Rojava a guide to the future?

[Aslan]

Ok, so I tend to be pro-Rojava, as they are currently the closest thing to a proletarian revolution we have. But due to the rise of this movement in 2016, could Rojava be effectively the blueprint to a future global revolution?

[Sewer Socialist]

Why do you see that as a possibility? Why do you see any blueprint as a path to revolution? I'm not sure what logic led you there - with posts like these, please elaborate.

Revolutions don't follow blueprints. We shouldn't think we can surf around on Wikipedia, decide that 1917 was the closest we've been to communism, and because of that, decide that a successful revolution relies on emulating your favorite revolution, the Russian Revolution (substitute a more appropriate year and place as necessary, as you would with a Mr. Potato Head).

The Russian Revolution was the high point of the period 1905-1922, and it was accomplished not by following any blueprint, but adjusting action to material conditions, everyone's favorite Marxist phrase. Same goes for 1936, 1977, etc.

If Rojava continues to grow and find success, that doesn't mean we should see it as a blueprint. We can't replicate it in New York City, or Nepal. We can learn by studying it, though I'm not sure what specifically I could learn and apply from it to the Northwestern USA.

You certainly could see what you could work on in your area. What portions of the people are currently being squashed? What could you do about it with them? What is your common ground? How can it relate to communism, to other movements?


https://i.imgur.com/McKZ9jM.jpg

[Aslan]

Why do you see that as a possibility? Why do you see any blueprint as a path to revolution? I'm not sure what logic led you there - with posts like these, please elaborate.

Rojava is currently the only non-stalinist revolution going on right now. Its also the only one being done in 2016, maybe we can understand that even in our neoliberal world, revolution is still possibility.


Revolutions don't follow blueprints. We shouldn't think we can surf around on Wikipedia, decide that 1917 was the closest we've been to communism, and because of that, decide that a successful revolution relies on emulating your favorite revolution, the Russian Revolution (substitute a more appropriate year and place as necessary, as you would with a Mr. Potato Head).


I'm not really saying that, to the contrary actually. Instead of focusing on events that should be in the history books, we should focus on modern revolutions.


The Russian Revolution was the high point of the period 1905-1922, and it was accomplished not by following any blueprint, but adjusting action to material conditions, everyone's favorite Marxist phrase. Same goes for 1936, 1977, etc.


I'm not saying we actually follow it as if we go for it like it's 1905, I'm saying how do we interpret this current revolution.


If Rojava continues to grow and find success, that doesn't mean we should see it as a blueprint. We can't replicate it in New York City, or Nepal. We can learn by studying it, though I'm not sure what specifically I could learn and apply from it to the Northwestern USA.

Agree


You certainly could see what you could work on in your area. What portions of the people are currently being squashed? What could you do about it with them? What is your common ground? How can it relate to communism, to other movements?

I don't really know much about their economics actually, and that was something else I'd like to learn. Do they use money? Do they import or export? I know many communists are joining in their fight, and that they are asking for sort of Libertarian-Socialist federations.

[Devrim]

Aslan, what is proletarian about the Kurdish national movement?

Devrim

[John Nada]

Ok, so I tend to be pro-Rojava, as they are currently the closest thing to a proletarian revolution we have. But due to the rise of this movement in 2016, could Rojava be effectively the blueprint to a future global revolution?There's peculiarities to Rojava that are not present in, say, Canada or Belgium. Kurdistan is basically a semi-feudal colony of four semi-colonies, on the peripheral of the peripheral. The populous was mostly rural, thought in recent decades has become more urban. So in this sense, it can't be "proletarian" under Marxian terms like it would be in an imperialist-capitalist nation with a large urban proletariat.

However, I do think there are things to learn from the Rojava Revolution, like the democratic mass participation of all nationalities and genders, anti-patriarchy, dual power and armed self-defense. In terms of warfare, in Rojava itself has varied from deserts to urban warfare. It's basically like a cross between a people's war and an insurrection.
Revolutions don't follow blueprints. We shouldn't think we can surf around on Wikipedia, decide that 1917 was the closest we've been to communism, and because of that, decide that a successful revolution relies on emulating your favorite revolution, the Russian Revolution (substitute a more appropriate year and place as necessary, as you would with a Mr. Potato Head)."Blueprint" would be an incorrect term. Strategy is more precise. The October Revolution had a strategy of its own. Like a battle, some of it had to be impromptu, but there was a general method involving mass work in the cities, followed by insurrections, then spreading out to the countryside.

Marx and Engels dedicated their lives to studying revolution. They analyzed revolutions that were successful and failed, past and contemporary, bourgeois and proletarian, guided by their ideas or not, and insurrections carried out by proletarians or peasants. Examples are Marx's famous writtings the French Revolution of 1848 and the Bonaparte counterrevolution, and the Paris Commune(which was dominated more by Proudhounist and Blanquists). And there's the seemingly underrated works of Engels like the The Peasant War in Germany (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm) and The Bakuninist at Work (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm). Towards the end of his life, Engels was working on writing a new edition of Peasant war(at least hopefully remove the antisemitic shit), but sadly died before getting around to it.
The Russian Revolution was the high point of the period 1905-1922, and it was accomplished not by following any blueprint, but adjusting action to material conditions, everyone's favorite Marxist phrase. Same goes for 1936, 1977, etc.There was a distinct form of guerrilla warfare that emerged in the Russian revolutions that was noted at the time. And new forms were emerging in various insurrections and colonial rebellions too. I think there's much to learn from all of them, even those not strictly "proletarian"(which Spain and Russia were not totally proletarian either).
If Rojava continues to grow and find success, that doesn't mean we should see it as a blueprint. We can't replicate it in New York City, or Nepal. We can learn by studying it, though I'm not sure what specifically I could learn and apply from it to the Northwestern USA.The PKK, the fraternal org, did train and fight alongside the DFLP and the PFLP, and learned some things from them too. So they actually learned from the Palestinian's struggles too. And IIRC the DFLP did find the PKK's concept of the village self-defense interesting for some reason, I forgot why.

I'm certain the co-leaders have likely studied not just the October Revolution, but the Chinese Revolution, Spanish Revolution, the Paris Commune, the Vietnamese Revolution, Nepal's people's war, Cuban Revolution and even contemporary revolts in North America and Europe. And in all of those, the participants studied past wars and revolutions too.
You certainly could see what you could work on in your area. What portions of the people are currently being squashed? What could you do about it with them? What is your common ground? How can it relate to communism, to other movements?I think a problem in many advance imperialist countries is either trying to reinvent the wheel each riot, or focusing on the strictly urban parts of the Russian Revolution and waiting for the same objective conditions for that. I think hypothetically in the US, it will be principally urban warfare, complemented by rural, contrary to less advance nations where the struggles primarily in the country. Mass work and the urban battles of other struggles might have more relevance, but I think a revolution in an advance imperialist country will likely produce a new model, with elements of the past revolutions and some novel ideas too.

[Guardia Rossa]

How can a rural revolution happen in a predominantly urban nation? I'm really intrigued because I can't really understand 21th century Maoists.

[John Nada]

Aslan, I'm the last person to say,"What's that got to do with the working-class?" All fights against oppression are in the workers' interest, but for coherence of the board, I don't think this is directly a Workers' Struggles topic(strikes and such), anymore than the struggles against sexism and racism(both also struggles in the interest of the proletariat). This seems more a Theory topic.:confused:
How can a rural revolution happen in a predominantly urban nation? I'm really intrigued because I can't really understand 21th century Maoists.Depends on which nation and how capitalism developed. If there's a significant peasantry, semi-proletariat and rural proletariat in the country, there may be agrarian tasks and a support base in rural areas. If the terrain is more favorable, in terms of logistics ,popular support and/or topography(hard to reach bases in jungles, islands or mountains), it may be wiser to fight outside the cities. The cities might have protests, strikes, mass orgs and recruits, but the heavy fighting might be better carried out away from concentrated urban areas for various reasons.

The overall strategy of the "Chinese road" can be extended to cities and the proletariat as the primary and leading force. Like a "concrete jungle". I see little reason why it can't be done in a predominately urban nation. The PCP, for all its faults and the "left" errors(to put it mildly) leading to right opportunism, actually tried something like this. And Gonzalo actually pondered the possibility in the future of a people's war in the megacities of Latin America(regardless of what one thinks of him, might've been one of the first to seriously think about this and this possibility is just recently taken serious by bourgeois military strategists).

[Aslan]

How can a rural revolution happen in a predominantly urban nation? I'm really intrigued because I can't really understand 21th century Maoists.

Who said this was just a rural revolution? It certainly has parts in rural Syria, but has spread to the Urban areas as well.

[Devrim]

But where is the class struggle, Aslan?

Devrim

[Aslan]

But where is the class struggle, Aslan?

Devrim

Devrim, are you going to give me something substantial or just throw one-liners at me?

There is plenty of evidence of class struggle by the way, Rojava itself is an organization made up of proletarians fighting against the by-products of bourgeois imperialism. Reactionary groups like ISIL and their ilk are the main opposition, but it is also true that they fight against the oppressive Turkish bourgeoisie state.

Now of course there are things that Rojava gets wrong, first is their Kurdish nationalism. Which is prevalent in their organization (and especially in their PKK allies). While I agree that the Kurdish people need liberation, international revolution is the final goal. I must also say that yes, they are mainly an agrarian revolution, however I think it is just that because they aren't able to penetrate into urban Syria just yet.

[Devrim]

Devrim, are you going to give me something substantial or just throw one-liners at me?

There is plenty of evidence of class struggle by the way, Rojava itself is an organization made up of proletarians fighting against the by-products of bourgeois imperialism. Reactionary groups like ISIL and their ilk are the main opposition, but it is also true that they fight against the oppressive Turkish bourgeoisie state.

Now of course there are things that Rojava gets wrong, first is their Kurdish nationalism. Which is prevalent in their organization (and especially in their PKK allies). While I agree that the Kurdish people need liberation, international revolution is the final goal. I must also say that yes, they are mainly an agrarian revolution, however I think it is just that because they aren't able to penetrate into urban Syria just yet.

The reason I asked these questions is that I have never seen anybody claim that the movement in Rojova is a proletarian movement.

Personally, I think it's a reactionary nationalist movement. However, I know many people defend it for all sorts of reasons, from the idea that it is socialist, or feminist, to the fact that it's fighting the Da'esh. Never before have I seen anyone claim that it was proletarian.

I'm curious as to what you see as class struggle there. I am completly unaware of any.

Devrim

[oneday]

I'm curious as to what you see as class struggle there. I am completly unaware of any.


Though I don't think it could classified as having a proletarian character, there was (is) class struggle involved in Rojava, centered on land use and patriarchy. Here are some points by David Graeber - apparently an anarchist anthropologist:


the economy of Rojava in general and Cizire especially was of an artificially dependent agrarian economy which suppled wheat, cotton, but also petroleum to be processed elsewhere in the country (there were no mills or refineries in Cizire itself.) Roughly half of land and other resources were state owned but run effectively as private fiefdoms by various government officials or members of their family; otherwise there was a bazaar economy supplying basic needs, much of it made up of black market or smuggled goods. After the revolution the bourgeoisie almost universally fled, and Baathist-owned land and buildings were taken under public control and distributed either to local communes, which exist on each neighbourhood level, and are organised on directly democratic lines, or to municipalities governed by delegates chosen by the communes. These are allocated to various projects, ranging from Academies for popular education, to cooperatives. There have also been efforts to create publicly run mills, refineries, dairy processing plants, and the like to process raw materials that had previously had to be sent off to facilities in other parts of Syria.


* a few indigenous capitalists do exist and have not been expropriated though; some are even part of the formal (largely Potemkin) "self-administration" government; the language used to justify this was that the revolution aimed to "change the ground under which they operated" by shifting the way the economy as a whole functioned, and to change the structure of political power so as to make it impossible for them to translate economic advantage into political influence, and thus ultimately, to continue to operate as capitalists in the long run.

* the unusual aspect of the class discourse was the idea that women themselves constitute the original proletariat (arguing here from the German Ideology, etc), and that class differences between men are less applicable between women. This goes along with the formula that capitalism depends on the existence of the state and the state depends on the existence of patriarchy. The elimination of what was often referred to as "capitalist modernity" was seen as having to involve an attack on all three simultaneously. For instance, the family was seen as the primary place of production, production being primarily of people, and only secondarily of material wealth (reversing the idea of production and social reproduction), and women as the primary exploited class within that system; the solution they are trying to put into practice is to undermine both the possibility of a reimposition of state authority and of patriarchy simultaneously by devolving the means of coercive power into the local directly-democratically organised communes (security forces are answerable to the "peace and consensus" working groups of each commune, and not to the formal "government") and ensuring that both the security forces themselves and the communes are composed of women. The emphasis on giving women military and weapons training is not a matter of war-time expedience; people actually insist it is a key part of how they conceive a broader anti-capitalist project for the transformation of social production which would make it impossible to restore a top-down capitalist economic system.

[Aslan]

The reason I asked these questions is that I have never seen anybody claim that the movement in Rojova is a proletarian movement.

Personally, I think it's a reactionary nationalist movement. However, I know many people defend it for all sorts of reasons, from the idea that it is socialist, or feminist, to the fact that it's fighting the Da'esh. Never before have I seen anyone claim that it was proletarian.

I'm curious as to what you see as class struggle there. I am completly unaware of any.

Devrim

*sigh* and that is where the problems begin, see I share your opinions that their nationalism and agrarianism is their downfall. However, I can 100% say that it is not reactionary, that is ridiculous.

[Heretek]

I think aslan is getting the interpretation they are proletarian from the PKK and "Democratic Confederalism," and that their rhetoric is commonly "proletarian" in nature. Unfortunately, this is mostly propaganda to gain traction for their group. International health organizations have reported instances of potential genocide and ethnic cleansing, though these are of course disputed. Additionally, as has been said here before (can't remember the thread), in practice the party is very much shadowing stalinism. I think there was a post from a little while ago describing how they even have the portraits of 'dear leader' being marched around regularly. Then there are reports from former members (also posted somewhere here) of sexual abuse and misogyny towards female members despite their outwardly feminist appeal, suggesting they only do the latter for populist appeal.

[Lord Testicles]

I saw this on the "Lions of Rojava" facebook page a while ago:


CcLPyfgXBAk


2:45 - 3:15

Sounds like gulag talk to me.

[Heretek]

I saw this on the "Lions of Rojava" facebook page a while ago:


CcLPyfgXBAk


2:45 - 3:15

Sounds like gulag talk to me.

Is there a none embedded link?

[Lord Testicles]

Is there a none embedded link?

It works fine for me. Here's the URL if you can't see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CcLPyfgXBAk

[DOOM]

*sigh* and that is where the problems begin, see I share your opinions that their nationalism and agrarianism is their downfall. However, I can 100% say that it is not reactionary, that is ridiculous.

In juxtaposition to communism it definitely is. By maintaining private property and thus wage labor, value production, commodity exchange, the self-valorization of capital etc. Rojava is in no way a model for the emancipation of the working class. And this is what matters. Hell, by the standards of the bourgeoisie even fucking Bernie seems to be a "progressive", thankfully those standards aren't ours. I understand how some people seem to perceive Rojava as a beacon of hope and sanity in the midst of a very bloody war but that doesn't explain why people tend to romanticize Rojava and Democratic Confederalism up to the point where they think it's applied socialism. Should capitalist normality, whether leftish or rightish, really be our goal? Are we really that easily satisfied? In my opinion the left's too gullible and most people have a very shallow understanding of what communism is about. It's not about setting up regional communes and the self-management of capital in the form of coops and other moralist bullshit. And then there's the whole thing with the PKK's nationalism.

We can do better than that to be honest

[John Nada]

But where is the class struggle, Aslan?Presumably the driving force of history is still at work, even if one disagrees with with it?
I think aslan is getting the interpretation they are proletarian from the PKK and "Democratic Confederalism," and that their rhetoric is commonly "proletarian" in nature. Unfortunately, this is mostly propaganda to gain traction for their group.Where does the YPG/YPJ play up the "proletarian" nature? The PKK did in the the 80s and 90s when was still Marxist, but the YPG/YPJ wasn't even founded yet.
International health organizations have reported instances of potential genocide and ethnic cleansing, though these are of course disputed.There hasn't been reports of "genocide"(as in an attempt to kill off a people). There was civilians displaced in the course of battle with Daesh, which some(including Amnesty International) claimed was intentionally driving out civilians(both Arab and Kurdish) for perceived support of Daesh, allegedly by both Arab and Kurdish Euphrates Volcano members. Yet the YPG/YPJ has repeated said that after the IEDs were cleared out and the fighting stop, the civilians were free to return, which many did.
Additionally, as has been said here before (can't remember the thread), in practice the party is very much shadowing stalinism.What's "Stalinist"? The PKK dropped Marxism-Leninism 16 years ago, and now says that only after the liberation of all peoples can there be socialism. A lot of the current members of it were probably just small kids when it was "Stalinist".
I think there was a post from a little while ago describing how they even have the portraits of 'dear leader' being marched around regularly.Abdullah Ocalan devoted his life to fighting capitalism, fascism, and for the rights of Kurds. He's easily done more for proletarian internationalism than anyone in this thread(even though that bar's pretty low). And now he's a political prisoner like thousands of revolutionaries in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan, having narrowly escaped execution. Of course people are going to rally around the cause celebre of a well know revolutionary fighter, like with Mumia Abu-Jabar, Nelson Mandela, ect.
Then there are reports from former members (also posted somewhere here) of sexual abuse and misogyny towards female members despite their outwardly feminist appeal, suggesting they only do the latter for populist appeal.Those "reports"(posted here and on libcom) seem to originate from the ICC. Other users on both boards have disputed(ad nauseam) the shit the ICC article(which couldn't possibly be "just propaganda to play up their proletarian nature to gain traction" for that sect:rolleyes:).
In juxtaposition to communism it definitely is.Compared to communism posting on RevLeft is counterrevolutionary. If the US degenerated to the point where basic democratic demands are back in order, we done fucked up.

[Lord Testicles]

Presumably the driving force of history is still at work, even if one disagrees with with it?

I think you know what Devrim meant and it doesn't answer his question.

[Aslan]

a few indigenous capitalists do exist and have not been expropriated though; some are even part of the formal (largely Potemkin) "self-administration" government; the language used to justify this was that the revolution aimed to "change the ground under which they operated" by shifting the way the economy as a whole functioned, and to change the structure of political power so as to make it impossible for them to translate economic advantage into political influence, and thus ultimately, to continue to operate as capitalists in the long run.

Ok, so this is interesting, but I'd like to see the link to the article it was talking about oneday. Rojava certainly has some less than appealing sentiments, but to allow some capitalists to continue running?


In juxtaposition to communism it definitely is. By maintaining private property and thus wage labor, value production, commodity exchange, the self-valorization of capital etc. Rojava is in no way a model for the emancipation of the working class.

Where is the evidence to this? Apo seemed to be very anti-capitalist, and was able to do something very rare. Turn a stalinist organization into a libertarian socialist movement. What, so maybe Rojava fell into the realist trap? That in theory it was good, but in an actual revolution it seemed to fail?


Hell, by the standards of the bourgeoisie even fucking Bernie seems to be a "progressive", thankfully those standards aren't ours. I understand how some people seem to perceive Rojava as a beacon of hope and sanity in the midst of a very bloody war but that doesn't explain why people tend to romanticize Rojava and Democratic Confederalism up to the point where they think it's applied socialism.

Is it not? I don't necessary have a fetish with Rojava, but I see that it is the most bloodless and yet effective revolution I've seen so far. I understand some people have been extremely apologetic about it, but it does seem the most promising revolution we have had for a long time.


Are we really that easily satisfied? In my opinion the left's too gullible and most people have a very shallow understanding of what communism is about. It's not about setting up regional communes and the self-management of capital in the form of coops and other moralist bullshit. And then there's the whole thing with the PKK's nationalism.

Ok since your standards are so high, what are the alternatives to study your highness? FARC? the Naxalites? This is the closest thing to a proletarian revolution that we are witnessing right now. And don't listen to what Rojava says, it is basically another blend of Libertarian Socialism mixed with some nationalism. But back to the point, we need to look at the short term goals that Rojava offers. What can it do to the proletariat of the 1st world in general? I seriously think Rojava has potential in the future, it can shatter the fear of defeat that the lower class has.

[oneday]

Ok, so this is interesting, but I'd like to see the link to the article it was talking about oneday. Rojava certainly has some less than appealing sentiments, but to allow some capitalists to continue running?


Private property is guaranteed by the constitution of Rojava (http://civiroglu.net/the-constitution-of-the-rojava-cantons/) though it seems land, buildings and natural resources are considered public wealth:


Article 39

Natural resources, located both above and below ground, are the public wealth of society. Extractive processes, management, licensing and other contractual agreements related to such resources shall be regulated by law.

Article 40

All buildings and land in the Autonomous Regions are owned by the Transitional Administration are public property. The use and distribution shall be determined by law.

Article 41

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.

According to wikipedia page:


Private property and entrepreneurship are protected under the principle of "ownership by use", although accountable to the democratic will of locally organized councils. Dr Dara Kurdaxi, a Rojavan economist, has said that: "The method in Rojava is not so much against private property, but rather has the goal of putting private property in the service of all the peoples who live in Rojava."[76]

The private sector is comparatively small, with the focus being on expanding social ownership of production and management of resources through communes and collectives. Several hundred instances of collectivization have occurred across towns and villages in all three cantons, with each commune consisting of approximately 20-35 people.[77] According to the Ministry of Economics, approximately three quarters of all property has been placed under community ownership and a third of production has been transferred to direct management by workers councils.

[Aslan]

Private property is guaranteed by the constitution of Rojava (http://civiroglu.net/the-constitution-of-the-rojava-cantons/) though it seems land, buildings and natural resources are considered public wealth:



According to wikipedia page:

Fuck, well can't argue against facts, Rojava certainly is just a capitalist (even if more limited) organization. Are there any anti-capitalist internationalist factions inside Rojava?

[John Nada]

I think you know what Devrim meant and it doesn't answer his question.The class struggle continues so long as there's classes, regardless of subjective factors in favor of or against a proletarian socialist revolution. If there was no class struggle, the Rojava Revolution would be succeeding way beyond anyone's expectations. Seeing as capitalism is still around, I see no reason why the class struggle has stopped. It makes no sense for the class struggle to have disappear when there's still classes.

The class struggle involves not just directly economic demands of the proletariat, but also the antagonisms between and within all classes(proletariat, semi-proletariat, peasantry, landowners, middle/haute-bourgeoisie, ect.), both political and economic. This is demonstrated by Marx and Engels in their works like The Peasant War in Germany (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm) and The Class Struggle in France (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/index.htm). The former even pre-capitalist with barely a proto-proletariat(which must be why there's supposedly none in Rojava:confused:), the latter also resulting in a coup(which happened a bunch in Turkey and the Arab world).

If the proletariat is not involved Rojava, and there's no class struggle, then it begs the question which classes are(peasantry? lumpenproletariat? "national"-bourgeoisie?). There's barely a national bourgeoisie(let alone as a leading and primary class), and the peasantry rarely plays an independent role. I have a hard time believing the proletariat is not involved at all.

There' was a class struggle in the Arab Spring at large, and there was a class struggle with the Revolutionary Youth Movement in Turkey, of which the PKK was a child of. There wasn't a lack of class struggle in the Arab Spring or the Rojava Revolution. Rather, in this context the proletariat's demands were of a democratic nature, as opposed to purely proletarian-socialist demands one would expect under an advance bourgeois-"democracy"(this is why the Ten Demands of the Communist Manifesto were much more revolutionary for the time than anything Sanders can ever put forth).
Is it not? I don't necessary have a fetish with Rojava, but I see that it is the most bloodless and yet effective revolution I've seen so far. I understand some people have been extremely apologetic about it, but it does seem the most promising revolution we have had for a long time.Rojava doesn't have the death penalty, and so far there hasn't been the infamous circular firing squad, but I wouldn't call it "bloodless":laugh:. And so far, it's more approximately like a minimum program for revolutionary democracy rather than a maximum program for proletarian socialism. In that the democratic demands are meet, this may set the stage for socialist demands in the future.

[Aslan]

Rojava doesn't have the death penalty, and so far there hasn't been the infamous circular firing squad, but I wouldn't call it "bloodless":laugh:. And so far, it's more approximately like a minimum program for revolutionary democracy rather than a maximum program for proletarian socialism. In that the democratic demands are meet, this may set the stage for socialist demands in the future.

I'm not saying it's gumdrops and roses, but at least it isn't a crazy thirdworldist Khmer Rouge mass murder.

However, I've pretty much have drawn my conclusion about Rojava. Its just another bourgeois revolution, with nationalism and other less than admirable ideas as its drive. Sure it has its positives, but in the long run it will go nowhere.

[John Nada]

I'm not saying it's gumdrops and roses, but at least it isn't a crazy thirdworldist Khmer Rouge mass murder.

However, I've pretty much have drawn my conclusion about Rojava. Its just another bourgeois revolution, with nationalism and other less than admirable ideas as its drive. Sure it has its positives, but in the long run it will go nowhere.If it's a bourgeois-democratic revolution, then it's progressive and a step up. In spite of the name "bourgeois"-democratic, often there's barely a bourgeoisie involved except maybe a few out of self-preservation. The February Revolution and Chinese Revolution were "bourgeois"-democratic revolutions. These are revolutions with the proletariat and other oppressed classes(peasantry, semi-proletariat, petit-bougeoisie) under conditions of absolutism and pre-capitalism, which sets the stage for socialist revolutions in the future. Maybe a few years, maybe a decade or two, it might increase the possibility of a proletarian-socialist revolution.

[Gepetto]

Abdullah Ocalan devoted his life to fighting capitalism, fascism, and for the rights of Kurds. He's easily done more for proletarian internationalism than anyone in this thread(even though that bar's pretty low).
If proletarian internationalism means murdering Kurdish teachers working in Turkish schools, then I'm glad I haven't done anything for it.

[Lord Testicles]

If it's a bourgeois-democratic revolution, then it's progressive and a step up.

How? & for how long are bourgeois-democratic revolutions going to be "progressive" and a "step-up"?



If the proletariat is not involved Rojava, and there's no class struggle, then it begs the question which classes are(peasantry? lumpenproletariat? "national"-bourgeoisie?). There's barely a national bourgeoisie(let alone as a leading and primary class), and the peasantry rarely plays an independent role. I have a hard time believing the proletariat is not involved at all.

Of course class struggle exists where there are classes but just because the proletariat is involved doesn't mean that it's worthy of support. The proletariat was involved with the NASDAP, the proletariat is involved with PEGIDA but it doesn't mean that they are "class-struggle organisations" and the existence of businesses still running and private capital existing in Rojava suggests the presence and influence of the bourgeoisie even if they are not "geographically" there.

[John Nada]

How? & for how long are bourgeois-democratic revolutions going to be "progressive" and a "step-up"?Democratic revolutions means it involve not just the proletariat, but also the peasantry, semi-proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie. This is why there's a sickle with the hammer:hammersickle:. Under the conditions where those other classes are the majority, semi-feudalism, colonialism and/or absolutism(ie Third-World countries), that's generally the kind of revolutions that happens first before proletarian-socialist revolutions, not out of choice but practical reality. Since almost everyone here is either 1.from an advance capitalist countries that had bourgeois-democratic revolutions a long time ago, no peasants and with the proletariat now as a majority, rendering the question irrelevant 2. from tendencies that reject such distinction, this likely makes no sense. That there were either democratic revolutions called socialist revolutions, or non-revolutions and plain opportunism justified as working towards bourgeois-democratic revolutions(ie early Chinese Revolution) can confuse things even more.

Marx discusses the initial bourgeois-democratic revolution against absolutism and feudalism and the need for the proletariat to maintain independence, before moving onward towards a proletarian revolution: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
Of course class struggle exists where there are classes but just because the proletariat is involved doesn't mean that it's worthy of support. The proletariat was involved with the NASDAP, the proletariat is involved with PEGIDA but it doesn't mean that they are "class-struggle organisations" and the existence of businesses still running and private capital existing in Rojava suggests the presence and influence of the bourgeoisie even if they are not "geographically" there.Fascism is a reaction against proletariat and even bourgeois-democracy itself. Unlike democratic revolutions which give the proletariat breathing room for a socialist revolution(sometimes mere months later), it's something that's always not in the proletariat's(hell humanity's) interest and must be fought.

But just because democratic-revolutions are not purely the proletariat or leading immediately to full communism, doesn't mean it's worthless. The fight against feudal reaction and colonialism may be in the interest of the peasantry, semi-proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie too, but that doesn't exclude proletariat. And simply because there's still private property(gradually being socialized) doesn't preclude that there's still a revolution As Engels said on property of the small peasants:
]Secondly, it is just as evident that when we are in possession of state power, we shall not even think of forcibly expropriating the small peasants (regardless of whether with or without compensation), as we shall have to do in the case of the big landowners. Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the first place, in effecting a transition of his private enterprise and private possession to cooperative ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose. And then, of course, we shall have ample means of showing to the small peasant prospective advantages that must be obvious to him even today. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htm

[Modern Marx]

I'm not a strict Marxist. I consider myself a Neo-Marxist, ie, I believe,as Sartre did, that capitalism limits us from our dreams and will fall eventually. I don't believe that that time is now.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What, exactly, would a proletarian revolution in Rojava look like? From what I understand, the economy in that part of Syria is centered around large farms on state-owned land, utilizing public infrastructure like grain silos and so on. Presumably, then, any class struggle would be against the state bourgeoisie more than local petty merchants, Western capitalists, local industrialists and other class enemies. Hasn't that, to a point, happened? The big infrastructure, like these grain silos, are now under control of the PYD. Are these institutions privatized? Is the control over them authentically "democratic"? Rojava has made a big deal about how their communities are run democratically, and if communities own all the major infrastructure, that would imply democratic management of the economy. Of course, it's hard to say how this is all playing out in the middle of a terrible warzone.

Also, to the PYD's credit, while there have been reports of people being removed from their homes, I haven't heard of any policy of permanent ethnic displacement, and they have done a better job than their PKK friends of organizing non-Kurds. In that respect, they do sound more internationalist, simply by opening their ranks to Arabs, Yazidis and Assyrians.

I don't think they're a "guide to the future" outside of neglected rural zones though. That seems to be where their strategy works best - I have no clue how one would organize a large metropolis around "Democratic Confederalism", and I doubt the PYD or PKK have any clue either. Of course, this is not a problem for them, since it is an understatement to say that the prospect of their forces marching into Aleppo, Ankara, Damascus or Istanbul are remote. Yet it is a problem for us trying to organize working classes in cities, suburban areas and other more industrialized zones.

[John Nada]

Thing is, I think it's more theoretically problematic from a Marxist perspective to claim the Rojava Revolution isn't a revolution of some type. The arguments against it seem to be that it's really just a Kurdish nationalist lumpenproletariat or a national-bourgeoisie taking power from an Arab bourgeoisie and feudal classes(a bourgeois-democratic revolution?), or the law of value still operates(like just about every past revolution, hell the Paris Commune didn't even seize the banks), so it's armed reformism(?). This generally seems to lack theoretical rigor and be based more on subjective opinions on the PKK and YPG/YPJ, or slapped together ad hoc to support an anti-war/anti-imperialist position(which having a progressive side in an otherwise very unjust war further complicates).

Yet there's clearly a social revolution in terms of the superstructure with feminism, secularism, pluralism, language and cultural rights and essentially being ran by soviets, and even some socialization of the means of production. It's not communism, but it's changed away from an autocratic state and bureaucratic capitalism typical of a semi-colony, the peripheral of this semi-colony even, to an independent democracy with the Kurds and other minorities gaining rights.

Since classes rule and lead revolutions, the bourgeoisie's supposed to be done as a revolutionary force, and other classes like the petit-bourgeoisie, peasantry and lumpenproletariat aren't supposed to be capable of leading this revolution. It's no longer the Syrian bureaucratic bourgeoisie in charge of the superstructure, and the reactionary military-feudal classes represented by Daesh and other Jihadists are being defeated. It's effectively a rule of the laboring classes, kind of like the Bolsheviks' theory of a democratic-dictatorship, even if capitalism still exists(unless SiOC is possible).

This is not supposed to happen. Marxist orthodoxy is the proletariat leads bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the modern era(as paradoxical and nonsensical as that sounds). Any other comparable revolutions like the Cuban Revolution or the Vietnamese Revolution were said to be possible only with Soviet support(indirectly deriving from a proletarian-socialist revolution, the October Revolution). And it's in spite of imperialism, which cannot carry out such transformation and actively tries to thwart such revolutions.

This would then pose questions outside of Rojava in terms of theory on revolution, like the role of the classes, dual power(possible one of the more complex examples) and the possibility of revolution without a major proletarian-socialist revolution first.

[ckaihatsu]

Thing is, I think it's more theoretically problematic from a Marxist perspective to claim the Rojava Revolution isn't a revolution of some type. The arguments against it seem to be that it's really just a Kurdish nationalist lumpenproletariat or a national-bourgeoisie taking power from an Arab bourgeoisie and feudal classes(a bourgeois-democratic revolution?), or the law of value still operates(like just about every past revolution, hell the Paris Commune didn't even seize the banks), so it's armed reformism(?). This generally seems to lack theoretical rigor and be based more on subjective opinions on the PKK and YPG/YPJ, or slapped together ad hoc to support an anti-war/anti-imperialist position(which having a progressive side in an otherwise very unjust war further complicates).

Yet there's clearly a social revolution in terms of the superstructure with feminism, secularism, pluralism, language and cultural rights and essentially being ran by soviets, and even some socialization of the means of production. It's not communism, but it's changed away from an autocratic state and bureaucratic capitalism typical of a semi-colony, the peripheral of this semi-colony even, to an independent democracy with the Kurds and other minorities gaining rights.

Since classes rule and lead revolutions, the bourgeoisie's supposed to be done as a revolutionary force, and other classes like the petit-bourgeoisie, peasantry and lumpenproletariat aren't supposed to be capable of leading this revolution. It's no longer the Syrian bureaucratic bourgeoisie in charge of the superstructure, and the reactionary military-feudal classes represented by Daesh and other Jihadists are being defeated. It's effectively a rule of the laboring classes, kind of like the Bolsheviks' theory of a democratic-dictatorship, even if capitalism still exists(unless SiOC is possible).


Good summation overall.





This is not supposed to happen. Marxist orthodoxy is the proletariat leads bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the modern era(as paradoxical and nonsensical as that sounds). Any other comparable revolutions like the Cuban Revolution or the Vietnamese Revolution were said to be possible only with Soviet support(indirectly deriving from a proletarian-socialist revolution, the October Revolution). And it's in spite of imperialism, which cannot carry out such transformation and actively tries to thwart such revolutions.

This would then pose questions outside of Rojava in terms of theory on revolution, like the role of the classes, dual power(possible one of the more complex examples) and the possibility of revolution without a major proletarian-socialist revolution first.


I would say that, in the current post-2008-bailout era and climate of continued economic sputtering, we're seeing a world-historical *regression*, back to (neo-)colonialism -- for lack of any substantive yardsticks of value and/or progress.

So this means that Rojava is anti-colonialist. (No wonder the Americanist types are so enamored of it.)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It works fine for me. Here's the URL if you can't see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CcLPyfgXBAk

A white American woman making a youtube video about Rojava hardly seems strong evidence to me.

It is odd that a revolution that is taking on the historic task of defeating ISIS, that is not only on a war-footing but also has a strong anti-state, anti-patriarchy domestic agenda would not be supported by the left. The lack of an anti-private property base to the revolution is something that should be put on the agenda in the future; however, I for one can sympathise with people who are faced with capture by ISIS that are taking practical decisions to save their lives, their family's lives and their communities. If the task of defeating ISIS can be accomplished, then a society that starts with communitarian ideals and anti-patriarchical ideals can then work more strongly towards democratic control of the economy.