Today's Topics:
1. awsm.nz: Wellington Picket Against Solitary Confinement
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. US, ideas and action: Anarchist Social Organization - Steve
Fake By Scott Nappalos (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. wsm.ie: Climate Change - The Basics (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. [Russia] Illegal anarchist demonstration in Moscow by
Centenary of Revolution By ANA (pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Kurdistan - Riza Altun: Socialism cannot be built with the
tools of capitalism - Areas of freedom are created in the ME for
the first time - part 1 (ca) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Lunchtime Picket outside Corrections in Wellington - if you do not work or have Friday off
or the sort of job you have a lunch break, join the picket against Solitary Confinement:
---- 12.30 outside Corrections on The Terrace. ---- Outside Corrections: 44 The Terrace
---- 17 November 12.30pm ---- Every year, thousands of New Zealand's prisoners are put in
solitary confinement. This means they are forcibly isolated from meaningful human contact
for 22 to 24 hours a day. In many cases, they are not even given access to natural light
or fresh air for 23 hours a day. Some cells have nothing in them other than a thin
mattress on a concrete slab, and a cardboard box to pee in. ---- Often, the Department of
Corrections will use solitary confinement in the name of prisoner management, health, and
safety. But in reality, people who are exposed to these horrible conditions, especially
for long periods of time, come out of them with irreparable mental and physical damage.
Rather than promoting wellness and good order in the prison, it increases the risk that
prisoners will hurt themselves and others.
Removing people against their will from all human contact, and other basic human needs, is
degrading and dehumanising. There is no excuse for the cramped, barren, monotonous, and
miserable environment that Corrections forces on thousands of people a year. It's time to
demand the end of solitary confinement in New Zealand prisons once and for all.
http://www.awsm.nz/2017/11/16/wellington-picket-against-solitary-confinement/
------------------------------
Message: 2
The rise of the right and the incapacity of the institutional left to offer an alternative
is pressing the crucial question for our time: what is our strategy in pre-revolutionary
times? The revolutionary left is fixated on the ruptures and revolutions of history, and
this has done little to prepare us for the present. In the United States there are no
nation-wide social movements to draw upon in forging a new social force. Resistance
remains largely fragmented, and more often than not abstracted from the struggles of daily
life and carried out by a semi-professional activist subculture. The challenge then is
where to begin, or more specifically how to move beyond the knowledge, experiences, and
groups of the past two decades towards a broader social movement?
There are some experiences we can draw on however from the heyday of the anarchist
movement, where similarly radicals in a hostile environment began to discuss and craft
strategic interventions. An overlooked and scarcely known debate within anarchism was
between so-called dualism and unitary positions on organization.[1]That framing for the
disagreement largely comes from the dualists who were supporters of specific anarchist
political organizations independent from the workers organizations of their day. This was
contrasted against the anti-political organization anarchists in the libertarian unions
who proposed a model of workers organizations that were both a politicized-organization
and union.
The portrayal of anarchosyndicalists as inherently against political organization and as
advocating unions exclusively of anarchists is a straw man. If anything the orthodoxy
supported political organizations including: Pierre Bresnard, former head of the
International Workers Association (IWA-AIT), the Spanish CNT (through its affinity groups,
specific organizations around publications, and the FAI), along with others in the various
revolutionary unions of the IWA-AIT. A more balanced picture of the movement would be (at
least) a four way division within IWA-AIT organizations including: class struggle
syndicalism that downplayed anarchism and revolution (both with defenders and detractors
of political organization), the dominant position of revolutionary unionism influenced by
anarchism but striving for one big union of the class, political anarchists focused on
insurrectionism and intellectual activities, and a fourth position that is likely
unfamiliar to most readers.
That position I will call the anarchist social organization for lack of a better term.
Elements of this position have existed and persisted throughout the history of the
syndicalist movement, but found its core within the revolutionary workers organizations of
South America at the turn of the century. In Argentina and Uruguay in particular a
powerful immigrant movement of anarchists dominated the labor movement for decades,
setting up the first unions and consolidating a politics in an environment where reformist
attempts at unions lacked a context enabling them to thrive.[2]This tendency spread across
Latin America from Argentina to Mexico, at its zenith influenced syndicalist currents in
Europe and Asia as well. It's progress was checked by a combination of shifting context
and political reaction that favored nationalist and reformist oppositions. Both Argentina
and Uruguay underwent some of the world's first legalized labor regimes and populist
reform schemes to contain the labor movement combined with dictatorships that selectively
targeted the anarchist movement while supporting socialists and nationalists across the
region. The anarchist movement of el Río de la Plata was dealt heavy blows by the 1930s
and began to decline.
The theorists of Argentina's Federación Obrera Regional Argentina (FORA, Argentina
Regional Workers' Federation) in particular laid out an alternative approach to politics
that was highly influential. Argentina perhaps vied with Spain as the most powerful
anarchist movement in the world and yet is scarcely known today. The FORA takes its name
from an aspiration towards internationalism and one of the most thorough going anti-State
and anti-nationalist currents in radical history. The FORA inspired sister unions
throughout Latin America many with similar names such as FORU (Uruguay), FORP (Paraguay),
FORCh (Chile) and unions in Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia just to name a few. They even won
over the membership of established IWW locals in Mexico and Chile to their movement away
from the IWW's neutral syndicalism.
The ideas of the FORA came to be known as finalismo; so named because in Spanish fines
mean ends or goals, and the FORA made anarchist communism it's explicit aim as early as
1905. Finalismo was a rejection of traditional unions and political organizations in favor
of the anarchist social organization.[3]In the unions, FORA saw a tendency to divert the
working class into reforming and potentially reproducing capitalist work relations. Unions
they argued are institutions that inherit too much of the capitalism we seek to
abolish.[4]The capitalist division of labor reflected in industrial unions in particular
could be a potential base for maintaining capitalist social relationships after the
revolution, something that the FORA argued must be transformed.
"We must not forget that the union is, as a result of capitalist economic organization, a
social phenomenon born of the needs of its time. To retain its structure after the
revolution would imply preserving the cause that determined it: capitalism."[5]
This critique they extended to apolitical revolutionary unions like the IWW and even with
anarchosyndicalism itself, which was seen as arguing for using unions, vehicles of
resistance that reflect capitalist society, as cells of the future structure of society.
Their goal was to transform a society built to maintain class domination to one organized
to meet human needs; something the existing industries poison.
"Anarchosyndicalist theory, very similar to revolutionary unionism, is today confused by
many who approach the workers movement, and even participate in it, because they consider
that all anarchists who take part in unionism are automatically anaarchosyndicalists.
Anarchosyndicalism is a theory that bases the construction of society after the
emancipatory revolution in the same unions and professional associations of workers. The
FORA expressively rejects anarchosyndicalism and maintains its conception that one cannot
legislate the future of society after revolutionary change..."[6]
While participating in class struggle on a day to day basis, members of the FORA similarly
rejected the ideology of class struggle. Class struggle as ideology was seen as reflecting
a mechanistic worldview inherited from Marxism, that ultimately would reinforce the
divisions derived from capitalism which would sustain obstacles to constructing communism
after the revolution. Class and worker identity are too tied to capitalist relationships,
they argued, and are better attacked than cultivated.[7]
The foristas were skeptical of political organizations separate from workers
organizations, and believed they posed a danger. Such organizations would tend to
over-value maintaining their political leadership against the long term goal of building
anarchist communism.[8]The world of political anarchism was seen as drawing from
intellectual and cultural philosophies abstracted from daily life, whereas the anarchist
workers movement drew it's inspiration from connecting anarchist ethics to the lived
struggles of the exploited.
"Anarchism as a revolutionary political party is deprived of its main strength and its
vital elements; anarchism is a social movement that will acquire the greater power of
action and propaganda the more intimately it stays in its native environment."[9]
In their place, partisans of the FORA proposed a different type workers organization and
role for anarchists. Emiliano Lopez Arango, the brilliant auto-didact and baker,
emphasized that we should build organizations of workers aimed at achieving anarchist
society, rather than organizations of anarchists-for-workers or organizations of
anarchist-workers.
"Against this philosophical or political anarchism we present our concept and our reality
of the anarchist social movement, vast mass organizations that do not evade any problems
of philosophical anarchism, and taking the man as he is, not just as supporter of an idea,
but as a member of an exploited and oppressed human fraction... To create a union movement
concordant with our ideas-the anarchist labor movement- it is not necessary to "cram" in
the brain of the workers ideas that they do not understand or against those that guard
routine precautions. The question is another...Anarchists must create an instrument of
action that allows us to be a belligerent force acting in the struggle for the conquest of
the future. The trade union movement can fill that high historic mission, but on condition
that is inspired by anarchist ideas."[10]
This position has often been misunderstood or misrepresented as "anarchist unionism" i.e.
trying to create ideologically pure groupings of workers. The workers of the FORA however
held in little esteem the political anarchist movement, and did not believe in
intellectuals imposing litmus tests for workers. Instead they built an organization which
from 1905 onward took anarchist communism as its goal, and was constructed around
anarchist ideals in its struggles and functioning.
There is a key difference between being an ideological organization doing organizing
versus organizing with an anarchist orientation. The workers of the FORA tried to create
the latter. Counterposed to raw economics and the ideology of class struggle, they
emphasized a process of transformation and counter-power built through struggle but guided
by values and ideas.[11]Against the idea that syndicalist unions were seeds of the future
society, they proposed using struggles under capitalism as ways to train the exploited for
revolutionary goals and a radical break with the structure of capitalism with revolution.[12]
In doing so they organized Argentina's working class under the leading light of anarchism
until a series of repressive and recuperative forces overwhelmed them. The CNT would
eventually follow FORA's suit some three decades later with its endorsement of the goal of
creating libertarian communism, but it's vacillations on these issues (predicted by some
foristas such as Manuel Azaretto)[13]would prove disastrous. CNT scored a contradictory
initial victory, but floundered with how to move from an organization struggling within
capitalism to a post-capitalist order.
Anarchist Social Organization Today
The insight of the FORA was its focus on how we achieve liberation. These organizing
projects are centered in struggles around daily life. Working in these struggles aims at
creating an environment where participants can co-develop in a specific environment guided
by anarchist principles, goals, and tactics. Ideas develop within through a process of
praxis where actions, ideas, and values interact and come together in strategy. These are
particular weaknesses we have in recent anarchist and libertarian strategies in the US.
In both political organizations and organizing work, anarchists have failed to put
themselves forward as an independent force with our own proposals. Anarchist ideology is
kept outside the context of daily life and struggle; the place where it makes the most
sense and has the most potential for positive contributions. Instead ideology has largely
remained the property of political organizations, while anarchists do their organizing
work too often as foot soldiers for reformist non-profits, bureaucratic unions, and
neutral organizations hostile to their ideas. This is carried out without plans to advance
our goals or independent projects that demonstrate their value.
Similarly, as I argued[14]against the debates over the structure of unions (craft vs.
industrial), the divisions over dual vs unitary organization carry important lessons but
displace more fundamental issues. At stake is what role our ideas play in the day-to-day
work of struggle in pre-revolutionary times. The foristas were correct in seeing a
positive role of our vision when combined with a practice of contesting daily life under
capitalism, while constantly agitating for a fundamental transformation. Many dualists
miss these points when they seek to impose an artificial division between where and how we
agitate by organizational form.
Still these issues don't preclude political organizations playing a positive role for
example with crafting strategy, helping anarchists develop their ideas together and
coordinate, etc. There has been an emphasis in political thought to speak in generalities,
about forms and structures, and thereby missing the contextual and historical aspects of
these sorts of debates. More important than the structure of an organization is where it
stands in the specific context and work on its time, and how it manages to make its work
living in the daily struggles of the exploited. That can happen in different ways in a
number of different projects.
Today such a strategy can be implemented within work already happening. For those who are
members of existing organizations such as solidarity networks, unions, and community
groups, militants should begin networking to find ways to formulate an anarchist program
within their work, advance proposals to deepen anarchisms influence over the organizations
and struggles, and move towards an anarchist social organization model of struggle. With
experience and a growth of forces, we could contest the direction of such organizations or
form new ones depending on the context.
The existing political organizations similarly can contribute to this work by advocating
for anarchist social organizations, contribute to agitation within existing organizing
projects, and collaborate on the creation of new projects. In some cases this may require
locals of political groups themselves forming new organizing efforts alone. Ideally this
would be carried out with other individuals and groups through a process of dialogue.
There are at least three national anarchist organizations all of which benefit from having
the capacity to influence the debate, and could intervene on the side of advancing
anarchism as an explicit force within social movements. The alternative is for it to
remain obscured, clumsily discussed, and largely hidden from view of the public.
Where there is sufficient interest and capacity, new groups should be formed. Workplace
networks, tenants and community groups, solidarity networks, and unions can be created
with small numbers of militants who wish to combine their political work in a cohesive
social-political project. In the United States such a strategy has not even been attempted
on any serious scale since perhaps the days of the Haymarket martyrs and their
anarchosyndicalist IWMA. The unprecedented shift in the mood of the population brought on
by the crisis of 2008 has made these sorts of experiments more feasible if not pressing.
It is up to us to take up the challenge and experiment. Yet the primary work in front of
us is to find ways to translate a combative revolutionary anarchism into concrete
activities that can be implemented and coordinated by small numbers of dedicated
militants, and allow us a bridge to the next phases of struggle.
[1]This debate was mirrored in the councilists in the aftermath of the aborted German
Revolution of 1919 with the splits in the AUD vs. AUD-E. They adopted the term unitary
organization to pick out a group that rejected political organization, and is similar to
the approach I will lay out with the exception that they rejected organizing around the
daily lives of workers, which differentiated them from the FAU at the time until later
when the AUD was in decline and the AUDE moved closer to anarchosyndicalism and the KAPD
organized in the AUD moved closer to pure political organizations. Unitary organization it
should be said is confusing as those anarchists who are called unitary organizationalists
by the dualists repeatedly polemicized supports of unitary organization in their writings,
by which they meant people who supported a single united organization for all workers with
all ideologies inside.
[2]Solidarity Federation. (1987). Revolutionary unionism in Latin America:
The FORA in Argentina. ASP LONDON & DONCASTER
https://libcom.org/library/revolutionary-unionism-latin-america-fora-argentina
[3]Lopez Arango, E. Syndicalism and Anarchism. Translated by SN Nappalos.
https://libcom.org/library/syndicalism-anarchism
[4]Lopez Arango. E. (1942). Means of struggle - Excerpt from Doctrine, Tactics, and Ends
of the Workers Movement, the first chapter of the 1942 Posthumous collection called
Ideario. Published in Anarquismo en America Latina. (1990). ed. Ángel J. Cappelletti y
Carlos M. Rama. Prólogo, edición y cronología, traducción: Ángel J. Cappelletti.
https://libcom.org/library/means-struggle
[5]Lopez Arango, E. & de Santillan, DA. (1925). El anarquismo en el movimiento obrero. Pg.
32
http://www.portaloaca.com/images/documentos/El%20anarquismo%20en%20el%20movimiento_obrero2.pdf
[6]La FORA Anexo 208. Translation of the passage by SN Nappalos. Quoted in Lopez, Antonio.
(1998). La FORA en el movimiento obrero. Tupac Ediciones. Pg. 73-74.
[7]Antilli, T. (1924). Lucha de clases y lucha social.
https://libcom.org/library/lucha-de-clases-y-lucha-social
[8]Lopez Arango, E. Political leadership or ideological orientation of the workers
movement.
https://libcom.org/library/political-leadership-or-ideological-orientation-workers-movement
[9]Lopez Arango, E. & de Santillan, DA. (1925). El anarquismo en el movimiento obrero. Pg.
77
http://www.portaloaca.com/images/documentos/El%20anarquismo%20en%20el%20movimiento_obrero2.pdf
[10]Ibid.
[11]Lopez Arango, E. The resistance to capitalism.
https://libcom.org/library/resistance-capitalism
[12]Ibid. Means of struggle
[13]Azaretto, M. (1939). Slippery Slopes: the anarchists in Spain. Translated in May-June
2014 from the Spanish original by Manuel Azaretto, Las Pendientes Resbaladizas (Los
anarquistas en España), Editorial Germinal, Montevideo, 1939.
https://libcom.org/history/slippery-slopes-anarchists-spain-manuel-azaretto
[14]Nappalos, SN. (2015). Dismantling our divisions: craft, industry, and a new society.
https://iwwmiami.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/dismantling-our-divisions-craft-industry-and-a-new-society/
http://ideasandaction.info/2017/11/anarchist-social-organization/
------------------------------
Message: 3
There has been an increasing amount of public debate in recent years on the issue of
climate change. As the effects of increasing overall global temperatures become difficult
to ignore, and climatologists raise their voices in warning, more and more people are
asking themselves what exactly is climate change and should we be concerned about it. As
the COP23 international climate change talks take place, this article will attempt to
answer those questions by briefly exploring the basic concept of climate change as
described by the vast majority of climatologists. ---- At its most basic level climate
change simply means a change in overall global weather trends. This change can be brought
about by 'natural' and/or 'artificial' means. Natural climate change occurs as a result of
events which are not caused by human beings, and some common examples would be an altered
amount of solar energy reaching the earth from the sun, or a series of volcanic eruptions.
Artificial or 'anthropogenic' climate change occurs as a result of certain human
activities such as the large-scale burning of fossil fuels and practicing specific modes
of agriculture.
So how does anthropogenic climate change actually 'work'? The reason is that some human
activities cause 'greenhouse gasses' to be released into the atmosphere. These gasses,
which include water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane, create an insulating layer
in the planet's lower atmosphere. Meanwhile, solar energy from the sun passes through the
atmosphere, hits the Earth's surface, and is reflected away again. The insulating layer of
greenhouse gasses prevents some of the reflected energy from passing back out into space,
and the result is an increase in global temperature.
Now, a certain amount of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is
beneficial. Without them, too much of the sun's energy would pass back out through the
atmosphere and the planet would be freezing. But climatologists, while not denying that
climate change can occur naturally, are warning that the extra greenhouse gasses produced
by human activities are already causing problems, and if left unchecked the situation will
become ever more dangerous. In addition to the increasing global temperatures they point
to the high CO2 levels currently present in our atmosphere. CO2 levels began to rise
during the late 18th century with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, and
since the 1950's they have soared dramatically so that presently there is about a third
more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been for at least the past 400,000 years (this
is a conservative estimate).
There is often opposition to the idea of anthropogenic climate change. It has become a
politicized issue and many people who identify with certain ideologies automatically
reject it as implausible, usually claiming that climate change does indeed occur but only
due to natural factors. Countering this claim climatologists have investigated the natural
causes associated with climate change and have concluded that these are not responsible
for the current changes we are seeing. For example, following a small increase in the
amount of solar energy hitting the Earth during the early and mid-20th century, there has
been a reduction in the amount over the past thirty-five years, and the upper layers of
the atmosphere have been cooling rather than warming - i.e. it's humans heating the
planet, not the sun. Similarly, scientists maintain that internal climate cycles such as
El Nino do not create temperature increases but rather transfer existing heat from one
part of the planet to another. Also, huge companies such as Shell and Exxon who trade in
fossil fuels have deliberately funded campaigns of misinformation in order to try to
preserve their method of generating profits.
At present at least 97% of published climatologists agree that human activities are almost
certainly responsible for climate change and the debate amongst the scientific community
isn't about whether humans are playing a part in climate change but rather about how
serious the effects of change are going to be. Unless practices such as the large-scale
burning of fossil fuels and mass animal-based agriculture are altered to an
environmentally-friendly alternative then most scientists are predicting that we are going
to have to face a range of catastrophes in the near future. Some of these include rising
sea levels (and the subsequent displacement of people and damage to infrastructure in
low-lying coastal areas), extreme weather conditions (e.g. heatwaves and droughts in some
areas, unprecedented heavy rainfall in others), reduced agricultural yields (in some areas
the growing season will be longer due to frost-free winters, but globally there will be an
overall decrease in the amount of food produced), damage to marine life due to
overly-acidic oceans and seas, and increased competition for food, fuel, and land (and the
subsequent conflict that could bring).
Given the amount of scientific support from all over the globe for the concept I find it
difficult to believe that, as somebody recently suggested to me, it is a nefarious
conspiracy concocted by devious climatologists in order to create jobs for themselves. If
anything, hundreds of millions of dollars are flooding to convince us of the opposite. The
scientists are offering empirical evidence to support their claims. Assuming that they are
correct and considering the severity of the potential consequences if they are, I think it
is vital that as many of us as is possible educate ourselves about the subject and take
all appropriate action to prevent a dangerous situation from becoming a deadly one.
Sources
1. NASA Climate
2. 350.org
3. Skeptical Science
4. Real Climate
5. Climate Central
6. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
7. Michael Mann 'Climate Change Explained', from the Rubin Report.
8. 'The Story of Climate Change', featuring Jim Hansen.
9. Kevin Anderson 'Climate Change, What's Next'.
https://www.wsm.ie/c/climate-change-basics
------------------------------
Message: 4
Despite police reinforcements in the center of the capital on a cold November night,
several dozen anarchists marched on the centenary of the revolution. Near the Chistye
Prudy subway station, the anarchists displayed a banner that read: "Dictatorship, poverty
and corruption, just one exit - Revolution!" And marched energetically through the streets
shouting slogans calling for class struggle, solidarity, social revolution and
construction of a new and just world. ---- The action was not allowed, we did not consider
it necessary to ask permission from the authorities to march on the street. We can walk
and breathe more freely without the accompaniment of a police train. In addition, under
the current conditions of the dictatorship, people are encouraged to participate in
coordinated actions by the authorities, where all participants will be registered and
monitored by the police: stupidity and provocation.
Remember, the true social revolution of liberation that anarchists and revolutionaries of
the past dreamed of is not left in the past, but is waiting for in the future. The
revolution is the only solution to solve all the contradictions and problems generated by
the capitalist system. The struggle against individual manifestations of capitalism and
the state, such as poverty, corruption, police illegality and arbitrariness of the
authorities, has no prospects unless we take into account the true causes of social ills:
the state and capitalism . Otherwise, in attempting to resolve social contradictions by
changing government without destroying the state and creating a new democratic system, new
thieves and dictators will simply replace the old ones, as demonstrated by the experiences
of the two revolutions of 1917. And, of course,
Source, photos and video: https://vk.com/wall-34380444_151925
------------------------------
Message: 5
KCK's Altun remarked that the Kurdish resistance and struggle has changed the course of
the crisis in the Middle East, and described the developments in Rojava as a first in the
Middle East. ---- Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) Executive Council member Riza Altun
answered questions of ANF English service about the developments taking place in Kurdistan
and the Middle East amid what he calls the Third World War. ---- Altun remarked that; "The
Kurdish resistance in Kobane, Rojava created new circumstances. The international
community and public opinion created pressure over the U.S. and other international powers
to interfere the situation. The resistance mounted in Shengal, and after that in Kobane,
moved the conscience of international community. The relationship between the US-led
coalition and YPG was seen as legitimate and necessary as the alliance between the U.S.
and Soviet Union against Hitler's fascism at the time of the World War II. Both sides
needed that kind of relationship like the U.S. and the Soviets needed back then. Thus a
tactical relationship was developed with the U.S. against ISIS."
Below is first part of our detailed interview with Altun.
Revolutionary movements and people throughout the world, especially in Europe and Latin
America, watch PKK and Rojava with growing interest. However, most of them cannot
associate the relationship with US-led international coalition with the socialist and
anti-imperialist identity of the Kurdish movement after Kobane. Isn't this a contradiction
in your point of view, too? Or is it a temporary situation that arose because of the
political, ideological and sociological besiegement and isolation of the Kurds? Or do you
have another explanation for this?
To understand the current political situation, one needs to know how it developed in the
first place. These are not results of political relationship based on planned strategic
and tactical relations. It should be evaluated and seen as more of political and tactical
outcomes of a political situation and the course of the struggle and the resistance.
When the latest crisis in the Middle East emerged, PKK already had a 40-years history of
struggle. This struggle was essentially against the imperialist-capitalist system in the
body of colonialist states that control four parts of Kurdistan in the name of capitalist
and imperialist system. For exactly forty years these states supported the imperialist and
capitalist colonialist powers and tried everything to supress the freedom movement.
The recent plot against our leader (Abdullah Ocalan) is a result of the efforts by these
powers. This is a systemic approach to eliminate our movement. It's the approach of the
imperialism and capitalism. At the start of the Middle East crisis their approach was to
exclude our movement and supress and eventually destroy it. This approach was based on the
relationship and alliance of the imperialist and colonialist powers. We can see this when
we look at what happened in Syria. When the chaos in Syria erupted, many circles in the
name of Syrian opposition developed relationships with international imperialism and
regional colonialist powers. Kurds were the only side to mount resistance to defend
themselves and had no connection with anyone. There was no support for them from any power.
When some powers that developed the Syrian crisis, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, targeted
Kurds through their proxies, our people started resistance in accordance with the ideas of
Leader Apo. The Syrian regime and so-called Syrian opposition tried everything in their
power to supress this resistance. Kurds then responded when organizations like ISIS,
Al-Nusra, Ahrar Al-Sham attacked Kurdish regions with the support of the Assad regime. A
resistance started here. Basically, this is how it all started.
KOBANE WAS A TURNING POINT
When this battle and resistance started, Turkey, Iran, Syria and other similar powers were
supporting the Salafist (radical islamist) groups that were attacking the Kurds in Syria.
Other powers, particularly the U.S. and Israel were also supporting these groups. They
were developing projects and forced these groups to act in accordance with their
interests. The Salafist groups attacked Kurds with this support and this continued until
the resistance in Kobane. Kobane was a turning point. Until the resistance in Kobane there
was no single regional or international power that supported the Kurds' freedom movement
in Syria. There was no power that developed a tactical relation with Kurds. They
collectively did everything they could to eliminate the Kurdish movement. Iran acted
together with the Syrian regime to crush Kurdish resistance. On the other hand, the U.S.
and Israel tried to supress the resistance by supporting Salafist groups with various
policies over Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Kobane was the turning point of the struggle.
SHENGAL RESISTANCE GAVE BREATH TO THE WORLD
The powers which wanted to dominate the Middle East through ISIS, pursued a very
deliberate and relentless policy. They followed the same strategy with Genghis Khan or
Tamerlane which helped them conquer the entire Middle East in a short period of time:
unlimited violence and savagery. When ISIS beheaded hundreds of people in front of the
cameras and serviced them to the press, it wasn't because they were illiterate. It was a
result of their strategy to create a climate of panic and fear, then make people
surrender. After the first massacres, the fear spread ISIS arrived before ISIS itself and
towns, cities were handed to them without any resistance. The first resistance against
ISIS was in Shengal. PKK guerrillas and YPG-YPJ fighters in Rojava mounted the first and
the only resistance against ISIS when they attacked the Ezidi people here. Although they
have an enormous military power, the U.S., Russia and EU countries just watched the
massacre; HPG and YJA Star guerrillas along with YPG-YPJ fighters saves hundreds of
thousand Ezidis, Christians and Muslims from genocide.
The resistance in Shengal gave breath to the world and made people question the situation
away from the climate of panic and fear. They asked "Despite having an enormous military
power why do the US, EU and other global and regional powers not act against this
atrocity? Do they try to benefit from this barbarity?" The new situation opened the
legitimacy of international powers and regional states to discussion and on the other hand
brought prestige for the PKK and our Leader. It destroyed the "terrorist organization"
label which was stuck on the name of our movement by Turkish colonialism and imperialism.
After this no one could carry on their relations with ISIS or other organizations like
them. Especially the countries that define themselves as "democratic states" had to search
for new tendencies to continue their existence in the region.
GLOBAL AND REGIONAL POWERS STARTED A NEW PHASE FOR THEMSELVES AFTER KOBANE RESISTANCE
However, despite the resistance in Shengal and its results, regional powers continued with
their policy on ISIS and other Salafist organizations. They later diverted ISIS to Kobane
and tried to secure its fall into ISIS' hands. The goal was to destroy the gains of Rojava
Kurds, but most importantly the gains of freedom path in the Middle East. This was for
everybody's interest in one way at the time. The regime and its indirect international
supporters were looking to benefit from this, in addition to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. ISIS
built a tactic and strategic relationship over anti-Kurdish approach of these powers. This
is how the attack against Kobane developed.
A great resistance was put up against the attack on Kobane and this resistance was
embraced by the people in all four parts of Kurdistan. All the Kurds in Northern, Southern
and Eastern Kurdistan showed great sensibility towards Kobane. The longevity of the
resistance increased the interest of people of the region and international public
opinion. After 100 days of resistance Kobane was on the top of the agenda in the world.
After Kobane was on the world's agenda, the failure of ISIS caused a split. At that point,
the regional and global powers revaluated their political and military positions and
started a new process on their part.
THE RESISTANCE IN SHENGAL AND KOBANE MOVED THE CONSCIENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
The Kurdish resistance in Kobane, Rojava created new circumstances. The international
community and public opinion created pressure over the U.S. and other international powers
to interfere the situation. The resistance mounted in Shengal, and after that in Kobane,
moved the conscience of international community.
The relationship between the US-led coalition and YPG was seen as legitimate and necessary
as the alliance between the U.S. and Soviet Union against Hitler's fascism at the time of
the World War II. Both sides needed that kind of relationship like the U.S. and the
Soviets needed back then. Thus a tactical relationship was developed with the U.S. against
ISIS. One should address how this relationship started this way.
It is more important to see how this relationship developed what the intentions of the
parties in this relationship are, than to reach a conclusion by only determining the
ideological positions of the parties. Otherwise for forty years the U.S. is fighting
against the PKK and the PKK is fighting against the imperialist system in the body of
colonialism. But there is a new situation and chaos in the Middle East that concerns the
world system. There is not only oppressed peoples' and socialist movements' struggle
against imperialist powers in this chaotic situation. There are also struggles between
imperialist powers themselves, or between imperialist powers and regional powers or local
reactionism. This struggle creates opportunities in which all parties can get into tactic
relationships while moving forward to reach their objectives. Therefore, every party tries
to do this as they benefit from the power and capabilities of others. Various political
and military positions make this possible.
THE CHOICE THAT THE U.S. HAD TO MAKE
At the beginning of the crisis in the Middle East, the U.S. faced several options after
the political and military investments it had made in Syria over Turkey and Saudi Arabia,
came to nothing. The first option was to leave Syria, i.e. to leave the region. Doing so
the U.S. would back down from its world domination politics. US wouldn't possibly be able
to do so. The second option was to invest more on the policies that it pursued over Turkey
and Saudi Arabia, which were, however, failing. This would not reveal a different outcome
either. The third option was to move further by developing relationship with a new force
that proved its success on the ground. This third one was the choice that the U.S. did
have to make.
Instead of continuing with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and repeating a previous practice by
fighting against this freedom force that had had achieved a success, the U.S. choose to
become a partner with the success this resistance revealed, which would obviously benefit
itself more. This was a crafty imperialist approach which predicted to attribute these
gains to itself. The U.S. calculated this very well and developed a tactical relationship.
The U.S. started a process based on supporting the resistance of YPG forces as an approach
of the international coalition against ISIS. This is more of a tactical process. The
freedom struggle of the Kurds in Rojava is based on freedom and equality on a socialist
basis. It is the expression of a political path which was developed basing on the
brotherhood and unity of peoples. On the other side, the imperialists are fighting to
impose their hegemony over the Middle East. These very different strategic and ideological
positions entered a process of just a tactical relationship in Kobane in the Middle East.
The other developments that followed can be seen as a continuation of this tactical
relationship.
In itself, this relationship is a very painful one. On one side the freedom movement is
trying to extend its territory and gives a struggle to create a free Middle East by
developing democratic solutions, while the other side tries to extend its hegemony in the
Middle East. This is not a relationship in which the parties support each other but are in
constant conflict.
THIS IS A FIRST IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Can we say that this is a very rare situation, maybe the first of its kind? Is there a
tactical partnership that arises from the intersection of the interests of oppressed
peoples' forces and hegemonic imperialistic powers?
Maybe in the Middle East this is the first of its kind. It's not something that's unheard
of in the world. If we check the history of the struggles for freedom, we can find out a
lot of examples. There are some examples in the late history. There are a lot of examples
especially during World War I and II and in the Soviet revolution period.
The Soviets and the U.S. saw the common points of their struggle against fascism during
World War II. Now when we evaluate this how can we define the position of the Soviet
Union? Will we say that the Soviet Union collaborated with imperialism after evaluating
its relations with the U.S. or the UK? This will be a very shallow and dogmatic approach.
There are several examples from the October Revolution as well. After the October
Revolution there happened economic and political agreements with the capitalists and
imperialists. If you look at the nature of these agreements, there is no denial of
socialism on Soviet part. There is no denial of socialism when Lenin developed
relationships with imperialists. The same thing goes for the agreements made during World
War II. Here one can talk about the necessity of developing tactical and strategic
relationships and agreement for the October Revolution. Yet the struggle against fascism
during World War II required creation of an anti-fascist common front.
How long will these relationships last?
If we look closely, this kind of relationships are limited by the period of the problems'
existence. That means it's not at the level of a strategic relationship. Like how the
agreements of the October Revolutions agreements point out their conjunctional situations
and like how these agreements become worthless when the conjunctional situation is over,
it was the same during World War II.
The alliance that was developed during the World War II was an anti-fascist stance which
emerged from the intersection of homeland defence of the Soviet Union under intense
attacks and the interests of other anti-fascist powers. This agreement remained in force
as long as the fascist attacks continued. But once the fascism was defeated, all parties
returned to their own political positions and moved on in accordance with their respective
ideological-political path.
There are not many examples of these in the Middle East. This is the first of its kind,
and a unique situation. The conflict and the struggle in the world can be named as the
World War III. The Middle East is one of the most affected territory of the global
conflict. This means that we may witness some developments that we have never seen before
in the region. For example, we may witness complicated tactical and strategic
relationships of the regional status quoist states, international imperialism and the
socialist revolutionary movements which all act to strengthen their positions. Because the
reality in the field is very complicated. There are three main courses.
The first is the imperialist course and involved powers. This is represented by the U.S.,
Russia and the European Union states. The second course is of the regional status quoist
states. These are represented by countries like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The third
course is of socialism, democracy and freedom. This is represented by leftist and
socialist popular movements led by the PKK. These three courses in conflict with each
other and among themselves, especially the first two ones. Therefore, these forces can
continuously develop different relationships and alliances in accordance with the priority
of their interests and conflicts. Every power positions itself open to relations and
alliances while conflicting with each other. Our definition of "World War III" is based on
this reality. When we predicate on this definition of World War III, we will see various
new strategic, tactical relations. When this is the case, many powers are supposed to
develop tactical relationships in order to move forward to their strategic goals, although
it may look contradicting. This goes for everybody. This is within the nature of politics
and diplomacy. This should be expected. Therefore, making judgements by looking at the
open political and military situations might be a too shallow and narrow approach.
THIS IS A PRACTICAL PROCESS
Taking the right approach means this: Capitalism is in a deep and structural crisis. It's
a global crisis but can be felt intensely in the Middle East. The conflict in the Middle
East is taking place at both military and political level. Therefore, an ideological and
political approach alone is not enough. An organized and military position is needed at
the same time. When you take an organized and military position that means you will
constantly fight against the status quo in order to change and transform it and develop a
new structure. This is a practical process. If it's not evaluated correctly and the
dialectics of the progress are not implemented in a good way, the dogmatic approach may
result in a great elimination. In that case, a situation where the line of freedom cannot
be expressed may emerge.
Because of this we need to know and analyse the field very well. We have to be precise
when we decide when and what to do against something. When we make gains or capture a
place we have to evaluate carefully how it will be defended and how it will be used to
build and establish socialism. If we don't look at it from this perspective we will never
be able to understand the freedom path or the positions of regional status quoist states
and international imperialism. If we mix all these with each other and stand aside with
our theoretical approaches, posing like we are great defenders of freedom; in reality we
will gravely harm the struggle and resistance of the people.
These are tactical relationships, this is understandable. Now the Federation of Northern
Syria and Rojava forces have relations with the U.S. and Russia. These are great
imperialist powers. How can one protect socialist identity when having political, military
and economic relations with those powers?
Firstly, I have to tell you this: Our struggle is carried out by carefully considering the
historical experiences of other struggles for freedom. You have to take this into
consideration. Secondly there is no way that someone will understand us from the real
socialism's point of view. From the practices of real socialism, we know that we cannot
carry out a freedom struggle by polarizing the world in form of fronts and defining
ourselves within one of these. The world is not in that situation and it's not possible to
carry out a freedom struggle by isolating and marginalising yourself within the world's
capitalist system. We have to see the problem as a whole and act accordingly.
We are living in a capitalist world system. We want to create an area of freedom to
struggle against capitalism, imperialism and colonialism. Now we have no opportunity to
position ourselves in an existing area of freedom. We want to create one inside this world
which is held captive and enslaved. The freedom areas that we want to create are now under
other powers' control. But the social and political groups have very serious discrepancies
among themselves. We can only move forward in the name of socialist idealism by benefiting
from these conflicts and discrepancies. Creating polarization and taking position in it is
not for the benefit of socialist powers.
If we approach the problems with real socialism's understanding of polarization, we will
have to face all imperialist and colonialist powers. But in reality, the imperialist and
colonialist powers are not homogenous. There are various contradictions and discrepancies
between them. A failure to benefit from these conflicts and to gather strength and
positions in the name of socialist idea will be a great loss for the socialist ideology.
If we look at the issue by only differentiating the socialists and
capitalists-imperialists, we will be left with only a few whom we can call friends on the
ground. And with a compilation of these "friends" it will be very difficult to move
forward in this great struggle. When there is an opportunity, everything we take from
capitalist-imperialist system will make the socialist movement stronger while making them
weaker.
When this is the case, we need to move forward with the necessities drawn by our
ideological and political approaches by organizing and opening areas of freedom. There are
hegemonic powers, which are in relation with the capitalist system, in front of us and
they control those areas. And we have to open a way for ourselves in these areas.
When we look at the reality of the Middle East, there is no certain area of freedom or a
certain free group. All areas have been lost throughout the history. The society has been
melted in mental aspect within the existing capitalist world system. Countries and regions
are invaded by the colonialist and imperialist hegemonic powers. The path of freedom for
the society is closed under the name of state sovereignty.
Kurds are developing a freedom struggle under these circumstances. We are trying to create
an area for freedom within the social reality which is denied by imperialism and the four
colonialist countries (Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria). We need to move forward with very
carefully calculated steps and approaches. Taking all powers against us by saying "this is
imperialist", "that is colonialist and capitalist" will mean accepting defeat. That means
risking the elimination of the freedom struggle.
So, what needs to be done? We need to know how to create ourselves from nothing by
analysing the military, political and social reality of these areas. When you act this
way, confronting various powers, developing tactical relations and getting into military
and political relations will be inevitable. The important thing is to stick to the
ideological, political line and freedom approach. You need to be sure that all of these
will serve your objectives. Those who are carrying out the freedom struggle, have to take
this reality into consideration and express themselves within this context.
"THE CAPITALIST-IMPERIALIST SYSTEM UNITED AGAINST OUR STRUGGLE"
Now there is a freedom struggle we have been developing. If you look at the history of our
struggle you will see that there are appalling difficulties and richness. For more than 40
years the capitalist and imperialist system of the world united against our struggle for
freedom. They supported the colonialist powers and made great investments to prevent
rising of a freedom movement. Despite that a great struggle has been developed solely with
people's support. The struggle was embraced by the people. This freedom approach which is
embraced by the Kurdish society had a huge influence on the Middle East and the (Kurdish)
struggle found a place for itself within the conjuncture. Although the world was against
it, the existence of a movement which is based on guerrilla, democratic politics and
organization of people led to incredible results.
And also this movement had the ability to move on without active support of organizations
that call themselves "defenders of freedom" or "against the system". Most fractions had
concerns over this movement and didn't support it at all.
Today there is a chaos is the Middle East. The chaos is also partly a result of the
40-year struggle by this movement. This chaos turned the Middle East upside down. A new
Middle East territory has emerged where the policies of international and imperialist
powers went bankrupt. Everybody assumed that capitalism, imperialism or Israel was very
powerful. But now they have been rendered weak. The chaos in the Middle east swallowed
them all and now they became invisible. And also the structure of the regional powers and
the hegemony of the status quoist states has collapsed.
So how did this happen? You can explain this with the crisis of the system or maybe with
historical conflicts. But that's not all. The system's crisis or historical conflicts
should be triggered by a struggle and intervention before it's transformed into chaos. The
forty-year freedom struggle by the PKK has a share on the rise of the chaos in the Middle
East and the collapse of the system.
"THIS IS NOT SOLELY A WAR FOR OIL"
Now everyone is struggling to recreate and reposition themselves in the Middle East. This
is very important. We have to see this. This center of the crisis of the capitalist
modernism is in the Middle East right now. Either the capitalism will recreate itself in
the Middle East and prolong its life for another a hundred or more years or the chaos in
the Middle East will open a hole within the capitalist modernity system as the region
where freedom has emerged. This is why all the world's powers are in the Middle East and
fight. It will be a very shallow approach to explain this solely as "the war for oil".
This is the ground where the current depression of the worlds' capitalist system has
turned to a World War III. Everybody is here. The struggle here is ideological, political
and systematic. The global imperialism wants to develop a postmodern world hegemony and
system through this struggle. The regional status quoist states are trying to protect
their gains and advantages that were provided to them by the system of the 20th century.
The oppressed peoples and societal circles are trying to produce their freedom and
equality out of this chaos. This is what's happening in fact in Rojava right now.
But what do they rely on when developing these relationships? Is it possible to build a
socialist society in northern Syria or in the Middle East despite American, Russian and
European imperialism?
When we look at the previous progress of the crisis in the Middle East, there is no
libertarian line anywhere. There is none in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Gulf States. Because
the chaos was progressing mainly as the re-establishment of capitalist modernity and
conflict of imperialist and colonialist powers. There was no political order or
organization that could express freedom. The people's search for freedom and their efforts
were destroyed by those powers because it was not organized. But when the crisis came to
Rojava a new situation emerged based on the path of freedom. The new situation is exactly
what emerged from the struggle of the PYD and YPG. For the first time a democratic,
libertarian and socialist political line has emerged in the Middle East against capitalist
modernity. Because of this, they got united and tried to crush this struggle that was
embraced by the Middle East and the world. However, they ended up developing relationship
with what they couldn't eliminate.
What needs to be done in this position? For sure those who are giving a freedom struggle
should believe in themselves in the first place. If they need and believe in their
ideology, in socialism, in freedom and in social equality, they shouldn't hesitate to
develop relations with anyone.
This question of yours is just like the destiny of the Middle East. If some are giving a
freedom struggle and some others are trying to make their own interests dominant, then
these parties will inevitably be through a process in a relationship and contradiction. It
has to be like this. It can be in the form of consensus and alliance or conflict. For
example, the U.S. had to develop a tactical relationship with YPG that it showed no
interest in the beginning. But the U.S. is trying every way to remove YPG's socialist
identity and integrate it into the capitalist-imperialist system. This is one of its
primary objectives while developing a relationship. But the Kurds and the political line
of freedom has its own objectives in this relationship. It's important who is advancing
with whose horse.
I mean the results achieved in this relationship are of strategical and tactical
importance for both sides. The positions obtained by Kurds of Rojava and forces of
Northern Syria Federation are strategic gains for all socialist and anti-system forces.
But the US' presence in Syria only has a quantitative importance with regard to the
imperialist system. Without doubt, these tactical relationships are important for them. We
know for sure that these relationships will be in a constantly conflicting manner. But the
movement in Rojava has confidence in itself and it is getting favourable results.
Now there is a coalition in Syria which is represented by the U.S. It has all the support
of capitalism. There is also another front of this system, Russia. And Russia has a lot of
support behind it. With the presence of Russia and the U.S., all hegemonic and imperialist
powers of the world are represented in the Middle East. And regional states are in a
position of relation and contradiction between these two points. While these powers are
trying to impose the dominance of the imperialist world system, they are conflicting with
each other as they try to impose their own hegemony as an absolute hegemony.
"ROJAVA, AN AREA OF FREEDOM IN A SMALL PIECE OF LAND"
Under these circumstances, there is now an area of freedom in a small piece of land,
called Rojava where a democratic communal area has been formed. We are talking about an
area of freedom for the first time. With all material and moral support of the society,
this force continues its fight. Meanwhile it wants to establish itself by resisting in
ideological, politic and economical means against all the might of world's capitalist system.
We have to think what this area of freedom means to those who defend freedom. There is an
imperialist, capitalist approach that wants to destroy this area completely. There is a
burden coming with it. On the other hand there is a struggle to expand this area. We have
to understand the conflict and discrepancy very well. We can't understand the discrepancy
without understanding the conflict.
Then YPG has to take advantage of the relationships with Russia and the US. If we only
look at the way these relationships are handled, it's possible to understand the problem
anytime.
You talked about the strategic approach of the international powers. What's Russia's approach?
In Russia's strategic approach we see that it wants to enter Syria as a regional power.
Who are supporting Russia? Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Russia wants to establish itself
by influencing other states in the Middle East. What's its basic strategic objective? It
wants to bring a nation state character to the Syrian regime and wants to turn it into a
hegemonic power. We don't see an approach which evokes democracy, equality or freedom, or
an approach which will help to solve the problems by democratic means.
Of course, while manifesting this approach, Russia develops a concept after evaluating the
daily discrepancies with its allies. It is pursuing a policy of integrating the areas of
freedom led by the Kurds to the regime, to the nation state. It is using its military,
political and diplomatic power in this regard. But on the other hand those who carry out
the freedom struggle evaluate this power's situation and try to move forward over the
cracks. This relation is very problematic because of that. Russia is in relation with
Turkey, Iran and Syria and it wants to integrate the freedom movement to the regime. But
despite that, our freedom movement tries to progress in military, economic, political and
diplomatic aspect by taking advantage of the cracks in the relations between them.
We talked about Russia... Now I want to ask you about the U.S. What is the strategic
approach of the US?
A similar situation also goes for the U.S. Is the U.S. comfortable with the PYD's politic
line of freedom? I don't think that the U.S. is comfortable with the declaration of
cantons or the establishment of self-governance system instead of a state and finally the
efforts for the creation of an equal, free society. The U.S. sees those as a conjunctural
situation and ignores them. It wants to achieve military victories through tactical
relationships. But on the other hand it develops strategic and prudential relationships
with the states. Then taking a position against the U.S. without seeing the
anti-imperialist character of the tactical relationship is like playing into the hands of
the system of hegemonic power.
There is no relationship with the U.S. other than tactical, political and military
relationship. The economic model which is based on monopolies is not in force in Rojava.
There is no place for the monopolies. The system in Rojava is basically a liberal and an
equalitarian, democratic system. We can easily see this on the federal constitution. What
is being organized socially? It's a democratic society and democratic politics.
In economic aspect, establishment of a communal society is the main objective. Therefore
an anti-exploitation and anti-monopoly legislation is being prepared. Now here there is no
tactical and strategic alliance with Russia, the U.S. or any other capitalist, imperialist
power. On the contrary a very different world view is imposed on them. It is being tried
to show them that another world is possible. But the capitalist system rejects it and
tries to integrate this into the nation state in order to destroy this alternative before
it's born.
Russia and the U.S. have great military might and political power. Those have an obvious
superiority over your power and we can talk about an asymmetric power situation here. What
are your advantages against these two fronts? Do you have any ideological, political and
social advantages?
Of course, in some aspects, we have the advantage over them. Developments in various
points prove this.
First of all, the Middle East is where the civilization was born. By civilization I mean
the period that starts with the rise of class society until the establishment of
capitalist system. We are talking about a process where the humanitarian values were
destroyed and corrupted. The society is desperate and hopeless because of that. The
current chaos is also the result of this. The society is in a great search for freedom,
which is where we have the advantage over them. In general our socialist ideology which
can be an answer to society's search for freedom is our advantage against imperialism and
colonialism.
"WE OFFER SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM"
In the Middle East there are immense problems that are based on ethnic, religious,
sectarian, class and sexism. The system of the civilization and its last product -the
capitalist system- is the creator of these problems. We are offering solutions to these
problems which are compatible with the history and the culture of the peoples in the
Middle East. In fact, we associate the socialist thinking with the experiences that are
present in our people's history and cultural life. That makes our ideas attractive.
Also we have forty years of history as a movement. This is a history which is dedicated to
equality, freedom, justice and brotherhood of the people. Therefore all parts of the
society trusts this movement which has similar characteristics with the movements of
prophets in terms of devotion. We are expressing this tradition with socialism today.
If a correct ideological, political and organizational approach is manifested, it is
always possible to become an efficient power in the Middle East. We proved this right in
the region. A lot of defenders of freedom proved this throughout the history.
We made this rise in Kurdistan, in four parts of Kurdistan. But after that in Rojava it
emerged as a very advanced situation. This is an important support for us. It's obvious
that if the right approach is manifested, you will achieve concrete results here.
Secondly and most importantly peoples and societies are directly involved in the struggle.
Until now the society's participation in the conflicts, struggles was limited. The society
was wither the victim or the oppressed side of the conflict between ruling powers. But
especially in the Northern Syria Federation, all fractions of the society are actively
involved in politics, military and organizational efforts. Now the imperialist and
colonialist powers have very limited capability to agitate one social group towards
another and create a war. The new way that the society expresses itself within this frame
has led to the rise of a new center and a new social field. This is the most important
advantage that we have over them.
"AN ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF AN OCEAN"
For example now we can talk about the Federation of Northern Syria, the Cizire Canton or
another conton. When we just talk about this we may not realize how important it is. But
being a federation or a canton is not a simple situation. What does this mean? This means
creating an island in the middle of an ocean. This is impossible to understand for those
who does not envision the enemy. It's not possible to understand this if one does not feel
and experience freedom.
We say that an attempt to understand the situation with shallow political evaluations will
lead to nothing but demagogy.
Then what's rising here in Rojava? What is rising in Kobane and Afrin? And as a whole what
does the Federation of Northern Syria mean? When we think about these we realize that in
these areas the movement didn't only answer people's search for freedom but also areas to
live freely have been created. These areas of freedom start to appear as small islands.
And these islands come together and try to form a federation in order to avoid getting
marginalised. It is also trying to reach universal status by uniting with the
international revolutionary movement.
We should see that capitalism is left without solution against its own structural crisis
and the hegemonic structures have a lot of discrepancies. These along with the chaos give
the revolutionary powers a great advantage. Therefore people's search for freedom, the
humanity's longing for a re-attainment of human identity and this longing's results in the
Middle East and Rojava provide opportunities more than enough in order for the freedom
struggle to develop.
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten