A. Ocalan, the Western left, and the ideology of PKK

[fractal-vortex]

Abdullah Ocalan as a modern Stalin, and the role which socialist intellectuals play in supporting him.

http://knowledge.ucoz.org/news/abdullah_ocalan_the_western_left_and_the_ideology_ of_pkk/2017-03-13-103

[Ale Brider]

Rojava's fight is a sympathetic one, however the critique of PKK and Öcalan should be just like this: reckless and not fearing backlash from Western "fellow travellers". What is particularly worrying is the cult of Öcalan. I think however that the link you posted is a bit sketchy. Are you familiar with Dauvé's criticisms of Rojava?

https://libcom.org/library/rojava-reality-rhetoric-gilles-dauv%C3%A9-tl

Pretty good, although I have to admit it hurt for me to read for the first time, as Rojava seemed something good and inspiring. But even if we would declare support for the fight of the Kurdish proletariat (so not the "Kurds" in general) we would only make matters worse if we don't face reality and don't approach it with a healthy dose of critical attitude.

[Exterminatus]

Throwing the term "counter-revolutionary" around as a criticism in 2017? Jesus Christ. Counter revolutionary juxtaposed to what? Assad, Jihadists, "moderate" rebels, Al Qaeda or perhaps ISIS? Leftists who support Rojava don't even pretend that Rojava is the revolutionary communist model for 21th century. This criticism is totally misplaced. The support for Rojava is based on their secularist, progressive attitudes and practices which have long been taboo in that part of Middle East. Here's hoping that these standards can be disseminated also among the Arab nations (although Kurdish nationalism is obviously detrimental to this task).

[Ale Brider]

Throwing the term "counter-revolutionary" around as a criticism in 2017? Jesus Christ. Counter revolutionary juxtaposed to what? Assad, Jihadists, "moderate" rebels, Al Qaeda or perhaps ISIS? Leftists who support Rojava don't even pretend that Rojava is the revolutionary communist model for 21th century. This criticism is totally misplaced. The support for Rojava is based on their secularist, progressive attitudes and practices which have long been taboo in that part of Middle East. Here's hoping that these standards can be disseminated also among the Arab nations (although Kurdish nationalism is obviously detrimental to this task).

Well that really depends on what do you percieve as the primary motivation behind the support of Rojava, there are people out there who just think what you claim people don't think at all. You also can't deny that the support of Rojava sort of became a "radical chic" issue, and I think that Rojava deserves a critical approach that does not conform to the mandatory excitement about the Kurds, and also does not conform to lowly anti-imperialist ML arguments against the Rojava revolution.

[ckaihatsu]

Well that really depends on what do you percieve as the primary motivation behind the support of Rojava, there are people out there who just think what you claim people don't think at all. You also can't deny that the support of Rojava sort of became a "radical chic" issue, and I think that Rojava deserves a critical approach that does not conform to the mandatory excitement about the Kurds,




and also does not conform to lowly anti-imperialist ML arguments against the Rojava revolution.


What *are* the ML arguments against the Rojava revolution -- or is this just typical tendency-skewing -- ?

I'd imagine that revolutionary-left-nationalists like MLs and Maoists *would* be interested in national self-determination, as for Rojava (since such tendencies tend to be myopically focused on just one country at a time).

[Ale Brider]

What *are* the ML arguments against the Rojava revolution -- or is this just typical tendency-skewing -- ?

I'd imagine that revolutionary-left-nationalists like MLs and Maoists *would* be interested in national self-determination, as for Rojava (since such tendencies tend to be myopically focused on just one country at a time).

As much as I love tendency skewing, there are actual ML/MLM criticisms of Rojava that I'm referring to, and their critique is a bit different from Dauvé's or the general leftcom critique. The first step is usually supporting the national self-determination of Syria, which of course results in denying this right from the Kurds who proclaim Rojava on de jure "Syrian" soil. To deal with the obvious double standard, comes the anti-imperialist, geopolitical argument: the government forces of Syria have a stance against the US, while Western Kurdistan has its support. That implies Rojava is nothing more than a fifth column of US imperialism in the Middle East with revolutionary phrases. These are the general arguments I have encountered so far. I don't know however, how common these are in the "real world". As far as I have noticed, supporting Assad and denouncing Rojava is more a trend on the ML circles of reddit online. Not going to lie, I saw others MLs who supported Rojava as well. But I'nve never said that this is a general thing among MLs or MLMs, what I was trying to say is that these arguments have specifically ML backgrounds.

edit: a bit offtopic but I also noticed that I use the words critique/criticism too often nowadays. Might be bad for my health. :D Sometimes I wonder if I sound like that grumpy uncle nobody likes because he can't be happy about anything. :D

[ckaihatsu]

As much as I love tendency skewing, there are actual ML/MLM criticisms of Rojava that I'm referring to, and their critique is a bit different from Dauvé's or the general leftcom critique. The first step is usually supporting the national self-determination of Syria, which of course results in denying this right from the Kurds who proclaim Rojava on de jure "Syrian" soil.


Thanks for the elucidation.

Hearing this for the first time, it seems to me that these could just be *incremental* steps -- we would / should support Syria's sovereignty against NATO incursions / hegemony (a true anti-imperialist stance, as opposed to those on RevLeft who argued an anti-Assad stance as being anti-imperialist, and got banned wholesale for it), and then we would side with Kurdish self-determination -- and also the peoples of Syria -- against Assad / strongman rule, as a secondary, smaller-scale version of national liberation.





To deal with the obvious double standard, comes the anti-imperialist, geopolitical argument: the government forces of Syria have a stance against the US,


Syria has an *anti-imperialist*, national-sovereignty stance against the U.S., yes, though the two have *cooperated* at times against the common ISIS / IS foe (initially indirectly supported by the U.S.) in the formulation known as the 'Syrian Democratic Forces' (SDF).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces#Support_by_the_United_Sta tes.2C_France_and_other_Western_nations





while Western Kurdistan has its support.




That implies Rojava is nothing more than a fifth column of US imperialism in the Middle East with revolutionary phrases.


This contention is ridiculous since the striving of proto-Kurdistan for national sovereignty is its clearly ultimate aim, as seen in the resulting Turkey-being-pissed-off-and-threatened by such Kurdish goals and directions for area-wide national liberation (which would also impinge on Turkey's borders).





These are the general arguments I have encountered so far. I don't know however, how common these are in the "real world". As far as I have noticed, supporting Assad and denouncing Rojava is more a trend on the ML circles of reddit online.


I'm surprised at this stated political conclusion -- it really looks like the inherently-flawed attempt to settle all parties claims at-once, instead of the stepped, scaled, incremental approach I mentioned above. (By the standard of minority oppression and resultant aims for national liberation / self-determination, there is no justification for denying such to Rojava, or the greater Kurdish sovereignty.)





Not going to lie, I saw others MLs who supported Rojava as well. But I'nve never said that this is a general thing among MLs or MLMs, what I was trying to say is that these arguments have specifically ML backgrounds.


Hmmmm, this is the first I've heard of such.





edit: a bit offtopic but I also noticed that I use the words critique/criticism too often nowadays. Might be bad for my health. :D Sometimes I wonder if I sound like that grumpy uncle nobody likes because he can't be happy about anything. :D


No, it's not you -- it's the nature of our politics, which may often be described as 'ultra-left' (in the *principled* sense of the term), in comparison to the prevailing bourgeois-oriented real-world trajectories.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism



http://s6.postimg.org/3si9so4xd/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/full/)

[fractal-vortex]

Ale, thanks for the link (https://libcom.org/library/rojava-reality-rhetoric-gilles-dauv%C3%A9-tl) . looked through the article. it seems to adopt a kind of "neutral" attitude, similar to Wikipedia, and i don't like such attitude in social struggle. moreover, i didn't find any new information, any new insight into the problem. wonder, what you saw in the article.

[Ale Brider]

Ale, thanks for the link (https://libcom.org/library/rojava-reality-rhetoric-gilles-dauv%C3%A9-tl) . looked through the article. it seems to adopt a kind of "neutral" attitude, similar to Wikipedia, and i don't like such attitude in social struggle. moreover, i didn't find any new information, any new insight into the problem. wonder, what you saw in the article.

Well it is certainly not a call for action, it is critique. But it is not neutral in the sense that it examines and delves into some depth regarding things we should be all aware about. There is no slander or adoration here whatsoever. I think it is kind of our decision after reading it; do we support this movement despite knowing about its flaws? Do we stand for "critical support"? Or do we argue against it from now on? It is kind of left to the reader after reading, but I don't think this is neutral in a strict sense of the word. It provokes reaction from the part of the reader regarding Rojava, and this is what matters.

[Radical Atom]

Glad this thread was started, I've been thinking about starting debate about the western pseudo-left's drooling over Rojava.

Leftists who support Rojava don't even pretend that Rojava is the revolutionary communist model for 21th century.
Oh but they do. I'm actually surprised you'd get that impression because that's most of what I've encountered in "mainstream" "leftist" circles (Isn't there a user group dedicated to Democratic Confederalism, a word salad if there ever was one, in this very site?): from pathological "underdog"ists who call Rojava a "revolution" because they are flabbergasted at the sight of arab women posing with rifles and battle fatigues to clueless anarchists who think Rojava is this century's Catalonia* (maybe in a way, but not in the way they think).



In Rojava or Syrian Kurdistan, the Kurdish Anarchist Forum and the Turkish DAF (Devrimci Anarşist Faaliyet) support, participate in, and carry out global propaganda on behalf of the so-called ‘Rojava revolution’, claiming that the local population is organising itself in independent communes in its fight against the Syrian government and above all against the brutal jihadists of Islamic State. The DAF offers its services to participate in the fighting around the besieged city of Kobane near the Turkish border. In reality, these ‘communes’ are tightly controlled by the Kurdish nationalist PKK, which in the last few years has carried out a ‘turn’ away from Maoism towards the ‘libertarian municipalism’ of Murray Bookchin. And in its conflict with IS, the PKK has been more or less openly acting as the ground forces of the ‘western’ coalition led by the USA.
[...]
Anarchist elements in the west are also drawn into the campaign of ‘solidarity with Kobane’, which is effectively a campaign in solidarity with the PKK. The anarchist celebrity David Graeber has published an article in The Guardian ‘Why is the world ignoring the revolutionary Kurds in Syria? which describes the PKK’s experiment in ‘direct democracy’ as a “social revolution”, compares it with the anarchist collectives in Spain in 1936 and calls for the “international left” to prevent a repetition of the same tragic defeat. A similar outlook is taken up by the poster who signs as Ocelot on libcom, although his arguments in favour of antifascism and the “revolutionary Kurds” offer a more sophisticated version of the same thing, since he is well aware of what he calls the “Bordigist” position on the question of fascism, and is vehemently opposed to it. But perhaps more important is the response of some of the established anarchist organisations. In France, for example, the CNT-AITparticipates in ‘solidarity with Kobane’ demonstrations behind a banner which says: “Arms for the Kurdish resistance, Rojava is hope, anarchists in solidarity” (see picture). The flags of the French Federation Anarchiste can also be seen behind the same banner, while the International of Anarchist Federations, to which French FA and the Anarchist Federation in the UK are both affiliated, and which lists the DAF and KAF as friendly organisations, publishes most of the DAF’s articles on the situation in Rojava without critical comment.

And to be fair, the PKK wouldn't get so much flak had there not been pretensions to some sort of revolutionary movement. In fact, that's what the criticism coming from the internationalist left boils down to: that despite pretensions to the contrary, the PKK is not progressive** much less revolutionary and that there's no revolution going on in Rojava.
That doesn't invalidate, of course, the need to wipe out the daesh barbarians off the face of the earth or the essential role the Kurds have and will have in it, or the fact that Kobane has been a desperate fight for survival against the forces of ultra-reaction. Nor does it mean that other sides are any better, in fact most of them are worse.
It just means that no side can possibly be on "our side", not even as "allies".
I personally can only stand in solidarity with the men and women who suffer under and resist the Kurdish, Syrian and Turkish bourgeoisie and the daesh savages.
It's also pretty sad to see ex-stalinist Kurdish nationalists be hailed as some kind of "libertarian" heroes.

The PKK's "progressive" record is questionable at best too:


THE TRUE FACE OF THE PKK
In addition to the attack on the already mentioned village guards, the PKK has for years undertaken a campaign of killing Turkish teachers who are attacked as “agents of the Turkish state” because they taught the Turkish language. To make matters worse, in Turkey after graduation, the country sends young teachers wherever they are needed especially in the villages and in the eastern parts of Turkey, so this means that teachers do not have a choice or a chance. Under attack by the PKK were also local leftists, but also Kurdish nationalists who disagreed with the policies of the PKK.
Also, it should be noted that the PKK is advocating ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in Syria that inhabit the Kurdish region. Thus, the leader of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the Syrian Kurdish party associated with the PKK, said on television that “One day those Arabs who have been brought to the Kurdish areas will have to be expelled (…) if it continues the same way, there will be war between Kurds and Arabs.” [4] The interview was published on the website of supporters of the PKK, with which it was cited. The PKK has in the past had extremely bad policies toward minority populations in the territories in which the Kurds were in the majority. Currently, it is changing and the PKK is often presented as the defender of all the people in Kurdistan. But where the PKK can operate with many national minorities, for very obvious reasons it cannot work with Arabs, Turks and Persians. And when conflicts break out with them, everyone is clearly aware that the PKK is primarily an ethnic party.
[...]
“FEMINIST” PKK
In the West, the PKK has a reputation of an organisation that treats men and women equally. There are many records that talk about how women are escaping to the PKK from their families, arranged marriages, blood feuds and other patriarchal customs of Kurdish and Turkish society. But contrary to the picture which is built on the PKK itself, they have not found salvation in the organisation but they were victims of abuse in the PKK’s camps.
The source for this claim does not come from the Turkish state’s “propaganda machine” but from the PKK’s dissidents. So Mehmet Cahit Şener — one of the founders of the PKK who led the short-lived PKK-Vejin (an organisation which split from the PKK because of disagreements with the leadership) — wrote in 1991, before he was killed in a joint action by the PKK and Syrian secret services:
“Apo [Öcalan] has forced dozens of our female comrades to immoral relations with him, defiled most and declared the ones who insisted on refusing to be people ‘who haven’t understood the party, who haven’t understood us’ and has heavily repressed them, and even order the murder of some claiming they are agents. Some of our female comrades who are in this situation are still under arrest and under torture, being forced to make confessions appropriate to the scenarios that they are agents (…) The relations between men and women within the party have turned into a harem in Apo’s palace and many female comrades were treated as concubines by this individual.” [5]
Selim Çürükkaya, one of the founders of the PKK, who fled to Europe because of Apo, also wrote of similar incidents. In his memoirs, Çürükkaya wrote that sexual relations are banned for the entire membership, and those caught in the act, regardless of whether they are men or women, are strictly punished — tortured, imprisoned and branded traitors which would lead to their execution. Quite contrary to these rules, Öcalan had a right to every woman in the organisation, and the rest of the leadership was awarded according to their merit. These testimonies have been confirmed by other leaders of the PKK who have since left the organisation.


More on the PKK:
The Bloodbath in Syria: Class War or Ethnic War
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2014-10-31/the-bloodbath-in-syria-class-war-or-ethnic-war

*Speaking of which, here's a good read regarding this:
In Rojava: People's War is not Class War
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2014-10-30/in-rojava-people’s-war-is-not-class-war
Anarchism and Imperialist War: Nationalism or Internationalism?
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201412/11625/anarchism-and-imperialist-war-nationalism-or-internationalism

** At least not by leftist standards, which they claim to be (I mean, if they are compared to Iran or Afghanistan of course they'll look "progressive", but we should know better).