Today's Topics:
1. Author Collective Rupture (RC): Anarchists mount barricades
in Santiago de Chile in solidarity with Mapuche murdered
weichafes (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. Critical Discussion On Armed Struggle with Anarchists in
Rojava (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
June 14, Santiago de Chile. On June 14, a dozen hoodlums cut off traffic, dropped
pamphlets and raised canvases outside the Metropolitan Technological University in
Santiago de Chile, commemorated by the Mapuche killed in the south in the midst of a
territorial recovery action. "The weichafes Luis Marileo and Patricio Gonzalez will be
avenged with blood."
A pamphlet found on the spot said: "No action without response, resistance is not
terrorism. Weichafes and subversives on the war foot against capitalism. POPULAR JUSTICE
NOW! "
http://rupturacolectiva.com/anarquistas-montan-barricadas-en-santiago-de-chile-en-solidaridad-con-weichafes-mapuches-asesinados/
------------------------------
Message: 2
At the end of March 2017, news spread that a new anarchist guerrilla group had formed in
Rojava, the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces (IRPGF). Their emergence
has reignited discussions about anarchist participation in the Kurdish resistance and in
armed struggle as a strategy for social change. It has been difficult to communicate with
comrades in Rojava about these important questions, as they are operating in wartime
conditions and surrounded by enemies on all sides. Therefore, we are excited to present
the most comprehensive and critical discussion yet to appear with the IRPGF, exploring the
complex context of the Syrian civil war and the relationship between armed struggle,
militarism, and revolutionary transformation.
The developments in Syria foreshadow a rapidly arriving future in which war is no longer
limited to specific geographical zones but becomes a pervasive condition. State and
non-state actors have been drawn ineluctably into the conflicts in Syria, and those
conflicts extend far beyond its borders; today, civil war is becoming thinkable again in
many countries that have not experienced war within their home territories for 70 years.
Proxy wars, once geographically contained, are spreading around the world as religious
denominations, ethnicities, nationalities, genders, and economic classes become proxies in
the struggles between various ideologies and elites. As capitalism generates intensifying
economic and ecological crises, these struggles are probably inevitable. But while they
offer new opportunities to challenge capitalism and the state, they hardly point the way
to the relations of peaceful coexistence and mutual aid that anarchists desire to create.
Is it possible for anarchists to participate in such conflicts without abandoning our
values and principles? Is it possible to coordinate with forces pursuing different
agendas, while retaining our integrity and autonomy? How do we organize to confront these
situations without turning into a militarized war machine? From the vantage points of
Europe and the United States, we can only develop limited perspective on these questions,
though it is necessary to form our own critical hypotheses. We are grateful for the
opportunity to engage in dialogue with those who are fighting in Rojava, and we hope to
facilitate conversations on this topic across blockades and battle lines all across the world.
Kurdish forces have been calling for international supporters to fight alongside them for
years now. How does this play out in practice? Do you consider yourselves to be equal and
autonomous participants in both the fighting and the transformation of society? Or you
feel your role to be allies supporting their defense?
First, it is important to realize that not all international supporters come to Rojava, or
for that matter to the broader region of Kurdistan, for the same reason. As you are aware,
there has been a steady flow of international supporters joining the ranks of the
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) for decades now. Additionally, international support has
come from neighboring countries as well as other parties and guerrilla groups like the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia (ASALA).
More recently, however, international supporters have come to the region mostly as a
result of the growth of Daesh (ISIS) and its full-out assault in both Iraq and Syria. A
few years ago, during the period of the battle of Kobanê and the genocidal campaign by
Daesh in Rojava and Shengal, various international groups and individuals came to struggle
for a myriad of reasons. For example, the Lions of Rojava attracted those with more
militaristic, right-wing and religiously motivated ideologies and perspectives. At the
same time, the Turkish militant Left, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (MLKP)
and the Turkish Communist Party Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML) had arrived in Rojava (to later
include the United Freedom Forces, or BÖG, which would be formed after Kobanê) and joined
the armed struggle in an effort to assist Kurdish forces and aid the struggle not only in
Rojava but in Bakur (Northern Kurdistan - Turkey) and broader Turkey.
Thus, simultaneously during those pivotal months in Kobanê, there were Christian
fundamentalists, fascists, and Islamophobes fighting alongside Turkish and international
communists, socialists, and even a few anarchists. That is not to say that all Western
fighters are either fascists or leftists. On the contrary, in fact, quite a few
international supporters have simply identified as anti-fascists, supporters of the
Kurdish struggle, liberal feminists, democracy advocates, and those with a fascination
with the democratic confederalist project unfolding in Rojava. While the situation has
changed on the ground and many of those with right-wing or religious convictions are no
longer fighting with the People's Protection Units and Women's Defense Units (YPJ/G),
there is still an eclectic and far from monolithic mix of international supporters here.
In practice, international supporters are placed in different units depending on certain
criteria. For example, prior military personnel who come to Rojava may have access to
Kurdish units that would, for the most part, be closed off to those who do not have prior
military experience. Those include sniper (suîkast) and sabotage (sabotaj) units (taburs).
Internationals who come to fight for ideological reasons, for anarchism, communism, or
socialism, could choose to go to one of the Turkish party bases to train and fight as an
attached member of their guerrilla units. Most international supporters, however, join a
Kurdish unit within the YPJ/G and fight alongside the Kurds, Arabs, Ezidis, Armenians,
Assyrians and other groups within the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The social position of international supporters in relation to the local and indigenous
members of the military forces is of course complex. For the people of Rojava and for the
broader Kurdish liberation movement, it is an honor for them to have international
supporters come to defend them when they feel that the international community, for almost
a century, has abandoned their struggle for autonomy and self-determination. Yet, there is
this almost celebrity atmosphere around some Westerners who come here to fight, as well as
a tokenizing and sometimes paternalistic atmosphere on the part of some elements of the
local political and military establishment. Of course, this changes depending on the
international supporters' reasons and motives for coming to Rojava. For example, some
international supporters take great pleasure in showing their faces, posing with weapons
and gloating about their "accomplishments." Others choose to hide their faces and
identities for both political and practical reasons.
There is no doubt that some international supporters have used the conflict in Rojava as a
vehicle for personal advertising, which is of course part of the "age of the selfie" and
social media. This has allowed some of them to make a small fortune writing books and
using the revolution for their own gain. This is opportunism and adventurism at its worst.
This is a small minority of the international supporters here and in no way indicative of
the motives or actions of the much larger population of foreign fighters. While there is
an appreciation for those who have brought the conflict and revolution to a much wider
audience, there is also the fact that those who struggle here can, in most cases, forget
the struggle and have the privilege to go back to their comfortable lives. There are also
the war-tourist types who come here for the love of combat and fighting. They gloat about
their military experiences and many even have served or attempted to join the French
Foreign Legion. When asked, they often express a desire to travel to Ukraine or to Myanmar
to continue fighting after leaving Rojava.
This brings us to an important theoretical position that we hold as the IRPGF. For us, we
believe that many of the international supporters, specifically most Westerners, reproduce
their privilege and social position here in Rojava. We want to introduce the concept of
the "safe struggle." That is to say that, since this war is supported by the United States
and Western powers, it is safe to fight against the enemy and not face the repercussions
for being in an organization whose ideology is Apoist (Apo is an affectionate nickname for
Abdullah Öcalan, one of the founding members of the PKK), and therefore linked to a
declared terrorist organization. There is no real penalty for involvement in Rojava except
if one has direct links to some of the more radical groups here. For example, Turkish
nationals who fight with the groups here are declared terrorists by the state of Turkey
and even the comrades of the Marxist-Leninist Party (Communist Reconstruction) were
arrested and imprisoned leading to their offices being closed across Spain on charges that
they had links to the PKK. These unique cases aside, the vast majority of international
supporters who come to fight Daesh and help the Kurds are safe from prosecution.
Additionally, in some cases, this reproduces the often-cited example of Western
intellectuals and activists applauding a conflict beyond their borders but not willing to
sacrifice their comfort and privileges to increase the fight at home. Some international
supporters can come and be revolutionaries for six months or a year, they can be applauded
and self-congratulatory and return back to their complacency and normal existence. This is
not the majority of cases, but it is still an issue here. Also, coming for a few months or
a year is in no way something we want to downplay or ridicule. In fact, every
international supporter does put their life in danger by simply choosing to come to an
active war zone. Concordantly, international supporters can learn skills and new
perspectives while risking their lives here in the struggle and then go back to their
homes and continue struggling there in a variety of ways.
Some international supporters have even changed their ideological positions in both
directions. Mostly in a positive direction, seeing women's liberation and
self-organization to be key components to a more liberated life. A small minority have
changed their opinions for the worse, claiming that the Kurds are incompetent fighters,
that the revolution has failed or will fail and that coming to Rojava did not provide the
unrestrained combat and war that they desired. With all of this in perspective and as we
will discuss, what will happen when the international powers turn their backs on the
project in Rojava and have no more use for the revolutionary forces? Will the vast
majority of international supporters be willing to fight against Turkish forces or, for
that matter, even US forces? This remains to be seen.
In contrast to the aforementioned group of international supporters, there are those who
have come here with a profound depth, clarity, and analysis of their ideological
positions, the regional geopolitics, and guerrilla warfare. The mixture, quality, and
amount of communist, socialist, and anarchist guerrilla fighters is unsurpassed in any
other armed conflict around the world. This provides new opportunities and has led to some
unique innovations, like the International Freedom Battalion (IFB), as well as joint
training and operations, but also raises the specter and danger of repeating history.
In the final analysis, those who have come for ideological reasons or to support the
people of Rojava and their struggle feel that they are equal participants in both the
fighting and social transformation while others, at this time a growing minority, who have
come with their military experience or a war-tourist type attitude aren't and in some
cases don't want to be considered equal, claiming to know more about warfare than the
local forces on the ground. This can make for tense exchanges and sometimes physical
confrontation and intimidation.
We, as the IRPGF, are both equal and autonomous participants and, of course, we are allies
supporting the people's defense. We do not see them as mutually exclusive. Yet, our
autonomy is in some ways limited, since we are a part of a much larger struggle with a
semi-formalized military structure and set of alliances. We are under the YPG, which means
we are under the SDF which at this point cooperates with some US military forces and those
of other Western countries in attacking Daesh. We see this as pragmatism and, of course,
this does not change our opinions that the United States is as much our enemy as Daesh or
any state for that matter. Yet, we also recognize that since it is the foreign policy of
the United States that eventually led to the creation of Daesh, they ultimately must be
responsible for combating them.
With the complex set of alliances and international powers aside, this struggle contains
both indigenous and international characteristics, which makes it all the more important
and necessary to defend. What we are currently investigating and learning, through
(self-)criticism, theory, and practice, is the relationship of internationalist
revolutionary anarchists to an indigenous struggle which sees itself as part of an
internationalist revolutionary movement that will spread beyond its "borders."
Since the majority of our energy is focused on armed struggle, we at present have limited
projects in civil society. We are presently working to support anarchist initiatives and
capabilities within civil society. Yet, social transformation is not exclusive to projects
in civil society. For example, local Arab villagers who neighbor the base we are stationed
at come every other day to give us milk and yogurt they produce, while we provide them
with sugar or other commodities they do not have in an act of mutual aid. This creates a
bond of solidarity and collective life. We also have a positive relationship with a few
Armenian families in the region. The simple act of drinking chai with someone and kissing
them on the cheek is the first step towards building relationships which in the long term
can help lay the foundation on which to build projects leading to social transformation.
International fighters, particularly anarchist and communist fighters, have been
organizing separately in Rojava for some time already. Why is that? What is your relation
to other Kurdish structures?
As we alluded to in the first question, most international anarchist, Apoist, socialist,
and communist fighters in addition to other fighters who identify more as anti-fascists
and anti-imperialists have been attempting to organize separately in Rojava for some time.
This is not something new. Answering this question will require a description of the
historical situation of the Turkish Left and the numerous armed groups that operate within
the region.
For the Turkish Left, specifically the Left that is involved in armed struggle and that
maintains guerrilla units, the relationship between the groups is one that has changed and
adapted over time. There was a time when Turkish Left parties would see each other as
enemies as much as they would see the Turkish state or the capitalist system. This led to
inter-party violence and even deaths. Yet, as history has revealed, the Turkish state has
proved much stronger and more resilient than many have expected. Previously, the vast
majority of Turkish society did not advance the struggle as many of the parties, being
traditional Marxist-Leninists, dogmatically believed would naturally happen as result of
historical necessity. In fact, with the referendum in Turkey nearing, and Erdogan
practically secure in an "evet" or "yes" victory, the parties saw a necessity to unite and
struggle together. This is not to say that they had not done so before. In fact, many of
the parties, the largest one being the PKK, had worked with other guerrilla groups in the
vast mountainous regions of Turkey, sharing resources and training and even conducting
joint operations. It was on March 6, 2016, when history was made in Turkey with the
formation of the People's United Revolutionary Movement (Halklarin Birlesik Devrim
Hareketi). This united front brought 10 of the major parties involved in the armed
struggle under one structure and banner to fight against the government of Erdogan and the
Turkish state.
Of course, one must also look at Middle Eastern history in general to understand how the
various Turkish parties operated within various countries and participated in various
conflicts. For example, The Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TIKKO), ASALA, and
the PKK operated in Lebanon (Beqaa valley) and trained alongside the PLO and various
Palestinian, Lebanese, and international guerrilla groups, even conducting joint
operations. In Syria, the PKK set up its headquarters and opened up party offices and
training facilities in Rojava in the 1980s until the mid-'90s. Abdullah Öcalan was able to
operate relatively freely with the support of the Syrian regime, who saw Turkey as an
enemy. Turkish-Syrian tensions and the threat of war would force Hafiz al-Assad to cut all
ties with Öcalan and expel him from Syrian territory. The collapse of the Soviet Union
forced many Turkish and international guerrilla groups underground and limited their
mobility, resources, training, and operations. The Syrian Civil War and the start of the
revolution in Rojava provided another opportunity for Turkish parties which were illegal,
clandestine, and in the mountains to come to set up operations and bases in Rojava by
which to support the struggle as well as organize and communicate more freely and
effectively. This led to multiple parties setting up karargahs (headquarters) in Rojava.
With the struggle in Rojava intensifying and the parties needing to share resources,
intelligence, and military operations, the parties, with the lead of MLKP, formed the
International Freedom Battalion in Rojava. This experiment in joint management and
command, unifying the various parties and groups under one banner to fight, was the first
experiment of its kind in Rojava and preceded the formation of Peoples' United
Revolutionary Movement (HBDH). This experiment has had mixed results. For example, the IFB
is run on the principles of democratic centralism, which we, as the IRPGF, disagree with.
We would rather it be horizontal and equal for all groups and members. Additionally, the
vast majority of the groups, parties, and fighters within the IFB are Turkish, leading to
the international character being skewed. Even Kurdish forces refer to the IFB as "çepê
turk" or "Turkish Left." Yet, this aside, we would argue that it has had positive and
symbolic value as well as various military successes. It has shown that the various
parties and groups, including the IRPGF, can work, train, and fight together against a
common enemy, uniting our energies and forces to achieve victory both in combat as well as
in civil society.
The International Freedom Battalion, though it is directly under the command of the joint
leadership of the various parties and groups, is ultimately under the command of YPG and
SDF forces. While we are autonomous in terms of our military structures, unit
organization, and individual movements, we await orders and directives directly from YPG
about our position and movements on the battlefield, as does the rest of the IFB. This
situates us directly under the command of YPJ/G and therefore we, too, share their
alliances and the battlefield with those they conduct joint operations with. Yet, the
parties and groups maintain their autonomy as separate entities outside the structure of
the IFB to disagree with the positions of Kurdish forces and even to criticize certain
policies and decisions. Yet, while part of the IFB, we are careful about the positions,
views, and perspectives we express while using the IFB name and structure. Ultimately, the
IFB has proved to be a unique experiment and laboratory to bring (far/ultra-)leftists and
radicals of all colors and persuasions to fight under one unit and command structure.
Considering that the alliance between Kurdish and US forces is not likely to last
indefinitely or to create space for radical projects to grow in Rojava, how can anarchists
position themselves in this struggle? Can you maintain autonomy from decisions made by
others in Rojava who are involved in this alliance?
The word "alliance" here is very misleading, indeed it is a strong and implicit word. The
US and its coalition allies, for totally unrelated political and economic reasons, have
made a project of eliminating an armed group (Daesh) from which the Revolution must defend
itself and which YPJ/G would also like to eradicate. YPJ/YPG are on the same battleground
as US forces. Since they share the same enemy, and since the inherent political,
ideological, and economic antagonism between the two is, by a certain priority of
interests, delayed from igniting, military cooperation is not surprising. There is no
political alliance between the US and the revolutionaries of Rojava.
Indeed, we believe that the cooperation between revolutionary forces and US forces is not
likely to last. Of course there exist forces here in Rojava that would seek a nation-state
or have used nationalist sentiments to stir up support. Right next door is the US
supported Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) under the leadership of Masoud Barzani, who
is yet another US puppet in the region. The KRG has a virtual embargo on Rojava. Barzani
and the KDP are seen by many as traitors for allying themselves with Turkey at the expense
of the Kurds and the Ezidis of Shengal. Additionally, the KRG seeks to "stir things up,"
both politically with groups like the Kurdish National Council (ENKS) and KDP within
Rojava as well as militarily with the Rojava Peshmerga. The enemies of this revolution are
countless.
It is often noted that some anarchist thinkers like Murray Bookchin contributed to this
social revolution in the first place, which led Abdullah Öcalan to move away from
Marxism-Leninism and create his theory of "Democratic Confederalism." Regardless of how
accurate that is, ultimately anarchists both in the armed struggle and in civil society
can make an impact on this revolution. Through dialogue and joint projects, we can work
with local communities and develop relationships that can further entrench the gains of
the revolution while pushing it forward. The more influence anarchists and anarchist
philosophy have in dialogue with the people and structures in Rojava, the more we can
build something new together and focus on transformation not only in Rojava but around the
world. That is the importance of connecting the struggles as we have done so far regarding
Belarus, Greece, and Brazil. The struggle in Rojava is the struggle in every oppressed
neighborhood and community. It is the struggle for a liberated life and that is where
anarchists can have their biggest impact.
As anarchists, we are uncompromisingly against all states and authority. That is
non-negotiable. While we fully acknowledge the role of the various parties in struggling
and fighting to liberate territory both in Rojava and in the broader mountainous regions
of Kurdistan, we believe that critical solidarity allows us to work, fight, and possibly
die alongside the parties while having the autonomy to remain critical of their
ideologies, structures, feudal mentalities, and numerous policies. We can maintain
autonomy in the sense that we can disagree with the positions or choose not to fight
should the alliances the revolutionary forces make be beyond survival and pragmatic
geostrategic necessity. In the final analysis, should the revolutionary forces make formal
alliances with state powers and Rojava be turned into a new state, even if that state is
social democratic, the IRPGF would leave and move our base of operations elsewhere to
continue the revolutionary struggle. Anarchist projects within civil society would still
be able to operate and function so long as they were allowed to do so, and they should,
but, it is most likely that anarchist as well as communist guerrilla groups would no
longer be allowed to operate in Rojava.
Have you experienced a tension between engaging in armed struggle and developing social
projects in Rojava? In what ways do they feed into each other and reinforce each other? In
what ways are they in contradiction?
Our group is only in the beginning stages of developing social projects in Rojava. It is
difficult for a unit to organize and maintain social projects while engaged, at the same
time, in armed struggle if it lacks the resources in terms of personnel and
infrastructure. This requires more people to be here; we must reach the critical mass
necessary to develop a successful project. Some of our comrades have worked in civil
society before and are actively working on creating new initiatives that are both
sustainable and achievable. This will allow us to achieve our respective commitments to
the armed struggle and the social revolution.
Has the war effort in the Rojava community subjected other structures to its imperatives?
Are there spaces or spheres of life in which control is centered in the hands of
militarized groups, contributing to de facto hierarchical relations? How do we prevent
military priorities from determining who has power in a community at war?
Certainly the war in Rojava and the broader Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars have drastically
changed the relationship between civil society and military forces. What is currently
going on in Rojava can be aptly described and characterized, as some hevals[comrades]have
put it, as "war communism." The current situation in Rojava has subjected much of the
economy and civil society to the war effort. However, this is not surprising. Rojava is
surrounded by enemies who seek to destroy the nascent revolutionary experiment. Daesh is a
highly lethal and efficient para-state actor with tremendous resources, both financial and
military, as well as a fighting force numbering in the tens of thousands. As such, it is
one of the most brutal and capable threats against Rojava itself. Had it not been for the
massive war effort on the part of large segments of the society, most notably the
resistance of Kobanê and its subsequent victory which was a pivotal turning point, Daesh
would have been victorious and continued its rapid expansion.
While the war has turned and Daesh is now on the run both in Iraq and Syria, Turkey
entered the war seeking to stifle YPJ/G efforts to secure contiguity between the Kobanê
and Afrîn cantons. One must be cognizant of the fact that almost daily, Turkish forces on
the borders of Rojava bombard targets within its territory, killing scores of civilians
and military forces. Likewise, to the east in Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government
(Bashur) under the leadership of Masoud Barzani and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)
continue to impose a virtual blockade and embargo on Rojava in addition to attacking
People's Defense Force (HPG) and The Sinjar Resistance Units (YBS) positions in Shengal
using the Peshmerga. Additionally, Barzani and the KDP collude with Erdogan, the fascist
Justice and Development Party - Nationalist Movement Party (AKP-MHP) government and the
Turkish state, sharing intelligence, resources, and conducting joint military operations.
Without a doubt, war leads to de facto hierarchical relationships and seriously hinders
horizontal relations and community power. In fact, multiple layers of hierarchical
relationships exist. There are hierarchies within the party structures which permeate
social structures and extend into the broader civil society. Those tend to be, for
example, whether someone is a cadre or not, how long they have been in the movement for,
their ideological formation and knowledge, their influence and contacts in addition to
their combat experience. This can be perceived as a system of rank, privilege, and
advancement. It does in fact exist, but it is something that operates in tension with a
party which is self-critical of this and an ideology that seeks to transcend these
relations in the midst of a real existing social revolution. While the cadre members of
the militarized groups do in fact have a de facto social position which would be above
other people in society, they ultimately answer to the people through the commune
structure and the larger framework of the Northern Syrian Federation. Ultimately, these
hierarchical relations exist as a military necessity in the midst of one of the most
brutal wars. As anarchists, we see them and understand why they are necessary while being
critical of their existence and seeking to challenge these relations of centralized
authority and control. It is positive that these relations can be criticized using the
tekmil process (a directly democratic assembly for critiquing a commander or others in a
unit), a serious, vital practice of criticism-self-criticism and self-discipline which has
its roots in Maoism.
Hierarchical relations of power, while sometimes necessitated by military realities and
priorities in the context of combat, must exist as something which we want and desire from
one another in order to act effectively. When there is time for deliberation, we can
discuss, criticize, and make collective decisions. In combat, one expects immediate
guidance, instruction, protection, certainty, and accountability from comrades more
experienced and knowledgeable, because there are many decisions and tasks affecting the
group that one cannot deal with and should not be burdened with. This applies to training
and secure recruiting as well. But these relations can ultimately have the potential to
harm the autonomous, horizontal, and self-organized nature of communities if they are not
understood and practiced in accordance with other ideological principles. How can we, as
anarchists and members of the IRPGF, prevent kyriarchal relations in this context-that is,
in these overlapping contexts? The complexity of this question additionally reveals an
inherent problem with how the question is framed. That is to say, that somehow the
military priorities or defense of a community are separated from the community itself;
imposed from without by some non-community actor. While it is true that military
priorities are imposed on some communities, for example, evacuating villages that are on
the front lines, in danger of attacks and using people's homes for temporary military
outposts, the fact is that in Rojava, local communities, neighborhoods, and
ethno-religious communities are responsible for their own defense.
This is not something new. In fact, it goes back to the Qamishlo riots of 2004 (an
uprising of Syrian Kurds in the northeast) that led to the creation of community defense
initiatives and the precursor to the YPG. To protect against the larger defense structure,
the YPG, should it seek to impose its will in a military style coup and take power away
from the communities, communities have their own defense forces, the HPC (Hêzên Parastina
Cewherî). While the YPG represents the people's guerrilla army of Rojava, there are
smaller forces-for example, the Syriac Military Council which is comprised of Syriac
Christians and works to protect that community. Defense itself is decentralized and
confederalized while at the same time retaining the ability to deploy rapidly, to call on
troops and even conscription, which does occur in Rojava.
We believe and affirm that communities at war must be responsible for their own defense.
Yet, with large state, para-state, and non-state actors attacking these communities in an
effort to wipe them out, there is a necessity for even larger military forces. This may
necessitate certain processes that, in a time of war, curtail the autonomy of a community.
This reality is one that we are forced to live with. Ultimately, there is a dichotomy and
tension between communities at war and the military forces which confront enemies
sometimes many times their size. We are tasked with ensuring, as much as possible, that
communities retain their autonomy and decision-making processes while simultaneously
protecting them and ensuring their survival. Communities are ultimately responsible for
their defense; when the need arises, all the unique and diverse communities can come
together to form a larger military force for their collective protection. This means that
each community constitutes a fundamental component part of the much larger force whose
task is the protection of all the communities. This tension, between the community and
military, is but another aspect of the philosophical tension between the particular and
the universal. Our task is to ensure that this imbalance is minimized as much as possible
so that communities can remain autonomous and ultimately have the final say as to their
priorities and defense.
What is it that distinguishes anarchist armed struggle formations and strategies from
other examples of armed struggle? If you oppose "‘standing armies' or ossified
revolutionary groups" but grant that armed struggle may be necessary until it is
impossible to force hierarchical institutions onto anyone, what is the methodological
difference that can keep long-term anarchist guerrilla forces from functioning in the same
way that a standing army or ossified revolutionary group does, concentrating social power?
A question often asked of us is how we are different from other armed left-wing groups?
What are our distinguishing characteristics? As an anarchist armed struggle formation,
along with other anarchist groups around the world, we strive for liberated communities
and individuals based on fundamental principles within anarchism. We are not dogmatic nor
orthodox in our understanding of anarchism, but perpetual iconoclasts and innovators.
Anarchism is an ever changing and growing ideology that cannot be separated from life
itself. While other non-anarchist left-wing groups may want some version of socialism
and/or communism, we are ultimately distinguished from these armed struggle formations by
our understanding of authority, both within the group and beyond. We have no leader. There
are no cults of personality and no portraits of ourselves hanging on the wall. We take
inspiration from the Zapatistas who cover their faces and focus more on the collective
than on individuals, for we, as a collective of individuals, represent many unique
identities and social positions. We make decisions by consensus, and when we are on the
battlefield we agree on one or more comrades who will be responsible for the operation.
There is no permanent command structure within the IRPGF. There are rotating positions of
responsibility and assignments, the logic being not to reproduce military ranks or
technocratic class structures.
Anarchist armed struggle formations are not new. For example, there are anarchist groups
around the world including the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, FAI-IRF (Informal Anarchist
Federation - International Revolutionary Front), and Revolutionary Struggle. We do not
necessarily agree with all the positions of these groups or their members. For us, we do
not seek to be elitist or to be mountain guerrillas who leave the world to focus on
people's war in the countryside, though that is an important aspect of the struggle. We
seek to bring the mountains to the cities and vice versa. It is important to connect all
the struggles around the world, for they are interconnected by nature due to the various
systems of oppression and domination which exist. We too "shit on all the revolutionary
vanguards of the world" as Subcomandante Marcos once said. We do not see ourselves as
anarchist vanguards. We are anything but this.
The IRPGF feels it is necessary to be with the people and to understand the social
character of the revolutionary process. There is no revolution without all of the
communities, neighborhoods, and villages participating. We do not seek to glorify the arms
and weapons we possess, though we do see them as a vehicle towards our collective
liberation. Yet liberation is not possible if the social revolution is not present.
Therefore, we are not another urban guerrilla group that seeks only to destroy without
building anything social and communal. Of course, having arms and engaging in armed
struggle carries with it a tremendous responsibility and great danger, not only for
ourselves but for the power we possess. We agree with the guerrillas who often repeat the
Maoist principle of not even taking pins from the people. We are revolutionaries guided by
principles, not a marauding gang of mercenaries. This is the foundation by which we, as
the IRPGF, seek to develop a collective ethic and understanding of armed struggle.
Knowing full well that armed struggle may be necessary for many years and decades to come,
and realizing that as the years progress, structures become more entrenched and rigid, we
are concerned about the creation of certain group dynamics that could lead to various
hierarchies and a concentration of social power wherever we are based. In order to
minimize this risk, we feel that it is necessary to not only be professional full-time
revolutionaries but equally members of a living community. That means that we must be
involved with local struggles and projects within civil society. Whereas a standing army
or an ossified revolutionary group see their position as either professional work or
lifelong dedication to struggle, they both maintain their distance and remoteness from
communities and everyday life.
Anarchist guerrilla groups must remain horizontal entities and resist the temptation or
structural necessity to centralize and concentrate social power. Should they fail to do
this, they would no longer be liberating nor anarchist, in our perspective. As the IRPGF,
understanding this danger, we feel that developing projects and developing relationships
within civil society is the main way to withstand the creation of social hierarchies. It
is a process that will be fraught with contradictions and errors. Yet it is through these
contradictions and shortcomings coupled with our criticism-self-criticism mechanisms and
horizontal self-organized structure that will challenge the creation of an ossified
revolutionary group that has centralized its own authority and concentrated social power.
As you say, the conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere are only the beginning of what
will be a protracted and messy period of global crisis. But what do you consider the
proper relationship between armed struggle and revolution? Should anarchists seek to
commence armed struggle as soon as possible in the revolutionary process, or to delay it
as long as we can? And how can anarchists hold our own on the terrain of armed struggle,
when so much depends on getting arms-which usually means making deals with state or
para-state actors?
First of all, there is no general formula for how much armed struggle is necessary to
initiate and advance the revolutionary process, nor at which point it should commence, if
at all. For the IRPGF, we recognize that each group, collective, community, and
neighborhood must ultimately decide when they initiate armed struggle. Armed struggle is
contextual to the specific location and situation. For example, whereas throwing a Molotov
cocktail at police is fairly normalized in the Exarchia neighborhood in Athens, Greece, in
the United States the person throwing it would be shot dead by the police. Each particular
local context has a different threshold for what the state allows in terms of violence.
However, this is not an excuse for inaction. We believe that armed struggle is necessary.
Ultimately, people must be willing to sacrifice their social position, privilege, and
lives if necessary. Yet we are not asking people to go on suicide/sacrifice missions. This
struggle is not for martyrdom but for life. Should it require martyrs, like the struggle
here in Rojava and Kurdistan, that will be part of the armed struggle and revolutionary
process as it unfolds.
Armed struggle does not necessarily create the conditions for a revolution and some
revolutions may occur with little to no armed struggle. Both armed struggle and
revolutions can be spontaneous or planned years in advance. Yet, local or national
revolutions, which in some cases have been peaceful, do not create the conditions for
world revolution nor challenge the hegemony of the capitalist world-system. What remains
our fundamental question here is-when should one commence armed struggle? To start, we
think that one has to analyze their local situation and context. The creation of local
community and neighborhood defense forces which are openly armed is a critical first step
to ensuring autonomy and self-protection. This is a powerful symbolic act and one that
will certainly attract the attention of the state and its repressive forces. Insurrection
should happen everywhere and at all times, but it doesn't necessarily need to happen with
rifles. Ultimately, armed struggle should always be done in relation to living communities
and neighborhoods. This will prevent vanguard mentalities and hierarchical social
positions from developing.
Revolutions are not dinner parties and, what's worse, we do not choose the dinner guests.
How can we, as anarchists, remain principled in our political positions when we have to
rely on state, para-state, and non-state actors to get arms and other resources? Firstly,
there is no ideologically clean and pure revolution or armed struggle. Our weapons were
made in former Communist countries and given to us by revolutionary political parties. The
base we are staying in and the supplies and resources we receive come from the various
parties operating here and ultimately from the people themselves. Clearly, we as
anarchists have not liberated the kind of territory we would need to operate on our own.
We must make deals. The question then becomes: how principled can our deals be?
We have relationships with revolutionary political parties that are communist, socialist,
and Apoist. For us, we fight against the same enemy at this point and our combined
resources and fighters can only further the struggle. Yet, we remain in critical alliance
and solidarity with them. We disagree with their feudal mentalities, their dogmatic
ideological positions, and their vision of seizing state power. We both know that should
they one day seize state power, we will be enemies. Yet for the time being, we are not
only allies but comrades in the struggle. This does not mean that we have sacrificed our
principles. On the contrary, we have opened a dialogue on anarchism and criticized their
ideological positions while affirming the principles and theoretical positions we share in
common. This exchange has transformed us both and is part of what some of them refer to as
the dialectical process: the necessity of both theory and practice to advance both the
armed struggle and the social revolution.
For the IRPGF, making deals with other leftist revolutionary groups we can find common
ground with is a reality we live with. Yet, we also must acknowledge that the larger
guerrilla structure that we are a part of does make deals with state actors. While we once
again reaffirm our position against all states, which is non-negotiable, our structure
makes pragmatic deals with state actors to survive another day to fight. For the time
being, all of our supplies and resources come from revolutionary parties that we are in
alliance with, who also make concessions and deals with state and non-state actors. We
recognize this as a contradiction but a harsh reality of our current conditions.
Anarchists must choose, depending on their particular context and situation, what kind of
deals they can make and with whom. Should they need to be pragmatic and make deals with
state, para-state, or non-state actors to acquire arms, to hold on to their terrain, or
to, at the very least, survive, that will be addressed and critiqued when the time comes.
Ultimately, collectives and communities will make decisions for how to advance in the
revolutionary process and how to use the various state and non-state actors for their
benefit, with the goal of eventually not needing them and destroying them all. In the
final analysis, armed struggle is necessary for the revolutionary process and the various
alliances we make we deem necessary to achieve this goal of a liberated world. We, as the
IRPGF, believe and affirm the often-repeated phrase from Greece that the only lost
struggles are the ones that weren't given.
Sooner or later, every revolution divides into its constituent parts and necessary
conflicts ensue. These conflicts determine the ultimate outcome of the revolution. Has
this already begun in Rojava? If it has, how have anarchists dealt with this? If it has
not, how can you prepare comrades around the world for the situation we will be in when
the internal conflicts in the revolution rise to the surface, and it is necessary to
figure out what the different positions are? Some comrades outside Rojava have been unsure
how to understand some of the reports from Rojava, because in our experience there are
always internal conflicts, even in the strongest periods of social revolution, and people
reporting on the experiment in Rojava have been hesitant to articulate what they are. We
can understand why it would be necessary not to speak openly about such conflicts, but any
perspective you can offer us will be very useful, even if it is abstract.
The simple answer is yes, these conflicts have begun in Rojava. Within such a large party
and confederal structure, contradictions and different factions have emerged. There are
those who seek to carry the revolution to the end and others who are ready to make
compromises on certain aspects of the revolution in order to secure whatever has been
achieved up until now. There are those who still dream of a Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan and
others who are ready to open up to the West and ally themselves with the "forces of
democracy." Within the armed struggle, there are some who want to unleash an all-out
people's war while others claim that the time for armed struggle is nearing its end and
that we should slowly cease hostilities. Within this chaotic political arena, with what is
a seemingly endless array of acronyms, how do we as members of the IRPGF navigate these
murky and often dangerous waters?
As anarchists, we navigate within these complexities and contradictions with the goal of
trying to claim as much ground as possible for anarchism. We align ourselves with the
sections of the revolution and the party that are closest to us. The alliances we forge
are ones that are most facilitating and the least assimilating. We try to keep ourselves
safe from assimilation both ideologically and as a group. Being in an autonomous space
that supports our goals provides us with tremendous opportunities. There is free space
that the party gives to groups such as ours for training, to develop projects and outright
space for revolutionary experimentation. The more anarchists come here to Rojava to help
us build anarchist structures, the more we will influence and make our goals a reality in
society. For example, the youth, who are more critical of their feudal and traditional
past, are at the forefront of tremendous social changes and advancements. We want to work
with the youth to form educational cooperation and, as anarchists, to focus on anarchist
theory and even address queer, gender, and sexuality (LGBTQ+) issues which are still very
taboo in the majority of society.
There is a vast space to experiment and build the anarchist structures that will continue
to revolutionize society and further liberate all individuals and communities. We believe
that our work as anarchists, both in the armed struggle and in civil society here in
Rojava, will be valuable to the entire anarchist community worldwide. We look forward to
sharing our results, to everyone's continued solidarity, and to the anarchists who will
join us out here.
https://itsgoingdown.org/critical-discussion-on-armed-struggle-with-anarchists-in-rojava/
======================================================l
======================================================l
Critical debate with the anarchists of the armed struggle in Rojava - Part 2
This brings us to an important theoretical positions held as IRPGF. In our many foreign
supporters, mainly from the West, here in Rojava reproduce their privileges and social
position. We then introduce the concept of "safe fight." It means that when this war is
supported by the United States and Western powers, it is safe to fight against the enemy
and necelit consequences that are in an organization whose ideology is apoistická (Apo is
affectionate nickname Abdullah Ocalan, one of the founding members of the PKK), and and
not to be associated with a declared terrorist organization. There is no real punishment
for involvement in Rojava, if a person does not have a direct link to some of the more
radical groups. For example, Turkish citizens who struggle with these groups, are declared
as terrorists by Turkey, and even comrades Marxist-Leninist Party (Communist
Reconstruction) were arrested and imprisoned, which led to the closure of their offices
throughout Spain over allegations that they were linked with the PKK. Leaving aside these
exceptional cases, the vast majority of international fans who came to fight Daeshem and
help the Kurds is from prosecution safe.
In addition, in some cases reproduces frequently cited example of Western intellectuals
and activists who applaud the conflict across the border, but are not willing to sacrifice
their comfort and privilege to intensify the fight at home. Some foreign supporters can
come and be revolutionaries for six months or a year, they can congratulate and pamper
confidence and return to his satisfaction and normal existence. This is not a majority of
cases, but it is still a problem. Also, the arrival of a few months or a year is not
something we want to belittle or ridicule it. In fact, every international supporter
risking his life just that decides to come to an active war zone. Accordingly, the foreign
fans can learn skills and new perspectives and risk their lives there in the fight and
then return to their homes and continue in various ways in fighting there.
Some foreign followers even changed their ideological positions, in both directions. Most
in a positive direction when they saw that the women's liberation and self-organization
are key components of a liberated life. A minority opinion has changed for the worse by
claiming that Kurds are incompetent fighters that the revolution has failed, or will fail,
and the arrival in Rojava provides unlimited fight a war that they want. All this can
reasonably be included in further discussions about what happens when the international
powers to turn back the project in Rojava and will no longer use the revolutionary forces?
A vast majority of international supporters willing to fight against the Turkish forces,
or even US forces? We will see.
In contrast to the aforementioned group of international supporters are those who have
come here with deep sincerity, clarity and analyzing its ideological positions, regional
geopolitics and guerrilla warfare. Diversity, quality and quantity of communist, socialist
and anarchist guerrillas is unmatched when compared to any other armed conflict around the
world. This provides new opportunities and it led to a number of unique innovations, such
as the International Flag of Freedom (IFB) as well as joint exercises and operations, but
also raises the fear and danger of history repeating.
Ultimately, those who came for ideological reasons, or to support the people of Rojava and
their struggle, they feel that they are equal participants struggle and social
transformation, while others at this time growing minority who came with military
experience or attitude of the military-tourism type, and they are in some cases do not
want to be regarded as equivalent to a claim to know about the war more than local forces.
This can cause stress and sometimes even physical confrontation and intimidation.
We as IRPGF are both equal and autonomous participants and of course we are allies who
support the defense of the people. According to us, it's not mutually exclusive. Still,
our autonomy is limited in some ways, because we are part of a much larger resistance with
semi-formalized military structure and a set of alliances. We are under YPG, which means
that we are under the SDF, which at the moment is working with some of the US military
forces and other Western countries in the attack on Daesh. We see it as pragmatism and of
course it does not change our view that the United States is for us the same enemy as
Daesh or any other State. Yet we also recognize that it is a US foreign policy that
actually led to the creation Daesh, and be ultimately responsible for the fight against them.
Along with a comprehensive set of alliances and international powers has this struggle
both local and international characteristics, which makes it even more important for the
defense and nutnejším. What we investigate and learn through self-criticism, theory and
practice, the relationship internationalist revolutionary anarchists to the indigenous
struggle which is considered part of the international revolutionary movement that will
spread beyond its' borders. "
Since most of our energy is focused on armed struggle, we currently limited projects in
civil society. We are working to promote anarchist initiatives and capabilities within
civil society. Yet social transformation does not concern only projects in civil society.
For example, a local Arab villagers from the neighborhood base in which we are placed,
come every other day to give us milk and yogurt they produce, while we supply them with
sugar and other commodities, which have, as an act of mutual assistance. This creates a
bond of solidarity and collective life. We also have a positive relationship with several
Armenian families in the region. The simple act of drinking tea with someone and kiss on
the cheek is the first step toward creating relationships, which in the long run can help
lay the foundation on which arise projects leading to social transformation.
International fighters, mainly anarchists and communists, with some time in Rojava
organized separately. Why is this so? What is your relationship with the other Kurdish
structures?
As we mentioned in the first answer, most international anarchists Apoist, socialist and
communist militants, among others, who are more identified as anti-fascists and
antiimperialisté, with some time trying to organize separately in Rojava. This is not
something new. The answer to this question will require a description of the historical
situation of the Turkish left and the numerous armed groups active in the region.
As part of the Turkish Left, particularly the Left, which is engaged in an armed struggle,
and that keeps the guerrilla units, the relation between time change and adapt. There was
a time when the Turkish Left perceived each other as enemies, as well as the perceived
Turkish state or a capitalist system. This has led to violence between the parties, and
even death. Yet history has shown that the Turkish state is much stronger and more
resilient than many expected. Previously, the vast majority of Turkish society in the
fight progressed, as many parties that are traditionally Marxist-Leninist, dogmatically
believed that it naturally happens as a result of historical necessity. Only when
approaching referendum in Turkey and Erdogan had a choice of "yes" or "yes" practically
secured the victory party saw the need to unite and fight together. That does not mean
that they did not have before. In fact, many political parties, the largest of which was
the PKK, cooperate with other guerrilla groups in the vast mountainous areas of Turkey,
shared resources and training, and even implement joint operations. It was March 6, 2016,
when Turkey began the history of the creation of a unified People's Revolutionary Movement
(Halklarin Birlesik Devrim Hareko). This united front brought ten major political parties
engaged in armed struggle into a single structure that, under the banner of fighting
against the government of Erdogan and the Turkish state.
Of course, we must also look at the history of the Middle East in general, to understand
how various Turkish parties operate in different countries and how they participated in
various conflicts. For example, the Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist-Leninist (Tikka),
ASALA and PKK operating in Lebanon (Beqaa Valley) and trained together next to the PLO and
the Palestinian, Lebanese and international guerrilla groups, and even led joint
operations. In Syria, the PKK based its headquarters and opened offices and training
facilities in Rojava, from the 80th to the mid-90s. Abdullah Öcalan was able to operate
relatively freely with the support of the Syrian regime, which saw Turkey as an enemy.
Turkish-Syrian tensions and the threat of war prompted by Hafez al-Assad, to annul all
relations with Ocalan and expelled him from the Syrian territory. The disintegration of
the Soviet Union forced to leave many Turkish and international guerrilla groups
underground and limit their mobility, resources, training and operations. The Syrian civil
war and the beginning of the revolution in Rojava provide another opportunity for the
Turkish side, which were illegal, secret and in the mountains, came to set up bases in
Rojava to support the fight, as well as looser and more efficient organization and
communication. This led to the fact that in Rojava were based karargahy (headquarters).
With the growing struggle in Rojava and the need to share resources, information and
military operations have created these pages with the leadership of the Rojava
International MLKP single battalion (International Freedom Battalion, IFB). The experiment
in joint command and control, which united the various parties and groups under one banner
to fight, was the first of its kind in Rojava and prevent the emergence of a single
People's Revolutionary Movement (HBDH). The experiment had mixed results. IFB example,
guided by the principles of democratic centralism, with whom we disagree as IRPGF. We
would prefer it to be horizontal and egalitarian for all groups and members. In addition,
the vast majority of groups, parties and militants within Turkey IFB, which leads to a
distortion of international character. Even Kurdish forces indicate IFB as a pin or a Turk
"Turkish left." Nevertheless, we believe that it had a positive and symbolic value, as
well as various military successes. It turned out that the various parties and groups,
including IRPGF can work together to train and fight against the common enemy, combine
their energy and force to achieve victory, both in combat and in civil society.
International banner of freedom, even if it is directly under the command of the joint
management of the various parties and groups, is ultimately under the command of YPG
forces and the SDF. While we were autonomous in terms of our military structures,
organization units and movement, we expect orders and directives directly from YPG on our
position and movements on the battlefield, as well as the rest of the IFB. It situates us
directly under the command of YPJ / G, and therefore we share their alliance and battle
with those with whom they engaged in joint operations. Parties and groups, however, retain
autonomy as a separate entity outside the structure of IFB in order to express
disagreement with the positions of Kurdish forces, and even to criticize certain policies
and decisions. Even though we are part of IFB, we care about the positions, opinions and
perspectives that we express in the use of the name and structure of the IFB. Ultimately
IFB proved unique laboratory experiment that delivers (extreme / ultra) lefties radicals
and beliefs of all colors and possibility to fight under one unit and command structure.
(Continued interview with anarchist guerrilla group IRPGF.)
Zdroj:
To be continued.
https://itsgoingdown.org/critical-discussion-on-armed-struggle-with-anarchists-in-rojava/
------------------------------
Home »
» Anarchic update news all over the world - Part 2 - 21.06.2017