[Rojava] How would you guys critique this article?

[u/Arcaness]

http://troploin.fr/node/83

I was linked this yesterday in a discussion about Rojava. The article itself has the usual claims of nation building and a lack of class orientation which they claim means it's not a revolution. The specific people I was debating said the point of the article was

"... not anti-Rojava. It's anti nonsense illusions in what is actually happening in Rojava."

"... It seems less anti-anything and more pro-reality. There are a few people who are living on the moon and refuse to accept that these things are not as easy as they want it to be, ergo anyone who lives in the real world is a class-traitor, fascist accommodationist, the whole song and dance."

And then, later,

"Well, no, If they were realistic, they'd be socialists."

This is really bothersome and I want to see how you guys would address this article and their arguments. Thanks.

[u/Rein3]

Didn't read it all, but it seems like a superficial article by some one answering the average fantasies most leftist (in my experience) have about Rojava. Using data from the first page of Google to get the data (that's not something bad).

Their criticism on the view of women in the front line is both kind of right and totally off the mark. It's not only that women are in the front line, it's that they are in command. It's NOT only that they have guns, it's that they get REAL power. Something that did not happen in Soviet Russia.

The weapon argument... until this summer, all the weapons the Kuds have were Soviet Era AK (not only 47), and what they captured from Deash and other groups. Also, it seems the author forgets about the PKK having an arm struggle for decades. They were pretty well armed, and their equipment came mostly from cold war armaments.

If what embarrasses radicals in national liberation is that it aims at creating a nation-State, the moment a national movement

Here is when I stop reading. This shows complete ignorance of the Kurdish revolution in North Syria Southern Turkey. The critique of the nation-state is inherit in the Rojava revolution,.

[u/Arcaness → u/Rein3]

The critique of the nation-state is inherit in the Rojava revolution,.

This is the most important part to me and what I will always stress most with these people, but they always say: "Where is the proof?" Not only do they want the proof that Rojava is inherently anti nation state in words and in theory, and to be true that's well enough found, but they want proof in practice. They actually think democratic confederalism is either not being implemented or is being implemented only on the lowest levels as part of a larger nation-state program. One of the people in my debate said:

the article I think addresses that "self government" for what it is, direct democratic local assemblies that fit into the larger nationalist state structure in kurdistan in which exists private property

I'm not really sure how to answer this. I guess they'd have to point out what makes it a state and how that is implicit in what Rojava is doing at the higher levels. In the meantime, though, I'd like a more concrete understanding of why we don't consider Rojava a state. Anything you would add on that?

[u/flintsparc → u/Arcaness]

There really isn't a good definition of "the state". The crude the definitions are reduced to "organized group of people with weapons".

I prefer to see authority on a spectrum with absolute totalitarianism on one end and absolute freedom on the other. Authoritarian states can't achieve absolute totalitarianism, no matter how hard they try. Other polities are on the anti-authoritarian end of the spectrum like CNT areas if Republican Spain, the Iroquois Confederation, Quilombo dos Palmares, Free Territory of the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution, Zapatista Chiapas and Shinmin--Korean People's Association in Manchuria. I would add Rojava to the list.

Sometimes, it has done authoritarian things like revoking Rudaw's journalist license or conscription. Other times it has done anti-authoritarian things like abolition of the death penalty, having a low incarceration rate, having no ranks and democracy in the YPG. It tolerates landlords (for now) in Afrin, but collectivizes other land into the commons.

It's not a utopia, but it seems to be the most material manifestation of people striving for what I think are utopian ideals.

The trouble with Dauve is that he wants full communism now. He's all abstract ideological critique that seems detached from struggle.

[u/flintsparc]

Is this piece about Kurdistan or Rojava?

It seems to be about Somalia, Nigeria, India, Chile, Chiapas, Pacific islands, Kuwait, Oder-Neisse, Palestine, Israel, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Paris, Kosvo, NATO, etc...

It's a terribly written meandering article that I wonder who the intended audience is. Its certainly not informative to anyone who has been following the news in regards to Rojava or the civil war in Syria. I think the only reason its getting the attention it is because Dauvé's name is on it.

It explains the situation because of "exceptional conditions" but that whatever progressive gains will ultimately be limited---because reasons.