Future of the Kurds

In general, I tend to agree with meerov21. However, let 's be careful with sources.

Of course, check the source. Anything can happen.

But the cooperation of the Kurds, Assad and Russia is no longer a secret. In Russia Kurds officially opened a representative office and the official delegation of the Russian government was there. And Russian official said that they support a Kurdish state wich one day there will be.

"Here the representative office of the Syrian Kurdistan. But Kurdistan is a single space. The Kurds are one of the most numerous peoples of the Middle East, deprived of statehood. And, of course, the recognition of the fact that they play a leading role, including in the settlement of the Syrian conflict, will lead sooner or later to the fact that they will have their own state", - said the member of the Council under the RF President on interethnic relations Bogdan Bezpalko.
http://www.tvc.ru/news/show/id/86367

Let me remind you that the main ally of Russia in Syria is Bashar Assad. And the latest offensive by Assad against the Syrian opposition is carried out simultaneously with the attack of the Kurds against the same groups. Would Russians open kurd's office in Moscow, if the Kurds did not cooperate with Assad and Russia in Syria?

ТВЦ is an official Russian TV channel

http://www.tvc.ru/news/show/id/86367

Spikymike And which Kurds - in Turkey, in Iraq, in Syria, in Iran?

I am talking of course about PKK\PYD\YPG movement.
They opened an office in Moscow and cooperate with Russia and Assad. These is movement, which is dominant among the Kurds in Syria and Turkey (Rojava and Bakur).

Also, Russia has stressed that it wants peace talks and realizes there are going to be some changes in Syria. Russia's resources for this conflict are limited and there a possibility that Assad and the PYD could work a deal.

Yes, Makhno thought the same about the Bolsheviks and Spanish anarchists thought the same about the local Republic and the Stalinists...

Kurdish movement in Syria is not mahnovŝina. This is not an attempt to create a classless and stateless society. However, in case of victory of Assad I do not give a cent for the life of the Syrian Kurds. Asad need them now in the fight with the opposition, because Assad is weak. But if he will establish control over Syria, he will restore its resources and reorganize the army with the help of Russia and Iran.

Assad regime is a dictatorship based on Arab nationalism. What sort of Kurdish autonomy can be in such state? It's like talking about Jewish autonomy in tsarist Russia.

Theoretically, there is little chance that Assad will use Kurdish autonomy as the instrument for pressure on Turkey like his dad make a deal with PKK. But in 1998 Hafez Assad stopped doing it and expelled Ocalan, and Ocalan is in a Turkish prison.

There is actually a danger to what are the more social revolutionary aspects of TEV-DEM from the inclusion of more parties to the right of the PYD

First of all, PYD is not socio-revolutionary organization. They do not advocate a classless and stateless society. In Rojava there are Ministers and the government, and its Constitution written from the liberal standpoint, the protection of private property and it recognizes Rojava as a part of the Syrian state.
http://civiroglu.net/the-constitution-of-the-rojava-cantons/

In addition, the PYD leader Salih Muslim and other leaders of Rojava spoke out in defense of the ideas of the investments of rich people into the economy of Rojava.

"...Dr Ahmet Yusuf, the economics minister in Afrin Canton, said in his interview with the Huffington Post on December 18, 2015: "We will develop an economy based on agriculture, that is to say production. We will base this mode of production on a foundation by which all the peoples of the region will be included and benefit from it." Dr. Yusuf also told the PKK-linked Kurdish outlet ANF News last December, "We will encourage everyone to work their own lands based on the needs of the community." He continued, “Wealthy investors are welcome to contribute, by putting capital into various citizens' efforts to live off the land”, adding, ”since private enterprise is still part of the economy.”
http://libcom.org/library/our-attitude-towards-rojava-must-be-critical-s...

Secondly, there is danger of which you speak. I agree. In Kurdistan there are right-wing parties and the danger can come from them.

However, the risk of one-party system headed PYD can be even stronger. One-party system is Bolshevism and the road to hell. Because then one party takes all the resources under control and establishes a dictatorship in the economic and political system. So, at the moment the presence of other parties is in some way a positive factor. They can criticize the PYD.

So in regard to different parties in Rojava then there are both sides, positive and negative.

I don't want to talk about Rojava in terms of supporters of Gilles Dove ideas.
Probably local Assemblys, cooperatives, self-organization and direct democracy on the ground is the reality of Rojava. And it is very good. All that things can be a platform for the development of social revolution. But I doubt that PKK\PYD\YPG is interested in social revolution... Social revolution is nothing else then the creation of a classless and stateless society.

I know this part of the story. I'm not arguing with the fact that PKK had collaborated with the dictator Hafez Assad, just as PKK\PYD\YPG is now collaborating with his son, the dictator Bashar Assad and Russian and Iranian forces.

But we must remember two things.

Firstly, Ocalan was forced to leave Syria in the late 1990s and his men could not act against Turkey from Syrian territory.

Secondly, and most importantly, the Syrian Kurdistan remained under the control of the Hafez Assad dynasty in that time. No autonomy for the Kurds and since the early 2000s clashes started between Kurds and Assad forces. It's one thing to use partisans against Turkey and quite another thing to give into the hands of these partisans big territory, through which all trade with Turkey is going on... almost the entire North of Syria with a population of 3 million.

PKK\PYD now controls the North of Syria with the help of 30 thousand militia of kurds (YPG) and Assad forces isolated in some areas there in Hasaka and Qamishli. As long as Assad is weak, he is ready to cooperate with Kurds against the opposition. But if he wins the civil war, why would he agree to lose 10% of Syrian territory?

For example, Bolsheviks entered into the agreement with Makhno, and with the Armenian nationalist party Dashnaktsutyun during the civil war. Dashnaks were allies and military partners of Bolsheviks in 1918-1920 and helped Kremlin to conquer the Caucasus and Central Asia. But in 1920-1921 Bolsheviks won civil war and then destroyed the Dashnaks, as the anarchists of Makhno.

Oriental despotism is not compatible with national or any other autonomy.

Flint Anyway, its not communism. Some kind of market socialism with an emphasis on worker-controlled cooperatives.

I largely agree with this. I advocate libertarian socialism or communism, for the production in accordance with the needs of the people, I am opposed to commodity production. But there is one problem.

There is a transition from market production, the production of commodity to the production of things according to the needs of the population. But in order to do that we need a new social structure. It can't be a centralized state. I completely reject the idea of bordigism, Lenin, other persons on the centralized distribution and the dictatorship of the party.

The workers themselves should control the production and infrastructure. It can be done only on the basis of direct democracy, cooperatives\communes and local assemblies, federalism. Such infrastructure partly exists in Rojava. And this is an interesting experience.

Of course, the PKK will not go from this experience towards a libertarian socialism, stateless society, production for human needs.

So I wrote "it can be a viable platform for the development in the modern world (although, of course, there is no stateless society in Rojava) . 3 million people live in isolation, without hunger and they defending the region from the large forces of enemies during a few years. This experience based on the practice of local assemblies and cooperatives. It can be developed and used for the anarchist social revolutionary movement".

Richard 1917 It's the case of famous Syrian “anarchist” Mazen Kamalmaz who wrote this: No to Turkish imperialist intervention
Long live US and Russian intervention, the friends of the nations and liberty

I can't comment on it, I have no words. This is crazy. Let him tell about it to the Vietnamese and Chechens, the Afghans and the Lithuanians, the Czechs and the Hungarians, the people of Iraq and people of Palestine.

Anyway, its not communism. Some kind of market socialism with an emphasis on worker-controlled cooperatives. Is it better or worse than other co-operatives? I can't tell. But we have different questions we can ask now.

You know, Paris Commune in 1871 was only the Autonomous municipality, with strong local assemblies, which could re-elect the deputies, and with market relations in economy. There were also attempts to create workers cooperatives and their associations in Paris.

The elected heads of the Commune belonged either to the authoritarian factions of conspirators (blanquists), or to the supporters of market socialism and cooperatives (proudhonist\mutualists) or to the bourgeois Republicans - the Jacobins.

Commune was supported not only by workers, but also by the part of the bourgeoisie of Paris.

In the basis of the ideas of the Commune were not only the ideals of socialism, but also French nationalism and patriotism. Although a lot of foreigners fought for Commune, the population of the city accused the French government for betraying the national interests during the war with Prussia and this population supported defensism.

However, Marx and Kropotkin believed that the Paris Commune was a huge step towards the Communist society.

Perhaps the situation in Rojava worse than that time in Paris. However, why the social revolutionaries not to try use it to their advantage?

1) the Bolsheviks and anarchists were NOT bourgeois ideologies. They were supported by and fought for workers and poor peasants.

The state of the Bolsheviks in the 1918-1921 was not proletarian and not represented the interests of the majority of the working people and pesants of Russia. First of all, because the state cannot be a proletarian and to represent the interests of the class. The state the Bolsheviks were a centralized machine of bureaucracy, who owned factories in urban and rural areas, cruelly exploited the workers and peasants. Unbelievable but true, in 1921, Russian workers suffered from the new version of Serfdom (Russian tsars had abolished it in 1861). The workers received tiny food rations and had no right voluntarily to change jobs. During the strike they were arrested. (Petrograd workers and the "dictatorship of the proletariat". October 1917-1929. The collection of documents http://eknigi.org/istorija/180637-piterskie-rabochie-i-diktatura-proleta... ) Elections to the Soviets of workers ' deputies were falsified like in Petrograd (RABINOVICH, ALEXANDER - THE BOLSHEVIKS IN POWER http://profilib.com/kniga/129803/aleksandr-rabinovich-bolsheviki-u-vlast...) or counciles have been terminated like in Tambov or Ijevsk or Samara (in Samara sr-maksimalists dominated in the local counsel) in spring-summer 1918, critics of the Bolsheviks were not able to participate. Soviet power was destroyed and dictatorship of the state bureaucracy in the economy and politics was established the core of which was the leadership of the Bolshevik party headed by Lenin.

It was a brutal system of domination of bureaucracy and exploitation. The state of Lenin led a war of conquest in the Caucasus, Ukraine, Central Asia. During these wars, the state had first worked with the largest Armenian party, Dashnaktsutyun, but after the victory destroyed her. And here is the analogy with the Kurds and Assad.

Bolsheviks for their part fought against Japanese, American, German, British and French imperialisms throughout the civil war.

No. After the signing of the Brest peace, the state of the Bolsheviks became an ally of German imperialism. The Bolsheviks not only made peace with Germany. They signed a commitment to provide Germany with a huge amount of food and other goods.

First of all, I would like to say that I agree with Devrim at this point:
"I don't think that the Turkish state has anything positive to offer".

I can say the same about others.

It's true that Russian aircraft have bombed Aleppo. But it is also true that Turkey has shelled Kurdish towns and villages.

Sure I'm not defending neither American nor Russian nor Turkish imperialism. In political terms, all of them bad for social revolution. The same way one Middle East anarchist thinks (I discussed this issue with him). So, the thing written below is limited to the analysis. It is not what we want.

Middle East anarchist:
In fact Rojava has no future under US and Western countries plan neither now nor in future but may be 50% under Russia. I agree that Russia is very weak comparison to Neto or even US alone. but i think Russia uses the right tactic to gain their strategy in very clever and crucial way. Look at Georgia, Ukraine Russia was winner and now it will be Russia the winner again in Syria as in the end Neto , US have to compromise and abandon their plan in dropping Assad... Please note that this is not my wish , i am just saying while they do politics not social revolution... I still must say i agree with you in your point that Kurdish people had no future in Rojava as they have been used again as before in the history.

Me:
As for the possibilities... Well, I see two problems.

First, if Assad take control of the all the territory of Syria he would deal with the Kurds but at the end, he doesn't need them at all because he considered Rojava land is his own. Also Russia's main ally in Syria is Assad and not the Kurds and in such conflict between kurds and Asad Russia will not realy protect kurds.

And second. Yes, Russian imperialism has managed to hold on part of Georgia and part of Ukraine. But now in the context of the economic crisis intensified by sanctions he quickly weakens and loos the might. It is going through an economic storm, it's a disaster. You have no idea how serious the economic recession in Russia and how hopeless. It's not just the sanctions and not only the low oil prices, this is a structural crisis started in 2013.

There is corruption at the level of Africa, massive capital flight, high tax which destroys small and medium businesses, inefficient state-owned industry (from 40 to 60% of the money "kickbacks" - this is like stolen money calledl in Russia) in a country where the government according to the IMF controls 70% of GDP, high inflation and rising unemployment. This is stagflation, and the government lost control over the economy.

And I would add one more thing. USA today refuses direct massive military interventions similar to Iraq and Afghanistan. So Russian imperialism entered the war in Georgia and Ukraine not with Americans but (in general) with weak local States. For example U.S. even refused for 2 years to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine!

It is not a secret that Putin despises Obama and thinks him weak and "not man". So Putin is trying to perform various operations before the change of administration in the United States.

But in Syria for the first time Russia faced another tough and strong imperialism - Turkey. And this changes the situation, because Turkey is very different from Georgia and Ukraine.

And it now poses a threat to the great imperialist war.

baboon
The future of the Kurds is to be betrayed and slaughtered just like the time before and the time before that.

It can be like this...