Also I just saw this quote from the same interview:
Just as we support the self-determination of the Palestinian people, but we should criticize very much the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. This does not stop us from supporting the self-determination of both peoples.
I totally agree with it. I expressed my opinion on this as "political solidarity" (Actually I very much agree with the most of the interview interestingly, propably more so than Red Marriot). Anyway if we leave me aside,what Graeber (Zaher) says in their first hand accounts is basically this: PYD is, unlike Hamas, has a strong libertarian communalist tendency and ideology. It can be a good political ally to support. It can produce a positive effect on future of libertarian communalist practice (of course, not without problems or a magical solution to everything). So if we again turn to discussion of whether PYD is libertarian or not, I think then we are stepping into debate on beliefs (i.e. despite the evidence represented, I do not believe such tendency, because of this and that...) I really do not know what I can say on such a debate, as I already expressed, it is not a debate on arguments and proofs but opinions.... All I can say at that point is (based on repeated discussion here): I do not live in a world operated by some god-like idea of communism or a structural fixation and determination that is falsely called "history". I guess I do not want to discuss this any more.
Red Marriott
Unfortunately debating with you is going nowhere, but here I am replying back.
But the problem is that Graeber is not expressing his "view" 1) he is writing his experience 2) telling us what people told him as their final aims. So most of his account is actual practices, right? (just like Zaher does in another article, which is very quickly forgotten interestingly). If you know for sure he is for example "lying" tell us and prove your claim, I am open to that. But I do not get the apparent temptation in this forum to "correct"/"contrast"/"contradict" his narrative. I see no real reason that Graeber is "manipulated" to be a poppet of Kurdish movement in anyway OK? (for example he intentionally obscures and does not express something that he see to us and tells us what he is told) If you do not agree with me it is fine, but please just prove your point.
However the interview you shared is based on "views". There is nowhere anybody claims they went to Rojava. ( http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/kobane-turkey-and-th...)
They are just expressing their opinion on Kurdish movement OK? Which is of course fine but is not an analysis of any actual practices, therefore it is just his impression of "top-down" nature of Kurdish movement. The problem is that this is already been stated thousand times in libcom, am I right? At this point in debate we can be sure "many leftist from oriental or occidental countries think that Kurdish movement has some authoritarian tendencies". This interview you shared is just restatement of this fact (i.e. an existence of an opinion among left). and that is all. So I do not think it can not contrast to anything OK? I think I am clear, right?
So, I think what we need is more internal, insider accounts of practices and aspirations of Rojava, both critical and supportive to make sense of it and possibly gain valuable information for future of revolutionary practice and theory, OK? However I see no possibility of such debate emerging here as we "correct" comrades real life accounts with opinions expressed in a casual interview or insulting each other with language skill superiority or trying to frame people (and movements) as mindless zombies who just follow their leaders etc... I think this situation is essentially unproductive to any understanding of Rojava.