Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

19

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.

4

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.

3

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.

4

Dumai wrote (edited )

ask the kurds if they consider themselves a nation

the answer you will get is "yes"; that's not say rojava is a nation-state so if the YPG can be called nationalists they certainly don't represent any form of nationalism we'd be familar with in the west. but don't misrepresent what they're fighting for so they better suit your political palate

anyway rojava may be an interesting experiment but its hardly anarchist and doesn't really claim to be

4

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.

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

for you to have implied, as you did, that questions of kurdish nationhood never factors into rojavan politics was blatantly misleading at best. it's also kind of insulting because it undermines what kurds have been saying about themselves for decades

2

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.

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

then what did you mean by this?

Rojava ... doesn't have much to do with nationalism at all.

i mean if you're citing öcalan as an influence on the rojava project (and obviously you're right to do so) then he self-identifies as a nationalist

this doesn't have anything with my personal opinion of you, i really don't know much about you at all. i just really think you're wrong on this

2

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).

3

____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.

1

Dumai wrote

a nation-state doesn't necessarily have to be an ethno-state nor strictly speaking does it need to be monolingual but i get your point

3

____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.

3

Dumai wrote

precisely! it can't really be called an ethnic or a civic national state