As I pursue my defense against the capitalist system, I know that I have to start by breaking loose from its system of mental chains. If we want to free ourselves from capitalism, we must reject worshiping it like the golden calf, because, make no mistake, just as a Muslim should call out Mismillah! (“In the name of God”) before undertaking a new venture, capitalism imposes its own sacred dictates upon us.
The first of the capitalist dictates that we must reject is its so-called scientific method.” This method is not the ethics and morality of freedom that have passed through the filter of social life and that will exist as long as human society exists. On the contrary, I am talking about a most advanced, servile attitude to life, which, precisely by denying social life, has rendered life meaningless and has led to the degeneration and decomposition of society; I am talking about the material and immaterial culture that has spawned this attitude.
My fundamental argument for attempting this break can be nothing but myself. Descartes was not even aware that his philosophy provided the basis for capitalism2. While he doubted everything. should he not have suspected himself as well? More importantly, how did he end up in such a situation? There are other examples of such stages of doubt in history: the construction of god by the Sumerian priests, the deep theistic doubts of Prophet Abrahamlast of its example being Prophet Muhammad’s venture-and the Ionian skepticism. At such historical stages, both the new mentality that has been entered into and the previous mentalities that need to be rejected have the characteristics that radically re-mold the society or, at the very least, provide the fundamental paradigm for this remolding. The real reason behind the doubt is the failure of the deep-rooted mentality (or ideological structure) to respond to the newly emerging lifestyle. The mental structures needed for the new life are quite difficult to develop, requiring a profound progress of one’s personality. No matter what one might call such doubting-whether a prophetic action, a philosophical phase or a scientific discovery-in essence they all pursue the answer to the same need: How will the mental structures of the new social life be established? The terrible skepticism is characteristic of this intermediate stage. The splendid lives of Descartes, Spinoza and Erasmus bear the traces of such a historical phase in a location that became the cradle of capitalism’s permanent rise in the sixteenth century, that is, the modern-day Netherlands.
My life story coincides with the beginning of the 1950’s when the drive of global capitalism of the era reached its peak. On the other hand, my place of birth is the most fertile land in the upper part of Mesopotamia- the Fertile Crescent enveloped by the Taurus-Zagros mountains- the location where the remnants of the oldest and most deep-rooted mentalities can still be found, and where the Neolithic age and the initial urban civilizations existed for very long periods: These are the mountain skirts that bore the civilization3.
My imprisonment on lmrali Island and being condemned to live in a single person dungeon by the wardens of the capitalist system (a punishment exceeding that allotted by Zeus by binding Prometheus to a rock in the Caucasus) compelled me to come to understand the antagonism between their system and myself. I remind myself of these historical facts and analyze them over and over again in order to understand what really is llhnt, so as not to stare myself blind on the role of the Republic of Turkey. If I were to fall into this trap, I would have become nothing more than the bull that keeps on attacking the red cape; the Republic of Turkey has no doubt been reduced to the bullfighter. These are the predetermined roles we are required to play continuously and efficiently. However, what is necessary is for us – for me– to define the true masters of this savage game –a king’s game– by taking into account all relevant facts.
To prevent delusions that affect the society as a whole, we need to reconsider the exampleof Karl Marx. No one can doubt the seriousness with which Marx endeavored to analyzecapitalism and to break its tiranglehold on society. However, it is also generally acceptedthat the enormous movements for social change inspired by him could not overcome beingcapitalism’s best servants. In this sense, it is clear that I shall not be a mere Marxist disciple.
While trying to define my identity, I think it is worthwhile to understand my desire to start with the fundamental parameters. What are these parameters, the boundaries that have determined what I am? In the transition to the Neolithic, the remnants of its mindset and customs, in well as power hierarchies and the state cults based on city-based civilization and, finally, the incomparable facts of the games of capitalism. Perhaps a sub-layer should also be mentioned: The distinct features of the human species-the risks they create and the ease they offer to living.
As I pen these lines, I am aware of the location in which I am held and how this location falls within the boundaries of legitimacy determined by capitalism. I am not about to deny that my continued existence –nor my Prometheanization– depends on these boundaries. I am continuously developing a sense of awareness of my strength and the meaning it contains.
If we are to give some known examples like Mani who was put to death by the Sassanid Empire; Husayn ibn Ali, Mansur Al-Hallaj, and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi who were executed by the Islamic rulers; hundreds of followers of Jesus who became martyrs, and followers of the Iinddha who fled the horror of the rulers; those who were burnt on the stakes of the Inquisition of the Christian Church; and those who died in the genocides of capitalism. What all these people have in common is that they persisted in being aware of life. They refused to be content with the curtain pulled between themselves and life-thin was their crime.
If the life-death dilemma has been turned into a devastating deadlock, the reason is no doubt societal. Fundamentally, there is no death such as the one presented to us nor a life advertised as such. For that which is presented to us as life is not real; it is a simulation that we have come to perceive as reality; it is a mechanical imitation of life. Respect for life, even mediocre respect, demands the end of this wretched, vicious deception.
I am nearly sixty years old but I have not yet lost my childhood curiosity about life. I still wonder about the frontiers of life. I could not grow up within the boundaries of what is acceptable in the capitalist system; to me it seems inevitable that a life determined by these boundaries would be either dishonest or insignificant-or perhaps both! We must value life above all else. Our main task is to understand what life is! Indeed, to understand is to live, to live is to be able to understand. I do not believe that the cosmos could be interpreted in any other way. Although absolute meaning is nearly impossible to realize, I insist that this is the truth that drives life. Nothing can be stronger than the power of meaning: all others cannot evade being displays of pseudo-power compared with the power of meaning.
Thus, coming back to my own reality, these parameters cannot provide an answer to my interest in life. Worse, they are the essential reason for my profound skepticism. I am more than skeptical –I am disgusted. As I started writing this text the highest executive body of the Republic of Turkey and the United States of America, as the highest executive body of the capitalist system, declared the PKK “the mutual enemy of the governments of USA, Turkey and Iraq.” Experience has brought me to a profound understanding of the meaning behind my being in this location and this situation!
In short, the capitalist way of life is not for me. I cannot say that I never aspired to it. But I am totally aware that I have no talent for success. I am also aware that I can never be a “husband-man,” neither in the precapitalist nor later meaning attached to them. I may be ridiculous in the eyes of the system, but I regard this system as dreadfully bloody, suppressive and exploitative; life within it is nothing but a disgusting, terrible existence. Life determined by the parameters of the capitalist system constitutes the opposite of what I believe life should be.
Nevertheless, l have to defend myself. And defending myself as a human being is not only the most basic sign of life, it Is also my fundamental duty towards those who have any claim to a communal life. Furthermore, if I want to take my responsibilities of citizenship seriouslyeven though I don’t share the rulers’ idea of what citizenship entails-then to be aware of their duties too is a requirement of this morality.
Thus, the problem is not whether one lives or not but to know how to live life truly. What is even more important than immediate achievement is to not give up the quest. The capitalist system has developed a betrayal unmatched in history, where actions belie words and words are used to justify actions. Hence, in servitude of the hegemonic system of capitalism, action has been reduced to a mere mechanical tool. Capitalism has been a global hegemonic system for at least the last four hundred years. Consequently, if we do not come to understand the true nature of capitalism, any attempt to establish a form of free life and the development of a program for ensuring it will be hampered by all sorts of diversion –as many historical examples illustrate. We will have to learn to look at the concepts and implementations of capitalist modernity and the implementations thereof with the attitude of a dervish, a prophet, the Buddha; if not, all our attempts to fight it will simply benefit the system. Much has been said and done to counter capitalism, but we must now admit that the majority of these attempts could not escape ending up in servitude to it.
I do not believe that capitalism, although at the phase of being a global empire, is really that powerful. In fact, I think it may be at its weakest stage: it is constantly inapt and prone to breakdown. What has not happened is the correct and competent defense of society against capitalism. Capitalist hegemony is cancerous (and I don’t mean it metaphorically) but we cannot view this system as an inevitable fate. We have to realize that it is the weakest of all hegemonic systems. What is needed is to live communalism correctly and competently. Throughout history we have tried to fight the “strong man” or hegemon by using its own weapons. Replicating its perceptions and actions-similarity in method-has only bred the very image of the system we have tried to overcome. In the process of fighting Rome, many Romes were born. The original Uruk cities still continue to breed themselves in such forms as the “New Iraq.” Little has changed and much has been repeated.
It is important not to exaggerate the power of the hegemony. While no society has ever readily accepted rulers, exploitation, and coercion, neither have they ever assumed that they can’t live without the presence of power. We must rid ourselves of slogans such as “brand new society” and “social forms that differ from all others.” Such empty concepts will not result in anything worthwhile. All societies develop as an existential form of the human species, but in a similar manner. Love that is blind leads to the worst ignorance-whether love for power or sexual love. But when love is charged with meaning it is like Nirvana or fenafilldh (“To vanish in God”), like being fused in truth. It is Ana ‘l-Haqq: it is the state of a just and free society becoming sovereign, or the state of full democracy5.
Karl Marx’s mostly positivist approach to the analysis of capitalism is incomplete and he did not even attempt an analysis of the concepts power and state. I have never found this approach deep enough. While I do understand the concept of exploitation, I have always thought of exploitation as an outcome. To take an outcome as a starting point seems an inadequate approach and, furthermore, politically it implies a state of complete defenselessness. Marx’s work was done during the revolutionary period of 1848 in which, besides the seigneur’s fall and transformation, he observed the bourgeoisie’s walk to power quite well. His work was in the field of political economy, philosophy, and socialism. However, not only did he not grasp the phenomenon of power-which reorganizes itself and, like an octopus, wraps itself around the poor and proletarian majority of society –he could not even avert his own system from becoming its instrument. He was not aware that his own proposed theoretical and practical model has helped to maintain capitalist hegemony. The latest example –where China’s practice has become the strongest pillar of the USA’s hegemonic capitalism– has a lot do to with this unawareness. The strength of capitalist hegemony is due to the race in voluntary slavery it has given rise to. Today, will we find a single worker that would refuse working for wages if higher wages are offered? The situation is truly sad.
The struggle of the worker against capitalism can be likened to the relationship between a husband and wife. If the husband is able to provide his wife with the necessities for daily life, it is really difficult to convince her to struggle against her husband. If the worker is given good wages, it is really difficult to convince him to struggle against his master, the capitalist. Far from being free the worker who jumps for joy when receiving the minimum wage becomes the servant of his master’s system to be used against the societal multitudes. This is especially so when the number of unemployed grows; then a worker with a steady job feels secure-more secure even than a public servant. Just as there is proletarianization of the state bureaucrats, there is bureaucratization of the proletarians. In a way, the mixture of feudal noble-bourgeoisie at the top occurs in a similar manner between the worker-public servant at the bottom.
I am quite certain that I was right not to give in to the village society. lint l was wrong in believing that capitalist modernity could offer an alternative to this way of life. Earlier in my life I made the huge mistake of radically breaking with the village society; even though it had not been democratized, it was far removed from fundamental stages such as nation-state and industrialization. A source of my profound sadness sits here. My father, whom I rarely mention, not only saw the life energy in me, he also saw the bitter truth when he told me, “When I die you won’t even cry.” He was almost as sagely as my mother. He was a believer of the old world. He truly belonged to the world of labor and was a democrat in essence. I still wonder how the capitalist deity could hold such a wretched and deceitful attraction for me.
I think city society, which, like a magnet pulled me away from village society, is the main locus of our social problems. The city-state-classed civilization and the societal form it has caused are the main culprits of not only society’s internal decay but also its detachment from nature. Even the most primitive clan society is not as ignorant about life as the city civilization. In fact, if civilized city society has, during the phase of capitalism, become a total murderer of the environment, this must be due to the systematic ignorance within its own structure.
Rationalism, which has become detached from emotional intelligence, and sexuality, which has long lost its meaning, are the fundamental indicators of the carcinogenic face of capitalism. In order to hold on to power, the system will rely on the nuclear horror; to have cheap labor it will incite a population growth that cannot be borne by our world. All this is related to the essence of the system and especially the way power is shaped. All the world wars, colonial wars and the wars for political power against the entire society, affecting it at all levels, mean nothing but the failure of the system. Liberalism and individualism are often seen as the main ideological axes of capitalism. But I claim that no other system but the ideological hegemony of capitalism has ever had the power to hold the individual prisoner.
Contentwise, it could be argued that the language I continue to use does not differ much from the legitimacy of the system, and that I too am a product of the system. But the place I find myself in is worthy of an opponent of the system. I cannot but profoundly be aware that a committed anticapitalist is on trial; in turn, the system is also tried, although of course it involves much more than simple case law. During the past four hundred years of capitalist hegemony numerous cultures have been wiped out-the area I grew up in is like a graveyard for ancient cultures. I should be considered to belong to the Kurds, who have not yet conceptualized themselves and who have witnessed all these cultures with a graveyard stillness. It hurts to see that even the graves of the cultures who gave most of the early inventions to the world now face being wiped off the face of the earth. The recent savagery in Iraq is, in a way, the revenge of the cultures.
It is essential that we defend Middle Eastern culture against the capitalist system. This, however, cannot be achieved without surpassing orientalism. Reemploying islamism will mean falling back on the most ineffective derivative of orientalism. You may wonder what is left once we have surpassed orientalism, as well as the leftwing and the rightwing interpretations of islamism. This is exactly what must be the starting point for my defense. If not, I shall be no more than a mere mouthpiece for the system.
From its first victory on the shores of North Western Europe and the island of Great Britain, capitalism has continued its victorious march as world-system for the past four hundred years. It has stumbled onto the Middle East’s most ancient cultural centers. In fact, capitalism itself is the latest offspring of this ancient culture-although an unworthy one-that denies its parentage. The conflict between the two runs much deeper than we think. (The war currently waged is really a war between amateurs-a copy of the wars between Alexander and Darius III. With (i. W. Bush as Alexander and Mahmoud Ahmadineiad as Darius.) The dialectical paradox continues intensely and in multiple forms. And not only in dominant circles-the anti-power opposition of society has also extensively stepped in.
I am trying to voice forms of complete opposition to power. Being against capitalism’s extraction of profit is only one of the forms. Being against this is not sufficient to qualify as a socialist. Moreover, it alone cannot constitute a promise of triumph. Failure to carry out resistance and accomplish forms of free life, both theoretically and in practice, with a conductor’s mastery, will result in a fate no better than what is described in the “Curse of Akkad” and the “Nippur Lament.”
My comrades and friends see what I have been through as a grave tragedy. But let them all rest assured that if not for this tragedy, I would not have known free life. While all is worthless how can we look into each other’s eyes! What kind of honor of life can I talk about when I am a son who could not even cry at his father’s death? Don’t get me wrong. At the time of his death in 1976, I had just started on my first visit to Kurdistan at the foot of Mount Ararat, spreading the ideal of a free identity. (I hear that the Kurds from that region, Serhat, still talk about those days with much reverence!) Our reality still stands as it is. It was exactly 35 years ago that I began this march-indeed, this marathon-to freedom. How shall this marathon (where each breath taken, each location visited, each individual taking part can be called a legend in its own right) end?
Even if we could win multiple victories with armies as mighty as those of Alexander, it would most certainly not be the victory of freedom. Military victories cannot bring freedom; they bring slavery; they can only be valued when won in defense of self, friends, and comrades. On the contrary, I find defending myself against such victories as necessary as defending myself against power itself. If I had my own armies, I would consider defending myself against their victories as the greatest struggle.
Far from being honorable and free, life has become a misery. It has lost all meaning. We live in a world of lies, self-deception, and an ugliness that has permeated everything. The fact that I have endured being alone in a small cell for the past nine years has much to do with the outside world being far worse than the lmrali dungeon. And this will form the essence of my defense: although it will be based on exposing civilization in general, the exposing of capitalist hegemony will be conducted in much more depth. There are many indications that signal the end of the system as well as many true sagas that agree with this-but the real problem lies in deciding which sound, free, equal, and democratic values should be communalized out of this chaos.
When we consider that even the capitalist system is trying to rescue itself from itself, it becomes evident how careful we must be in building communality. If socialism, which has a history of two hundred years, has been assimilated by capitalism, then we need to be very careful not to end up with the same fate. Moreover, we cannot regard Socrates, Buddha, and Zoroaster as silent and having uttered their last words. If we understand anything of the philosophy of freedom, then we must eagerly strive to implement their ideas. On the other hand, humanity is in pain. If we cannot respond to this pain, if we cannot stop the depletion of nature, if we cannot reply to the love that has been betrayed, then what kind of life are we talking about?
When asked whether my defense is scientific, I have a question in reply: What kind of scientism? If the essence of science is to “know thyself,” then contrary to widespread belief, positivism, which forms the basis of the system’s official ideology, inhibits this truth. Religion and metaphysics, so severely criticized by positivism, are perhaps much closer to science than positivism. This is especially true for the humanities but also for natural sciences. In my opinion the shallowest metaphysics and religion is positivism itself. At no other time in human history was there an attempt to construct such a profound command over nature and society. This was possible only through a positivist religion and metaphysics.
If we do not achieve “knowing thyself,” even the simplest of scientific efforts will inevitably result in being a dangerous dogmatic religion or philosophy. I am not referring to humancentered ideologies when I talk about “knowing thyself.” I am saying that the cosmos and chaos can only be grasped through introspection and intuitions that do not exclude profound experiences. In due course, I will show that science based on the subject-object dichotomy is nothing but the legitimization of slavery, I will also show that subjectivism is at the same time equal to overestimating and belittling one’s self. I will demonstrate that scientific objectivism is a horrific means of advocating capitalism and its hegemony. Our philosophy perceives life as a whole –attributing meaning to everything from the look of a horse to the singing of a bird; from being respectful to an old sage, to responding to the quest in the eyes of a shy young woman. There is a huge ignorance in the mass production of children and this is the result of an understanding of sexuality that is worse than a genocide. Thus, such a philosophy bases itself on a science that tries to expose the reasons for this in humans and in hegemonic systems as well as a science that tries to analyze the links of life’s evolution.
Capitalism does not advance science, it only makes use of it. Taking advantage of science in such a way not only leads to questions about morals. It also helps to spread Hiroshimas: it ends meaningful life. Can such a life be the victory of science? I don’t deny the technological inventions and scientific discoveries, but I am trying to show that positivism, the religion of scientism, is not science. Unless we rid science of the dominance of positivism, we will not succeed in breaking the domination of any ruler, let alone that of a nation-state. Positivism is the religion of paganism of our times.
After leaving my village I was infected by a skepticism like that of Descartes. I ended in a state where I found nothing to believe in or to devote myself to. This was due, on the one hand, to the tragic loss of the old culture within me and, on the other hand, my fear of never reaching capitalist modernity which was growing to gigantic proportions like a Leviathan before my eyes. I barely believed in myself but I tried to stand on my own two feet. This was no doubt a strange situation. Societies usually find a way to suppress the minds and hearts of its members. Strangely though, I could not see myself as belonging to any society.
Under those conditions I lost my belief in family and village. Enrolling at university, becoming a revolutionary, and my then religiousness were all just for show-ironically enough, my teachers and companions thought I was really clever and a true believer. But I was not a thorough nihilist either: there was just nothing I understood well enough to want to do something radical about. In retrospect, I realize that this was, in fact, a beneficial period. The fact that I was not committed to any course helped me to break away and start anew in my quest for truth.
This aspect of my personality contributed to a better understanding of the hegemonic system’s structural crisis. I had gained the strength to interpret history, too. All this enabled me to not be afraid of chaotic situations but to restore meaning to them and find a way out. When I finally realized that dogmatic beliefs, linear development, scientific certainty and strict laws all have their origins in the very same dominant mentality, I felt immensely at peace. When I intuitively understood the dimensions the function of nature had attained within the human being, I felt my consciousness had burst through. As I overcame my self- estrangement, the source of all fear and doubt, I developed the necessary power of perception and the ability of interpretation that give me the necessary insight and courage to face all situations engineered by humans.
The capitalist stage of city, classed, and state-based civilization is not the final phase of human reason. Furthermore, it is the exhaustion of the traditional reason that capitalism rests on and the emergence of freedom-loving reason with all its richness. In this sense, the age of capitalist modernity can be interpreted as the age of hope.
Notes Introduction
1. This book was originally a submission made to the European Court of Human Rights in 2008.
2. Rene’ Descartes (1596-1650) was the father of methodological skepticism and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. Detailed discussions on this topic can be found in Section 1, Volume I of Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization.
3. Gobeklitepe is described by the excavator Klaus Schmidt as early Neolithic sanctuaries dating back to the tenth to eighth millennium BCE. It is 12 km to the northeast of the city of Urfa.
4. Criticism of Marxism has come from various ideologies and has included economical, ethical and empirical criticisms. Democratic socialists, anarchists, and social ecologists have criticized the notion that socialism can only be achieved through class conflict, the need for a transitional state phase, and the labor theory of value.
5. Ana ‘l-Haqq (“I am the truth”) refers to the teachings of Mansur Al-Hallaj.