Anarchist Federation statement on Rojava: December 2014

Ocalan's face on flags

The Anarchist Federation looks at the so-called "revolution" in Syrian Kurdistan, and the role of the PKK and compares the reality with the rhetoric.

The following statement addresses the situation in which Devrimci Anarşist Faaliyet (DAF), Revolutionary Anarchist Action, are involved on the Turkish/Syrian border in opposition to IS. This is a struggle which, if lost, will probably result in far greater repression and tyranny than workers in the region already face, in towns and on the land. It is also one in which class-consciousness and the class struggle must remain at the forefront of anarchist responses. Anarchists on the ground are fighting in a less-than-ideal situation, not least given that the state forces of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and the US, also claim to combat IS. We continue to offer practical solidarity through the International of Anarchist Federations (IFA/IAF). We also offer our own evaluation of the situation.

The Anarchist Federation is only too aware of the support that many anarchists, including those who describe themselves as anarchist communists, anarcho-syndicalists and class struggle anarchists, are offering the “Rojava Revolution”. This includes lauding the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) as a party that has somehow morphed from being an authoritarian nationalist party into being a near-anarchist catalyst for social revolution in the region, and describing the situation in Rojava as similar to the revolutionary situation in Spain in 1936 (David Graeber, as well as Derek Wall of the Green Party left).

Those who wish to hold on to their principles and to keep a clear head, need to examine the facts. The PKK at its birth adopted a leftist nationalist stance. This leftism was very much of the Stalinist variety. In 1984 it began an armed struggle against the Turkish state. With the capture of Abdullah Ocalan, its leader, by the Turkish state, a new period in the evolution of the PKK began. In line with leaders of other parties of the same ilk, Ocalan was and is seen as a charismatic figure to which the leadership elements and the base of the party pay obedience. Ocalan is described as “the sun” around which the various political and military organisations revolve. This situation has not changed with his apparent adoption of Bookchinite confederal municipalism. Ocalan deliberately modelled himself on Stalin right down to the personality cult. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites, Ocalan and the PKK began to manouevre, to change positions, no longer being able to look towards a discredited state capitalism.

When the PKK military forces were compelled to move over the border to Syria, they met problems with the Kurdish peasantry there, many of whom still held to Muslim religious beliefs at odds with PKK leftism. This impelled Ocalan to talk about Kurdistan as “the cradle of international Islam”. At the same time the PKK entered into a tacit alliance with Syria’s Assad regime, an enemy of the Turkish state.

Ocalan then completed another turn and talked about becoming Turkey’s “most powerful ally” and that “the war on behalf of borders and classes has come to an end”. When this failed to impress his captors, Ocalan then took another turn, recommending that Bookchin must be read and his ideas practised. This initiated an intensive marketing campaign by the PKK towards Western leftists and anarchists in order to look for support and allies.

Apart from the strange occurrence of the PKK, 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. In fact, whilst Ocalan and the PKK might be posing as born again libertarians, it should be remembered that the PKK, whilst facing towards the West as advocates of direct democracy and of secularism, at the same time advocates the setting up of Democratic Islam Congresses to accommodate the Islamists and to religiously legitimise the PKK. This was also at the instigation of Ocalan. In a letter that Ocalan sent to the Democratic Islam Congress he referred to his “brother believers” and goes on to say that “we cannot be defined by western concepts such as communism and atheism". Further he then talks favourably about the Islamisation of Kurdistan. So much for secularism!

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. The Koma Civakên Kurdistan (KCK) (Group of Communities in Kurdistan) an organization founded by the PKK to implement the Democratic Confederalism programme, defends private property in its Contract (the key document in the aforesaid programme). This is under Article 8, “Personal, Political Rights and Freedoms". Section C of article 10, "Basic Responsibilities" defines the constitutional basis of mandatory military service:"In the case of a war of legitimate defense, as a requirement of patriotism, there is the responsibility to actively join the defense of the homeland and basic rights and freedoms”.

Zafer Onat, a libertarian communist in the region remarks “While the Contract states that the aim is not political power, we also understand that the destruction of the state apparatus is also not aimed [at], meaning the goal is autonomy within existing nation states. When the Contract is viewed in its entirety, the goal that is presented is not to be seen beyond a bourgeois democratic system that is called democratic confederalism”.

Anarchists can remember Gaddafi’s Green Book, which in rhetoric had far more radical language, where it says: “All that the masses need do now is to struggle to put an end to all forms of dictatorial rule in the world today, to all forms of what is falsely called democracy - from parliaments to the sect, the tribe, the class and to the one-party, the two-party and the multi-party systems.... No democracy without popular congresses and committees everywhere. ... Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people.” But did anyone seriously believe that this was actually being implemented under the repressive regime of Gaddafi?

The uprising against the Assad regime meant that in the course of events, that regime ceased hostilities against the Syrian branch of the PKK, the PYD (Democratic Union Party). This was in order to concentrate on fighting its other opponents, the Free Syrian Army, etc. How seriously should we take the claims about the Rojava Revolution in the Kurdish part of Syria?

We should be clear that the PYD has set up a parliament structure, the Auto-Administration, which it controls with allied parties. It passed a conscription law in July compelling families in the region to send one of their 18-30 year-old members to serve in the defence corps of the PYD, for a period of six months, either continuously or intermittently over a one year period. “Non-adherence” to this law was subject to punishment as stipulated in the law. This law was passed without consulting with other political formations in Rojava and explicitly drafts Kurds into armed groups completely under the control of the PYD. At the same time the PYD is treating other Kurdish political formations in Rojava in an authoritarian totalitarian way, backed up by its use of armed force. It marginalises them and refuses entry into any decision making.

The so-called cantonal assemblies and grassroots bodies are themselves under the sway of the PYD and the Auto-Administration can either approve or block any decisions by these bodies. There is no real direct democracy here, workers and peasants do not control these bodies. At the same time no genuine workers and peasants militias have developed, all of the armed groups are under the control of the PYD. Furthermore, there is no socialisation and collectivisation of the land and the workplaces, as happened, for example, in Spain in 1936. The PKK/PYD marketing campaign has presented the situation in Rojava as one of progressive revolution, but the working class and the peasantry have no autonomous organisation. Whilst there is a quota of 40% representation of women within these local councils/communes/committees, it can be seen from the above that the local structures are in fact not much different from municipal councils in the West, where they act in their role as the local state as support for and in connection with the central state and parliament. Indeed, while some compare the “Rojava Revolution” to Spain 1936 perhaps a better analogy would be the Bolsheviks in 1917 which many anarchists, both internationally and inside Russia, mistakenly supported initially as a truly revolutionary force.

As regards the women’s armed groups, whilst there are signs of feminist influences within them, it should be remembered that the women’s fighting groups are segregated from male units, with no mixed fighting groups. Gaddafi and Saddam both had women’s military brigades, but that did not mean that there was women’s liberation in Libya and Iraq. Similarly women’s military brigades exist in Iran with no sign of emancipation of women. For that matter, ISIS has all-female brigades called al-Khansaa and Umm al-Rayan.

As Zafer Onat remarks: ”First of all we must identify that the Rojava process has progressive features such as an important leap in the direction of women's liberation, that a secular, pro-social justice, pluralist democratic structure is attempting to be constructed and that other ethnic and religious groups are given a part in the administration. However, the fact that the newly emerging structure does not aim at the elimination of private property, that is the abolition of classes, that the tribal system remains and that tribal leaders partake in the administration shows that the aim is not the removal of feudal or capitalist relations of production but is instead in their own words 'the construction of a democratic nation''.”

As Syrian-Kurdish anarchist Shiar Neyo comments: “From the PYD’s point of view, this was a golden opportunity to impose its authority and expand its sphere of influence in the Kurdish areas in Syria. This political pragmatism and thirst for power are two important factors in understanding the party’s dealings with the regime, the revolution, the FSA, and even the Kurds themselves. They also help explain many phenomena that seem to bewilder some commentators and analysts, such as the suppression by PYD forces of independent activists and those critical of the party’s policies, in much the same vein as the Baathist regime did. By way of example, one can cite in this regard the Amuda massacre in July 2013, in which the People’s Protection Units (YPG) opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, or the closure of the new independent radio station Arta in February 2014, under the pretext that it was not ‘licensed’. The PYD’s forces have also assaulted members of other Kurdish political parties and arrested some of them under a variety of excuses; they have been controlling food and financial resources in the Kurdish areas and distributing them in an unjust manner on the basis of partisan favouritism, and so on and so forth. Such practices remind people, rightly, of the oppressive practices of the Assad regime.”

What we are saying might not be popular at the moment, but we feel that our analysis will be borne out by unfolding events.

Our proposed actions

1.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.

The Anarchist Federation, 1st December 2014.

http://www.afed.org.uk

---

For references, and statements & discussion elsewhere:

References:

Servet Düşmanı (Enemy of Wealth) anarchist website, Turkey- Rojava: Fantasies and Realities [article by Zafer Onat, in several language translations]: http://www.servetdusmani.org/rojava-fantasies-and-realities/

Tahrir-International Collective Network website: On the Syrian Revolution and the Kurdish Issue – an interview with Syrian-Kurdish activist and journalist Shiar Nayo: http://tahriricn.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/syria-on-the-syrian-revolution-and-the-kurdish-issue-an-interview-with-syrian-kurdish-activist-and-journalist-shiar-nayo/

Statements:

International of Anarchist Federations: http://i-f-a.org/index.php/news [several statements by KAF (Kurdish Anarchist Forum, UK and Europe) and DAF (Revolutionary Anarchist Action, Turkey), including translations]

http://anarsistfaaliyet.org/ (DAF website)

https://libcom.org/tags/kurdistan-anarchist-forum (KAF related articles)

Further discussion:

Workers Solidarity Alliance, USA: http://ideasandaction.info/2014/10/rojava-anarcho-syndicalist-perspective/ [anarcho-syndicalist individual, critical of national liberation context]

Anarkismo, platformist network: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/27540 [reply to the WSA position with many comments]

Comments

Burgers
Dec 3 2014 14:10
Serge Forward wrote:
Flava O Flav wrote:
Same thing they said in 1994 when the Zapatistas emerged. That proved insightful, didn't it?

Indeed. The AF were spot on in '94 about the Zapatists.

Do you have a link to the article I only remember the Wildcat article.

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 14:10

Interesting logic indeed.

Soapy
Dec 3 2014 14:11

Wow looks like the trolls are working overtime on this thread

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 14:15

Troll = someone who criticises the AF now? Who is acting like Trots here?

Burgers
Dec 3 2014 14:20

Where I do agree with Flava is that both the Zapatists and Rojava do have much in common. They are both at best attempts at a version of radical social democracy coupled with regionalism and therefore should not be supported.

alakarga
Dec 3 2014 14:29

AF members should have no idea about what they wrote indeed. Lots of liberal arguemnets mentioning bad Kurds, good working class Kurds. What a state minded peoples' statement it is. They do not know what working class movement is, what nationalism is, how religion could be articulated into struggles etc.. Lots of shit in it.

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 14:24
Burgers wrote:
Where I do agree with Flava is that both the Zapatists and Rojava do have much in common. They are both at best attempts at a version of radical social democracy coupled with regionalism and therefore should not be supported.

Lets assume for a moment that you are correct in the assertion about radical social democracy (needless to say I disagree) - does it follow that you would not critically support their fight against ISIS?

AES
Dec 3 2014 14:41

Flava, can you show examples of how this platformist critical support can be understood (the criticism and the support)? and who exactly is that support with (and are there specific distinctions and exceptions)?

Burgers
Dec 3 2014 14:43
Flava O Flav wrote:
Burgers wrote:
Where I do agree with Flava is that both the Zapatists and Rojava do have much in common. They are both at best attempts at a version of radical social democracy coupled with regionalism and therefore should not be supported.

Lets assume for a moment that you are correct in the assertion about radical social democracy (needless to say I disagree) - does it follow that you would not critically support their fight against ISIS?

On that logic do WSM believe that the allies should have been supported against Hitler?

Clearly not because it was a imperialist war and so is this war, but here is two of the key issues in this argument. Imperialism and whether you should support the smaller imperialists over the bigger ones and nationalism and why (unlike WSM) communists reject it in all it's forms.

Gepetto
Dec 3 2014 15:07
Flava O Flav wrote:
does it follow that you would not critically support their fight against ISIS?

What is that "critical support" many on the left like to talk about? Surely a mature and serious person should never suspend critical thinking, regardless of whether they support the thing in question or not?

Caiman del Barrio
Dec 3 2014 15:13
Gepetto wrote:
Flava O Flav wrote:
does it follow that you would not critically support their fight against ISIS?

What is that "critical support" many on the left like to talk about?

AFAICS, it's a bit like tactical voting, except minus the voting...and the tactics.

Of course, the counter-argument - hauled out of the back of the cupboard like an old, moudly cardboard cut-out - is to claim everyone else is purist and isolated from the working class. Whereas, of course, stating positions on a geopolitical conflict in a different continent on the internet/in your glossy mag is getting stuck in.

I'm so sick of this bullshit. It's almost 6 years since the weakest advocates of platformism were forced to back down on Libcom due to their utter lack of comprehension of the notions of 'critique', 'support', 'internationalism', etc, (cf: Chávez, Irish Republicanism) and now they're back to defend a group whose leadership has openly racist positions.

Gepetto
Dec 3 2014 15:15
Flava O Flav wrote:
Independent of what? Of the self governing bodies they have established?

Oh my, it's like when tankies say: "Hurr hurr how could workers oppress themselves you silly"

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 15:32
AES wrote:
Flava, can you show examples of how this platformist critical support can be understood (the criticism and the support)? and who exactly is that support with (and are there specific distinctions and exceptions)?

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/27540

Gepetto
Dec 3 2014 15:34
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I'm so sick of this bullshit.

Just as I'm sick of the black-and-white, moralistic worldview which says: "If you don't critically support Rojava against ISIS then you simply have no heart and don't care for the Kurds!"

If anti-working class, nationalist and Stalinist racket is the only thing that stands between you and the genocidal Islamic fundamentalists, then it just makes your situation even more tragic.

Leo
Dec 3 2014 15:35

Why does the AF have relations with as disgusting an organization as the DAF anyway, is the only question that comes to mind. Surely the AF can find better than these people.

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 15:39
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I'm so sick of this bullshit. It's almost 6 years since the weakest advocates of platformism were forced to back down on Libcom due to their utter lack of comprehension of the notions of 'critique', 'support', 'internationalism', etc, (cf: Chávez, Irish Republicanism) and now they're back to defend a group whose leadership has openly racist positions.

Forced to back down, or gave up talking to a brick wall? It's not as if there was a group discussion on that. Our position on anti-imperialism in Ireland hasn't changed and is spot on, and illustrates my point about a large section of the UK anarchist movement having no analysis of Imperialism.

What is the basis of your contention that we're defending a group whose leadership has "racist" opinions?

On what someone said above about defending "radical social democracy" against ISIS being the same as supporting the allies against the Nazis, again total lack of analysis of Imperialism. Like those two things are the same.

Gepetto
Dec 3 2014 15:44

Wait, you talk about opposing imperialism and about your opponents not having analysis of imperialism, while you support a proxy of US imperialism? grin

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 15:47
Gepetto wrote:
Flava O Flav wrote:
Independent of what? Of the self governing bodies they have established?

Oh my, it's like when tankies say: "Hurr hurr how could workers oppress themselves you silly"

Yeah, that's exactly what it's like. How about this, you tell me what this independence means, what would be acceptable for the people of Rojava to do, and how they could arm themselves. Are people honestly saying that it makes no difference if ISIS takes control of the region? If they think it does but there's another option, what exactly is that option, other than to pray for anarchist santa to bring some independent guns free of foreign ideologies?

For the people here who support the statement, what would be worthy of your support?

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 15:47
Gepetto wrote:
Wait, you talk about opposing imperialism and about your opponents not having analysis of imperialism, while you support a proxy of US imperialism? grin

A proxy of US Imperialism that is classified as a terrorist organisation :-/

Soapy
Dec 3 2014 15:55

This is all a tad ridiculous isn't it? Putting aside all the arguments about whether or not we should support one side over another in an immensely complicated conflict that I'm sure most of us including myself do not have even the most fundamental grasp of, what in god's name are we supposed to do about ISIS? A ragtag group of a hundred something anarchists talking away on the internet, what, are 12 of us going to pack our bags and join the PKK? That'll show ISIS!

For god's sake we can't even form anything even closely resembling a social movement, what the hell are we supposed to do about ISIS?

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 15:57
Soapy wrote:
This is all a tad ridiculous isn't it? Putting aside all the arguments about whether or not we should support one side over another in an immensely complicated conflict that I'm sure most of us including myself do not have even the most fundamental grasp of, what in god's name are we supposed to do about ISIS? A ragtag group of a hundred something anarchists talking away on the internet, what, are 12 of us going to pack our bags and join the PKK? That'll show ISIS!

For god's sake we can't even form anything even closely resembling a social movement, what the hell are we supposed to do about ISIS?

A salient point. I would have thought that would support my position here. If we were capable of forming an anarchist international militia of thousands that would be able to link up with thousands of anarchists in the region in support of a genuinely anarchist revolution, there'd be no need for this thread whatsoever.

AES
Dec 3 2014 16:09

So platformist "critical" support of PKK/PYD, who are preparing alliance with al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria) is the path of anti-imperialism and anarchism?

mikail firtinaci wrote:
Saleh Muslim (PYD's leader) says "Kurds are ready to work with the Al-Nusra Front"*, if they lift their siege on Afrin: http://www.yuksekovahaber.com/haber/salih-muslim-el-nusrayla-calisabilir... *Al-Nusra front is an islamist paramilitary group.

Serge Forward
Dec 3 2014 16:15
Leo wrote:
Why does the AF have relations with as disgusting an organization as the DAF anyway, is the only question that comes to mind. Surely the AF can find better than these people.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure if the AF does have relations with DAF. However, sections of the broader IAF do have relations with them. Incidentally, I don't think DAF is a "disgusting" organisation, but an organisation we have some serious disagreements with. If you know of any groups "better than these people" please let us know about them or ask them to get in touch with us.

You should also know that the IAF is not a monolithic organisation but is more of a class struggle anarchist alliance of federations. It's not set up like the ICC where each section will have exactly the same politics.

Oh, someone else asked earlier, why we (the AF) didn't condemn the earlier CRIFA statement. Well, our statement does contradict pretty much all the main points in that document, so job done.

Flava O Flav, you talk about strawmen but you have constructed more strawmen on here than you can shake a stick at (or set light to). I appreciate that our failure to throw in our lot with left-nationalists might ranckle somewhat but that's the way we in the AF roll.

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 16:19
Serge Forward wrote:
Leo wrote:

Flava O Flav, you talk about strawmen but you have constructed more strawmen on here than you can shake a stick at (or set light to). I appreciate that our failure to throw in our lot with left-nationalists might ranckle somewhat but that's the way we in the AF roll.

Well so far you've only answered me with one liners and vague assertions, so I'm not sure what exactly you are arguing for. You might answer some of the questions I asked in the above post.

AES
Dec 3 2014 16:32
AES wrote:
So platformist "critical" support of PKK/PYD, who are preparing alliance with al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria) is the path of anti-imperialism and anarchism?

mikail firtinaci wrote:
Saleh Muslim (PYD's leader) says "Kurds are ready to work with the Al-Nusra Front"*, if they lift their siege on Afrin: http://www.yuksekovahaber.com/haber/salih-muslim-el-nusrayla-calisabilir... *Al-Nusra front is an islamist paramilitary group.

Flava, will WSM/anarkismo continue support for PKK/PYD when in an alliance with al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria) - genuine question?

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 16:39
AES wrote:
AES wrote:
So platformist "critical" support of PKK/PYD, who are preparing alliance with al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria) is the path of anti-imperialism and anarchism?

mikail firtinaci wrote:
Saleh Muslim (PYD's leader) says "Kurds are ready to work with the Al-Nusra Front"*, if they lift their siege on Afrin: http://www.yuksekovahaber.com/haber/salih-muslim-el-nusrayla-calisabilir... *Al-Nusra front is an islamist paramilitary group.

Flava, will WSM contine support for PKK/PYD when in an alliance with al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria) - genuine question?

WSM does not support the PKK any more than it supported the IRA.

I'm quoting some paragraphs from the anarkismo reponse to the previous anarcho-syndicalist statement:

"None of this means blindly supporting the PKK. We disagree with the purism of the “K.B.” article, but we do not go to the opposite extreme, liquidating our politics. We would agree that anarchists should not liquidate our politics behind any non-anarchist force – becoming cheerleaders and blind supporters, or silencing our criticisms or closing down our independent activities. However, whereas “K.B.” seeks to do this by isolating the anarchists from other forces, we seek to do this by engaging, as an independent current, with other forces.

This does mean making our own views clear, pushing our own project, and seeking our own influence. Such influence cannot come from purist isolation, nor can it come from liquidationist cheerleading. It entails critical engagement: we are with the PKK and the Rojava revolution against the forces of the Islamic State/ISIS, of Turkey and of Western imperialism, but we are also not a PKK auxiliary.

Therefore, despite our disagreements with “K.B’s” position, we in fact agree that there are points he or she raises that are worth soberly engaging.

“K.B.” notes that there are parallel – and potentially rival – structures and projects in Rojava and contestation around these. By some accounts – including a document that basically forms the Constitution of Rojava [6] – there are two types of systems/structures in place based on what seem to be diverging ideas that are running concurrently. One structure is a type of representative parliament with something akin to a cabinet; the other being democratic confederalism of a sort based on assemblies, councils and communes. There does also appear to be the possibility of tension arising between these two types of systems going forward too, if Rojava survives.

So there is a faction in Rojava politics, including in the leadership of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), that want what amounts to a state structure – rather than the more radical PKK vision. In practice they are trying to implement representative democracy based on a parliament, with basic human rights, where an executive will have quite a lot of power, but tactically they can’t call it a state as it appears the idea of democratic confederalism is widely held as an ideal amongst many Kurds.

But it is also still possible that Rojava could become a system based on democratic confederalism because assemblies, councils and communes do exist (and because clearly there are also people that want this). So it doesn’t seem to us that we should close our eyes to the fact that such tensions and possibly conflicting outcomes do exist and will exist as part of any revolution. Which one will gain the upper hand if Rojava survives, though, is open to question and depends on which forces gain the upper hand in the process, if they are not all wiped out by ISIS or the pashmerga (the armed units of the KRG)."

It goes without saying that we would be critical of any alliance with Al-Nusra front, but I would argue that that doesn't automatically mean that the PKK have become Islamists overnight.

Burgers
Dec 3 2014 16:49
Flava O Flav wrote:

WSM does not support the PKK any more than it supported the IRA.

Which it did also, the AWG would be proud.

AES
Dec 3 2014 16:59

I have already read and I disagree with the platformist critical support of "progressive" capitalist and nationalist political parties.

Flava O Flav wrote:
It goes without saying that we would be critical of any alliance with Al-Nusra front, but I would argue that that doesn't automatically mean that the PKK have become Islamists overnight.

That would just expose that instead of being anti-imperialist your position is validating repressive political apparatus for opportunism.

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 17:02
Burgers wrote:
Flava O Flav wrote:

WSM does not support the PKK any more than it supported the IRA.

Which it did also, the AWG would be proud.

What do you base that on burgers?

I'll make it easy for you and link to our entire archive of articles on Irish Republicanism.

http://www.wsm.ie/republicanism

And our position paper on the partition of Ireland:

http://www.wsm.ie/c/partition-ireland-anarchism

Should be no problem for you to quote us supporting the IRA from that.

Flava O Flav
Dec 3 2014 17:04
AES wrote:
I have already read and I disagree with the platformist critical support of "progressive" capitalist and nationalist political parties.

Flava O Flav wrote:
It goes without saying that we would be critical of any alliance with Al-Nusra front, but I would argue that that doesn't automatically mean that the PKK have become Islamists overnight.

That would just expose that instead of being anti-imperialist your position is validating repressive political apparatus for opportunism.

Hmmm no. It would just mean that sometimes organisations in the desperation of war will find allies in the most unlikely of places. It would be a mistake for them to do that, but would not mean that they had suddenly become indistinguishable from Al-Qaeda.