Conclusion

Is a compromise between the statist civilization and the democratic civilization possible? I would like to briefly outline this volume of my defense with several short conclusions:

First: Without an analysis of the emergence of power throughout the course of history we cannot achieve a sound sociology. The social sciences that have developed within the theoretical framework (or paradigm) of positivist science have come to a total dead-end. If this were not the case, how would we explain the extreme level of exploitation and incidence of war in our time? A scientist’s responsibility towards society is no less than that of a cleric or an ethicist. If scientific reasoning is indeed superior to mythology, religion, and philosophy in the quest for meaningfulness (and it had its revolution and attained its victory in the seventeenth century), then how could science not show its superiority over such unprecedented incidences of war and exploitation? It just may be that science’s integration with power is behind these atrocities. A science that has itself become the power loses its freedom.

If science is defined as the most advanced Interpretation of meaning, then its quick integration with power either indicates a defeat of science, or there is a serious discrepancy between science and how it is defined. I attempted to show how this problem is linked to positivism. Although positivism criticizes metaphysics and religion quite a lot, it is itself metaphysics and religion intertwined with the most vulgar materialism. Thus, it even falls behind religion and metaphysics. This is apparent from the irresponsible approach of the disciplines referred to as positivist sciences: They did not do anything against exploitation and wars. They do not even regard these as their problem. Subsequently, they became the science of those in power. An important conclusion that can be drawn from this is the urgent need for science to develop a renewed interpretation of meaning. Science needs another paradigmatic revolution. In this work, I tested my ability to interpret things by understanding their meaning. The results I arrived at correlate with this attempt.

Second: Power should be thought of as a tradition, a very ancient one at that. Power is not the sum of actions that emerge daily and enforce its authority upon societies. Moreover, we have to understand that power is not limited only to the state. Reducing the concept of power to the state and different state forms is the basis of the previous mistakes, as has often been the case. To say that power is the combination of war acts and other obvious features will be nothing but the most opportunistic way in which power can be defined. I have often used the phrase “crafty and strong man” as an illustrative metaphor like the much used “invisible hand of the market.” I think it can be highly instructive in our understanding of the basis of power. Those that regulate power, each relation and those involved in such relations, at times openly but most often secretly are the ones that construct power.

Power is a social phenomenon with the utmost ability for continuity and concentration. The man, who has domesticated the woman, is probably the first and the biggest shareholder in this. First by establishing a monopoly over the power of meaning, and later by establishing themselves as priests-thus gaining a religious identity-the shamans’ role in the sanctification and mystification of the naked strength of power was significant. We can link the mythology of power and all the concepts of divinization to this group. Mythological and religious rhetoric is highly effective in the construction and legitimizing of power. The group that did the most to further society’s acceptance of power is the trinity of the priest, ruler, and commander of the hierarchic and patriarchal regime. They were the creators of traditions such as the use of the throne to symbolize power. Deification and exaltation, the throne, the disunity between god and human, the discrediting of goddesses, and servitude are all strong symbols of power that are remnants of this period.

Third: State power is a more permanent and concrete form of power that comes into existence because of the presence of hierarchy, the domestication of women, servitude, and slavery. It refers to the regulation of power relations that have become quite widespread in the society, and clarifies and designates everyone’s responsibility, as well as making more effective and sparing use of such relations. Power embodies the state but it is much more than just the state. States are monopolist institutions that mark the beginning of history. In the final analysis, the increasing economic strength of society ceases to be the subject of democratic politics and becomes an area over which a monopoly of the ruling power is established. This is how surplus production and values are seized. All other elements related to state-mythology, philosophy, religion, science, war, and the various policies-are connected to this main aim. This remains the case even in a communist state. Power becomes official within a society through the state and enhances its legitimacy.

Activities, wars, and discourses that society may find meaningful are matters of the most interest to those representing the state. Judicially, the state is a set of rules. Another way to define the state may be as the tradition that is reinforced with power and bound to rules. Within this framework it may also be called the aggregate of the most advanced abstract relations. Although categories such as theocratic, despotic, monarchic, imperialist, republican, absolutist, nation-, class-based, ethnic, secular, democratic, and social state may all appear to be different, in essence they are all the regulation of power-relations made tangible. As they became socially more complex and class divisions formed, towns played a leading role in the development of state and power. Nevertheless, towns cannot be identified only with the state.

Fourth: Civilization is the overarching definition for the state’s attainment of social control based predominately in its concentration within the town. The state’s rule of the town was the first serious venture of the civilization. Civilization has some characteristics that go beyond being the state. It is closely linked to time and location. It harbors many ethnicities, peoples, nations, religions, and schools of thought. State is the nucleus of civilization, but it is not everything. Similarly, the town is a fundamental location for the state, but the town is not only the state or even only power. Civilizations may multiply in different locations and times as with the Egyptian, Sumerian, Median, Persian, Greco-Roman, Christian, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, Aztec, and European civilizations. In all of them urbaneness, class division, and the existence of towns are common factors. The relationship within and amongst civilizations may be peaceful or hostile depending on the substance of its economic and political monopoly. Peace will follow if the offered share is acceptable: it will be called a “fair split.“ But if it is unacceptable, the civilizations’ –and hence the states’– tool of choice for attaining “justice” is war. There is a close relationship between war, violence, civilization, state, justice, and law. Essentially they all indicate whether the activities (economic, political, and ideological) of social groups and individuals are protected by themselves or appropriated by some other groups or persons. Civilization is the sum of the relationships between these traditions. Institutions and rules. A civilization may sometimes be expressed in terms of the formation of class and surplus product, such as a slave-owning, feudal, or capitalist civilization. Domesticated woman. hierarchic patriarchy, state, and civilization are the layers that form the entirety of power. This formulates how comprehensive this aggregate of power relations is.

Fifth: Democratic civilization is a social category separate from state civilization I use it with the aim to conceptualize the social forms prior to the formation of state and civilization, as well as the structures that later existed outside the state. Throughout history, states were always careful to equate themselves with the society. The cornerstone of their ideological rhetoric has always been the impossibility of having a sociality that is distinct from the state. The representatives of the state react strongest when told that state and society are different entities and there are fundamental contradictions between them. Nevertheles, I must emphasize that the state is essentially nothing but a very small interest monopoly whose fundamental aim is not dealing with public affairs in the interets of society, but using these affairs as a cover to gain legitimacy.

Undoubtedly, society has become more complex since the primitive communal era and there are many common social affairs that need to he taken care of. Whilst the state excludes society by putting these affairs under its own jurisdiction and, therefore, they become the pollution for state’s legitimacy, democratic society on the other hand proposes or ensures that these common affairs are taken care of by society as a whole. The difference between state civilization and democratic civilization is based precisely on this This is of critical importance. When communities are able to represent themselves and act on their own behalves concerning all their affairs, then they can be said to be democratic. But if most of their own affairs are seen to by the state or other groups, then they incur a loss of skills, freedom, equality, and conscience. Individuals and groups who cannot represent themselves or see to their own affairs cannot become conscious and acquire skills, and they cannot live freely and equally. As can be seen, a difference in facts can lead to such important results.

A fundamental fact relating to society that needs to be pointed out is the communal order according to which primitive clans and tribes have lived for millions of years. In this communal order, we can detect the most primitive form of democracy. Just as the state represents the nucleus of the state civilization, the primitive communal order is the nucleus of the democratic civilization. This alone shows us how strong the democratic roots are. The subject of written history is state civilizations. The fact that societies have lived in communal orders for millions of years, taking care of their own affairs, does not fall within the scope of this history. But this is what historiography should reflect because, due to its long duration and wide occurrence, the communal life of the human species defines society itself. This is the true society. State and civilization have arrived much later and are artificial. They are indeed a dead weight mounted on society. Without them society would have continued its development. Indeed, development does continue but it is a development condemned to be distorted, bloody, and exploited. When we look at societies that use writing and have a state we see that in their language and history they use a terminology of lies, deceptions, tyranny and oppression. The established world of symbols imposes the feeling that a life without oppression and exploitation and without the oppressed, subjects, and slaves is not possible for societies. From mere symbols this was turned into reality and communities, in terms of their democratic potential, were caught and chained in the childhood-stage of their lives. This is what is not normal-a civilization with chains. This is the civilization that has used the atom bomb; the civilization that, apart from three hundred years of peace, has been at war for all of its five thousand year old life. It is responsible for the uninhabitable conditions of the environment and the deadlock in all social problems.

These are the strong justifications for a democratic move. What is not natural is the excessive growth of the state civilization as opposed to the dwindling of the democratic civilization. This is the main paradox of all societies. It constitutes the civilizational disease of not being able to develop in the presence of democracy. The society full of joy and love should be considered no less normal than the sorrowful, painful, and loveless society. Indeed, democratic civilization is the society that is advancing towards a civilization full of joy and love. This is more than just an option: it is the difference made by free life, which is the natural way of life and the one suitable to human nature, the one in which emotional and analytical intelligence can be unified.

Sixth: The order of capital is not the product of four hundred years of capitalism but a product of the five thousand year old state civilization. The surplus product that initially appeared in agriculture is the material basis of capital. Its early organization took place in the temple grounds where the top floor was that of the god (or top ruler); the middle floor was that of the priest (the deputy of the top ruler-an envoy in relation to the community and rules) who upheld the legitimacy of power; the ground floor belonged to the slaves who worked to get fed. This system has been propagated to the present: multiplying. dissociating. and becoming more layered. Urbanization, class division, and state-formation are really products of the surplus product. Society has continuously been subjected to the division of labor, separated into ranks, habituated to power and forced to either defend or attack: all this describes the phenomenon called civilization. These positions also clearly reveal civilization’s connection with capital. Although capital is in a narrow sense economically defined as multiplying itself over the short term, in a broader sense multiplying itself over a long term is essentially the same. Just as the daily surplus of the merchant can be described as capital, the yearly surplus product of the land-monopoly could also be described as capital.

History indicates that the age of trade began before civilization, starting at Uruk at 4,000 BCE and continuing into the present. It is in fact six thousand years old. The merchant civilization, which has always been secondary to the agricultural civilization, has at times resulted in magnificent city civilizations, but in general it has not been welcomed by the communities. The exploitative way in which it made its acquisitions has played an important role in this. On the whole, it has settled in the darkened corridors and secluded corners of social history. Its development has escalated during every civilization era. The commercial sector became the hegemonic power in the Italian towns for the first time in history between the thirteenth and the sixteenth century, and later in all of European towns from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century. It thus played a fundamental role in the birth of European civilization. It not only rose to become the new actor in society, it also established its influence over the political platform. The big trade monopolies and colonial plunders played a decisive role in the increase of capital. It even managed to establish its hegemony over movements such as the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment.

Industrialization, with the help of the nineteenth century Industrial Revolution, has become the real area of profit for capital. The peak of the European civilization was reached when production, circulation, and consumption fell into the hands of industrial monopolies. This resulted in class struggles internally and national liberation struggles externally. The hegemonic ideology of the system neutralized both of these resistance struggles in return for compromises allowed by the system. By the end of twentieth century the crises caused by industrialism, especially the urban and environmental problems, became structural in character. This resulted in the age of finance. This period signifies the liberation of capital from its dependence on production and the liberation of money from gold reserves. They became totally irresponsible and this period turned into a full-scale crisis of civilization. The social potential of capital has been exhausted, but it tries to maintain its existence by renewing and sustaining itself as virtual systems. The capital-profit order, which has become reliant on rolls of paper, is trying to render society unable to act through continuous crises. The third global move of the capitalist system is in fact the third and final stage of the structural crisis phase of civilization.

I found it appropriate to refer to the Age of Capitalism as a social crisis. I postulated as a fundamental thesis the fact that, although generally seen as the civilization most concerned with the economy, capitalism is not economy at all but an external power monopoly that imposes itself on economy and, therefore, cannot be seen as legitimate. The establishment of the domination of capitalism, which is the most selfish, self-seeking, and belligerent force, over society can only represent an “extraordinary” situation in history, that is, the situation of crisis. The age of finance is indeed all aspects of this reality surfacing in all the different parts of society. There are many indicators signaling the system’s depletion, such as the system itself breeding continuous terror, leaving a large portion of society unemployed, even degrading employment to a sort of unemployment, resulting in the masses and a herd-like society; the industrialization of arts, sex, and sports; and, the infiltration of power into the tiniest veins of society. Thus is the assumption created that the entire history and entire future can only exist if it is based on the order of capital. The main role of the sector called “the media” lies in its ability to present this virtual and simulacrum society as real. On the other hand, the society that we should realize and live in is continuously presented as infertile, unrealistic, utopian and, therefore, left out of discussion. Capital, contrary to popular belief, is a power monopoly and regime of violence that has wedded itself to the economy from the start, distorting it profoundly. And instead of producing the necessities, it plunges into areas where it can attain a cancer-like growth of profits.

Seventh: in contrast to the order of capital. economy Is the area where society’s material needs are attained. The reason for its remaining within the domain of use value for such a long time is the communal order. Social cohesion can only be governed on the principle that everyone’s life should be guaranteed. Human nature requires this. The purpose of production has never been perceived as making profit. Although the gift economy was essential, after long periods of hesitation and as result of increasing labor division, the exchange economy found a place in society. As in the case of the use value, the formation of the exchange value was not profit-oriented. It entailed satisfying needs through increased variety and interdependence. Initially the relationship between commodification, market, and money was not profit-motivated: it developed to satisfy the required diversity and interdependency. Market economy is not a capital-profit economy but an economy in which exchange extensively steps in. Trade is a beneficial and necessary economic activity only if it is remunerated with a corresponding value for the effort made for circulation. The market where prices are determined through non-monopolist competition becomes an area where the economy pulsates. Money is just a tool to ease exchange. All circles, including small tradespeople and professionals, can be elements beneficial to the economy if they do not tend towards exploitation in the marketplace. The division of needs into sectors such as food, clothing, shelter, transport, and entertainment is an indication that the economy has developed. Efforts concerning these sectors can be meaningful if they are truly economic activities. In the eyes of society all such efforts are understandable, valuable, and ethical.

The strong reactions and objections are aimed at the monopolist enforcements imposed upon the economy externally through the methods using coercion, force, or refined deception (such as famine, stock, prices, and speculation on the value of money). Throughout history this monopolist imposition has been understood to be bad, ugly, tyrannical, cruel, unjust, and something that should not exist. This order for establishing monopolies is also called the order of capital and profit. Its main principle is to enable some to make a fortune while the majority is left unemployed, poor, and at the threshold of hunger so that they will continuously be in need of the order of capital. The justification is that competition will take off when the opportunity arises to make a fortune, which then will further the economy. This is nothing but a big lie as can be seen from the fact that those at the top of the financial order have nothing to do with economy (apart from speculative matters such as the stock exchange, interest rates, and exchange rates). The relationship they establish with the economy is synonymous with the crisis. Aside from profit nothing concerns them.

Thanks to the distortive scientific discipline called political economy, the real economic activities have been driven out of the economic arena while activities that are not economic have been presented as the indispensable and sacred elements (speculative matters such as stock exchange, interest rates, and exchange rates) of the economy: it is proffered as “high economy.” The power monopoly is successfully presenting us things that are not economy as economy, and what is not economy-indeed the opposite of economy-as high economy or the sacred of economy. Our reply when asked what we see as the fundamental economic issue must be: “Above all, to rid ourselves of this monopoly through which we are robbed.” In order to have a real economy we need to get rid of that which is not economy, anti-economy, and is externally imposed by the monopoly of power. We need to rid ourselves of the speculators’ games of interest rate, stock exchange, and exchange rate. Real economy is the production, division, and consumption of produce that fulfill real needs, that are accessible, and produced according to environmentally friendly investment techniques. In order to build such an economy, the necessary first step is a planned, structured, and organized action to liberate ourselves from this non-economy.

Eight: The first opposition to the barbarity of the Capitalist Age came from the tribes and clans who resisted and rebelled against attempts to colonize or semi-colonize them. The Native American tribes of the north, as well as the Aztec civilization of South America resisted to the end. The Asian and African civilizations, tribes, and peoples (the Chinese, Indian, and Ethiopian civilizations, along with thousands of tribes) also continued their resistance and rebellion. As the national liberation movements of the twentieth century they achieved many important successes (albeit with many shortcomings and errors). Internally. the major stimulant was the proletarianization process itself. Contrary to widespread belief, being able to sell one’s labor freely at the market is not a way out of being a serf or partial slavery. On the contrary. it is being condemned to the cruelest slavery where you have no way out but to obtain a wage. That the nature of the new despotic regime is worse than anything before can be seen in people’s inability to find work and the continued insufficiency of the wage.

All major rebellions against capitalism were waged so as not to become such workers. They were not rebellions aiming to become workers, but not to become workers. If, mislead by false representation, we proclaim, “Long live the struggle of the workers,” this amounts to saying, “Long live slavery.” What is right and is indeed supported by life itself is to reject being condemned to wages. These half-peasant and half-salesclerk rebellions that developed on their own are continuously intertwined with the history of capitalism. On the other hand, the intellectuals who were not optimistic about the feudal order and could not tell how the new order would develop were constantly searching for the “City of the Sun.”1 The initial utopists never endorsed capitalism. On the contrary, against this nightmare they always presented their own utopian projects for a future full of hope. The period of transition to capitalism was also the period when the struggle for the age of communal order, equality, and freedom was waged by a broad group of heroic utopists such as Erasmus, Tommaso Campanella, Saint-Simon, and Charles Fourier.

Under the leadership of Marx and Engels the first scientifically based struggle began against capitalism. Although it contained important shortcomings and errors, this very first movement to oppose the system, acting in the name of scientific socialism, became the nightmare of capitalism for one hundred and fifty years. There was much heroism and many important victories were attained. It became the official ideology of the USSR for seventy years. It raised Mainland China to its feet. It became the source of inspiration for national liberation struggles. The misfortune of this anti-systemic movement was its inability to analyze capitalist modernity and to make a radical break from it. The scientific framework it was embedded in was positivist. They understood very little of the continuity of the state civilization and tradition of power within the capitalist civilization. Nevertheless. they deserve to become the cornerstone of the democratic civilization.

Furthermore, we should not belittle the anti-capitalism of the anarchists. Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin especially but many other anarchists were masterful revolutionaries who were able to integrate their critique of the system with the principles of democratic communalism. Freedom and commune movement are in indebted to them. The fundamental failing and shortcoming of this movement was seeing capitalism as a purely economic system and not fully understanding its civilizational and power roots, as well as their inability to break the molds of modernity.

The intellectual and students’ movement that reached their peak in 1968 were the biggest protest movements at the onset of the age of finance. Although its utopic aspect overrode most other, it became the torch of freedom and light against the dirtiest and darkest order of all times. The subsequent development of cultural, feminist, environmental and ecologic movements with their anti-modernist perspectives marked this era. They extended the struggle for equality, freedom, and democracy by not basing it on power. They become the voice of global society against global capitalism. These opponents of the system are strengthened through their self-criticism regarding past practice and a more comprehensive understanding of history and society. For the first time, they may completely break away from capitalist civilization, unite with the democratic civilization, and advance on the path of freedom, equality, and communalism.

Ninth: Behind the failure of the nineteenth and twentieth century revolutionaries lie their errors in relation to power and its modern embodiment: the nation-state. They anticipated that the resolution of the social problems would be achieved when they came to power. The main goal of their program was to take power into their own hands. All forms of struggle were formulated from this perspective. However, power itself is lack of freedom, lack of equality, anti-democracy. The traditional character of this tool is so strong that it will tamper with even the strongest revolutionaries involving themselves with it. Worse, they do not even have an historical and sociological analysis of power which they consider to be the tool of liberation. Not much has been put forward with regard to how power was formed over the course of history, the phases it passed through, its relationship with economy and state, the role it has played within the civilizations, and its position within society. It was as if it fell into the hands of the revolutionaries. like a magical wand it would simply turn everywhere into heaven. Its touch would immediately resolve any issue. The dictatorial style became so appealing that the dictatorship of the proletariat was declared against the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This was nothing but falling into a trap. A hundred and fifty years of heroic struggle was overwhelmed by the gulf of power. Finally, though, it has become clear that the tool at hand is the most backward, anti-egalitarian, anti-freedom, and anti-democratic mechanism of capitalism. But much was lost. A similar disease of power experienced during the early history of Christianity struck again.

The freedom movements’ approach to the nation-state was even more of a disaster. This Leviathan of the modernity, molded into form with nationalism, sexism, religionism, and scientism, was accepted as the fundamental and proper framework within which to wage the struggle. The centralized nation-state was portrayed as more progressive and a tool (or rather a goal) to resolve problems in comparison to democratic confederalism. There was in fact no accurate analysis of the nation-state revealing how it created the most abnormal citizen by using the nationalism, sexist society and fanatic religiousness of the power monopoly, as well as the positivism of scientism: there was no analysis exposing the nationstate as the structure that allowed for the absorption of society into the state and resulted in fascism. When scientific socialism came to prefer this tool, which extended power to all layers of society, the fate of socialism became clear from the start. The official declaration of its disintegration in 1989 was but a formality. As the democratic quality of the Soviets had been lost in the beginning of the October Revolution, it should have been clear that what it would give birth to would not be socialism but capitalism. The inability of the national liberation struggles to deliver the expected results is also closely related to this form of power. How can one construct freedom and equality by using a tool that forms the basis for the oppression of freedom. equality, and democracy? Democracy. since it was seen as a tool that would loosen power, was removed right at the start.

The nation-state, as proto-fascism, bulldozed not only the wealth that societies had obtained through the ages but also destroyed their hope for the future. Thus, the only thing left is the nation-state, which is protected by the positivist religion of nationalism that is nothing but the idolatry of objects, which has constructed itself as the only truth, and is known by its brutality which has culminated in genocide, and has itself become divine. For the first time in capital’s five thousand year history this power monopoly which was obtained through the fusion of economy, politics, society, and ideology was the source of all these problems. Clearly, unless and until the nation-state is surpassed both as a theoretical ideal and as an actual state form the socialist struggle will amount to nothing but selfdeception.

If industrialism is not recognized and analyzed as nation-state’s twin, then the canceration of cities and environmental destruction cannot be prevented. Industrialism, which is upheld as a revolutionary goal, is nothing but state monopolism’s way of making maximum profits. This may, at best, be interpreted as Pharaoh socialism. The USSR until its disintegration, and currently Chinese socialism, became the strongest reinforcing agent of the capitalist system by being the most vulgar operators of industrialism. The fact that they became the strictest proponents of a nation-statist and industrialist modernity was a victory for liberal capitalism.

A more instructive approach may be reached if we understand that a system (like the one enforced in the age of finance) which presents itself as the most economic is in reality the exact opposite of what it claims to be. If it talks about finance, then we should think of power that has been extended to all layers of society. If it talks about economy, then we should see it as being non-economic and even counter-economic. If its talks about neoliberalism, then we should really understand it as rigid conservatism. Only such an approach will allow us to arrive at more accurate interpretations.

The nation-state, industrialism, and financial monopoly are instruments that not only prevent the disintegration of capitalist modernity, they also prevent the disintegration of the five thousand year old structure of civilization. Until they are able to re-structure themselves to become more permanent, they will cling onto these instruments. These will also be used as weapons to rush any of the alternatives, forcing them into the open whilst still incomplete and imperfect, or to tame and neutralize them.

Tenth: Throughout history the democratic and the poor sections of society have been backing the wrong horse. They have believed they would beat their enemies solely by using the weapons of the enemy. They have not been able to develop weaponry suitable for their libertarian, egalitarian, and democratic character. In cases where they did develop them, they gave those up too soon, whether the weapons were successful or not: it was just easier to use the more advanced weaponry of their rivals. They did not just take over their enemies’ military equipment and instruments, but everything from the construction of their gods to their clothing, their architecture, their ideologies, forms of exploitation, power constructions –every single pre-constructed element of the civilizational mentality and institutions. Or, they were just absorbed by them and became like them. This is what is meant by backing the same horse as your rivals.

The Semite and Aryan tribal chiefs attacked the Sumerian civilization from all directions. But they subsequently embraced the Sumerian mindset and institutions for what they were and either became their representatives or servants. There the thousands of years of tribal resistance and the melodies of their epic heroism that still touch our hearts went down the drain.

Of the Apiru that attacked the Egyptian civilization the majority were turned into slaves.2 From the small number that was not enslaved, no one advanced further than the level of palatial bureaucrat. We know of a Hebrew tribe that descends from both the SumerianBabylonian and Egyptian civilization. They not only created problems for themselves but for the whole world: they were neither completely enslaved nor did they manage to be completely free.

The Median and Scythian tribes withstood and attacked the Assyrian Empire for three hundred years. In the end, though. they only served as harbingers of the Urartu and Persian Empires-exact copies of the Assyrian Empire! Some from the Median and Scythian tribes could not escape from becoming their military chiefs and most from becoming their subjects.

Resistance to the Greco-Roman civilization continued ceaselessly for about five hundred years. Externally, there was the resistance and incursions of Celtic, Nordic, Gothic, and Hunnic tribes; internally, there were slave rebellions and resistance from Christianity. the party of the poor with various different ethnic roots. What did centuries of resistance achieve? Nothing but an insignificant copy of the Roman crown thatornamented the Holy See and some tribal chiefs. The memory of the innumerable resistance fighters who were fed to the lions, burnt, and crucified has been frozen into the ice-cold chronicles of the civilization.

The Arabic, Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian, Assyrian, Circassian, and Hellenic tribes that resisted and assailed the Sassanid and Byzantine civilizations (and their heirs) left behind them only the crowns of sultans, poor tribes, subjects of Aghas, and slaves; in short, nothing but an insignificant copy of these ancient civilizations.

The heritage of the great revolutionary society of the Neolithic Age, a society adhering to the communal order and receptive to the sanctity of life, has not yet been depleted even though so much of it, both materially and morally, has been consumed by all the civilizations. This touches my heart and saddens me. We have to embrace as our own the history of those who so heroically resisted and attacked: let us embrace this as our own history-the history of democratic civilization. Of course, we have to scrutinize this history, which has been forgotten and appropriated, and then write and claim it as our own. We should never claim the history of the puny holders of crowns and palaces, and palatial subjects who were seduced by the trimmings of civilizational crowns and betrayed the labor of the tribal poor, their resistance and rebellion, their achievements and wisdom. Without this differentiation, the history of the democratic civilization cannot be written. And if this history is not written we cannot wage a successful struggle for democracy, freedom, and equality. History is our roots. Just as a tree cannot continue its existence without its roots, the human species cannot choose a free and honorable way of living if it doesn’t base itself on its social history.

The prevailing civilizational history proclaims that there is only one history and no other. Unless we can break free from this reductionist and dogmatic notion of history, a democratic and socially conscious history cannot be developed. It should not be presumed that the history of the democratic civilization is lacking or void of events, alliances, and institutions. On the contrary, this history abounds with the richest materials. It has a wealth equal to that of the history of the civilization: it has its own mythology, religion, philosophy, science, and arts; it has its own authors, sages. and poets. All we need to do Is to acquire the skills to evaluate. select, differentiate. and write it according to our own paradigm! I am not saying that we cannot make use of the weapons, institutions, and mentalities of the enemies and rivals. But I am saying that, in addition, we have to develop our own mentality, institutions, and weapons, and that we should base ourselves on them. If not, we can never escape being the victims of their mentality, institutions, and weapons, and becoming like them.

Eleventh: Of course, what cannot be deduced from my analysis is that civilizations will inevitably fight each other until one is eliminated and the other can claim victory, without the possibility of compromise. Notions such as these arise from an understanding of dialectics where thesis and antitheses destroy each other. As I tried to explain when I discussed my philosophical approach to the dialectics of universal development, I consider this interpretation unsuitable. Although there may well be destructive extremes, things mainly develop interconnectedly and nurturing one another like in a symbiotic relationship. This is the dialectical essence that mostly functions within the nature of society. The main state of societies is coexistence based on compromise and on not destroying but nurturing one another. There are many present and past examples illustrating this quality of societies. What is exceptional are the relationships that are destructive and excessively attuned to differences, much like the rarity of predators such as lions in the animal kingdom.

It is possible for the state civilization and democratic civilization to coexist through compromise and without destroying each other. But for this to happen they first have to recognize and respect each other’s identities. To impose one’s own identity upon the other through coercion, the abuse of various advantages, or manipulation is not a method of compromise but of elimination. It is the method of power and war which has infiltrated all layers of society, past and present. Europe, and to a degree the United States, has learned the necessary lessons from the power-and-war method they have so frequently used in the past four hundred years, to try to reconstruct the nation-state as federal union without completely destroying the nation-state. Because the main reason for internal and external wars are nation-state type of power organization. This is accomplished by blending arguments for human rights, civil society, democratization, etc. Clearly, they are attempting to give the old, rigid nation-state a more flexible form so that it can be turned into a tool that resolves problems. There are similar developments in Russia and China. North Korea, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran, which insist on being inflexible nation-states, are pressured more harshly than others. Iraq was chosen to be an example to all. The West wishes to emerge from the crisis, which has become chaotic, with as few losses and injuries as possible.

It has been asked whether the system constitutes a Roman-type empire. Undoubtedly, it constitutes a more effective global rule than that of Rome. Whether we call it a hegemonic power or an empire, the significance of this power’s will is indisputable. It will attempt sustaining its system through continuous restoration. EU-type continental arrangements are now on the agenda for Asia, Africa, and the Americas as well, as they are trying to develop the Greater Middle East Project, and are thinking about reforming the UN. There are constant economic, cultural, and social reorganizations. Although the present civilizational system, in which we are being herded by, is going through its most chaotic period of its final age it clearly does not remain idle.

Does the system have a compromise reflex? I would say yes; this method is never omitted either. Indeed, this is the method it has most often tried and from which it has derived the most favorable results. If its opponents’ awareness, organization, and desire for freedom remain weak, the system will always be the one emerging from the negotiation processes successfully. For example, this was the method used to neutralize real socialism, as we observed in the case of the USSR and China. It has used their weaknesses of modernism (the nation-state, industrialism, and positivism) to attain this victory. Assimilating and neutralizing the national liberationists and social democrats was much easier. It has also succeeded in marginalizing the anarchist, feminist, ecologic, and some other radical movements.

Despite all these indicators of its strength, the power of the system is not all there is to it. Moreover, I believe it is experiencing its weakest period yet. If the democratic civilization front is still unable to gain the desired, necessary, and rightfully earned achievements, the fundamental reason is that it has not completed the paradigm shift: it has not realized the necessary revolution in its basic scientific framework. Furthermore, it has not yet acquired a sufficient program, organization, and practical strength. These goals are not unattainable. The democratic civilizational movement can claim its own essential identity: freedom, equality, and democracy; it can attain a profound historical and social evaluation; it can construct its program, organization, and forms of action globally, regionally, and locally. The World Democratic Confederacy, and regional democratic confederacies for Asia, Africa, Europe, and Australia can be put on the agenda. Especially the Middle East Democratic Confederacy project would be a meaningful endeavor, considering the present chaotic situation in this region.

We should not repeat the tactics of the all-or-nothing approach. Neither this approach, that is either revolution or war, nor its reverse of peace to the end as propagated by Jesus, can be successful and effective against the complicated traditional notion of power. Resistance, rebellion, and constructing the new must become our way of life. Not losing the initiative in our struggle for freedom while making compromises with all the forces of the system at the right time and place: this is a more constructive method and will allow for making gains. However, I must reiterate that our identity is democratic civilization. It may enter into rapprochement with the forces of the system on the condition that we should never allow ourselves to be absorbed and lost in the state civilization, and we should construct and protect democratic civilization!

Twelfth: I would like to end this conclusion with a final note on my style of writing. As I began writing my defense, I mentioned that as a method I aimed to use and interweave mythological, religious, philosophical, and scientific categories of meaning. I believe I was partially successful in this.

We cannot abandon mythological discourse. Especially as the prehistorical period, Neolithic Age, Antiquity, and the history of democratic civilization are predominantly mythological in character. These societies expressed themselves strongest through legends and the dialogues of sages. If successful sociological analysis of these are made. the historical narrative shall definitely be strengthened and become more colorful.

The religious view, not as it is but after being subjected to sociological interpretation, is also an indispensable element in the narrative of history. History, to a significant degree, is hidden in religious dogmas. There are many reasons as to why. Moreover, social developments appear in religious narrative, albeit mostly expressed in its unique style. If approached from sociological and historical perspectives, we will find religion an incredibly informative source.

It is clear that without philosophy history cannot be written. Although positivism is itself the most vulgar metaphysics, it makes the absurd claim that history should be based solely on perceived phenomena. Positivism, which is the official line and religion of capitalism, behaves as if there was never any capital in history, as if everything just suddenly descended on Europe from the heavens above. In truth, these are mythological approaches! When they turn into a religion, they become the modern age idolatry. Therefore, we should put philosophy to regular and profound use because it is an indispensable source for any historical and social narrative.

With the scientific approach, I do not mean overly objective or subjective forms of narration. I am aware of the similarities between perception and fact. The scientific method I use may be described as “interpretive” since I use all the sources I mentioned above in an interwoven fashion. It will be clear from the approach that I have used in my analysis that I do not rely too heavily on objectivity. Those familiar with the issues I have dealt with would also have noticed that I have not slipped into subjectivism either.

In order to constantly advance my ability to interpret, I tried to overcome the subject-object dichotomy without denying it. I hope that you will forgive my mistakes and shortcomings. If I have helped strengthen the understanding abilities of everyone who has an interest in society, then I shall be most happy.

Notes – Conclusion

1. City of the Sun (La cittd del Sale) is a utopian work by Tommaso Campanella (1602).

2. The “Habiru” or “Apiru” was the name given by various Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian, Hittite, Mitanni, and Ugaritic sources (dated, roughly, between 1800 BC and 1100 BC) to a group of people living as nomadic invaders in areas of the Fertile Crescent from Northeastern Mesopotamia and Iran to the borders of Egypt in Canaan. Often, the Habiru are considered to be the early Hebrews