Do the Kurds validate Orthodox Marxism?

[Tim Cornelis]

Bit of an odd title. My question is do the Syrian Kurds of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) validate Orthodox Marxism? As Q (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=12488) states:


So what is Orthodox Marxism? Put simply we argue that the working class needs to wage a political struggle towards democracy and actual freedoms, fight for a Democratic Republic ... For that to happen our class needs to organise itself into a mass party-movement: Become a "society within society" which carries within it the germs of the future communist society. A mass movement consisting not just of "the party" in the strict sense but also of trade unions, workers coops, community centers, alternative culture, educational collectives, workers sports societies and much more.

So what does the PYD advocate? A democratic republic (not deducted, they actually call it so) based on democratic confederalism (stateless society based on participatory democracy and cooperative economics). They are seeking to realise this through the TEV-DEM, which includes Kurdish-cultural organisations, womens' organisations, associations for "economic self-management" (associations of engineers, physicians, nurses -- it appears to have cross-class relations), the PYD, various "people's councils", committees, houses, and a congress, and is defended by its armed wing, the YPG.

Some copy and pasted fields reports by the PYD (http://pydinfo.com/) about such activities:

The fifth conference of the Star union organization was held in the presence of 350 member from all over West Kurdistan, Europe and Lebanon. Other attending the conference were; the Syrian Woman Initiative, PYD, the Assyrian Union Party, Left Revolution Youth Party, Young Woman Committee, Kece Kurd Movement, Women Protection Units and the Diplomatic Relations Committee of TEV-DEM.

Sere-Kaniye – In the presence of several women of different ethnicities, the Star union organization has opened the woman awareness and education center, this center will be a training location for women to get all required social, educational and political training.

The same kind of center was opened in the city of Tirbespiye as well.

...

Tel Tamer- After the armed groups, claiming to belong to the Free Syrian Army, stole wheat in the silos of Tel Tamer, people requested that the wheat distribution be managed by Kurdish authorities. To solve the bread crisis the Popular council of Tel Tamer city asked their counterparts in Qamishlo to help them secure the flour. The popular Council of Qamishlo previously sent a shipment of 20 tons of flour to Tel Tamir.

...

Qamishlo - the first national democratic meeting was held in the Alkornish district of Qamishlo, in the presence of political and educational organizations.

The meeting explained that they are “a coalition consisting of political, social and cultural elements of the society, brought together to form a common force based on principles of modernity and individual liberties. Furthermore the coalition aims at establishing citizenship rights under the rule of law and facilitating interaction and communication between citizens of western Kurdistan (northern Syria) in order to stimulate public participation, a prerequisite for genuine democracy.

...

Qamishlo- The civil society establishment held a meeting in the Jomaye village in order to form a union to organize and manage their cattle industry.

They formed a general committee consisting of 17 selected members, moreover they formed a reconciliation committee to sort out their issues and to find out suitable solutions. They also formed economic and financial committee for the union.

The question is, is the success of the PYD incidental, or can we emulate its strategies, and if so to what extent?

Personally, I don't understand the advocacy of minimum or transitional programmes, and likewise I do not understand the need to advocate a democratic republic (especially since its similar to a DOTP and its realisation is as realistic as the DOTP, and you might as well go all the way and advocate that instead).

[Igor]

one political party isn't exactly "the kurds" u no

[Tim Cornelis]

one political party isn't exactly "the kurds" u no

That's why I said "'bit of an odd title", and specified the actual question, as the Syrian Kurds of the PYD.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think this is an interesting question. This question was posed to the hero of Orthdoxy, Lenin, on the eve of the Russian Provisional Government, and he disagreed. To quote Lenin:




Let us dwell on the contentions of those who hold to such a point of view. By participating in the provisional government, we are told, Social-Democracy would have the power in its hands; but as the party of the proletariat, Social-Democracy cannot hold the power without attempting to put our maximum programme into effect, i.e., without attempting to bring about the socialist revolution. In such an undertaking it would, at the present time, inevitably come to grief, discredit itself, and play into the hands of the reactionaries. Hence, participation by Social-Democrats in a provisional revolutionary government is inadmissible.

This argument is based on a misconception; it confounds the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution, the struggle for the republic (including our entire minimum programme) with the struggle for socialism. If Social-Democracy sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself. It is precisely such vague and hazy ideas of our “Socialists—Revolutionaries” that Social-Democracy has always combated. For this reason Social-Democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme. Some Social-Democrats, who are inclined to yield to spontaneity, might forget all this in time of revolution, but not the Party as a whole. The adherents of this erroneous view make an idol of spontaneity in their belief that the march of events will compel the Social-Democratic Party in such a position to set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself. Were this so, our programme would be incorrect, it would not be in keeping with the “march of events”, which is exactly what the spontaneity worshippers fear; they fear for the correctness of our programme. But this fear (a psychological explanation of which we attempted to give in our articles) is entirely baseless. Our programme is correct. And the march of events will assuredly confirm this more and more fully as time goes on. It is the march of events that will “impose” upon us the imperative necessity of waging a furious struggle for the republic and, in practice, guide our forces, the forces of the politically active proletariat, in this direction. It is the march of events that will, in the democratic revolution, inevitably impose upon us such a host of allies from among the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry, whose real needs will demand the implementation of our minimum programme, that any concern over too rapid a transition to the maximum programme is simply absurd.
~Lenin

The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what does the PYD advocate? A democratic republic (not deducted, they actually call it so) based on democratic confederalism (stateless society based on participatory democracy and cooperative economics).

I don't agree with their confederalism model. It's too decentralized. How does the PYD define "democratic republic"? I'm not sure it's one more radical than bourgeois definitions of it. Do they call for all public officials to be on average standards of living and related compensation? Do they call for recallability for all public officials?


They are seeking to realise this through the TEV-DEM, which includes Kurdish-cultural organisations, womens' organisations, associations for "economic self-management" (associations of engineers, physicians, nurses -- it appears to have cross-class relations), the PYD, various "people's councils", committees, houses, and a congress, and is defended by its armed wing, the YPG.

Naturally the cross-class relations are problematic, but the institutional approach is to be commended. Why not just bring up the more well-known Hezbollah model, which Mitt Romney praised to his embarrassment?


Furthermore the coalition aims at establishing citizenship rights under the rule of law and facilitating interaction and communication between citizens of western Kurdistan (northern Syria) in order to stimulate public participation, a prerequisite for genuine democracy.

The rule-of-law constitutionalism is problematic, but the public mobilization/participation take is something to agree with.


The question is, is the success of the PYD incidental, or can we emulate its strategies, and if so to what extent?

Comrades or no, I think this should be probed further and discussed.


Personally, I don't understand the advocacy of minimum or transitional programmes, and likewise I do not understand the need to advocate a democratic republic (especially since its similar to a DOTP and its realisation is as realistic as the DOTP, and you might as well go all the way and advocate that instead).

Without the minimum you can't achieve the maximum.

Marx-Engels full minimum program = outright DOTP
Marx-Engels maximum program = communist mode of production
Marx-Engels transitional program = directional/transitional measures for the social transition to the maximum upon achievement of the full minimum

I myself have problems with "democratic republic," and Demarchic Commonwealth is more accurate to describe the full minimum.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I saw a documentary a few years ago about the Kurdish struggle. I know the Turkish and Iraqi parts are Maoist/bourgeois nationalist. As DNZ already remarked, the "democratic republic" ala MacNair, has a lot of room for reformist aspirations. I have not heard a lot about the Syrian party wing, other than that Syrian-Kurdish fighters were aiding in upkeeping the Syrian bourgeois State (presumably because Assad tolerates their authority).

[Tower of Bebel]

TC, I was unable to find any reference to the democratic republic on their website. They seem to propose "democratic autonomy" instead and conflate the republic and individual liberties with democracy, just like the current political establishment of the US. The Democratic Republic, however, was from the perspective of Marx and Engels a synthesis of the petit-bourgeois United States Republic and the French class struggle (proletarian vs. bourgeois dictatorship).

The chief characteristic of democracy is: rule by majority. In a Democracy, an individual, any group of individuals, or even a state or region acting as a minority, has no protection against the might of the majority. That’s why the US Constition did not call the USA a democracy but a federal republic: a constitutionally limited central government of the representative type, with powers divided between three separate Branches: executive, legislative and judicial.

Marx and Engels sought to combine the characteristics of both. Democratic in its economics (class-dictatorship by the workers) and republican in its politics (majority governing with definite rights for minority views), the democratic republic was the only viable form of the class-dictatorship of the proletariat. There probably hasn't been such a republic ever. The Commune was too small and short-lived while the early USSR was a bureaucratically twisted peasant-and-workers' state rather than a model workers' state.

[Tim Cornelis]

I saw a documentary a few years ago about the Kurdish struggle. I know the Turkish and Iraqi parts are Maoist/bourgeois nationalist. As DNZ already remarked, the "democratic republic" ala MacNair, has a lot of room for reformist aspirations. I have not heard a lot about the Syrian party wing, other than that Syrian-Kurdish fighters were aiding in upkeeping the Syrian bourgeois State (presumably because Assad tolerates their authority).

The Turkish were Maoist-inspired in the 1980s, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union moved towards reformist democratic socialism. In 2005 the PKK and Öcalan founded the Koma Civaken Kurdistan, which was to be based on democratic confederalism, a stateless social organisation, inspired by Murray Bookchin. In essence, the KCK-organisations advocate a sort of "anarchism" because the Leader does, a problematic position.

However, the transformation from a rigid top-down movement towards a bottom-up "libertarian" one makes that many members do not understand or want democratic confederalism. Hence we see the PYD advocate a democratic state and republic, instead of a stateless society.

There have been frequent skirmishes between Assad and the YPG.


TC, I was unable to find any reference to the democratic republic on their website. They seem to propose "democratic autonomy" instead and conflate the republic and individual liberties with democracy, just like the current political establishment of the US. The Democratic Republic, however, was from the perspective of Marx and Engels a synthesis of the petit-bourgeois United States Republic and the French class struggle (proletarian vs. bourgeois dictatorship).

The chief characteristic democracy is: rule by majority. In a Democracy, an individual, any group of individuals, or even a state or region acting as a minority, has no protection against the might of the majority. That’s why the US Constition did not call the USA a democracy but a federal republic: a constitutionally limited central government of the representative type, with powers divided between three separate Branches: executive, legislative and judicial.

Marx and Engels sought to combine the characteristics of both. Democratic in its economics (class-dictatorship by the workers) and republican in its politics (majority governing with definite rights for minorities), the democratic republic was the only viable form of the class-dictatorship of the proletariat. There probably hasn't been such a republic ever. The Commune was too small and short-lived while the early USSR was a bureaucratically twisted peasant-and-workers' state rather than a model workers' state.

As I mentioned, there is a discrepancy between the formal ideological positions of the KCK (of which the PYD is part) and what they seem to really advocate. If we are to believe Öcalan's positions, the democratic republic would be based on democratic confederalism, which on its turn is based on directly democratic assemblies of the "Kurdish people" in social, economic, ecological, and political affairs. The "Kurdish people" excludes the capitalist class in the writings of Öcalan. The PYD wrote this about the Democratic Republic:


3. The Principle of the Democratic Republic
Seeing the republic as a model of the nation state is a misinterpretation and distortion of the facts, which is another form of exclusion. The democratic republic is the best form of state system. A country cannot be called a nation state and democratic simultaneously – these are two contradictory concepts. On the one hand, the democratic republic is consistent with the democratic system and, on the other hand, the nation state is a melting pot that suppresses diversity and plurality. Hence, the democratic solution lies in the democratic republic rather than
the nation state. It is, therefore, important to transform or build a republic that embraces all the components of democracy. In addition, the republic should not be given an ideological, nationalist or religious character during the democratic transformation. The republic, in this regard, should be a democratic and secular organisation which guarantees democracy and socio-economic prosperity for its citizens. Social unity and integration can only be achieved through the elimination of both nationalist labels (e.g. Kurdish or Arab) and ideological or religious labels (e.g. Islamic, Sunni or Alawite) from the republic.

Source: The Project of the Democratic Self-Governance in Western Kurdistan (http://www.pydrojava.net/en/index.php?view=article&catid=39%3Adocument&id=84%3Aa-project-for-democratic-self-governance-in-western-kurdistan&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=54)

So ideologically, what the PYD advocates is not considered revolutionary enough by Marxists and anarchists, but the question still remains whether the strategy of the PYD is the primary source of its success or not, whether we can emulate it, and if so to what extent.


I don't agree with their confederalism model. It's too decentralized. How does the PYD define "democratic republic"? I'm not sure it's one more radical than bourgeois definitions of it. Do they call for all public officials to be on average standards of living and related compensation? Do they call for recallability for all public officials?

In practice, the model seems too centralised, too top-down. They do not call for public officials to receive average wages. They make somewhat vague remarks about self-governance, self-management, and Öcalan explicitly names urban and rural assemblies for participation by the Kurdish people as component of democratic confederalism. He also advocates recallability as he mentions:


Democratic confederalism is based on grass-roots participation. Its decision-making processes lie with the communities. Higher levels only serve the coordination and implementation of the will of the communities that send their delegates to the general assemblies. For limited space of time they are both mouthpiece and executive institutions. However, the basic power of decision rests with the local grass-roots institutions.

But as mentioned there seems to be a discrepancy between what is advocated here and what the PYD advocates.




Without the minimum you can't achieve the maximum.

Marx-Engels full minimum program = outright DOTP
Marx-Engels maximum program = communist mode of production
Marx-Engels transitional program = directional/transitional measures for the social transition to the maximum upon achievement of the full minimum

I myself have problems with "democratic republic," and Demarchic Commonwealth is more accurate to describe the full minimum.

The Democratic Republic as advocated by the CPGB strikes me as a DOTP with a bourgeois cover, advocating a parliament and MPs, though recallable. As if they're trying to hide that what they advocate is not just extended democracy, but an actual DOTP. Why not call for the establishment of a 'Central Soviet of Workers' Deputies' (or something sounding less archaic) in place of a parliament?

[Tower of Bebel]

So ideologically, what the PYD advocates is not considered revolutionary enough by Marxists and anarchists, but the question still remains whether the strategy of the PYD is the primary source of its success or not, whether we can emulate it, and if so to what extent.

They are seeking to realise this through the TEV-DEM, which includes Kurdish-cultural organisations, womens' organisations, associations for "economic self-management" (associations of engineers, physicians, nurses -- it appears to have cross-class relations), the PYD, various "people's councils", committees, houses, and a congress, and is defended by its armed wing, the YPG.
The concept behind the minimum programme is valid in today's world because, since neoliberalism, wars and economic crisis have caused such devastation, the task of creating a labour movement has been reinstated as an imperative. We all know that we need to build bridges between the workers' struggles and the socialist transformation of society. But when workers' struggles dont occur, when the class is disorientated and disorganised, that's not thé immediate task, then there is a prior task: to build a fighting labour movement on the basis of conducting daily struggles. The building blocks of this labour movement are not just the workers themselves but also some of the organisations where the workers can currently be found. Like the old 19th century cooperatives or self-help societies. If the PYD is seeking for a realisation of its programme through its involvement within such organisations, then, from an outsider's point of view, I could only agree with them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In practice, the model seems too centralised, too top-down. They do not call for public officials to receive average wages. They make somewhat vague remarks about self-governance, self-management, and Öcalan explicitly names urban and rural assemblies for participation by the Kurdish people as component of democratic confederalism. He also advocates recallability as he mentions

Lots of populist parties advocate one or the other but not both. Italy's Five Star Movement is another contemporary example. Any discussion on the DOTP is off the table unless both of those two points are starting points.


The Democratic Republic as advocated by the CPGB strikes me as a DOTP with a bourgeois cover, advocating a parliament and MPs, though recallable. As if they're trying to hide that what they advocate is not just extended democracy, but an actual DOTP. Why not call for the establishment of a 'Central Soviet of Workers' Deputies' (or something sounding less archaic) in place of a parliament?

The Draft Programme calls takes into account the existence of councils, but doesn't put too much stress on them. Moreover, it doesn't mention the continued existence of the House of Commons. Based on discussions outside that document, however, the crucial element of small-p parliamentarism that is missing from council fetishes is the meeting in continuous session. Council fetish folks might dismiss this as a chatterbox, but you can't grill a public official enough and really hold said official to account when you meet less than a handful of times a year!

[Devrim]

The question is, is the success of the PYD incidental, or can we emulate its strategies, and if so to what extent?


The success of the PYD is not completely divorced from the fact that there was political instability and a power vacuum, and they had an organised armed force to step into it.


I don't agree with their confederalism model. It's too decentralized.

If you think that the Koma Civakên Kurdistan is a decentralised organisation you clearly know nothing about them.

Devrim