Solidarity with Rojava [Archive]

Edelweiss

7th December 2014, 11:26

Solidarity with Rojava. Who else if not us? When if not now?

In the mostly Kurdish area of northern Syria (which is called “Rojava”) a political system of democratic self-government arises since the last three years. The people organise themselves by holding meetings in councils to shape their lives beyond ethnic or religious differences. Women play a key role at this: they organise themselves independently in all domains and are significantly involved in the design of community.

This democratic self-government is protected by the Self-Defence Forces of Rojava, which consists of the YPG and the female brigade the YPJ. It was these brigades together with the PKK who rescued êzidian Kurds from the Sinjar Mountains in September from the inhuman organisation “Islamic State” (IS).
The Democratic Autonomy of cities and municipalities in Rojava has become a symbol of hope for many people in the Near and Middle East. It proves that a peaceful coexistence as well as a just and democratic society will be possible. This particular progressive ideas are hated by the IS. The people of Rojava are willing to offer up their lives for a common defence in the face of IS terrorism.

Turkey tries to eliminate the democratic self-government of Rojava by imposing a blockade against the self-governing territories, bloodily oppressing actions of solidarity in Turkey and tolerating or even supporting the activities of the IS. But also Germany, the EU and the NATO – regardless of their position on IS – are not willing to support the struggle for life in Rojava as the battle for Kobanê shows. Instead the Kurdish organisations are as yet criminalised. The Governments are talking about help but pursuing their own geopolitical self-interests. With that said it’s clear that we must not rely on the states.

It is high time, for putting solidarity to the people in Rojava into practice and not only talk about it. The municipality of Rojava must be maintained – this can only be achieved by Self-defence.
With our signature we make donations to the Self-Defence Forces of Rojava – YPG / YPJ – and call on everybody to do the same. Don’t leave the people in Rojava all by themselves but show your solidarity!
We back the democratic self-government of Rojava by supporting the Self-Defence Force in this current situation.

The Association of students from Kurdistan – YXK
Interventionist Left – IL

Sign the call
Please donate and sign the call via email or online form.

Source: http://rojava-solidaritaet.net/aufruf/call/

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 11:30

Did you read AFed's "analysis" on this?

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 11:36

AFed's analysis is not informed by romanticism and wishful thinking.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 11:55

AFed's analysis is not informed by romanticism and wishful thinking.

Or the facts for that matter.

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 13:29

Anarchists are going full Stalinoid over Rojava. When Stalinists look at revolutions they want to succeed or have succeeded they filter information according to this bias (Gadaffi is mentioned by Afed as well -- there were those whom seriously believed Libya was run through direct participatory democracy). The product of this being historical revisionism. Anarchists, when it concerns Spain 1936, and now Rojava are doing something very similar: trivialising grave errors and overemphasising success to produce a distorted view of reality, and one that in many ways does not conform to or diverges from reality. It was quite refreshing to see a dissident sound come from Afed.

If we look objectively at Rojava it should temper enthusiasm. I'm not sure which "facts" you are talking, but here's what's both crucial and factual:

"it should be pointed out that this [adopting of democratic confederalism] came not from the grassroots of the PKK but was handed down by Ocalan through the PKK command structure"

"As to any change in the structure of the PKK from an extremely centralised structure with Ocalan at the tip of the pyramid into a libertarian federalist organisation controlled by the membership, there is no evidence whatsoever that this has happened. The PKK’s “Democratic Confederalism” is described by Ocalan as “a system which takes into consideration the religious, ethnic and class differences in society", in other words the class system is not being questioned at all."

But the practice of the PYD and TEV-DEM diverges even from Öcalan's watered down 'socialism'. Öcalan's concept is explicitly stateless, the PYD promises a democratic republic instead. If we look at the constitution then it's clear that they are pursuing, on paper, a liberal democracy with parliamentary politics and protecting private individual ownership except in natural resources and such. In practice, even this is a stretch. It's been well reported that the police has fired on unarmed opposition protesters killing a number of them. A crime certainly more severe than US police action. Of course, this is being denied, supposedly they were armed and threatened the police (and of course this is the typical defence used by authoritarian leaders to excuse massacres). This can be downplayed as incident, but more structurally, the PYD and TEV-DEM are imprisoning political opponents without trial or access to legal representation.

WD-PtKopZok

So in other words, what emerges in Rojava is a dysfunctional liberal democracy and there's droves of anarchists giving zealous support to this.

What should we conclude?

".Argue for fully open borders for refugees and aid to these refugees. Highlight the conditions in the refugee camps and of Syrian refugees in Turkish cities forced to beg or to turn to petty criminal activities in order to live.

2. Provide humanitarian aid to Rojava via IFA, which has direct contact with DAF.

3. Encourage and support any independent action of workers and peasants in the Rojava region. Argue against any nationalist agitation and for the unity of Kurdish, Arab, Muslim, Christian and Yezidi workers and peasants. Any such independent initiatives must free themselves from PKK/PYD control, and equally from aid by the Western allies, from their clients like the Free Syrian Army, Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, and the Turkish state."

Additionally, when socialism is out of reach, I would support liberal democracy insofar that political freedom is guaranteed so independent working class parties and movements can operate freely.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th December 2014, 14:00

A few years from now I think people will unfortunately realize they had been taken in by some PR shenanigans on the part of the PKK. What they're offering sounds an awful lot better than what Assad is willing to and is no doubt worlds apart from life under daesh. But conscription and a lack of political Independence has come along with it, and that shouldn't be ignored. We should keep our politics and our knee jerk emotional responses separate in this case.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 14:30

It was quite refreshing to see a dissident sound come from Afed.

Erm, they said pretty much the same thing about the Zapatistas. The AFed line is just the same purist, oppositional stuff -- "If it's not pure anarchism we must oppose it!" It was the same thing with the August Riots.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 14:36

Here is an initial response from Andrew Flood of the WSM. It's nothing substantial, but I think it gives the potential for some good counter-balance to the AFed statement, and I look forward to their more substantial article.

I'm not linking to it but here is a quick response to that woeful statement from the AF on Rojave. I'm going to write a more detailed 'what we should be saying / doing' when I get a few minutes which will be more constructive than this instant annoyed reaction.

That statement is really woeful, it treats the YPG / PKK as the main enemy to be exposed (almost every paragraph serves that function). There is almost nothing on ISIS, nothing on Turkey, nothing on the Syrian revolution & civil war, nothing on the actual economic conditions in Rojava

It presents their turn as simply some sort of trick by Ocalan to get our of jail i.e. "When this failed to impress his captors, Ocalan then took another turn, recommending that Bookchin must be read " and even stranger "an intensive marketing campaign by the PKK towards Western leftists and anarchists in order to look for support and allies" It even compares the YPJ to 'ISIS .. all-female brigades'

All this to build up to the demand that "Any such independent initiatives must free themselves from PKK/PYD control, and equally from aid by the Western allies, from their clients like the Free Syrian Army, Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, and the Turkish state."

In other words the almost non existent anarchist movement in the region must pretend that everyone is equally terrible and fight them all simultaneously.

In conclusion they use the same weasel escape clause they used in 1994 when the Zapatistas emerged "What we are saying might not be popular at the moment, but we feel that our analysis will be borne out by unfolding events."

Well firstly that analysis is popular with a section of the colonialist ultra left and has been for decades. And its also wonderfully safe, do nothing and wait for events to unfold so you can either 'told you so' or simple repeat 'unfolding events' because they will always be unfolding.

What should we be saying?

We should clearly state that ISIS, imperialism, the Turkish state and the Assad regime are enemies enough to take on.

That while the PYD is indeed not an anarchist formation its feminist, direct democratic, social democratic environmentalism is worth defending against the assault of the above mentioned forces.

That the way to treat the PKKs turn is not to present it as a cynical marketing ploy for western anarchists or to get Ocalan out of jail but a moment of engagement with tens of thousands of Kurdish activists both in Kurdistan and across Europe who are for whatever reasons now studying libertarian politics and engaged in experimentation around implementation of some of these ideas in some places.

This is pretty much our view on the situation

Sasha

7th December 2014, 14:38

I was just looking for that post TFU, thanx...

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 15:02

Well to respond to some points raised by the WSM. I'd say the WSM misrepresents what Afed is doing.

"it treats the YPG / PKK as the main enemy to be exposed ... There is almost nothing on ISIS, nothing on Turkey, nothing on the Syrian revolution & civil war, nothing on the actual economic conditions in Rojava"

Because it's a piece about the PYD. No one in anarchist milieus is cheer leading on ISIS, so there's no need for a critical evaluation of them. The statement indeed serves to put the PYD in more accurate light.

"It even compares the YPJ to 'ISIS .. all-female brigades'"

I can't say what the intent was but people tend to always conflate comparisons and equations. Not entirely relevant but I've commented elsewhere on Anarchist Meme's horrid cheer leading of tribal groups' use of women combatants, framing it as some spontaneous popular uprising of sorts. In other words, Anarchist Memes is taking sides with tribal groups in a highly sectarian war, deeply disturbing I'd say. In a similar vain shouldn't we cheer on Iranian regime woman combatants if they were send to fight ISIS? Class independence is thrown out the window, which is very reminiscent of social-chauvinism (social-tribalism? social-sectarianism?) when World War I knocked on the world's doors.

"All this to build up to the demand that "Any such independent initiatives must free themselves from PKK/PYD control, and equally from aid by the Western allies, from their clients like the Free Syrian Army, Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, and the Turkish state."

In other words the almost non existent anarchist movement in the region must pretend that everyone is equally terrible and fight them all simultaneously."

Independent initiatives, independence based on social class, independent from nationalists, independent from political clans, independent from imperialist powers. God forbid! Incidentally, retaining class independence of proletarian groups and clubs is not the same as fighting. An independent proletarian group can oppose and fight one group or actor (e.g. Da'esh/ISIS), and monetarily their efforts would coincide with the efforts of other groups (e.g. YPG and Syriac Military Council) that fight the same enemy without clashing. It means refraining from entering into coalitions with them, retaining independence, refraining from coming under class alien control.

"That while the PYD is indeed not an anarchist formation its feminist, direct democratic, social democratic environmentalism is worth defending against the assault of the above mentioned forces."

Feminist? Shallowly. Direct democracy? Dysfunctional bourgeois democracy. It may be worth defending (may be) but not by surrendering class independence.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 15:16

Well to respond to some points raised by the WSM. I'd say the WSM misrepresents what Afed is doing.

Just to clarify, it's not the WSM who wrote this, it's Andrew Flood.

"it treats the YPG / PKK as the main enemy to be exposed ... There is almost nothing on ISIS, nothing on Turkey, nothing on the Syrian revolution & civil war, nothing on the actual economic conditions in Rojava"

Because it's a piece about the PYD. No one in anarchist milieus is cheer leading on ISIS, so there's no need for a critical evaluation of them. The statement indeed serves to put the PYD in more accurate light.

"It even compares the YPJ to 'ISIS .. all-female brigades'"

I can't say what the intent was but people tend to always conflate comparisons and equations. Not entirely relevant but I've commented elsewhere on Anarchist Meme's horrid cheer leading of tribal groups' use of women combatants, framing it as some spontaneous popular uprising of sorts. In other words, Anarchist Memes is taking sides with tribal groups in a highly sectarian war, deeply disturbing I'd say. In a similar vain shouldn't we cheer on Iranian regime woman combatants if they were send to fight ISIS? Class independence is thrown out the window, which is very reminiscent of social-chauvinism (social-tribalism? social-sectarianism?) when World War I knocked on the world's doors.

"All this to build up to the demand that "Any such independent initiatives must free themselves from PKK/PYD control, and equally from aid by the Western allies, from their clients like the Free Syrian Army, Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, and the Turkish state."

In other words the almost non existent anarchist movement in the region must pretend that everyone is equally terrible and fight them all simultaneously."

Independent initiatives, independence based on social class, independent from nationalists, independent from political clans, independent from imperialist powers. God forbid! Incidentally, retaining class independence of proletarian groups and clubs is not the same as fighting. An independent proletarian group can oppose and fight one group or actor (e.g. Da'esh/ISIS), and monetarily their efforts would coincide with the efforts of other groups (e.g. YPG and Syriac Military Council) that fight the same enemy without clashing. It means refraining from entering into coalitions with them, retaining independence, refraining from coming under class alien control.

"That while the PYD is indeed not an anarchist formation its feminist, direct democratic, social democratic environmentalism is worth defending against the assault of the above mentioned forces."

Feminist? Shallowly. Direct democracy? Dysfunctional bourgeois democracy. It may be worth defending (may be) but not by surrendering class independence.

Yawn. Taking this purist line is impractical and naive. No one is saying this is perfect, they're saying this is what it is. Do you move beyond it by being this oppositional? I mean, what practical purpose are you serving? Fair enough if you don't think there is anything to move beyond, but then you're just an idiot and not worth even talking to.

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 15:45

I'm not sure how to even respond to this type of argument. Apparently, advocating class independence is "impractical", "naive", "puritan" -- and this in response to class independence yet still striving for a functional liberal democracy. The appropriate communist position is apparently surrendering class independence by willingly subjecting ourselves to bourgeois powers and enabling a dysfunctional liberal democracy (a competitive authoritarian system) because it is not perfect but it "is what it is".

This is functionally no different than anarchists surrendering their independence to the Stalinist-lead Republican government in the Spanish Civil War; no different than the SACP backing the ANC against independent workers' organisations; no different than 'communists' entering into electoral and ruling coalition blocs with centre-left parties; no different than Chomsky saying we need to vote Obama because McCain/Palin would be worse.

I'm not sure how solid a foundation revolutionary politics has when it goes out the window at the first obstacle where it is deemed 'impractical'. Certainly, those agreeing with TFU's positions and himself are crossing the class line, and seem to be betraying communist politics. We certainly wouldn't regard the KPRF as communist because of its 'practical alliance' to the patriotic bourgeoisie. A difference being that it is a pillar of the KPRF and not the anarcho-tankies (yes), but still.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 16:04

I'm not sure how to even respond to this type of argument.

Well not responding to it would be one option...

Apparently, advocating class independence is "impractical", "naive", "puritan"

Am I or Andrew Flood or WSM or any other anarchist or communist that doesn't share AFed and your view not advocating this? Are we not advocating it by default of not agreeing with your assessment?

It is purist and impractical and naive to reject involvement in something that has a revolutionary character/potential simply because it doesn't conform to your specific criteria. Of course, you can argue that there is nothing there that would set it apart of anything else but that's where we differ, isn't it. The situation in Rojava has the ingredients to take on more revolutionary politics. There is no tactical or strategic reason to refuse engagement with what is happening there. Your ideological purism is not a legitimate excuse I'm afraid.

The appropriate communist position is apparently surrendering class independence by willingly subjecting ourselves to bourgeois powers and enabling a dysfunctional liberal democracy (a competitive authoritarian system) because it is not perfect but it "is what it is".

Sigh. The option isn't defend Rojava or surrender class independence.

This is functionally no different than anarchists surrendering their independence to the Stalinist-lead Republican government in the Spanish Civil War; no different than the SACP backing the ANC against independent workers' organisations; no different than 'communists' entering into electoral and ruling coalition blocs with centre-left parties; no different than Chomsky saying we need to vote Obama because McCain/Palin would be worse.

Except only one of those examples is actually comparable to the situation in Rojova and that was fundamentally a different situation since class politics was developed. The anarchist surrender to the Stalinists in Spain was defeat of the anarchist revolution. No such revolution exists in Rojava, so how are these two things comparable?

I'm not sure how solid a foundation revolutionary politics has when it goes out the window at the first obstacle where it is deemed 'impractical'. Certainly, those agreeing with TFU's positions and himself are crossing the class line, and seem to be betraying communist politics. We certainly wouldn't regard the KPRF as communist because of its 'practical alliance' to the patriotic bourgeoisie. A difference being that it is a pillar of the KPRF and not the anarcho-tankies (yes), but still.

Revolutionary politics isn't a one size fits all kinda thing and anyone who thinks it is is either a child or a moron.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th December 2014, 16:10

Who would have thought that I could out-ultra left the ultra left

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 16:14

Who would have thought that I could out-ultra left the ultra left

What is the tactical or strategic point of refusing engagement in Rojava? Are you saying that there exists no basis and absolutely no possibility for the situation in Rojava to become transformative?

motion denied

7th December 2014, 16:26

There is this possibility in Colombia and Venezuela. Why not support FARC or ELN and Bolivarian circles?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th December 2014, 16:27

Who would have thought that I could out-ultra left the ultra left

You think you have it bad? I find myself in agreement with Tim Cornelis of all people. People who point to "Rojava" (I wonder how people would respond if someone on RevLeft talked about "Luban" or "as-Suriyah") as "transformative" (what does that even mean?) apparently think that some token verbiage about feminism and "democratic confederalism" means that one nationalist group (the PKK) is on the side of the proletariat.

I wonder if people would be willing to use the same criteria to support, for example, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or other such outfits.

Sasha

7th December 2014, 16:36

in b4 the ICC writes lengthy praise of AFED....

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 16:39

There is this possibility in Colombia and Venezuela.

No there isn't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 16:44

"transformative" (what does that even mean?)

Transform
verb
1. to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose.
2. to change in condition, nature, or character; convert.
3. to change into another substance; transmute.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transformative%20?s=t

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th December 2014, 16:45

No there isn't.

Now there's an interesting claim. What does the PKK-ruled area in Syria have that Venezuela does not? Both have "direct-democratic" bodies, rhetoric about feminism etc.

Not to mention the sheer irony of your statement in light of your previous posts against "purist, oppositional nonsense". Most IMT-ers would accuse you of "purist, oppositional nonsense" for not seeing the obvious "transformative potential" of the "Bolivarian revolution".

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 17:01

Now there's an interesting claim. What does the PKK-ruled area in Syria have that Venezuela does not? Both have "direct-democratic" bodies, rhetoric about feminism etc.

There isn't a revolution in Venezuela.

Not to mention the sheer irony of your statement in light of your previous posts against "purist, oppositional nonsense". Most IMT-ers would accuse you of "purist, oppositional nonsense" for not seeing the obvious "transformative potential" of the "Bolivarian revolution".

Oh my god, not the IMT! :ohmy: How will I sleep at night?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th December 2014, 17:06

There isn't a revolution in Venezuela.

Oh I see, there is no revolution in Venezuela, but there is one in "Rojava". Tell me, how many bourgeois enterprises have been expropriated by the revolutionary "Rojava" government?

Oh my god, not the IMT! :ohmy: How will I sleep at night?

You're missing the point. Quite frankly, I imagine people are going to say the same thing about Anonymous Internet Dude #8425, as well as organisations like "The Interventionist Left".

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 17:23

Oh I see, there is no revolution in Venezuela, but there is one in "Rojava". Tell me, how many bourgeois enterprises have been expropriated by the revolutionary "Rojava" government?

27.

You need to go back to my earlier posts, especially the one that outlines what the word "transform" means.

The only way that the revolution in Rojava can take on a specific anti-capitalist, socialist character is by financial and human support of those elements that are fighting for that politics to be generalised. Rejecting everything that is happening there because you don't like the PKK and PYD is just a very comfortable, detached and puerile position

It's fine to think that there aren't any anti-capitalist, socialist elements in Rojava, but the only way to support that assertion is to claim, as Afed and others have done, that those who claim they are, are just liars. That's not a particularly sophisticated approach, is it? It's kind of like being in a playground.

You're missing the point. Quite frankly, I imagine people are going to say the same thing about Anonymous Internet Dude #8425, as well as organisations like "The Interventionist Left".

Oh, so you have a point?

Sasha

7th December 2014, 17:39

Pretty sure the interventionistische linke have a lot more supporters than the ICL, no need to be disparaging ofa group that just happens to be off your radar.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th December 2014, 17:46

27.

You need to go back to my earlier posts, especially the one that outlines what the word "transform" means.

Do you think so? I think you need to actually put some effort into your replies and argue your point instead of posting dictionary definitions and then brooding about how nobody understands you.

Take this:

The only way that the revolution in Rojava can take on a specific anti-capitalist, socialist character is by financial and human support of those elements that are fighting for that politics to be generalised.

So now we have a revolution that is not socialist (or "anti-capitalist", a term that is either redundant or a sinister attempt to fold all kinds of reactionaries into socialism). What kind of revolution is it, then?

Rejecting everything that is happening there because you don't like the PKK and PYD is just a very comfortable, detached and puerile position

It's fine to think that there aren't any anti-capitalist, socialist elements in Rojava, but the only way to support that assertion is to claim, as Afed and others have done, that those who claim they are, are just liars. That's not a particularly sophisticated approach, is it? It's kind of like being in a playground.

First of all, yes, sometimes people lie about their opposition to capitalism. I can say with some certainty that Doriot, Bombacci and de Man weren't socialist, and neither is Limonov or Renzi.

Second, the PKK does not claim to be socialist, it claims to be "democratic confederalist", which is some horrible pseudo-Bookchinite thing from back when Bookchin flirted with the Libertarian Party.

Oh, so you have a point?

The point is that your grandstanding about how Tim and others who refuse to go along with this charade of "revolution in Rojava" are "purist" and "oppositional" is hypocritical when you exhibit the same attitude to the "Bolivarian Revolution".

Pretty sure the interventionistische linke have a lot more supporters than the ICL, no need to be disparaging ofa group that just happens to be off your radar.

I'm fairly sure they do. That's not the point. The IMT have even more supporters than the IL, the ICL-FI and at least ten more small groups combined. So if TFU can just dismiss the IMT for shitty politics, we can do the same with IL.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 18:12

Do you think so? I think you need to actually put some effort into your replies

Aw you're sweet, but I just don't care about you that much.

and argue your point instead of posting dictionary definitions and then brooding about how nobody understands you.

It's customary to point someone to a dictionary when they don't know what a words mean.

So now we have a revolution that is not socialist (or "anti-capitalist", a term that is either redundant or a sinister attempt to fold all kinds of reactionaries into socialism)

I can see why you think I said it wasn't socialist or anti-capitalist, especially since you love to see whatever you want to see in someone's posts, irrespective of what they say, but unfortunately that's not actually what I said.

What kind of revolution is it, then?

The revolution in Rojava is a political one confined to a larger conflict against an imminent threat of annihilation from radical Islamists. How will that revolution escalate? Well that's to be seen.

The difference between Rojava and the so-called Bolivarian Revolution is that in Rojava there is actually the space and opportunity to transform an armed conflict into a genuine revolutionary situation. Does that exist in Venezuela? In order to come close it would require me to support an anti-worker state capitalist government...

Second, the PKK does not claim to be socialist

Lucky I didn't say it was then, ay?

The point is that your grandstanding about how Tim and others who refuse to go along with this charade of "revolution in Rojava" are "purist" and "oppositional" is hypocritical when you exhibit the same attitude to the "Bolivarian Revolution".

I love that you tell me to make more of an effort with my posts without any hint of irony.

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 18:37

Read the constitution that of Rojava: private property is guaranteed, natural resources and such are public property. This is to the right of the Bolivarian revolution. And, incidentally, coincides with the Donetsk People's Republic constitution. So then is there a socialist revolution in Rojava, DPR, and Venezuela? Certainly not.

"The difference between Rojava and the so-called Bolivarian Revolution is that in Rojava there is actually the space and opportunity to transform an armed conflict into a genuine revolutionary situation. Does that exist in Venezuela? In order to come close it would require me to support an anti-worker state capitalist government..."

But you support a state that wants to nationalise less than the Venezuelan state?

And how is there space and opportunity to transform an armed conflict into a genuine revolutionary situation? I don't see how.

Incidentally, I would support the people's mujahadeen in Iran to an extend, insofar they are committed to liberal democracy, and the communists remain class independent.

-------
What is a revolution? It's the transformation of the social relations of production. In the case of a socialist revolution it is the transformation/negation of wage-labour into associated labour. What it will require to transform the relations of production in Rojava is the expropriation of private property, which the constitution guarantees. Additionally, the Rojava state has imprisoned political opponents without trial. I very much doubt they will permit you to go around breaking their constitution.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 19:00

Read the constitution that of Rojava: private property is guaranteed, natural resources and such are public property. This is to the right of the Bolivarian revolution. And, incidentally, coincides with the Donetsk People's Republic constitution. So then is there a socialist revolution in Rojava, DPR, and Venezuela? Certainly not.

Yeah, it's a shitty constitution.

But you support a state that wants to nationalise less than the Venezuelan state?

You see this is your problem and one you share with 870. As soon as someone disagrees with your opinion the immediate assumption is that they must take the diametrically opposite view.

I don't support any state.

And how is there space and opportunity to transform an armed conflict into a genuine revolutionary situation? I don't see how.

Why would you? Are you on the ground? Have you spoken to people involved in the situation there?

With socialist elements on the ground in armed conflict, the possibility to transform the situation there into something specific is possible. Perhaps it is remote, perhaps people have too much opportunism, but it is possible.

What is a revolution? It's the transformation of the social relations of production. In the case of a socialist revolution it is the transformation/negation of wage-labour into associated labour. What it will require to transform the relations of production in Rojava is the expropriation of private property, which the constitution guarantees.

Well lets help and support elements that want to achieve that instead of just rejecting it out of hand. The situation is more complicated than "PKK bad." Most (all) bourgeois constitutions protect private property, that's why we need to fight against it. This is why the support of those in conflict in a situation of transformation is vital.

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 19:09

Yeah, it's a shitty constitution.

You see this is your problem and one you share with 870. As soon as someone disagrees with your opinion the immediate assumption is that they must take the diametrically opposite view.

I don't support any state.

Why would you? Are you on the ground? Have you spoken to people involved in the situation there?

With socialist elements on the ground in armed conflict, the possibility to transform the situation there into something specific is possible. Perhaps it is remote, perhaps people have too much opportunism, but it is possible.

Well lets help and support elements that want to achieve that instead of just rejecting it out of hand. The situation is more complicated than "PKK bad." Most (all) bourgeois constitutions protect private property, that's why we need to fight against it. This is why the support of those in conflict in a situation of transformation is vital.

So we need to fight against it. It being the PYD, the PKK, which have establish it and defend it (a bourgeois state based on private property). Your positions are mutually exclusive.

Zukunftsmusik

7th December 2014, 19:49

Well lets help and support elements that want to achieve that instead of just rejecting it out of hand. The situation is more complicated than "PKK bad." Most (all) bourgeois constitutions protect private property, that's why we need to fight against it. This is why the support of those in conflict in a situation of transformation is vital.

Which are these "elements that want to achieve [this]"?

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 21:27

Which are these "elements that want to achieve [this]"?

Well. Here is where it starts to get controversial, because I do actually think, based on the evidence, that the PKK rank-and-file, as well as YPG/YPJ take the ideas of socialism seriously, as well as the international comrades from the left who have gone there to fight.

Now I've heard the contrary arguments from people who are far more knowledgeable and credible than Tim and 870, but I have seen my argument defended from people who are equally knowledgeable and equally credible. The conclusion of this is that, in my view, while the PKK leadership and the situation on the ground is not ideal it has the potential to become ideal. This is because there are people fighting for socialism on the ground who want to see its success. Is it possible to be successful? I don't know? Is it worth supporting? Yes. That is obviously a view that other people can, and I'm sure will, come to themselves.

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 22:02

Could you inform me about why I am not credible or knowledgeable? That seems like a cheap insult now that you're cornered, a cop out. Since now I'm not credible or knowledgeable, I'm below response I'm guessing.

I'd really like to know how you know I'm not credible or knowledgeable and what your standard for these are. I have been following the developments in Kurdish Syria very closely through a variety of sources, I have read various texts by and about the PKK and Öcalan, and have translated two texts by Öcalan. Apparently, the 'pro-Rojava' crowd thought I was plenty knowledgeable and credible when I provided information about Rojava (judging by the likes and thanks I got back then), but now that I've gathered more knowledge and information and have ceased romanticising (thus becoming more objective), I get accused of being neither credible and knowledgeable by TFU. Odd.

It's difficult to gauge exactly what people intent on the Internet but I keep getting the feel that often you use these underhanded tactics, which, at this point, start to annoy me on a personal level.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 22:08

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 22:58

Frankly I couldn't care less how much I annoy you, or for that matter, how fragile your ego is.

This is quite a telling thing to say. It gives an interesting insight into how you view discussion here.

I've actually been contemplating for a bit how to respond to this. I don't understand why you feel the need to steer up personal beef, when I've felt no personal animosity toward you. I think it's unfortunate, and for some reason, no doubt some deeper semi-unconscious reason, it upset me.

Well, on the one hand you said you don't support any state while simultaneously supporting a bourgeois state. You say we need to fight against this bourgeois state and its constitutional order, yet we also need to support elements like the socialists in the PYD, YPG/J and PKK, which uphold the bourgeois state and its constitutional order by fighting and killing for it. So your positions are mutually exclusive. Me pointing this out lands me the underhanded accusation (indirectly addressing me) that I am scarcely knowledgeable or credible even though you have no reason to say this and can't substantiate it. It's completely unnecessary -- I don't see why you need to go down that road. I think it's logical that after exposing a contradiction in your arguments and then choosing to ignore me and tell someone else that I lack the appropriate knowledge and credibility means you were cornered. You stray from content into insults, a solid indication of this in my view.

I think it's unfortunate that you choose to insult me and get personal, and disregard my feelings. I don't really understand why you couldn't care less. Lately, especially when I've had non-political friendly interaction with people, I approach them friendly even when it bugs me how they act politically. Maybe I have a need to be liked ("ego"), one that you don't share. We had a little bit of friendly and light-hearted interaction recently, so I expected that this would factor in, but apparently not, and maybe I was wrong to expect that. Nevertheless, I don't think it's too much to ask to interact respectfully and maturely with each other -- even though we are responding to avatars and usernames instead of face-to-face interaction. So I guess I'm a bit disappointed.

Sasha

7th December 2014, 23:10

I've actually been contemplating for a bit how to respond to this. I don't understand why you feel the need to steer up personal beef, when I've felt no personal animosity toward you. I think it's unfortunate, and for some reason, no doubt some deeper semi-unconscious reason, it upset me.

dont be, TAT can be a massive dick, he is working on his issues ;)

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 23:16

I don't understand why you feel the need to steer up personal beef

What actually happened Tim, was that I said I had spoken to people who were more knowledgeable and more credible than you are and you took this as some kind of personal attack.

That wasn't an attempt to belittle you. Obviously you don't like people asserting that you are not as knowledgeable and credible as other people, so you took it personally. That's not my fault.

I can't be held responsible for the fact that for whatever reason you felt the need to spend 200 words correcting someone you don't know on the internet about how you are, in fact, knowledgeable and credible...You don't know me, why do you care what I think about you?

I meant no personal offence and it's unfortunate that you took it that way. But I don't understand why you -- or anyone for that matter -- would expect me to care that someone I don't know is annoyed by some perceived insult.

on the one hand you said you don't support any state while simultaneously supporting a bourgeois state.

I have not given support for the KSC. I have argued that we should support the rank-and-file of the PKK, the KCK, YPJ/YPG and any communist international comrades.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be critical of the PKK etcetera, but there are genuine attempts to implement socialism (or democratic confederalism if that's what they're calling it -- which I maintain is a step in the right direction) in parts of Kurdistan, and there is the potential for it to become more specific, generalise and escalate.

PYD, YPG/J and PKK

The YPJ/YPG and PKK are not fighting for a bourgeois state. That is a lie. And it is a lie that is only ever substantiated by "well the PKK are liars."

I don't think it's too much to ask to interact respectfully and maturely with each other

Which apparently translate into me having to think you're knowledgeable and credible...I'm sorry, I'm not going to be emotionally blackmailed into thinking something I don't.

Dodo

7th December 2014, 23:21

Anarchists are going full Stalinoid over Rojava
Who are these anarchists? Is this like a universal thing all anarchists follow?Is this something between you and anarchists?
In Turkey, a lot of non-anarchist groups are not only supporting but even joining the ranks. Others are openly against it and some even see it as "games of imperialists".

I don't really get your insistence on harsh critique however. Even assuming everything you say is right, you are looking at a -deterministic- result in your head....this is a movement in the making, things aren't set in stone and there is great potential. So lets support it and make it something better for the future. There indeed is a lot of things to romanticize here, especially if you take it in its relational context. The nature of revolution does not have to be the same as in how things progress in Europe...the social dynamics here are very different.
Like some other poster said, I'd just like to point to Zapatistas when it comes to this issue. There are not only significant similarities but in theoretical papers there are open references to latin american models and social critiques.

ps: Öcalan has been in a Turkish prison since 1999 and there is a massive political context on the background. The things here are way to personal to be using a classical revolutionary rhetoric. He talking with the state and trying to find a middle-ground himself while his organisations is separating over various issues and there are countless other variables in the midde-freaking-east.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 23:23

Like some other poster said, I'd just like to point to Zapatistas when it comes to this issue. There are not only significant similarities but in theoretical papers there are open references to latin american models and social critiques.

I think for people in the West the history of the PKK and the whole Ocalan obsession makes people hostile and/or suspicious which to be honest, is fair enough.

Dodo

7th December 2014, 23:33

I think for people in the West the history of the PKK and the whole Ocalan obsession makes people hostile and/or suspicious which to be honest, is fair enough.

Those people learn history out of context. I am not going to try to white-wash PKK but are these people even aware under what circumstances PKK emerged? What sort of issues came out, how Turkey reacted, how society reacted how PKK adapted?
Öcalan's personality cult is something even PKK mentions in theoretical papers. And they openly state that majority of Kurds have created a resistance spirit but not a political one which they can use to critique towards future on their own. Thus, Öcalan's cult is being used by PKK to keep people together while political, social and military activity goes on to gain ground on all fields.

I know how it looks to western Marxists who are well educated and have access to a lot of things, but the majority of the people we talk of are living the same way they lived for more than a thousand years...There is a lot more to be gained here, unless they have a "menshevik" attitude as 870 would put to wait for development of capitalism to fill the requirements and stages of dogmatized historical materialism.

Tim Cornelis

7th December 2014, 23:37

What actually happened Tim, was that I said I had spoken to people who were more knowledgeable and more credible than you are and you took this as some kind of personal attack.

That wasn't an attempt to belittle you. Obviously you don't like people asserting that you are not as knowledgeable and credible as other people, so you took it personally. That's not my fault.

I can't be held responsible for the fact that for whatever reason you felt the need to spend 200 words correcting someone you don't know on the internet about how you are, in fact, knowledgeable and credible...You don't know me, why do you care what I think about you?

I meant no personal offence and it's unfortunate that you took it that way. But I don't understand why you -- or anyone for that matter -- would expect me to care that someone I don't know is annoyed by some perceived insult.

I have not given support for the KSC. I have argued that we should support the rank-and-file of the PKK, the KCK, YPJ/YPG and any communist international comrades.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be critical of the PKK etcetera, but there are genuine attempts to implement socialism (or democratic confederalism if that's what they're calling it -- which I maintain is a step in the right direction) in parts of Kurdistan, and there is the potential for it to become more specific, generalise and escalate.

The YPJ/YPG and PKK are not fighting for a bourgeois state. That is a lie. And it is a lie that is only ever substantiated by "well the PKK are liars."

Which apparently translate into me having to think you're knowledgeable and credible...I'm sorry, I'm not going to be emotionally blackmailed into thinking something I don't.

You stopped responding to me personally and instead choose to devalue my contribution using an unsubstantiated claim. Admittedly, I put too much weight on that. But I guess I expect socialists to be sociable and respectful also toward strangers.

Regardless, it isn't a lie that the PKK fight for a bourgeois state, and certainly not a lie that can only be substantiated by "well the PKK are liars". They openly admit they are fighting in Rojava and therefore the state administration in place that protects private property, a bourgeois state. I have seen no evidence of a transformation of the social relations of production, which would, moreover, be unconstitutional.

Who are these anarchists? Is this like a universal thing all anarchists follow?Is this something between you and anarchists?
In Turkey, a lot of non-anarchist groups are not only supporting but even joining the ranks. Others are openly against it and some even see it as "games of imperialists".

I don't really get your insistence on harsh critique however. Even assuming everything you say is right, you are looking at a -deterministic- result in your head....this is a movement in the making, things aren't set in stone and there is great potential. So lets support it and make it something better for the future. There indeed is a lot of things to romanticize here, especially if you take it in its relational context. The nature of revolution does not have to be the same as in how things progress in Europe...the social dynamics here are very different.
Like some other poster said, I'd just like to point to Zapatistas when it comes to this issue. There are not only significant similarities but in theoretical papers there are open references to latin american models and social critiques.

ps: Öcalan has been in a Turkish prison since 1999 and there is a massive political context on the background. The things here are way to personal to be using a classical revolutionary rhetoric. He talking with the state and trying to find a middle-ground himself while his organisations is separating over various issues and there are countless other variables in the midde-freaking-east.

We've had this discussion before. I don't think it's really useful to repeat it. Your conception of socialism is at odds with mine and it is, I'd say, contrary to Marxism. As for the Zapatistas (a new issue): the Zapatistas have actually built organs of popular control, whereas the PYD seeks to establish a bourgeois democracy, and it even fails at that.

The Feral Underclass

7th December 2014, 23:54

Regardless, it isn't a lie that the PKK fight for a bourgeois state, and certainly not a lie that can only be substantiated by "well the PKK are liars". They openly admit they are fighting in Rojava and therefore the state administration in place that protects private property, a bourgeois state.

The argument that PKK is fighting against ISIS in Rojava ergo fighting for a bourgeois state is an incredibly simplistic and disingenuous analysis of the situation.

I have seen no evidence of a transformation of the social relations of production, which would, moreover, be unconstitutional.

In the organisation part of your profile it says Communist Platform. I assume this is the Dutch Communist Platform that Q is part of or is it a joke or what? Are you connected or sympathetic to an organisation?

I ask because I am trying to understand your politics here. The basis of your objection to my argument is that what is happening in Rojava with the PKK etcetera is not a "transformation of the social relations of production" and therefore we should oppose the PKK etcetera...Does that mean you support nothing that does not transform social relations of production?

the Zapatistas have actually built organs of popular control, whereas the PYD seeks to establish a bourgeois democracy, and it even fails at that.

The KCK are trying to do exactly that...

Out of interest, has Dodo or I or anyone else in this thread actually said they support the PYD?

Dodo

8th December 2014, 00:11

We've had this discussion before. I don't think it's really useful to repeat it. Your conception of socialism is at odds with mine and it is, I'd say, contrary to Marxism. As for the Zapatistas (a new issue): the Zapatistas have actually built organs of popular control, whereas the PYD seeks to establish a bourgeois democracy, and it even fails at that.

Fair enough, but if you are going to critique this on an open forum then I have the right to challenge it no?

PKK did not take control on an area where they have absolute support and are under constant military threat. What do you expect them to establish or what do you want them to move on with, popular politics?
In addition, in the context of the issue at hand, talking of a theoretical socialism to establish is meaningless....is the point establishing of THE socialism, or emancipation from whatever is at hand.....in the said region, there is simply way to much to be solved, for the sake of WHOLE middle east...and that makes it a crucial point to revolutionaries all over the world. The experience of Rojava can be a decisive turning point by sending transformatory waves in the region. I for one see MASSIVE results in Turkey just by the people actually seeing whats happening there as opposed to the PKK the state has portrayed for decades.

Rojava and PKK are no united set in stone movements, and the good thing with them is that they leave an open mind for potential changes in the future...a society that have the seeds of a potentially better future in a shithole.
If you are going to turn your back on this because they have not abolished private property just to satisfy the ancient rhetoric and its weird ego, what are you ever going to support? Are you going to wait for the perfect moment of an inevitable history or are you going to take active part in the formation of future by fleshing out the negation of now?

In case you had not noticed, the structure at hand had almost lost 1/3 of its land and a massive portion of its population and turned it around by a coalition intervention....you expect these people to go and open Lenin posters and abolish private property? You have to decide between being a theory obsessed intellectual elitist that is detached from real-politics or fit into concrete situations to push your agenda is what I say.

note for you debate with TFU; PKK is not fighting for a bourgeoisie state,its that Rojava has a republican constitution. Rojava and PKK are not identical, they just have the same ideological path and the same leader(which does not have direct control) but not the same "leadership".

Tim Cornelis

8th December 2014, 00:15

The argument that PKK is fighting against ISIS in Rojava ergo fighting for a bourgeois state is an incredibly simplistic and disingenuous analysis of the situation.

How so? The YPG is the army of the TEV-DEM state administration, the TEV-DEM is a bourgeois system. The PKK fights under the same banner, and is essentially indistinguishable.

In the organisation part of your profile it says Communist Platform. I assume this is the Dutch Communist Platform that Q is part of or is it a joke or what? Are you connected or sympathetic to an organisation?

Yes, I'm a member of that.

I ask because I am trying to understand your politics here. The basis of your objection to my argument is that what is happening in Rojava with the PKK etcetera is not a "transformation of the social relations of production" and therefore we should oppose the PKK etcetera...Does that mean you support nothing that does not transform social relations of production?

I've made roughly two arguments, first: the refusal to surrender class independence, as the Afed advocates: "Encourage and support any independent action of workers and peasants in the Rojava region. Argue against any nationalist agitation and for the unity of Kurdish, Arab, Moslem, Christian and Yezidi workers and peasants. Any such independent initiatives must free themselves from PKK/PYD control, and equally from aid by the Western allies, from their clients like the Free Syrian Army, Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, and the Turkish state."

Second: there is no socialist development unless there is a transformation of the relations of production into associated labour. From this perspective it's inaccurate to speak of a socialist development or anything alike that.

The KCK are trying to do exactly that...

No, as the Afed rightly points out: " after decades of Stalinised nationalism, apparently turning overnight into some sort of organisation advocating Bookchinite libertarian municipalism, it should be pointed out that this came not from the grassroots of the PKK but was handed down by Ocalan through the PKK command structure". Given the discrepancy between what Öcalan says and what the constituent parties of the KCK, especially the PYD, say and do it seems that the leadership with effective control have not had the same paradigm shift Öcalan has had. The KCK is formally, on paper, dedicated to grassroots democracy. In practice, as I've already pointed out, the PYD, which is in power, has established a legal framework for liberal democracy, and in practice this liberal democracy is dysfunctional.

Crucially, since the PYD is a bourgeois movement, we need class independence from it.

Out of interest, has Dodo or I or anyone else in this thread actually said they support the PYD?

I'm not sure. Opposition to the PYD has been rejected. Class independence from the PYD has been rejected.

Fair enough, but if you are going to critique this on an open forum then I have the right to challenge it no?

PKK did not take control on an area where they have absolute support and are under constant military threat. What do you expect them to establish or what do you want them to move on with, popular politics?
In addition, in the context of the issue at hand, talking of a theoretical socialism to establish is meaningless....is the point establishing of THE socialism, or emancipation from whatever is at hand.....in the said region, there is simply way to much to be solved, for the sake of WHOLE middle east...and that makes it a crucial point to revolutionaries all over the world. The experience of Rojava can be a decisive turning point by sending transformatory waves in the region. I for one see MASSIVE results in Turkey just by the people actually seeing whats happening there as opposed to the PKK the state has portrayed for decades.

Rojava and PKK are no united set in stone movements, and the good thing with them is that they leave an open mind for potential changes in the future...a society that have the seeds of a potentially better future in a shithole.
If you are going to turn your back on this because they have not abolished private property just to satisfy the ancient rhetoric and its weird ego, what are you ever going to support? Are you going to wait for the perfect moment of an inevitable history or are you going to take active part in the formation of future by fleshing out the negation of now?

In case you had not noticed, the structure at hand had almost lost 1/3 of its land and a massive portion of its population and turned it around by a coalition intervention....you expect these people to go and open Lenin posters and abolish private property? You have to decide between being a theory obsessed intellectual elitist that is detached from real-politics or fit into concrete situations to push your agenda is what I say.

note for you debate with TFU; PKK is not fighting for a bourgeoisie state,its that Rojava has a republican constitution. Rojava and PKK are not identical, they just have the same ideological path and the same leader but not the same "leadership".

I'll respond to this tomorrow.

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 00:59

How so? The YPG is the army of the TEV-DEM state administration, the TEV-DEM is a bourgeois system. The PKK fights under the same banner, and is essentially indistinguishable.

That last part is just not true. Even a cursory look at their website can demonstrate that's just bollocks.

But yeah, many socialists have fought under the banner and alongside lots of people with shitty politics throughout history. It's nothing new. Is there a case to call for the PKK to break with all the other groups that don't conform to their politics, well I guess so, but that doesn't seem very sensible right now.

Yes, I'm a member of that.

So you do support measures by socialists that don't have the immediate consequence of the "transformation of the social relations of production," so what is the actual problem?

I've made roughly two arguments, first: the refusal to surrender class independence

What does that actually mean in practice though? Is "the refusal to surrender class independence" about forwarding a socialist agenda while dealing with the realities on the ground or is it just declaring independence from everyone you disagree with and a rejection of any activity that does not involve immediate transformation of social relations...

as the Afed advocates: "Encourage and support any independent action of workers and peasants in the Rojava region. Argue against any nationalist agitation and for the unity of Kurdish, Arab, Moslem, Christian and Yezidi workers and peasants. Any such independent initiatives must free themselves from PKK/PYD control, and equally from aid by the Western allies, from their clients like the Free Syrian Army, Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, and the Turkish state."

So basically something that's impractical and unrealistic at the moment.

Second: there is no socialist development unless there is a transformation of the relations of production into associated labour. From this perspective it's inaccurate to speak of a socialist development or anything alike that.

How do you get to that point? Having an "independent initiative" is not really realistic right now. And how do you account for the economic cooperatives, the communes in the towns and villages, self-rule, direct democracy, the system of federalism and the free confederation that even KAF acknowledge exists...?

KAF also acknowledge that there are anarchists and communists in the PKK/YPG who are attempting to advance the agenda Ocalan has set and who are helping implement these policies. Is it a transformation of the relations of production -- no, not yet, but it's a step in the right direction. But imagine how things could change if the communes and commune committees started taking on a specific socialist character?

No, as the Afed rightly points out: " after decades of Stalinised nationalism, apparently turning overnight into some sort of organisation advocating Bookchinite libertarian municipalism, it should be pointed out that this came not from the grassroots of the PKK but was handed down by Ocalan through the PKK command structure". Given the discrepancy between what Öcalan says and what the constituent parties of the KCK, especially the PYD, say and do it seems that the leadership with effective control have not had the same paradigm shift Öcalan has had. The KCK is formally, on paper, dedicated to grassroots democracy. In practice, as I've already pointed out, the PYD, which is in power, has established a legal framework for liberal democracy, and in practice this liberal democracy is dysfunctional.

But this analysis doesn't correspond with views on the ground.

https://libcom.org/news/experiment-west-kurdistan-syrian-kurdistan-has-proved-people-can-make-changes-zaher-baher-2

https://libcom.org/library/social-revolution-will-sweep-turkey-kurdistan-sooner-or-later

Opposition to the PYD has been rejected. Class independence from the PYD has been rejected.

Where?

Devrim

8th December 2014, 08:30

The difference between Rojava and the so-called Bolivarian Revolution is that in Rojava there is actually the space and opportunity to transform an armed conflict into a genuine revolutionary situation.

What sort of class forces do you think are going to transform this situation? All we have heard so far is the need to support 'socialists' in the PKK. This though raises the question of whether revolutions are fought by classes, or by groups of 'socialists' who are members of ethnic militias.

Much of the left seems desperate these days. The idea that the revolution is coming from some nationalist gang in the villages on the dusty plains of Syrian Kurdistan is absurd. Yet none of them seemed to have noticed it yet.

My piece on the situation can be read here. (http://libcom.org/blog/bloodbath-syria-class-war-or-ethnic-war-03112014)

Devrim

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 13:52

What is the tactical or strategic point of refusing engagement in Rojava? Are you saying that there exists no basis and absolutely no possibility for the situation in Rojava to become transformative?

Sure, I think it could be transformative but I don't think it's uniquely positioned to be any more transformative than anywhere else at the moment. A minimum requirement for change in this particular instance would be independent organization, specifically independent fighting units which the PKK isn't allowing. Fighting units not only to protect against daesh/assad but against the inevitable PKK betrayal as well. What do we all really think will happen when daesh is destroyed or at least put on the run? Will this 'revolution' continue or will the PKK come to an understanding with Assad (again) and NATO? Until something like independent organization can safely come into existence everyone under their 'protection' will be forced to take the PKK line, which is nationalistic and opportunistic. The AFed is right that they tried to court Turkey and NATO before they settled for foreign leftist support, that should be enough for everyone's cynical side to come out and play for a little bit. Rojava could be something wonderful yes, but not while it is made to submit to the PKK's bullshit politics.

I have to be honest here, if I thought revolution was brewing in Kurd lands I wouldn't still be here going to my shitty job every day like I am. You guys are even closer, if I was a believer and I was physically where you are now I would be a ghost by now.

Dodo

8th December 2014, 13:56

@Devrim

He uses the words "space&opportunity"....things which are more unlikely under a fascistic regime such as that of Esad or a religious regime such as that of Daesh.

I don't have problems with leftists not taking sides on the basis that there is an ethnic conflict. I for one admit the ethnic dimension of the struggle and that nationalism is a big force that moves the masses atm. However these are not standard concepts, it is important to keep in mind the nature of the Kurdish nationalism that had been shaped.
PKK's past is not relevant now....nor the fact that Daesh members themselves are working class. Fascist gangs are working class too.
The problem with this thinking among left is a recipe for disregarding countless other factors by taking concepts at hand too analytically as general concepts....for instance religion.
Sure, we could say that Daesh is the *sigh* of the Sunni masses basing it on classical Marxist theory. Or, we could realize that in the case of DAESH there is another powerful ideological structure in the making.
Jihadist Islam is an ideology with a country-vision on its own. It is not a mere *sigh* of Sunnis, it does not have a class dimension. Disregarding the ideological framework(as marxists of pre-1930s) is an unhealthy act.

In the worst worst worst case scenario, where Kurds turn out to be just a nationalist gang; there simply is a better rhetoric that opens room for discussion and change to a social context that is far more backwards, especially with religion. Call it a late bourgeuisie revolution if you will. In addition, the solving of the national question of Kurds which presents itself a massive barrier to the working class movement in Turkey is going to stop being a factor.
Those who blame people of romanticizing Kurdish movement should be careful when it comes to romanticization of those strikes and the Gezi park.
For we do not have any empirical data either to measure whether Kurds and Turks were going to align. The ideological structure of Turkish workers had been distorted to the extremes. Just a month later Gezi, people started talking about Kurds cooperating with the government and that there were no Kurds in gezi....etc.

The Turkish left is not going to be able to lift its head as long as there is this sort of nationalism(the conservative kind) and Kemalism(the secularist type mixed with elitism). And I don't see this getting solved anytime soon. On the other hand, we have the Kurdish movement which has a much more progressive rhetoric which we are losing to newly rising conservative AKP government.

I'd say left should be more careful in its analysis of concrete politics before plunging into an intellectual etiquette with automatic responses such as "no class dynamics in this, we cannot take sides".
I regard that as a weird elitism. Even if all the romanticizations are not to be expected from there, we are talking of an uprising of an 1)oppressed people 2)in fight against Islamic radicals 3)by using a rhetoric of democracy

The other sides don't even use this rhetoric to sell themselves to west in order to legitimize themselves. In the 21st century with this level of communication, a group which rises on democratic rhetoric can hardly go against it and get away with it. Neither Esad nor Daesh has this. Are we to be neutral in a war against fascism and Islamic radicalism?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 14:11

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 14:12

Sure, I think it could be transformative but I don't think it's uniquely positioned to be any more transformative than anywhere else at the moment.

So the economic cooperatives, the communes in the towns and villages, self-rule, direct democracy, the system of federalism that KAF acknowledge and praise are what then?

A minimum requirement for change in this particular instance would be independent organization, specifically independent fighting units which the PKK isn't allowing.

An objective that detaches you from events on the ground and prevents any one from actually engaging with what is happening. How is a specific socialist character in the communes, commune committees and fighting units supposed to develop if socialists are refusing to engage with it because it's not "independent"?

Yes, it would be better if all of those socialists would abandon the PKK and form their own fighting units, but they would still have to make a choice to side with the PKK/PYD in their fight against ISIS, so what would be the point. What is the practical and strategic purpose of making that decision right now?

Fighting units not only to protect against daesh/assad but against the inevitable PKK betrayal as well. What do we all really think will happen when daesh is destroyed or at least put on the run? Will this 'revolution' continue or will the PKK come to an understanding with Assad (again) and NATO? Until something like independent organization can safely come into existence everyone under their 'protection' will be forced to take the PKK line, which is nationalistic and opportunistic.

Is it then your position that the PKK/KCK are pushing for a socialist, democratic confederalist model of self-rule and implementing policies towards that simply to trick Western leftists into supporting them?

The AFed is right that they tried to court Turkey and NATO before they settled for foreign leftist support, that should be enough for everyone's cynical side to come out and play for a little bit. Rojava could be something wonderful yes, but not while it is made to submit to the PKK's bullshit politics.

This means abandoning the communes and commune committees, as well as all the communists and anarchists that are implementing policy and fighting in the PKK and the YPG. Why would that be your position?

I have to be honest here, if I thought revolution was brewing in Kurd lands I wouldn't still be here going to my shitty job every day like I am. You guys are even closer, if I was a believer and I was physically where you are now I would be a ghost by now.

Fighting in Rojava isn't an alternative to having a shitty job.

Every despotic regime on the planet uses bullshit democratic language and then doesn't live up to it

But they already are. I've linked to two articles by an Anarchist living in London who has visited there twice and there is also the KAF interview.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 14:20

Those committees and communes are all tied to the PKK, how do you feel about the 'people's committees' in Cuba? Do those hold transformation powers even while being subject to the will of the ruling regime in that country?

Is conscription a democratic measure in your mind?

Revolution is a replacement for wage work I don't know what you mean by that. If I thought it was happening in Rojava i would be there digging wells and irrigating fields, not rebooting servers or listening to people complain about how slow the goddamn network is.

E: my phones keyboard is being weird apologies for all the mistypes

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 14:31

Those committees and communes are all tied to the PKK, how do you feel about the 'people's committees' in Cuba? Do those hold transformation powers even while being subject to the will of the ruling regime in that country?

No. Cuba isn't in the middle of an armed conflict with armed anarchists and communists fighting for the ideals you and I both share...

Is conscription a democratic measure in your mind?

I'm not defending the PYD am I? I don't need to justify policies of the PYD or of the PKK leadership for that matter. But no is the answer to your question.

Dodo

8th December 2014, 14:31

What world do you live in? Every despotic regime on the planet uses bullshit democratic language and then doesn't live up to it, thats politics as usual and is exactly why we should be suspicious when anti-democratic measures are already being put into place.
Daesh doesn't...and Esad's use of it is obviously no more different than pre-war.

PKK does not just use the rhetoric, they have their own justification for how things were in their circumstances. At least they have a detailed analysis of what they are, why they are that way and what they plan to achieve. We are not talking of an organisation that merely uses democratic rhetoric to push a purely authoritarian agenda. PKK had been around for 30 years now and they have went through great deal of changes.

I mean sure you do not have to believe them but do you read their official documents at least to see what their point is? Or how do they counter-accusations...etc?

The PKK's history will always be relevant, what a silly statement to make.
In the 2000s, PKK made a significant change in its structure again. You should read up on them. Of course past is relevant, but saying PKK is a terrorist organisation atm is something Turkish nationalists would do.
Or one could say "communism suxxors look at Soviet Union".....PKK has admitted to what it had done and why and it has drawn a new vision. Whether they'll live up to it or not, time will tell....in the meantime, self-critique is a good thing. What should they do to win your heart? Disband and start over?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 14:40

The structural changes, if we can call them that, were handed down to the rest of the organization by the demagogue who ran it during its ugliest periods. I mean are we really going to take this kind of claim seriously?

TAT I don't expect you to defend the conscription, I was using it as an example to illustrate the anti-democratic happenings that are already in place under the PKK's protection. As for the anarchists and communists fighting there, if they're willing to sacrifice their autonomy now, what else will they be prepared to give away tomorrow?

Dodo

8th December 2014, 14:53

The structural changes, if we can call them that, were handed down to the rest of the organization by the demagogue who ran it during its ugliest periods. I mean are we really going to take this kind of claim seriously?

I don't think you are getting my point. The changes were made when the said dude was in prison which he still is in. It is arguable how independent PKK's own leadership had became but they are actively working on social-political matters.
And they have launched a political party much like all the new left out there that uses the post-marxian rhetoric of radical democracy, influenced by the Mouffe&Laclau.
PKK's connection HDP is not very direct but even within PKK there is a rising awareness regarding the new Marxist rhetoric and a disregard for old Stalinist rhetoric.
Of course it all depends.....the point I am making is, there is POTENTIAL here.
Seeing as nothing else is going on, what is to be expected?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 15:04

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 15:10

The structural changes, if we can call them that, were handed down to the rest of the organization by the demagogue who ran it during its ugliest periods. I mean are we really going to take this kind of claim seriously?

I have no interest in Ocalan or what he says and what he's done. I care about what is happening on the ground.

TAT I don't expect you to defend the conscription, I was using it as an example to illustrate the anti-democratic happenings that are already in place under the PKK's protection.

But why do you need to illustrate that?

As for the anarchists and communists fighting there, if they're willing to sacrifice their autonomy now, what else will they be prepared to give away tomorrow?

You're right that they're not standing on principle, but clearly they see what they're doing now as a more useful and practical thing to do. It's very easy for us to sit in our comfortable homes and pass judgement on a situation we're not involved in, but their motives for what they're doing clearly make sense to them. While we can disagree their choices and suggest a different political line, as you people have, they still deserve our solidarity and support. Bringing their motives and their competence into question because you don't agree with their decisions is pettiness and supremely unhelpful.

Dodo

8th December 2014, 15:14

No I don't think you're getting it, if policy is still being passed from the top down in such a fashion, it says something about the structure of the organization. What other orders will be passed down by the boss in the future? No more Arabs in Kurd lands? No fighting Assad's regime? Or perhaps even the return of territory to Syria and Iraq?And what organization could fight against such orders? They are all subordinate to the PKK.

There are possibilities there on the ground you are correct, they require the removal of the PKK in order for people to reach them however.

PKK and the group in Rojava are not ONE.
It is ARGUABLE how much Öcalan rules these two bodies. There is a whole layer of intellectuals from politicians, academics to university students that take active part in political and social organization of these groups.
Its really difficult to measure whether öcalan's orders are being "enforced" or that most of them are simply compatible within the mainstream thought of the general leadership of Kurdish movement. We are not talking about brainwashed zombies, we are talking about well educated people.

Öcalan has talked about how his control is weakened if I remember correctly. And his ideas and "orders" are generally suited towards cooperative solutions. Seeing that he is in a prison and does not really have to power to rule the movement outside of Turkey's monitoring, I don't think he'll pick an aggressive line anyways. He does not even meet with any PKK people, he meets with HDP people under the monitoring of Turkey for the "resolution of Kurdish issue" process. Its HDP leadership that spreads Öcalan's letters and stuff, and HDP leadership is versed in radical democracy and popular politics of post-Marxism...far from authoritarian Stalinist rhetoric.
This shows one thing, and thats that PKK had a serious update and Öcalan is in line with that.

I don't want to get ahead of myself but it appears to me that you make too many judgements based on here-say. You should, for your own sake, check PKK's official announcements. And make up your own mind.
Further than that, its not up to me to do PKK's propoganda.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 15:28

freecommunist

8th December 2014, 15:33

If TFU and others believes so passionate about "transformative" nature of this inter-imperialist conflict that is being played out by Islamists and bourgeois nationalist on a local level, maybe they should get on a plane and fight alongside the other anarchist and socialists who have bought into this reactionary nonsense.

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 15:57

I don't see any sort of issue with people defending against Daesh, there is no conflict in principal in my mind when it comes to stopping genocide. Im taking issue with calling that action a revolution, even when private property is being protected and the group at the forefront of this revolution is a nationalist gang with a history of killing revolutionaries. I've said in other threads that Im glad the ypg/pkk units were there in kobane, this doesn't mean I'm willing to ignore all the dirty tricks they're up to politically.

As for reading their 'official' releases, I'll get around to it as soon as I finish all these DPRK releases I'm currently pouring over first :P

Your point of view still doesn't account for what is actually happening on the ground, despite me asking you numerous times. Your position seems to be to ignore and reject everything that is happening there and refuse to give solidarity and support, because you don't trust the PKK leadership...How does that make any political sense?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 16:22

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 16:35

I'm not convinced that any of it is happening independently from the PKK and more to the point I don't believe the PKK would ever allow it to happen independently. To speak of what's happening in Rojava is to speak of the PKK, that's not good politics in my mind. Revolution is not made in this fashion, it is not subordinate to any specific political party or organization. When revolution comes to Rojava the PKK leadership will hang alongside deash and the local landlords.

So you think the KAF and the guy from Haringey Solidarity Group are liars? The PKK aren't involved in the communes or commune committees exclusively. If at all, in fact. The communes and commune committees are run by the people who live in the towns and villages where the exist.

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 16:49

This is part of an article by a member of Tatort Kurdistan who went from Germany as part of a delegation.

http://tatortkurdistan.blogsport.de/

Decision making in the communes requires that quotas be met—that is, in order to make a decision, here and in all councils in Rojava, at least 40 percent of those who participate in the discussions must be women. In the communes, current issues of administration, energy, and food supply, as well as social problems like patriarchal violence, family conflicts, and much else, are discussed and if possible resolved. The communes have commissions that address all social questions, everything from the organization of defense to justice to infrastructure to youth to the economy and the construction of individual cooperatives—such as bakeries, clothing production, and agricultural projects. The ecology commissions concern themselves with urban sanitation as well as specifically ecological problems. At the forefront is the imperative to strengthen the social position of women: committees for women’s economy help women develop economic independence.

The commune, as the mala gel (people’s house), lends support in all questions; it is simultaneously an institution of support and a kind of court. Central to its processes is the ideal of agreement and compensation; for general offenses, the causes of an infraction are investigated and overcome, and the victim is protected. For patriarchal violence and all attacks that affect women, the mala jinan (women’s house) is in charge; it is attached to the women’s council, a parallel structure to the commune’s mixed-gender council.

As we ourselves could see, meanwhile, people of the most diverse identities take part in the communes, especially Arabs and Assyrians. The mala jinan likewise works to solve social problems and responsible for implementing the goals of women’s liberation. As much as possible, the councils prefer to vote by consensus. The communes send their representatives to their respective district councils and city councils, and the structure continues into the general council of Rojava.

http://new-compass.net/articles/revolution-rojava

Here is the original in German: http://civaka-azad.org/ziel-ist-eine-demokratische-loesung-fuer-den-gesamten-mittleren-osten/

freecommunist

8th December 2014, 17:05

I went to a meeting with someone who spoke from Haringey Solidarity Group and who had been to Rojava and regardless of his language, words such as revolution, commune committees etc being used. What the person was actually described was a "radical" version of social democracy at best.

Regarding the Afed statement, the analysis isn't that bad and rightly clearly rejects the revolution theory that the platformist anarchists have been pushing, however it then turns everything on it's head and tells people to donate money to DAF which is clearly supporting the war and like most of the anarchists it has this "we must be seen to be doing something line".

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 17:38

So you think the KAF and the guy from Haringey Solidarity Group are liars? The PKK aren't involved in the communes or commune committees exclusively. If at all, in fact. The communes and commune committees are run by the people who live in the towns and villages where the exist.

I think the anarchists who sided with the bolsheviks were thoroughly convinced and not just opportunists, and I think that kind of scenario can repeat itself in history as many times as it is permitted to.

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 17:48

I think the anarchists who sided with the bolsheviks were thoroughly convinced and not just opportunists, and I think that kind of scenario can repeat itself in history as many times as it is permitted to.

You keep changing the parameters of your argument. It seems like there is nothing that can be said to you that will convince you. No amount of evidence and refutation is going to change your mind. That's essentially the definition of dogmatism. If you're happy with being that short sighted fine, but I think you do yourself a disservice.

The Bolsheviks were a hegemonic force who were applying theory and practice that fundamentally undermined emerging independent class power. The PKK are not doing that; they're not a hegemonic power. So far they have implemented, supported and actively defended the emergence of some political and economic autonomy for people in Rojava.

Of course, class power and the necessary socialist dynamics don't exist in Rojava, but the ground work for it to emerge does. There is the space and opportunity for it to develop. Sticking to some dogmatic purism based on nothing but principle and some historic hatred of the PKK is an incompetent approach to take, not to mention completely inconsistent with reality. I mean, have you actually read any of the links I've provided?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 18:16

My parameters haven't changed, the PKK is a nationalist gang. They have a monopoly on force in the regions they control, and nothing that develops in those regions is independent from them as a result of that. These communes are not able to enforce their political independence or protect the physical being of their members for that matter and must instead rely on PKK muscle which in turn makes them beholden to the PKK politically. The monopoly on force and as a result the monopoly of power must be done away with in order for this to become a revolutionary situation in my mind.

This isn't meant to as a jab but solidarity to me means more than just posting friendly propaganda on the internet. Whether or not people on the internet like what's happening in Rojava seems irrelevant and so I feel that I can be as critical as I want without putting anyone in danger.

Dodo

8th December 2014, 18:40

Seriously, you guys should read the context in Turkey and Syria before you talk like this. PKK does not have monopoly of force in its region, rojava is a WARZONE and in Turkey where they are at their biggest, the monopoly on violence and media is at the hands of Turkey which is there to destroy PKK and is ruled by an openly reactionary, bourgeouisie, neo-liberal government.

PKK IS THE FACE OF OPPOSITION, and many people have already aligned with them. The only group PKK clashes with is Hüda-PAR which is an Islamist party that has the power over hundreds of thousands in the exact same area. And Hüda-par is state sponsored.
So get your facts straight regarding power of PKK and its "enforce" capabilities first.

Kurdish politics have became just that. You either side with PKK with a radical left rhetoric or you continue to a religious conservative path and be content with Turkish state.

You COULD argue that PKK has a one established doctrine and does not allow that to change WITHIN the party to which I'd object a lot. But saying PKK enforces its will etc is BS in a region where everyone else is there to get you and are armed and are enforcing whatever they can.
In your daily life, you will not hear jailed PKK politicians, social workers, students, villagers that got shot, the electricity flow cut to Kurdish villages and the general discrimination Kurds face...so its easy to talk for you. But the said organisation has been in constant struggle of life and death for 30 years(not just military but also social due to state propoganda)....and if they managed to get a rather tolerant line and updated themselves on where Marxism had gotten(thanks to their links to radical america), there is potential here.

What else are you suggesting? What do you put on the table?

I live in this country, I experience what I am talking about and I want a better life for Kurds so that Turks can also be free. I want TUrks to see what can happen under this radical left rhetoric, what people can achieve, I want this country to experience the waves of progressive movements. Its not you whose daily life is under threat by reactionary cultural/ideological forms that directly threaten your lifestyle, your very survival and reproduction of life. From the job I can do to friends I can pick, Kurdish issue, conservatism, nationalism, war is in my life.
And the ONLY, THE ONLY progressive, really progressive group that is independent of neoliberal AKP sort of growth and Kemalist CHP sort of secular-elitist bourgeouisie is HDP. The party that was formed through Kurdish politics, with its declaration on "new life" and "radical democracy", equality, end to ethnic conflict, gender equality and a regard for ecology is HDP.
And they do this honestly, their party vision is based on these....their PMs are people like you and me. They never talk of "economic growth", "powerful Turkey", "the great Kurdish nations"....etc.
Their rhetoric is based purely on radical left thoughts, and up to date ones.

Why should I stop my support for this? Who should I follow? This is my life that is directly involved. The previous party I was in was 500 people at max...had annual Marxism conferences. The Alevite radical stalinist DHKPC? There is a massive stalinist tradition in Turkey as an alternative.....or the other mainstream radical left with their talks of anti-imperialism, independent Turkey, independent economy all a curtain over nationalism?

I'll tell you this, I believe the future of not only Turkey and Syria but WHOLE middle east goes through this Kurdish movement. And not the nationalist UNITED Kurdish movement, not the Kurdish council, not the Kurds in N.Iraq nor Hüdapar nor AKP aligned-Kurds...but only through the line of PKK.

Marxists here can jump all they want over lack of private property abolishing....these people are building our future, you can watch as nothing changes in your life. One day will come and when all the changes here are happening you are going to be in line to be part of whats happening. Or so I hope, and so I will do what I can to make sure that happens.

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 18:41

My parameters haven't changed, the PKK is a nationalist gang.

Well you are actually. I mean it's based ont he same thing: You think the PKK is bad news. But now you are just repeating that argument and finding different things wrong with the PKK to make that point instead of taking an holistic analysis of the reality.

Repeating your view of the PKK isn't really contributing to this debate, nor does it address the actual realities of what is going on in Rojava. You hate and distrust the PKK, we get it. But so what? Ending your engagement at that is just stupid.

They have a monopoly on force in the regions they control, and nothing that develops in those regions is independent from them as a result of that. These communes are not able to enforce their political independence or protect the physical being of their members for that matter and must instead rely on PKK muscle which in turn makes them beholden to the PKK politically. The monopoly on force and as a result the monopoly of power must be done away with in order for this to become a revolutionary situation in my mind.

Nothing you are saying alters or forwards the argument. The communes still exist, the commune committees still exist, the attempts by people in Rojava to create some form of democratic socialism exists and anarchists and communists continue to inhabit the political landscape. Just saying you don't trust the PKK etcetera etcetera and giving various reasons why the PKK aren't that great isn't really engaging with the reality. All it does is continue to confirm the PKK as a problem -- something I haven't denied.

This isn't meant to as a jab but solidarity to me means more than just posting friendly propaganda on the internet. Whether or not people on the internet like what's happening in Rojava seems irrelevant and so I feel that I can be as critical as I want without putting anyone in danger.

If you want to show genuine solidarity, you first need to understand what is going on there. It's fine to be as critical as you want, but just being as critical as you want for the sake of it or because you dislike the PKK isn't really legitimate if you want to be considered as having any kind of political stake in this issue. If you don't, then what are you doing in the debate?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 18:43

I mean monopoly of force in the context of opposition obviously. If we talk about monopoly of force in the context of the entire region we are of course talking about NATO.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 18:52

What political stake do you have in this debate TAT? There are no stakes in this thread, lets show some objectivity and not give into emotion when it has no effect one way or the other. When Rojava needs communist solidarity from me it will get more than articles posted on the internet, I'm not going to pretend I feel otherwise for the sake of participating in this thread with you.

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 19:14

What political stake do you have in this debate TAT? There are no stakes in this thread, lets show some objectivity and not give into emotion when it has no effect one way or the other.

The stake I have is no more complicated than trying to contribute to your understanding of the situation in Rojava.

There's nothing emotional about what I'm saying, I'm not really sure how that has become a thing. I have maintained objectivity throughout this conversation, providing you with documentary evidence from people on the ground that substantiate my analysis and refute your short-sighted attitude. I'm assuming you've still not bothered to read them? In return you have made a half-arsed commentary about the PKK and continued to shift the focus of your argument without any consistency of thought beyond the PKK being bad. This is something you kept returning to even after the debate had moved way beyond that, essentially disallowing the conversation to move forward. When challenged on that, you become defensive and adversarial, accusing me of emotion and a lack of objectivity and dismissing the whole conversation as pointless...Do you not find that an unusual way to engage in a discussion?

When Rojava needs communist solidarity from me it will get more than articles posted on the internet, I'm not going to pretend I feel otherwise for the sake of participating in this thread with you.

I don't really understand what this is supposed to mean and frankly it smacks of some kind of macho-posturing. I'm not particularly impressed by the implication that you're prepared to pick up a gun, especially considering the limited framework in which you're prepared to do that.

You entered this conversation with smart-Alec comments and some kind of smug overview. Now that it is clear those comments and that overview are predicated on misconceptions and a lack of understanding, it seems slightly unfair to suddenly wash your hands of it as if you didn't really care to begin with.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 19:30

If and when this activity is allowed to happen independently of any upper authority then it will be revolutionary in my view and rojava will be in need of solidarity. Until then this is either smoke and mirrors on the part of PKK, or may as well be for all it will be worth a few years from now when Assad and NATO come back. Solidarity does not necessarily mean guns and I already gave an explicit example of what I would be willing to do, armed struggle is the grave yard of revolutions. Think of what you and others are claiming here; this is not someone getting locked up for torching a bank or attacking a cop, not some meaningless demo. That's the kind of shit where just spreading information can be solidarity, sure. You are claiming that socialism is being built right now, and there is no way I would watch that passively if I really believed it, and I have a hard time believing you would either. We can agree to disagree if you would like, I haven't read anything here that will make me budge on this point.

The Feral Underclass

8th December 2014, 19:32

I haven't claimed that socialism is being built if by socialism we mean socialism proper. What is being built is some kind of democratic socialism, but in the current conditions it has the opportunity to escalate. In the meantime, Western communists need to stop bashing what is going on there as if it's just some inconsequential struggle that should be condemned and/or ignored.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th December 2014, 20:54

I don't think it should be ignored or condemned and haven't said otherwise. I think I've made myself clear more or less so I'll leave it at that

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 13:57

Call For International Front In Kobanê

(Kobanê) Socialist and revolutionary organizations in Turkey have issued a joint statement in which they announced the formation of the Birleşik Özgürlük Güçleri – ‘United Freedom Forces’ or BÖG – in Kobanê and called for an international front to defend the revolution in Rojava, according to an article from Özgür Gündem.

The statement was made made by lyas Hekimoğlu, who spoke in the name of the BÖG. Hekimoğlu, stressing that the resistance in Kobanê had become a 21st century Paris Commune, said “In a Middle East where capitalist barbarism and imperialist interests are pursued with savagery the Rojava Model – which aims at and is building a form of life which is anti-capitalist, communal and on the side of freedom and democracy – is presenting an internationalist way of life to the peoples of the Middle East and the world. Kobanê is not the first, nor will it be the last.”

Toward Growing Hope In Kobanê

Hekimoğlu added that Kobanê had become the site of Sheikh Bedreddin’s communal villages, saying “[Kobanê] is the fire of the spark which Bedreddin struck within his communal villages. The peoples of the Middle East have not abandoned this resistance. The true friend of oppressed peoples are not the bosses, nor those who shed fake tears while they make the ‘rabia’ sign. It is the communists who sacrificed in Palestine in the 1970’s, Lebanon in the 1980’s and the mountains of Kurdistan in the 1990’s who are the real friend of the peoples.”

Hekimoğlu finished by saying that revolutionaries from Turkey were in Kobanê as part of the BÖG in order to play a historical role, “saying that they had “come to bring life to the internationalist spirit in Kobanê today which was yesterday found in Spain. We are expecting all communists of the world, and in particular revolutionaries from Turkey, to work toward growing hope in Kobanê and to take their place on the international front.”

https://rojavareport.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/call-for-international-front-in-kobane/

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 14:05

I haven't claimed that socialism is being built if by socialism we mean socialism proper. What is being built is some kind of democratic socialism

So, apparently there is "socialism proper" and then there is "democratic socialism" which is "socialist" enough for leftists to support yet not socialist enough for you to answer the difficult questions about the class nature of "Rojava". I see.

I wonder if people would have used the same rhetoric to defend Israel. They had kibbutzim after all.

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 14:08

So, apparently there is "socialism proper" and then there is "democratic socialism" which is "socialist" enough for leftists to support yet not socialist enough for you to answer the difficult questions about the class nature of "Rojava". I see.

Oh yay, Sarcismo's back! What joy, and I thought this would be a boring Wednesday.

What question are you referring to, my dear?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 14:11

Oh yay, Sarcismo's back! What joy, and I thought this would be a boring Wednesday.

What question are you referring to you, my dear?

Well honey, the question of the class character of the glorious eco-demo-femino-ethno-confederation of Rojava, of course. The only question that matters.

motion denied

10th December 2014, 14:25

Dodo

10th December 2014, 14:38

Call For International Front In Kobanê
https://rojavareport.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/call-for-international-front-in-kobane/
So many times I considered doing something about this but when you have a family with expectations and all you can't even free your mind. :(
Do I even have the balls to take up arms? I don't think so.

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 14:40

Well honey, the question of the class character of the glorious eco-demo-femino-ethno-confederation of Rojava, of course. The only question that matters.

Let's not get all hyperbolic, no one thinks this is glorious, it's just what we've got.

But honestly, I don't have specific data to answer the question you're asking in a satisfactory way and there isn't enough written about it in English that I can see. So it's an important question that needs answering.

From what I gather, the impression I get is that the demographic of the communes and commune committees are made up across-class.

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 14:42

Venezuela et al aren't building "socialism proper" either, regardless of the proclaimed intentions that by 2018 it will be a socialist economy (ie, fully nationalized). Years of Chavez-Maduro have undeniably made it more democratic and heightened the standards of living for the "subaltern classes". There are also Communal Councils elected by neighbourhoods with revocable mandates. These councils are organs not only of "political self government" but of "productive self government".

Are there armed anarchists and communists in Venezuela occupying the political landscape and simultaneously defending the project from radical Islamists and attempting to forward a clear socialist agenda? Is the Venezuelan government made up of democratically elected delegates from the communes and commune committees? Do anarchists and communists have the opportunity to drastically influence the situation in Venezuela? I guess what I'm asking is, are the situations the same?

As I said already, this isn't a one-size-fits-all model. You can't just take a principle and then apply to every single situation that arises around the world. You have to look at the situation, analyse what is happening, understand who is in play, how things are developing, what your objectives are and then make an assessment based on whether you think success is possible.

Dodo

10th December 2014, 14:44

don't mind 870, he is talking like a true dogmat about a movement he is not familiar with.
He'd rather have us criticize how not good enough revolutionaries the people there are as we watch IS take over one of the most critical geography in the world.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 14:46

Let's not get all hyperbolic, no one thinks this is glorious, it's just what we've got.

Well, the problem lies in the claim that this is what "we" have got. One nationalist organisation is fighting other nationalist organisations, and you claim that one of them is on "our" side because it quotes Book Chin (not that the esteemed Chin had much to with socialism in his city-state-fetish phase).

Seriously, would you say the same about Israel? Israel too made "socialist" noises and had kibbutzim and whatnot.

But honestly, I don't have specific data to answer the question you're asking in a satisfactory way and there isn't enough written about it in English that I can see. So it's an important question that needs answering.

From what I gather, the impression I get is that the demographic of the communes and commune committees are made up across-class.

Most of their members are probably workers. But the class position of an organisation is not the same as its class makeup. Most members of Daesh are likewise workers. The question is - how does this organisation relate to the class struggle. And the onus is on you to demonstrate that the PKK-led de facto government is on the side of the workers.

And sorry, vague "direct democracy" and dreams about decentralisation are not enough.

Sasha

10th December 2014, 14:51

wait, is now someone from the juche loving sparts trying to lecture people how socialist someplace need to be to warrant solidarity? :lol:

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th December 2014, 14:51

When you start using the there is no one size fits all defense you get dangerously close to a sioc style argument, in my opinion. The presence of anarchists and communists doesn't mean anything while they are subordinate to the political will of liberals. Plus since when does the presence of 'professional revolutionaries' count for anything as far as revolution goes? I fear a creeping leninism coming into play here.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 14:58

wait, is now someone from the juche loving sparts trying to lecture people how socialist someplace need to be to warrant solidarity? :lol:

So, can you actually cite one positive reference to juche by the ICL-FI or its predecessors? The ICL position is that the DPRK is a deformed workers' state, which is a position they provided arguments for in their literature. You might not agree with the arguments (or indeed understand them, as is pretty obvious), but they exist. The pro-"Rojava" side on RevLeft doesn't really have arguments; all we have are some vague claims about a "democratic socialism".

If fighting for a nation state organised as a confederation of petty locales, with private property intact, is "socialism", then those people who fight for the social control of the means of production and the overthrow of the bourgeois state need to find another name.

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 15:14

When you start using the there is no one size fits all defense you get dangerously close to a sioc style argument, in my opinion.

I don't know what that means. Do you have a problem with taking each situation on a case-by-case basis? Of course ideas and principles inform an analysis, that's why I reject Venezuela and not Rojava, but you cannot just take a dogmatic view that anything that does not fit all of these specific criteria is therefore invalid. If you do that, you'll achieve nothing.

The presence of anarchists and communists doesn't mean anything while they are subordinate to the political will of liberals. Plus since when does the presence of 'professional revolutionaries' count for anything as far as revolution goes? I fear a creeping leninism coming into play here.

La sigh.

I really don't know how to approach this because it's just wrong on lots of different levels and it's difficult to work out how to approach. When you say "anarchists and communists" are "subordinate to the political will of liberals" who do you mean?

As for the "creeping Leninism" nonsense, if it is "Leninist" to have a well trained, professional military cadre to defend your gains then I guess I'm a Leninist.

Dodo

10th December 2014, 15:14

They are fighting against invaders in a relatively stable area where democracy is >>>>than under ISIS

itself is a good enough argument 870. It does not even need the other arguments we had put.
Lets be clear, you are not capable of reading PKK materials(not your fault, you don't speak Turkish or Kurdish) which means that;
*foremost you have no clear insight on whats going on. And I am not going to hide behind this. Just whats happening on the cover-page is a good enough case for me.
*you are attacking it with prejudices stemming from a dogmatic view, a purist bs if you will

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 15:16

They are fighting against invaders in a relatively stable area where democracy is >>>>than under ISIS

itself is a good enough argument 870. It does not even need the other arguments we had put.

Perhaps if you think the purpose of socialism is to install a bourgeois democracy that cites Laclau.

In which case you can just go to Argentina. They even have cooperatives for God's nonexistent sake.

Dodo

10th December 2014, 15:21

Perhaps if you think the purpose of socialism is to install a bourgeois democracy that cites Laclau.

In which case you can just go to Argentina. They even have cooperatives for God's nonexistent sake.

you know, you clearly make people hate this socialism you talk of...I hope you are not active on the propaganda end for you'd be great at producing the top-notch anti-socialists.

What the hell does this have to do with what I said? Seriously....

ps: its called "radical democracy" not bourgeoisie democracy an no I do not align with a single tendency nor I am a "post-marxist". I believe there is a Marxist pool from which we can draw. Is this supposed to be an attack on my legitimacy?

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 15:22

Well, the problem lies in the claim that this is what "we" have got. One nationalist organisation is fighting other nationalist organisations, and you claim that one of them is on "our" side because it quotes Book Chin (not that the esteemed Chin had much to with socialism in his city-state-fetish phase).

The PKK aren't involved in the communes or commune committees. Those are made up of workers, peasants, petite-bourgeois of the town and village in which they exist..

Seriously, would you say the same about Israel? Israel too made "socialist" noises and had kibbutzim and whatnot.

The comparison doesn't exist, so I'm not sure why I would answer such a stupid question.

Most of their members are probably workers. But the class position of an organisation is not the same as its class makeup.

I'm not talking about the PKK.

Most members of Daesh are likewise workers. The question is - how does this organisation relate to the class struggle. And the onus is on you to demonstrate that the PKK-led de facto government is on the side of the workers.

And sorry, vague "direct democracy" and dreams about decentralisation are not enough.

Why would I seek to prove the that the PKK is on the side of the workers? I don't care whether you think that. The PKK are a military force engaged in defending a democratic socialist process in Rojava. Their involvement in that project pretty much stops there.

The issue here is whether the communes and commune committees are able to take on a specifically communist character. With anarchists and communists in and outside the PKK, as well as this new call for a International Communist volunteers to form an independent force, my view is yes, they are able to.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 15:33

The PKK aren't involved in the communes or commune committees. Those are made up of workers, peasants, petite-bourgeois of the town and village in which they exist..

M-hm. So who do you think is the organiser of these "commune committees"? Why were the committees not organised before the PKK's confederalist turn?

The comparison doesn't exist, so I'm not sure why I would answer such a stupid question.

I'm pretty sure why you wouldn't answer it: because you would be forced to admit that, by the same criteria you support the glorious eco-demo-femino-ethno-confederacy, the nascent state of Israel should have been supported.

And what do you mean "the comparison doesn't exist"? Do you think there is a shortage of "labour Zionists" who act as if the kibbutzim were a socialist institution?

I'm not talking about the PKK.

No, you're talking about one part of their state (albeit one that does little as the administration is till in the hands of Syrian officials for the most part).

Why would I seek to prove the that the PKK is on the side of the workers? I don't care whether you think that. The PKK are a military force engaged in defending a democratic socialist process in Rojava. Their involvement in that project pretty much stops there.

The issue here is whether the communes and commune committees are able to take on a specifically communist character. With anarchists and communists in and outside the PKK, as well as this new call for a International Communist volunteers to form an independent force, my view is yes, they are able to.

What "democratic socialist process"? What are you on about? The revolution is not some vague "process" bullshit, but the forcible overthrow of one class by another. "Processism" has always been the death of revolutionary movements.

And one moment you're not talking about the PKK, the next you're finding "anarchists and communists" in them. Consistency is always nice.

you know, you clearly make people hate this socialism you talk of...I hope you are not active on the propaganda end for you'd be great at producing the top-notch anti-socialists.

I could say the same for you, only I'm sure no one in their right mind would confuse your "well they quote Laclau" nonsense for socialism as in the social control of the means of production.

What the hell does this have to do with what I said? Seriously....

ps: its called "radical democracy" not bourgeoisie democracy an no I do not align with a single tendency nor I am a "post-marxist". I believe there is a Marxist pool from which we can draw. Is this supposed to be an attack on my legitimacy?

It's supposed to be an attack on your atrocious rhetoric. "Radical democracy"! What class is the "radical" class? What is their relation to the means of production?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th December 2014, 15:38

I don't know what that means. Do you have a problem with taking each situation on a case-by-case basis? Of course ideas and principles inform an analysis, that's why I reject Venezuela and not Rojava, but you cannot just take a dogmatic view that anything that does not fit all of these specific criteria is therefore invalid. If you do that, you'll achieve nothing.

La sigh.

I really don't know how to approach this because it's just wrong on lots of different levels and it's difficult to work out how to approach. When you say "anarchists and communists" are "subordinate to the political will of liberals" who do you mean?

As for the "creeping Leninism" nonsense, if it is "Leninist" to have a well, trained, professional military cadre to defend your gains then I guess I'm a Leninist.

How can the defense of private property be anything but a liberal demand? It's very existence tells us something about the political forces at work, specifically who is in power. I don't deny the presence of anarchists or communists on the ground, but I'd wager there are still committed communists in the ruling parties of China, Cuba, etc, if I would prepare a defense of these countries and their practices based on that you would laugh me out of this thread.

Defense is one thing, but what is there to defend from a revolutionary standpoint here? Protecting people from daesh is a necessity, but it has nothing to do with communism. The existence of these people in Kurd territory alone seems to be an important aspect of this for you, but there are anarchists and communists in every country and this has no effect on our expectations for the future of those places. Foreign revolutionaries won't make socialism in Rojava, the people living and working there will, if they are unwilling to push that program forward then it's already a done deal from the start.

Im not accusing you of being a leninist, you just don't seem to be able to take a critical look at your own arguments in this instance and you're certainly not in the minority. We can speak plainly and critically about this without wishing genocide or enslavement on the Kurds as a result. The people of Rojava should push forward an independent communist program, they should press the class war to the forefront of this conflict and spread it with the intention of ending it. Rojava can be the vanguard, but the PKK or the foreign volunteers cannot.

Dodo

10th December 2014, 15:41

@870
Post-Marxism rejects the class conflict in its classical sense and makes its case over that(rather it brings a more diverse perception of "class"). Thus it comes up with something called "radical democracy"....this is the stream that is popular among Latin Americans and nowadays Spain as well. PKK also feeds up on this, so as opposed to more classical PKK, in Turkey's politics we have a political party called HDP(http://www.hdp.org.tr/) which is trying to unite all left that is seperated between Kemalists seculartist fascists, M-Ls, Maosists, Stalinists, nationalists, greens, environmentalists.....etc. It is remarkable how successful they had been though the issue of Kurdish question always pushes the more nationalists-stalinists lefties.
The main strategy of post-marxist thinking is to unite left through popular politics rather than going all techno-theory which obviously produces "revisionist" stuff in the process-but none of the revision becomes established, rather, they are a response to existing issue/condition.

However, the obvious problem with you is that you take these as set-in-stone laws of dogmatized established party program....hence you cannot grasp the elasticity in these movements, because to you, every revolutionary party has a strict theory in a mechanistic fashion.

All this being said, I did not say I am a post-Marxist nor I have read Laclau&Mouffe in detail. Their field is more academic anyways where Marxism as a "science" had been smashed into pieces. Unlike you, they have a responsibility to legitimacy in arguments.
Saying just so you know.

You don't need to tell me that this is a heresy and go "OH HOW WILL YOU GET RID OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND CLASSES hedehödöhedehöh"...thats not what I am arguing here in case you try to distort my argument again.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 15:42

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 15:46

Site won't let me edit or quote. Weird. Anyway, Dodo, yes, we know, you don't have an ideology blablabla, yet you seem to spend a lot of time telling us we should care about "radical democracy" and so on. Even though you yourself state that these people reject every Marxist (or anarchist) position in favour of building a better bourgeois democracy. So yeah, why should we care?

Dodo

10th December 2014, 15:48

By the way, why are people on this thread so convinced that the PKK taking areas that have a significant percentage of Arabs will not lead to ethnic cleansing, but the Daesh taking areas that have a significant percentage of Kurds will lead to "genocide"?

That's not how ethnic conflict works, as the Lebanese Civil War shows. Do you really think the ethnic militias back then acted differently toward other ethnic groups based on whether their stated ideology was Islamism, liberalism, "progressive socialism" etc.?

The mainstream left Kurdish movement is not concerned with what nationality you are. Their concern is more with whether you accept the political structure they bring on. If we go by official announcements and works that been produced so far, in-the self rule system your nationality does not mean anything. In fact, the constitution they have established which had been running for 3 years does not state "rojava" as Kurdish nation. It is a multi-national confederation, and Kurd is just a word there just like Arab.

The constitution rejects;
*centralized nation-state concept

You can argue however that whats said and written does not matter and they'll drive away the Arabs....but that would be a simple speculation and all I can tell you is that time will show us. IF, Rojava stands ISIS and Syrian regime and Turkey.

edit:
Karayılan, one of the KCK leaders on nation:
The alternative is the independent self-declaration of the democratic confederal system. (...) The society should be independent, the nation should be independent. Yet, the main purpose should be for independent nations to form a democratic nation community together and based on equality, within a confederal system... It is a system of partnering, where various cultures live together

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 15:53

M-hm. So who do you think is the organiser of these "commune committees"? Why were the committees not organised before the PKK's confederalist turn?

According to KAF, the Tatort Kurdistan delegate and the HSG delegate, the worekrs etcetera who live in the towns and villages.

I'm pretty sure why you wouldn't answer it: because you would be forced to admit that, by the same criteria you support the glorious eco-demo-femino-ethno-confederacy, the nascent state of Israel should have been supported.

And what do you mean "the comparison doesn't exist"? Do you think there is a shortage of "labour Zionists" who act as if the kibbutzim were a socialist institution?

Ugh. You're so boring, man.

Were there armed anarchists and communists in Israel occupying the political landscape and simultaneously defending the project from radical Islamists and attempting to forward a clear socialist agenda? Was the Israeli government made up of democratically elected delegates from the communes and commune committees? Did anarchists and communists have the opportunity to drastically influence the situation in Israel?

No, you're talking about one part of their state (albeit one that does little as the administration is till in the hands of Syrian officials for the most part).

So now the communes are just ineffective? Why didn't you start of by saying that? If this is true, which I don't accept, it doesn't alter the nature of my argument.

What "democratic socialist process"? What are you on about? The revolution is not some vague "process" bullshit, but the forcible overthrow of one class by another.

I'm afraid your theoretical dogmatism is irrelevant at this point. The commune and commune committees are communalising and redistributing food and services, the people of towns and villages are democratically governing their affairs, a delegate system has been introduced for regional organisation. Why would we ignore that?

If it is your view that this process has no opportunity to escalate into a more specific socialist character then that's fine, but in my view it is politically incompetent to dismiss what is happening in Rojava simply because it does not conform to your book-learned ideas of revolution.

Until is is clear that full workers' self-management (or dictatorship if you prefer) over the means of production, political system and security cannot be formed and maintained in Rojava, there is still hope.

"Processism" has always been the death of revolutionary movements.

All revolutions are a process. That's just a ridiculous statement.

And one moment you're not talking about the PKK, the next you're finding "anarchists and communists" in them. Consistency is always nice.

If you'd read my posts in this thread, you would see that that's what I've always been saying.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th December 2014, 15:55

Dodo

10th December 2014, 16:01

If we go by official announcements Venezuela will be under worker control in 4 years and Kim Jong-il appeared out of thin air following a meteor strike or something. I can't believe you're able to post that shit without laughing
you don't have to take them at face-value buddy...but you have to base your argument somewhere right? Do you claim to know "insides" of these movements any better?
Sure official announcements might be lies, but its better than pure speculation based on nothing. These are not aliens we are talking about. These are real people in action on the same earth you live on. You can observe for yourself.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th December 2014, 16:05

The defense of private property speaks volumes and is all that's necessary from a communist perspective.

Edit: actually add conscription and a ban on independent fighting units to that. The writing is on the wall

Dodo

10th December 2014, 16:11

The defense of private property speaks volumes and is all that's necessary from a communist perspective.

Its not an "established" defense of property. Its not part of their whole ideological structure. POPULAR POLITICS&POST-MARXIST literature please. Why can't you view this as a process? Why does everything has to happen in one moment?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th December 2014, 16:15

Socialism in one country is a process too. Communism is not subordinate to the political will of class enemies. You can type shit in caps all you want it won't change that fact.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 16:15

The mainstream left Kurdish movement is not concerned with what nationality you are.

...and that's why top PKK leaders explicitly called for the expulsion of Arabs from "Kurdish" territory.

Of course they won't put that in their tedious "democratic-confederalist" speeches for external consumption, though. But if you go just by such speeches, then Yugoslavia was a heaven on Earth during the civil war. Why, every single faction and gang was fighting for democracy and freedom.

According to KAF, the Tatort Kurdistan delegate and the HSG delegate, the worekrs etcetera who live in the towns and villages.

So why did they wait for Ocalam's (sorry, no diereses on this keyboard) "conversion" to Bookchinism to do so?

Ugh. You're so boring, man.

Were there armed anarchists and communists in Israel occupying the political landscape and simultaneously defending the project from radical Islamists and attempting to forward a clear socialist agenda? Was the Israeli government made up of democratically elected delegates from the communes and commune committees? Did anarchists and communists have the opportunity to drastically influence the situation in Israel?

Where there armed anarchists and communists in Israel? Yes.

Were they defending "the project" from radical Islamists? Yes. (As an aside, I love how Islamism has become the chief bogeyman of the bourgeois left.)

Were they "attempting to forward a clear socialist agenda"? Well, no, But neither are the institutions in "Rojava".

I'm afraid your theoretical dogmatism is irrelevant at this point. The commune and commune committees are communalising and redistributing food and services, the people of towns and villages are democratically governing their affairs, a delegate system has been introduced for regional organisation. Why would we ignore that?

Because it has nothing to do with socialism. The German Empire had a delegate system, democracy and redistributed food and services during the First World War.

What's next, socialism in one Kaiserreich?

All revolutions are a process. That's just a ridiculous statement.

Well, no, unless you count overthrows as processes. Revolutions are not something that happens blindly and by some bizarre form of automatism; they do not grow from vague social-democratic, reformist struggles as Pablo thought. It amuses me to no end that someone still upholds this perspective in the year 2014, but there you have it. Everything needs to be turned upside down so that poor little Rojava can be supported.

Dodo

10th December 2014, 16:16

pffft, whatever...whether you guys exists or not this movement is going to go ahead.
I for one am very happy about it, for it's a direct change in my personal life as a citizen of this country.

..and that's why top PKK leaders explicitly called for the expulsion of Arabs from "Kurdish" territory.

Of course they won't put that in their tedious "democratic-confederalist" speeches for external consumption, though. But if you go just by such speeches, then Yugoslavia was a heaven on Earth during the civil war. Why, every single faction and gang was fighting for democracy and freedom.

what did I say;

You can argue however that whats said and written does not matter and they'll drive away the Arabs....but that would be a simple speculation and all I can tell you is that time will show us. IF, Rojava stands ISIS and Syrian regime and Turkey.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th December 2014, 16:29

I resent the implication that since I'm critical of the situation now it must mean that I want them to lay down and stop. I want them to push forward a revolutionary program and develop class and political independence. Socialism or barbarism is no joke at this point, but you're not doing anyone a favor by swallowing propaganda in a rush to show solidarity.

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 16:35

How can the defense of private property be anything but a liberal demand? It's very existence tells us something about the political forces at work, specifically who is in power. I don't deny the presence of anarchists or communists on the ground, but I'd wager there are still committed communists in the ruling parties of China, Cuba, etc, if I would prepare a defense of these countries and their practices based on that you would laugh me out of this thread.

The communes and the commune committees are not the same as "those in power." The defence of private property has nothing to do with what is happening on the ground. Have you actually read the constitution that you're talking about? Here is the wording:

Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his private property. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law.

http://civiroglu.net/the-constitution-of-the-rojava-cantons/

I would say that this was at best ambiguous and at worst a half-arsed attempt to placate the petite-bourgeoisie. Of course liberals will be liberals, but the PYD are not the full picture. They represent one particular political line. You keep conflating the very visible, media-talked about political powers with the organisation of the communes and commune committees. Your understanding of the situation in Rojava is predicated on a critique of "those in power" that groups together everything into one homogeneous entity. Anyone who talks of a socialist process in Rojava is then judged based on that conflation.

I think being blithe about the communists and anarchists that are on the ground is not really fair when you consider they are the people that can agitate to alter what is happening there. Presumably you would support those communists and anarchists in China and Cuba who wanted to begin a second revolution, but you also have to support them dependent on the reality of the situation. The situations in China and Cuba are fundamentally different to Rojava, since in Rojava there is actually an open attempt to reshape society with those anarchists and communists on the ground able to influence the communes and commune committees. Those conditions don't exist in China and Cuba.

Please answer this question: If you were from Rojava and were living there as a worker, what would your line be right now and how would you deal with the communes, commune committees and PKK?

Defense is one thing, but what is there to defend from a revolutionary standpoint here? Protecting people from daesh is a necessity, but it has nothing to do with communism. The existence of these people in Kurd territory alone seems to be an important aspect of this for you, but there are anarchists and communists in every country and this has no effect on our expectations for the future of those places.

I really don't understand how you can possibly be asking me this question again. What is there to defend from a revolutionary standpoint? Erm, well the communes and commune committees for a start.

I cannot fathom how you are able to compare the situation in Rojava with the situation in all the other countries in the world. Are the anarchists and communists in America armed? Are the workers of America organising themselves into communes and commune collectives? Are people in America attempting to re-organise their lives? Do the anarchists and communists of America have space and the opportunity to fundamentally alter the direction of an emerging nation?

Foreign revolutionaries won't make socialism in Rojava, the people living and working there will, if they are unwilling to push that program forward then it's already a done deal from the start.

I don't know what you think the role of communist revolutionaries is, but in my view it is to agitate for communism. Of course the people of Rojava have to make a communist revolution, but the role of revolutionaries, whether they're foreign or otherwise, is to agitate for that.

In the communes and commune committees where people are organising their lives, this is the space and opportunity to do that. So just harping on about the PYD being liberal and the PKK being badies isn't really helpful or a particularly sophisticated assessment of what is happening.

Im not accusing you of being a leninist, you just don't seem to be able to take a critical look at your own arguments in this instance and you're certainly not in the minority. We can speak plainly and critically about this without wishing genocide or enslavement on the Kurds as a result.

My argument is that we should recognise that the organisation of communes and commune committees are a space for anarchists and communists to agitate and that there is a chance to transform the democratic socialist process into a specific communist one. That's my argument in a nut-shell. Which aspect of that do you think I need to critically assess?

The people of Rojava should push forward an independent communist program, they should press the class war to the forefront of this conflict and spread it with the intention of ending it.

But the question is how. You don't even recognise that there is a possibility for this to happen.

Rojava can be the vanguard, but the PKK or the foreign volunteers cannot.

No one said they could. (http://www.interval999.ru/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/aaarrrggghhh.jpg)

Dodo

10th December 2014, 16:36

@ethics gradient
I ain't swallowing anything. I am simply aware that in Turkey&Syria, right now, this is the top movement with greatest potential. I was out there during Gezi protests too, or I always support all unionized workers movements as well. I am for a united proper left. But atm, this movement carries the greatest potential(with a great deal of Marxist conciousness that actually guides them). Thats about it.
I am quiet elitist and critical when it comes to my views personally anyways. I am not going to suck up their stories.

I grew up in this country when PKK was blowing things up and shooting soldiers everyday...I know their stories, I know the bad things they did, in fact I knew all the extra legends that they did not even do that was put on them by the media.

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 16:42

Because it has nothing to do with socialism.

I don't agree, I think it has a lot to do with socialism. What's more, it has the possibility to escalate and that is why we should be supporting the communes and commune committees.

Everything needs to be turned upside down so that poor little Rojava can be supported.

I hate you. I mean. I literally hate you. I've never seen you or met you, but reading your posts fills me with so much contempt for you that hatred is probably the only word best to describe the sensation.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

10th December 2014, 16:49

I gotta run I'll respond again a little later

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 18:30

I don't agree, I think it has a lot to do with socialism.

Yes, that's the chief problem here. What you call "socialism" seems to be some form of democratically-managed capitalism (to the extent that the PKK statelet can be called democratic).

Why put on airs, then? Democratically-managed capitalism exists in any number of countries today.

What's more, it has the possibility to escalate and that is why we should be supporting the communes and commune committees.

Funnily enough, people were saying the same thing about the glorious Syrian opposition a few months back. Now the glorious opposition has fallen out of favour with the Western liberals and "socialists" (would it be too cynical to note this pattern just happens to coincide with what faction of the Syrian civil war is in favour with Washington at the moment), and the organisation that was part of the glorious opposition, Daesh, is now being painted as an army of demons. While of course, its opponents, the PKK - they're defending the revolution etc. etc. etc.

I hate you. I mean. I literally hate you. I've never seen you or met you, but reading your posts fills me with so much contempt for you that hatred is probably the only word best to describe the sensation.

Thank you for calling. Your call is important to us.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 19:03

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 19:09

Just for clarification, this is essentially the argument I have made in this thread:

The PKK rank-and-file take the establishment of socialism seriously
The PKK leadership are a problem
The communes and commune committees act independently but their policies so far only reflect a "trade union consciousness" and need to be won over to socialist ideas
That anarchist and communists are operating within the political landscape and need to agitate to win over the workers of Rojava to socialist ideas and seek an escalation of class conflict
That the commune and commune committees provide the space and opportunity for that agitation to occur
That the information I have about the work of the communes and commune committees is from independent non-aligned delegates (by non-aligned I mean not to a regional organisation)
That we should be sceptical of PKK narratives
That the formation of an international revolutionary socialist front in Rojava is a positive escalation
We should give any support we can to those elements that are attempting to win people over to socialist ideas and escalate class conflict.

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 19:12

Although, thinking about it, the creepily personal response by TFU and friends really does strongly hint that, for many people, this is no longer about tactics or theory, but sheer will-to-believe. Yeah, it sucks that there's a civil war going on where tens of thousands of workers are going to be ground up by various nationalist gangs. But you won't help that by asking that one of the gangs receive assistance.

It's personal because you just don't listen. It's incredibly frustrating. Like now, you've done it again. "But you won't help that by asking that one of the gangs receive assistance" -- Who has done that? What does that even mean?

You're not interested in what other people have to say, you are only interested in being right. You don't make this about an exchange of ideas, but a battle of will in which you bully people into submitting. It's not about improving understanding and awareness, it's about winning. It's hateful and it underlines a very serious problem with your behaviour.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th December 2014, 19:38

It's personal because you just don't listen. It's incredibly frustrating. Like now, you've done it again. "But you won't help that by asking that one of the gangs receive assistance" -- Who has done that? What does that even mean?

You're not interested in what other people have to say, you are only interested in being right. You don't make this about an exchange of ideas, but a battle of will in which you bully people into submitting. It's not about improving understanding and awareness, it's about winning. It's hateful and it underlines a very serious problem with your behaviour.

The problem, TFU, is that you assume that everyone will become convinced that you are right if they just listen. Well, no. I am listening. And you're not making much sense.

Our Fearless Leader started this thread with a call to send money to the YPG, one of the many ethnic militias that participate in the conflict. It's the same as asking for money for al-Nusra or the SAA or Daesh.

The Feral Underclass

10th December 2014, 19:55

The problem, TFU, is that you assume that everyone will become convinced that you are right if they just listen. Well, no. I am listening. And you're not making much sense.

I don't care if people are convinced by me, I care whether people are engaging with me honestly. To do that, it requires people to actually give me the courtesy of reading what I say properly. It's incredibly boring saying something and then having to correct someone's strawman or pure fantasy because they didn't bother to read it properly. It doesn't move debates forward, it just makes them get bogged down in clarification after clarification, as if what I said in the first place wasn't actually what I said and then I end up having to defend myself from an imaginary opinion. That's like 95% of RevLeft debates. Yawn.

You're not the worst culprit for doing this, but you certainly do it. This thread being an example.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th December 2014, 19:44

I don't care if people are convinced by me, I care whether people are engaging with me honestly. To do that, it requires people to actually give me the courtesy of reading what I say properly. It's incredibly boring saying something and then having to correct someone's strawman or pure fantasy because they didn't bother to read it properly. It doesn't move debates forward, it just makes them get bogged down in clarification after clarification, as if what I said in the first place wasn't actually what I said and then I end up having to defend myself from an imaginary opinion. That's like 95% of RevLeft debates. Yawn.

You're not the worst culprit for doing this, but you certainly do it. This thread being an example.

And here we have another classic TAT moment. No one understands him - poor TAT! - which is why he is going to repeat his thesis ad nauseam and avoid actually answering any questions, and then blame other people for his behaviour.

I have read your posts. You clearly, several times, state that there is a "revolution" in "Rojava" (!), that the various PKK-aligned forces there are building "democratic socialism" and whatnot. What is even democratic socialism? For most of us it's another name for traitor-social democracy.

So at this point you either think breaking up territories into petty states joined into a confederation, along with democracy and self-management is socialism, which makes you about as socialist as Harrington, or you think the people in North Syria will overthrow the bourgeois state by some sort of inevitable historical process - hence, processism of the most rotten Pabloist variety.

The Feral Underclass

11th December 2014, 20:15

And here we have another classic TAT moment. No one understands him - poor TAT! - which is why he is going to repeat his thesis ad nauseam and avoid actually answering any questions, and then blame other people for his behaviour.

Some people understand perfectly well, but then again those people aren't arrogant, self-serving devious pricks with mental health problems and a pathological need to be right.

I have read your posts. You clearly, several times, state that there is a "revolution" in "Rojava" (!), that the various PKK-aligned forces there are building "democratic socialism" and whatnot. What is even democratic socialism? For most of us it's another name for traitor-social democracy.

Lol. You've done it again you fucking nob. For the twentieth time, I don't think the PKK-aligned "forces" are "building democratic socialism."

So at this point you either think breaking up territories into petty states joined into a confederation, along with democracy and self-management is socialism, which makes you about as socialist as Harrington, or you think the people in North Syria will overthrow the bourgeois state by some sort of inevitable historical process - hence, processism of the most rotten Pabloist variety.

You can call it processism if you want. If you object to the idea that the workers of Rojava have the ability to be won over to socialist ideas through the communes and commune committees then that just makes you a reactionary and calling me a Pabloist or a traitor isn't really going to change the fact that you're contemptuous of the Kurdish working class.

Sharia Lawn

11th December 2014, 20:45

Lol. You've done it again you fucking nob. For the twentieth time, I don't think the PKK-aligned "forces" are "building democratic socialism." Here is what you wrote:
Nothing you are saying alters or forwards the argument. The communes still exist, the commune committees still exist, the attempts by people in Rojava to create some form of democratic socialism exists and anarchists and communists continue to inhabit the political landscape. Just saying you don't trust the PKK etcetera etcetera and giving various reasons why the PKK aren't that great isn't really engaging with the reality. All it does is continue to confirm the PKK as a problem -- something I haven't denied. In that quote you appear to suggest that the PKK-aligned forces, rooted in the communes and their committees, are "building" or engaged in a movement that is consciously "attempting to build" something called "democratic socialism." This would make those movements, transpiring through those committees, "democratic socialist" in nature. If that isn't what you are trying to say there, then what are you trying to say when claiming that the communes are "attempting to build democratic socialism"? The problem here seems to be that you are fetishizing the commune-form, reading a movements politics off from the organizational forms it is taking. Politicized communes date back to the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and even before. The politics of these premodern communes were not what anybody on this forum would call revolutionary, and if transplanted to the present, would not IMO merit any kind of special consideration in what is otherwise a sectarian struggle.

The Feral Underclass

11th December 2014, 20:57

Here is what you wrote: In that quote you appear to suggest that the PKK-aligned forces, rooted in the communes and their committees, are "building" or engaged in a movement that is consciously "attempting to build" something called "democratic socialism." This would make those movements, transpiring through those committees, "democratic socialist" in nature. If that isn't what you are trying to say there, then what are you trying to say when claiming that the communes are "attempting to build democratic socialism"?

Sigh.

"The PKK aren't involved in the communes or commune committees. Those are made up of workers, peasants, petite-bourgeois of the town and village in which they exist.."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807562&postcount=94

I go on to repeat this fact about three times (at least), correcting the insistence on conflating the commune and commune committees with the PKK and others.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807573&postcount=101

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807585&postcount=110

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807610&postcount=116

I have also provided links to reports from people who have been to Rojava from Germany and the UK confirming this position (as well as the information from KAF). So, I don't know why anyone who had read my posts would be unclear about the position I'm giving.

Sharia Lawn

11th December 2014, 20:59

Sigh.

"The PKK aren't involved in the communes or commune committees. Those are made up of workers, peasants, petite-bourgeois of the town and village in which they exist.."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807562&postcount=94

I go on to repeat this fact about three times, correcting 870's insistence on conflating the commune and commune committees with the PKK and others. So, I don't know why anyone who had read my posts would be unclear about the position I'm giving.

Ok, so let's take out the part about "PKK-aligned." I think a pertinent question still remains: what about these committees makes you think they are "attempting to build democratic socialism" in the way that members of this forum would understand the term socialism or communism? Bickering over whether the PKK is aligned or isn't aligned just seems a way of side-stepping that question.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th December 2014, 21:01

Sigh.

"The PKK aren't involved in the communes or commune committees. Those are made up of workers, peasants, petite-bourgeois of the town and village in which they exist.."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807562&postcount=94

I go on to repeat this fact about three times (at least), correcting 870's insistence on conflating the commune and commune committees with the PKK and others.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807573&postcount=101

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807585&postcount=110

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807610&postcount=116

So, I don't know why anyone who had read my posts would be unclear about the position I'm giving.

And you still haven't answered what the Jesusing Christ "democratic socialism" is.

Nor have you answered why these communes, who are allegedly independent of the PKK, had been organised only after Ocalam's Bookchinite turn.

The Feral Underclass

11th December 2014, 21:05

And you still haven't answered what the Jesusing Christ "democratic socialism" is.

I have.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807013&postcount=64

"The commune and commune committees are communalising and redistributing food and services, the people of towns and villages are democratically governing their affairs, a delegate system has been introduced for regional organisation."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807573&postcount=101

Nor have you answered why these communes, who are allegedly independent of the PKK, had been organised only after Ocalam's Bookchinite turn.

I don't know the answer and I don't care either.

The Feral Underclass

11th December 2014, 21:09

Ok, so let's take out the part about "PKK-aligned." I think a pertinent question still remains: what about these committees makes you think they are "attempting to build democratic socialism" in the way that members of this forum would understand the term socialism or communism? Bickering over whether the PKK is aligned or isn't aligned just seems a way of side-stepping that question.

I use the term democratic socialism because I'm not really sure what else to call it, but I have discussed this already. I've outlined what the communes are doing and I have provided documentary evidence that goes into some detail.

What is happening in the communes is a kind of reform, a "trade union consciousness" that needs to be won over to socialism. But because of the way the communes are empowering the workers etcetera of the towns and villages to begin organising their own affairs, it provides the space and opportunity to agitate.

Sharia Lawn

11th December 2014, 21:18

I use the term democratic socialism because I'm not really sure what else to call it, but I have discussed this already. I've outlined what the communes are doing and I have provided documentary evidence that goes into some detail. What is happening in the communes is a kind of reform, a "trade union consciousness" that needs to be won over to socialism. But because of the way the communes are empowering the workers etcetera of the towns and villages to begin organising their own affairs, it provides the space and opportunity to agitate. According to the definitions you've laid out then, trade unions fighting for a small increase in their pension plan are also "attempting to build democratic socialism." Don't you think it's misleading to use that label so liberally, to apply it to so many different kinds of situations? I think the Kurds are an oppressed nationality and support their struggle for independence, including the formation of these committees, but I harbor no illusions about them being anything other than exactly what you call them: reforms that can bend either toward reformism or toward revolution depending on the type of leadership on the ground.

The Feral Underclass

11th December 2014, 21:22

According to the definitions you've laid out then, trade unions fighting for a small increase in their pension plan are also "attempting to build democratic socialism." Don't you think it's misleading to use that label so liberally, to apply it to so many different kinds of situations? I think the Kurds are an oppressed nationality and support their struggle for independence, including the formation of these committees, but I harbor no illusions about them being anything other than exactly what you call them: reforms that can bend either toward reformism or toward revolution depending on the type of leadership on the ground.

I think they are a "kind of reform," but they are clearly more than just some petty demand. Can you imagine this kind of organisation happening across America, or any where else in the West? This isn't just a small increase in a pension plan, this is mass-participation in the planning of governance by workers. It is the communalisation of goods and services. That's not just a reform.

We should support them and that's why it is key to support what is happening there rather than sit back and just chalk it up to "nationalist gangs." The picture is far more complicated than that.

reforms that can bend either toward reformism or toward revolution depending on the type of leadership on the ground.

Precisely why we need to give whatever support we are able to the international revolutionary socialist front and all those working in the PKK and YPJ/G who are fighting for socialism.

Dodo

11th December 2014, 22:54

@870 (goddamn it someone comes in between just before I post all the time)

I have told you the strategy shittons of times. The strategy is post-Marxist Latin American influenced one with libertarian touch(hence the anarchist fantasies)...the idea is popular politics to gain support of masses and drive them towards progressive politics under radical democracy(instead of leading a marginal bunch of radical revolutionaries). It does not put standard "goals" like abolishing private property on day one because that fucking fails all the time. Instead, they make revolution a continuous process, you could connect it to "permanent revolution" concept somewhat.
It is a process where the negation forms up in the process through democratic participation.....what will rojava do if they get rid of private property to satisfy your obsessions? It does not even have basis Russia had in 1920s. Its in a warzone...its in an international diplomatic context where political strategies-alliances are crucial. What you suggest is outright alienation and destruction in a marginal and heroic way......its a strategy that got Marxists nowhere.

Only today we see changes in Latin America and even in Spain.....stop fantasizing about one-day transformation to socialism with a sudden workers uprising. Unions are freaking smashed, and in the said region there is no organized class relations in the classical sense.... The dynamics of revolution have changed god damn it...
You can put this movement as an equal to ISIS and still talk here and then tell me I am a bourgeoisie.
You are a menace to socialism, you are an actual elitist hiding behind people's movement rhetoric.

What do you suggest 870? Tell me, what is the best outcome given the current situation in the said region? Why don't you draw a strategy? What would make you happy? I am really really curious as to your opinion on what would satisfy you here....

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th December 2014, 23:24

I have.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807013&postcount=64

"The commune and commune committees are communalising and redistributing food and services, the people of towns and villages are democratically governing their affairs, a delegate system has been introduced for regional organisation."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2807573&postcount=101

And when I pointed out that the German Empire during WWI had all of these things, you mysteriously stopped responding. So are you going to talk about "war socialism" (an actual phrase that was thrown around at the time, and the phrase the Bolsheviks parodied with "war communism"), or are you going to handwave the comparison away? (Before you start with the usual "but were there communists and anarchists..." - yes, at least people who thought of themselves as socialists, on both sides of the war, just as there were people who thought of themselves as anarchists in the fucking Free State of Fiume).

And calling this a reform stretches the truth quite a bit. Not everything advocated by reformists is a reform; and co-ops and "self-management" in particular do nothing to help workers, but do a lot to shore up the rule of capital, from Algeria under Ben Bella to the crisis in Argentina.

I don't know the answer and I don't care either.

Yes, and that's the problem. If tomorrow "councils" of some description began to appear in Daesh territory, and if people who support Daesh politically pointed to such councils as evidence of the independent workers' (and God knows what else) revolution in the Islamic State that needs to be protected by an international socialist front or whatever (it's good that I'm writing this because in real life I would have difficulties finishing that phrase with a straight face; nothing says 'leftism' like roleplaying what people think the Spanish Civil War was like), you wouldn't fall for such obvious nonsense. Yet when it comes to the PKK and its front groups, you not only ignore the evidence, you actively block it out.

I have told you the strategy shittons of times. The strategy is post-Marxist Latin American influenced one with libertarian touch(hence the anarchist fantasies)...the idea is popular politics to gain support of masses and drive them towards progressive politics under radical democracy(instead of leading a marginal bunch of radical revolutionaries). It does not put standard "goals" like abolishing private property on day one because that fucking fails all the time. Instead, they make revolution a continuous process, you could connect it to "permanent revolution" concept somewhat.

Yes, you have "told me the strategy shittons of times", and it's still as incoherent as it was the first time. Again, this is classic processism, the notion that workers don't need independent political organisation or revolutionary theory, but that they can be tricked into a revolution by well-meaning petit-bourgeois figures supporting other petit-bourgeois and bourgeois figures. This was the strategy of Pablo and Mandel and the entire rotten International Secretarian, and in the end, the various populist, Stalinist and social-democratic figures the IS and its successor the USEC supported managed to lead, not the masses to the revolution, but the USEC to open social-democracy. I don't think that would be a long trajectory for many people on this site, to be honest.

It doesn't work, it never has, and it never will.

As for "permanent revolution", the point of the theory is that a "bourgeois-democratic revolution" of Menshevik fantasy is completely impossible in the modern period; that only the proletariat, struggling as an organised political force conscious of its historical tasks, can destroy the backwardness that remains on the periphery of the imperialist system. The exact opposite of what you claim. Trotsky always stressed the centrality of the proletariat as a political force; to you workers are cattle to be herded to the revolution by petit-bourgeois idealists who can quote crit-theory nonsense.

Only today we see changes in Latin America and even in Spain....

Perhaps if you're hallucinating. Or if you think cosmetic differences in how capitalism is run are meaningful changes, in which case, why bother with the entire "socialist revolution" business? Ah, right, you actually don't.

What do you suggest 870? Tell me, what is the best outcome given the current situation in the said region? Why don't you draw a strategy? What would make you happy? I am really really curious as to your opinion on what would satisfy you here....

There. Is. A. Fucking. Civil. War. In. The. Region. If you would take a moment to stop daydreaming about how the glorious "Rojava" confederation is going to elect a president who can quote Laclau (just like Kirchner) and how every tedious crit-lit work you read is finally going to pay off, you might notice that the proletariat of the region is fucking butchering one another. Nothing is going to "satisfy me" in this situation because it's a defeat of the working class. Socialists stand for the defeat of all nationalist factions, and yes, that includes your PKK, your communes and confederacies and fuck if I know what you loons are going to invent next.

The Feral Underclass

11th December 2014, 23:55

And when I pointed out that the German Empire during WWI had all of these things, you mysteriously stopped responding. So are you going to talk about "war socialism" (an actual phrase that was thrown around at the time, and the phrase the Bolsheviks parodied with "war communism"), or are you going to handwave the comparison away? (Before you start with the usual "but were there communists and anarchists..." - yes, at least people who thought of themselves as socialists, on both sides of the war, just as there were people who thought of themselves as anarchists in the fucking Free State of Fiume).

Wait a minute, I thought I didn't answer the question?...Now it seems I did answer the question, just not good enough. I sense some goal-post shifting. Anyway, I did answer you, you just don't appear to like the answer.

Can I ask, what is the purpose of your intervention here? I'm genuinely struggling to don't understand what you're doing in this debate.

And calling this a reform stretches the truth quite a bit. Not everything advocated by reformists is a reform; and co-ops and "self-management" in particular do nothing to help workers, but do a lot to shore up the rule of capital, from Algeria under Ben Bella to the crisis in Argentina.

It's really interesting watching you implode in this thread, because it gives me an insight into your politics that I didn't really appreciate before. This is why people like you are utterly useless at political organising. You're no better than those stupid anarchists that think being a vegan and wearing black is going to create a free world.

If you're not prepared to accept that organisations involving the working class organising the day-to-day affairs of their lives are a genuine place to agitate for socialism then you're an incompetent idiot.

Yes, and that's the problem. If tomorrow "councils" of some description began to appear in Daesh territory, and if people who support Daesh politically pointed to such councils as evidence of the independent workers' (and God knows what else) revolution in the Islamic State that needs to be protected by an international socialist front or whatever...you wouldn't fall for such obvious nonsense

This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad speculum. These councils wouldn't exist in the "Daesh territory" so inventing some ridiculous hypothetical to draw a comparison is dishonest. I wouldn't fall for such nonsense because it wouldn't ever happen.

when it comes to the PKK and its front groups, you not only ignore the evidence, you actively block it out.

You've provided no evidence in this argument. And trying to compare the PKK with ISIS is just more dishonesty and stupidity. Bor-ing.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th December 2014, 00:52

Wait a minute, I thought I didn't answer the question?...Now it seems I did answer the question, just not good enough. I sense some goal-post shifting. Anyway, I did answer you, you just don't appear to like the answer.

For someone who constantly complains about how people don't read their posts, you don't appear to be reading them either. I don't blame you - they're dreadful - but it does call the legitimacy of your complaints into question, as it were. You mentioned "armed anarchists and communists" (like de Ambris, surely) "occupying the political landscape" (which is blatant TAT-speak devoid of any serious content) concerning Israel. You never addressed the point about Germany; I mentioned your response to the comparison with Israel because I wanted to avoid the situation where you repeat your claims over and over without addressing any of the objections others raise, before throwing a hissyfit and accusing others of "bullying" you because we want answers.

Can I ask, what is the purpose of your intervention here? I'm genuinely struggling to don't understand what you're doing in this debate.

Well you seem to be struggling with a lot of things, to be honest. People are calling for political and material support to an armed bourgeois-nationalist gang. I hope at least some people will stop and reconsider.

It's really interesting watching you implode in this thread, because it gives me an insight into your politics that I didn't really appreciate before. This is why people like you are utterly useless at political organising. You're no better than those stupid anarchists that think being a vegan and wearing black is going to create a free world.

If you noticed that I (or just about anyone who is serious about socialism, I don't think I'm particularly special in that regard) dislike codetermination, you really, really, really haven't been paying attention.

If you're not prepared to accept that organisations involving the working class organising the day-to-day affairs of their lives are a genuine place to agitate for socialism then you're an incompetent idiot.

You're a fucking tool of the imperialists. If you weren't as completely inconsequential as the rest of us you and your social-democratic buddies would be guilty of egging on the working class as it kills itself in service of the bourgeoisie.

This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad speculum. These councils wouldn't exist in the "Daesh territory" so inventing some ridiculous hypothetical to draw a comparison is dishonest. I wouldn't fall for such nonsense because it wouldn't ever happen.

Oh Jesus on a bagel roll. What gives you such boundless confidence in declaring "these councils wouldn't exist in the 'Daesh territory'" (sorry, occupied territories of the glorious eco-demo-femino-ethno-confederation of cantons and the international socialist forces in 'Rojava'), particularly when several Islamist movements have used consultative or otherwise powerless conciliar bodies? The only thing your arrogance reveals is your ignorance of the history of the region, and the extent to which you buy into the mindless demonisation of Daesh and lionisation of PKK when both are bloody anti-communist nationalist gangs.

You've provided no evidence in this argument. And trying to compare the PKK with ISIS is just more dishonesty and stupidity. Bor-ing.

Ya rab, is there anything more boring than people who constantly announce how horribly bored they are? If you're bored, I don't know, go watch a movie, read a book, go fight for your fucking "socialist" confederation of "Rojava". But the point is, as always, to turn attention to yourself. Every one of your posts screams "look at me, look at me!". For someone who accused me of having mental health problems (you're a nasty little prick, aren't you? I can only imagine why you keep changing organisations), you seem to have some issues to work out yourself.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

12th December 2014, 03:56

The Feral Underclass

12th December 2014, 09:16

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th December 2014, 12:26

DPRK = Deformed Workers' State
PKK = Nationalist Gang

It takes a special type of Trotskyite lunacy to call for the right of a totalitarian military dictatorship with an increasingly capitalist economy to develop nuclear weapons on one hand, while denouncing one of the most progressive experiments in workers' control (in the midst of a war with Saudi-backed Islamists with American guns) as a "nationalist gang".

I mean, FFS, I can think the leftcoms live in a purist fantasy world, but at least they're consistent.

(1) Trotskyists don't extend any political support to the bureaucracy of states like the DPRK, and in fact call for their overthrow.

(2) If you think codetermination in a mainly peasant region while the bourgeois state still exists and is being strengthened has anything to do with socialism, that says more about your (mis)conception of socialism than the situation in northern Syria.

(3) The PKK are a nationalist gang. Even as gullible leftists in the West lap up their Book Chin worship, they're threatening to expel Arabs from "Rojava". And perhaps your comment about "American guns' would carry more weight if the PKK weren't openly in bed with American imperialism.

Edelweiss

12th December 2014, 12:38

The PKK are a nationalist gang. Even as gullible leftists in the West lap up their Book Chin worship, they're threatening to expel Arabs from "Rojava".

Bullshit. There are many Arabs in the YPG ranks defending Rojava against the ISIS barbarians.

Devrim

12th December 2014, 12:42

Bullshit. There are many Arabs in the YPG ranks defending Rojava against the ISIS barbarians.

And yet the PYD leadership has openly talked about it on numerous occasions.

Devrim

Dodo

12th December 2014, 12:50

and Turkmens and Assyrians and Chechens and Armenians and Yezidis.

Just because PKK has a nationalist side does not make the whole movement based on pure nationalism. The nationalism of the PKK is nothing of the sort of Balkan peoples and most importantly PKK has never built its nationalism based on hatred of other nationalities. Only maybe at the extremes there are some Kurds who have a hatred towards Turks.
Instead, PKK actively built nationalism to oppose racism and discrimination, for a confederate life where the concept of nation-state is abolished.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th December 2014, 12:51

Dodo

12th December 2014, 12:55

thats not what I fucking mean but whatever

Devrim

12th December 2014, 13:06

most importantly PKK has never built its nationalism based on hatred of other nationalities.

I'm really surprised to hear you say this. Maybe you are too young to remember, but the venom the PKK used to reserve for Alevis was horrible. I think they have genuinely changed on this, but to say 'never' is completely untrue.

The PKK is obviously a nationalist organisation, and it will be drawn into ethnic murders, and massacres. That's wher the dynamic of these organisations leads them.

Devrim

Sasha

12th December 2014, 13:30

I'm really surprised to hear you say this. Maybe you are too young to remember, but the venom the PKK used to reserve for Alevis was horrible. I think they have genuinely changed on this, but to say 'never' is completely untrue.

maybe a bit offtopic but can you expand a bit upon this? i thought the turkish alevi's in recent times always been associated with the revolutionary leftist movements and vicously oppressed by the right, did the PKK see them as competition because of their association with dev-yol or see them as part of the kemalist secular regime or was it something else (latent religious/ethnic chauvinism)?

The Feral Underclass

12th December 2014, 13:33

freecommunist

12th December 2014, 13:33

Bullshit. There are many Arabs in the YPG ranks defending Rojava against the ISIS barbarians.

"One day those Arabs who have been brought to the Kurdish areas will have to be expelled," said Muslim in an interview with Serek TV.

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/24112013

Trots and anarchists never ceases to amaze me, in there support for one nationalist gang over another, or there support for various types of social democracy.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th December 2014, 13:37

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/24112013

Trots and anarchists never ceases to amaze me, in there support for one nationalist gang over another, or there support for various types of social democracy.

I would just like to point out that I am the only "Trot" who has posted on this thread, as far as I know and as far as I'm certain, and I definitely don't support the PKK. Apparently AFed has also been stricken with sanity, and they don't support the PKK either.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th December 2014, 13:48

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/24112013

Trots and anarchists never ceases to amaze me, in there support for one nationalist gang over another, or there support for various types of social democracy.

By the way (stupid site won't let me edit my quotes), it's nice to see that the people who read Rudaw.net aren't naive enough to believe the PKK is building a "non-national confederal state" in "Rojava". You really have to look in Western leftist circles to find people so naive and ready to believe anything that sounds vaguely radical.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

12th December 2014, 15:31

The Feral Underclass

12th December 2014, 15:40

It is difficult to think of a context in which that PYD quote is acceptable. The PYD and PKK leaderships remain a very clear problem and threat.

freecommunist

12th December 2014, 16:20

Its offbase to pretend that opinions are falling along tendency lines, people and groups who are normally in agreement on other issues are split in every direction when it comes to this. Tendency baiting is so fucking old it would be great if we could skip it for once.

I think you would struggle to find a left communist that "critically" supports the PKK or the “Rojava Revolution”.

freecommunist

12th December 2014, 16:22

I would just like to point out that I am the only "Trot" who has posted on this thread, as far as I know and as far as I'm certain, and I definitely don't support the PKK. Apparently AFed has also been stricken with sanity, and they don't support the PKK either.

No, but you are calling for the victory of ISIS, however critical that maybe.

Afed's statement is odd while it holds correctly to a internationalist view, it then kicks itself in the teeth by offering money to DAF who fully support the so-called “Rojava Revolution” and therefore the imperialist war.

Maybe Platformist tendencies would have been more fitting than anarchists as a whole.

Tim Cornelis

12th December 2014, 16:24

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/24112013

Trots and anarchists never ceases to amaze me, in there support for one nationalist gang over another, or there support for various types of social democracy.

This has already been addressed again and again. Salih Muslim has retracted and the constitution claims equal rights for all ethnic groups. As do other PYD documents and democratic confederal texts. To continue using this quote is a bit dishonest.

freecommunist

12th December 2014, 16:32

By the way (stupid site won't let me edit my quotes), it's nice to see that the people who read Rudaw.net aren't naive enough to believe the PKK is building a "non-national confederal state" in "Rojava". You really have to look in Western leftist circles to find people so naive and ready to believe anything that sounds vaguely radical.

I think this is fairly normal. The class struggle is at a very low level, in such times leftists often look for things to support in far off lands or there is the classic anti-fascism which can always be reinvented at home.

freecommunist

12th December 2014, 16:33

This has already been addressed again and again. Salih Muslim has retracted and the constitution claims equal rights for all ethnic groups. As do other PYD documents and democratic confederal texts. To continue using this quote is a bit dishonest.

Link?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

12th December 2014, 17:43

No, but you are calling for the victory of ISIS, however critical that maybe.

I'm not a member of the ICL. And I criticised their line on ISIS already.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

12th December 2014, 18:03

The fact that the statement was made in the first place is the concern, that the leadership realized it was a PR disaster waiting to happen and retracted it isn't very reassuring. But again this raises an even bigger question, was the rank and file willing to go through with this? Why does the upper echelon of this 'libertarian' party still hold such dictatorial power over policy anyway? Where does this seemingly endless reservoir of understanding you all have for this group come from? This is nuts.

The Feral Underclass

12th December 2014, 18:09

Where does this seemingly endless reservoir of understanding you all have for this group come from? This is nuts.

The "endless reservoir of understanding" that you are talking about is open criticism of the PYD leadership, a recognition of their counter-revolutionary politics, rejection of their constitution and an acknowledgement of the unacceptability and problematic nature of their ethno-nationalist attitude towards Arabs.

Tim Cornelis

12th December 2014, 18:44

I'm not a member of the ICL. And I criticised their line on ISIS already.

Note that he criticised it over ISIS not being strong enough, which is what's wrong with the ICL position according to 870:

"I think the ICL line on this is wrong; more than that, I think it amounts to taking a side in an intra-communal war. I also think it is incompatible with the ICL position on the Lebanese civil war, on the Syrian civil war etc.

This is because, all the talk about ISIS fighting against imperialism aside, ISIS can't strike any significant blow against the imperialist forces. At best it can kill Peshmerga bomb-spotters and intelligence agents (good riddance to them), but that will not stop the imperialist bombing, nor will it be seen as a blow against imperialism in the US."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/spartacist-league-backs-t191247/index.html?p=2802392

Link?

I can't find it now. :glare:

Dodo

12th December 2014, 20:23

I'm really surprised to hear you say this. Maybe you are too young to remember, but the venom the PKK used to reserve for Alevis was horrible. I think they have genuinely changed on this, but to say 'never' is completely untrue.

The PKK is obviously a nationalist organisation, and it will be drawn into ethnic murders, and massacres. That's wher the dynamic of these organisations leads them.

Devrim
Fair enough, the use of the word "never" was an exaggeration.

Rurkel

12th December 2014, 22:08

I can't find it now. :glare:
Not wishing to say anything else about this matter, I'd notice that actively retracting such a thing would be highly unusual. I doubt that Muslim ever renounced it (as opposed to pretending that he never said such a thing). If he did, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Dodo

12th December 2014, 23:01

from the little I looked into it, only Salih Muslim said that at one point last year. Its not exactly the same as saying PKK is a nationalist gang that constantly talks about inducing ethnic conflict.

Another problem that is obvious here is how we deal with PKK and PYD and their leaderships. PKK and PYD are not exactly the same which does bring in some weird generalizations. They are merely part of the same political current and ideological background. Their leaderships however are different.

Devrim

13th December 2014, 05:43

from the little I looked into it, only Salih Muslim said that at one point last year. Its not exactly the same as saying PKK is a nationalist gang that constantly talks about inducing ethnic conflict.

Muslim has talked about this on numerous occasions. It is not from just one piece. I've never seen a retraction. Ive seen some qualifications, but not a retraction.

The point about these sort of nationalist militias is not that they go round constantly talking about ethnic conflict. It's that their nature leads them towards it even when they speak against it.

Devrim

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 08:59

Their "nature"? Lol

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th December 2014, 13:02

I have been following this debate with interest.

I do have a question: if the PKK/PYD have moved from their old politics towards a genuine Democratic-Confederalism, then why did they address the Conference of International Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations in Istanbul last month?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th December 2014, 13:04

Could someone in the know -- perhaps Devrim -- link to some texts (they don't have to be in English) where the PKK and PYD talk about expelling Arabs from Kurdistan or hint at violence against other ethnic groups? I would be interested to read them. Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if you've seen this already (as it was filmed in September 2013), but this Vice investigative documentary actually shows PYD/PKK activists talking about doing exactly the opposite - ensuring that jihadists from Syria and abroad are not allowed to bring ethnic violence to Rojava.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/rojava-syrias-unknown-war/

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 13:08

freecommunist

13th December 2014, 13:15

HPG salutes the 50th anniversary of the FARC's drug deals and the great Stalinist Ernesto Che Guevarra, better known as nationalist scum.

http://kurdishquestion.com/insight-research/dossiers/hpg-sends-message-to-commemorate-farc-ep-s-50th-anniversary/93-hpg-sends-message-to-commemorate-farc-ep-s-50th-anniversary.html

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th December 2014, 13:25

I guess it would depend on what they said there.

https://rojavareport.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/socialism-and-rojava-festival/

Sounds fairly conciliatory towards their M-L past from the quotes there, although I can't find a full text of the speech.

motion denied

13th December 2014, 13:31

Actually Colombian and American governments say FARC are a drug cartel because they allow peasants to crop the only thing they are able in order not to starve: poppy, coca leaf and marijuana. Funny enough, the one involved with drug cartels was the champion of war on drugs, former President Alvaro Uribe.

I mean, you don't have to babble crap from a bourgeois government to criticize a failed stalinist guerrilla, which is only armed because the army and paramilitaries won't let them go legal. Anyway, continue...

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 13:38

https://rojavareport.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/socialism-and-rojava-festival/

Sounds fairly conciliatory towards their M-L past from the quotes there, although I can't find a full text of the speech.

The quotes as far as I can see:

“First we will build working class power. This working class made this world, the capitalists will not run it. We have set our hearts on this task. We will do this for Deniz Gezmiş and for Ali İsmail Korkmaz. Thousands of greetings and warm regards to those comrades who have contributed to this wonderful evening and who have come from all around the world. I thank all of those here tonight and also those who could not fit into this hall.”

[...]

“we are at a period in which years of struggle waged across the Middle East are having results. Kobanê is the signal flair. In the streets of Kobanê a battle is waging between ISIS, the representative of international imperialism, and the YPG, the representative of labor and the oppressed. In Kobanê two different ideologies are fighting. And without a doubt the ideology of freedom will prevail. The free woman will prevail. That barbarous mentality will be buried in the soil of Kobanê just as it was in Stalingrad.”

[...]

“in the Middle East barbarism will be defeated and the working class and peoples will prevail.”

Aside from being slightly boring, what is particularly notable about these quotes?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th December 2014, 13:50

The quotes as far as I can see:

Aside from being slightly boring, what is particularly notable about these quotes?

I'm just wondering how strong the connection between PYD/PKK and their old Marxist-Leninist past is.

I think that, were the situation to become more peaceful in and around Rojava, and the PYD to hold even strong political power, this could become an issue in terms of whether the PYD would close down the space for libertarians who are non-ML aligned to organise politically.

I guess it's worth ensuring, because of the PKKs past and their clear continuing relationships with authoritarian groups around the world, that support for the political situation in Rojava remains critical rather than dogmatic, if that makes sense?

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 14:01

I'm just wondering how strong the connection between PYD/PKK and their old Marxist-Leninist past is.

I think that, were the situation to become more peaceful in and around Rojava, and the PYD to hold even strong political power, this could become an issue in terms of whether the PYD would close down the space for libertarians who are non-ML aligned to organise politically.

I guess it's worth ensuring, because of the PKKs past and their clear continuing relationships with authoritarian groups around the world, that support for the political situation in Rojava remains critical rather than dogmatic, if that makes sense?

Being more general about this, what difference would it make to supporting what is happening in Rojava if it turned out the PKK were lying about their change in politics and were still Marxist-Leninists? Indeed, what difference does it make if they support FARC?

Marinaleda

13th December 2014, 14:20

Hi from Turkey

First,ı want to say something about Kurdish movement in my country.
PKK's first martyrs were Turkish.You can look HAKİ KARER ,KEMAL PİR.These are Turkish.
So founders were from all nations from Middle east.Arab kurd turk persian ...
Pkk was founded as a marxist leninist.They were still marxist leninist since 2000 years.
Ocalan interested in libertarian socialists for example Murray Bookchin.So Pkk accepted these idelogy COMMUNALİSM that was created by Bookchin.

Democratic Confederalism,democratic autonomy ... all of these are part of Communal ideology.They support communes and democratic assemblies to organaise new society form below.
Communal economy based on cooperatives and communes like in Rojava
Direct democratic confederalism based on direct democratic assemblies

In rojava there were PEOPLE'S COUNCİL OF WESTERN KURDİSTAN.this is a union of all communes and assemblies.TEV DEM is executive organ of PEOPLE's Council.It organises communes,commitees,and assemblies.

About economy,People in rojava occupied state farms and they started to manage them themselves.Like worker cooperatives but a little bit difference.So cooperatives are keystone of rojava's communal economy.

Kurdish movement is trying to organise these communes and assemblies in our country Turkey too.But it is not succesfull enough if we compare rojava and turkey.

Dodo

13th December 2014, 14:36

@vladimir innit lenin
PKK made a cut with its Marxist-Leninist past(the typical organisations of the Cold War setting with use of "revolutionary terror") after Öcalan's imprisonment. They took a libertarian turn in the early 2000s. At some point they in fact disbanded the organisation but only after Turkey's treatment they re-created the insurgency.

Anti-capitalism still takes priority in PKK, however with Latin American influences they've severed their connection to euro-centric form of Marxism that identifies itself over capitalist-modernity. A major conception according to öcalan being the object-subject distinction that lacks in classical Marxism. He mentions that dogmatic-ness is included in PKK but that they've left some room for self-critique which allowed them to go through.

Marinaleda

13th December 2014, 14:42

In rojava marxist leninist guerilla groups are fighting too.Turkish marxist leninist groups for example MLKP ,TIKKO.When pkk canged their idelogy ,they didnt become against marxist leninists.So in Turkey,Kurdish movement organised a party called HDP.In the HDP there arfe marxists,femnist,... lots of left wing groups joined HDP.So it shows that marxists and libertarian socialists can become close comrades and fighting for common goal.Socialist democratic Rojava

Dodo

13th December 2014, 15:29

Exactly, the idea is to build a united radical front that will work towards emancipation from below without taking over the state with a revolution and marginalizing different groups.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th December 2014, 15:52

Being more general about this, what difference would it make to supporting what is happening in Rojava if it turned out the PKK were lying about their change in politics and were still Marxist-Leninists? Indeed, what difference does it make if they support FARC?

I think there are two separate strands here: one is supporting what is happening in Rojava is a no-brainer in the sense that it is necessary to a) defeat ISIS and b) secure autonomy for Syrian Kurdistan from both ISIS and the Syrian regime.

If that were ever to happen, the second strand is whether the PYD/PKK should be given political support. Not that our moral support really matters on the ground in Rojava, but what sort of space is there for a genuinely libertarian politics to emerge in Rojava, should the threat of ISIS and Syrian/western control diminish?

Tim Cornelis

13th December 2014, 15:56

In rojava marxist leninist guerilla groups are fighting too.

source?

Dodo

13th December 2014, 15:56

@vlad innit lenin
It is quiet likely. In the worst case scenario, gender, environment and ethnic issues will be addressed as well as social inclusion.

I for one believe that success of Rojava can send powerful revolutionary waves to whole middle east and perhaps to whole world. It can become a reference point for future movements and a safe-ground for revolutionaries...especially the ones in Middle East.

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 15:57

If that were ever to happen, the second strand is whether the PYD/PKK should be given political support. Not that our moral support really matters on the ground in Rojava, but what sort of space is there for a genuinely libertarian politics to emerge in Rojava, should the threat of ISIS and Syrian/western control diminish?

Why would the PYD/PKK be given our political support (I ask in terms of how that support would manifest itself)? As I say, I think the space for that is within the communes and commune committees.

Dodo

13th December 2014, 16:05

source?

It is know that MLKP is involved.
news about a MLKP dude that was killed;
http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/mlkp_militani_rojavada_oldu-1151078
another dude from EMEP killed in Rojava
http://emep.org/selahaddin-adin-rojavada-yasamini-yitirdi/

another dude they say belonged to MLKP. He was a sociology phd I believe.
http://www.sendika.org/2014/10/bogazicili-suphi-nejat-agirnasli-kobanede-hayatini-kaybetti/

interview with a couple mlkp people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHe28jfZ764

there are many M-L people that went to Rojava though these groups do not have organized guerrillas(or I don't know). So they just go and join the pkk guerilla ranks.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th December 2014, 16:10

Why would the PYD/PKK be given our political support (I ask in terms of how that support would manifest itself)? As I say, I think the space for that is within the communes and commune committees.

I mean in terms of people in Rojava itself. It seems quite murky as to whether there is any groundswell of pro-libertarian opinion that exists outside of the PYD/PKK? If not, then it seems as though it would be quite easy, say, for any libertarian elements within the group(s) to be co-opted into a more authoritarian model in the future.

This is all conjecture though because we are merely observers from the other side of the world and in reality mine and yours' moral support matters little.

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 16:15

I mean in terms of people in Rojava itself. It seems quite murky as to whether there is any groundswell of pro-libertarian opinion that exists outside of the PYD/PKK? If not, then it seems as though it would be quite easy, say, for any libertarian elements within the group(s) to be co-opted into a more authoritarian model in the future.

You mean whether people in Rojava should politically support the PKK? I mean the PYD shouldn't really be supported, their politics is shitty. The PKK aren't involved in the commune and commune committees directly, so I'm not sure how these spaces could be co-opted by them directly, although I'm sure different and conflicting politics would emerge within them. There is also a new international volunteer organisation of revolutionary socialists, as well as KAF and those anarchists and communists involved in the PKK who are on the ground.

The problem might arise that once ISIS is defeated the PKK attempted to usurp the communes and commune committees. If we were being really cynical then we could claim these communes etcetera exist just to placate people in Rojava and those in the west and that after ISIS is gone the PKK will usurp them and exert some kind of Marxist-Leninist state. That doesn't seem very likely to me though.

This is all conjecture though because we are merely observers from the other side of the world and in reality mine and yours' moral support matters little.

People keep saying this, but I'm not really sure why.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th December 2014, 16:20

The problem might arise that once ISIS is defeated the PKK attempted to usurp the communes and commune committees. If we were being really cynical then we could claim these communes etcetera exist just to placate people in Rojava and those in the west and that after ISIS is gone the PKK will usurp them and exert some kind of Marxist-Leninist state. That doesn't seem very likely to me though.

Why not? To be fair I wouldn't say i'm so cynical at this stage, because that level of cynicism just transfers into reality as opposition to every single real-world struggle. But I think there does need to be some basis for believing that there is genuine space for a non-authoritarian politics to develop in Rojava, rather than just belief in the PKK/PYD because they are saying libertarian-ish things.

People keep saying this, but I'm not really sure why.

We can take some lessons for our own politics over here, but really unless you or I are going to fight out in Rojava (which I am not), then I don't think my opinion here or there is going to have much of an impact on the battles raging in Rojava.

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 16:27

Why not?

If their objective was to establish a Marxist-Leninist state, there are far more effective ways of doing it than helping establish some form of direct democracy to people and then suddenly taking it away. Considering the effort the PKK have gone through, that would be a real waste of energy, time and resources to create such an elaborate conspiracy. The support from the Western left isn't that consequential and the imperialist West will support any one irrespective of what they do. Plus, doing something like that has the risk of inflaming an entire population who have just been given a sense of freedom and then had it repressed. That makes no political or pragmatic sense.

To be fair I wouldn't say i'm so cynical at this stage, because that level of cynicism just transfers into reality as opposition to every single real-world struggle. But I think there does need to be some basis for believing that there is genuine space for a non-authoritarian politics to develop in Rojava, rather than just belief in the PKK/PYD because they are saying libertarian-ish things.

Who would those people be?

We can take some lessons for our own politics over here, but really unless you or I are going to fight out in Rojava (which I am not), then I don't think my opinion here or there is going to have much of an impact on the battles raging in Rojava.

Yeah, but that's just obvious, surely? I don't see why people need to keep pointing it out...

Dodo

13th December 2014, 16:36

What makes people think PKK will abolish communes? It is their own ideological creation and vision in this context(they ve been persistenly running them in Turkey for a long time despite the states active crackdown on kck). What gives the Kurds their revolutionary push is PKK that separates them from being a mere-national liberation movement(such as KRG).

What people are having problem the way I see it is that they believe this is all coming from only PKK...they do not realize that the whole progressive-democratics opposition in both Syria and Turkey are lined behind this movement. Its not nationalist Kurds that takes to streets in support of Rojava in İstanbul. Its the newly emerging radical left in popular politics. PKK acts as an umbrella to all progressive movements and a safe-haven.
The importance of Rojava is way beyond the region itself and has massive meanings to the radical left in 75 million population emerging capitalist economy of Turkey at the door of Europe.
I just cant believe people dismiss this because pkk does not go around with hammer and sickle.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th December 2014, 16:40

If their objective was to establish a Marxist-Leninist state, there are far more effective ways of doing it than helping establish some form of direct democracy to people and then suddenly taking it away. Considering the effort the PKK have gone through, that would be a real waste of energy, time and resources to create such an elaborate conspiracy.

This is fair.

Plus, doing something like that has the risk of inflaming an entire population who have just been given a sense of freedom and then had it repressed. That makes no political or pragmatic sense.

Doesn't this have parallels with the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik takeover of the soviets? Or rather, couldn't it potentially?

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 16:44

Doesn't this have parallels with the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik takeover of the soviets? Or rather, couldn't it potentially?

The Bolsheviks didn't repress the Soviets though. There could be political manoeuvring by the PKK leadership to consolidate the communes under one political authority and that's precisely why they pose such a threat.

Marinaleda

13th December 2014, 17:53

Turkish marxist leninist guerillas organising as UNİTED FREEDOM FORCES.

about pkk and communes ,ı can say that zapatistas were like pkk too.They were leninist and guerillas.But theu changed themselves.How they changed????

The answer is

Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona

............
II. – Where We Are Now

Then, like the zapatistas we are, we thought that it was not enough to stop engaging in dialogue with the government, but it was necessary to continue o*n ahead in the struggle, in spite of those lazy parasites of politicians. The EZLN then decided to carry out, alone and o*n their side (“unilateral”, in other words, because just o*ne side), the San Andrés Accords regarding indigenous rights and culture. For 4 years, since the middle of 2001 until the middle of 2005, we have devoted ourselves to this and to other things which we are going to tell you about.

Fine, we then began encouraging the autonomous rebel zapatista municipalities – which is how the peoples are organized in order to govern and to govern themselves – in order to make themselves stronger. This method of autonomous government was not simply invented by the EZLN, but rather it comes from several centuries of indigenous resistance and from the zapatistas’ own experience. It is the self-governance of the communities. In other words, no o*ne from outside comes to govern, but the peoples themselves decide, among themselves, who governs and how, and, if they do not obey, they are removed. If the o*ne who governs does not obey the people, they pursue them, they are removed from authority, and another comes in.

But then we saw that the Autonomous Municipalities were not level. There were some that were more advanced and which had more support from civil society, and others were more neglected. The organization was lacking to make them more o*n a par with each other. And we also saw that the EZLN, with its political-military component, was involving itself in decisions which belonged to the democratic authorities, “civilians” as they say. And here the problem is that the political-military component of the EZLN is not democratic, because it is an army. And we saw that the military being above, and the democratic below, was not good, because what is democratic should not be decided militarily, it should be the reverse: the democratic-political governing above, and the military obeying below. Or, perhaps, it would be better with nothing below, just completely level, without any military, and that is why the zapatistas are soldiers so that there will not be any soldiers. Fine, what we then did about this problem was to begin separating the political-military from the autonomous and democratic aspects of organization in the zapatista communities. And so, actions and decisions which had previously been made and taken by the EZLN were being passed, little by little, to the democratically elected authorities in the villages. It is easy to say, of course, but it was very difficult in practice, because many years have passed – first in the preparation for the war and then the war itself – and the political-military aspects have become customary. But, regardless, we did so because it is our way to do what we say, because, if not, why should we go around saying things if we do not then do them.

That was how the Good Government Juntas were born, in August of 2003, and, through them, self-learning and the exercise of “govern obeying” has continued.

>From that time and until the middle of 2005, the EZLN leadership has no longer involved itself in giving orders in civil matters, but it has accompanied and helped the authorities who are democratically elected by the peoples. It has also kept watch that the peoples and national and international civil society are kept well informed concerning the aid that is received and how it is used. And now we are passing the work of safeguarding good government to the zapatista support bases, with temporary positions which are rotated, so that everyone learns and carries out this work. Because we believe that a people which does not watch over its leaders is condemned to be enslaved, and we fought to be free, not to change masters every six years.

The EZLN, during these 4 years, also handed over to the Good Government Juntas and the Autonomous Municipalities the aid and contacts which they had attained throughout Mexico and the world during these years of war and resistance. The EZLN had also, during that time, been building economic and political support which allowed the zapatista communities to make progress with fewer difficulties in the building of their autonomy and in improving their living conditions. It is not much, but it is far better than what they had prior to the beginning of the uprising in January of 1994. If you look at o*ne of those studies the governments make, you will see that the o*nly indigenous communities which have improved their living conditions – whether in health, education, food or housing – were those which are in zapatista territory, which is what we call where our villages are. And all of that has been possible because of the progress made by the zapatista villages and because of the very large support which has been received from good and noble persons, whom we call “civil societies,” and from their organizations throughout the world. As if all of these people have made “another world is possible” a reality, but through actions, not just words.

And the villages have made good progress. Now there are more compañeros and compañeras who are learning to govern. And – even though little by little – there are more women going into this work, but there is still a lack of respect for the compañeras, and they need to participate more in the work of the struggle. And, also through the Good Government Juntas, coordination has been improved between the Autonomous Municipalities and the resolution of problems with other organizations and with the official authorities. There has also been much improvement in the projects in the communities, and the distribution of projects and aid given by civil society from all over the world has become more level. Health and education have improved, although there is still a good deal lacking for it to be what it should be. The same is true for housing and food, and in some areas there has been much improvement with the problem of land, because the lands recovered from the finqueros are being distributed. But there are areas which continue to suffer from a lack of lands to cultivate. And there has been great improvement in the support from national and international civil society, because previously everyone went wherever they wanted, and now the Good Government Juntas are directing them to where the greatest need exists. And, similarly, everywhere there are more compañeros and compañeras who are learning to relate to persons from other parts of Mexico and of the world,. They are learning to respect and to demand respect. They are learning that there are many worlds, and that everyone has their place, their time and their way, and therefore there must be mutual respect between everyone.

We, the zapatistas of the EZLN, have devoted this time to our primary force, to the peoples who support us. And the situation has indeed improved some. No o*ne can say that the zapatista organization and struggle has been without point, but rather, even if they were to do away with us completely, our struggle has indeed been of some use.

But it is not just the zapatista villages which have grown – the EZLN has also grown. Because what has happened during this time is that new generations have renewed our entire organization. They have added new strength. The comandantes and comandantas who were in their maturity at the beginning of the uprising in 1994 now have the wisdom they gained in the war and in the 12 years of dialogue with thousands of men and women from throughout the world. The members of the CCRI, the zapatista political-organizational leadership, is now counseling and directing the new o*nes who are entering our struggle, as well as those who are holding leadership positions. For some time now the “committees” (which is what we call them) have been preparing an entire new generation of comandantes and comandantas who, following a period of instruction and testing, are beginning to learn the work of organizational leadership and to discharge their duties. And it also so happens that our insurgents, insurgentas, militants, local and regional responsables, as well as support bases, who were youngsters at the beginning of the uprising, are now mature men and women, combat veterans and natural leaders in their units and communities. And those who were children in that January of ‘94 are now young people who have grown up in the resistance, and they have been trained in the rebel dignity lifted up by their elders throughout these 12 years of war. These young people have a political, technical and cultural training that we who began the zapatista movement did not have. This youth is now, more and more, sustaining our troops as well as leadership positions in the organization. And, indeed, all of us have seen the deceits by the Mexican political class and the destruction which their actions have caused in our patria. And we have seen the great injustices and massacres that neoliberal globalization causes throughout the world. But we will speak to you of that later.

And so the EZLN has resisted 12 years of war, of military, political, ideological and economic attacks, of siege, of harassment, of persecution, and they have not vanquished us. We have not sold out nor surrendered, and we have made progress. More compañeros from many places have entered into the struggle so that, instead of making us weaker after so many years, we have become stronger. Of course there are problems which can be resolved by more separation of the political-military from the civil-democratic. But there are things, the most important o*nes, such as our demands for which we struggle, which have not been fully achieved.

To our way of thinking, and what we see in our heart, we have reached a point where we cannot go any further, and, in addition, it is possible that we could lose everything we have if we remain as we are and do nothing more in order to move forward. The hour has come to take a risk o*nce again and to take a step which is dangerous but which is worthwhile. Because, perhaps united with other social sectors who suffer from the same wants as we do, it will be possible to achieve what we need and what we deserve. A new step forward in the indigenous struggle is o*nly possible if the indigenous join together with workers, campesinos, students, teachers, employees…the workers of the city and the countryside.

(To be continued…)

synthesis

13th December 2014, 18:43

TAT, sorry if you've already answered this, but I'd like to ask, hypothetically: What do you see as the best possible outcome in Rojava? As in, the most ideal scenario.

Marinaleda

13th December 2014, 18:59

Here ı just want to ask Devrim something?? Devrim why do you find Pkk nationalist??
You are turkish so in our country you gave exampğles that counter revolutionaries always tell about Kurdish movement.No leftist in our country call Pkk nationalist.İf someone tries to do that then it became for us a contra.

You can also come our forum in Turkey to discuss.

our forum is called Enternasyonal Forum

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 19:19

TAT, sorry if you've already answered this, but I'd like to ask, hypothetically: What do you see as the best possible outcome in Rojava? As in, the most ideal scenario.

The defeat of ISIS and the establishing of a socialist workers' dictatorship.

synthesis

13th December 2014, 19:26

The defeat of ISIS and the establishing of a socialist workers' dictatorship.

And do you think it would then spread to the rest of the world from there? I mean, is the possibility there, in your mind? That's a genuine question, I'm not trying to, uh, "out-ultraleft" you here.

prap

13th December 2014, 19:29

Sounds kinda like the spanish revolution, I hope with all my heart that the fascists, islamists in this case, wont be so lucky this time around.

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2014, 19:33

And do you think it would then spread to the rest of the world from there? I mean, is the possibility there, in your mind?

It's possible, but will it actually happen? I have no idea. I can't predict the future. What are the conditions for that kind of revolution to spread across the world? We've never witnessed the emergence of a socialist workers' dictatorship in the modern world...

I'm not trying to, uh, "out-ultraleft" you here.

My position on this issue couldn't really be characterised as "ultraleft," so I don't think that would be too difficult.

synthesis

13th December 2014, 19:55

My position on this issue couldn't really be characterised as "ultraleft," so I don't think that would be too difficult.

Oh, yeah, that's more or less what I meant - I guess that would have been better phrased if I said I wasn't trying to make you look like a "bad ultraleft."

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th December 2014, 01:54

I don't know if this article has been linked to already (it is a month old), but it is a stunning piece of analysis. It has convinced me (because some of its evidence, i.e. that US weapons have 'somehow' found their way into ISIS hands, is corroborated by other evidence, for example a VICE documentary that physically shows US writing on empty ISIS shells/casings) that the 'geopolitical' story of the US implicitly screwing the Kurds over to get to the PYD/PKK is true, and that we mustn't fall into the ultra-left political trap of opposing the situation in Rojava simply because the PKK probably can't be trusted from an ideological perspective.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-in-syrian-kurdistan-the-fall-of-kobani-is-a-prerequisite-for-the-invasion-of-syria/5414609

Dodo

15th December 2014, 08:50

is there a lot of leftists in the world that are against Rojava or hostile to it?

Devrim

15th December 2014, 09:37

Their "nature"? Lol

I don't see what is quite so funny. The idea that it is in the nature of nationalist organisations to become involved in nationalist violence, and random attacks on members of other ethnic/sectarian groups doesn't seem that absurd to me. I think if you looked back at history it would confirm it. Take a look at the war in Ireland if you need an example. That the PKK has a past history of that behaviour and openly talks of expelling Arabs, wouldn't inspire most people with confidence in them.

What is absolutely hilarious though is this idea that there is some sort of free commune or committee movement happening there. Now, Ive talked to people who have been there, and also to others who haven't who are Kurdish nationalists, and the overwhelming majority of them say "Of course the Party calls the shots on everything important".

It's obvious though. You just have to think a little. You don't get independent free commune or committees, in places where armed gangs have military control. It is just not how it works. To not even think of this is naivety taken to its extreme.

Devrim

Devrim

15th December 2014, 09:38

is there a lot of leftists in the world that are against Rojava or hostile to it?

I think most of them have forgotten it by now.

Devrim

The Feral Underclass

15th December 2014, 09:59

I don't see what is quite so funny.

The idea that something has an essential nature is pretty funny. It's the same bullshit logic that people use to justify capitalist economics, "well people are just selfish: it's human nature."

There's no essential "nature" to anything. There's no law that says things and people can't change. I find it more believable that the PKK rank-and-file -- and even Ocalan -- have altered their ideological views than have concocted some elaborate conspiracy to dupe us all. But then again, my entire believe system on this issue isn't based on some historical dogmatic analysis of the PKK. God forbid that you'd actually have to change your opinions.

The idea that it is in the nature of nationalist organisations to become involved in nationalist violence

Doesn't a nationalist organisation usually have to believe in the creation and/or perseverance of a nation state?

It's obvious though. You just have to think a little. You don't get independent free commune or committees, in places where armed gangs have military control. It is just not how it works. To not even think of this is naivety taken to its extreme.

So your argument is that while an armed conflict is happening between armed organisations there cannot be democracy?

Dodo

15th December 2014, 10:28

In addition to what TFU says, what does "of course the party calls all the shot" means? And why is it a bad thing? Its not like socialist ideologies are cherished all over the world....

I was at a conference yesterday with many people from Rojava. Academics who went there a couple of times for researching social-economic relations, how the "state" works, how society organizes....etc. I heard amazing things.
There was an official from Afrin Canton, Salih Muslim's wife Ayşe Efendi and a woman from some Syrian left group.
Other than that were journalists who have strong connections to the area and some who go there and come back.

I actually asked the academic lady if I can join their research groups and she told me that they jump over the border illegally and that resources are narrow but that I should email her anyways.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to see where PYD leadership has MANY times said that they'd chase the Arabs away. I don't know if they were romanticizing it or not but when I asked about it they said that there is no such a thing.

Dodo

15th December 2014, 10:32

note:

interview with a couple mlkp people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHe28jfZ764

there are many M-L people that went to Rojava though these groups do not have organized guerrillas(or I don't know). So they just go and join the pkk guerilla ranks.

The MLKP member girl in the video, Sibel Bulut(28) was killed yesterday. She had been through a lot of struggles in Turkey. A socialist journalist ealier in her life, she struggled with the law, joined the guerilla. She joined the liberation of Serekaniye first and then went to defend Kobani where she died.

http://www.imctv.com.tr/2014/12/14/mlkp-uyesi-sibel-bulut-kobanide-yasamini-yitirdi/

http://www.yuksekovahaber.com/haber/mlkp-savascisi-eylem-deniz-kobane-direnisinde-yasamini-yitirdi-144456.htm

Tim Cornelis

15th December 2014, 12:24

There's no essential "nature" to anything. There's no law that says things and people can't change. I find it more believable that the PKK rank-and-file -- and even Ocalan -- have altered their ideological views than have concocted some elaborate conspiracy to dupe us all.

What is so far fetched about window dressing? Stalinists use the same wishful thinking incidentally. Stalin claimed the USSR was a flourishing soviet democracy, as do and did other Stalinist states. Gadaffi claimed to merely have a symbolic function of a country ran through participatory democracy. The vast majority of countries without 'free and fair' elections claims to be democratic. Why is it so hard to believe that the PYD and PKK leadership, especially given its Stalinist structure, is doing the same? When you hear PKK 'rank and file' speak, they regurgitate the exact same talking points almost ad verbatim, which doesn't really give me the impression that they are sincere in their politics.

The Feral Underclass

15th December 2014, 12:48

What is so far fetched about window dressing?

Because a) it's far more than window dressing, the actual ideas are being put into practice and b) I see no sensible objective for concocting some conspiracy that fundamentally alters the entire ideology of their organisation.

Stalinists use the same wishful thinking incidentally. Stalin claimed the USSR was a flourishing soviet democracy, as do and did other Stalinist states. Gadaffi claimed to merely have a symbolic function of a country ran through participatory democracy. The vast majority of countries without 'free and fair' elections claims to be democratic. Why is it so hard to believe that the PYD and PKK leadership, especially given its Stalinist structure, is doing the same?

I have never been one for conspiracy theories.

Governments and political organisations don't lie for the fun of it, or just because of their inherent "nature," they do it for pragmatic reasons; for the realpolitik of the day-to-day pursuit of their objectives. When I look at the situation, I cannot see any convincing reason why the PKK would go to all this effort.

What would they possibly gain from it? If the rank-and-file are just sheep as you imply, then clearly it doesn't matter to them what the PKK say, they'll just follow them anyway. Is it to appease the Kurdish people? Appease them about what? And if it is, giving them this level of political autonomy and then taking it away suddenly seems like a bizarre strategy. Is it to get Western support from both the ruling class and the left? Well, since when has it bothered the Western ruling classes what political organisations say and think when deciding to give support? And what possible gains do the left have to give? The left in the West is a joke. The PKK would get more support if they talked about austerity and immigration. Is it to appease Turkey? Maybe, but that doesn't seem to be working out for them right now.

But I'm open to suggestions. If someone can give me a well reasoned, substantiated, comprehensive and coherent explanation for the PKK's conspiracy to fool the world without resorting to petty-sectarianism and mystical ideas of "nature," then I am more than willing to listen.

When you hear PKK 'rank and file' speak, they regurgitate the exact same talking points almost ad verbatim, which doesn't really give me the impression that they are sincere in their politics.

You mean tactical and theoretical unity? What ever are they thinking!

Tim Cornelis

15th December 2014, 13:11

Because a) it's far more than window dressing, the actual ideas are being put into practice and b) I see no sensible objective for concocting some conspiracy that fundamentally alters the entire ideology of their organisation.

It's not a conspiracy. Öcalan has had a paradigm shift, and the cult of personality around him ties the legitimacy of the effective leadership of the PKK and KCK to him, and therefore they were forced to at least pay lip service to this paradigm shift. I have seen no evidence for the actual ideas being put into practice, maybe I've missed it. But I have seen evidence of violations of their stated principles, including avowedly wanting to establish a republic, political repression of political opponents, and avowed advocacy of indirect, parliamentary democracy.

I have never been one for conspiracy theories.

Governments and political organisations don't lie for the fun of it, or just because of their inherent "nature," they do it for pragmatic reasons; for the realpolitik of the day-to-day pursuit of their objectives. When I look at the situation, I cannot see any convincing reason why the PKK would go to all this effort.

What would they possibly gain from it? If the rank-and-file are just sheep as you imply, then clearly it doesn't matter to them what the PKK say, they'll just follow them anyway. Is it to appease the Kurdish people? Appease them about what? And if it is, giving them this level of political autonomy and then taking it away suddenly seems like a bizarre strategy. Is it to get Western support from both the ruling class and the left? Well, since when has it bothered the Western ruling classes what political organisations say and think when deciding to give support? And what possible gains do the left have to give? The left in the West is a joke. The PKK would get more support if they talked about austerity and immigration. Is it to appease Turkey? Maybe, but that doesn't seem to be working out for them right now.

But I'm open to suggestions. If someone can give me a well reasoned, substantiated, comprehensive and coherent explanation for the PKK's conspiracy to fool the world without resorting to petty-sectarianism and mystical ideas of "nature," then I am more than willing to listen.

I don't see what's so pragmatic about it either. Yet, these various regimes do it. Why do they do it? If I were a dictator I'd claim it as an implicit 'fuck you' to regional and Western powers that would criticise my rule.

Maybe if you could explain what's pragmatic about or the reason for Syria, Iran, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Egypt, or Belarus to claim to be democratic that could shed light on the discrepancy between these examples on the one hand and the PYD or PKK on the other.

I'm not exactly sure why dictators try to frame themselves as democratic rulers. In the case of the PYD and PKK's claim to democratic confederalism I'm assuming it is to manufacture legitimacy for its rule as consistent with Öcalan's and democracy's principles.

Let me pose this in return: If someone can give me a well reasoned, substantiated, comprehensive and coherent explanation for the Soviet Union's conspiracy to fool the world without resorting to petty-sectarianism and mystical ideas of "nature," then I am more than willing to listen.

This is what I meant with anarcho-Tankie.

You mean tactical and theoretical unity? What ever are they thinking!

No, I mean empty sloganeering carefully instilled into them through political education by an organisation that is historically structured as a pseudo-cult, completely authoritarian top-down with a cult of personality around Öcalan's whose wisdom it was and is not permitted to be questioned, an organisation that has used its members for suicide attacks.

Ignoring all this to maintain that a real 'democratic confederalism' is emerging seemingly parallels the Stalinist's willingness to believe in the Soviet propaganda about soviet democracy. Anarchists are going anarcho-tankie.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 14:02

The Feral Underclass

15th December 2014, 14:05

It's not a conspiracy. Öcalan has had a paradigm shift, and the cult of personality around him ties the legitimacy of the effective leadership of the PKK and KCK to him, and therefore they were forced to at least pay lip service to this paradigm shift. I have seen no evidence for the actual ideas being put into practice, maybe I've missed it. But I have seen evidence of violations of their stated principles, including avowedly wanting to establish a republic, political repression of political opponents, and avowed advocacy of indirect, parliamentary democracy.

In this very thread I have provided two links to documentary evidence from independent sources who have visited the region and given indication of where there is more.

Maybe if you could explain what's pragmatic about or the reason for Syria, Iran, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Egypt, or Belarus to claim to be democratic that could shed light on the discrepancy between these examples on the one hand and the PYD or PKK on the other.

Democratic according to whose principles or definition of democracy? Do you want me to outline how these governments are democratic by Western liberal democratic narratives or by socialist ones, or something different? I think this line of questioning also betrays Western-centric and patronising attitudes. We don't have democracy in the UK, nor do you have it The Netherlands, so why are those countries not included in the list? Are the dictatorships in Asia and the Middle East motivated by evil lying individuals, but the dictatorships in the West are governed by individuals who just don't know any better?

China claims a form democracy. It's not democracy as I would envision it and I would make that argument based on the material conditions that exist in China. The PKK likewise claims a form of democracy and again I judge that by the material conditions that exist. And the communes and commune committees exist in Rojava. They are operational and they are executing an agenda for control over the political, social and economic day-to-day activities of the towns and villages in which they exist. These communes and commune committees have been independently verified by delegates from European countries (as well as people from Turkey that Dodo mentions).

If these organisations are the limit to which the PKK intend to allow those in Rojava to go before intervening, then of course that is a problem and as I have said (numerously), this is precisely why we need to be sceptical of PKK narratives and why people in Rojava need to be won over to socialist ideas, free from the PKK leadership (which is a problem).

No, I mean empty sloganeering carefully instilled into them through political education by an organisation that is historically structured as a pseudo-cult, completely authoritarian top-down with a cult of personality around Öcalan's whose wisdom it was and is not permitted to be questioned, an organisation that has used its members for suicide attacks.

Ignoring all this to maintain that a real 'democratic confederalism' is emerging seemingly parallels the Stalinist's willingness to believe in the Soviet propaganda about soviet democracy. Anarchists are going anarcho-tankie.

The emergence of "democratic confederalism" isn't propaganda. It is coming into existence whether I ignore your umpteenth history lesson on on the PKK or not.

The problem I am facing in this discussion is that people like you, Devrim 870twat and Ethics keep trying to frame this debate about one that is reduced down to the PKK, forcing people to get into a defence of the organisation. Frankly, I'm getting fed up at constantly being drawn into a conversation about the PKK, especially since I have consistently claimed that the PKK are a very small part of my overall opinion. If the purpose of your intervention is to explain to me that you think the PKK are bad guys and that I should be sceptical of them then you can stop now: I get it. In fact I've never not got it. That's why five pages ago I laid out very clearly what my position on the PKK is. So why do we keep returning to this discussion? What is it you're trying to convince me of? That the PKK are liars? What would it matter if they are?

I'm not here to defend the PKK and I never have been. If you cannot move this debate on from the PKK then don't talk to me any more. The situation in Rojava is bigger and more important than what the PKK is and has been and may or may not think.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th December 2014, 14:06

I've been going back and reading some of the PKK propaganda that has been posted here elsewhere on the board. One had 10 references to great comrade Ocalan thought and another had 7, plus two of his shining quotes. Is the PKK capable of not mentioning his name or is that a directive they have comply with?

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I've managed to come across two pro-PKK protests in the last few days, all of them had the same horrible markerpen-yellow flags (you know, that colour that burns your retinas) with an outline of comrade Ocalan and his mustache.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 14:15

We should start an awareness campaign in solidarity with the PKK, we can raffle off the opportunity to have your life democratically managed by comrade öcalan via prison correspondence

Tim Cornelis

15th December 2014, 14:30

In this very thread I have provided two links to documentary evidence from independent sources who have visited the region and given indication of where there is more.

Like I said, maybe I've missed it. Presumably you linked to the DAF article. I don't find these types of stories very believable. Again the parallel of independent socialists visiting 'socialist countries' and detailing how wonderfully democratic those places are.

Democratic according to whose principles or definition of democracy? Do you want me to outline how these governments are democratic by Western liberal democratic narratives or by socialist ones, or something different? I think this line of questioning also betrays Western-centric and patronising attitudes. We don't have democracy in the UK, nor do you have it The Netherlands, so why are those countries not included in the list? Are the dictatorships in Asia and the Middle East motivated by evil lying individuals, but the dictatorships in the West are governed by individuals who just don't know any better?

Ah, the No True Democracy Fallacy.

Of course the Netherlands and the UK are democracies, bourgeois democracies.

This is also kinda a red herring.

China claims a form democracy. It's not democracy as I would envision it and I would make that argument based on the material conditions that exist in China. The PKK likewise claims a form of democracy and again I judge that by the material conditions that exist. And the communes and commune committees exist in Rojava. They are operational and they are executing an agenda for control over the political, social and economic day-to-day activities of the towns and villages in which they exist. These communes and commune committees have been independently verified by delegates from European countries (as well as people from Turkey that Dodo mentions).

What does it even mean judging 'material conditions'? Can you explain this more precisely?

Which and what kind of delegates from what organisations?

The emergence of "democratic confederalism" isn't propaganda. It is coming into existence whether I ignore your umpteenth history lesson on on the PKK or not.

Said the anarcho-tankie instilled with the same confidence the 1960s Maoists had who swore that real workers' democracy existed in Albania, they had visited the country and seen it with their own eyes after all!

The problem I am facing in this discussion is that people like you, Devrim 870twat and Ethics keep trying to frame this debate about one that is reduced down to the PKK, forcing people to get into a defence of the organisation. Frankly, I'm getting fed up at constantly being drawn into a conversation about the PKK, especially since I have consistently claimed that the PKK are a very small part of my overall opinion. If the purpose of your intervention is to explain to me that you think the PKK are bad guys and that I should be sceptical of them then you can stop now: I get it. In fact I've never not got it. That's why five pages ago I laid out very clearly what my position on the PKK is. So why do we keep returning to this discussion? What is it you're trying to convince me of? That the PKK are liars? What would it matter if they are?

I'm not here to defend the PKK and I never have been. If you cannot move this debate on from the PKK then don't talk to me any more. The situation in Rojava is bigger and more important than what the PKK is and has been and may or may not think.

For all your claims of being sceptical and opposed to the PKK you compensate with defense of the very organisations over which they exercise control. It's not really meaningful then. This really seems a convenient tactic. One the one hand you deflect criticism of your support this way, yet you can maintain support of the very institutions that the PKK-KCK build, maintain, govern, and enforce. They cannot be separated.

The Feral Underclass

15th December 2014, 14:45

Like I said, maybe I've missed it. Presumably you linked to the DAF article. I don't find these types of stories very believable. Again the parallel of independent socialists visiting 'socialist countries' and detailing how wonderfully democratic those places are.

The reports were from a London based anarchist group called Haringey Solidarity Group and a Kurdish solidarity group based in Germany called TATORT Kurdistan. The other was from the Kurdish Anarchist Forum.

Ah, the No True Democracy Fallacy.

Of course the Netherlands and the UK are democracies, bourgeois democracies.

This is also kinda a red herring.

It amuses me that you say "No True Democracy Fallacy" and then directly under it you say "bourgeois democracy" signifying that there are, in fact, different kinds of democracy.

What does it even mean judging 'material conditions'? Can you explain this more precisely?

Observing facts and drawing conclusions based upon them...:confused:

Which and what kind of delegates from what organisations?

The same as those I mentioned above.

Said the anarcho-tankie instilled with the same confidence the 1960s Maoists had who swore that real workers' democracy existed in Albania, they had visited the country and seen it with their own eyes after all!

I'd just like to point out that I don't think democratic confederalism is "real workers' democracy."

For all your claims of being sceptical and opposed to the PKK you compensate with defense of the very organisations over which they exercise control. It's not really meaningful then. This really seems a convenient tactic. One the one hand you deflect criticism of your support this way, yet you can maintain support of the very institutions that the PKK-KCK build, maintain, govern, and enforce. They cannot be separated.

The PKK don't exericise control over the communes or commune committees. But fine, have it your way. Your argument can basically be summarised as a conspiracy theory predicated on the notion that individuals have an inherent nature, that any one who talks positively of what is happening in Rojava has been duped or is just a propaganda hack and that I'm a liar conveniently constructing arguments to covertly support the PKK.

Dodo

15th December 2014, 14:49

*massive rant ahead*

why don't guys fucking head to Rojava and see for yourselves? Its not like they are hiding what they are doing, its not a closed country, its all happening in front of our eyes...we are in the 21st century, internet and cellphones are everywhere. How much Stalin can you go in Rojava? Seriously...people are going over and coming back. ACADEMICS ARE DOING IT DAMN IT...how stalinist and conspiracy minded Öcalan loving freaks can these academics be to put their lives in danger, face persecution in Turkey, live in a warzone for weeks and come all the way to talk to us in İstanbul for hours about it?

If the great republic of Turkey allows you to jump the border without getting a head-shot
http://www.yuksekovahaber.com/haber/ortakayadan-mektup-insanlik-icin-savasmaya-gidiyorum-142036.htm
and well if you can protect yourself from behead loving ISIS gangs, you can take a look for yourselves.

just go there and see it for yourselves. What, are you doing any more revolution where you are? Do you matter for the world working class so much where you are? Clearly when it comes to critique you have so much insight in this movement.

---
Many people come and go. I told you I was at a conference just YESTERDAY where
1-political context
2-feminist perspective
3-social economic context
was discussed from 10 to 19'o clock with academics, revolutionaries and journalists.

I do not mind the criticism on a potential failure, that their method is maybe wrong or that an opinion that they will fail.
But what the hell is this conspiracy and a completely meaningless dishonest critique...are millions in it for a conspiracy? Are you guys joking? You guys are fucking worse than ISIS or Turkish media.

I can understand the concerns with the personality cult, I can understand the claims that they are a nationalist gang.....but what the fuck?

IF ANYTHING, in the worstestestestestest scenerio, we are talking about a people that had been oppressed for decades since modern-nation states arose...people died, they got killed, their identity destroyed, mass movements smashed under tanks, people toruted in jails, rods put into their asses, their own shits were given to them as food, property taken away, villages burned, forced in to migration in lands where they are second class citizens, faced active racism, could not even get a fucking job.
The same people that had its lands attacked by a radical Islamic ideology. Even if they are both fucking working class, ISIS IS FUCKING ATTACKING and COMING TO MAKE YOU ALL freaking PROPER MUSLIMS. IN THE WORST WORST WORST scenerio they are coming to erase women from the face of public sphere. There is a fucking difference don't you think?

I am not even thinking here about all the theoretical socialist framework even.
We are socialists, WE SUPPORT THOSE WHO ARE IN NEED, we support the oppressed, we are the voice of the ones who are hit by life, the capital, the wars. We are a movement of the peoples.
You guys are fossils. Marginals...social misfits....anti-social weirdos that claim to be involved in an intellectual activity in the most anti-social way possible. You have been way too bourgeoisie-fied and you don't even notice it. Your claims to "peoples real movement", a truely social movement, is nothing but an elitism hiding behind your anti-social elitism.

I am not going to point to individuals but you should honestly self-critique a bit. I am not asking you to take a strong position or even support anything. At least drop your dishonesty.
Lets talk about it on honest terms. Whether they have a shot at it, or whether they are seriously fucking with us all.....why can't you have proper discussion here without name calling, accusing with heresy and personalizing everything with a "great insight" on everything?

I don't really mention it but most of you guys don't even fucking live in Turkey, where this movement was born(I can relate more to Devrim on that, so I'd take his words more seriously if he critiqued)..under what circumstances it evolved and came to what it is. What are the rhetoric is like? have you ever read the books or theoretical propositions PKK has produced? I am not trying to tell you that you cannot get an insight....BUT CLEARLY, at this moment, none of you have an insight.
I went to streets people against police for more than half a decade with these people, went to their talks, conferences, followed their persecution....faced the issues they adress first hand in my daily life.
No other political movement offers an alternative here....and you are just pissing on it with hearsay. Way to go.

Dodo

15th December 2014, 14:56

when I came here today, I was hoping to talk about the academic analysis that was given in the confernce yesterday...how we can build socialism there, how the society is organized in communes now...how economy is going to fare, politial structures are going to be shaped..but look at this.
It was my mistake to take this forum seriously as a platform for revolutionaries. Revolution is out there happening anyways. Support it or keep living in a dream with 100 people international Marxist conferences of people who failed in their lives 50 years from now.

You realized that in a few year, when you are sick of your life, you can just take your shit and join a commune in rojava and live a properly social life with no exploitation....be happy on political terms, have a real say in things..nope, you'd rather have this movement smashed.
We are losing people for this. People I know are dying(not necessarily friends but people from the same groups)....and you guys are doing what? Pathetic.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 14:57

The dude sitting in Turkey right now is going to tell me to go to Rojava, why the hell aren't you there if you believe this so much? Is your phd more important than communism? You're not there because you know this is smoke and mirrors and it would be really stupid to put yourself in the hands of the PKK. Good on you for using your head, but why are you still shilling for them on the internet?

Dodo

15th December 2014, 15:05

nope, I am scared of war and am not ready to face death as well as putting my family through it. Thats why I don't go...and even then, I talked to the academics who go there and one of them told me to mail them...that their resources are narrow and they go illegally...but I might join them.

In addition, the moment I get caught in involvement with them my fucking life here is over...I won't get a job. So theres that. Are you going to give me asylum?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 15:11

Dodo

15th December 2014, 15:22

Communism is illegal, that's to be expected. Im not putting you on trial or questioning your dedication, but surely you see the inherent comedy in your statement about how we in the US and western Europe should go there and see for ourselves, while you sit right next door in Turkey and post your own version of hearsay, right?

did you really have to take what I say out of context? You dont have to go anywhere....but the bs critique AS IF you are there is making me sick. Everyone here knows everything. Maşallah.

You claim there is conspiracy ,dishonesty and take it to be a fact....on a movement that is transparent as air....thats why I said go and see for yourselves. Stalinism? Are they hiding something? Is this like a secret Stalinist movement that will establish a dark state all of a sudden and we, the people in this movement do not know of it? If I do not know it, how do you know it?
Thats why I said go and see for yourselves.

For months now I have been going inbetween, having internal mini-crisis regarding going there...thinking of death being at the end of it...or a life ruined in the country I am a citizen of....a future of success I might be leaving.....a betrayal to my family, everyone who believes me and invested in me....my sister that will rely on me, my father in his mid-life crisis in unemployment...how will I explain it to my grandmothers who cant even accept the fact that I studied abroad...
And I know people who did it, and died, or they are there now. Trying to make it a better place. What do we have here though?
Fuck revolutionary solidarity, people who are not capable of a proper discussion.

Marinaleda

15th December 2014, 15:25

Party and communes are diffrent things.All people here are talking with this leninist idea.They think that PKK is buiklding communes.No of course not.Pkk is a political organisation and an army.Theyh cannot build communes.Communes can be built by democratic political organs like congress movements and councils that organises themselves from below.Tev dem is a congress and its goal is buildin communes and assemblies.Pkk's goal is waring and strugling against Turkish state not to build communes.So we must understand this communes and party are very different.We can use party and support party.But that is not enough to organise new society.If we wanto organise communes,we must be in a movement or an council,congress.

Congress system organise itself from below
It is an social system against capitalist modernity.
It is based on communes and cooperatives
Congress can support a party
But we must know that congress and party politics are two diffrent ways
TEV DEM,DTK HDK are congress and their goals are building communes and assemblies

Tim Cornelis

15th December 2014, 15:29

@Dodo.

That appeal to emotion doesn't really work. I don't have to visit the formerly Maoist Zapatistas as there's no information contradicting that they indeed operate on participatory. Ditto for the Stalinist MST in Brazil and the AbM in South Africa. Why don't you visit North Korea and see for yourself if it's democratic or not?

-------------

So at this point it seems that you are throwing as much deflections and red herring at me.

The reports were from a London based anarchist group called Haringey Solidarity Group and a Kurdish solidarity group based in Germany called TATORT Kurdistan. The other was from the Kurdish Anarchist Forum.

So all kinds of organisations susceptible to bias and wishful thinking. These are as independent as the Maoists visiting Albania.

It amuses me that you say "No True Democracy Fallacy" and then directly under it you say "bourgeois democracy" signifying that there are, in fact, different kinds of democracy.

This is literally in no way conflicting. You are the one using the 'no true scotsman [democracy] fallacy', not me. To complete the analogy.

Me: 'those Iranians and Chinese are not Scots'

You: 'those Scots are not real Scots neither, funny you don't mention them'

Me: 'that's a No True Scotsman fallacy, they are Scots, northern Scots'.

You: 'funny that you immediately say "northern scots" signifying that there are, in fact, different kinds of Scots!"

Yes, there are different kinds of democracy, indirect democracy and direct democracy, and socialist and liberal democracy. Iran and China are none, the Netherlands is an indirect liberal democracy.

Observing facts and drawing conclusions based upon them...:confused:

That's not what 'material conditions' means, which threw me off.

I'd just like to point out that I don't think democratic confederalism is "real workers' democracy."

I never said you believed that. But that's not the point of this analogy. The point is, many anarchists behave like Stalinists in wanting to believe that the window dressing is in fact not window dressing.

The PKK don't exericise control over the communes or commune committees. But fine, have it your way. Your argument can basically be summarised as a conspiracy theory predicated on the notion that individuals have an inherent nature, that any one who talks positively of what is happening in Rojava has been duped or is just a propaganda hack and that I'm a liar conveniently constructing arguments to covertly support the PKK.

Note that you didn't address that these types of arguments can be used to defend the USSR as real soviet democracy. 'woh, woh, why would Stalin even lie about that?! That's such a conspiracy theory. You know Debbs went there and witnessed soviet democracy flourishing right?'.

Also, it was Devrim whom mentioned 'essential nature', and he didn't talk about individuals neither.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 15:34

I don't think they're hiding it at all dude, there is some willful ignorance happening on the part of outside supporters. If I were a kurd and the choice was between daesh, assad, or the PKK the choice is obvious. Even if the PKK said ok Öcalan read lord of the rings over the weekend so from now on we all dress up like Elves and Orcs, the choice would still be obvious. There's no confusion in my mind as to why people there would go along with this.

I guess Im just disappointed in the international left, which I didn't expect to happen any more. I thought for sure anarchists and the post-marxist-Marxist crowd would be able to exercise more critical thinking than this, but I see now they are just as willing to support a team as it were, so long as they fly the right colors. Oh well, this too shall pass.

Dodo

15th December 2014, 15:38

is the fact that at least Kurds are an heavily oppressed people an appeal to emotion or an empirical fact Tim Cornelis? Or the fact that they are being attacked by radical Islamists that will make sure everyone is a radical like them and remove woemn from public sphere?
Is this an appeal to emotion?

This fucking dishonesty man.....like I built my whole argument on emotion.

Tim Cornelis

15th December 2014, 16:04

The point ia you use emotion to impair objective discussion on the nature of the PKK. Fighting Islamists doesn't affect their politics or their practice.

Dodo

15th December 2014, 16:13

yea yea yea I have noticed its a dead end to discuss that with you guys.

The question is, this nationalist gang of bourgeoisie ideas led by a Stalinist structure that represents the Kurdish movement legit or not?
Given all the oppression the Kurds have suffered in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and they organized themselves for independence....is this a legit movement? In comparison to ISIS actually....

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 16:21

If daesh is your starting point, then yeah practically anything can be legit. You guys keep changing your arguments. Is this to be supported because the Kurds deserve self defense or because its proto-socialism?

Dodo

15th December 2014, 16:29

there is no change in my argument...I am adressing the hostility to Kurdish movement. Not just in relation to Daesh, in relation to Syria, Iraq, KRG, Iran and Turkey and even Hüda-par as well.

Dodo

15th December 2014, 16:34

Quoting this so you get some info with people from actual insight

You guys think its the armed gangs that are running rojava as well as the political structures of Kurdish movement in Turkey.....
while disregarding the whole political bottom-up political structures that are SELF-ORGANIZING all over the place.

Party and communes are diffrent things.All people here are talking with this leninist idea.They think that PKK is buiklding communes.No of course not.Pkk is a political organisation and an army.Theyh cannot build communes.Communes can be built by democratic political organs like congress movements and councils that organises themselves from below.Tev dem is a congress and its goal is buildin communes and assemblies.Pkk's goal is waring and strugling against Turkish state not to build communes.So we must understand this communes and party are very different.We can use party and support party.But that is not enough to organise new society.If we wanto organise communes,we must be in a movement or an council,congress.

Congress system organise itself from below
It is an social system against capitalist modernity.
It is based on communes and cooperatives
Congress can support a party
But we must know that congress and party politics are two diffrent ways
TEV DEM,DTK HDK are congress and their goals are building communes and assemblies

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th December 2014, 16:41

If daesh is your starting point, then yeah practically anything can be legit.

If I might interject, why is that the case? I mean, sure, the Daesh is a bourgeois sectarian gang. So is the PKK. The PKK was formed in reaction to the actual, material oppression of Kurds, by Turkey, Iran, Iraq etc. Well, the Iraqi Sunnis have also been the targets of sectarian violence since the US invasion, and the Daesh is part of the response to that. Their program is disgusting, but so are PKK threats to ethnically cleanse Arabs.

I think the response of much of the left to Daesh is ridiculous. Whereas previously some groups were openly in bed with Islamism, now Islamist forces are being portrayed as demons, instead of human beings participating in movements arising out of concrete material circumstances. I don't think the Daesh should receive any support (here I disagree with the ICL). But I don't think they are in any way distinguished from other sides in this conflict.

(And even if people insist on playing up the Islamism angle - which is a bad way of understanding Daesh - one of the forces opposing Daesh is... Islamist Iran. Yeah.)

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 16:47

there is no change in my argument...I am adressing the hostility to Kurdish movement. Not just in relation to Daesh, in relation to Syria, Iraq, KRG, Iran and Turkey and even Hüda-par as well.

The fact that you're referring to it as the kurdish movement kind of answers the question in my mind. That's not to say that I think they should lay down their arms and let daesh roll over, if anything I have no comment. I don't live there and this is not really my problem, I doubt they care what I think. Im only interested in the communist perspective.

Dodo

15th December 2014, 16:49

The fact that you're referring to it as the kurdish movement kind of answers the question in my mind. That's not to say that I think they should lay down their arms and let daesh roll over, if anything I have no comment. I don't live there and this is not really my problem, I doubt they care what I think. Im only interested in the communist perspective.
and not their decades old struggle at all? Thats fine with you? The Turkish handling of the Kurds or the Syrian handling of the Kurds is okay?

Dodo

15th December 2014, 16:53

If I might interject, why is that the case? I mean, sure, the Daesh is a bourgeois sectarian gang. So is the PKK. The PKK was formed in reaction to the actual, material oppression of Kurds, by Turkey, Iran, Iraq etc. Well, the Iraqi Sunnis have also been the targets of sectarian violence since the US invasion, and the Daesh is part of the response to that. Their program is disgusting, but so are PKK threats to ethnically cleanse Arabs.
Would you mind giving some solid proofs on this? You know I have been actually persistently looking for it and the only thing I came across was a so-called announcement of Salih Müslim last year on one website.

I think the response of much of the left to Daesh is ridiculous. Whereas previously some groups were openly in bed with Islamism, now Islamist forces are being portrayed as demons, instead of human beings participating in movements arising out of concrete material circumstances. I don't think the Daesh should receive any support (here I disagree with the ICL). But I don't think they are in any way distinguished from other sides in this conflict.
Obviously there is nothing special about them. Its a Sunni Arab movement with fucktons of jihadists from all over the world, Turkey, Kurds, even Indonesia and Malaysia as well as Central Asia and the rest of the oppressed Gulf Arabs in their ferraris.
A mere, innocent Arabic *sigh* at the face of exploitation of global capital.

look at this poor arab
http://www.internethavadis.com/images/haberler/katar12_465139219.jpg

poor arab giving all that he has left to ISIS

They were sooooo fucking exploited and cornered that they had to attack Rojava too...nothing ideological there.....just a cry for help
Basically whats going on in Rojava. Same world-view.

The Feral Underclass

15th December 2014, 17:02

So at this point it seems that you are throwing as much deflections and red herring at me.

What is it you actually want from me? I mean, look at what you've turned this discussion into...

So all kinds of organisations susceptible to bias and wishful thinking. These are as independent as the Maoists visiting Albania.

Well, not really. One of them is a class-struggle anarchist group that operates in a borough of London. The word "solidarity" is indicative of their --- over a decade long -- solidarity struggles with the working class of Haringey. There's no connection with the PKK or history of support. In fact, until their report I don't think they'd ever written anything that had them involved.

TATORT Kurdistan is probably more likely to have bias for the PKK, but their report only confirms what the HSG one said. As for KAF, I think it's ridiculous to claim they'd have bias for the PKK.

But yeah, in a general sense any organisation is susceptible to bias and wishful thinking. Any person is too, including you. Pointing that out isn't really an argument for anything except maybe to make a rejection of the possibility of truth.

This is literally in no way conflicting. You are the one using the 'no true scotsman [democracy] fallacy', not me. To complete the analogy.

Me: 'those Iranians and Chinese are not Scots'

You: 'those Scots are not real Scots neither, funny you don't mention them'

Me: 'that's a No True Scotsman fallacy, they are Scots, northern Scots'.

You: 'funny that you immediately say "northern scots" signifying that there are, in fact, different kinds of Scots!"

I literally have no idea what you're talking about any more...

Yes, there are different kinds of democracy, indirect democracy and direct democracy, and socialist and liberal democracy. Iran and China are none, the Netherlands is an indirect liberal democracy.

...This discussion was about pragmatism. You asked why it was far-fetched for the PKK to lie about their intentions, to which I said that political organisations don't make decisions because they're inherently liars, but based on what is pragmatic to succeeding in their objectives. You then asked me to explain that if this is the case what is pragmatic about Syria and China etcetera saying they are democratic when, I'm assuming according to you, they are not democratic.

The purpose of my response was two-fold. Firstly, it was to reject the idea that just because you or I think that something isn't democratic that those involved in it don't think it is. And secondly, that determining whether something is done for pragmatic reasons isn't based on what someone claims, it's based on what happens in reality.

The Chinese Communist Party, Iran, Syria etcetera all have "democratic" systems in place. Iran has representative democracy. China also has an elected deputy system, and so on and so forth. Why is it not possible for these governments to say they are democratic if that's what they believe they are? Do you think Xi Jinping and the Deputies in China sits around thinking to themselves, "haha look at our pretend democracy, how duped they all are," or are Middle Eastern and Asian politicians just more evil than Western ones? Or could it be that these people have emerged within frameworks in which democracy represents something different to them, just as those politicians in the West emerged within a framework of bourgeois democracy? There's no mystical force at play here; no conspiracy. Democracy exists to maintain state power, but there's no pre-mediated architect.

The PKK have said they believe in democratic confederalism and that is what they are supporting the implementation of. If you want to give a reason for why they would do that if they don't believe in it, then give one.

That's not what 'material conditions' means, which threw me off.

You don't think "judging material conditions" can be defined as "observing facts"? I don't agree.

I never said you believed that. But that's not the point of this analogy. The point is, many anarchists behave like Stalinists in wanting to believe that the window dressing is in fact not window dressing.

But the only evidence you have to substantiate that point of view is the idea that because of the PKK's history and certain practices it means they are liars. That any one who thinks differently is lying, biased, being duped or a propaganda hack and that any evidence that is presented to you can be dismissed based on that.

I'm sorry, but that's not a coherent argument. And I say that not because I have some political stake in any of this, or that I'm trying to convince the world of the PKK's legitimacy. I have looked at the evidence, understood the various analyses and made a decision based upon it all.

I realise that your contempt for the PKK runs so deeply that any suggestion to the contrary is dismissable on principle and that's fine. But for me that is petty-sectarianism and a completely reductive way to approach the Rojava question. And that's all beside the fact that this isn't even about the PKK for me.

Note that you didn't address that these types of arguments can be used to defend the USSR as real soviet democracy. 'woh, woh, why would Stalin even lie about that?! That's such a conspiracy theory. You know Debbs went there and witnessed soviet democracy flourishing right?'.

I don't think Stalin's motivation was predicated on some deep-seated desire to trick the world into believing Soviet democracy was real. If Debbs went to Soviet Russia and saw Soviet democracy flourishing then I assume that's because it's what he believed.

1984 was just a metaphor, you realise. It was a comment on the nature of hegemony, not on some literal conspiracy by Stalin to make the world believe Soviet democracy existed. Likewise, Napoleon's modification of the Seven Commandments was not a literal interpretation of Stalin, it was a satirical critique of Soviet democracy. "All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others" was the consequence of Stalin's beliefs, not the motivation for them. If that's really what motivated him, why bother being a Bolshevik in the first place?

Also, it was Devrim whom mentioned 'essential nature', and he didn't talk about individuals neither.

He talked about "nationalist organisation" and what is an organisation if not a collection of individuals?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 17:16

and not their decades old struggle at all? Thats fine with you? The Turkish handling of the Kurds or the Syrian handling of the Kurds is okay?

Im a communist, how do you think I feel about those things?

Dodo

15th December 2014, 17:23

Im a communist, how do you think I feel about those things?

Well in any case, you are the wrong person to dig the nationalist side of PKK with. I was trying to get 870 and Tim Cornelis' view regarding the legitimacy of Kurdish independence movement and it being attacked.

The revolution bit, they are going to have to see it happen in front of their eyes to come back to collect what they've written when everything is so much more obvious.

Right now they are too obsessed with their own tendency's marginal critique of the movement.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th December 2014, 17:43

Would you mind giving some solid proofs on this? You know I have been actually persistently looking for it and the only thing I came across was a so-called announcement of Salih Müslim last year on one website.

You just mentioned the evidence yourself. And it wasn't a "so-called announcement", it was a statement printed by one of PKK's own rags.

Obviously there is nothing special about them. Its a Sunni Arab movement with fucktons of jihadists from all over the world, Turkey, Kurds, even Indonesia and Malaysia as well as Central Asia and the rest of the oppressed Gulf Arabs in their ferraris.
A mere, innocent Arabic *sigh* at the face of exploitation of global capital.

look at this poor arab
http://www.internethavadis.com/images/haberler/katar12_465139219.jpg

poor arab giving all that he has left to ISIS

They were sooooo fucking exploited and cornered that they had to attack Rojava too...nothing ideological there.....just a cry for help
Basically whats going on in Rojava. Same world-view.

Did it ever occur to you that you're basically an ersatz-nationalist twit whose attitude to Sunni Arabs is the same as e.g. the attitude of the MHP to Kurds? Yes, the e-e-evil Daesh is part of the response of the Sunni Arab population to attacks by both the Syrian and Iraqi governments. If you hadn't noticed, prior to the sectarian aggression against the Sunni population, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq was practically a non-entity. How do you think they got so many recruits in such a short period? Did al-Baghdadi send a secret signal that made all those Sunni Arabs who pretended to be relatively secular for years throw of their disguise and go "Must! Crush! Infidels!".

Not to mention how hypocritical it is for you to point at foreign volunteers when the PKK also makes use of foreign volunteers, or international sponsors when the PKK is being backed by the fucking US government.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

15th December 2014, 18:05

...This discussion was about pragmatism. You asked why it was far-fetched for the PKK to lie about their intentions, to which I said that political organisations don't make decisions because they're inherently liars, but based on what is pragmatic to succeeding in their objectives. You then asked me to explain that if this is the case what is pragmatic about Syria and China etcetera saying they are democratic when, I'm assuming according to you, they are not democratic.

The purpose of my response was two-fold. Firstly, it was to reject the idea that just because you or I think that something isn't democratic that those involved in it don't think it is. And secondly, that determining whether something is done for pragmatic reasons isn't based on what someone claims, it's based on what happens in reality.

The Chinese Communist Party, Iran, Syria etcetera all have "democratic" systems in place. Iran has representative democracy. China also has an elected deputy system, and so on and so forth. Why is it not possible for these governments to say they are democratic if that's what they believe they are? Do you think Xi Jinping and the Deputies in China sits around thinking to themselves, "haha look at our pretend democracy, how duped they all are," or are Middle Eastern and Asian politicians just more evil than Western ones? Or could it be that these people have emerged within frameworks in which democracy represents something different to them, just as those politicians in the West emerged within a framework of bourgeois democracy? There's no mystical force at play here; no conspiracy. Democracy exists to maintain state power, but there's no pre-mediated architect.

The PKK have said they believe in democratic confederalism and that is what they are supporting the implementation of. If you want to give a reason for why they would do that if they don't believe in it, then give one.

You don't think "judging material conditions" can be defined as "observing facts"? I don't agree.

But the only evidence you have to substantiate that point of view is the idea that because of the PKK's history and certain practices it means they are liars. That any one who thinks differently is lying, biased, being duped or a propaganda hack and that any evidence that is presented to you can be dismissed based on that.

I'm sorry, but that's not a coherent argument. And I say that not because I have some political stake in any of this, or that I'm trying to convince the world of the PKK's legitimacy. I have looked at the evidence, understood the various analyses and made a decision based upon it all.

I realise that your contempt for the PKK runs so deeply that any suggestion to the contrary is dismissable on principle and that's fine. But for me that is petty-sectarianism and a completely reductive way to approach the Rojava question. And that's all beside the fact that this isn't even about the PKK for me.

I don't think Stalin's motivation was predicated on some deep-seated desire to trick the world into believing Soviet democracy was real. If Debbs went to Soviet Russia and saw Soviet democracy flourishing then I assume that's because it's what he believed.

1984 was just a metaphor, you realise. It was a comment on the nature of hegemony, not on some literal conspiracy by Stalin to make the world believe Soviet democracy existed. Likewise, Napoleon's modification of the Seven Commandments was not a literal interpretation of Stalin, it was a satirical critique of Soviet democracy. "All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others" was the consequence of Stalin's beliefs, not the motivation for them. If that's really what motivated him, why bother being a Bolshevik in the first place?

He talked about "nationalist organisation" and what is an organisation if not a collection of individuals?

Is not the purpose of politicians to wilfully protect capital? In that sense, it doesn't matter whether they proclaim 'democracy' or 'dictatorship', because they understand their true purpose to be upholding the nation state and therefore the social position of capital and the privileged layers of society, within which they are included.

You can't really take the position that anything can pass for democracy as long as it means democracy to the people who are, ironically, not upholding the actual concept.

The Feral Underclass

15th December 2014, 18:20

Is not the purpose of politicians to wilfully protect capital?

Sure, but not conspiratorially, as the limit of their political consciousness. "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" and that means for everyone, including those that maintain it. These people were determined by life, not the other way around. They are much a product of the world we live in than us workers.

In that sense, it doesn't matter whether they proclaim 'democracy' or 'dictatorship', because they understand their true purpose to be upholding the nation state and therefore the social position of capital and the privileged layers of society, within which they are included.

But what is that motivated by? That's the question.

You can't really take the position that anything can pass for democracy as long as it means democracy to the people who are, ironically, not upholding the actual concept.

I didn't take the position that anything can pass for democracy.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

15th December 2014, 18:21

If I might interject, why is that the case? I mean, sure, the Daesh is a bourgeois sectarian gang. So is the PKK. The PKK was formed in reaction to the actual, material oppression of Kurds, by Turkey, Iran, Iraq etc. Well, the Iraqi Sunnis have also been the targets of sectarian violence since the US invasion, and the Daesh is part of the response to that. Their program is disgusting, but so are PKK threats to ethnically cleanse Arabs.

I think the response of much of the left to Daesh is ridiculous. Whereas previously some groups were openly in bed with Islamism, now Islamist forces are being portrayed as demons, instead of human beings participating in movements arising out of concrete material circumstances. I don't think the Daesh should receive any support (here I disagree with the ICL). But I don't think they are in any way distinguished from other sides in this conflict.

(And even if people insist on playing up the Islamism angle - which is a bad way of understanding Daesh - one of the forces opposing Daesh is... Islamist Iran. Yeah.)

The difference is mostly incidental, if the roles were reversed and the PKK was killing and enslaving Arabs I would say the Arabs had a right to defend themselves as well, even if that defense came in the form of Daesh fighters. I just hopefully wouldn't go the extra step of declaring it a revolution. I think there are actual ideological differences between the groups but this also comes off as incidental as it is apparently tied to the whim of öcalan and his current reading list.

Marinaleda

15th December 2014, 18:26

I have just tried to tell you that Pkk don't and cannot control communes..Pkk is a guerilla movement.It is an army.Commune movement was so different from that.
Today it is happening like happened in Zapatista region.Zapatistas were army too.They were not democratic.

Tim Cornelis and 870 please read this

6. Declaration of Zapatistas
.................
But then we saw that the Autonomous Municipalities were not level. There were some that were more advanced and which had more support from civil society, and others were more neglected. The organization was lacking to make them more o*n a par with each other. And we also saw that the EZLN, with its political-military component, was involving itself in decisions which belonged to the democratic authorities, “civilians” as they say. And here the problem is that the political-military component of the EZLN is not democratic, because it is an army. And we saw that the military being above, and the democratic below, was not good, because what is democratic should not be decided militarily, it should be the reverse: the democratic-political governing above, and the military obeying below. Or, perhaps, it would be better with nothing below, just completely level, without any military, and that is why the zapatistas are soldiers so that there will not be any soldiers. Fine, what we then did about this problem was to begin separating the political-military from the autonomous and democratic aspects of organization in the zapatista communities. And so, actions and decisions which had previously been made and taken by the EZLN were being passed, little by little, to the democratically elected authorities in the villages. It is easy to say, of course, but it was very difficult in practice, because many years have passed – first in the preparation for the war and then the war itself – and the political-military aspects have become customary. But, regardless, we did so because it is our way to do what we say, because, if not, why should we go around saying things if we do not then do them.

Dodo

15th December 2014, 18:38

You just mentioned the evidence yourself. And it wasn't a "so-called announcement", it was a statement printed by one of PKK's own rags.
For a while you had me believing this BS. I realized how stupid I was when I asked this to Rojava official. For some reason I took you guys too seriously and asked about this in the conference and everyone gave me blank looks.

Salih Müslim is not the "controller" of this movement you know that right? He does not order things or run the society...he runs the diplomacy you know that right? He does not have power over the communes either, you know that too? And everyone is organized in communes, there is no ethnic distinction on communes you know that too?

What I am looking for is solid evidence that Arabs are being oppressed or threatened in Rojava..like solid statements, multiple ones, recent as well as empirical evidence on it being happening. Even from Arabic sources.
There are 2 major opposition groups to Rojava;

1) The Baathist Arabs in Qamislo
2) The anti-commie type pro-KRG Kurdish parties

Many Arabs today take active role in the communes and decision processes, rule their own neighborhood and even organize their own armed groups against ISIS.

I need something more than this Müslim announcement.

Did it ever occur to you that you're basically an ersatz-nationalist twit whose attitude to Sunni Arabs is the same as e.g. the attitude of the MHP to Kurds?

You're going to need more than that to prove a person who does not believe in the unhistorical metaphysical concept of nationality.
Just because I posted a stereotypical gulf arab leader swimming in money that support salafi movements all over the world does not make a racist.
The problem with you is that you think capital is only western....you have no idea about Gulf Arab capital and its political forces.

Yes, the e-e-evil Daesh is part of the response of the Sunni Arab population to attacks by both the Syrian and Iraqi governments. If you hadn't noticed, prior to the sectarian aggression against the Sunni population, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq was practically a non-entity. How do you think they got so many recruits in such a short period? Did al-Baghdadi send a secret signal that made all those Sunni Arabs who pretended to be relatively secular for years throw of their disguise and go "Must! Crush! Infidels!".
I never rejected that the reasion ISIS grew so fast and took over areas were related to Sunni oppression in both Iraq and Syria...did I? DID I?
The problem rather is that you think thats the ONLY reason. Thats problem one.
The second problem is, you cannot grasp the ideology of ISIS, radical Islamic movement in the form of selefism as an ideology of its own. Its not just a conservative reaction. Its an ideology with a vision of the world, and it presents ANOTHER kind of capital, the Gulf Arab capital.

Tell me friend, in the midst of war with 2 countries, why the hell did they attack a sunni dominated Rojava? What was their motivation for persistently bringing shit tons of material at the face of American bombardment to Kobane? Why did these exploited Arab's ideological bosses targetted Rojava?
If they were just an exploited bunch, what was their problem with Rojava which makes the same point?

Not to mention how hypocritical it is for you to point at foreign volunteers when the PKK also makes use of foreign volunteers, or international sponsors when the PKK is being backed by the fucking US government.
For god's sake.....I never claimed that PKK was a mere Kurdish movement. The whole point I had been making is that Rojava is not a national movement.
There are Arabs, Turkmens, Ezidis, Armenians, Assyrians fighting in it. Its a multi-nation anti-ethnic society. The philosophy behind Rojava is that the people that live there are one and differences are their colour.
If foreign fighters fight in Rojava, it proves my point. If foreign fighters fight in ISIS, it refutes your point.

Do you have any idea how many Turkish&Kurdish people joined ISIS to smash Rojava?
Have yo ever noticed Turkey's diplomatic moves to make sure Rojava is removed?
PKK's backed by US government since the Kobani siege(only in that context however, you know both EU and US designated PKK as a terror organization)...nobody hides it, Rojava does not reject it...so what? Rojava is not built on the belief of destroying the USA, its built on the idea of emancipating all the people in its own geography. They are hoping they will be a role model.