Introduction: discussing the party model and mission - 1 ---- Since the beginning of the
Kobane siege by Daesh (ISIS) the Kurdish left, and specifically the Rojava model of social
organisation has been studied and followed by several organisations, activists, networks
and committed scholars. I decided to collaborate with KurdishQuestion.com to produce a
series of short articles to expose (and prove) the similarities between the western (and
not western too) anarchist tradition and democratic confederalism. While one of my
concentrated areas of study is political theory (and radical political theory), I decided
to help in drawing the parallels between both paths and familiarising them to one another.
I hope this will help and all criticisms are welcome. ---- Kurdish female fighters and
mujeres libres do have many coincidences in their forms of organization and strategic
goals to be achieved.
Presentation
The anarchist party model presented in this series is not an innovation in itself for
political theory and radical political theory and not even for the leftist tradition. If
the studies on this theme are quite unknown (or seem to be new or nonexistent), if this
format of political organisation has not become an object of study (or recognised as the
party model for self-management and direct democracy), this is due to the correlation of
forces both inside the academic mainstream, the defeats suffered by the classist
anarchists since 1939 and also because of the absence of debates within the left wing
community, the academic spectrum and the mainstream media. This model approaches the
militants within a political organisation specifically adherent to an
ideological-doctrinaire corpus (also known as the cadre party). Because it is not a mass
proposal, it has the format of having the membership composed by political cadres, without
open affiliation and whose commitment degree increases as they enter further into the
concentric circles (see Bakunin). Such modality acquired definitions in history such as:
organicism, platformism, specifism; all of these are synonymous with the definition of the
anarchist party (specific federation).
Party role introduction
The model of the left libertarian matrix and perspective presented in this series
represents a possible application from a field of intentions, normative motivations, and
strategic interests in Latin America in general and in Brazil in particular. But, we
presume, that as long as we know each other better, the possibilities of political
development will be reinforced from the real experience in Western Kurdistan and the inner
debate among the thoughts under the PKK umbrella. It is very interesting to understand
that this party mission is not to be part of a Nation-State institutional power but to
help in building a society based on legitimate rights (both individual and collective),
self-management, direct and radical democracy and as far away as possible from
industrialism and a market-centred economy. The hypothesis formulated within the
perspective of a real social democracy is the action of the political minority as a drive
of force accumulation and long-term democratic radicalisation. If we compare this simple
assumption and definition, we can observe many similarities between this perspective and
the one written by comrade Abdullah Ocallan in 2011:
"Meanwhile, nation-states have become serious obstacles for any social development.
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." (from PKK
English website)
It is obvious that nobody should criticise this party model for not competing for
institutional positions within a nation-state model when its mission is far away from
that. I assume certain preconditions are always present. Every "party model" includes in
its modelling the conditions and rules by which this party/political organisation is
constrained and the path this (legal or illegal) institution is willing to take according
to its medium- and long-term goals. In order to be theoretically consistent, it is
necessary to present models that can be tested but, above all, these models should be
applicable in accordance with the hypotheses suggested.
I am discussing the militant political organisation specifically adherent to an
ideological and doctrinal corpus. On the other hand, because it is not a mass organisation
it is structured within cadres, without open membership and whose level of commitment
occurs within concentric circles, increasing the level of commitment according to the
power to vote and be voted for key and assigned roles in the internal structure. This
conception cannot be misunderstood into a misconception. Or, nobody should understand this
as a kind of "good intentions only party", but a strategic conception guaranteeing that
party cadres and structures will be put in service and duty to help building new political
institutions based on a horizontal and egalitarian society. The failure of the USSR party
model or other variations based on authoritarian leadership, state-centred and
industrialism prove that the whole leftist thought must make a big self-criticism and
recognise that material conditions must grow ripe together with moral, ecological and
fraternal conditions. Only a party-structure devoted to this cause can maintain a long
term struggle, feeding social projects, like it did in the Latin American mass-union
struggles in the early 20th century and like it is nowadays with the Union of Communities
in Kurdistan (KCK) or specifically TEV-DEM in Rojava.
Denominations of this tradition am
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/27921
Home »
» Anarkismo.net: Bridges between Anarchism and Democratic Confederalism by BrunoL (it)