Social revolution starting with women

 

NEWS CENTRE - The ‘Free Co-Life’ model was developed under the leadership of the Kurdish Women's Freedom Movement with women's freedom at its centre. The document prepared by Abdullah Öcalan for the 12th PKK Congress presents a call for a comprehensive social transformation ranging from the origin of gender to capitalist patriarchy.

 

In 2013, the Kurdish Women's Freedom Movement put the ‘Free Co-Life’ model on its agenda and considered it as the basis for creating a new society and building socialism. This model, pioneered by Kurdish women, was defined as a quest for social transformation that includes everyone who wants to live free. Following Abdullah Öcalan's call for ‘Peace and Democratic Society’, the PKK convened its 12th Congress on 5-7 May and decided to end the armed struggle. Abdullah Öcalan presented two documents to the congress. The 21-page text written by Abdullah Öcalan on 25 April was published in the 521st and last issue of Serxwebûn newspaper.

 

In the first part of our dossier, we focus on Abdullah Öcalan's evaluations on women in his "Democratic Civilisation Manifesto" and the perspective document he prepared under 7 headings and the philosophical foundations of the idea of "Free Co-Life." We discuss the process of social change from gender differentiation to free co-life.

 

Origin of the feminine-masculine distinction in nature

 

In his perspective written on 25 April, Abdullah Öcalan states that the distinction between feminine and masculine is shaped by the dialectics of nature as follows "As far as we have been able to determine, the division of life into two, feminine and masculine, dates back 300 million years. We talk about these philosophically. Why did such a feminine-masculine division occur? As we said, the dialectic of nature is responsible for this. Everything is dualistic. How did matter arise from energy, how did particles differentiate? Yes, there are particles in the atom; without particles there would be no atom. How does matter turn into energy? Matter, that is, those visible things, the stars, are materialised energy. Einstein's formula E=MC^2 is the formula for the transformation of energy into matter. The importance of the formula comes from the fact that it makes it possible to understand the subject matter here. The feminine-masculine phenomenon is an extension of this. It is not something contrary to the development in the universe. As an extension of it, there is a period when, gradually, instead of a duality in a single being, there is a unification in separate beings... A masculine being emerges, a feminine being emerges, and one divides into two, and from two there is unity again... Gradually a deepened masculine being and a deepened feminine being develop."

 

Transformable naturalness

 

Abdullah Öcalan argues that gender is not rigid, but transformable. He said, "This is more or less three hundred million years ago. Such developments are taking place in both plants and the animal kingdom. Some animals become both female and male depending on the temperature. Therefore, this is not something rigid; it is a transformable, dialectical reality."

 

'Differentiation, not superiority.'

 

He emphasises that being feminine or masculine is not an expression of superiority, but rather of differentiation, stating: "The masculine-feminine distinction is not miraculous; it is required by the dialectics of nature. It does not constitute superiority. Being feminine or masculine does not make one superior. These are not events from which a special conclusion can be drawn. Due to the dialectic of nature, these things will happen; they are happening. In fact, we call this differentiation: without it, there is no life. The meaning of life is linked to differentiation. But how can a single person be both feminine and masculine? Clearly, they cannot live. How can a hermaphrodite man be both masculine and feminine? Traditional morality condemns these people. But I see this as a problem. Through surgery, either the masculine or feminine aspect may come to the fore; both are valuable. If nature divides you into two, you will see this division as a possibility of freedom and difference. This difference has meaning. The feminine has meaning, as does the masculine. This is also reflected in society. The important thing is not to turn them into opposites. Treating them as opposites is the beginning of the problem."

 

The beginning of social problematization

 

Abdullah Öcalan states that gender-based claims of superiority are the source of a historical and social problem, and draws attention to the following: "This is how the social problematic begins. One says the masculine is superior; the other says the feminine is superior. Such things are problematic in a social context. Feminine superiority will develop in the meantime; let's explain this a little further. The other rose as a counter-thesis: 'The superior is masculine.' As a result, terrible philosophies emerged and it became a big problem. I said that social problems began with civilisation, but it seems that they developed much earlier, around 30 thousand years ago. As a result, an extraordinary masculine structure that is different from the female structure has developed, as well as a personality type that differs greatly from both the female and male types. If you pay attention, you will see that there is a tiny difference between the chromosomes of masculinity and femininity. It is a very small difference. After all, thought, which is unique to human beings, has no gender."

 

Birth, childcare and socialisation

 

Recognising that the difficulty of childbirth and childcare led to the formation of the first social structures centred around women, Abdullah Öcalan offers the following observations: "Birth takes place in women. As a species, human birth is different and must be well understood. All studies show that plants reproduce easily; the division of the first cell is straightforward. You know how it is with birth in animals: the young are born and can stand within 24 hours. This is true of all animals. Some for a long time, some for a short time, but it is an easy birth and growth. The mother leaves the young for six months and they survive. However, when it comes to the human species, an interesting situation arises: not only is birth difficult, but the young cannot live alone for five to six years without the support of the mother. In other words, what takes 24 hours in animals can take up to seven years in humans. What does this require? It requires socialisation around the mother. This is because the role of the male is unclear. There is no such phenomenon as a relationship between offspring and males. How did men and women first meet? Both humans and animals have a sexual instinct. This is a basic instinct, just like the instinct to eat. Motives are a sign of vitality. Without the feeling of hunger, there can be no fulfilment and therefore no life. Without the sexual instinct, there is no reproduction, and without reproduction, there is no life. We understand this. But who is the father? Actually, the concept of a father does not come first. In fact, there is no awareness of how or with whom sexuality is established; only an instinct exists."

 

The productive role of women and clan structure

 

Abdullah Öcalan emphasises that the first forms of social organisation were born thanks to the productive labour of women. Abdullah Öcalan said, "The woman who gives birth has to raise the child. She has to feed it; in order to feed it, she has to forage. This requires tremendous labour and effort. We are talking about a history of about two million years. This started in the African Rif Valley, and then intensified in the Middle East. The real acculturation takes place in the Taurus-Zagros valleys. Man becomes man here, woman becomes woman here. We will expand on this a little. The woman will obviously raise the child, because she knows that the child is born from her. The woman probably knows her relatives such as brothers, sisters, one or two uncles, aunts, etc., just as they know each other as a boy or a girl they grew up with. A culture starts with this: 7 people, 10 people, 15 people... The number does not exceed 20. Together they form a clan. The clan is the first form of organisation in the history of socialisation. A clan is a culture formed around a mother."

 

The segregation of social structures: The sociology of women and men

 

Drawing attention to the historical distinction between women's peaceful, production-based society and men's violent, organisational society, Abdullah Öcalan notes the following: "Women gather plants; men hunt and kill living beings. War is the killing of living beings. Killing an animal is murder. It is one thing for women to create sociality around plant seeds; it is quite another for men to strengthen themselves through killing. One group has turned into the current massacring society; the other is still trying to sustain society. Therefore, a culture based on sustaining society is rooted in a sociology centred around women. A society based on war, or a society based on spoils, is male-dominated. Its work is all about surplus value. Marx attributes this to class formation, but this is unnecessary. When the possibility of surplus value emerges, when a plant society emerges around women and food increases, men covet it. He hunts animals and confiscates the food that women collect. He seizes both the food and the woman. That's how the story begins. He kills two birds with one stone."

 

Women's society and male aggression

 

Pointing out that women-centred societies have been destroyed by male violence throughout history, Abdullah Öcalan said: "Yes, women have developed a society and built a home. A woman feeds her offspring; there is a matriarchal society. She became a goddess and ruled humanity for 30 thousand years. Then there is the hunter, who formed special units and clubs, such as the Brotherhood of Men. This club is just a group of friends. The hunters formed a group and would first shoot the animals; if they were successful, they would organise a feast. Then he realises that women are sowing wheat, barley and lentils, and thus develops the Neolithic society by establishing a village. She builds a house. She does this because she feeds and protects the offspring; she has siblings who are her aunts and uncles. They have children, and so it becomes a clan. She produces and invents."

 

Male aggression against female sociality and marriage

 

Abdullah Öcalan summarises how men seize social power by attacking the female community: 'The problem is that the man attacks this women's community based on this hunting club. That is how the problem starts. Is it true?Yes it's. Here are some examples; we see this in Urfa in particular. It's very common. The strong man kills every day through marriage."

 

Criticism of modern domestic violence and marriage

 

Underlining that marriage functions as an institution that oppresses women and causes serious problems today, Abdullah Öcalan states the following "The situation is this: I mean, it is already widespread now; when he gets bored, he kills the woman. Today there is no distinction between city and village. There is no distinction between Urfa and Istanbul. Maybe more in Istanbul. The family problem is a great problem at the moment. I think this stems from marriage and the form of marriage. The sacred family is a story. There is no such sacred family. By confining the woman to the house, she is put in an atmosphere of slavery; she can't stand it. She explodes, cracks and the man shoots her. The newspapers are full of news about this. Not one woman in a thousand shoots a woman, but nine hundred and ninety-nine men in a thousand shoot women. Who can deny it? It is obvious. There is no need to be hypocritical. As a result, this problematic arises from here. It does not arise from class, it arises from male-female relations."

 

Historical traces of civilisation and male domination

 

Stating that the origins of male domination should be sought in pre-civilised social structures, Abdullah Öcalan said: "Is it a problem? Yes, it is a fundamental problem. We looked for clues in the Epic of Gilgamesh, we looked for its foundations in Sumerian society, and it reached its peak in the later state, city and class distinctions. It is in the Torah. There are full examples in the Qur'an. The covering up of Göbeklitepe could also be a male action. As an idea, this could also be a play of male domination. But I cannot say anything for sure. I don't even speculate on this. Göbeklitepe is a widespread culture. There are more than 200 ruins between the Tigris and Euphrates. In Karahantepe, male superiority is reflected as clearly as the superiority of genitals. There are such statues. These male statues were transported to India and Egypt. There is a transition to male supremacy."

 

Agriculture and production boom in Upper Mesopotamia

 

Stating that the production that developed around women triggered social development in Upper Mesopotamia, Abdullah Öcalan continues as follows "But before this transition, for at least 30 thousand years, a society developed around women; there was an explosion of production. The flora and fauna of Upper Mesopotamia is very rich. There is a richness of plants around you. The area around Karacadağ is like this. Barley and wheat were cultivated around Karacadağ. Sheep and goats are being domesticated here. It is a rain-fed region. This is very limited in other parts of the world. Here rain and soil harmonise perfectly. Such a plant and animal explosion develops. People come from Africa and concentrate here. Plants and animals are abundant. You can be a hunter as much as you want or a gatherer as much as you want. You can be both. One centres around women, one centres around men. What happens? Conflict. The man is the hunter and he has a gun. The clash is with obsidian, flint. Weapons still exist around Göbeklitepe. Obsidian is traded. It is the most valuable trade. Obsidian is actually a weapon. Because it is a sharp weapon. This sharp knife is a hunting tool in the hands of the man, and he cuts everyone with it.

 

She's defeated by this superiority. The man, a small club, five or ten mates... He has an obsidian knife in his hand, he kills wherever he goes. (Even I love my uncle very much and he is very dear to me. I don't know my aunts. I know my aunts well through matrilineal descent). In a matrilineal society, the uncle as the brother of the mother is influential in the clan. So this is the preservation of the characteristic of matrilineal society. In this counter-revolution, the matrilineal society suffers a great blow."

 

Attacks on women's labour and social roles

 

In his criticism of the patriarchal order, which is based on the exploitation of women's labour and sacred marriage, Abdullah Öcalan says: "First, their values are taken away, and then men make women and children work like slaves. The woman kills the man in the sacred marriage ceremony."

 

The idea of freedom and individual equality

 

Öcalan points out that freedom must first start in thought, opening the door for women: "We laid the foundation for women's freedom. How can it develop? I told myself that, out of respect for women, freedom must first begin in thought. I said, “Live as you wish, if you have the strength.” They say, 'Let these women and men make love; let them be lovers. If you can do it, do it; I have not put any limits on it. But I can't be responsible for what happens to you.' Right?' All I can do is open a window of freedom. But you see that everything is tied up. If you start on the basis of marriage with whichever man you go to, the sense of ownership is great. So equality is still far from being achieved. At some point, you will get hurt. Even if you leave, how will you survive on your own? Isn't the woman who created the economy now in need of a man, in need of a helping hand? It's a striking situation. When a man doesn't work, a woman goes hungry. However, it is the woman who creates the economy."

 

The female body and capitalism

 

Stating that women have been reduced to objects of property within the capitalist system, Abdullah Öcalan said: "Women have no power over money or the economy and are entirely dependent on men. All money, all technology and all centralised science are in the hands of men. So what happens to women? I call her 'the nightingale singing in a cage' or 'man's ornament at home'. The female body is currently not only a subject of property. Her entire being — her hair, her legs, her soul and her voice — is a subject of property if it is not used in the service of capitalism. Doesn't advertising exploit the female body? This is terrifying. You must own your body. It is your body that men control completely. How can you do it? He sets all your limits and your hours. If he doesn't pay, you starve. I don't want to paint an even darker picture."

 

The basis for a new social exit

 

Abdullah Öcalan explains that the new socialist paradigm must be shaped around women's freedom, saying: "If you lose the idea of freedom, you will inevitably perish. Therefore, our new exit, new socialism, new Kurdish existence and identity, and Kurdish freedom will be developed on this basis." Criticism of civilisation, modernity and female slavery are making great progress with us. We have overcome the problem, at least at an individual level, and there has been progress at a collective level too. In my opinion, this is our most important contribution to socialism. I mentioned this as an introduction based on the scope of 'women's sociality and the problematic."