that it has anything to do with Mesopotamian civilisation. My situation is very ordinary and basic. But, in terms of a logical approach - such as is called a dialectic - a person who is so divorced from the values of civilisation: social, political, historical and family values, is someone very independent. In one sense it is someone very free. It seems that this is my greatest good fortune. My poor father and my very peculiar mother were essentially my good fortune. What seemed to be my unfortunate childhood is, as I said, my greatest good fortune.

I still remember thinking: God, why did you make my mother and father like that? Why did you pick me to be the child of such wretched people? And that was really how it all started.. The base where I enter in the process of strengthening myself. If I had not been such a child I would certainly not be the person I am now. If I had been the child of better parents, I could not have made progress at a time like this. I could not have grasped such great independence. My dear mother and father seemed so unlucky that I said to myself, 'Let me take them by the hand'.

At a very early age the ideology of patriarchy - it is the most influential ideology for a child - even at that time for me, it seemed an outmoded and meaningless position. I was very independent, had an unbelievable degree of freedom. This may be the most specific side of our work.

My father was utterly pathetic, unable to do anything, and my mother was formidable - shouting, yelling without reason, capable of every kind of behaviour. A family reality on the threshold of dissolution. Family was dissolved in our family; it actually stopped. So you see, that both my father's situation and the state of my mother saved me at an early age from the ideology of the family. This was a way out for me. From there on, my first friends, first travels, first actions, were very significant. Such an opportunity for a child is rare. It is impossible that it could be the same for anyone else.

- Can we say then that this was the most dysfunctional family, from a society which is dysfunctional to the very core?

- Both dysfunctional and pure or not very sullied. It was the kind of family which would not be unfair to anyone else, nor was it too negative. If a book was to be written on the subject, this concept could be worked through thoroughly. In other words, when striving to grasp freedom, this is something significant here in my view. Side by side there exist helplessness, poverty, misery, dissolution, innocence and purity. As I explained, this guaranteed me freedom of action. I look at you and I see with absolute certainty that you are your mother and father's true sons and daughters. You lost from the beginning. From the beginning you were emasculated. No trace of special courage has remained. Later in life when they wanted to influence me according to the traditions I had long since learned how to keep my distance and had become a very different person. You have been made like oxen hitched in fours to the plough; oxen of the existing social order. No good comes from it.

It is clear that in response to my question on the relationship between the humane side of the movement and the 'cradle of civilisation', he focused on the family, the domestic base from which he originated, or the narrower ground of the family circle, in which the distinguishing features of his leadership were planted. This may be the subject of another dispute or piece of research but, despite close links with my question, in this current work my concern is with the wider social and regional base for such a humanistic movement, rather than the domestic one. Ocalan put more emphasis on this side of the coin when he replied to Y Kk's question about what kind of human being they are pursuing, or the type of personality they are attempting to mould. He suggests that Kurdistan is the weakest link in the chain, in the sense of a disappearance of humane values.

'Kurdistan is the place where humanity itself fades away in its most solid form. It is humankind's oldest cradle. A magnificent victory for humanity may be gained in the place where it has been most “deconstructed". Such magnificence will be in proportion to the descent. Namely, if in some place, humanity descends so sharply and deeply, then the concomitant rise of humanity will be as strong and splendid.'

There is another point in this answer which I wish to draw attention to. Ocalan often makes comparisons between himself and his pupils or himself and other ordinary human beings, those he calls 'emasculated' people. He does this in a style which implies that he does not consider himself constrained by the same rules of social conduct as other people. In the narrations and dialogues he occasionally uses boorish or strong words without the slightest hesitation and in a manner which may easily be perceived as belittling. He never refrains from being the cause of misunderstandings in such cases.

What is the source of this? Does he actually belittle others or is it a fully conscious style or a mere manifestation of the particularity of his unrestrained personal nature? This may well be the subject of another further dispute. I cannot give a firm or satisfactory conclusion on the matter. But a considerable conclusion I did draw from my observations during a recent visit to the Mahsum Korkmaz Academy and from previous reading and experiences, is that neither among the militants and sympathisers, nor among the people in general, is there any negative reaction. On the contrary, they all seem to appreciate his peculiar style. I asked one of Ocalan's ordinary 'emasculated' pupils what he thought. Despite his 'emasculation', his comments were philosophical: 'Leadership does not target our personal honour or dignity, but the “muddy footprints" of the descent of millennia in the obscure corners of our spiritual world'.

'Leadership' performs in similar style in his published speeches, regarding the evaluation of Kurdish people. He has an interesting answer to the questions posed by Dou Perincek, Turkish politician and journalist, such as, 'Don't you like Kurds a little more than other people?'

'No! I like human beings without any distinction. On the contrary, the slave Kurd cannot be appreciated. As long as Kurds are not free you should feel loathing for them. What does an oppressed Kurd have that is worth loving? No-one likes subservient Kurds but one may only curse at them. In point of fact, our offensive is the struggle to create a beautiful humanity which may deserve love…'

Yet Ocalan told Professor Kk that he had undertaken the struggle for the freedom of Kurdish people, not because he is a Kurd but because he is a socialist

Despite Ocalan's frequent subordination of ethnicity and his occasional humiliation of Kurdish people, and even despite intensive propaganda both from the state-controlled media and other Kurdish political and cultural organisations, in which these very positions are used against him, the party became a mass movement in the subsequent years (1991 onwards). In the 1991 and 1995 elections the PKK-backed legal parties: the People's Labour Party (HEP) and the People's Democracy Party (HADEP) polled the largest number of votes respectively in the Kurdish territories under Turkish rule, despite all the cunning stratagems and coercive methods employed in those elections.

'I have never held a gun in my life,' Mr Ocalan has told various local and foreign journalists. The corollary to this is that all he needs to do is speak, write and teach. While I was there, for almost three weeks, I witnessed him teaching five or six times a week. Each lesson, referred to as an analysis, takes at least three hours. Each one is diligently recorded by video cameras and immediately edited, printed and distributed. His radio dialogues with guerrilla commanders in the provinces and the mountains are treated in the same way. A book of 'analyses', four to five hundred pages in length, has been issued every month since 1983. Discovering this led me to conclude that what he actually does is not writing, but only talking and more talking. Although I was familiar with his occasional statements along the lines 'I execute the revolution by my power of language', I was not previously aware that all the books of 'analyses', over a period of 13 years, are composed entirely of contemporaneous speeches and dialogues from the classroom and the radio.

I wanted to know to what extent he thought he could actually impose or transform human personality and how far he was convinced of the efficiency of his task. In view of my latest information, I constructed a question on the subject of the conventional and never-ending dispute regarding human nature.

- There are two rival parties in the sphere of philosophy, which goes back through several thousand years of human history. One party, in essence, suggests that man is by nature self-regarding and can never be otherwise; s/he always puts him/herself first and organises all aspects of life according to instincts or motives. The other school of thought maintains that the human mind is originally a blank sheet and all knowledge is the product of subsequent experience. Consequently, a human being has a chance of changing his or her own nature. For example, Plato tends to say that the perfect man can be formed by the force of knowledge and education. Within this context there is a claim regarding the spiritual structure of human beings, which divides it into three centres (the threefold division of the soul): Reason, Appetite and Spirit. The first group assert here that man is a passionate being whose major motivations are beyond control and that reason is the slave of passion. Whereas, according to the second group, human beings are essentially rational and aware of this themselves; consequently they have the ability to restrain their instincts and passions. In view of such philosophical approaches to human nature, I think that there are some considerable points to be made in terms of the life of the PKK. What do you say?

- I feel sorry about this subject as well. I have striven hard not to be in conflict with human nature, not to let it take the wrong path…Whether it is my instincts or my conscious judgement, I leave them absolutely unrestrained. It could be said that they are in contention with one another. I think that the one which is more correct will not yield to domination over one another. If a good balance is kept between the two, you can make enormous strides forward, or you can become a genius; or a politician, a soldier, an artist. My particularity in this subject is, I think, on the one hand, constant deploying of reason, on the other hand never putting aside any religious, juridical, even philosophical moral values as much. I deploy a principle such as 'let human beings be unrestrainedly natural', but at the same time I am an absolute obedient servant of some rules and regulations. I keep an extremely sensitive balance on the horns of the dilemma…One must not belittle instincts. They are vital and life is under a strict influence of instincts. But, of course, without the principle, if you say, “everything has to be according to instincts", your lifestyle will be bestial. Likewise if you say “everything according to dogmas" you will become a hermit. I am trying to define an existing distorted state of human beings in which both principle and instinct have been led astray. I am still striving to analyse it.

Some Concrete Reflections

In connection with the above question, I mentioned some considerable points in the life of the PKK. He, however, did not say anything on the subject. This point is crucial, however, because of the concrete end-results of almost two decades of such extemporaneous philosophising.

There are actually many examples which are worthy of elaboration. From the outset of the formation of the group, to today's mass movement and throughout the development of the party, many events have occurred which may attract philosophical interest. These events deserve a separate study, but I shall mention here just a few, in which we will find elements concerning our subject.

Of these events, the most recent is most spectacular and deserves to be mentioned first. A 24-year-old female guerrilla named Zeynep Knac carried out a 'suicide attack' on a Turkish army unit in the city centre of Dersim (Tunceli - a Kurdish province of Turkey) on 29 June 1996. With a large amount of explosives tied around herself, she penetrated a group of soldiers who were preparing to sing the Turkish national anthem. It was reported on TV and radio that the largest piece of her body which remained afterwards was a piece of her heel. More than ten soldiers died. She recorded three messages (To 'Leadership', to the Kurdistan Women Freedom Fighters and to the Patriotic People of Kurdistan) prior to the attack. She was educated, a graduate of the Social Science Faculty of Inonu University at Malatya. The messages included theoretical and philosophical passages:

In the message to 'Leadership' she attempts to define the leader of the future: 'A leader is a person who represents the desired transformation towards the true essence of human nature and manifests the symptoms of such a humankind appropriate for the humanity of the future via his or her own everyday life-style.' Another peculiar point about her spiritual state, particularly in view of her significant sentences, which can only be the result of a materialist conception of history, is her evaluation of herself as a 'martyr' while she is still alive. She speaks on behalf of martyrs: 'We Kurdish martyrs…'

The final sentence of the message to 'Leadership' is as follows: 'I wished to be the owner of a significant life and now I am undertaking this operation because of my love of life and my love of human beings.'

In the message to 'Women Freedom Fighters', after discussing the question of women in comparison to the status of women in the former 'real socialist' countries, she describes her feelings: 'I am filled with indescribably beautiful emotions, because of reaching this decision which will, I believe, represent women's demand for freedom. It gives me great courage and morale and I consider myself very lucky to have the opportunity to perform such an honourable task.'

And, in the third letter, after a brief account of the history of humanity from a materialist perspective, she declares what it is she is sacrificing her life for:

'I will launch myself at the enemy with the morale and strength I have received from my people and I will endeavour to be an expression of my people's demand for freedom. I shout to the whole world: “Hear me, open your eyes!" We are the children of a people which has had its country taken away and been scattered to the four corners of the world. We want to live in freedom in our own land like human beings. Blood, tears and tyranny must no longer be the destiny of our people. We long for peace, fraternity, love, humanity, nature and life more than anyone. We do not want to cause war, to die or to kill. But there is no other way of gaining our freedom. It is the imperialist powers and their lackey, the Turkish state, which are responsible for the war. To remain silent is to commit the greatest crime. If you see the blood flowing in front of your eyes and still remain silent, then you are the most guilty.'

In the course of a dialogue with a Turkish commander, one of the founding members of the Party (and also one of several founder-members who were Turkish) Kemal Pir, who went on hunger-strike in Diyarbakir prison on 14 July 1982 and eventually died on the 56^th day, made a statement which later became famous and which is philosophically significant. The commander tried to persuade him to abandon his hunger-strike, saying: 'Why don't you give it up? Don't you love life, Kemal?' Kemal replies: 'I love life so much I am prepared to die for it'.

Four prisoners (F. Kurtay, E. Anyk, M. Zengin and N. Oner) who were accused of being members of the PKK, set fire to themselves and died hand-in-hand at Diyarbakir prison on 17 May 1982. The title of their joint letter is 'To all humanity'.

A Kurdish girl, Zekiye Alkan, who was a final year medical student, set herself on fire and burned to death on the city wall of Diyarbakir on 21 March 1990. (This day, 21 March, is the Kurdish national festival of Newroz. It has been observed for 2,600 years and is mainly celebrated by lighting fires on the hillsides. The festival is banned by the Turkish state.) Zekiye wrote a letter which stated that she was reacting to the ban and that 'the best fire of Newroz can be that of the human body'.

Another young girl, Rahsan Demirel, burned herself to death in Izmir (Turkey's third largest city), on Newroz 1992 and on Newroz 1994 two Kurdish girls set fire to themselves and died in Mannheim, Germany, all leaving similar messages prior to the incidents.

Many more similar actions and operations have taken place since the military coup of 1980 and up to the present day. It seems that such activity, by both guerrilla and civilian supporters of the PKK, will continue for some time. As I said earlier, it deserves research in itself. However, the fundamental conclusion which may be drawn from these end-results is that if these are not incidental or coincidental then the argument has to be focused on the dispute by seeking a scientific answer to the question of 'to what extent are these developments the result of the Turkish state's primitively conservative and brutal policy towards the Kurds or of the attempt at rehumanisation in the “cradle of civilisation" '?

In pursuit of such an answer there is, I believe, another point worth mentioning. There are some distinct manners of conduct and speaking and also a distinct way of life within the PKK as an organisation. For example, party cadres, and even sympathisers who occasionally act on behalf of the party, never drink alcohol and never cross their legs in public. As a result they are, on the one hand, accused of being religious reactionaries by the rest of the parties and political movements in Turkey and Kurdistan - those which consider themselves as Marxist-Leninist - and, on the other hand, accused of being the most orthodox Marxist-Leninist organisation in the world! Yet, militants of the party or people who join the activities of the organisation professionally do not get married and if they are already a married couple, they cease to live as one. I do not know if this is dictated by a rule or regulation laid down in constitutional documents but there are detailed accounts of the context, particularly with regard to questions regarding women and the family by the 'leadership' in the 'analyses', which ultimately conclude that it is the existing style of family life and the ways of marriage and even love, (which are seen as the appropriation of woman - and also of man -) which are the most destructive property relationships in society; more destructive than private property in the means of production. I witnessed Ocalan's approach to this question when I first met him. While I was telling him about Morgan's conclusion about the formation of the idea of property in the human brain, he suddenly interrupted and pointed at my wedding ring, saying, 'Your have already become a mere piece of property and yet you still talk about the idea of property'.

In conclusion

Part of Lewis Morgan's conclusion to Ancient Society was as follows:

'…A mere property career is not the final destiny of mankind, if progress is to be the law of nature as it has been in the past. The time which has passed away since civilisation began is but a fragment of the past duration of men's existence and but a fragment of the ages yet to come. The dissolution of society bids fair to become the termination of a career of which property is the end and aim; because such a career contains the elements of self-destruction. Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival, in a higher form of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes. [current author's emphasis]'

Marx's basic thesis about the history of humanity was that social progress is determined by the conflict between the social forces of production and the relations of production. “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - and this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework in which they have hitherto operated. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure." Consequently, the moral values of a society are a superstructural formation which is determined by the base of society and therefore have an economic foundation. If we consider that human nature and human personality are actually manifestations of moral values which have been formed and accumulated and inherited from generation to generation, and if what is necessary to build a classless society, a society without exploitation - the 'revival in a higher form of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes' is virtuous human naturalness, then who will be able to construct such a society? It has been demonstrated by the experience of 'current socialism' that such a society cannot be developed by existing personalities - those who are the product of class societies with a distorted spiritual equilibrium between the three parts of the soul: Reason, Appetite and Passions. This, from my point of view, will be the question which humanity has to answer in the future; the question for the 'fragment of the ages yet to come.'

Productive forces, (the material productive forces and the social forces of production) hitherto, found the way for itself to further progress through the transformation of class societies from one to another by the renewal or replacement of classes. The Soviet Union under the leadership of Gorbachev attempted to crate a 'new' sort of socialism-like class system, within the framework of state property prior to its demise. But this failed and collapsed loudly. Existing relations of production in the uni-polar world of monopoly capitalism have long been 'turned into their [of the productive forces] fetters'. Thus, 'If progress is to be the law of the future as it has been of the past', the productive forces must somehow make a pathway to further progress; but this in any case will necessitate a rehumanisation.

One of the fundamental conclusions of Marx's materialist conception of history is that all elements of superstructural formations, including human personality and spiritual structure can only be a reflection of the material base (the relations of production). But Plato believed that the perfect state is one which is ruled by perfect individuals and that perfect individuals could be produced by acquiring moral and intellectual knowledge by means of an elaborate system of education. And Abdullah Ocalan, in a sense, is implementing Plato's plan, without having 'read a word of him':

'The slogan of socialism was: “First build socialism and then we change human beings". This must be superseded by: “First produce the human beings who are going to build the socialism". If you want to build a really socialist society, you must first mould the personalities who can build socialism in their own little nucleus. If there are no such people then who will build socialism? Socialism can only be built by socialists and the person who appreciates the socialist programme cannot be considered as a socialist. This is a historical truth.'

It could be said that Plato and Ocalan's positions are the exact opposite to Marx and contradict the materialist conception of history or, in other words, that there is an obvious contradiction between them and Marx. But it may also be said that a frightening tendency towards social bestialisation and technological brutality will be sufficient material base, not for ordinary human beings, but for a unit of 'philosopher-rulers' or 'social catalysts' in appropriate parts of the world.

The clues which I have tried to pick up and present in this limited work lead me to conclude that the Kurdish offensive is a modest attempt to produce such 'philosopher-rulers' or 'molecules of social ferment', rather than a movement for national liberation; that it is, within its little nucleus an attempt to achieve rehumanisation in the 'cradle of civilisation'.

'How far it can go' and 'what it can achieve' are questions for the future but what is certain is that redressing the process of millennia is not a task that the 'keepers of the cradle of civilisation' will be able to accomplish on their own.

Ali Kemal Ozcan

September 1996