Hello, I propose a new thread about the “Rojava Revolution and its backers". I know that there are already a lot on this issue but I would like to publish comments and thoughts somewhat critical on the revolutionary nature of the process that takes place in Rojava, as well as on solidarity campaigns that seem to me to be unconditional.
There are some who will certainly say that I am “anti-Rojava” or that I only deny the existence of a “Rojava Revolution”. Far from it, I’m not more “anti-Rojava” than I am effectively anti-Britain or anti-USA or anti-any-other-nation-state. As for the “Rojava Revolution” I’m of course an eminent supporter of it as well as for the revolution in the Middle East and everywhere else in the world. I’m standing for a world social revolution, and therefore an anti-capitalist one, that will abolish private property, the state, social classes, religions, etc.
My only questioning is as follows: what some call the “Rojava Revolution”, is it really a social revolution or better said does it lie within a dynamics of destruction of the present social order (that is to say capitalist order)? Or on the contrary wouldn’t it be rather about a process of instrumentalization and containment by social-democrat institutions (and therefore bourgeois ones), under the pretext of “social liberation”, of an authentic movement of revolt against misery and state repression, in order to better justify their “struggles of national liberation”?
I always was naïve enough to
I always was naïve enough to believe “the anarchists” when they declare they merrily puke up work, justice and the army. But important sectors of “anarchism” (the official and even the less official ones) declare themselves to be the staunch partisans of the “Rojava Revolution”, that would be a “genuine revolution” according to the “eminent” intellectual David Graeber. This “revolution” is prompted and controlled by a set of institutions as for example “popular assemblies”, “cantons”, “communes”, “municipalities” that globally and fundamentally don’t prevent (and historically in themselves never prevented) the reproduction of the same social relations than those dominating on a planet scale.
Indeed, exploitation at work is effectively achieved in Rojava by means of “social economy” and its “cooperatives” where the proletarian is always so deeply tied to “his” (“her”) work tool, to “his” (“her”) machine, to “his” (“her”) workplace, to profitability requirements of “his” (“her”) local, cantonal and “libertarian” economy, in short to “his” (“her”) exploitation that through the magic of words would succeed in becoming more “humane”. It’s always in the name of “realism” and the refusal of critics, which are caricatured as being “ultra leftist”, that work rules supreme over the region; salaried work obviously, even though the supplying in paper money, in monetary excrements or in coins of the realm is not always fully assured because of war.
“The anarchists” always declared their hatred for the State and the Nation… And yet the Rojava has all of the features of a State, or at present of a “proto”-State, since there are courts of justice, a “Constitution” (called “Social Contract”), an army (as well as YPG/YPJ militias which are more and more militarized), a police (the Asayish) that imposes internal social order (also with its “antiterrorist special units” whose Rambo have no cause to be jealous of their murderous colleagues of equivalent corps as the “SWAT” in the United States of America, the “Spetsnaz” in Russia, the “GIPN” and “GIGN” in France, etc.). As for the nation, is it really necessary to recall the nationalistic foundation of the “Kurdish liberation movement”?
“The anarchists” always expressed their contempt towards the government, parliamentarianism and elections… But the Rojava is led by an infinite number of parliaments, whether they are called “popular assemblies”, “councils”, “communes” or “municipalities” is not important if their practical content always consists in managing (once again, at a “more human” level maybe) the social relation dominating world widely (i.e. capitalism, even though it is repainted in red or in red and black). All these structures get organized at a local level of a street, a district, a village, a town or a city, a region and partake all of them of the electoral principle. Finally, at the decision-making superior level, the “cantons” have their own governments as well as their ministries and related ministers among whom for example the “Prime Minister of the Cizere Canton” is nobody else than the wealthiest capitalist of Syria before the beginning of the struggle process in March 2011.
“The anarchists” pretend to be allergic to all concept of “party” that they reduce to the bourgeois political parties, whether they stand in the elections or not, or even to Bolshevik and Leninist parties. But suddenly, there are political parties that fill these same “anarchists” with joy: it’s about the PKK (“Kurdistan Workers Party”) in Turkey and the PYD (“Democratic Union Party”) in Syria. These parties, and even more the PYD than the PKK, develop a diplomatic politics that couldn’t be more classically bourgeois, going so far as to open “offices” (embassies in a way) in Moscow and Prague. The PYD even went, during a big European tour last year, so far as “to be on the game” at the Elysée Palace in February 2015, where some of its most famous representatives have been received by “Mr. President” François Hollande himself.
Well in short, I could write thus some whole pages on all these wild imaginings, what matters the most today, it’s that the mask of the impostors are dropped and that the hideous face of this “genuine revolution”, controlled and framed by a powerful machine of propaganda combining “libertarian communalism”, Marxism-Leninism and “national liberationism”, finally appears out in the open. I want to speak of course here about the endless and unavoidable tactical or strategic alliances that characterize all the bourgeois forces in history and in the world.
Quote: Hello, I propose a new
Don't think there is a need for a new thread about it. Practically all threads on Rojava has very critical content together with defenders. In general, the attitude towards Rojava on this site is more critical than otherwise.
Seriously, Richard 1917, you
Seriously, Richard 1917, you can read arguments for days here: http://libcom.org/forums/middle-east/kurdistan-news-20082015
Though I do find "and its backers" probably the least informative mode of inquiry. I'm not particularly concerned with anarchist litmus tests for hypocrisy. Frankly, probably more self-identified anarchists in the U.S. are voting (or even campaigning) for Bernie Sanders than doing anything for Rojava. While he claims to be a socialist, he's more of a social democrat. I wouldn't want to evaluate his politics or impact based on whether some self-identified anarchists in the U.S. are supporting his candidacy for president. In the UK I imagine its Anarchists for Jeremy Corbyn or some such.
Most of what you've written here is pretty much identical to the critiques already offered by Třídní válka / Guerre de Classe / Anti War including the the outrage at begging Hollande at Elysée Palace for support against the Islamic State (they didn't get it). At least Třídní válka stopped embarrassingly supporting the Free Syrian Army. That was some wishful thinking, eh?
I know IGC doesn't publish as often as ICC, but is it really going to be substantially different from their position, or Devrim's?
If you want to show that TEV-DEM isn't communist, all you have to do is point at their Worker Co-Operatives.
Flint: Quote: I know IGC
Flint:
I see no similarities between the ICG and ICC apart from the two letters 'IC'. As an outside observer they appear diametrically opposed; the former on the side of proletarian revolution the latter on the side of feudalistic counter-revolution.
whirlwind
whirlwind
As much as I might enjoy a left communist faction fight and dig into the differences of ICG and ICC... if Richard 1917's views are reflective of the ICG in regards to Rojava, then their position will pretty much be the same as the ICC. Who says "proletarian revolutionaries" and "feudalistic counter-revolutionaries" can never agree!
Flint, Richard's perspective
Flint, Richard's perspective is the perspective of the ICG.
I have no idea what position ICC are taking vis-à-vis the 'Rojava revolution'.
Flint wrote: whirlwind
Flint
FLINT you really don't understand anything to the social matter but it's quite normal: e.g. about Rojava (and maybe for other issues) you confuse a social movement and process with its bourgeois leadership, a proletarian revolution with the counterrevolution, social liberation with national liberation, a militant dynamics against the dictatorship of the present state of things with a series of reformist measures to consolidate this state of things, which appears obviously under new labels and with face-lifted institutions and ideologies like popular assemblies, cooperatives, democratic confederalism, social economy, TEV-DEM, etc. BTW you are always providing us with such a flood of war communiqués about the military situation in Rojava but without of course giving any single explanation on how a revolutionary struggle can so easily collaborate directly with Russian Airforce and Damascus government's bloody slaughterers in the offensive on Aleppo region.
So you cannot see the difference between ICG and ICC? Can only advice you to read some ICG's texts like:
Against the Struggle of the Proletariat: Social-democracy's Eternal Euroracist Pacifism- Communism #10
http://libcom.org/library/against-the-struggle-of-the-proletariat-social-democracys-eternal-euroracist-pacifism-communism-10
Rupture avec le CCI (Courant Communiste International) (1979) (only in French)
http://gci-icg.org/french/rupture_cci.htm
Theories of Decadence: Decadence of Theory
http://libcom.org/library/theories-decadence-decadence-theory/
About Rojava, the ICG didn't publish anything of its own, except in the last issue of the Spanish review Comunismo n°65 in Decembre 2015, where you can find a text originally from "Proletarios Internacionalistas": "Guerra social y telaraña imperialista en Siria" (http://gci-icg.org/spanish/Co65_4.htm). In chapter 6 ("The struggle in Rojava") there are some developments about this issue. You can find a very fast draft translation in English HERE. Good reading.
Guerre de Classe wrote: FLINT
Guerre de Classe
Please be gentle with me, I have humble proletarian origins.
Guerre de Classe
Just because you didn't read it, doesn't mean I didn't write something about it.
Also, I don't typically post war communiques (there are better sources for that). I do update a bit about the strategic situation but I"m usually posting about political developments like analysis of the assemblies, the cooperatives, the formation of the Syrian Democratic Assembly, protests in Iraq, etc... I haven't done a big update in a while. I've been busy hosting Nazan Üstündağ, Janet Biehl, etc... for some local talks. Also, I'm of the opinion that my opinions and even just factual news about the situation is not wanted here based on both the negative commentary and particularly disciplined down voting I get. Though there has been a break on that lately. Sadly, I think there are probably better uses of my time than trying to engage in a discussion here. People seem to prefer 959 comments on minutiae Schmidtgate (dude is a racist, drop his articles, move on).
Guerre de Classe
So yeah... largely of the same opinions. Closer together than say either might agree with me.
Flint: Quote: I have humble
Flint:
Where you originate is not necessarily where you are now.
You said, "a libertarian
You said, "a libertarian revolution"?
From a interview of Economy Minister of a Rojava canton:
"Private capital is not forbidden but it is made to suite our ideas and system. We are developing a system around cooperatives and communes. However this does not prove that we are against private capital. They will complete each other. We believe that when the cooperative system is developed moral private capital can be added in certain parts of the economy" (https://rojavareport.wordpress.com/…/efrin-economy-ministe…/)
A MIXED ECONOMY IS ENEMY OF LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM!
Better off reading "The
Better off reading "The Experience of Co-operative Societies in Rojava" by TEV-DEM economic committee. Its more detailed (and not communism).
In Google Cache as the Pasewan site is down.
I put it in the library.
I put it in the library. Please comment there:
http://libcom.org/library/experience-co-operative-societies-rojava
Foristaruso wrote: You said,
Foristaruso
Completely agree with Foristaruso... Seems not only that private property hasn't been abolished in Rojava (where should it be in this period of social peace!?) but also that there is not a single attempt of attack against PP, or not anymore since PKK/PYD took the power and stranglehold any class autonomy in Rojava...
LONG LIVE GENUINE ROJAVA (and Middle East and elsewhere, worldwide) PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION...
FUCK COOPERATIVISM, SOCIAL ECONOMY, DEMOCRATIC CONFEDERALISM...
https://libcom.org/forums/gen
https://libcom.org/forums/general/convergence-rojava-saudi-arabia-26102017