Tags
Abdullah Öcalan, Bakur, communalism, confederalism, democratic confederalism, Feminist and anti-capitalist ideas are flourishing, grassroots people’s assemblies and co-operatives, Kurdish populations in the Middle East are now divided between four states, Kurdistan, Murray Bookchin, Rojava, The Ottoman Empire
Source(s): Co-operative Economy / Corporate Watch
[Related: Turkey’s New Left — Cengiz Gunes (2017)|New Left Review 107, September-October 2017 / The Turkish Invasion of Afrin: an interview with Dr. Cengiz Gunes]
[Norm’s note: As I mentioned to a friend, “as a companion piece to this, you should also read Examing the revolution in Rojava — Review by Emma Wilde Botta | International Socialist Review. It’s a ‘critical’ take on the interpretation of the implementation of ‘democratic confederalism’ as you read it in Anderson’s and Egret’s piece, although not a reading of that piece, but of a book written “. . . by three active participants in the Kurdish movement, Michael Knapp, Anja Flach, and Ercan Ayboga” but with a similar slant to that of Anderson and Egret.
As Botta puts it,
The book [and by implication Anderson’s and Egret’s piece] has four central weaknesses: it romanticizes Rojava, lacks a class analysis, mischaracterizes the Syrian opposition, and distances Rojava from the Syrian revolution.
Some things to keep in mind . . .]
Lead photo caption: A commune meeting in Amude in Rojava’s Cizîrê canton, November 2015
The Kurdish region is currently undergoing a transformation. People are organising themselves in grassroots people’s assemblies and co-operatives, declaring their autonomy from the state and their wish for real democracy. Feminist and anti-capitalist ideas are flourishing. These changes are inspired by a new idea: democratic confederalism. These movements have the capacity to transform the reality of millions of people in Kurdistan, and potentially spread to the wider Middle East. Last year we visited Bakur, the part of Kurdistan within Turkey’s borders, and Rojava, the Kurdish majority autonomous region in Syria. This article examines the theory and practice of democratic confederalism in Bakur and Rojava, and goes on to discuss how we can engage in solidarity, while maintaining an honest and critical perspective.
We have tried to understand the theory and practice of democratic confedralism as best we could, and have taken advice from many Kurdish friends, as well as activists who have visited the region. We hope that we have given an accurate description. However, any mistakes or innacuracies are entirely our own.
Some History
Historically, the region known as Kurdistan lay within the East of the Ottoman Empire. After the Second World War, the British, French and their allies divided up the empire. Many Kurds lobbied the imperialist powers for a state of their own, but were unsuccessful. In 1923, the Turkish republic was founded, espousing a Turkish nationalist ideology. Any reference to non-Turkish/Sunni Muslim ethnic identities within Turkey was criminalised. The speaking of Kurdish was banned. A series of Kurdish uprisings in the 1920s and 1930s were repressed by Mustafa Kemal’s autocratic government, with tens of thousands killed.
Kurdish populations in the Middle East are now divided between four states: Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. In the Kurmanji Kurdish language, the four parts of Kurdistan are known respectively as North (Bakur), South (Bashur), West (Rojava) and East (Rojhilat).
In 1978, the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) was founded, based on Marxist-Leninist ideas of national liberation. The PKK began an armed struggle, with the aim of achieving an independent Kurdistan.
During the 1980s and 1990s the PKK rose up against the Turkish state, calling for independence. Armed struggle was met by torture, assassination and ethnic cleansing aimed at the entire Kurdish population by the Turkish government’s security forces. Over 3000 Kurdish villages were systematically burned during the 1990s.
From Marxist-Leninism to Democratic Confederalism
After the capture of its leader Abdullah Öcalan in 1999, the messages and statements put out by the PKK began to change. Influenced by the communalist ideas of US social-ecologist Murray Bookchin, as well as Emma Goldman and the Zapatistas, Öcalan and others in the PKK began to criticise nation-states, and the PKK’s stated goal changed from the establishment of an independent Kurdistan to democratic confederalism. We will summarise here what Öcalan and others say about democratic confederalism, before looking at how the ideas have been put into practice in Rojava and Bakur.
On the nation state Öcalan says:
“The right of self determination of a people includes the right to a state of their own. However, the foundation of a state does not increase the freedom of a people. The system of the United Nations that is based on nation states has remained inefficient. Meanwhile, nation states have become serious obstacles for any social development.” [1]
And on democratic confederalism:
“Democratic confederalism is the contrasting paradigm of the oppressed people. Democratic confederalism is a non-state social paradigm. It is not controlled by a state. At the same time, democratic confederalism is the cultural organisational blueprint of a democratic nation.”
“Democratic confederalism is based on grassroots participation. Its decision making processes lie with the communities. Higher levels only serve the coordination and implementation of the will of the communities that send their delegates to the general assemblies.”[2]
Looking more closely at these ideas, democratic confederalism is based on the idea that society can be run truly democratically through networks of grassroots assemblies or communes, which form confederations with each other across regions. Local assemblies elect representatives at the village or street level and these representatives represent their assembly at the level of the city or region. Again, the city or region elects representatives to represent them at higher levels.
The idea is that the real power remains with the population, and not with state bureaucracies. According to Öcalan, a form of government would still be necessary, but only to implement the decisions made by the assemblies, whose representatives would be elected at a street or neighbourhood level.
These ideas owe a lot to the work of the US social ecologist, Murray Bookchin. In 1990 Bookchin wrote:
“What then is confederalism? It is above all a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies… The members of these confederal councils are strictly mandated, recallable and responsible to the assemblies that choose them… Their function is thus a purely administrative and practical one, not a policy making one…”[3]
In his pamphlet, ‘Democratic Confederalism’, Öcalan argues for a society that respects ethnic, religious and cultural differences. He states that:
“It is a natural right to express one’s cultural, ethnic, or national identity with the help of political associations. However, this right needs an ethical and political society. Whether nation-state, republic, or democracy – democratic confederalism is open for compromises concerning state or governmental traditions. It allows for equal coexistence.”[4]
Öcalan sees democratic confederalism as a model for the whole Middle-East:
“Finally, let me state again that the fundamental problems of the Middle East are deeply rooted in the class civilisation. They have tightened with the global crisis of the capitalist modernity. This modernity and its claim to dominance cannot offer any solutions, not to mention a long-term perspective for the Middle-East region. The future is democratic confederalism.”[5]
Democratic confederalism emphasises the formation of a social economy, based on co-operatives organised at the grassroots level. In Rojava, co-operatives are linked with the communes themselves. According to Saleh Muslim, co-chair of the PYD, the PKK’s affiliated party in Rojava:
“Co-operative associations are the best embodiment of co-operative economy, the association will be based on communes which mean society is the primary representative of the economy.”
Feminism is emphasised in the theory of democratic confederalism. According to Öcalan: “Liberating life is impossible without a radical women’s revolution.”[6] In Bakur and in Rojava, local assemblies, communes, political parties and municipalities have established a system of co-representation, or co-chairs, where each position must be filled by one man and one woman. Many movements and organisations have a quota for female participation. For example, we spoke to an ecology assembly in Bakur in July 2015 who told us they would not accept any more men until a certain amount of women had joined.
People have been attempting to implement these ideas in Kurdistan for over ten years. In 2005, the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) was established with the aim of implementing the ideas of democratic confederalism in all four parts of Kurdistan.[7]
Democratic confederalism in practice in Bakur
In Bakur, the region of Kurdistan within Turkey’s borders, people have been trying to put these ideas into practice for over a decade. The Democratic Society Congress (DTK), set up in in 2007, acts as an umbrella organisation, and aims to establish democratic confederalism in Bakur. It meets every three months and is made up of representatives of different ethnic groups and political parties as well as representatives of local assemblies. It operates as a parliament, and attempts to create a new society under the weight of repression from the existing one. Since the establishment of the DTK, local assemblies have been set up all over Bakur. The DTK has also set up regional commissions to deal with issues such as ecology, economy, education, language, religion, culture, science, diplomacy, women and young people.
People involved in these movements often refer to wanting to achieve democratic autonomy through people organising themselves through grassroots assemblies or communes. Following on from this, the term ‘democratic confederalism’ is used to describe networks of these local assemblies joining together in a confederation.
The movement for democratic autonomy is supported by the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), who have 59 seats in the Turkish parliament and are in control of many municipalities in Bakur. Another party, the Democratic Regions Party (DBP), stands in some municipal elections, but primarily works toward the establishment of democratic autonomy. The PKK also supports it.
Since the start of the movement for democratic confederalism in Bakur, activists have been met by intense state repression. The PKK is listed as a banned terrorist group in Turkey. Because the PKK is part of the KCK, the umbrella organisation which aims to establish democratic confederalism in all four regions of Kurdistan, the KCK has been proscribed too. Thousands of people have been arrested for connections with the KCK, including many politicians from the HDP and DBP.
This has not stopped the movement from growing. When we visited Bakur in July 2015, local assemblies and commissions were organising co-operatives. For example, we visited several farming co-operatives in the Wan (Van in Turkish) region which had been established on land donated by landlords to the Democratic Regions Party. Profits from the co-operatives are shared among the workers. We also visited a co-operative shop which had been set up by the DTK’s economic commission in Wan.
Women’s assemblies and ecology assemblies are also part of the DTK. For example, environmental activists have formed an ecology assembly in the city of Batman, which they told us was represented in the DTK. Women also have a parallel umbrella organisation, the Free Women’s Union.
Increasingly, people are turning toward the Democratic Regions Party (DBP) and the assemblies to solve disputes, rather than going to the police and courts. In the Wan region we personally observed local people asking the DBP to arbitrate in disputes.
Since the HDP’s electoral successes in June and November 2015, the police and army have intensified attacks against Kurdish people, particularly activists involved in the movement for Democratic Autonomy. In many areas people have erected barricades against the police and read out declarations of autonomy. In these cities, the Turkish police and military have launched an all out war, using tanks, mortars and helicopter gunships to attack residential streets. Armed self-defence units, including female only units, have been set up at the local level in many places in response.
The DTK has announced that the whole of Turkey, not just the Kurdish region, could be run through self-governing autonomous regions. According to a December 2015 DTK statement:
“Democratic Autonomy as the solution to the Kurdish problem cannot be separated from the democratisation of Turkey as a whole. The declarations of Democratic Autonomy are thus steps toward democratising Turkey. We consider them legal and necessary and proper for all the peoples of Turkey. Undoubtedly local democracies would take different forms according to the conditions and needs of their area, region, and community. Under the local autonomy of diverse identities, each area can adapt democratisation into its own circumstances.”
Like Öcalan, the DTK hope that the the assembly system will take over many of the functions of the state:
“Some functions—economy, judiciary, defence—would remain at the centre, but the rest– like education, agriculture, tourism– are to be devolved to the autonomous regions.”
The statement goes on to say that:
“The governing model that should be dominant in the world today is indisputably democracy. No government that centrally administers every street, neighbourhood, city and town can be legitimate; democracy requires the autonomy of local units.”
Democratic confederalism in Rojava
In 2003, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), aligned to the PKK and the movement for democratic confederalism, began to organise in Rojava. From 2005, people began to try to put the ideas of democratic confederalism into practice. In August 2011 an umbrella organistion called the Movement for Democratic Change (TEV-DEM) was formed. In December 2014, Janet Biehl interviewed Aldar Xelîl, reportedly one of the co-founders of TEV-DEM, about the origins of the organisation:
“The story of TEV-DEM is very long. In 2003 we mobilized under the name of PYD. Up to 2005 we operated like a party. Then after 2005 we decided we couldn’t achieve social and political organization in society as a party. We needed a different kind of roof for this. So we were on a quest, a search. After 2005 we left the political stuff to the PYD and organized society in an autonomous way, independent of the PYD.”[8]
As the Syrian uprising against President Bashar Al-Assad gathered momentum in 2011, the PYD and TEV-DEM took the opportunity of the ensuing power vacuum to organise assemblies on a large scale, in the model of democratic confederalism.
In 2012, as the Assad regime weakened, this movement was able to take control of most of Rojava from the regime, and take over government buildings, schools and hospitals. Rojava was organised into three autonomous cantons: Cizîrê, Kobanî and Afrin. For a critical analysis on why the regime withdrew from Rojava see Joseph Daher’s interview with Syrian activist and journalist Shiar Nayo here.
To broaden participation in the movement, the People’s Council of West Kurdistan (MGRK) was formed, made up of diverse groups and political parties. Meanwhile, some parties, many of whom are loyal to Massoud Barzani’s ruling KDP in neighbouring Bashur, chose to remain outside this system in opposition.
Here’s a diagram showing the system that’s developed since then, based on the description by Ercan Ayboğa in ‘Revolution in Rojava’. ‘Revolution in Rojava’ is currently only available in German, and the English translation will be published this summer. The council system is shown on the left, you may want to zoom in, in order to read the diagram more easily.
The Commune
The commune is the base level of Rojava’s council system. In general, communes are made up of 30-400 households in a city, or a whole village in the countryside. The entire population of the commune meets every two weeks, and it elects a board. The board meets every week, and all members of the commune are able to attend board meetings if they wish. All posts must be filled by a male and female co-chair. All representatives are recallable by the membership of the commune.
We visited a Mala Gel, or people’s house, run by Şehit Hozan commune in Amude in Rojava’s Cizîrê canton, where we spoke to the commune’s male co-chair. Şehit Hozan commune represents 400 families in their neighbourhood who vote for the board of the commune. We were told that the commune has commissions dealing with services, economy, Kurdish language teaching, organising lectures, self-defence, reconciliation and justice.
The commune’s reconciliation and justice commission tries to resolve problems that arise between members of the commune. For example, we were told that the commission had recently been asked to mediate when someone was injured in a road traffic accident and when there had been a dispute about land ownership. We were told that often the commission is able to resolve these disputes.
The commune’s self defence commission organises armed self-defence of the commune. Commune self-defence units operate autonomously from the People’s Protection Units of the YPG and YPJ and the Asayîş security forces.
The commune also organises public meetings. We were invited to one of these, organised by Şehit Hozan commune. It was attended by over fifty local women and men and was on the themes of anti-capitalism and feminism. The talk was given in Kurmanji (the Kurdish language spoken in Rojava) and translated into Arabic.
The Neighbourhood/Village Community Council and the District level
The board of each commune in Rojava sends representatives to the Neighburhood/Village Council, a body made up of 7-30 communes. In turn, the Neighbourhood/Village Council, elects a board, who represent them at the third level, the District level.
The district level is made up of representatives of the board from the second level, plus places are reserved for five representatives from the political parties and civil society organisations within TEV-DEM.
We met the Democratic Youth Union in Kobanî, previously called the Revolutionary Youth, who are one of the civil society organisations who have places reserved for them within this system. They told us:
“The target of our organisation is to build equality between men and women and to protect the environment. Our organisation is not just for Kurdish youths. We also have Arabic, Armenian and Turkmen members.”
People’s Council of West Kurdistan (MGRK)
The fourth level of the council system is the People’s Council of West Kurdistan (MGRK), made up of representatives from all district councils and representatives of the groups within TEV-DEM. The MGRK is supposed to provide the coordination between Rojava’s three cantons, but the current war situation prevents the MGRK from meeting together in one location.
Every level of the council system, from the commune upward, has a women’s council. These women’s councils are formed by the Yekîtiya Star women’s union (now called Kongira Star). We met with Yekitiya Star in Kobanî. We were told that women from Yekîtiya Star were going to all of the communes in the area and organising trainings on women’s empowerment.
The social contract
In January 2014 a social contract was agreed for the three cantons by 50 political parties and organisations. The agreement of the social contract was an attempt to bring wider participation to politics in Rojava. It emphasises gender equality and equal rights for all ethnicities, the right to be educated in one’s own language and guarantees that those seeking political asylum will not be deported. The social contract invites other regions of Syria to adopt the canton model and form self-governing regions that can work together in a confederation.
The social contract sets out a structure for the formation of governments, known as Democratic Autonomous Administrations (sometimes called the Democratic Self Administration), in each of the three cantons. According to the contract, a legislative council is elected by the whole population, which in turn elects an executive council. At the time of writing elections have not yet taken place and the legislative council is made up of the parties and organisations that agreed to the charter, together with representatives of different ethnic groups.
We have heard plans for the MGRK in each canton to be allocated 40% of the seats in the legislative assembly, integrating the council system with the Democratic Autonomous Administration.
Municipal councils were taken over when Assad’s officials left in 2011. Under the new social charter these municipal councils will be managed by the relevant Executive Council. The first elections for these municipal administrations were held in 2015.
The declaration of federation
In March 2016 representatives from Rojava’s three cantons met in Derike, in Cizîrê canton, and agreed a formal statement of federation. This means that Rojava’s three cantons are now part of the “Democratic Federation of Rojava – Northern Syria” (DFRNS). The statement proclaims that the DFRNS aims “to achieve a democratic and federal Syria, rather than a centralized administration, by taking into account the historical, geographic, cultural, demographic and economic characteristics when establishing democratic federations.”. “Self-administrative regions” within the DFRNS would organise themselves “based on councils, academies, communes and cooperatives.”
For a critical Syrian view on the declaration of federalism see here.
Although the movement for democratic confederalism in Rojava has its roots in the Kurdish struggle for autonomy, it is multi-ethnic. We met Arab and Aramean (Syriac) people, who were involved in both the communes and the Democratic Autonomous Administration (DAA) in Rojava. Places in the DAA are reserved for representatives of different ethnic groups.
A call for critical solidarity
When we talk about Kurdistan, and particularly about Rojava, the debate is often sidelined into whether the revolution is perfect. We often debate whether society in Rojava is utopian, even while our own social movements are far from perfect.
The argument is often polarised into complete support for all aspects of the movement in Rojava or a position which says that the imperfections within the Rojava experiment mean that we should have nothing to do with it.
We would like to strongly argue for a stance of critical solidarity, to maintain a critical, undogmatic perspective which sees the social movements in Bakur and Rojava for what they are. To criticise the problematic aspects but also to be in solidarity with the positive, liberatory movements taking place, such as the resistance against Daesh, the struggles for autonomy, the fight against Turkish state repression, the movements towards feminism, towards building co-operatives and toward anti-capitalism. These movements have the potential to transform society both in Kurdistan and in the Middle East.
But there are aspects of the situation in Rojava where we think it is important to maintain a critical perspective. For example, at the moment political parties, and their associated military and security organisations, hold a lot of power in both Rojava and Bakur. In both Bakur’s DTK and the council system in Rojava, places are allocated for representatives of political parties. This ensures that political parties always have a voice within the structures of democratic confederalism, whether or not they represent the views of the people in the grassroots assemblies. The most powerful of these parties is the PYD, which, according to Shiar Nayo, has acted to suppress independent activists and those critical of their policies. Many people within the movement say that these political parties are only there because the movement is in its infancy, and that in the future there will be no need for them, but they are obviously one place where power could consolidate itself. Kurdish writer Ercan Ayboğa told us that he is hopeful that power will gravitate towards the grassroots:
“Political parties are instruments of political and ideological approaches which have a certain role. Their role has become in the last years slowly less significant in political life. Increasingly the different self-organised structures, women, youth and so on, have become more important. It’s a slow process because over the decades Kurdish people thought only in the category of political parties and it takes time to make changes.”
Other bodies worth critically examining are Rojava’s executive and legislative councils. In the theory of democratic confederalism, these bodies should only carry out the will of the council system. But it remains to be seen whether power will remain with the grassroots, or gravitate toward the government level. As Kurdish Anarchist Zaher Baher puts it:
“I got the impression that as long as the power of the DSA [Democratic Autonomous Administration] increases, the power of TEV-DEM decreases and the opposite could be right too”.[9]
Also, the existence of a centralised security force, Asayîş, which is largely independent of the council system, seems to run counter to the idea of power being with the grassroots communes. But in the context of the Syrian civil war and attacks by Daesh, good security is clearly necessary and we were happy about the frequent Asayîş checkpoints, which helped to keep us safe during our visit in 2015. Many in the movement, including members of Asayîş, maintain that the organisation will dissolve itself when it is no longer necessary. Practical steps are being taken toward this end, with the setting up of armed defence forces by the communes. Bedran Gia Kurd of TEV-DEM told us that TEV-DEM was engaged in providing support and training to the communes to set up their own defence forces. Because of this process, Asayîş does not have a monopoly on the use of force in Rojava.
Perhaps the most powerful forces in Rojava are the People’s Protection Forces of the YPG and YPJ. These forces have been key to the survival of democratic confederalism in Rojava. However, there is evidence that they have acted oppressively in the past, firing on demonstrators in Amudê in 2013. Also, how many people in Rojava actually have a say about the alliances formed by these military organisations? One such example is the changing nature of the alliance with the US, which may be necessary for the success of the fight against Daesh, but which we would say, has the potential to threaten the grassroots social revolution in Rojava.
In 2014, when Kobanî was under attack by Daesh, the US, reluctantly and belatedly, began bombing in coordination with the YPG and YPJ. US air support was an important factor in the liberation of Kobanî. Since then military co-operation with the US against Daesh has increased.
Many people in Rojava have a critical perspective on the alliance. When we spoke to Bedran Gia Kurd of TEV-DEM, he said:
“There is daily coordination with the US military as our enemy is the same, but there is no long-term agreement. There is no guarantee for this coordination. It is temporary. Maybe in the future there won’t be this coordination. Coordination in the future will be on the basis of how to protect our principles. So if this coordination compromises our project, we will not agree to it.”
But, as Zaher Baher points out, Saleh Muslim, PYD co-chairperson, in an interview with the Washington Kurdish Institute, has put forward a different point of view:
“America is a superpower that fosters democracy globally, and tries to develop and disseminate it throughout the world.”[10]
Other PYD figures have called for international business investment in Rojava, seemingly without recognising that it would threaten the moves toward an anti-capitalist, cooperative economy in Rojava.[11]
Of course, these statements by politicians may be intended as pragmatic steps toward gaining international support for their struggle for autonomy and fight against Daesh. But, at best, these politicians are playing an extremely dangerous game. At worst, they are completely at odds with the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist elements of the movement.
Another issue is that of the reverence for the figure of Abdullah Öcalan. In almost every interview we carried out about democratic confederalism people would say that their ideas come from their leader. This habit of deferring to Öcalan runs counter to the ideas that the grassroots have the power to shape society themselves. As Zaher Baher puts it:
“For some time, Abdullah Öcalan, in recent books and text messages, has denounced and rejected the state and authority. But until now I have not heard that he has rejected his own authority and denounce those people calling him a great leader and who work hard to give him a sacred position. Öcalan’s attitude cannot be correct unless he also rejects his own authority and leadership.”[12]
We have heard that some of Öcalan’s work, which is thus far only available in German, does discuss critically his role as leader. We have not seen a translation of these writings. But the issue isn’t only about whether Öcalan rejects a leadership role. It is that he is treated as a leader by many within the movements for democratic confederalism. This is particularly striking in the women’s movements where, on the one hand women say that they are for women’s self organisation, and on the other say that their ideas come from Öcalan.
We believe that the most useful solidarity with the developing movements toward democratic confederalism is not to either reject all of the positive steps being taken because of the movement’s imperfections, or to only talk positively about them. Rather, we should remain a supportive and honest friend to the movement, a friend who does not shy away from taking action in solidarity with those fighting for a better society, but who is also not afraid to speak honestly, openly and critically.
Grassroots movements with the capacity to change society
The movements for democratic confederalism in Rojava and Bakur are a place where anti-capitalist, feminist, anti-authoritarian and anti-state ideas are flourishing. They have the capability to transform the reality of society for millions of people. These changes are being made by people at a grassroots level, who are inspired by the ideas of the revolution, not by politicians or government institutions.
The establishment of communes and assemblies in Bakur and Rojava has empowered people to make decisions over many areas of their lives which were previously controlled by the state. For example, since the establishment of communes in Rojava there have been creative attempts to construct new methods of dealing with problem behaviour. As described above, each commune has a truth and reconciliation commission to deal with problems that arise in the community. For more serious incidents, such as murder, there is a ‘people’s court’ at the district level, with judges elected by the commune, that hears the case. These judges still have the power to send people to prison, but, Ercan Ayboğa, a Kurdish activist from Bakur who has visited Rojava, told us in 2016:
“There are still prisons in Rojava but the number of prisoners is very low. For example, in [the town of] Serekaniye the number of prisoners is 20 compared to 200 in Assad’s time. The courts try to avoid sending people to prison. They try to use other measures like sending people to work in another area, asking people to leave an area for a certain period of time, or arranging education or training for the accused person.”
However, according to Ercan, this system has been criticised by people within Rojava and people have been experimenting with an alternative, the ‘justice platform’. In this new system the justice and reconciliation commissions can ask for support with serious problems by forming a justice platform. The justice platform is made up of 200-300 people from “women, youth, other political movements and other organisations from the neighbourhood. They discuss the case and try to reach consensus.”
The fact that no one force has a monopoly on the use of violence and that, in Rojava, the communes are developing armed defence forces may be a key factor in keeping power at the grassroots level. The fact that the grassroots are armed makes it more difficult for power to consolidate itself with, for example, the Democratic Autonomous Administration or the military.
Women’s movements in Bakur and Rojava are perhaps the most inspiring element of the current situation in Kurdistan. When we were in Bakur and Rojava we met women who were determined to struggle against patriarchy, and it felt like there truly was an opportunity for changes to occur. We met with a women’s academy in Amed (Diyarbakır in Turkish) who were involved in organising against male violence. They told us that they worked with women affected by violence from their husbands and organised collective action against it. They also organised trainings on women’s empowerment within their communities. Women in both Rojava and Bakur told us that men did not simply accept these ideas, but that making change was an ongoing struggle.
The movements for democratic confederalism have also opened space for anti-capitalist ideas. The talks organised by the communes in Rojava, for example, are a powerful way to spread anti-capitalist ideas. The setting up of co-operatives is an important way that people can be involved in creating grassroots alternatives. According to German economist Michel Knapp:
“While in North Kurdistan the established communes and co-operatives operate under mass repression, in the liberated territory of Rojava there are efforts to create a new form of economy independent of both capitalist and feudal relations of exploitation. This is being undertaken against the background of the drama of the Syrian war: thousands have been murdered and half of the population is homeless.”[13]
Knapp goes on to quote Dr Dara Kurdaxi, an economist and member of the committee for economic revival and development in Afrîn canon, Rojava:
“We need new models for organisations and institutions. Those which are called collective, communal economic models, sometimes referred to as social economies. This is the method we are using as a foundation, so that the economy in Rojava can pick up and develop.”
The fact that there is a broad consensus that the economy should be organised along co-operative lines means that there is space and momentum for the setting up of co-operatives by the grassroots in Rojava. This is being done in a bottom up way by a diverse range of communes and related organisations. For example, the Foundation of Free Women in Rojava is currently setting up a number of women’s co-operatives in Cizîrê canton.
We have a lot to learn from these movements, and the first step towards solidarity is to educate ourselves. Many of the groups we visited in Rojava asked for people from outside to come and learn about their movements. By making stronger connections with activists working at the base level of democratic confederalism; for example the communes, co-operatives and women’s organisations, we can broaden our understanding and begin to forge genuine solidarity and also generate ideas and inspiration for our own movements.
To read more about Democratic Confederalism in Rojava, read Anja Flach, Michel Knapp and Ercan Ayboga’s forthcoming book Revolution in Rojava, which will be published in English in July 2016.
Corporate Watch will be releasing a book, ‘Struggles for Autonomy in Kurdistan’, in May 2016.
References:
[1] A. Öcalan (2011), Democratic Confederalism, http://www.freeocalan.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Ocalan-Democratic-Confederalism.pdf, Transmedia Publishing Ltd.
[2] A. Öcalan (2011).
[3] M. Bookchin (1990), ‘The Meaning of Confederalism’, reprinted in New World Academy, ‘Stateless Democracy’ (2015).
[4] A. Öcalan (2011).
[5] A. Öcalan (2011).
[6] A. Öcalan (2013), Liberating life: Women’s revolution, http://www.freeocalan.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/liberating-Lifefinal.pdf, Transmedia Publishing Ltd.
[7] P. White (2015), The PKK, Coming Down From the Mountains, Zed Books.
[8] From Janet Biehl’s personal notes of an interview with Aldar Xelîl, kindly provided to Corporate Watch in 2016.
[9] Z. Baher (2014), The experiment of West Kurdistan (Syrian Kurdistan) has proved that people can make changes, Libcom.
[10] Z. Baher (2015), Our attitude towards Rojava must be critical solidarity, http://libcom.org/library/our-attitude-towards-rojava-must-be-critical-solidarity, Libcom.
[11] Z. Baher (2015).
[12] Z. Baher (2014), The experiment of West Kurdistan (Syrian Kurdistan) has proved that people can make changes, Libcom.
[13] http://www.kurdistan-report.de/index.php/archiv/2014/171/13-privateigent… – tranlated by the Institute of Cooperative Economics.
Quote begins:
The Kurds and the shifting sands of the Middle East politics
Sunday 16 August 2015 12:05PM
Since the beginning of this century Middle East politics has been in a state of constant flux; the invasion of Iraq in 2001 and the war and insurgency that followed, the Arab spring spread out across Syria, Tunisia and Egypt in 2011, and in 2014 the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant declared a caliphate in northern Iraq. These events have affected every part if the Middle East but one group has been affected more than any other, The Kurds. Situated between Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq the Kurds have both benefited and suffered from the political shift in the region. This week the story of how the Kurdish people are emerging from the shifting sands of the Middle East politics.
Audio / transcript
Quote ends.
Source: for text and audio @ RN
LikeLike
The author is the same C. Gunes. Either he does not know history well, or he plays well with perceptions. I prefer the second.
If I wanted to create a perception, I would bring the readers to the point where I wanted by reinforcing the possible bad(!) perception of history of the Republic of Turkey, already not much known.
The start would have been of course over Ataturk. As Ataturk and the Turkish revolution he started, have not been loved by the imperialists, new term leftists do not like him either.
Quote from article:
“Any reference to non-English / Sunni Muslim ethnic identities within Turkey was criminalized.”
The disintegrated and occupied Anatolian lands after the First World War, which ended in 1919; and the war of independence of Turkey between 1919 and 1923.
There is a letter of Atatürk from the very beginning related with this subject. There are more letters, but it’s impossible to put all them in here.
Date September 11, 1919. Atatürk sends a letter to Fuat Pasha, a member of senate in Istanbul. Quote from his letter:
“Ministers of the Interior and War Affairs, who are common to this Prime Minister’s(Ottoman prime minister Ferit) murders, are making treacherous attempts to drown the voice of the nation, like to not recognize a legitimate meeting of the Sivas Congress, by setting Kurds against the Turks, he causes conflicts among Muslims.”
What is this Sivas congress? The congress of Sivas was a congress in which important names and intellectuals from all over Anatolia under occupation were gathered and decided by how to save the country. The people who come there with difficulty come the result of the telegrams sent by Ataturk to them, also by hiding from the soldiers of foreign occupation forces and the soldiers of the Ottoman Empire. And 22 of those who participated in the congress were Kurds.
Now, if Ataturk was such an enemy against Kurds, why did these 22 Kurdish delegates went/jointed this congress by ignoring their security of life under the occupation?
The independence war of Turkey is such a long subject. But as I mentioned, Ataturk is one of the most unliked characters by the imperialists in the history of human beings. But for some reason those some of the left wing do not think about it: what is the reason of the imperialists’ hatred against Ataturk. Or they do think, but they can not voice the answer because their purpose is already different, and under the left view they actually become a tool for the interests of imperialism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The author of “what” is the same author of “what?” The post is co-authored by Tom Anderson and Eliza Egret.
But my concern is not with the details of past history, about who may or may not have been personally responsible for the purported ‘national’ oppression of the Kurds or anyone else. That is another issue entirely. I’ll leave it to the historians to argue over the ‘facts’ of history in so far as they are able to excavate and make sense of them.
What I find interesting in this article is that it helps to clarify the current conflict between the people who identify and are identified as Kurds and the capitalist establishments of the region, whether Eastern or Western in ideological complexion. But even more interesting to my mind is the experiment being undertaken to create this thing referred to in the article as ‘Democratic Confederalism.’ To my mind, what is being attempted in Rojava is closer to the spirit of communism than anything else to be found in the Middle East, at least as it is here being described.
(Question: where in the post written by Anderson and Egret is there even any mention of Atatürk?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always tell to myself I should not read the post in the morning hours but I do have time in these hours. My mistake, when I opened your two posts, and when I have seen the link of C. Gunes post below the title, I wrote all wrong the autors names. I was mentioning the autors of course Tom Anderson and Eliza Egret.
And you have asked “where in the post written by Anderson and Egret is there even any mention of Ataturk?”
“Some history” part first paragraph. The era begining 1920 is the Ataturk era. Already one of the sentences I quoted “A series of Kurdish uprisings in the 1920s and 1930s were repressed by Mustafa Kemal’s autocratic government, with tens of thousands killed.”
And of course the the ‘facts’ of history is the issues of historians. But is it right to write history in wrong informations? If they do have claims like they put in here, at least they need to put where they found and used the sources. How can I believe in them while their informations are wrong?
Are not we living the history right now? Yesterday and one year ago did not we live the history? About 80 years ago the people did not live in history?
While they make the article, if they start the give wrong historical informations, how I can be sure their aims?
You have said that: “What I find interesting in this article is that it helps to clarify the current conflict between the people who identify and are identified as Kurds and the capitalist establishments of the region, whether Eastern or Western in ideological complexion. But even more interesting to my mind is the experiment being undertaken to create this thing referred to in the article as ‘Democratic Confederalism.’ To my mind, what is being attempted in Rojava is closer to the spirit of communism than anything else to be found in the Middle East, at least as it is here being described.”
I really want to belive that! But I cannot, my earthling friend. Because in their article, to support this idea, they have put the Ocalan words, and such a wonderful person(!) who did everything for the people’s but nothing bad!
Anything if started with the base on Ocalan’s way, this would go to trash into history.
He is the killers of many of Kurds, children, even the babies were killed by PKK. He is mentioning people’s democratic rights, with the socialist words, but his terrorist organization during many years, put the obstacles on the Kurdish people development at the region; they attacked the factories to block industrial development in the region, PKK killed workers, killed teachers who were teaching there for prevent the education. And besides this, the hundreds of Kurds who did not support PKK killed, even the babies were killed by PKK at the villages in region, like I said.
While this article is such a folk lyric in praise of Ocalan, I do not think so this is convincing to me. Especially the leader of the terorist organization, PKK which was built by CIA!
LikeLike
Okay. For someone like me, the only thing that would have registered as substance was that in the past, there was some kind of military confrontation between a group designated as Kurdish, designated as ‘such’ for the sake of exposition, and another designated as Turkish, also for the sake of exposition, and the Kurds lost. Consequently, the Kurds — whatever the social reality behind what that ‘national’ designation may have been at the time — could not have things their own way. Note that nothing need be or, ineed, is being said about the ‘quality’ of the ‘way’ they — whomever they may have been in qualitative terms — may have wanted things to be, whether in a genuinely ‘democratic’ or feudal/capitalist fashion. Furthermore, whatever may have been the case in the 20s and 30s is not necessarily concretely relevant to the present: history moves on, people change, as does the ideological tenor of all collectivities. If this was not so, how could any era ever emerge from the womb of another? How could capitalism ever have emerged from the feudal/mercantile era? Or socialism/communism from a capitalist one?
On the other hand, Anderson and Egret make no claim to being ‘factually’ infallible. They write, very explicitly:
So if they are mistaken about anything, they are mistaken and will gladly own up to it.
Finally, if you compare the length of the section titled “Some History” with the rest of the piece as a whole, it is obvious that the emphasis is not “historical,” but on “current affairs.” Of course, history is pertinent to the present, but not in the way that people are apt to think about it. It’s not written and recollected history that matters, but the social elements of the past as they have survived and crystallized as social totalities in the present, that is to say, in the social structures and dynamics of the present. Consequently, the details of the past and their actual relevance to the present, because revolutions entail radical breaks in the continuities of social formations, may or may not be ‘actual.’
LikeLike
Continue the quotes:
“The speaking of Kurdish was banned.”
Due to 1920-1930 Ataturk period took the place before and after this sentence, and the writer did not give a date, we understand that this “banned” has started at Ataturk period. Is not it?
But, this is not true.
September 12, 1980, with the CIA back-up fascist coup in Turkey, “the use of any language other than Turkish was legally banned.” Until 1991.
Now, it is important to point out that, before being “legally” banned, did the Kurds have freedom of speech in their mother tongue? No, they were not! Public pressure, wrong politics of public officials, periodically pressed the Kurds. Especially the periods of right-wing governments. It would be absurd to reject it. But the important point here is where the author puts this ban to create perception. Where does he put this sentence: in Ataturk period.
I would like to ask to him, the writer C. Gunes from here. – I hope he would read this post of yours and my comments below it.-
Can he show me one, only one example, at the time of Ataturk’s period(when he lived), on which city or town or village, a person who has been punished for speaking Kurdish. I do not want two or more examples, one is enough for me. We are talking about a time period 70-80 years ago. Even before that period newspaper archives dating back hundreds of years can be uncovered whenever government records (Turkish or foreign) are requested for propaganda of all kinds. In Ataturk era, especially the foreign press was invited to come to Turkey by Ataturk’s request. For their observations of Turkey’s new version, especially Ataturk would have wanted them to come. Turkey was not sealed box in that era, maybe even the most of the time when the foreign state’s statesmans and the press visited in the history of the Republic Turkey. That is to say, if at all, it must be at least a foreign newspaper news about this.
As I said, ONLY ONE example can be showed me? Not much, but only one example I wanted about Ataturk’s period speaking Kurdish ban. If the writers desire is not to want to create perception, but write facts, they owe it to readers at least!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another quote:
“A series of Kurdish uprisings in the 1920s and 1930s were repressed by Mustafa Kemal’s autocratic government, with tens of thousands killed.”
What do we understand from this? From this sentence, in Ataturk period, including that of the Independence War of Turkey period under the foreign occupation of Turkey, the Kurds rose up for their rights and Ataturk’s autocratic government has been suppressing them in a bloody way.
What is the truth?
During the War of Independence of Turkey, not only the Kurds, but the Turks were revolted too. While it happened 5 Kurdish revolts, at the same time 10 Turkish revolts had happened too with the same claims. While these rebellions were taking place, some rational people were gathering in congresses like Sivas congresses to find a solution to save the country from foreign invasion, while on the other hand they were trying to collect under the new roof the dispersed army after the 1st world war and at the same time the poor people were helping them. But at the same time some Turks and Kurds rebelled, by asserting of “we are loosing our religion(islam), Mustafa Kemal and the army are heretics, they want to destroy the Sultanate and the caliphate”. So their aim was not their own freedom, but the continuity of the state of religion. These rebels were attacked to the regions where the army of independence was in, which the people created with very difficulty. In doing so, behind these Kurdish and Turkish rebels, there were associations in Anatolia, especially the British established.
Now, when I think about trying to save an occupied land, if most of the people are on my side, and if there are imperialists against me and my people, and again some of these people, so Turks or Kurds rebels with the support of these invaders by claiming “we are loosing our religion(islam)” and this happening with the support of these imperialists, if so, I would have done the same thing with Ataturk. Who would not do the same?
Of course, under the same title, the writer is doing these in order to raise historical sympathy for the Kurdish rebellions by putting up like a fairy-tale point of view of the Kurds as “they have rebelled since very old times,” and to put these base on that these happened to get democratic rights.
I am in the first paragraph of this section, and three consecutive sentences are wrong from the beginning. On these wrongs, what could be the truth after these?
In 1923, after the declaration of the republic, in 1924, Ataturk abolished the caliphate.
1924 and 1930, and even until 1934 there were rebellions.
When we look at the Kurdish uprisings in this process, the main reason is the provocation of the people against the abolition of the Caliphate. When the caliphate position was abolished, the people, they came closer to the Kurdish sect sheikhs, accepted them as leaders of Islam and rebelled for Islam. In other words, again there was nothing on the basis of democratic rights struggle.
With the abolition of the caliphate in 1924, the quotes from the letter of an English diplomat, who was in Mosul city, dated 1924:
“I am amazed at the news about abolition of the caliphate, I have difficulty in believing. Until today, Kurds’ dependence was only provided by the continuity of the caliph, now it is so incredible that cannot be believed that the Turks shot themselves in the foot… Of course we have not neglected to take advantage of this situation for Mosul.”
Already after this date, the Kurds in Mosul, selecting (kind of) caliphate side, they did not want to connect to Turkey.
And how easy is to mislead perceptions with only three sentences (as I have quoted in here)? And I am asking to the author again: is the real history written on the wrong historical informations by doing mis-guidance masterly? Especially people who have adopted the left wing do not pollute the left idea by doing this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may be correct in every detail of your historical purports. That doesn’t really alter the configuration of the present bid for the kind of independence, in economic and political terms, presently being made in the region that now goes by the name of Rojava and by the people who live there.
Do you think that ‘Democratic Confederalism’ is something that should or should not be attempted? Are the people, whoever they may be, not entitled to organize their society from the grassroots on up? Because these questions are more pertinent to the post than any historical crimes, real or imagined, that may have been committed against the Kurds of the 1920s or 30s or even the 80s.
P.S. I’ve re-read C. Gunes, and can’t find any mention of Atatürk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have said, “Do you think that ‘Democratic Confederalism’ is something that should or should not be attempted? Are the people, whoever they may be, not entitled to organize their society from the grassroots on up?”
Do you think, I do not want the people to organize their society from the grassroots on up? If you think like that, I need to test my sincerity about communism in front of my earthling friends eyes next to all my words until today…
And I want to ask you a question in here? Do you think for example Syria, should Syrian own territorial integrity be preserved, is not it? Now, when people look at the region from the outside, the confederations that will be created here will generally benefit the people. However, as it is today the same as in Northern Iraq, the Kurdish regional federations obtained do not serve the people of Iraqi Kurds. The Kurdish people in the region are still poor. Everyone is poor except for the rich American and the other oil companies and the rich Kurds.
I’m coming to the point.
There was a name in this article, Bakur. I never heard it, due to my ignorance. I looked at where Bakur is.
I learned that Bakur is not a city, it is a name of a region. It is accepting as northern Kurdistan, and Bakur borders are in Turkey. Almost all cities at east and sout eastern cities of Turkey as accepted by them as Bakur.
So the people in Turkey must accept this region as Kurdish territory? That population has changed especially over the last 70 years due to the wrong policies applied. The Kurdish population in the region 70 years ago was higher than the entire population of Kurds in Turkey.
So for example, if 5 million Kurds in whole Turkey at that time, 60% of which lived in that area. And when we look at the census counts of those east cities, there were 60% Turkish population at those days.
But over time, the population profile has changed and now there are about 30% Turkish population and 70% Kurdish population.
The same is valid in Rojava. Rojava was once a settlement with more Arabs and Turkmen population than the Kurds, but now somehow neither Arab nor Turks remained in Rojava?
In other words, with the results of every imperialist attitude and applied policies are to bring about no benefit to the people of this region, like with the population changes in the region, in every time, if we will give every land in parts to the imperialists, to make these lands their habitats as the same northern Iraq, then what should we talk? Is it not the fact that to save the workers and the labourer people from the hands of the imperialist interests, and united them under the same roof and rescued them from capitalist slavery? In the time of Lenin, did he disjoint the country as parts in a high concentration of ethnic populations or gathered the region? There were many ethnic in Soviets you know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good. Because that is the “gist” of the post. Whether the ‘socialist’ currents or tendencies among the collectivities of Rojava, such as they exist ‘now,’ manage to create something along ‘these’ lines, remains to be seen.
We are being ‘told’ that this is what the majority of ordinary people there want and what they are striving for, and that may or may not be the case.
But if it is, then that is something that may be worthy of our attention. Apparently, we both agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Rojava today, that is, within a period of five years, the things mentioned are accomplished, this can be only an example to themselves. There’s no way they can expand it.
You have to see how the religious sects have taken over the region where the region, the Kurdish population is intense. So in real sense, this region is not like what they have told. People are really captive by religious sects. I do not exaggerate, even this rate is over 70%.
If we put all the other factors together, what will bring it do in this way? Moreover, let’s call it a study, or an experiment, that only covers the Kurdish population.
In article it is said:
“We met the Democratic Youth Union in Kobanî, previously called the Revolutionary Youth, who are one of the civil society organisations who have places reserved for them within this system. They told us:
“The target of our organisation is to build equality between men and women and to protect the environment. Our organisation is not just for Kurdish youths. We also have Arabic, Armenian and Turkmen members.”
I give a new information about todays.
Even this quoted from their own newspaper in Turkish, with their own words:
“We have established 11 committees in fields such as health, education, economy and local governments.Every committee has co-chairs.Each committee has Kurdish, Arabs. There is no participation by Turkmens, because Turkmen population is few … We tried to find teachers for Turkish teaching of some Turkmen children but we could not find a Turkmen teacher to teach. ”
Presumably of course(!) ethnic cleansing did not make or people to not force to move from the area, the Turkmen, who once had a population close to 30% in Rojava, left the place by thinking “we move to another place to take new breath”.
But, of course, only then it will be, if they think that there will be no Turkmen and Arabs in the region with the help of America and imperialists within a decade to expand it.
I do not understand how it is a socialist experiment in this context. Do not the Turkmen, Kurds and the Arabs have to be together, and it needs to be every one of the oppressed people should not be in it?
But there is a known fact that in Rojava together with the Kurds, American and many European volunteers(!), old soldiers and fighters has taken the place of the almost all Turkmen and many Arab population.
Also, If they sincere about their exam in Rojava, at first, they need to get rid of the American base (which is big) in the Rojava. But I do not think so, Americans will leave one thousand two hundred oil wells in Rojava alone!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You write:
About the ‘complexity’ of revolution, Richard Seymour quotes Lenin to this effect:
(My emphasis.)
Or as Marx also put it:
The point is, then, that the ‘experiment’ at hand purports to be an attack on capital, and as it is described — irregardless of what all the other pertinent historical and concurrent aspects of the messy reality may be — that is what it is. You yourself admit as much when you ask me rhetorically:
And ‘that,’ and nothing else is the nub of the post. As for things not “looking like” a socialist revolution, as both Marx and Lenin suggest, ‘that goes without saying since reality is always, in reality, a hodgepodge of conflicting contradictions.’ What matters is which of the many competing social dynamics end up winning out in the end: anything that weakens capital is a step forward, no matter how paltry or localized. For the ‘example,’ as all examples, always carries within itself the potential of being emulated, especially if it proves itself to be viable as well as scalable. But none of this can be known beforehand. It can only be ‘attempted’ so that later the ‘results’ can then speak for themselves. Among the people of Rojava, a significant number — if the post is to be believed — are making a bid for something called ‘democratic confederalism,’ and it is anti-capitalist in its projected structure and spirit, and that is good enough for me as something worthy of both my attention and examination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What matters is the competing social dynamics end up in the end”
In front of the showcase leftists, next to them a kind of modernization created by the terrorists, at their backs imperialists, all the facts and experiences I have mentioned above in another comment (my comment which I gave an example from Israel situaton), the objectives carried out in a certain plan. Do you really think that the winner of the dynamics will be the people in that region?
For example, what about land ownership in Rojava in todays? Or if there were workshops or plants, what are their status now? To create one-two co-operatives or one-two women associations, and to serve them to the world public such as this is the beginning of this socialist movement and we are making participatory democracy, is it something can the people set their hopes on? Women’s participation represents a cultural development. This signifies progress in democratic terms. However, as I said before, it is impossible to sustain and expand this region. Or is it all same to play into the hands of the imperialists from different ways?
For example, I have observed something in this area for years. The Turks, who identfy themselves as socialist or communist, criticize both the capitalist Turks and the Kurds in very hard. However, the Kurds who support the Kurdistan project, who voted for a so-called left party such as HDP, which is formed already the majority of Kurdish wealthy people, never criticize the capitalist Kurds in same way. What do you think about it? And these parties, like HDP for some reason, are right next to this Rojava project. Very interesting, isn’t it?
It’s good to hope. But people should set their hopes on to the right things. I tell you what will happens at next. At there, America will only allow this action if it overlaps with its own interests. We will hear after a year or maximum two years, that America is still there with all its being, and again a certain segment of the population is rich, the other majority is poor. In the meantime, the terror will go more to other countries, and of course a new liberating(!) movements will begin. America will never leave here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So . . . What are you saying?
Things in the Middle East, like everywhere else, are just a little fucked-up?
Well, now, isn’t that something in connection with the theme of ‘democratic confederalism’ that we can both agree upon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Things in the Middle East, like everywhere else, are just a little fucked-up?”
maybe they are maybe they are not, my eyes are closing, and I am not aware what I am reading right now, haha! I was mentioning a sleep while saying a time out.:) Yeap, this is midnight in here:))
LikeLiked by 1 person
When the darkness rises from the deep, and you no longer know the meaning of what you are reading, you are already asleep. Do not rush your journey to your bed, in that case. Sleepwalkers have been known to trip over balls of fluff and dust . . . 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
After a good night’s snooze, I think I’m willing to concede the debate to you, but not that I was ever truly at odds with your viewpoint.
Of couse, I post these pieces because a) I want to read for myself interpretations of current affairs that are as close to the perceptions of the people caught up in the thick of things and b) because all points of views need to be heard and weighed before either being embraced or rejected, either in whole or in part.
Someone with a similar take to yours on the issue of Rojava is Wilde Botta.
As I put it to Sojourner, who reblogged the post above:
“BTW: as a companion piece to this, you should also read Examing the revolution in Rojava — Review by Emma Wilde Botta | International Socialist Review. It’s a ‘critical’ take on the interpretation of the implementation of ‘democratic confederalism’ as you read it in Anderson’s and Egret’s piece[,] although not a reading of that piece, but of a book written “. . . by three active participants in the Kurdish movement, Michael Knapp, Anja Flach, and Ercan Ayboga,” and with a similar slant [to that of Anderson and Egret].
As Botta puts it,
Things to keep in mind . . .”
So unlike you, Migo, I’m only just beginning to grasp the situation as it is unfolding in your part of the world. It takes time and effort to work through all of the information, the inadequate analyses, the misinformation, the propaganda, the misconceptions, and son on . . . And yet there is no alternative but to wrestle directly with all of the contradictory reports so as to hopefully arrive at a standpoint that isn’t a complete travesty of the reality . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m quoting from the two articles of Aydemir Guler, Turkey Communist Party Central Committee member. These articles are about the topic and published in SoL news in Turkish pages.In these writings criticize the moderate approaches of some Turkish leftists of Democratic Confederalism, and the last status of Kurdish movement. There are much more debates (even very hard debates) between Turkish leftist than the other leftists in the world about Rojava; but as always nobody(Turks) thinks to translate this news or articles in English, and the world public thinks naturaly nobody talks in Turkey about this. Anyway, here the quotes, and he tells well than me, what I meant.:)
…
“…Now the same current has taken refuge in the American-Russian balance in Rojava. If to be abandoned by the US means bankrupt, and if US decision to give heavy weapons is to be regarded as a historical achievement, then the coordinates of Kurdish politics is the certain in this period we lived in. The political tension between Turkey’s Kurds and right-wing tradition of Barzani left its place to Americanism race…
But laborers can find their brothers in other nations. The unification of the peoples is possible only if the workers of different national identities give his arm to the others. So Socialism… But, what if left would cross with socialism?
The Turkish leftist, who is willing to bestow a privilege on “oppressed nation nationalism” by jumping already, has been intoxicated with the claim that Kurdish politics has already exceeded beyond nationalism and in front of the new invention, “confederalism” utopia that all identities will live together. But not surprisingly, the Kurdish movements in the mazes of the Middle East come into classical bourgeois nationalism by turning full circle. Today’s dead end is because of this. Nationalists foresee the rescue with starting from being “oppressed nation” to entering into co-operation with the imperialists. This is what get Kurdish people into a lot of trouble. Kurdish nationalism has made the Kurdish people vulnerable and desperate, as happened much earlier. The leftist should see this. But, to see this we need eyes which look at socialism.”
and another quotes from his another article:
“The presence of the leftists at the side of the Kurdish movement can not pull Kurdish politics from within the imperialist equations. There’s more. “Kurdish national liberationism” and “national liberation” are ending in Rojava. Freedom and salvation within that equation can not go further than a bourgeois demagogy. The tale of commune committees may deceive children, but telling these is also a can be crime against the purity of children.
But not ever think that a conclusion as with all of them lost its meaning of Kurdish dynamics for Turkey’s socialist revolution. Kurdish laborers have spread to every cell of the country and constitute an organic, integral component of our working class. The Kurdish part of our working class can not be fit into Rojava, nor can it be grinded between the cogs of great power politics. Now that Kurdish nationalism has anchored the American bases or Russian tactics, then it is time for socialism for Kurdish laborers.”
…
There are of course the links of these articles, but in Turkish. I hope also I could translate well. Whenever you want I could add in here the links.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Question: should people, whoever and wherever they are, whatever their past history may have been, not be entitled to rule themselves, manage their own affairs and build their own democracy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Question: should people, whoever and wherever they are, whatever their past history may have been, not be entitled to rule themselves, manage their own affairs and build their own democracy?
I think I gave answer to this upper lines in another comment, but I guess, I need to expand it still…
If today, if I see the every people can manage their own affairs and build their managements without guidances of imperialists, I want to all them has own states.
But the truths are different.
Only wanting this is such a romantic dream.
I am seeing the zionist Israel aims, even I have seen especially last years Israel even published documents to support(!) that Kurds and Israel people become same ethnics.
I am remembering Sykes-Picot agreement, and I am seeing all borders of the countries at the region have been changing exactly same like Sykes-Picot agreement wanted in 1916.
In the divided north, I see how the Kurdish federation is far from people. The people are still poor.
I see and remember, how the so called socialists Kurds make an alliance with US.
I see the brutal war and terror that have taken years to shatter Syria to do the same thing in Syria and to divide it in the same way.
I can guess that the next countries are Turkey and Iran. Because of where Iran’s northern and south-east of Turkey’s have high Kurdish population in the same way.
I can guess when I see this line which ISID terrorists that are said to be dispersed, can be used in which next countries. I see the same history will come to the same point with different elements.
I see more things too. And these all leads me this is only a romantic dream. Do not we have to be realistic about the events?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I see the brutal war and terror that have taken years to shatter Syria to do the same thing in Syria and to divide it in the same way.”
Forgive me, but I’m almost certain that Syria, long before the so-called ‘civil war,” was already a ‘society’ divided against itself.
That is simply the nature of all ‘class based’ societies and most especially of capitalist societies.
So all fantasies about scheming foreigners concocting strategies to destabilize ‘nations’ that are already in their capitalist structure inherently ‘destabilized’ are just that, fantasies, but not merely hobgoblins threatening the (nonexistent) integrity of the ‘nation,’ but bugbears used to frighten and corral the oppressed more firmly into the “protective” embrace of their oppressors.
That, however, doesn’t negate the truth about the ‘foreign’ designs of the more powerful imperialist states on the weaker ones, but those designs or plots neither add anything to, nor subtract anything from, the cleavages that make for class rule, that is to say, that make for the exploitation of the many by the comprador bourgeoisies, or local elites, and the potentially explosive discontent that such a situation must inevitbly conduce.
The disaster in Syria was a long time coming, and it originated, not in the “US of fucking A” as a plot hatched by the CIA, but primarily in Syria itself. See, for example, Syria: from ‘authoritarian upgrading’ to revolution? — Raymond Hinnebusch (11/01/2012) | International Affairs
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Forgive me, but I’m almost certain that Syria, long before the so-called ‘civil war,” was already a ‘society’ divided against itself.”
Forgive me too, but I did not know in Syria before civil war, as the same the people has suffered like civil war and 1/5 of the all population of Syria left their homes and left country and become immigrants.
I will read the rest later.:)
Today, we almost worked overtime, my earthling friend, let’s take a time out, haha!
LikeLiked by 1 person
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Norm, this sounds very much like what I have been dreaming of and hoping for for quite a while now: the power in the hands of the people in manageable/small self-governing/sustaining communities, which are connected to hundreds and thousands of other similar communities.
I will be reblogging this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is there any part as your comment I did not reply? I cannot see anymore.:) Somebody stops me! Haha!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on An Outsider's Sojourn II (The Journey Continues).
LikeLiked by 1 person
To note for the history:
Yesterday there was a news in Syrian news paper Al-Watan. I have read it with the title “Kurdish YPG militant group to join Saudi-sponsored border force” in SoL news. Here some quotes from it:
…
“Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) formed border guards in the northeastern province of Hasakah in cooperation with the Arab Al-Sanadid Forces and Saudi support, NRT reported citing Al-Watan newspaper.
Baladi News also reported that Kurdish YPG militant group joins Saudi-sponsored border force in Syria.
“The Kurdish units opened the door to join the new border guards, funded by Saudi Arabia,” the Al-Watan newspaper quoted the head of the local Al-Khaboor network Ibrahim Habash as saying in a press statement.
Habash added that “young people have volunteered in the new force because of the deteriorating economic situation in the region.” Guards will earn approximately $200, according to the reports.”
…
Especially last words “young people have volunteered in the new force because of the deteriorating economic situation in the region,” are showing the general economic situation at the region. This figure so $200 is monthly payment.
another quotes:
…
“Al-Watan newspaper said that the spokesman for the “Supreme Council of Tribes and tribes of Syria,” Hammad al-Assad, considered that “the new Forces comes within the framework of blindness to [YPG lies].”…
Talking to Saudi Okaz newspaper, the head of the Kurdish security police (known as Asayish) in northeast Syria, Ciwan İbrahim said, “Iran’s project is more dangerous than the IS,” adding that the Kurds in Iran were also preparing for a revolution.
In October 2017, Saudi minister Samir es-Sabhan, responsible for the relations of Saudi-Gulf countries visited YPG-controlled Raqqa along with Brett McGurk, the U.S. President Donald Trump’s envoy for anti-Islamic State (IS) coalition.
The minister met the members of the PYD-led ‘Raqqa Civil Council’ to discuss the reconstruction of almost destroyed Raqqa.”
…
The Asayish forces in here, you would remember, was in the article you posted, “Examing the revolution in Rojava” — Review by Emma Wilde Botta.
Here quote from there:
“…The armed forces in Rojava (YPG, YPJ, and the security forces, the Asayiş) are trained in the ideology of the PYD and swear an oath to Öcalan.”
Which this is true explanation.
What the head of Kurdish security police (known as Asayish) in northeast Syria, Ciwan İbrahim said? He said “Iran’s project is more dangerous than the IS,”.
These all are components of the formation in the region(northern Syria and Kobane, and Rojava).
And indeed, if these groups, they define today Iran is more dangerous than ISIS, it shows that their ties are not with the left ideology, but with America’s(west) interets at all times from the begining. A defense like “We had to get American help against ISIS,” in yesterday will turn like that “we have got American support against Iran,” at tomorrow. How far will it end up? I do not think there is an end. Those sol called leftists who put Kurdish nationalism forward and act with imperialists interest, such as HDP in Turkey, and some groups in world, where they actually see the latest point? It is impossible not to wonder.
LikeLiked by 1 person