IFA-IFA - A Response to Rojava: An anarchosyndicalist perspective (from DAF)

The effects of social revolutions are not limited by the effect of struggle against 
political and economical powers in the geographical region where the revolution happens. 
It's important to see their effect on other different regions along with the intellectual 
and practical changes this effect brings. Being talked about with Koban? Resistance 
,Rojava Revolution gets more important now to see this effect more clearly. ---- The 
reaction and attack of the state and capitalism against what's happening in Rojava, is 
expected at this point. However, we need to turn our face to the internal debates in 
social opposition at the same time. It's necessary to emphasize that such debates are an 
important resort for understanding what the effect of Rojava is. ---- Since the start of 
this process, anarchist comrades' behaviors towards understanding Rojava and taking up 
with the resistance has been quite important for remembering the international solidarity, 
which we aren't familiar to see in such an organized manner. Again we have experienced 
that solidarity is our greatest weapon.

This manner of solidarity that was created between anarchists inevitably made the 
resistance in Koban? a headline especially among anarchists all around the world.

The paper "Rojava: An anarcho-syndicalist point of view" which was published on several 
different sites is one of the reflections of this headline. This evaluation of the paper 
especially aims to correct information about Rojava Revolution and Koban? Resistance, 
instead of pointing out positive and negative sides of the paper and making a simple 
criticism.

Considering different comments may form with the different perspectives of anarchist 
organizations in different geographical regions; I focused the criticism of paper on the 
matter of incomplete evaluation of Kurdish freedom struggle and Rojava Revolution. 
Political criticism against a community which is in a life or death struggle under war 
conditions can't be made ignoring this condition. Even so if said criticism has certain 
prejudices and was formed with sharp generalization. And of course, if a huge people's 
movement is evaluated with a degrading manner...

---

First of all it's necessary to state that forming a solidarity relationship with Rojava 
Revolution and Koban? Resistance is not an emotional relation, unlike comrades with an 
"anarcho-syndicalist perspective" emphasize. Because anarchist organizations don't base 
their solidarity relationships on "sympathy". These relationships mostly form considering 
a political perspective and strategies planned to realize this perspective. Thereby, 
solidarity and taking up with a struggle aren't far from objectivity.

In different parts of the paper, PKK criticism is tried to be based on party's political 
history - and with criticism such as short-coming implementation of "libertarian 
municipality", incomplete state of political transformation and having nationalistic 
roots; current condition and perspective of Kurdish Movement is being left under 
prejudice. While doing all these, prejudice is being based on incomplete information, 
consciously or unconsciously. No one claims Kurdish Freedom Movement is an anarchist 
movement. Thereby, the practices which are claimed to be short-coming or flawed should be 
evaluated considering this fact. On the other hand, a people's movement that value 
"criticism of the state and the capitalism" so much can't be overlooked by anarchists. 
This matter can't only be tied to Bookchinist "libertarian municipalism". Movement has 
referenced many different comrades from Bakunin to Kropotkin on its theoretical relations 
with anarchism, and could interpret the state problem with a wide perspective. On the 
other hand, realizing this idea led to a practice which is quite libertarian and 
non-central. I think this part is very important. This information is based not on 
quotations from articles and books, but on mutual observation of political organizations 
that share common ground for struggle.

The condition of Rojava is not as such because of Assad leaving the region or his claimed 
agreements with global powers. Great social transformation that happened in Rojava two and 
a half years ago, happened in a conjuncture where political activity forced Middle-East to 
choose governance of one of two opposing sides (coup-supporting seculars - conservative 
democrats). Rojava, when "springs" turned into winter in Middle-East region, is people not 
fitting into these two sides and creating their own solution.

While life is being re-built in Rojava, the non-central structure of social mechanisms 
being created, insistent emphasis on statelessness, organization of the 
production-consumption-distribution relations in a way as far from capitalism as possible, 
self-organization being the warrantor of social process, communes in three different 
cantons shaping the operation of communes with independent decision processes are 
undeniably important in this age. Especially, how could an anarchist deny the fact that 
this process is a promising experience for multiplying with similar examples in different 
geographical regions?

Let's repeat for comrades that insist on not comprehending. This is not an effort to claim 
it is an anarchist process. However, the anarchist characteristics of the process in 
Rojava would make anarchists who struggle for a social revolution happy. This happiness is 
far from the romanticism that's criticized in the paper, it's about understanding that our 
political goals and strategies are applicable in such a system, in such an age.

No one can claim that practices of stateless people are negative for anarchists who 
struggle for a social revolution. Such practices in different geographical regions may 
develop under their genuine conditions. Claiming these genuine struggles are not adequate 
with anarchist principles and reducing their importance is exhibiting an understanding of 
anarchism that rely on theoretical arrogance lacking practice. Another thing in the paper 
that's worth pointing at is the authenticity of references. It's interesting to reference 
the expressions of an online group just because they have Kurdistan and anarchist in their 
name. It's not about the expressions of comrades being right or wrong. It's a problematic 
question that what political fact the group bases their expressions on, not showing any 
political activity in Kurdistan region while theoretically criticizing the Kurdish Freedom 
Movement on a practical level.

While the women's movement in Kurdistan is directly related with the freedom movement, 
comments that claim the women's movement is apart from this integrity or even against it, 
are twisting of information. It's a logical flaw to criticize movement as patriarchic 
while emphasizing on the importance of women's movement in the struggle. Moreover, the 
logical flaw continues when the claim of Ocalan being a rapist is confirmed through quotes 
from state's anti-propaganda websites. Another example of references is about "Kurds 
wanting war to expel Arabs". When you cherry pick a speech disregarding its context, you 
can use it to support any context of your own. It's clear that the topic of the referred 
news is about settlers moved by Assad to change the demographic structure of region 
towards his assimilative goals. Just like Israeli settlers.

Causes can be invented when one tries to be over suspicious. However, it's important to 
question the relation of these causes with actual facts. It's a mistake to try to define 
Kurdish Freedom Movement as a nationalist movement. This definition and the likes overlook 
the transformation of the movement and claim that it continues its old political 
structure. A perspective that has no knowledge of the practices of process, and has only 
criticizing articles as a source of information, is extremely problematic. Because a 
massive part of these critics are worded by statist mindset and its extensions. A healthy 
criticism can be made by observing and experiencing the political practices. Every 
criticism that lacks a vision of geographical region and practicality, carry the danger of 
falling into orientalism.
--
We spoke before about the process in Rojava and the movement not being anarchist. Another 
lacking thing is evaluation of Kurdish people's freedom struggle apart from the historical 
fact that they have been struggling for centuries in Mesopotamian region. Those who draw 
away from the truth for ideological correctness and devaluate people's centuries long 
struggle, are betraying their revolutionary responsibilities and should pay attention to 
whose front they are placing themselves at.

To perceive the classes in a shallow vision and trying to interpret social struggles just 
with economical struggles is to create a hierarchy between the struggles of the oppressed. 
An anarchist point of view that limits the oppressed to workers and disregards other 
relations of power contradicts the history of anarchist movement. Revolutionary history of 
anarchism is full of economical, political and social struggles of the oppressed. To 
overlook the effect of movement on people's freedom movements from Europe to Far East Asia 
in different centuries, to exclude the practical feeding of this effect to class struggles 
in South America, is to ignore the integrated structure of anarchist movement.

We are not fortunetellers, we can't possibly know what will happen in Rojava a month or a 
year from now. We can't know that this social transformation which not only gives us hope 
as revolutionaries that struggle in a geographically close region, but also feeds our 
struggle in the regions that we struggle in, would move towards a positive or negative 
future. But we are revolutionary anarchists. We can't just sit aside, watch what's 
happening and comment; we take part in social struggles and take action for an anarchist 
revolution.

Long live the Rojava Revolution!

Long live the Koban? Resistance!

Long live the Revolutionary Anarchism!

H?seyin Civan (from DAF)