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”
-
Introduction
- On Method and the Regime of Truth; Section 1
2.1 – Continuation
2.2 – What constitutes the Human Being?
2.3 – Continuation
2.4 – Moral metaphysics
2.5 – Continuation - The Main Sources of Civilization
3.1 Interpreting the Evolution of Social Structures in the Fertile Crescent
In this section, I will look at the effects that the time and location of a specific social development have on a specific way of life. As explained in Section I of this book, social realities are constructed by human beings. If we do not fully understand this, all attempts to acquire the knowledge and understanding needed to construct a meaningful life will only result in ignorance and meaninglessness. I repeat that our ignorance in the time of capitalist modernity is worse than it was at the onset of the major religions and that the fundamental reason for this is positivism. Adorno’s statement “Wrong life cannot be lived rightly” (Es gibt kein richtiges Leben im falschen), although used to express his dismay with the Jewish Holocaust, applies to life in modernity in general. What then, is the fundamental mistake that caused this wrong life? Adorno has linked the root of the problem to the period of Enlightenment and to Rationalism. However, he did not attempt to clarify the problem itself —the form of life that is wrong. Who is responsible for it? How has it been constructed? What is its relationship with the dominant social system?
Similarly, Michel Foucault states that “Modernity is the death of man” but leaves it there, Without investigating this critical subject further. It is not enough to just blame modernity. In the first place, can only life constructed by capitalist modernity be described as wrong? Was the life enforced by previous civilizations right? Were not the Sumerian priests and godkings, the Egyptian god-kings, the Iranian Khosrows, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Islamic sultans and European monarchs all responsible for constructing life on the wrong foundations? Were they not links in the chain around the neck of social development whereby the foundations of wrong life were strengthened? It is not sufficient to put the responsibility for the wrong life on modernity, its wars and genocidal order, without further investigating what it was caused by and how it can be rectified. Just as the root of the problem, its solution is profound. Although we cannot understand a society solely through its culture —many elements need to be included in its definition— culture is at the basis of any society. But what do I mean by culture?
A culture, in a narrow sense, is the mentality, forms of thought and language of a particular society. In a broader sense, the material gains (the tools and devices used to satisfy the needs for production, storage and processing of food, for transportation, worshiping and beautifying, etc.) form part of its culture. The similarities and the differences between the mentalities and devices of different cultures determine to what degree their life styles correspond. Generally speaking, the social realities constructed in the Fertile Crescent during the Neolithic are still in existence today. Both the mental and the material cultural elements-despite some quantitative and qualitative changes-are essentially still the same. In essence, the languages spoken today are the same in terms of their main structure. The mental effort is still divided between the fields of science, religion and art. Defensive and offensive wars existed then and are still waged today. The family structure continues to be the fundamental social institution. The differences are due to the growth of the state institution. The state has continuously expanded its field of operation against society. As it began to take possession of the mental and material cultural accumulation it has changed these constructs qualitatively and quantitatively. Contrary to belief, social developments have been achieved despite the state. I will continue to point out the consequences that the state formations (from the very beginning of the Sumerian priest-state to the nation-state of the capitalist modernity) had on society and what the real function was of the civilization that grew from these formations.
I believe that, the role of Fernand Braudel’s concept of plural temporalities (different modes of periodization, different time scales) in social development has not been analyzed sufficiently. Especially Braudel’s notions of Iongue durée (a historical relation that allows an open and experimental approach to the theoretical reconstruction of long-term, large-scale world historical change) and structural time (that is, historical temporalities beyond direct human or social intervention) in relation to culture, civilization and society can make a strong contribution to our understanding of history. In the discussion that follows, I will attempt to apply these notions to the social development in the Fertile Crescent.
a. La Iongue durée
For the society of the Fertile Crescent, la Iongue durée implies the period starting with the end of the fourth ice age and ending when it can no longer continue its physical existence due to some natural or nuclear disaster. Cultures with Chinese and Semitic roots have taken their place within this Iongue durée society as two branches. Other smaller cultural branches also take their place within this main river as streams. It is important that the logic of the thesis is well understood: The constructed society is so strong, together with its mental and material cultural elements, that no internal social event can destroy it within this duration. I will thus refer to the society of the Iongue durée as the “fundamental cultural society.”
In my opinion, this interpretation of duration and society can contribute much to social science. Liberal sociologists, through the construction of a false metaphysics, wish to enforce their societal conception formulated as the end of history to be eternally valid. Marxist and other messianic approaches promise all an era of eternal prosperity, detached of time and location. The notion of long duration is much more scientific than all these social theories. It presents understandable arguments not only for concrete conditions but also for both the beginning and end of the social system. It neither congests history by treating it as a pile of events nor does it fragment history by emphasizing the periodic existence of isolated social forms. The meaning of life cannot be profoundly interpreted by examining either instantaneous events or social forms in isolation. Within the scope of la Iongue durée, there is room for various fundamental institutions such as religion, state, art, law, economy and politics in the fundamental cultural society. These institutions continuously change both qualitatively and quantitatively. Some shrink dramatically and in return its counterparts grow. While some diminish, their function is continued either in other institutions or in the new ones. In more general terms, there is a dialectical creative relationship between all its constructs and institutions. The fact that there is a single main cultural society does not deprive it of strong partners and new internal formations.
In the light of these concepts, we can better understand the quarrel between the evolutionists and the creationists. The creationists are aware of the longue durée; in fact, they gain their real strength from this knowledge. We can explain the religious verses on the duration of gods creation of the universe and its end in cultural terms. If we, however, interpret it sociologically, we see that the creationist perspective is aware of the sacred, supreme and glorious characteristics of constructed society. In fact, all three Holy Books of monotheistic religion, the Torah, Bible, and Koran, are attempts to explain the captivating and “sacred” life at the Fertile Crescent. Maybe the reason why the majority of humans belong to these religions lies in the quality of these interpretations. These books succeeded in turning into the fundamental belief of humanity the claim that the new cultural life —which has “miraculously” occurred— will continue eternally; an indication of just how influential this culture is. Sociologists such as Emile Durkheim did not move beyond defining society as groups of human beings who are the sum of events and institutions. Class, state, economic, juridical, political, philosophical and religious narratives cannot surpass the mentality of events and institutions. However, these scientists never really question why these are not held to be as precious as the Holy Books. Their main weakness is that they have not understood the importance of the longue durée society. Humanity possesses a profound memory of its own story and will not abandon it so easily. The belief in the sacred religious books are not due to an abstract god and some rituals, but because humans can feel the meaning and traces of their own life story in these books. In fact, these books are the memory of living society. Thus, whether the events and notions in them are true or not is of secondary importance Fernand Braudel draws our attention to a fundamental methodological and scientific mistake with his apt comment that “sociology and history make up one single intellectual adventure, not two different sides of the same cloth but the very stuff of the cloth itself.” Unless we meaningfully determine the relationship between duration and society, separate historical and sociological narratives will harm the societal realities and their meanings.
Hence, even though the evolutionists have a much better understanding of the events and processes involved, they will never free themselves of criticism because they do not understand the notion of duration. Societal memory is more important than the evolution of events and processes. The reason why the god is not abandoned lies with the power of social memory —society equates the concept of god to its past memory. In fact, positivism is a disease of modernity and as long as it stands in the way, of society’s memory-and hence its metaphysics-it will not be free from criticism. And rightly so, because societies that have lost their memories are easily exploited, conquered and assimilated. Although the positivists claim that they define society scientifically, this school of thought least understands how society evolves. By interpreting society as a history-less and vulgar materialistic pile, they pave the way for many dangerous social operations. The idea of social engineering is also related to positivism, as the positivists think they can shape society through external intervention. This is also the understanding of modernity’s officialdom, and thus it gives legitimacy to exploitative power and warfare.
b. Structural time
The concept of structural time can be applied to analyze the fundamental institutional transformations in social development. If we define the construction and collapse periods of fundamental structures in these terms, we may obtain a better understanding of social realities. Humanity has a history of oppression and exploitation, and differentiating between slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and socialist societies may be the subject of a meaningful discourse. In fact, relating structural time to these social forms has led to a considerable literature. However, because no meaningful connection between the long and short terms has been made, such discourse cannot be very productive and turns into repetitive clichés.
A meaningful analysis of Neolithic society can he made by investigating the interrelationship between the structural term and the fundamental cultural society term. Neolithic society has its own unique institutional structures, mentality and accumulation of material life that can be explained in terms of structural time, but it can also be explained through the concept long term because of its cultural influences that will exist until there is a physical destruction or collapse. Science, religion, arts, language, family, ethnicity and peoples as well as the different forms of mentality and diverse human groups who go through various changes but will most probably always exist-constitute the fundamental cultural society, that is to say the long term. In addition, ecology must definitely be a subject of concern. It must be interrelated to the conclusions drawn from all the other branches of science. It can be examined as science of economic institutionalization. Democratic politics needs also to be continuously kept alive as a science and as an institution. The fundamental institution of a structural term is the establishment and life of a state as well as those things that originated during its existence, such as hierarchy, classes and state borders as well as property, territory and homeland. Different forms of state, such as the priest-state, dynastic state, republic and nation-state, mark some of the important topics. Different types of religion also constitute an important subject. Propositions that distinguish societies based on their mode of production (Neolithic, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, socialist), as well as the collapse of institutions, can also be regarded within the structural term.
c. Medium and short term
The medium— and short-term matters consist of qualitative and quantitative multiple events and notions. The subject matter of the short and medium term is all the cultural and structural changes and transformations of events. The medium term is involved with changes that take place within the same structural institution. Economic depressions, political regime changes, the establishment of various types of organizations (economical, social, political, and operational) are examples of such changes. The main topics of the short term are all the various social (and socialization) activities of the individual. The media is usually concerned with the short term events and notions. The daily events in each structural institution are also within the compass of the short term. There really should be a branch of sociology that examines the influence of events. Since it will base itself upon events within the short term, it could be called the August Comte sociology. It may be suitable to call it “positive sociology” (without ignoring the fundamental criticism directed against positivism). Especially during chaotic periods, events gain significance and become a determining factor. I believe that only when the fundamental cultural sociology, structural sociology and positive sociology are united shall we achieve the integrality of sociology.
In addition, all universal events and formations, including social events, require a quantum or chaotic environment because they are the moments of creation. Although they have not been profoundly examined, they definitely do exist. Science is each day more concerned with the fundamental issue of how the “occurrences” of both “each instant” and “short intervals” sustain all long, medium and short-term formations. We should not neglect the “quantum moment” and the “chaos interval” as these can be seen as “moments of creation.” The possibility of freedom in the universe occurs at this “moment” and is thus itself related to the “moment of creation.” All structures in nature and society, whether in the case of their construction, sustenance or period of life-despite their different qualities-require “moments of creation.” There is thus a need to find a name for the sociology that is concerned with the issues of creation at the shortest possible term. I propose the name sociology of freedom for the sociology that deals with the moment of creation in social events.
Moreover, I think it is a necessity to have sociology of freedom as a branch of sociology. It could also be viewed as the sociology of mentality because of the incredible flexibility of the human mind —due to socialization— and the creativity that has resulted from it. At the top of the list of subjects to examine should be thought and the desire for freedom. We should add that the development at the moment of creation is a development with a component of freedom-hence such a discipline could also be called sociology of creation. Since this shortest quantum moment and chaos interval encompass the entire social field, the sociology of freedom should be at the top of the list of all the sociology subjects that are in need of urgent development.
Let us then investigate the developments at the Fertile Crescent through this perspective. I will try to implement the method of sociological examination as I go along. However, it should be kept in mind that this examination is experimental and thus can have only experimental value. In terms of social history, the sociology of freedom observes the most fecund chaos interval in the Fertile Crescent during the Neolithic revolution. The groups that used to sustain themselves through hunting and gathering now embarked on a quest to sustain themselves in settled life through farming. The old clan communities, hundreds of thousands of years old, are replaced with broader structures. This marks an enormous mental transition. Instead of the old clan mentality and the language structure, we see the transition to a broader mentality of people sharing a village and of ethnicity. The introduction of numerous nutriments, means of transport, weaving, grinding, architecture, religious and artistic matters necessitate new mental forms and a new order of nomenclature.
The new society is now based mostly on village life and the clan ties transform into ethnic ties. The new material structures could not have been sustained without a more meaningful mental framework. Although the totem (the identity of the old clan society) continues its existence, the symbol of the Neolithic societies the mother-goddess. In time, the size of the totems decrease and the size of the mother-goddess’ figures increase. This symbolizes the increasing role of woman. This is a higher level of religious realization and it results in the formation of a very rich conceptualization. Grammatically, the female suffix becomes dominant —a characteristic that can still be observed in many languages. An intensely sacred meaning is bestowed on the mother-goddess as well as on socialization. The new society also means new notions and nomenclature. Since mental revolution requires creativity, we need to examine this in the sociology of freedom. Historians like V. Gordon Childe suggest that such a period has indeed been experienced. The occurrence of thousands of events means thousands of mental revolutions and names. History shows us that the majority of the terminologies and inventions that we utilize today were created in this period.
Religion, arts, science, transportation, architecture, grain, fruits, animal husbandry, weaving, pottery, grinding, feasts, family, hierarchy, administration, defense and assault, gifts, farming tools and many other concepts, tools and their related terms continue to exist as the fundamentals of society despite obvious changes. Examining the structure of the Village and family of the Neolithic period shows that the most treasured moral values, the values that strengthened society, were societal morals such as respect, affection, neighborly relations and solidarity. These are much more precious than the capitalist modernity’s moral values. Society’s fundamental forms of mentality are the remnants of this period and they will never lose their value. From the perspective of positive sociology, the events of that period are also quite rich. When compared with the clan society’s monotonous life of hunting, gathering and defense, the events and new notions that developed in the Fertile Crescent are manifold and very exciting. It can be deduced from the narratives of the Holy Books that the fundamental meaning carried over from those times in the minds of the people had later developed into the concept of paradise. This is the most prosperous moment of positive sociology and humanity is faced with an incredible development.
In terms of structural sociology, one could see at the Fertile Crescent the traces of all the institutional orders that resulted in societal development. The period from 6,000 to 4,000 BCE in particular was a period of institutionalization. Areas for villages and cities had been determined and settled, hierarchy was born, religion was institutionalized, sanctuaries appeared, ethnicity came into being, customs for interpersonal relations were established and administration on the basis of morality was at its peak. It appeared as if Neolithic society and its agricultural and village revolution came to stay. The social structures that form the backbone of structural sociology exhibited theses strong formation for the first time at the Fertile Crescent during the Neolithic. Much can be learned by examining these original institutions. In fact, studying these structures of the region —the initial institutionalized values of humanity— will enable us to draw sound conclusions about the establishment of structural sociology. Today’s structural sociology has a serious lack of meaning. If it is revised as a component of general sociology, it can become an effective, meaningful branch of sociology.
The language and culture whose foundation was laid at the Fertile Crescent is an original source and is a subject for fundamental cultural sociology. The society established in the region is a very long term society. As mentioned earlier, unless through some natural disaster human life deteriorates to a major degree, the social culture and civilization based in the Fertile Crescent has the capacity to continue to play a leading role. Although in terms of capacity it is not impossible for a civilization based on Chinese or Semitic culture to become a hegemonic power, practically it will be very difficult. There were very big Islamic and Mongolian originated assaults, yet the Indo-European culture (hence the Aryan language and culture which is the source culture) has never lost its hegemonic character.
Fundamental cultural sociology may be equated with general sociology. We may thus consider topics such as mental formats, family institution and the change and transition of the ethnic-national entities under general sociology. More importantly, the chaos and decay environments that are encountered and that are the base as well as the result of both the sociology of freedom and structural sociology, can also be examined under general sociology. The second phase of society that arose at the Fertile Crescent began with the Sumerian Priest State, which is also the onset of “civilized society.” Civilized society is in fact based on the culture present at the Fertile Crescent, but with hierarchic and dynastic roots from elsewhere. The state was seen as the Leviathan in the Holy Books. In the next section, I will examine the bloody, exploitative and at times genocidal march of this monster. I will also look at different forms of exploitation — whether they are under the rule of masked, unmasked, disguised or naked kings-as well as at the ways these kings have managed to legitimize themselves.
Conclusion
The fundamental postulate of this section is that communality as a constructed reality is a human creation. Despite our criticism, there are things that we have and can learn from this fragmented state of the sciences. The reason behind my frequent emphasis on the distinct perception level of social reality is to clarify its difference with other sciences. Without understanding this difference, we will not escape but fall into the scientism of the positivists that have resulted in the genocides of capitalist modernity. Genocide was the great crime that Adorno based his term “wrong life” on. Positivism holds that despite these genocides communal life can be sustained. What I am attempting here is to expose the sources that made this “imprudence” possible and to look for possible methods of transcending these sources, so that we can gain an understanding and identify the appropriate steps to take. We cannot ignore the fact that the continuing existence of modernity leads to institutionalized centers of genocide. The example right before us, the reality of Iraq, shows all of us —not only those who burn in it but also those who observe it from outside— that all the regimes in the Middle East are partners in this crime, whether it be overt or covert. On the other hand, there is also the quest for free life. Free life or genocide —this cannot be an acceptable alternative. We cannot be partners in this crime by living the way we do. How did it happen that this region and history that led to such a meaningful life ended up as it did? With, on the one hand, the wars between the ethnicities that have led to the initial meaning of life, and on the other hand, the wars for leadership of the last great god of modernity? It seems clear that we cannot move on if this issue is not thoroughly addressed.
I feel obliged to express the taste of life in the Fertile Crescent in a more literary way. Let me begin with a quotation by Robert I. Braidwood, who initiated the excavations at Cayonii (Diyarbakir). He said, “Life could not have been more meaningful than at the skirts of the arching range of the Zagros-Taurus Mountains.” I really wonder what it was that made this person, grown up in the distant cultures of today, say such a thing. As an archaeologist and a historian who knows this civilization best, why has he seen the most meaningful life of all to be that of this cultural region? Despite this observation, today’s inhabitants wish to flee from this land to Europe as if to run away from plague, even though it means working for the lowest wages. They look at migration as if it is their destiny, as if there is no sacred or aesthetic value left in this region, as if there is nothing that can once again be attained. I admit, at some stage I too fell for the disease of modernity and wanted to flee from everything, including from my mother and father. I often admit to myself that this was my biggest delusion in life. However, I had not totally detached myself from what Braidwood observed. As a child of those skirts, I always thought the peaks of the mountains to be the sacred throne of the gods and goddesses, and its skirts to be the cornerstones of heaven that they created in plenitude and I always wanted to wander around. As a young boy, because of this, I was described as “mad for mountains.” When I learnt much later that such a life was reserved for the god Dionysus and the free and artistic groups of girls (the Bacchantes) who traveled before and behind him, I really envied him. It is said that the philosopher Nietzsche preferred this god to Zeus and that he would even sign many of his works as the “disciple of Dionysus.” When I was still at my village, I always wanted to play games with the girls of my village. Although this did not conform to the religious rules, I have always thought that this was the most natural thing. I never approved of the dominant culture’s way of shutting women behind doors. I still want to engage with them in unlimited free discussions, in games, in all the sacredness of life. I still say an unconditional “no” to the slavery and bonds that smell of possession and that is based on power relations.
I remember how I have always saluted the free women of these mountains with the morning breeze of goddesses and how we tried to understand one another. I also remember the unique anger I have always felt against men-family, clan and state-for the deaths of truckloads of south-eastern women who died in car crashes on their way to other regions for seasonal work. How is it possible that hey fell this low from being the descendants of the goddess? My mind and soul have never accepted their tall. I have always thought that a woman should either have the sacredness of a goddess or not be at all. I agree with the statement that “the degree of emancipation of woman is the natural measure of general emancipation.” To me, my mother always was reminiscent of the mother goddess. But then modernity’s construction of a superficial mother veiled the sacredness within her to my eyes. Although I experienced extraordinary pain in my life, I have never seriously cried about anything. But now, in the aftermath of shattering the constructs of modernity, I remember my mother and all the mothers of the region with tears and sadness. Now, i again value the meaning of the water I used to drink from the copper buckets that my mother carried home with such difficulty. They are my most vivid and my saddest memories. I plead that everyone will reconsider their relationship with their mother and father after having shattered modernity in their own minds. And then for everyone to reflect upon all of their relationships in the village from the same perspective. The biggest success of modernity is its achievement in shattering the fifteen thousand year old constructed culture and reducing it to nothing. Of course one cannot expect a noble and free perspective, resistance and passion for life from individuals and communities that have been shattered and reduced to nothing. The flora and fauna on the skirts of the Arch’s mountains have always been objects of passion for me. I used to consider them sacred. The one thing I can still not forgive myself for is snapping off the heads of the birds I hunted without any pity. There is no better example of the profound danger embedded within the object-subject dichotomy modernity enforced on us. My concern for the ecology is strongly related to this passion and the crime of my childhood. My only remedy was to pull down the masks of the “strong exploiter and ruling man” who is a mere hunter and whose only talent is power relations and warring. Unless we understand the language of the fauna and flora, we will neither understand ourselves nor become ecological socialists. I have the most intense feelings when I remember how the valleys that began at the skirts of the mountains were prepared for production from the onset of spring to the onset of autumn by my farmer father. I cannot forgive myself for the inability to mourn his death —an inability brought on by the relationships imposed by modernity. I have big regrets: Why could not I fully understand these travelers of god and befriend them?
At one time, I thought that the moment for village relationships had come and gone. Today, I have no doubt that the ideal life for humanity can only be sustained in the villages that are in harmony with the ecology —not in the city structures of modernity. The only way that cities can become fit for human dwelling is to transform them into ecological villages. To my mind, the people living in the range of the Nur and Zagros mountains are the sacred passengers of the gods and goddesses who reside at the thrones located at the peaks of the mountains.16 l reject the insult, from the perspective of modernity, of being “backward” because progressiveness and backwardness are just ideological judgments. I not only think that modernity is backward, but I also believe that a profound analysis of capitalist modernity’s mentality (which I view as an enemy of humanity) will lead us back to the fundamentals of humanity. When we rid ourselves of modernity’s hellish shackles, namely profiteering, industrialism and the nation-state, we will be able to live a meaningful life again. The city —that has opened its doors to the life of profit, the capture of the human being in an iron cage and the industrial monsters that are the murderers of life— is an even more meaningless copy of the old “Babylon with seventy two languages.” I have no doubt that the liberation of humanity lies in the collapse of the cancerous structure of this kind of urbanism. And I do believe that I was able to make the grand return to freedom.
I have told this short story to evoke memories of the life-culture that is our roots. We need to fully and effectively understand the lifestyle that is the product of this constructed social reality before we can escape playing the role of modernity’s fool. If we do not rid ourselves of this cancerous life of modernity that has taken all of us hostage-including the shepherd in the mountains —we cannot live a free life. We shall, sooner or later, understand that “the wrong life cannot be lived rightly.”
