Today's Topics:
1. Greece, APO, ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE LIBERTATIA WITHDRAWAL IN
THESSALONIKI [Occupation of Leslas Karagiannis 37] (gr) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. communist anarchism: Turkish Government Assault on Afrin
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Britain, London Anarchist Communists support Anti-Fracking
Leafleting in Dorking (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. anarkismo.net: [Book Review] "Anarchist Encounters. Russia
in Revolution". Edited by A.W. Zurbrugg by José Antonio
Gutiérrez D. (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Ireland, Derry, Anarchists in Derry once again took part in
this years annual Bloody Sunday (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. Brazil, Libertarian Resistance Organization ORL: January
29th is the day of transvestite and transsexual visibility. (pt)
[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
7. anarkismo.net: States In War With Peoples Will Lose by
Devrimci Anarsist Faaliyet - DAF (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
8. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #279 - Training: The
hidden face of all learning (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
9. anarkismo.net: The geopolitics of the Kurds and the case of
Rojava by Ercan Ayboga (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
TATE-SMOOTH-BECOME ALL THE WORKERS WORK TOGETHER -- THE FIRE DOES NOT KNOW - THE FIRE AND
OUR MEANS ---- On January 21st, during the concentration of the sub-state, including
extremist, chauvinistic, nationalist and fascists in Thessaloniki, a fusion of fascist
hooligans and neo-Nazis with the escort of police forces attacked the Free Social Space
"School", the anti-fascist concentration in Kamara and the occupation of Libertatia,
burning it completely. ---- The concentration for the "Macedonian" has been propagated for
days by the media, and for its realization, all those forces that form a traditional part
of the "deep" Greek state are moved. Retired soldiers expected to play a role in the
political arena, hierarchs, the parliamentary Nazi gang of the Golden Dawn, New Democracy
parties and co-rulers with Syriza ANEL, were mobilized by rallying the ranks of
professional paratroopers as the most reactionary social tracks.
The roaring battalion, which eventually burned down Libertatia, was accompanied throughout
his life in the city of Thessaloniki by police forces carrying out their work on the side
of the fascists. Neo-Nazi garbage and fascist hulagans functioned under the supervision
and assistance of EL.AS. (invading and systematically targeting occupied combat venues),
forming the "blast" group of a regime that is deeply rotting, exploits every formal and
informal reserve to terrorize to continue to impose impoverishment.
It is an enterprise that shapes the central political scene in terms of suffocating social
and class resistances. At the same time that the attack on the stratum layers is raging,
the peasant is assembled on the streets with the unwavering support of official state
mechanisms. It is characteristic of the attack by the RTS on the fury of arson for the
arrest of Libertatia occupation, the beatings, the arrests and the heavy accusations that
highlight the unity of the "national torso" towards the "inner enemy". The anarchists and
the structures of the movement, being in the face of modern totalitarianism, receive
repressive attacks by the Syrian government (only in Thessaloniki were three detainees
evacuated from the police in the summer of 2016, of which the Orphanage was demolished,
The anarchist movement is targeted because it represents resistance to their plans. The
Libertatia occupation was struck during a battle he chose to give her on the streets of
the struggle, calling on the anti-fascist concentration "against states, bosses, fascists
and capitalism, for anarchy and libertarian communism." Together with comrades and
comrades who, with the slogan "Not a drop of blood for names and transnational conflicts
over NATO, EU and boss plans," broke the emissary monologue of nationalist propaganda and
stood an obstacle to the total seizure of the city center by the dictatorship of the state
and the partisan.
Since the occupation of Lelas Karagiannis 37 we express our absolute solidarity with the
squabbles of Libertatia. Fighters, anarchists, anti-fascists will not be bent by any state
or sub-state attack. In the streets and in the neighborhoods, at every point of conflict
with state totalitarianism, we should fight back and crush the parastatal fascists,
confront the world of the sepulchral state and capitalism, the struggle for Anarchy and
Liberal Communism.
Occupation of Lelas Karagiannis 37
------------------------------
Message: 2
anarchist communist group Yeryüzü Postasi's statement on the assault on Afrin by the
Turkish government - To The International Struggle Against Capitalist Division War ----
Led by AKP government, an operation of invasion against Afrin has been started with a
consensus between all factions inside the state. Boss organizations such as TÜSIAD,
MUSIAD, TOBB, unions that defend the interests of bosses against workers and all the
constitutional parties have made statements with "national reconciliation" supporting the
operation. They became so wild that some bosses dared to say "You can take from workers of
my factory to military operation as much as you want.".By this way, a new phase in
imperialist fantasies of state has begun, which is represented by AKP who has been aiming
at suppression of the opposition and wild implementation of denial and extermination
policies regarding Kurdish question.
We can see that power-holders in different countries are rubbing their hands with glee
about the Afrin operation. It is understood that Russia and USA are constructing their
plan on dividing Syria in line with their spheres of influence and probably they have
agreed on it. As far as we've inferred from statements of England, they are willing to
take a share from oil reserves and other natural resources - possibly, again, via a
partnership between Shell and Koç Holding. France wants to re-establish its activity in
the region. Probably, European governments facing refugee crises are quite happy with the
statement of Erdogan that "3.5 million of Syrians will be settled in Afrin." And can there
be any better opportunity for Turkey to prevent forthcoming strike of metal workers?
The war in Syria that motivated capitalists and powers of the world about greater profits
haven't brought anything other than death, destruction and poverty to laborers of Syria.
And with this operation, the war will intensify more and the chaos will deepen in the
region. This means more death, more poverty and more misery for us.
Powers, who seemed to be accompanying Kurdish national movement until now, made
contradictory and unclear statements. From this fact, not surprisingly, we've seen again
that dominant classes and their servitude countries are not acting with ethical
motivations or supreme goals. As it was in the World War 1, imperalist powers' are
conducting their competition of spheres of influence via enforcing people in Syria and
Middle East to fight each other. Even though they establish strategic alliance with
Kurdish movement, they don't really care what will happen to Kurdish people in the end.
Although we aren't able to know the content of secret and dirty diplomatic negotiations
between states, it is obvious that they only care about their interests and this war is
dragging not only the region, but also the world into an unknown situation.
None of the dominant classes or states that are serving to their interests has intention
to stop this war. Statements of UN and EU allow us to see that they don't have any
strategy to do it and they don't have troops they can use. Structural crises of capitalism
are pushing dominant powers to make crazy moves that will drag the humanity into a
barbarism era. Just like the same as the period before World War 1 and 2.
The only power that can stop this course of events is the working-class. For now, war
drums' voice might be drowning the sigh of young soldiers forced to fight in fronts and
their families' secret cries; it might be drowning the scream of the people in Afrin that
are killed or forced to leave their home. Today, voice of politicians from different
parties, voice of clowns that call themselves experts in TVs and voice of warmongers', in
general, might be overshadowing the voice of people who are opposing war. They're all
sitting on their comfortable seats and while children of the laborers are dying, they are
distributing heroic ranks to themselves.
However, they also know that it will not continue in this way. Therefore, the state is
trying to prevent the reaction of mass of people, who are killed, impoverished and forced
to leave their homes, by increasing the oppression. Police is wildly attacking press
statements in public places, people are handcuffed just because they made posts in social
media against war and arrested. Against all these attacks, as anarchists, communists from
Turkey and other international comrades, we should stick together and altogether continue
to raise our voice against war.
Furthermore, people of Afrin and people of Turkey who are fighting against this invasion
are in need of international solidarity more than ever. This international war, in which
the only winners are capitalists and the only losers are laborers of all nations, can only
be stopped with international solidarity.
We think that to struggle against this war is a historical duty for anarchists, communists
and other internationalists all around the world. We are calling all of our comrades to
struggle against the operation of Afrin, against AKP's oppression to war resisters and
against all states that are responsible for the actual situation in Syria.
Internationalist Class Solidarity or Capitalist War and Barbarism
War to Palaces, Peace for Slums!
No to war between nations
No war but class war
Yeryüzü Postasi
https://communistanarchism.blogspot.co.il/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Members of London Anarchist Communists helped out with leafleting alongside Surrey & Hants
Anarchist Federation members plus a member of Surrey Communist Anarchists on Saturday
January 13th in Dorking to publicise the proposed drilling at nearby Leith Hill. ----
Europa Oil & Gas have fought a six year battle against local residents to impose the
drilling site on the community, first submitting their planning application in 2009.
All necessary planning consents are now in place for the drilling of the Holmwood-1
exploration well. This well is intended to test the Portland sandstone, Kimmeridge Clay
and Corallian targets, and is similar to the Horse Hill-1 well drilled by UKOG. At present
Europa is planning to attempt to drill the Holmwood-1 well in late 2016 or 2017.
Fracking company UK Oil and Gas Investments (UKOG) have stated that the proposed
Holmwood-1 well at the site would provide a further valuable "proof of concept" step in
UKOG's plans to exploit the Kimmeridge Clay for shale oil. This threatens the drilling of
thousands of wells across the Weald. The British Geological Surveys estimates well over a
thousand wells while those from UKOG, based on data from Horse Hill, might require over
3000 wells.
Frack Off
------------------------------
Message: 4
With the occasion of the recent centenary of the Russian Revolution of October, 1917,
Anthony Zurbrugg has edited a wonderful contribution to our understanding of those
turbulent times. What we found in this collection of reports put together by Zurbrugg, are
testimonies written by anarchists who visited the USSR in the crucial years of 1920-1921.
---- "Anarchist Encounters. Russia in Revolution" Emma Goldman, Armando Borghi, Gastón
Leval, Ángel Pestaña Núñez, Vilkens. Edited by A.W. Zurbrugg (London: Anarres Editions
-Merlin Press, 2017) ---- With the occasion of the recent centenary of the Russian
Revolution of October, 1917, Anthony Zurbrugg has edited a wonderful contribution to our
understanding of those turbulent times. As the revolution turned into a bitter civil war,
exacerbated by the blockade of Soviet Russia by the allies of the Entente -mostly France,
Britain and the US-, news of what was really going on in Russia were scarce. While the
bourgeois press published horror stories, the left-wing movements associated to the
Bolshevik movement reproduced propaganda documents which idealised everything Soviet. It
was only in 1920 that it became possible for foreigners to visit the Soviet Union, and
many unionists and revolutionaries from all over the world did so in order to offer they
support and to witness the revolution with their very own eyes. The trip was not easy:
often the travellers would be arrested by the countries of the so-called "free world" on
their way in or out of the Soviet Union. However the hardships of such a trip, the
testimonies left by these visitors give us an invaluable insight into the revolution as it
developed, its complexities, hardship, difficulties, achievements and disappointments.
Bringing to life a world in revolution
What we found in this collection of reports put together by Zurbrugg, are testimonies
written by anarchists who visited the USSR in the crucial years of 1920-1921, in a period
in which still the majority of the anarchist movement supported the Bolsheviks, being
oblivious (or in denial) of the suppression of the anarchists which started in 1918 and
knowing little or nothing about the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine. In short, these
testimonies constitute a most valuable collection of encounters with the realities of an
authoritarian revolution by libertarians. Many of these testimonies are available here for
the first time in English, such as those written by Vilkens, Ángel Pestaña, Armando Borghi
and Gastón Leval. The lengthy document by Emma Goldman, The Crushing of the Russian
Revolution, had been published by Freedom Press in London in 1922 and it has been, as far
as I am aware, unavailable since. These witnesses, are quite extraordinary figures. The
Asturias born Manuel Fernández Alvar, aka Vilkens, to give but one example, went to Russia
in 1920 to fight in the Red Army, but growing increasingly critical was arrested between
October and November 1920, and then allowed to leave for France. He would die eventually
in 1936 fighting fascism in Spain, in the defence of Guadarrama. Informed by these
encounters, a critical stance of the international anarchist movement started to develop,
as put succinctly by Vilkens: ‘The Russian revolution proves undeniably, against the
opinion of reformists, that the capitalist class is not needed at all, that it is a
parasite that society can do without. And here we are in agreement with the communists,
except that the latter wish to impose a transitional regime which will make them the
profiteers of the revolution while we do not expect anything for our own particular
benefit and fight for the people themselves to benefit from the revolution' (p.67).
Let us acknowledge that, like any testimony, these are highly subjective. It is also true
that given these testimonies were written in 1920-1921, we miss an important element of
the whole picture: they can't tell us in what ways society actually did change in the
period 1917-1920, because none of them was a witness to pre-revolutionary Russia nor to
the first years of the revolutionary upheaval -the only Russian in this collection,
Goldman, had left Russia in 1885 when she was a teenager. However, this is compensated
with a wealth of information they provide about the day to day hardships of ordinary
people and their impressions on the political realities of a society in revolution. They
bring to life this fateful period with vivid snapshots. These testimonies are
well-informed. All of the contributors spent months and even years in the land of the
Soviets. None of them was hostile at first. All of them travelled to support the
revolution and evaluate ways to defend it and expand it. Some of them had travelled to the
International Congress of Unions of July 1920, as representatives of their own
organisations, at a time when the Third International was coming into being. It was after
their encounter with the harsh realities of post-revolutionary Russia, that they developed
a critical stance. At first, however, most of them yearned intimately to be wrong when
confronted with the evidence of the bureaucratic and despotic turn of the revolution. ‘How
I would have preferred to be mistaken!', thought Pestaña, ‘How I wold have preferred that
this could be nothing but the workings of a fevered imagination, driven by the prejudice
that might influence me driven by life under capitalism!' (p.73). It is perhaps the fact
that they had come with hopes and expectations what made their clash with reality the
bitterer. And yet, in spite of their bitter disappointment, they still made efforts to be
as balanced as possible, sometimes bordering on the pathetic, like Vilkens defending the
Cheka of the accusations of torture in the international press: ‘Yet it is wrong to say
that torture is employed by the Cheka. It executes easily, judges without guarantees,
commits all sorts of injustices in the name of the proletariat, but as for torture,
nothing would be so untrue. Bourgeois spies invent that. The Cheka is odious enough just
as it is. It is the White armies that carry out savage mutilations and executions among
the communists and the people' (p.56).
The problem of creating a new society in the shell of the old
The value of these testimonies, above all, is that they are a reminder of the enormous
difficulties of changing society, forcing us to put some more thought into general
problems which are found in any revolutionary situation. No revolutionaries ever chose the
conditions under which they will do the revolution and often they have had to work in
exceedingly difficult circumstances of famine, civil war, embargoes, blockade, as the
anarchist would found twenty years later in Spain. But the context of revolutionaries
influences outcomes in other ways. Inasmuch as most revolutionaries want to also change
radically society, there is never a blank slate in which to start putting into practice
their social projects: they have soaked in values of the dominant society, they have to
build a new world when the structures of the old permeate culture, communities,
infrastructure, and institutions of all sorts. In spite of the claim that the Bolshevik
revolution stamped out the last vestiges of the Czar's regime, many of the testimonies
here point at the continuities between the old regime and the new regime after the
revolution. Most of these continuities referred to State structures, but also to
political, community and class dynamics -here we find early critiques on how elements of
the old regime managed to thrive and reproduce socially their privileged status through
the bureaucratic structures of the State, a problem faced not only by radical revolutions,
but also by reformist attempts elsewhere. Years later, Charles Bettelheim -who most
certainly wasn't an anarchist- would explore in detail this process in his famous Class
Struggles in the USSR(Monthly Review Press, 1976). To what a degree the Bolsheviks
reproduced the dominant ideology of the old regime, and how their ways aped the ways of
the autocracy, is reflected here in an anecdotal fashion: following the official fashion
of naming everything through acronyms, people in Russian cities derided the Sov-bourg, or
the Soviet Bourgeoisie, that is, commissars, bureaucrats and technocrats, together with
the Sod-Koms, or the mistresses of the commissars, many of whom came actually from the old
aristocracy (p.36).
The international arena as a straight-jacket
Another big problem which revolutionaries have encountered time and again lies in the
international arena, where often they found themselves surrounded by reactionary regimes,
such as the Holy Alliance in the 18th century against French Revolution, and the Entente
and its criminal blockade of Russia in 1920. These regimes are bent on isolating,
invading, strangling, starving and smothering the revolution, thus making it non-viable
and avoiding its spread to their own realms. The role of the Western capitalist countries
in relation to the Russian tragedies and the famine of the early years of the revolution
has been largely white-washed in mainstream historical accounts, in which they single-out
the Bolshevik policy as sole responsible of this most dreadful body-count. The testimonies
in this book put the record straight. The veteran anarchist Pyotr Kropotkin, in a private
conversation with Goldman, in which she asked why he hadn't denounced the arbitrary nature
of the Bolshevik rule, confessed that ‘so long as Russia was being attacked by the
combined imperialists of Europe, and Russian women and children were starved to death by
the criminal blockade, he could not join the shrieking chorus of the ex-revolutionists in
the cry of "Crucify!"' (p.139). The Spanish anarcho-syndicalist Pestaña, while
acknowledging the many faults of the Bolsheviks, also lashed out against the criminal
behaviour of the West in outrage:
‘We refuse to hold them responsible for all the evils that afflict the Russian people. In
saying so we proceed with the same candour that we used in rejecting and challenging the
political procedures and sophistries that the Bolsheviks deployed to seize and remain in
power. Yes, they are partly responsible, but for the smallest part, we must add from the off.
Material responsibility for all the miseries we witnessed in the seventy days we spent in
Russia, falls as an affront, a stigma and a terrible accusation against Europe's
governments and bourgeoisie (...) One must absolve the Bolsheviks of this sin. They have
enough faults already on their conscience as socialists and as actors in the drama of the
dawning of a new world, without also burdening them with ones they did not commit, and
sins for which they cannot be held responsible' (p.10-11)
The Kurdish in Rojava have found this same problem -as they have fought to create a new
world based on the principles of freedom, autonomy and equality, they have faced a fierce
reaction by the most conservative elements of the region, as well as the active military
opposition of the Turkish State. But the international arena poses another most subtle
problem which has massive repercussions for the organisation of a new and revolutionary
society. As no nation can survive on its own in a world interconnected as this in which we
live in, the relations to a world still organised in the form of conventional
Nation-States poses enormous challenges for revolutionaries. The Kurdish of Rojava, for
instance, in order to dialogue with the outside world, had to develop democratic
autonomous administrations which mirrors more traditional representative administration,
with its parliament, parties and ministers. Although this system has been described as
transitional and it runs in parallel to the more direct-democracy oriented council
network, it still imposes limitations to the ability of the revolutionaries to change
radically their society. These objectives difficulties cannot be overstated and any
serious movement aiming at changing society need to factor them in.
The thin-line that divides defence of the revolution from repression
Other immense problem for revolutions is posed by privileged sectors of society, even
sectors of the subordinate classes enjoying meagre and very relative privileges: since
times immemorial some sectors of the oppressed have been used by those in power to oppose
other oppressed. How to proceed, as anarchists, with sectors who, without being part of
the dominant classes still want to keep a privileged position in relation to other
oppressed groups? Coercion, a fundamental fact in social life, has been always elusive in
anarchist thinking, although revolution, as such, is a coercive action by definition -the
suppression of some sectors of society, no matter it is made in the name of justice and
freedom, is not a sweet affair. An example of this problem is explored in the testimonies
of Pestaña, who discusses the situation of the anti-Bolshevik (and presumably
anti-revolutionaries) Tula munitions factories' workers, who had staged a strike shortly
before he had visited them, which had been crushed with a great deal of ruthlessness by
the Bolsheviks. His testimony, though short, is full of insights to feed into broader
debates around these issues:
‘It should be pointed out -always in the interest of fullest impartiality and so that
readers' judgment is not distorted- that the sentences passed on these strikers (...) to
us (...) seemed harsh and disproportionate, the strike was unjustified; furthermore at
that moment it had counter-revolutionary consequences. Tula munition workers (...) enjoyed
benefits and privileges not enjoyed by workers elsewhere. And these privileges were
respected by the Soviet Government, inasmuch as was appropriate and possible (...) So
(...) being in a superior position as compared to other workers all over Russia, what
could justify a call to strike? Moreover, there was another factor that made the
circumstances of this strike all even more tragic.
(...) Workers decided to declare a strike and stage a conflict in these workshops at the
very moment when the whole world was anticipating the threat of a Polish invasion of
Russia. Such a strike would leave the Red Army defenceless against the enemy, would it
not? (...) the declaration of a strike might have led to an invasion by reactionary
armies.' (p.70-71)
This testimony shows how bluntly real life puts to test the lofty theories and good
intentions of genuine revolutionaries. No matter how reasonable the argument provided
here, one may wonder if the Kronstadt workers and sailors weren't accused in similar terms
of potentially aiding even if involuntarily, the reactionary forces. Surely there were
important differences -while the Kronstadt sailors and workers were actually defending the
revolution and demanding an end to its bureaucratic deviations through a very practical
programme elaborated in the original spirit of the Soviet system, the Tula workers seemed
bent on gaining particular demands for themselves, placing their own relative privileges
above the general needs of the bulk of the oppressed. However the historical verdict on
this particular case, it proves that dealing with conflicting interests at a time of deep
change, is always difficult and complex. No amount of well-meaning rhetoric can do away
with this problem, and no one-size-fit-all solutions exist in order to deal with it
either. Again, Vilkens summarises in powerful terms the difficulties faced by actual
revolutions in terms of the thin line which divides defence of the revolution from
repression, abuse and arbitrariness: ‘We do not believe that a revolution must be sweet
and united, but what appears as unjustifiable and criminal is that it should be treated as
an umbrella for all things' (p.56).
History at the service of a better future
All in all, this is a highly recommended book which adds to the efforts being done by
Anarres -Merlin Press, of making available to an English speaking audience a number of
documents of the international anarchist movement which are rarely available in this
language. However critical of the centralisation and the dictatorship of the single-party
which developed in the USSR, these testimonies, as we have seen, are far from a black and
white narrative. The narrative is complex, emotional but nuanced. If there is hurt and
bitterness in these pages it is precisely because these are not detached observers. There
is a rich texture here, in which the concerns of these militants, all committed to the
revolution in their respective countries, comes up to the very forefront. They are just
not observing events from a distance as train-spotters. They are thinking of what they can
take with them to help them in their own revolutionary activities. They are trying to
understand the events in Russia as a way to advance social transformation in their own
contexts. It is with these eyes that contemporary activists should approach history in
general and this book in particular. Almost a hundred years later, the voices of these
anarchists still have a great contribution to make in the endeavour for a better future.
José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
25 January, 2018
https://anarkismo.net/article/30823
------------------------------
Message: 5
March for Justice along the original route of the 1972 demonstration against internment.
---- This years theme also marked the 50th anniversary of RUC's brutal response to the
NICRA (Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association) on Duke Street in Derry march back in
1968 which is widely regarded as what launched us into decades of violent conflict. ----
In recognition of this historic event the theme of this years Bloody Sunday Commemorative
events was titled "We Shall Overcome". ---- As anarchists marched with several hundred
others interested in the struggle for social justice as we have done each year on the
Bloody Sunday 'March for Justice'. In doing so we stand in solidarity with the courage and
dignity of all of those Bloody Sunday families who continue to defy the sate as they
commemorate and honour their loved ones murdered by the hand of those state forces as they
continue to march for justice.
Members of a number of different social justice campaigns use the march each year both
nationally and internationally to highlight and draw attention to their own struggles and
as a gesture of solidarity with the Bloody Sunday families.
------------------------------
Message: 6
We, the Libertarian Resistance Organization, meet at an annual plenary session, remember
the national day of transvestite and transsexual visibility. Visibility day is an
important moment for social movements and political organizations that build social
struggles. In this case, we know that the fight against transphobia is real and everyday
in places of housing, work and study, as well as being a permanent concern in our feminist
spaces. Transphobia has advanced disguised as feminism, which we consider a threat to the
pursuit of libertarian socialism by means consistent with our ends. With this, we
republished a note produced last year, with data that remain close. The feminism that we
want does not reject any woman. ---- We, who have built the Liberation Resistance
Organization, an anarchist political organization in Ceará, a member of the Brazilian
Anarchist Coordination, wish to greet all those who identify themselves as transsexuals
and transvestites.
We often confuse gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender. Ignorance, far from
justifying itself, contributes to prejudice. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the
differences. Gender identity is how one sees oneself. She can see herself as a man, woman
or other, as neutral or a combination of masculine and feminine. Sexual orientation refers
to the attraction felt by individuals. A person can be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual,
etc. Sex refers to the characteristics of a person's body. It can be female, male or
intersex. Transsexual people are born with a gender that differs from the socially bound
to the gender identity that they recognize. Travestis, adjust their bodies to the changes
they want, but do not feel the need to redefine their sex.
We also know that in this field the state acts as an oppressor. When legislating on gender
identity, aiming to put us in pre-determined boxes; or when it regards transsexuality as
disease, associating the different with the pathological one, and making medical
procedures of transgeneration difficult; or when through the Judicial Branch impedes
processes of change of name in the essential documents.
In Brazil, the life expectancy of a Brazilian transvestite and transsexual is
approximately 35 years, while the life expectancy of an average Brazilian is 74.6 years.
Being that Brazil leads the ranking of transphobic violence, being the country that kills
most transvestites and transsexuals in the world. Added to this is the difficulty of
carrying out surgeries of transgenitalization. Only in the state of São Paulo is there a
queue of 3,200 people who wish to perform this surgery, but only one surgery is performed
per month, 12 surgeries a year. Whoever enters the queue now will have to wait 266 years
to perform this surgical procedure for the Unified Health System / SUS in Brazil, an
absurdity! The same difficulty exists for the redefinition of names in the essential
documents or the use of the social name in institutions.
We, anarchists, believe that every form of oppression and authoritarianism is harmful. We
seek freedom, this aggregating freedom, which increases when those who are close to us
also live it. We try every moment to fulfill or give fulfillment to the idea that the
freedom of the other person extends ours to the infinite. We also believe that ends
determine the means and we want right now to build a socialist and libertarian society or,
as the Zapatistas would say, "a world where many worlds fit." That is why we want to
remember that the fight against transphobia is not just a day, it is daily, arduous and
full of obstacles. In this fight, we will keep hand in hand and raised fists, along with
who should lead it, transsexuals and transvestites.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Afrin belongs to the peoples of Afrin. Peoples living in Afrin were born in these lands
and died in these lands. Living there is not related with any plans or programs. They are
not in Afrin as part of a strategy. Afrin, for them is water, bread, food, play, story,
friend, mate, lover, street, home, neighborhood. But for state, it is only a strategy. A
strategy that does not care about Afrin or peoples of Afrin. ---- The attack on Afrin, It
is a strategy of the Energy War that resulted in breakdown of Syria and that will break
down many states in the region. States create the illusion that they are doing these wars
"for their citizens". They make nationalist conservative propaganda to convince their
citizens of this misconception. This is an inescapable need both inside and outside. While
it is required for the elections inside, it is valid on the tables outside. Rulers who go
through a completely commercial process such as the extraction, transport, and sale of
energy resources use all their materials to increase their gains. In these discussions
where the numbers of rifles, tanks, airplanes are important, the number of soldiers is the
most important number. A soldier is no different than a material. This is why the
nationalist conservative fallacy is created.
Who would join a war so that some gain more? Who would fight for gasoline which is always
sold by states or companies everywhere, a drop of it costs more than bread? We, the ones
who live with the fact that all prices go up when the price of a liter of gasoline goes
up, we who always loose, why should we always fight for the ones who always win? Actually
nobody would fight for them. They know this fact and this is why they need nationalism,
conservatism.
Now they are are shouting from newspapers and televisions, the slogans of fallacy
"national, national, national!", "National will, national unity". They can never say
clearly; "We are pinching pennies," "Fight or fight, we will sell the gasoline and
everything to you. We will make you produce it, we will make you consume it, and we will
exploit you. " This is the plan, program, strategy, war of the states. We peoples - those
who are compulsory citizens of the states - can change everything. Today, the people of
Afrin live freely because they changed it. As in Kobanê, Cizére, Chipas. And this is the
critical difference between the war of the people and the war of the states. In its war,
state attacks and attacks without rules so that it's system gains more. Bombs with tanks
and airplanes. Wounds, kills, murders and wants all life captivated. As for the war of the
peoples, there is freedom.
For the last two days, each bomb dropped on Afrin, each bullet is a bullet to freedom.
Turkish state which wants to increase its share on the table, has started the Afrin
attack. It is a strategy created by nationalism and conservatism which is based on this
fallacy. It's all election strategy. It is completely a commercial strategy. The war of
the state is a strategy. But the war of the peoples is freedom. And no state can defeat
peoples fighting for freedom.
PEOPLES OF AFRIN WILL WIN
Revolutionary Anarchist Action-DAF
Related Link: http://www.anarsistfaaliyet.org
https://anarkismo.net/article/30814
------------------------------
Message: 8
On September 4, 2017, the first day of school, Muriel Pénicaud, our dear Minister of
Labor, was on an official visit to Tarn, in Albi, on the theme of learning. This visit to
a CFA announced the opening of a major reform of vocational training and apprenticeship,
led precisely by the Ministry of Labor. ---- In his Presidential program, Emmanuel Macron
announced that he wanted to introduce " a virtual monopoly of work-study programs as a
way to access medium-skilled jobs ". Learning would be the path of " excellence "
leading to employment. Since the start of the school year, a media campaign has been
launched to promote learning, to the detriment of vocational training under school status.
The latter being judged, by the political and business circles, as unfit and remote from
the company. In reality, learning is no more effective than schooling and this type of
training is more expensive. For example, the Ile-de-France region spends 1505 euros per
student, against 2567 euros apprentices.
Regionalize to better control
Through this desire to learn everything, the government intends to regionalize vocational
education under school status in order to place it under the control of regions and
employers' organizations. On December 5th, a meeting was held between the Presidents of
the Region and 24 parliamentarians. The latter have agreed to give more weight to the
economic world by adapting the map of training in terms of employment areas of the
regions. According to them, this objective " requires that the regions be responsible for
the orientation in connection with the National Education and professional branches ".
This skill in guidance, the regions have long claimed. Clearly, it is a matter of getting
students out of public education as quickly as possible by orienting them as quickly as
possible towards learning.
Promote the diversity of courses and audiences
Government, employers and regions also advocate continuing to develop learning within
public education while promoting the possibility of teaching teachers both in school and
in apprenticeship. The objective is to develop the mix of courses and audiences in order
to reduce the resources allocated to public vocational education and to make available to
companies the technical platforms of vocational high schools. In addition, it involves
grouping students with different status within the same class (Apprentices and students).
This is in line with the proposals of the Regions to experiment with the grouping of
vocational high schools and CFA.
Thus, we are waiting for announcements from the government that seem to be moving towards
the transfer of the full competence of vocational training to the regions while giving
employers the full rights on the definitions of diplomas, their content and courses. training.
Caesar (Cal Saint Denis)
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Formation-La-face-cachee-du-tout-apprentissage
------------------------------
Message: 9
How does the military cooperation of the Kurds in Rojava and Northern Syria with the US,
Russia and other forces affect their standing in the larger Syrian context? [Note of
Anarkismo -This article was written before the current Turkish invasion to Rojava] ----
Nowadays, with the defeat of the so called "Islamic State" (IS) on the ground in Syria the
geopolitics of the Syrian Kurds is discussed more than ever. To be precise, we should
speak of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and of the political structure "Democratic
Federation of Northern Syria" (DFNS) of which Rojava (West/Syrian Kurdistan) is a part.
What is of interest for this article is the criticism by some (or many) leftists against
the military cooperation with the US. However, speaking only of the US would be too
limiting, since in this particular conflict Russia, Turkey and Iran are also closely involved.
The geopolitics of the Syrian Kurds can be understood only in connection with the
democratic-leftist Kurdish Freedom Movement (KFM). Starting with the Kurdistan Worker's
Party (PKK) in North Kurdistan (Bakur; Turkish part) in the 1970s, it spread to Rojava and
East Kurdistan (Rojhilat; Iranian part) in the 1990s. When in 2003 the Party of Democratic
Union (PYD) was founded, it accepted Öcalan's political concept of Democratic
Confederalism as basis. Due to the intensive repression by the Baath regime, the space
remained small, but the organization of the population never ceased to exist.
In 2011, when the uprising against the Syrian regime started, the PYD saw its interest in
benefitting from the weakness of the regime in order to organize people democratically in
Rojava and the big cities of Syria. In the first months, the aim was to develop the self
defense capacity as it was difficult to foresee further developments against the Baath
regime as well as against the armed reactionary opposition. In the following months the
revolutionary movement had been organized as TEV-DEM which apart from PYD included dozens
of social organizations and people from the growing people's councils all over Rojava. The
Barzani-linked ENKS, the conservative Kurdish party bloc in Rojava, remained weak while
TEV-DEM became the main player in Rojava. In spring 2012 when it was clear that the war is
intensifying, the preparation for the liberation of Rojava started. The movement needed to
be ready for the right moment.
TEV-DEM was faced with two basic decisions: Either Rojava will be defended by its own
forces or it had to be given up. The second outcome would mean that other forces like the
ENKS and/or the reactionary Syrian opposition would control Rojava.
Rojava was more difficult to defend than other parts of Kurdistan. On the level of
terrain, the area is mainly flat and spread out. Furthermore, many international and
regional powers had armed many warring forces in Syria. The unarmed democratic groups in
Syria and the TEV-DEM, on the other hand, had no support from abroad. TEV-DEM had declared
it a duty to defend Rojava, otherwise it would be a great setback for the KFM in all parts
of Kurdistan. The point was to defend this revolution and to learn lessons from former
revolutions in the world.
With the beginning of the successful liberation of Rojava's towns in July 2012, the
attacks against the area grew stronger. First, it was some FSA groups and Al-Nusra Front
which could be defeated by the YPG (People's Defense Units) and YPJ (Women's Defense
Units). Then came ISIS (later IS), and at first, from summer 2013 until May 2014, could be
defeated as well. But with the occupation of Mosul IS had grew so strong to challenge even
state armies. The Baath regime also attacked Rojava at times, motivated by the Iranian regime.
Currently the biggest threat to this region is the Turkish army which has been launching
attacks since October 2015 almost daily at the borders and on the front lines. In fact,
all of the regional and international powers had no interest in seeing an independent and
democratic force in Syria become strong, this includes western states, which just ignored
TEV-DEM, and Russia which met with TEV-DEM, but with no common goals. Even Turkey, Syria
and Iran met with TEV-DEM politicians (later the Democratic Self-Administration (DSA)
founded in January 2014 as a democratic enlargement), but with the sole aim to incorporate
it into their own bloc.
In the summer of 2014 IS was at the peak of its power. The world was shocked and
considered it a new major threat. This was the case in the Middle East as well as in the
rest of the world. This was also the time when forces of the KFM were resisting against IS
in Sengal, the main settlement of the Kurdish Ezidis in Basur. In the beginning of August
2014 both the PKK and YPG/YPJ rescued up to 80.000 Ezidis and prevented a bigger genocide
- it was not the "international community" that saved these people, but those who who were
till then either considered "terrorists" or ignored. From that moment, the perception of
the Kurds in general, particularly of Rojava and the PKK started to change. A US led
global coalition against IS was formed, at first focused only on Iraq.
Then, the large IS attack on Kobanî happened in September 2014. The Kurds resisted with
whatever they had. Tens of thousands of people in Bakur gathered continuously at the
border to Kobanî in order to show solidarity and protest Turkish states support for the
IS. Around a thousand crossed the border to fight the IS. Because of the global IS threat
and the successful resistance in Sengal the international media were also present at the
border. Never before did the Kurds get so much attention. They were recognized not only as
suffering, but rather as resisting. Kobanî was now well known and well seen worldwide.
The resistance was strong, but it was not enough in the face of IS. Because of the Turkish
embargo, the YPG/YPJ from Cizîre, the biggest region in Rojava, could not join the
resistance. If that was not the case, there would have been a balance of forces and
international support would not have been necessary.
During the first days of October 2014 the US publicly declared that it could see no hope,
even if it was already bombing IS in parts of Syria. A few days later, the US started to
bomb IS systematically in and around Kobanî city. The resistance in Kobanî, a big uprising
in Bakur/Turkey and the global public request for Kobanî support were the main driving
factors for that. This intervention in Kobanî started under specific political conditions
and it was not clear how long it will last. Only after that, did serious negotiations happen.
Motivations for the US and Syrian Kurds
On the short-term, the main motivation for the US was seeing that the defeat of IS in
Kobanî would be very beneficial for their own strategy in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, Kobanî
became IS' Stalingrad. For the revolution of Rojava the defense of Kobanî was crucial,
otherwise it could be marginalized in Syria. This is how two forces opposed ideologically
ended up having the same short term interests.
The bombing of IS gave the US a strong partner in Syria. This comes after the US along
with Turkey and some of the Gulf states had been supporting armed opposition groups. These
groups however, were unable to overthrow the regime and were becoming weaker, or becoming
more and more extreme in their Islamic ideology. Furthermore, these groups were less
committed to their western sponsors and more to Turkey and the Gulf sponsors, which the US
saw with suspicion. This is why a cooperation with the YPG/YPJ promised to give the US
more influence in Syria and having an active role in designing a new Syria.
In the beginning of the military cooperation the USA planned to subordinate Rojava
militarily to the government of Basur. The notes of the talks on March 14, 2015 between
several HDP (People's Democratic Party) parliamentarians and the imprisoned PKK leader
Abdullah Öcalan state that the US exercised pressure on the YPG/YPJ to accept to be part
of the PDK-Peshmerga commando structure, and that Öcalan took position against that. This
did not happen, but the cooperation continued.
There are certainly other long-term motivations for the US to start the military
cooperation with YPG/YPJ/SDF. One is to come back to the Middle East political scene and
appear as a positive force after the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan which turned the
US into an unwanted force in almost all Muslim majority countries.
This military engagement also served to limit the influence of Iran in Iraq which
increased especially in the years until 2014. This became yet more important after Trump
was elected.
Another reason is pressuring the Turkish government which has been moving away from its
western allies in the last years. Turkey, has been trying to benefit from the conflicts
between different powers, particularly the US and Russia to increase its influence in the
Middle East. The support for Al Nusra and IS was part of this strategy while bypassing the
embargo on Iran. For several years, the NATO has looked at these actions with suspicion.
Turkey's main concern in its international policies are the Kurds.
Furthermore, the US has actively supported the big parties PDK and YNK (PUK) in Basur
since 1991 which led to a status of autonomy. There were expectations, among others, that
the two parties would dominate the three other parts of Kurdistan and push back the KFM.
But they failed. Instead, their corruption pushed Basur into a big economic and political
crisis. Also, the PDK has been influenced by Turkey's policies, especially by the sale of
oil through Turkish pipelines.
Öcalan's vision, on the other hand, is an inspiration for a new inclusive and democratic
approach. Democratic Confederalism is the most powerful democratic concept in the Middle
East. Millions of people in Bakur and Rojava had the possibility of experiencing it.
Successful coalitions for democracy are formed with Turks, Arabs, Assyrians and others.
Neither the western states nor the Russian-Chinese block can propose anything to the
multidimensional crisis of the Middle East - they are out of ideas. The discussion is
almost only about "defeating terrorists, stability and building walls against refugees".
The US wants to instrumentalize the KFM for its own interests either by taming the whole
KFM or by disconnecting Rojava from the rest of the KFM. This could be done by offering
more military support and international political support in exchange for promises of a
strong political status within Syria if the DFNS would distance itself from Öcalan, and
reject the KFM in Bakur (and the PKK), while giving more space to the PDK of Barzani and
the YNK. However, since the beginning of the military cooperation in October 2014, there
has not been much change in the balance of power and dependency between the two.
It would be much harder for the SDF to defend its territory without American military
cooperation. The DFNS would be more vulnerable to attacks from Turkey and the Syrian
regime, now that IS in no longer an existential threat. Now the SDF have much more
fighters, technical capacities, motivations and thus a higher defense capacity, even if
they had been defending their territory before US support.
Russia's cooperation
The DFNS has important relations with Russia too, since 2012. Russia's has multiple
interests in this relationship, including that the SDF not deepen its military cooperation
with the US.
For Russia this limited cooperation with the SDF can be used against Turkey, and the same
goes for the US. While Turkey wanted to overthrow the Baath regime in the first years of
the Syrian uprising, since 2016 it focuses almost only on limiting the growing power of
the new democratic project in Rojava/Northern Syria. This approach of the Turkish
government gives Russia the opportunity to play on the Turkish fears.
Having strong political-economic-military relations with Turkey, Russia allowed the
Turkish army to invade the triangle region between Jarablus, Al-Bab and Azaz in Northern
Syria, in return Turkey cut the support for armed groups in Aleppo. This invasion
disconnected Kobanî and Afrîn. And with the Turkish army in Syria, Russia can exercise
pressure on the SDF. This is the case especially around Afrîn, the site of the Turkish
assault and where Russia has observation points it uses against both Turkey and SDF.
Russia has also been trying to seek an agreement between the growing DFNS and the Baath
regime. The DFNS have repeatedly declared that they seek a strategic agreement with the
Syrian regime which would make Syria democratic and federal. It has become public that the
two sides have met several times. In these meetings, the Syrian regime was only ready to
accept cultural rights for Kurds and a strengthening of municipalities, while the DFNS
insisted that the reality of a broad democracy in Northern Syria and a basic
democratization of Syria as a whole will be accepted. However, at the end of October 2017
the Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Muallim, said that negotiations about autonomy for the
Kurdish regions can be discussed, a surprising development. But this is a dangerous and
unacceptable proposal because it would divide the Kurdish and Arabic regions. Here the
DFNS is in a more advantageous situation and continues to insist to be accepted by the
Baath regime as a federal region.
The DFNS considers its relations with Russia beneficial in several terms. One objective is
to limit the attacks by the Turkish state against the SDF liberated territories. Another
objective is to use Russia's influence to pressure the Syrian regime to negotiate a
democratic solution and include the DFNS in the international negotiations to end the
armed conflict in Syria. The third objective is not to deepen the relations with the US
and benefit from the conflicting interests of the two international and regional powers.
However, both states have in their international policies the interest to stay in contact
or even to develop ties with the Kurds which now includes also the KFM - even if it is
tactical.
Characteristics of the cooperation
The military cooperation has often characterized by tensions. One big controversial
discussion was over Minbiç (Manbij) which the SDF wanted liberated while the USA focused
on Raqqa. The SDF launched its operation in Minbiç anyway without American support, and
was already in the outskirts of the city when the US gave support to the operation, and
finally achieving its goal on August 12, 2016. This case shows that the cooperation
between the SDF and the US is not one-sided.
When at the end of August 2016, the Turkish army moved to occupy Jarablus, the SDF tried
to reach the city and strike back at the Turkish army by pushing out IS from the south.
Although the Turkish army suffered losses, it could take over Jarablus city while IS
retreated within one day without fighting. Several days later a de-facto ceasefire between
the SDF and the Turkish army was negotiated by the Americans and came into effect. But
with the American support of the Turkish invasion, the coordination between the SDF and
the US fell into crisis for several weeks.
Nonetheless, the SDF was able to resist quite successfully against the moving Turkish
troops around Al-Bab. The fight only ended when Russia and the US sent soldiers to the
front around Minbic.
The number of US soldiers in Northern Syria should not be exaggerated as they are not
fighting on the ground, except in Raqqa city. They are however involved in training and
coordination of arriving military equipment.
One month before the liberation of Raqqa, the SDF started the "Cizîre storm" operation to
liberate the whole region east of the Euphrates river in the Deir Ez-Zor province. The SDF
commanders stated that they were going to carry the operation even if the Americans were
opposed to it because it was urgent: the Syrian army was progressing quickly towards Deir
Ez-Zor city. The operation was successful.
Although there is military cooperation between the SDF and the US led Global Anti-IS
Coalition, it is not possible to speak about a political cooperation. The US makes a clear
distinction between the political and military dimension and have not insisted that the
DFNS is part of the Geneva negotiations. Although the US government refused public
accusations by Turkey that the YPG are terrorists using American weapons that will
eventually fall in the hands of the PKK, it has never said anything positive in public
about the political process in Rojava/Northern Syria. Until now, no leading figure from
the DFNS or SDF was allowed to visit the US.
Although the military relationship with Russia is much less developed than with the US,
politically Russia gave more direct and positive statements about the Syrian Kurds and the
DFNS. For example in the beginning of 2017 Russia prepared a draft for a new constitution
which included that Kurds should be involved in the international negotiations. Just
recently Russia announced a "people's congress of Syria" to which the PYD/Kurds would be
invited.
Background of the war
The KFM says that what is happening in the Middle East is the Third World War with Syria
at the very center, and there are three main forces: first is international imperialism
represented mainly by the US and Russia; second is the regional status quo powers with
Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia as the main players with imperialist characteristics; and
third is the revolutionary and democratic forces led by the Rojava Revolution and the PKK.
These three forces are fighting among one another and the result is complicated with
continuously changing coalitions and armed conflicts. Each force develops relations with
those who seem to be opposed to the enemy, in order to achieve their strategic interests.
This is related to the deep and structural crisis of capitalism experienced violently in
the Middle East. It is not enough to have an ideological and political approach as many
leftist and socialist organizations do, rather an organizational and military approach is
crucial. Without being dogmatic, it is necessary to fight against threats, but also to be
able to restructure one's organization according to the conditions and to understand the
dynamics and contradictions of other players in order to be able to benefit from them. The
goal must be to defend the gains and build a strong self-organized society wherever it is
possible to strengthen one's own power. The creation of zones of freedom is not only
possible with friendly forces. A dogmatic position will lead to the defeat, so each step
needs to be calculated well, particularly for the Kurds who have been colonized by four
nation-states. Because the KFM acts on this approach since its foundation, it could
achieve the current level of strength. The stakes are high: either the forces of
imperialism and capitalism win, or a new space for freedom is forged for humanity in the
region, and this is why international and regional powers are fighting so violently to
preserve the status quo.
The people in Rojava
Irrespective of all developments and discussions it is important to see how the military
cooperation with the US affects the society of Rojava. There are two main questions.
First, how do political activists and the population consider this military cooperation.
And whether and how the economic-political-cultural structures have experienced any
changes through this cooperation.
Between February and March 2017 I held around 50 interviews with political activists and
people from different administrative bodies on their political work and the
political-social situation. Apart from one person, no one regarded the military
cooperation without any concerns. The interviewees said mostly that this cooperation has
come up because of difficult conditions - particularly in Kobanî - and numerous enemies,
but does not include a political dimension. For them the US is cooperating for its own
interests and the cooperation is a tactical one. There was a clear awareness that the
revolution should not rely on this military cooperation which could end at any time, but
should try to benefit from it. The same goes for Russia. These were important answers
based on a critical perception and far-sightedness. Activists continue to develop and
deepen their political work and insist on a strongly self-organized society. I observed
that in Rojava a self-organized and self-sufficient society includes more and stronger
communes, people's councils and other political structures, a communal economy which
produces its own needs as much as possible, an independent education and health system and
self-defense in all neighborhoods, communes and villages. This approach is connected to a
40 year experience of the KFM which never depended on any other political power. In the
general political discussions, the military cooperation with the US was seldom a subject.
Like other political and social structures, the press of Rojava does not put the military
cooperation in the center of the news. Rather the focus is on the political project of
democratic federalism/autonomy, defense, liberation, the building of new structures in
society and public demonstrations.
I met few people who expressed a big expectation from the US. The silence of the USA/NATO
states when the Iraqi Army attacked Kirkuk after the referendum in Basur in September 25,
2017 has confirmed that a critical approach is crucial.
The efforts to build up communes everywhere never ceased after the start of the military
cooperation with the US; rather the number of communes doubled. Also the creation of
cooperatives continued; today there are a few hundred of cooperatives. The
democratic-communal economy continues to be developed. The anti-capitalist mentality was
stronger in 2017 than in 2014 when I traveled for the first time to Rojava.
In discussions with YPG and YPJ members there was not much attached value on the relations
with the US: it certainly provided more military equipment, but the human is always the
strongest weapon in a war.
A member of the YPG, who is in direct relations with commanders in all areas, told me that
the US military never tried to impose anything directly or tried to intervene in the
political-social-economic model or life because they are aware that the SDF and DFNS would
never accept any kind of intervention in their internal policies. He also emphasized that
they are prepared for an end of the military cooperation with the US Army at any time.
According to him the cooperation has some serious advantages, but has also risks.
Particularly to get used to the US support over time is a risk which needs to be discussed
permanently, thus the YPG has to take measures. Another challenge is that because of the
US presence within Syria the disputes with the Syrian regime should not end up in a big
war because the DFNS wants to come to a mutual and respectful agreement with the Ba'ath
regime.
About whether the SDF coordination has fears that the cooperation could change the
interest and political vision of the fighters, he said: "We believe that we have a strong
political project with Democratic Confederalism which is an inspiring tool for us. What
kind of ideas offer does the US or other states offer to us? We have a stronger democracy
which is direct and inclusive and a gender liberation in rapid development. Most
importantly, we have a vision for a new life for the people of the greater region. What
the capitalist states have, is money, weapons and democracy in structural crisis, not more."
I spoke to dozens of international volunteers who are still coming to join the Rojava
revolution, mainly from Europe or North America. Most had a positive position on the
development in Northern Syria and wanted to stay longer and learn how people organize
themselves, discuss and share what they have.
The many internationalists do not consider the military cooperation between SDF and USA as
an obstacle for their engagement in Northern Syria. There are at least several hundred
internationalists, not counting the Arabs, Turks and other people of the Middle East. This
fact should be considered when people only see the cooperation with the US and neglect all
the other deep revolutionary and social developments in Northern Syria.
But if the US ends the military cooperation without any peace agreement for Syria, the SDF
controlled territory would be more vulnerable to big military attacks from the Turkish
army and the Syrian regime. This would mean a new intensification of the whole Syrian
conflict with an unclear outcome. Furthermore, the continuing cooperation could develop
over time into a dependency of the DFNS/SDF on the US due to deteriorating conditions in
Northern Syria.
The risks of the military cooperation with the US are debated openly. And the population
understands the positive and negative sides which creates a sort of immunity against
dependency.
Another mechanism against dependency is to benefit from the contradictions between all
powers involved in the Syrian war. For instance by maintaining relations with Russia which
is interested to have relations with the Kurds in Syria and Iraq for its own long-term
interests.
For the KFM it was possible to survive within the Syrian war thanks to the "revolutionary
diplomacy", while developing a new political model, first in Rojava and then in other
parts of Northern Syria. The revolutionary diplomacy includes permanent evaluation in
order to see upcoming risks as well as initiatives to be active in these political and
military cooperations.
Another important mechanism - of course also a principle - is to develop the international
solidarity with the revolution of Rojava and in general with the KFM, for instance with
the internationalists who would transfer the revolution to their countries, or the
continuous political work on international level. The resistance in Kobanî has created a
solidarity movement worldwide, but it is not strong enough. International solidarity
should not be underestimated as anti-revolutionary forces lobby against the revolution at
all stages. Only a strong international solidarity - also in the Middle East - with this
revolution will make the revolutionaries less dependent on military cooperations with the US.
If the revolution of Rojava would fail, this would probably be a setback for democratic
and revolutionary forces in Kurdistan, Syria and also the Middle East and the world. Its
survival and development, however, has the big potential to change the mindsets of
millions of people in Middle East.
Related Link:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/north-africa-west-asia/ercan-ayboga/geopolitics-of-kurds-and-case-of-rojava
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30827
------------------------------
Home »
» Anarchic update news all over the world - Part One - 2.02.2018