Submitted by ETERNAL_PRISONER in Anarchism
Shouldn't we reject all kinds of nationalism?
Comments
kittybecca wrote (edited )
Many of the factors that anarchists, an-coms and other libertarian leftists would like to see society based on is actually being experimented with there, such as mutual aid, direct democracy, consensus decision-making, armies sans hierarchy, democratic federalism, gender equality etc.
This is the bottom line for me. The fact that they're doing this means they're doing the most toward an anarchist society of anyone in the world. People care way too much about whether something fits their definition of an ism, not enough about what that ism actually wants to bring about.
Bakunin apparently wrote all his books upon request from different people and saw them as afterthoughts to his praxis, as things he didn't personally consider very important relative to his actions.
dele_ted wrote
Here, too, which is why i (and many other on the libertarian left) feel so strongly for solidarity with Rojava, Afrin especially.
Bakunin apparently wrote all his books upon request from different people and saw them as afterthoughts to his praxis, as things he didn't personally consider very important relative to his actions.
Didn't know that, but it makes good sense. Preach what you practice and practice what you preach.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
dele_ted wrote
Well, they're not any type of nation that we're used to in the western world.
I never said they were anarchist; i said they're deploying many of the same concepts that anarchists (and other libertarian leftists) would also like to see implemented and experimented with. If you want to give Rojava as a whole a label, it would be democratic confederalism as described by Öcalan.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
dele_ted wrote
That's just being pedantic and putting words in my mouth, i never said such a thing. I get that you don't like me, that's okay, but please save your bitterness for later. We really don't need that right now.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
dele_ted wrote
What i meant and should have said was "Rojava doesn't have much to do with right-wing nationalism", I'm just so used to nationalism being synonymous with right nationalism. You're right that Rojava does hold left-wing nationalist values (although not very pronounced).
____deleted____ wrote
that's not say rojava is a nation-state
This is something to stress, honestly; Rojava is decentralized and blind to ethnicity, with all the local languages being official, most regions bi or trilingual, and with them operating in the local language with respects to local culture.
[deleted] wrote
____deleted____ wrote
A nation state (or nation-state) in the most specific sense is a country where a distinct cultural or ethnic group (a "nation" or "people") inhabits a territory and have formed a state (often a sovereign state) that they predominantly govern.
It wouldn't be this, given its decentralized nature; and its even Arab majority these days due to the eastern territories.
Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote
Because, as much as I don't agree with Democratic Confederalism on every issue, they are actually on the ground fighting and implementing autonomous rule and societal revolution, gender equality, and liberation - things we all agree with. We don't get to see our ideas implemented very often, and it takes experimentation and real world experiences for us to figure out what works and how it works in practice.
Because they are arguably doing more to directly fight fascism than anyone else.
DissidentRage wrote
"It's not a leftist revolution that falls perfectly in line with my specific tendency, so it shouldn't be supported. Left unity is a meme!"
OpSecLevelBaNaNaS wrote
The CNT wasn't perfect either, but many leftists, anarchists, communists, etc. all supported the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War about eighty years ago. Rojava is full of a number of different factions, some of whom are nationalists, others who are not, but the society that they are building is one that promises to promote a really positive direction in a region that has been mired in imperialist adventurism, authoritarian regimes, and reactionary religious quasi-fascism for an extremely long time.
It's the obligation of people in western countries to oppose nation-state occupations/military strikes in traditionally colonized areas, just as much as it is our obligation to support popular movements for our shared ideals. Their movements will not look like ours, nor should they-- they are in their own context, the discourse is different. What we should focus on is what is being built and what is being done. Women's empowerment, radical direct democracy, anti-imperialism and killing ISIS fash-- sounds like those are comrades to me!
therealmidnite wrote
Why wouldn't they? Democratic confederalism isn't anarchist by any stretch of the imagination - but it's close enough to be worth supporting. And calling Rojava "nationalist" makes about as much sense as calling North Korea "democratic".
ETERNAL_PRISONER OP wrote
I'm skeptic to rojava, because there are many similar movements in history, which were supported from western leftists because they thought it was a genuine leftist venture. I mean for example, Khmer Rouge or maoist china in the 60s/70s. But afterwards these movements revealed their true, reactionary nature and the western left were deeply disappointed.
therealmidnite wrote
Anarchists had predicted what the true nature of MLism and Maoism was all about long before "communism" became the west's favorite boogeyman - so if authoritarian lefties were disappointed in their false messiah's eventual behavior it's their own damn fault for blindly following those unworthy dogmas. The behavior of the YPG is not opaque to the rest of the world, and there is zero evidence that they are planning to massacre their way to some pie-in-the-sky state-sponsored "utopia".
ETERNAL_PRISONER OP wrote
What makes you so sure about the legitimacy of Rojava? Are you an active member of the movement or do you just get your information from the media? You are right, it is dumb to follow blindly unworthy dogmas. And because of that reason, I'm unsure how to judge this issue.
therealmidnite wrote
I've got news for you... everything you know about the "Khmer Rouge or maoist china in the 60s/70s" comes from media, too... or did you think books don't count? If you are unsure how to judge this issue, I'd suggest you... don't judge, perhaps? But not all of us are waiting until Rojava has been crushed into the sand and analyzed by fifty thousand historians over a hundred-year period before making up our mind about it. So unless you have some proof that the wild accusations made about the YPG aren't just the fantasies of some fascist government employee in Ankara, I will be supporting them in whatever way I can.
ETERNAL_PRISONER OP wrote
I just can't support something, when I'm not convinced about it. That's all.
therealmidnite wrote (edited )
That's fine. Nobody said you have to. Just remember that the days when an "anarchist" revolution was an actual possibility came and went a long, long time ago - and it's not coming back. We may have to make peace with the fact that any future movements towards anything resembling "autonomy" will most likely be driven by people who share some of our ideas, but perhaps not our dogmas.
ETERNAL_PRISONER OP wrote
You are right. Your reply encouraged me to rethink my position. Thanks, comrade!
dele_ted wrote
Because Rojava is a collection of genuine de-facto autonomous regions. Many of the factors that anarchists, an-coms and other libertarian leftists would like to see society based on is actually being experimented with there, such as mutual aid, direct democracy, consensus decision-making, armies sans hierarchy, democratic federalism, gender equality etc.
Rojava isn't a nation, and doesn't have much to do with nationalism at all.