>>2612769 (p2)
<SOCIALISM AS COMMUNALISM: THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF FREEDOMIn classical socialist theory, socialism is defined by the socialization of the means of production and the elimination of class domination. Within this framework, socialism represents a historical stage that will emerge after the overcoming of capitalism. The state plays a central role in this transition process. Planning, distribution, and coordination of production are carried out through the state apparatus. The liberation of society is largely dependent on the success of this central transformation.
While this approach offered a powerful alternative to the destructive effects of capitalism, it also developed its own limitations over time. Socialism came to be perceived less as a vibrant restructuring of social relations and more as an economic and administrative model. Society ceased to be a subject and became an object for which decisions were made. This led to freedom being considered a managerial rather than a social issue.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism creates a significant break at this point. According to him, socialism is primarily the unleashing of society's capacity for self-organization and decision-making. Therefore, socialism is conceived not as a form of state or merely an economic system, but as a social way of life. The concept of collectivism becomes decisive here. Socialism is considered as the practice of society's self-reconstruction.
From this perspective, freedom does not spontaneously arise from the withdrawal of central power. Freedom is embodied in communes, assemblies, and the forms of organization of daily life. The economy, politics, and culture cannot acquire a liberating function without the direct participation of society. Socialism is not a collectivism that disregards the individual, but rather a form of relationality in which the individual is empowered within social bonds.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism does not base its critique of state-centric socialism solely on historical experiences; it also grounds it in ontological and sociological principles. When human beings are considered inherently relational beings, freedom is constructed within relationships. Therefore, freedom cannot be distributed from a single center. If forms of social organization do not produce freedom, then transformations in property relations alone are insufficient.
This understanding of collectivism does not invalidate class struggle; rather, it makes it part of a broader field of social struggle. The labor-capital conflict, gender inequality, ecological destruction, and cultural domination are considered different manifestations of the same social crisis. Socialism claims to produce a response to each of these crises at the societal level.
In conclusion, for Leader Apo, socialism is not a goal limited to seizing power. Socialism is a process of societal self-reconstruction. This process requires a continuous state of practice and action. Socialism does not treat freedom as a final destination; it understands it as a lived experience. In this respect, Leader Apo's socialism offers a perspective of social liberation that transcends the state and power-centric horizon of the classical left.
UPDATING DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM: PROCESS, RELATIONALITY, AND SUBJECT
Dialectical materialism is a powerful way of thinking that understands historical change through contradictions. This is well known. The reciprocal interaction between material conditions and social consciousness forms the basic assumption of this approach. However, this framework has often been limited to the sphere of production. Dialectics has been identified with the laws of motion of the economic infrastructure. This narrowing is not the fault of dialectics; it stems from a particular historical interpretation of it.
Leader Apo's intervention forces us to rethink dialectics from a process and relational perspective. Social change cannot occur solely through the resolution of class conflicts. It also happens through the transformation of the relationships that individuals establish with themselves, their communities, and nature. In this approach, dialectics ceases to be a historical schema progressing in closed stages and becomes a continuous process of becoming.
In classical dialectical materialism, the subject is often considered as the bearer of historical necessities. Class is the dominant actor on the historical stage. This is significant in emphasizing the importance of collective action; however, it addresses individual and social subjectification processes within a limited framework. Leader Apo's approach, however, does not define the subject solely by its class position. The subject is conceived as an existence constructed and transformed within practice.
This update does not relegate material reality to a secondary position; on the contrary, it expands the scope of the material. Economic production relations are an important dimension of social life, but not the only one. Language, culture, gender relations, ecological connections, and forms of political participation are also considered as part of material reality. Thus, dialectics is not limited solely to the labor-capital contradiction; it becomes capable of analyzing the holistic contradictions of social existence.
At this point, updating dialectical materialism does not mean bringing it closer to idealism. On the contrary, it aims to grasp the concrete, multi-layered structure of social life by going beyond idealist abstractions. The material is not limited to what is measurable. Social relations, habits, and common life practices also have a material reality. This acceptance increases the social depth of dialectics.
In Leader Apo's approach, dialectics ceases to be a strategy focused on seizing power and becomes a method for understanding society's capacity for continuous self-reproduction. Contradiction is not an obstacle to be overcome; it is a dynamic that holds the possibility of transformation. This makes it possible to conceive of the idea of revolution not as a singular moment of rupture, but as a long-term process of social construction.
In conclusion, this update does not invalidate dialectical materialism; rather, it reworks it in accordance with historical experience and theoretical needs. Leader Apo's contribution is to transform dialectics from a state, party, and class-centered framework into a society and life-centered way of thinking. This transformation takes freedom from being a postponed goal and makes it a part of today's social practice.
<CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: THE FOUNDATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONTOLOGY, SOCIETY, AND FREEDOMThe central argument is that social freedom cannot be established solely through the transformation of production relations. It is clearly emphasized that liberation will not become permanent without a change in humanity's understanding of existence, its social ties, and its forms of subjectification. This framework aims to make visible the areas that classical left-wing thought historically failed to address, without rejecting its founding intuitions.
Classical dialectical materialism remains a powerful theoretical tool for explaining capitalist exploitation and class inequalities. However, its treatment of freedom as a goal often postponed to the future has created a structural distance between it and social practice. State-centered socialist experiences have shown that this distance has produced both theoretical and historical consequences. Transformations in production relations have progressed alongside new forms of domination when social relations have not transformed.
At this point, the ontological dimension is placed at the center of the study. Humans exist in the world not only within economic relations, but also within meaning, relationship, and practice. Existence is not a static state; it is a constantly evolving process. This understanding does not treat freedom as a completed goal. It makes it possible to conceive of freedom as a form of relationship that is constantly reproduced within social life. In this sense, ontology ceases to be an abstract field of political theory and becomes one of the material foundations of freedom.
The sociological debate, while maintaining the indispensability of class analysis, also reveals that social domination cannot be reduced to a single axis. Male dominance, cultural hierarchies, centralism, and representational relations are historical phenomena intertwined with class structures. The liberation of society requires confronting each of these forms of domination. This makes sociology not only an explanatory tool but also a constitutive component of the practice of liberation.
Leader Apo's understanding of socialism unifies this ontological and sociological expansion around the concept of collectivism. Socialism is viewed not merely as a project limited to the seizure of power, but as the unleashing of society's capacity for self-organization. Communes, councils, and local organizations are transformed from instrumental administrative structures into arenas where freedom is produced. Within this framework, society ceases to be a passive object and becomes the primary subject of liberation.
This approach inevitably draws some criticism. The most common objection is that class struggle is relegated to the background. However, what is being done here is not to exclude class, but to remove it as the sole explanatory axis. The labor-capital conflict remains central to modern capitalism; however, social domination cannot be fully understood without considering the hierarchies and forms of power that emerged historically before class stratification.
Another criticism is the claim that this approach signifies a break from Marxism. It could be argued that the emphasis on ontology and society approaches idealism. However, material reality is not abandoned here; rather, the scope of the material is expanded. Social relations, daily practices, forms of organization, and shared living spaces are also part of the material world. This approach aims to make visible again the suppressed ontological vein of Marxism.
Criticisms regarding the issue of the state and power are also important. The emphasis on collectivism can be questioned on the grounds that it obscures the problem of central power. However, this criticism reduces power solely to the state apparatus. Yet, in modern societies, power is spread throughout all aspects of daily life. The seizure of the state does not automatically eliminate these dispersed networks of power. Collectivism does not conceal power; on the contrary, it makes it visible at local and pluralistic levels.
The view that society is the subject of liberation can also be criticized for romanticizing society. Inequalities, reactionary tendencies, and conflicts within society may seem to be ignored in this perspective. However, society is not idealized here; on the contrary, it is treated as a field of struggle. Freedom cannot develop through the suppression of tensions; rather, it becomes possible through the open experience of these tensions.
Finally, the practical applicability of this approach is questionable. The sustainability of community-centered models, particularly in conditions of crisis, war, and authoritarianism, can be debated. However, this objection reflects the limitations of the existing political order, not the theory itself. Historical experiences show that social self-organization can emerge even under the most difficult conditions. Indeed, the Rojava experience demonstrates precisely this.
Consequently, when ontology, sociology, and socialism are considered together, freedom ceases to be an abstract ideal or a deferred promise and transforms into a lived social practice. Leader Apo's contribution gains meaning in the effort to re-establish this unity and offers a serious theoretical update for contemporary left-wing thought.