Other languages: ITA – GER – KURDÎ
In hierarchical and statist society systems, the most important political phenomenon is the conflict between the democratic element and the war and power clique. There is a constant struggle between the democratic elements based on communality—society’s mode of existence—and war and power cliques that disguise themselves as hierarchy and the state. In this sense, it is not the narrow class struggle that is the motor of history. The actual motor is the struggle between the mode of existence of the demos (the people), which includes class struggle, and the warrior ruling power clique, which thrives on attacking this mode of existence. Societies essentially exist on the basis of one of these two forces. Which mentality dominates, who comes to possess authority, what the social system and the economic means look like—all of this depends on the outcome of the struggle between these two powers. Depending on the level of struggle, one of three, often intertwined, outcomes have occurred throughout history.
The first is the total victory of the warrior ruling power clique. It is a system of total enslavement imposed by the conquerors who present their glorious military victories as the greatest of historical events. Everyone and everything must be at their disposal; their word is the law. There is no room for either objection or opposition. To even think of deviating from the ruler’s preordained plan is not permitted. You have to think, work, and die in exactly the way you are ordered to! What is sought is the zenith of dominant order with no alternatives—empires, fascism, and all kinds of totalitarian practices fall into this category, and monarchies generally strive to achieve such a system. This is one of the most common systems in history.
The second possible outcome is the exact opposite, society’s system of free life—clans, tribes, and aşiret groups with similar language and culture—against the oligarchy of warrior ruling power veiled as the hierarchy and the state. This is the way of life of undefeated and resisting peoples. All manner of ethnic, religious, and philosophical groups not affiliated with the oligarchy that are resisting attacks in the deserts, mountains, and forests essentially represent this social way of life. The most important force of the resistance struggle for social freedom and equality was the way of life of the ethnic groups, based on emotional intelligence and a lot of physical labor, and that of the religious and philosophical groups, based on analytical intelligence. The libertarian flow of history is the result of this way of life based on resistance. Important concepts, including creative thought, honor, justice, humanism, morality, beauty, and love, are very closely related to this lifestyle.
The third possibility is “peace and stability.” In this situation, there is a balance between the two forces at various levels. Constant war, conflicts, and tensions pose a threat to the survival of society. Both sides might well conclude that it is not in their interest to be in constant danger or always at war and may reach a compromise on a “pact for peace and stability” through various forms of consensus. Even though the outcome might not entirely correspond to the goals of either side, conditions make compromise and an alliance inevitable. The situation is thusly managed until a new war arises. In essence, the order characterized as “peace and stability” is actually a state of partial war, where the power of war and the ruling power and the undefeated power and resistance of the people are both present. It’s more accurate to call the state of equilibrium in the war-peace dilemma a partial war.
A fourth eventuality, in which there is no war and peace problem, would arise if the conditions that led to the emergence of both sides were to disappear. A permanent peace is possible only in societies that have either never experienced these conditions or where the primordial communal natural society order and the war-and-peace order have been transcended. In such societies, there is no place for the concepts of “war” and “peace.” In a system where there is neither war nor peace, these concepts cannot even be imagined.
During the historical periods when hierarchical and statist systems of society prevail, all three situations coexist in an unbalanced way, with none able to function alone as a historical system. In that situation, there wouldn’t even be history, as such. We have to understand that “absolute rule” and “absolute freedom and equality” should be considered as two extremes that are, in fact, idealized conceptual abstractions. In the case of social equilibrium, as with natural equilibrium, neither of the two extremes can ever fully prevail. Actually, we can talk about the “absolute” only as a concept with very limited spatial and temporal dimensions. Otherwise the universal order cannot survive. Just imagine that there were no symmetry and no equilibrium. The preponderance of one tendency would certainly have already led to an end of the universe. But we haven’t yet seen this kind of finiteness, so we can conclude that the absolute exists only in our imagination not in the world of actual phenomena. The language and logic of the universal system, including that of society, is one of almost balanced dialectical dualisms that grow richer or poorer in constant flux. The validity and complexity of the social system prevailing in a wide variety of communities is the state of partial war and peace known as “peace and stability.” The people are in a constant ideological and practical battle with the forces of war and power to swing the situation in their favor and to improve their social, economic, legal, and artistic conditions, as well as their mentality. War is the most critical and most violent state of this process. The essential force behind war is the force of this warrior ruling power, and its raison d’être is to seize the people’s accumulation in the easiest possible manner. People and oppressed classes are forced to respond with a war of resistance to defend their existence against this insistent plunder and to survive. Wars are never the people’s choice; they are imperative, however, to defend their existence, their dignity, and their system of free life.
It is interesting and instructive to look at democracy in historical systems from this perspective. To this day, the dominant historical conceptions basically correspond to the paradigm of the warrior ruling power group. The expeditions of massacre for booty and plunder could easily be labeled as “holy wars,” thus, developing an apprehension of a “God that commands war.” Narratives presented wars as extraordinarily splendid events. Even today, the dominant view is that war is a winner take all situation, that what is taken through war has been earned. The understanding of rights and legal frameworks based on war is the dominant mode of existence of states. All of this established the common notion that the more one wages war, the more rights one has. “Those who want their rights will have to fight for them.” This mindset is the essence of the “philosophy of war.”
Nonetheless, it is praised by most religions, philosophies, and art forms. This goes as far as the action of a handful of usurpers being described as the most “sacred” action. Heroism and sacredness have been turned into the title of this act of usurpation. Honored in this way, war became the dominant way of thinking and gained a reputation as the instrument for solving all social problems. A morality that portrayed war as the only acceptable solution, even if there were other possible ways, bound the society. The result was that violence became the most sacred tool for solving problems. As long as this understanding of history continues, it will be difficult to analyze social phenomena in a realistic way to find solutions to problems other than through war. The fact that even representatives of the most peaceful ideologies have resorted to war shows the strength of this mindset. That even the major religions and the contemporary class and national liberation movements, which have all striven for permanent peace, have nonetheless fought in the style of the warrior ruling power cliques is further testimony to this fact. The most effective way to impose constraints on the warrior ruling power mindset is for the people to adopt a democratic stance. This stance is not “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” situation. Even though a democratic position includes a system of defense that encompasses violence, essentially it is about gaining a culture of free self-formation by struggling against the dominant mentality. We are talking here of an approach that goes far beyond wars of resistance and defense; it focuses on and implements an understanding of a life that is not state-centered. To expect the state to handle everything is to be a fish caught on the warrior ruling power clique’s fishing line. You may be offered bait, but only so that you can be hunted. The first step toward democracy is enlightening people about the nature of the state. Additional steps include extensive democratic organization and civil action.