This is a report about what is currently going on in Basra, the third main city in Iraq. The protesters back to the streets from 4th of this month, September demanding their basic rights.
The Protest in Basra’s city, south of Iraq, continues
“Out Iran out out, Basra lives free” this is one of the main chant thousands of the protesters were shouting. The strong protesters back to the streets in the afternoon of Tuesday, 10/09 when the Prime Minister of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi failed to deliver his promises to meet people’s demands of July.
Since the beginning of the protests on Tuesday,10 protesters killed and over 100 injured. They cut off the road of Umm Qasr on Wednesday, 04/09. Umm Qasr Port is part of the city of Umm Qasr and one of the couple ports in Iraq for entering goods to Basra and the rest of Iraq.
The protests are getting bigger. They are very angry because they are lack of every basic service including clean water electric power. In this very hot weather while the temperature still reaches 50 degree people has no enough power. The concerns of people in Basra mentioned in my initial report of July
still have not been taken in to the consideration by the Iraqi government.
On Wednesday, 05/09 the protester occupied the building of the governor of Basra and burned down. On Thursday, 06/09, four TV offices and fifteen political parties headquarters and some of the government’s building also burned down. On the same day, Wednesday night, the protesters occupied the Iranian Consulate in Basra, the staff managed to flee but the protesters set a fire on the building.
People in Basra have lots of sympathy from Iraqis from South to the North of Iraq. There was a big rally/ protest yesterday, Friday, in Tahrir Square in Baghdad to support the people’s demand in Basra.
There are also unconfirmed reports of entering the US forces into the city of Basra watching the situation closely. Other reports are talking about fleeing most of the MPs, the chiefs of the political parties, heads of the companies and the directors of main services in the city. There is other report talks about fleeing government’s agents while some of the protesters found their places where they work and live.
While I am not justifying violence from the protesters but the true is the police, securities and the Militias of the political parties have been very violent from the beginning of the protests in the afternoon of 04/09. There is other reason for the people in Basra to get very angry. They are very desperate and frustrated while for the last 15 years whoever came to power locally and centrally failed them. The people in Basra on one hand see themselves have been deprived almost of everything; on the other hand they see a tiny minority of their people have been beneficiary from the situation and living highlife.
The true and the right thing is people in Basra regardless of their differences have been united, fighting back the local and central government for their legitimate and natural demands. It did not last long for them to realize the religion and the nationalism do not worth a single bread, single tablet, free education, free treatment, freedom and the rest of basic rights.
The protests and the demos have not been controlled by any political parties or any other side from the foreigners. They have so far rejected them because they have 15 years of experience with the regime. But they need to organize themselves in non-hierarchical independent groups in wherever possibly they can to coordinate their action against the state and its powers.
Poniższy artykuł jest tłumaczeniem z języka angielskiego artykułu napisanego przez Międzynarowody Komun w Rożawie - Demokratyczną Federację Północnej Syrii (DFNS). DFNS to rewolucyjny eksperiment Kurdów i ich soluszników, który aktualnie ma miejsce pod postacią demokratyczego konfederalizmu opartym na podstawie bezpośredniej demokracji, równouprawnieniu kobiet i ekologii. Jeśli chcesz dowiedzieć się więcej, odwiedź: http://internationalistcommune.com/
Kobiety z Internacjonalistycznej Komuny Rożawy wezwały do międzynarodowej delegacji feministycznej w Rożawie*. Chciałysmy poznać kobiety I społeczność w Rożawskiej rewolucji. Walka z patriarchatem i o wolność ludzkiego i naturalnego życia jest walką międzynarodową. Bez względu na to, jak różnorodne są realia naszego życia, nasze serca biją w tym samym rytmie, i palą się do rewolucji społecznej. W sumie piętnaście kobiet i nie binarnych osób z USA, Kurdystanu i siedmiu różych narodów z Europy poszło za wyzwaniem. Będąc w stanie móc dyskutować i żyć w autonomi w takiej róznorodności jest bardzo ważne i daje nam możliwość odczuwania, rozwijania i urzeczywistnienia siły naszych globalnych relacji.
Delegatki przybyły na początku czerwca i zaczęły delegacje z wizyta do Junen Ciwan w Qamislowie** – grupie poświęconej młodym kobietom zaangażowanym w rewolucji. Udałyśmy sie z nimi do radiostacji “Denge Cudi”, która transmituje aż do Nisebin, miasto które jest w połowie poza Turecką granicą. Szczegoólny nacisk jest położony na młode kobiety, które czytają teskty i dyskutują o swojej roli w społeczeństwie i rewolucji. Miałyśmy też wzmacniąjacy moment kiedy zaśpiewałysmy piosenkę na żywo, jako odwiedząjące internacjonalistki.
Następnie zjadłysmy lunch z kobietami z HPC-Jin (Hęzen Parastina Cîvaka — Siły Zbrojne). HPC sa siłą samoobronną komuny i tutaj, podobnie jak we wszystkich strukturach, kobiety również organizują autonomicznie. Te kobiety, głównie matki i babcie, wypracowały swoją pewność siebie przez filozofię Abdullaha Ocalana i lata rewolucyjnej pracy. Później odwiedziłyśmy Asayisa Jin, gdzie spotkałymy się ze wspaniałymi kobietami które poświecają się do obrony społeczności.
Po powrocie do Qamislo zostałyśmy zaproszeni do Mali Bririndar – czyli Domu Rannych. Mala Birindar to kolektywny dom dla ciężko rannych w walce bojowników YPG-YPJ, gdzie mogą wspólnie wyzdrowieć. Na chwilę obecną pracują nad uzyskaniem oficjalnego rozpoznania, aby zdobyć pomoc zewnętrzną która pomogłaby pomóc rannym wojowniczkom. Bez tego, ich zdolność do uzyskania dostępu do ratującego życie leczenia i terapii jest ograniczona embargiem i politycznym nadużyciem na skalę międzynarodową. Tutaj spotkałyśmy kogoś, kto walczył u boku naszego międzynarodowego towarzysza Şehîd Hęlîn Qereçox, która upadła şehîd (została męczennicą) w Afrin.
Po przerwie na herbatę w akademii Jineolojî International (Międzynarodowej Jineoloji) w Aműde udałyśmy się do Navenda Ciwanęn Azadu, Centrum Wolnej Młodzieży w Dîrbesiyę, gdzie spędziłyśmy czas grając w siatkówkę z młodzieżą. Wieczorem odwiedziłyśmy rodziny şehîds, głównie rodziców, braci i siostry młodych członków YPG-YPJ. Noc spędziłyśmy podzielone pomiędzy tymi rodzinami; następnego ranka zaczęłyśmy zwiedzać Jinwar, Wioskę Wolnych Kobiet.
Wow ... Co można o tym powiedzieć? To wspaniałe miejsce, które tam powstaje. Gdy tylko opuściłyśmy samochód, zostałyśmy schwytane przez atmosferę, która otworzyła wszystkie łańcuchy owinięte wokół naszej klatki piersiowej.
Jinwar, jedyna eksperymentalna wioska kobiet, istniała początkowo tylko jako idea i powstała w ciągu ostatniego roku. Powietrze zabawnej, twórczej możliwości ujawnia się w całym projekcie. Kiedy się rozglądasz, możesz zobaczyć przestrzenie, w których ludzka społeczność będzie dorastać w ścisłej harmonii ze światem przyrody. Ogromna część wioski wciąż jest w budowie, gdzie kobiety i mężczyźni pracują nad budowaniem domów z tradycyjnych cegieł mułowych. Robotnicy [głównie mężczyźni], początkowo sceptycznie nastawieni do projektu, przekonali się na tyle, że teraz sami odwiedzają na herbatę w wolne dni. W słowach Hevala R. - "Wow ... Co można powiedzieć na ten temat? To wspaniałe miejsce, które tam powstaje. Gdy tylko opuściłyśmy samochód, złapałyśmy atmosferę, która otworzyła wszystkie łańcuchy owinięte wokół naszej klatki piersiowej."
Następnego dnia w Dîrbesiyę powitała nas Kongreya Star (parasol wszystkich organizacji i instytucji kobiet, równoważny z TEV-DEM), odpowiedzialna za koordynowanie i organizowanie autonomicznych struktur kobiet. Na przykład Mala Jin, którą później odwiedziłyśmy, jest częścią Star Kongreya. Mala Jin (Dom Kobiet), działa jako miejsce rozwiązywania konfliktów. Na przykład, kiedy przyjechałyśmy, w pokoju obok nas, szukali rozwiązania dla następującej sytuacji: mężczyzna, który mieszkał w Europie od kilku lat, wrócił i poślubił kobietę, pod jej warunkiem, że będą mieszkać jako para w Demokratycznej Konfederacji Północnej Syrii. Mężczyzna początkowo zgodził się, ale teraz chce wrócić do Europy. Inne kobiety zwracają się do Mala Jin z powodu przemocy domowej lub opresji w rodzinie.
Z Dîrbesiyę pojechałyśmy do Serękaniyę, kolejnego miasta, które jest podzielone przez zmilitaryzowany mur graniczny. Spędziłyśmy noc w Komîna Film Rożawa, którzy obecnie pracują nad filmem o tradycyjnych tańcach i pieśniach kurdyjskich, robiąc filmy dokumentalne w pobliskich wioskach.
Z Serękaniye udałyśmy się do miasta Kobanę, które stało się sławne na arenie międzynarodowej dzięki obronie przez walczące kobiety YPJ, które ostatecznie doprowadziły do wyzwolenia z IS. Walka o wyzwolenie odebrała życie tysiącom ludzi. Naszym pierwszym miejscem do odwiedzenia był więc Şehidlik, cmentarz bojowniczek poległych o wyzwolenie, który spoczywa na skraju miasta. Jak powiedziała jedna z naszych delegantek: "Na tej ziemi zadajesz sobie wiele pytań, odczuwasz głęboką nienawiść do systemu rosnącego w sobie, zaczynasz rozumieć, co naprawdę oznacza walka z tym systemem, co oznacza rewolucja i jaką odpowiedzialność przekazują nam şehîds. "
Po powrocie do Kobanę odwiedziłyśmy muzeum şehîds i dzielnicę oporu. Jest to kwartał, który nie został odbudowany po wyzwoleniu. Jest on jak muzeum, ogromny pomnik, który pokazuje konsekwencje wojny, znaczenie zniszczenia i oporu. Ulice i domy są pełne opowieści o poległych wojowniczkach, cierpieniach ludności i ich oporze, okrucieństwie Państwa Islamskiego. I te historie opowiadane są przez wszystkich wokół ciebie. Matki, młodzież, bracia, bojownicy i bojownice, robotnicy i robotnice, wszyscy znają opowieści o sehîds, pielęgnując je i doceniając to, co tu zostało poświęcone dla obrony wolności.
Şehîd Arîn Mirkan ma szczególne miejsce w historii Kobanę. Jej ofiarna akcja zmieniła falę oporu, otwierając drogę do wyzwolenia kluczowego punktu strategicznego, z którego można zobaczyć całe Kobanę. Dała społeczeństwu i bojowniczkom odwagę i pewność siebie, jednocześnie drenując morale od bojowników Państwa Islamskiego, którzy wierzą, że zabicie przez kobietę jest równoważne z uniedostępnieniem dostępu do raju po śmierci. Odwiedziłyśmy Mistenur, miejsce tego wydarzenia i byłyśmy w stanie zobaczyć, gdzie rozgrywała się walka.
Na tej ziemi zadajesz sobie wiele pytań, odczuwasz głęboką nienawiść do systemu rosnącego w sobie, zaczynasz rozumieć, co naprawdę oznacza walka z tym systemem, co oznacza rewolucja i jaką odpowiedzialność przekazują nam şehîds.
Wkrótce potem odwiedziłyśmy bazę YPJ, w której kształcą się młode kobiety. Jest to miejsce pełne życia, w którym każdy z nich może opowiedzieć z własnego doświadczenia, jaki jest sens samoobrony. Jest to całkowicie inne od standardowego wizerunku koszar wojskowych; jest to miejsce zdominowane przez silną świadomość, gdzie jesteś otoczona przez miłość i gdzie jest wspólne pragnienie pokoju i wolności.
Stąd odwiedziłyśmy Mala Serokatî, dom, w którym Abdullah Öcalan przebywał przez dwa miesiące po ucieczce z Turcji i zanim był w stanie kontynuować podróż do Libanu. To miejsce jest bardzo ważne dla ruchu kurdyjskiego, ponieważ tutaj Abdullah Öcalan opracował strategię, przeanalizował sytuację i zbudował podstawę dla wszystkiego, co nadejdzie.
Po doświadczeniu tego wszystkiego w Kobanę, YPJ umożliwiło nam wizytę w Raqqa i Tebqa, dwóch arabskich miastach, które niedawno zostały wyzwolone z IS. Podczas gdy w Kobanę walki były w większości prowadzone na ziemi przez siły kurdyjskie, te dwie dawne twierdze IS zostały wyzwolone dzięki współpracy YPJ / YPG / SDF z amerykańskimi wojskowymi atakami powietrznymi. Są one pełne miejsc, w których SI popełniło niepojęte zbrodnie, aby zniewolić i zniechęcić społeczeństwo i bojowników do wolności. Krajobraz tych miast jest bardzo różny od Kobanę. Ogromne obszary miejskiego krajobrazu są wciąż zniszczone; wojna z atakiem powietrznym całkowicie zmienia rodzaj zniszczenia. Wojna nie wygląda tak samo. Ludzie żyją i pracują w tym, przywracając miasto do życia.
Na koniec mogłyśmy wziąć udział w Qampa Jineolojî Ciwan - obozie dla młodych kobiet skupionych na Jineologu. Jineolog - koncepcja zainicjowana przez Ocalana, to połączenie nauki, feminizmu, nauk płci i historii. Rozbiłyśmy obóz z około pięćdziesięcioma innymi młodymi kobietami nad brzegiem Eufratu. Obudziłyśmy się razem, jadłyśmy, ćwiczyłyśmy i wzięłyśmy udział w następujących edukacjach: Bycie sobą, Historia Patriarchatu, Poszukiwanie Prawdy przez Abdullaha Öcalana, Jineolojî, Wolne życie partnerskie. Wieczorem wzięłyśmy udział w różnych warsztatach - jeżdżeniu samochodem, graniu na bębnach, malowaniu, lekcjach angielskiego; były też lekcje Kurdyjskiego pisania, i inne zajęcia po naszym wyjeżdzie. Ostatniego dnia poszłyśmy na basen. Dużo się śmiałyśmy, ochłodziłyśmy się, uczyłyśmy się nawzajem pływać, jadłyśmy arbuz i piłyśmy lemoniadę, tańczyłyśmy i słuchałyśmy muzyki oraz zbudowałyśmy więzi hevaltî (przyjaźń).
Potem nadszedł czas, aby pożegnać się nie tylko z towarzyszkami obozu, ale także z naszą obecnością jako delegacja. W tych tygodniach doświadczyłyśmy, usłyszałyśmy, odczułyśmy i zobaczyłyśmy tak wiele rzeczy. Ale jedna część pozostaje nie odkryta: Afrin. W marcu Turcja (druga co do wielkości armia NATO) zajęła Afrin po pięćdziesięciu ośmiodniowych zmaganiach obronnych. Odtąd okupujący żołnierze popełniają masakr i grabieży społeczeństwa, wyrzucając ludzi ze swoich domów, z ich ukochanej krainy. Jako kobiety z międzynarodowej społeczności Rożawa i jako grupa tej delegacji potępiamy działania tych okupantów. Afrin jest i pozostanie częścią Demokratycznej Federacji Północnej Syrii. Kiedyś będzie znów wolna, a zadaniem wszystkich kochających wolność ludzi na całym świecie będzie walczyć o nią!
Teraz przygotowujemy się do odejścia z Międzynarodowej Komuny. Zobaczyłyśmy kompleksowość i rzeczywistość rewolucji, społeczeństwa i życia w Demokratycznej Federacji Północnej Syrii. Czujemy, że ziarna oporu zaczynają przynosić owoce w nas. Jesteśmy pełne nadziei, przekonane, że ten świat ulegnie zmianie wraz z tą zmianą w nas samych.
Žene, Život, Sloboda! Jin, Jiyan, Azadî! Women, Life, Freedom!
Femmes, Vie, Liberté! Frauen, Leben, Freiheit! Mujeres, Vida, Libertad! Kvinnor, liv, frihet! Kobiety, Życie, Wolność!
* Obszar, który często nazywamy Rożawa (w kurdyjskim: Rojava), postanowił zmienić nazwę na Demokratyczną Federację Północnej Syrii, aby dokładniej odzwierciedlać wieloetniczną naturę społeczeństwa, zwłaszcza teraz, gdy głównie arabskie miasta są członkami systemu demokratycznego. W praktyce Rożawa i DFNS są wciąż dość zamienne, ale spodziewającie się, że DFNS będzie częściej wykorzystywane w miarę upływu czasu.
** Znaczenie: Młode kobiety. Wymawiane odpowiednio: "Zchinen Jeewan" i "Kamishlo". W alfabecie kurdyjskim jest kilka listów więcej niż po angielsku. C wydaje dźwięk "j", Ç jest "ch", J wymawia się jako S w "zwykłym" i tak dalej. Aby zapoznać się z alfabetem, wejdź na http://learnkurmanji.com/lesson/lesson-1-alphabet-and-s...unds/
This article explains the definition of Confederalism by Murray Bookchin and the concept of the Democratic Confederalism by Abdulla Ocalan . The article tries to show the similarities and differences between both concepts and both views . In addition it followed by brief review of what has been achieved in Rojava.
Confederalism, Democratic Confederalism and Rojava
By Zaher Baher
Many religions and ideologies from left to the right have tried to tackle class issues and other societal problems, but none of them has been able to resolve these problems, rather most of them have made the situation even worse.
Whilst these problems have remained unresolved, groups, political parties and individuals have continued to come up with different theories and different ideas for how to tackle them. Confederalism or Democratic Confederalism is one of them.
The idea of federation and confederation dates back several centuries. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) wrote a lot about federation and confederation with regards to Canada, Switzerland and Europe. However, when he observed the debates about European Confederation he noticed that his own understanding and analysis of confederation was completely different from what was actually going on at the time. His comment on this was as follows: "By this they seem to understand nothing but an alliance of all the states which presently exist in Europe, great and small, presided over by a permanent congress. It is taken for granted that each state will retain the form of government that suits it best. Now, since each state will have votes in the congress in proportion to its population and territory, the small states in this so-called confederation will soon be incorporated into the large ones ...” Proudhon’s analysis of the situation was right at the time and still right: “The right of free union and equally free secession comes first and foremost among all political rights; without it, confederation would be nothing but centralisation in disguise”1. In fact the EU, which is a union of States, has developed the most bureaucratic apparatuses and has become a very undemocratic confederation.
In addition to Proudhon, others like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, have written about confederalism, but none of them has written as much as Murray Bookchin (1921-2006). In fact, Bookchin not only wrote about it, but he also connected confederalism to the issues of social ecology and decentralisation, and considered the building of Libertarian Municipalism as the foundation for confederalism. Bookchin was not just a theorist, he was passionate about his ideas and as a very active, dedicated organiser tried to put his theory into practice during the 1980s, as described here “In Burlington, Vermont, Bookchin attempted to put these ideas [Libertarian Municipalism] into practice by working with the Northern Vermont Greens, the Vermont Council for Democracy, and the Burlington Greens, retiring from politics in 1990. His ideas are summarized succinctly in Remaking Society (1989) and The Murray Bookchin Reader (1997). 2
For Bookchin, building libertarian municipalism is the foundation of confederalism, an alternative to the nation-state, and the way to reach a classless and liberated society. While Bookchin placed libertarian municipalism within the framework of anarchism for much of his life “…..in the late 1990s he broke with anarchism and in his final essay, The Communalist Project (2003), identified libertarian municipalism as the main component of communalism. Communalists believe that libertarian municipalism is both the means to achieve a rational society and the structure of that society”. 2
Janet Biehl, Bookchin’s long-term partner, in her book Ecology or Catastrophe, describes the importance of municipalities and confederalism to Bookchin “ In Bookchin’s eyes , the democratized municipality, and the municipal confederation as an alternative to the nation-state, was the last, best redoubt for socialism. He presented these ideas and arguments, which he called libertarian municipalism, in their fullest form in The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship, published in 1986”.3
In the rest of this article I try to define Confederalism from Bookchin’s viewpoint, and the understanding of Democratic Confederalism by Abdullah Ocalan. This is followed by a brief review of what has been achieved in Rojava.
Although Bookchin had an idea and plan for putting his theory into practice, he knew very well that it would be impossible, or just a dream, to build Libertarian Muncipalism and confederalism among huge existing cities, given the current mentality, education and culture of their peoples and the centralist nature of society. He realised that building Libertarian Municipalism requires a different type of education and organisation, and thought of centralization as one of the main barriers. His thinking has been described as follows: “Bookchin became an advocate of face-to-face or assembly democracy in the 1950s, inspired by writings on the ancient Athenian polis by H. D. F. Kitto and Alfred Eckhard Zimmern. For the concept of confederation, he was influenced by the nineteenth century anarchist thinkers. Bookchin tied libertarian municipalism to a utopian vision for decentralizing cities into small, human-scaled eco-communities, and to a concept of urban revolution”.2
However, Janet Biehl believes differently. She thinks there were other factors that influenced Bookchin. “What really inspired Murray to think about confederation was not Proudhon/Bakunin, etc., but the story of the CNT (Confederation Nacional del Trabajo) in Spain. His book, ‘The Spanish Anarchists’ focuses on the CNT’s structure as a confederation. He was trying to demonstrate that, contrary to the accusation of Marxists, anarchists really could organise themselves, and confederation was the bottom-up structure they chose” (personal communication, 9th December 2017).
Although Bookchin believed in decentralisation and an ecofriendly society, he could not believe that this could be achieved without confederalism - a network through which municipalities could unite and cooperate to share resources between themselves on the basis of their citizens and communities’ needs. However, at the same time he believed each municipality must have autonomy over policy making. His definition of confederalism is “It is above all a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies, in the various villages, towns, and even neighborhoods of large cities. The members of these confederal councils are strictly mandated, recallable, and responsible to the assemblies that choose them for the purpose of coordinating and administering the policies formulated by the assemblies themselves”.4
The road towards confederalism requires the building of Libertarian Municipalism for which working on the primary pillars like decentralization, social ecology, interdependence and feminism are very important tasks. Each of these pillars is connected to the other, such that none of them is workable without the others. Bookchin clarified this very well when he said “To argue that the remaking of society and our relationship with the natural world can be achieved only by decentralization or localism or self-sustainability leaves us with an incomplete collection of solutions”.4 Bookchin also insists that decentralisation and self-sufficiency are not necessarily democratic so will be unable to resolve society’s problems and be successful, he therefore continues to say “It is a troubling fact that neither decentralization nor self-sufficiency in itself is necessarily democratic. Plato’s ideal city in the Republic was indeed designed to be self-sufficient, but its self-sufficiency was meant to maintain a warrior as well as a philosophical elite. Indeed, its capacity to preserve its self-sufficiency depended upon its ability, like Sparta, to resist the seemingly “corruptive” influence of outside cultures (a characteristic, I may say, that still appears in many closed societies in the East). Similarly, decentralization in itself provides no assurance that we will have an ecological society. A decentralized society can easily co-exist with extremely rigid hierarchies. A striking example is European and Oriental feudalism, a social order in which princely, ducal, and baronial hierarchies were based on highly decentralized communities. With all due respect to Fritz Schumacher, small is not necessarily beautiful……..If we extol such communities because of the extent to which they were decentralized, self-sufficient, or small, or employed “appropriate technologies,” we would be obliged to ignore the extent to which they were also culturally stagnant and easily dominated by exogenous elites”.4
Bookchin was not just talking about confederalism in a political way as an alternative to the nation-state. He thought that while the state has its own institutions and politics, and maintains a capitalist economy through its institutions, forces and spies with other administration (Churches, Banks, other Financial Institutions, Media and Courts), its economy can be imposed on and dominate the society. He thought confederalism, through its libertarian municipalities, should create its own institutions, design its own policies and education, build up its own economy, and empower its own individual citizens. So Bookchin stressed that “Confederalism as a principle of social organization reaches its fullest development when the economy itself is confederalized by placing local farms, factories, and other needed enterprises in local municipal hands that is, when a community, however large or small, begins to manage its own economic resources in an interlinked network with other communities”.4
Janet Biehl has tried to clarify and explain Boockchin’s ideas about the above concept in plain and simple language in her book, ‘The politics of Social Economy, Libertarian Municipalism’. In Chapter 11 she explains the meaning of the Bookchin quote above “A confederation is a network in which several political entities combine to form a larger whole. Although a larger entity is formed in the process of confederating, the smaller entities do not dissolve themselves into it and disappear. Rather they retain their freedom and identity and their sovereignty even as they confederate”.5
It is essential that people are economically equal according to their needs otherwise, they will remain in conflict politically. Obviously economic equality cannot happen unless people themselves control their economy. This means the economy should not in any way be in private hands, or in the hands of the State, either in what is called the public sector, or in public-private partnerships. In her book on Libertarian Municipalism mentioned above, Janet Biehl explains in Chapter 12, ‘A Municipalized Economy that the type of economy the community needs is very different from any other type of economy that class-based societies have seen before. She says “Libertarian municipalism advances a form of public ownership that is truly public. The political economy it proposes is one that is neither privately owned, nor broken up into small collectives, nor nationalized. Rather, it is one that is municipalized - placed under community "ownership" and control.”
“This municipalization of the economy means the “ownership" and management of the economy by the citizens of the community. Property - including both land and factories - would no longer be privately owned but would be put under the overall control of citizens in their assemblies. The citizens would become the collective "owners" of their community's economic resources and would formulate and approve economic policy for the community …………In a rational anarchist society, economic inequality would be eliminated by turning wealth, private property, and the means of production over to the municipality. Through the municipalization of the economy, the riches of the possessing classes would be expropriated by ordinary people and placed in the hands of the community, to be used for the benefit of all".5
The concept of Democratic Confederalism `
Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) both before and during his current imprisonment has thought about and analysed the PKK movement and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European Blocks. He has also linked the experience and ideology of all the Communist parties in the world with one another, especially in the Middle Eastern Region, and observed that their achievements in real life are not what they claim. However, the trigger point for Ocalan was familiarising himself with Bookchin’s ideas while in prison. Through his lawyer, Ocalan wrote to Bookchin a few times with a view to adapt his ideas to the context of the PKK, but Bookchin was near the end of his life.
At the beginning of this century, Ocalan realised that Bookchin’s proposed citizens’ assemblies and confederalism were the right solution for all the nations and ethnic minorities who are living in the countries of the region. He therefore rejected the idea of the nation-state. In fact he now believes the nation-state is the root of the problem rather than the solution and that it brought and still brings disaster to the people. He wrote “If the nation-state is the backbone of the capitalist modernity it certainly is the cage of the natural society …….. The nation-state domesticates the society in the name of capitalism and alienates the community from its natural foundations”.6
He thinks that not only do nations have no future under the nation-state, but even individuals - the citizens - have no future, except for fitting themselves into a kind of modern society “The citizenship of modernity defines nothing but the transition made from private slavery to state slavery “.6
Ocalan knew the root of the problem in many societies, like the Kurdish society, especially in the region he came from. For him it is not enough just to reject the nation-state, he believes people also need to concentrate on another major problem that has existed in society for a long time, women’s issues. He read a lot about ancient society, from the time of the first civilisation over 10,000 years ago and the role of women through this period. He realised that all issues from the nation-state, through exploitation and slavery to women issues and gender equality are strongly connected and so cannot be resolved separately. Indeed, he thought exploitation started with the slavery and repression of women “Without woman’s slavery none of the other types of slavery can exist let alone develop..….without the repression of the women the repression of the entire society is not conceivable”. 6
Ocalan is deeply concerned about women’s issues and he thought even women is nation but a colonised nation. Testament to his genuine belief in what he wrote, is his insistence that the involvement of women is the first and essential step in the struggle to resolve their own issues as well as the entire problems of society. He was working on these ideas when he was in the mountains and he managed to involve many women in guerrilla fighting, even some non-Kurdish women. However, over time he became more aware of the role of women, not just in fighting the state with weapons, but in fighting the state in different ways and in building a new society based on Democratic Confederalism “The democratic confederalism of Kurdistan is not a State system," he wrote "It is the democratic system of a people without a State."6
Why was Ocalan so insistent on Democratic Confederalism? What is Ocalan’s definition of this concept?
Ocalan shortened the definition of Democratic Confederalism to just few words “democratic, ecological, gender-liberated society……or democracy without State”.7 He thought that capitalism has been built on three pillars: capitalist modernity, the nation-state, and industrialism, and he believed that people can replace these with “democratic modernity, democratic nation, communal economy and ecological industry”7 respectively.
The idea of democratic confederalism for Ocalan is people organising to manage themselves. He sees it as a grassroots task, enacted by collective decisions made by the people themselves about their own issues through direct democracy, which rejects control by the state or any dominant administration. He wrote “Democratic confederalism is the contrasting paradigm of the oppressed people. Democratic confederalism is a non-state social paradigm. It is not controlled by a state. At the same time, democratic confederalism is the cultural organizational blueprint of a democratic nation. Democratic confederalism is based on grass-roots participation. Its decision-making processes lie with the communities.”.6 He goes on to say “[Democratic Confederalism]…can be called a non-state political administration or a democracy without a state. Democratic decision-making processes must not be confused with the processes known from public administration. States only administrate [sic] while democracies govern. States are founded on power; democracies are based on collective consensus”. 6
Examining the definition and views of Bookchin about confederalism and of Ocalan about democratic confederalism, can we see similarities and differences between the two concepts and views? I personally see that both the concepts as well as Bookchin’s and Ocalan’s views on these concepts share many similarities. They may have chosen different conceptual labels, but the meaning of them and the aims are the same.
Minor differences are that Ocalan replaced the concept of confederalism with democratic confederalism and instead of using the concept of Libertarian Municipalism uses a different form of administration that has been put into practice in Rojava. As far as I know, Ocalan saw his theory as a solution to the conflicts and problems between the nations and ethnic minorities especially in the region he came from. However, Bookchin went further in that he believed that confederalism is the solution for all human beings and the way to end capitalist domination in every way. So for Bookchin confederalism is the solution to the problems that people are facing world-wide and not just in one region or some countries.
There is another difference. Ocalan in his analysis of the history of human civilization, exploitation and slavery believes that slavery started from the enslavement of women and hierarchy started from the domination of men over women, although elsewhere he agreed with Bookchin “I have repeatedly pointed out that the patriarchal society mostly consisted of the shaman, the elderly experienced sheikh, and the military commander. It may be wise to look for prototype of a new society within such development with “a new society” we mean a situation where hierarchy emerges inside the clan. The immanent division is finalised when hierarchy gives rise to permanent class-formation and a state-like organisation”.8 The issue of hierarchy is the soul of Ocalan’s theory, as libertarian municipalism was for Bookchin, although both of them see hierarchy as the foundation of the class society. It is quite clear that Bookchin has looked at hierarchy and hierarchical society in greater depth than Ocalan, and at how domination existed before class society through the heads of tribes, heads of families, elders, and the domination of men over women. Janet Biehl wrote in the Bookchin Reader: “According to Marx “primitive egalitarianism“was destroyed by the rise of social classes, in which those who own wealth and property exploit the labor of those who do not. But from his observations of contemporary history, Bookchin realised that class analysis in itself does not explain the entirety of social oppression. The elimination of class society could leave intact relation of subordination and domination……….Bookchin emphasised that it would be necessary to eliminate not only social class but social hierarchies as well........ Hierarchy and domination, in Bookchin’s view, historically provided the substrate of oppression out of which class relations were formed”.9
However, Janet Biehl believes that Ocalan’s theory is almost the same as Bookchin’s and that Ocalan put Bookchin’s theory into practice. As she said on one occasion: “The way I think of it, Bookchin gave birth to the baby, and Abdullah Ocalan raised it to a child.” 10 She continued, noting that “Ocalan altered some of Bookchin’s original model. Bookchin was an anarchist, and as such he was opposed to all hierarchies, of race, of sex, of gender, of domination by state, of interpersonal relations. Mr Ocalan emphasised gender hierarchy and the importance of the liberation of women. [That is] one of the biggest theoretical changes I can see.” 10
In addition to these similarities and differences, in my opinion there is another main difference between Bookchin and Ocalan. Bookchin sees building libertarian municipalities as the foundation of confederalism. This building relies purely and completely on the education, organisation and participation of the people. Ocalan believes that participation is the people’s own job and should be done through mass meetings/assemblies to discuss and debate existing and related issues, and that decisions should be made collectively. The main tool that can be used for this purpose is direct democracy and direct action.
For Ocalan, although the aim is the same, as I have shown above, the way of to get to the destination, to a certain extent, or at least as far as we can see in Rojava and Bakur, is different. Until this moment Ocalan is the leader of PKK and he is the spiritual leader of the Kurds in Bakur and Rojava, as well as of many people in Basur and Rojhalat [Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan respectively]. It is true that Ocalan contacted his party and his people when he had the chance from his prison cell. He tried hard to convince them to transform the PKK into a social movement. As a result, there was a lot of discussion in 2012 and after about the idea of rejecting the nation-state, committing to a ceasefire and discussing anarchism. However the PKK did not transform into what many of us, probably Ocalan included, suggested and wanted.
Once all the contact between Ocalan and the outside was cut off in April 2015 and a new situation emerged when Erdogan announced a very brutal war against all Kurdish people, not just the PKK, the PKK became more militarised. So for the PKK it became more important to concentrate on fighting than to continue the discussion that commenced in 2012. In Rojava more or less the same thing happened. However, there, instead of having to fight the Assad Regime, it was forced to fight against Isis in defence of Kobane and other places*. There is no doubt that during a war in any country the mass movement will be weaker and the military will be stronger. So too in Kurdistan, Bakur and Rojava, the PKK and the Democratic Union Party (PYD) became more powerful at the expense of the mass movement.
From this I can conclude that in Bakur and Rojava a couple of high-disciplinary and authoritarian political parties, PKK and PYD, are behind building democratic confederalism in both Kurdistan, Bakur and Rojava. It is these parties that are the ones making major decisions, planning and designing the policies, and also setting up diplomatic relationships with other countries and other political parties. It is they who negotiate with their enemies or the states, and make war or peace. Of course, these are very big issues and extremely important as they shape the future destination of the society. However, unfortunately it is the political parties which are making these decisions and not the people in their own assemblies and mass meetings, or through direct action.
For Bookchin building Libertarian Muncipalities and confederalism is the task of people, or “Citizens” as he called them, but for Ocalan and PKK, at least at the moment, it is the task of political parties.
Finally we can ask ourselves a question: is what exists in Rojava democratic confederalism?
This is a difficult question especially for me to answer while I am confined to reading about Rojava, following the news on Rojava TV , Radio, websites and social media, especially Facebook. I believe that to answer this question properly and to understand all sides of this issue in relation to the future of Rojava, I may need to go there to do some essential research. This needs to include visiting cities, towns and villages, speaking to and interviewing people at every level and section of society. Visiting the Communes and participating in their meetings, following their decisions, seeing the Cooperatives, analysing the balance of power between the Movement for a Democratic Society (Tev-Dem) and the PYD as well as between them and the Democratic Self-Administration (DSA) and many more work for me to do.
We have all noticed that there has been a lot written about democratic confederalism in Rojava. The vast majority of these writings are positive and supportive and agree that democratic confedralism has been built or at least is on its way to being built there.
I believe the main problem with those articles or essays were isolated the major things, events and the role, from the influence and the power of PYD. The comrades who wrote these articles did not think or did not want to mention that building confederalism and democratic confederalism should be the task of anarchists. It is the anarchists, not political parties, who should participate and involve themselves through the mass movement in this process of building confederalism and democratic confederalism, because some issues that come up can be resolved completely through the libertarian muncipalism that is the foundation of the libertarian society. Bookchin wrote “before the class society there was “However we should not see democratic confederalism (or communalism) as separate from anarchism because they very much follow the tradition of classical anarchism.” 4
In the case of Rojava many questions remain to be asked and many outstanding issues queried, such as: Is everybody free to be involved in politics and take part in the meetings to make the decisions? Are the issues I raised in the previous page discussed and the decisions about them taken collectively through the mass meetings and by direct action? Are the existing Cooperatives really owned by the communes, the Democratic Self Administration (DSA), or a kind of mixture of private-public ownership; also can everybody be a member regardless of who they are, and finally how are the products distributed? Are the Communes and the Houses of the People really non-hierarchical groups or organisations? Why are the chair and co-chairs in position for such a long time? Is the head of the DSA, and those at the highest levels of the Tev-Dem and the Communes elected through direct democracy or just nomination? How hard is democratic confederalism working towards an ecological society and what has been achieved so far? There are actually many other aspects of democratic confederalism that also need to be questioned.
Those of us so far who have written about democratic confederalism, in my opinion, have not answered many questions or have not been following this project properly. I know some of the comrades and friends who have written about it have not stayed in Rojava long enough to know about all sides of the society and investigate these issues. Additionally, those who have stayed long enough were comrades who were or are with the YPG/J.
Having saying all that, we should agree that when we write and analyse Rojava we should not isolate Rojava from the situation that surrounds it, we should see Rojava’s enemies inside and outside Syria and also the continuing war with Isis, the Assad Regime, Turkey, and the probability that Iraq, Iran and Turkey will come together to fight PKK and Rojava in the future. In addition we should acknowledge that there has been no effective or strong international solidarity from leftists, communists, socialists, trade unionists and anarchists, and the same movement has not emerged in neighbouring countries. Had the situation been different and some of the above conditions met, perhaps Rojava could answer my questions in more positive way and set a better example to follow.
*This article drafted before the State of Turkey’s brutal attack on Afrin which was expected by few of us.
Anarchist and Radical Texts/The Anarchist Sociology of Federalism
2 Libertarian municipalism – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_municipalism
3 Biehl J. Ecology or Catastrophe, The life of Murray Bookchin, Oxford University Press 2015, P 227
4 The Meaning of Confederalism | The Anarchist Library https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin...m.pdf
5 The politics of Social Economy, Libertarian Municipalism. Biehl, J. P 110 and 118 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6YOyGNakE86b3RLY2RZN0...aring
7 Democratic Confederalism - ROAR Magazine
8 Capitalism and unmasked gods and naked kings: Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization, Volume ll (page 110). Published New Compass Press, Porsgrun, Norway and International Initiatives edition, Cologne, Germany 2017
9 The Murray Bookchin Reader. Edited by Janet Biehl (page 75) https://archive.org/details/themurraybookchinreader
10 Golphy O. Rojava's democratic confederalism: the experiment of an American theory. 2016. https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4fxpd5...ment/
This article covers the current military situation in Rojava. While the PYD and Syrian Democratic Party are getting closer and closer to UNited States some of the anarchists and anarchist-communists are happy with that . The Article tries to bring the attention of those anarchists that the partnership between them is in the interest of US and its allies in Europe and the region . In the end, Rojava, might lose what it has been achieved so far.
We, supporters of Rojava, should be worried about its partnership with the United States.
By: Zaher Baher
17th May 2017
The political and military balance in Syria is constantly changing. Relations between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), co-founded by People’s Protection Units (YPG), and in turn Russia and US constantly ebb and flow. The dynamic behind these changes has very little to do with ISIS. In fact, it all depends on the respective interests of the great powers and their struggle against one another to establish predominant power there.
The past year has seen a steady erosion of the US position in Syria vis-ŕ-vis Russia, who has since overtaken it. Russia’s heavy involvement in Syria and becoming a major ally with Turkey has changed many things. The relative inactivity of the USA has given the opportunity to Russia, Turkey and Iran to play a significant role in making decisions there.
Under Trump’s new administration this has changed somewhat. He probably has a different approach to Syria. While US still is one of the major powers in the world, it cannot sit and do nothing in the region especially in Syria.
After a long pause, Trump has decided to ally with SDF against ISIS to defeat them in Raqqa regardless of Turkey’s position and reaction. Trump has now approved a deal to supply arms including heavy weapons to SDF directly, seeing them as the most effective and reliable force especially after the SDF capture of Tabqa City from ISIS. The US administration is at present more than any other time determined in recapturing Raqqa, the ISIS de facto capital. It is now quite clear that the US administration and SDF and the People’s Democratic Party (PYD) are getting very close to one another to the point that SDF strife to achieve what the US wants to achieve, even though this can be at the expenses of what have been achieved so far in Rojava.
We supporters of Rojava should be very worried about the current development in relation to Democratic Self-administration and the Movement of Society (Tev-Dem). We should be concerned because of the following consequences:
First: It is a matter of influence for the US while seeing that Russia almost controlled the situation and managed to take Turkey onto its own side. US wants to be very active before losing its power there. It wants to play the major role and achieve its own goal, this can be only done through SDF and PYD. There is no doubt that the US is more concerned about its own interests rather than Kurdish interests in Rojava.
Second: To contain SDF and PYD, to make them a tool by using them for their own interest. This is the best way to make PYD and SDF lose their credibility in Syria, the region, Europe and elsewhere.
Third: The current attitude of the US towards Rojava and arming SDF directly might be an effort to cut them off from PKK and decrease PKK influence over developments in Rojava.
Fourth: There is no doubt that whatever happens will now make Turkey more furious against both YPG and PKK. This could create a greater backlash from Turkey. It may repeat last month’s military operations against YPG or even extend these military operations into Rojava and against YPG & PKK in Shangal, in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Fifth: With Russia’s displeasure against the SDF and PYD, Assad could be influenced to change Syria’s attitude towards them in the future if not now. If Rojava had chosen the Russian side instead of USA, it could have been much better because Russia is more reliable as an ally than the US. It looks like Assad will stay in power after the defeat of ISIS. Assad normally listens to Russia very diligently. In this case, there was a greater chance under pressure of Russia that Assad would have let Rojava pursue a better future than what US and Western countries may decide for them.
Sixth: Intensifying and prolonging the current war causing Rojava a great deal of dislocation. Continuation of the war costs SDF so many lives and makes them weaker and weaker. The stronger and the bigger the size of SDF in Rojava is, the more it must necessarily be dependent on one of the major power, in the meantime Rojava will be weaker. The more SDF achieves militarily, the more socially and economically can actually be lost in Rojava. The more powerful SDF and PYD become, the less power the local self-administration and Tev-Dem will have. The number of SDF fighters alone is estimated to be 50,000. Just imagine even 10.000 instead of working militarily, working in the fields and cooperatives or building school, hospitals, parks and houses, by now Rojava would have been somewhere else.
Seventh: Often I have mentioned in my articles that a successful Rojava – successful in the way we were hopping – depended on a couple of factors or as a minimum one to preserve the experiment. One was expanding Rojava’s movement at least to a couple of more countries in the region. The other factor was international solidarity. However, neither happened. If one thing can now preserve Rojava, it is ISIS and the opposition forces in Syria holding out against the odds. In short only a prolonged anti-ISIS military campaign can preserve Rojava.
In my opinion after defeating ISIS in Kobane’s region, YPG should have suspended it military operations except in self-defence of its establish perimeter. After defeating ISIS in Kobane region and the greater intervention of US and Russia, UPG and PYD should have withdrawn from the war. PYD should have dealt with the situation better and withdrawn from power for Tev-Dem and let the rest of the population to make their own decisions about peace and war. Clearly the current nature, direction and the potential course of the present war in Rojava has completely changed. It is a war of the major powers, European governments and the regional governments over securing interests and sharing domination.
The situation at the moment looks very grim. It appears that once ISIS has been defeated in Mosul and Raqqa then more than likely war will start involving Rojava and PKK in Qandil and Shangal. These calculation are being made by Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), Turkey and perhaps also Iran and Iraq with the blessing of the US, Russia and Germany. Such a war may start by the end of August or September after the military defeat of ISIS in Mosul and Reqqa.
This article is about the brief history of how Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has set up and its treatment of its own people. While KRG has been sunk in corruption, engaged the war with Isis and overwhelmed by huge numbers of refugees from Syria, middle and south of Iraq, is unable to pay wages to its employees. As a result of that there have been demos ,protest and boycotting work by people.
The article also explains why it is important to organise ourselves independently from the political parties.
What sort of Uprising do we need in Iraqi Kurdistan?
By; Zaher Baher
Before the uprising of March 1991 in Kurdistan, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) armed forces (Peshmarga) virtually did not exist, except for the ones on the borders with Iran and in very remote areas. This new situation resulted from the Iran/Iraq war and the Anfal campaign run by the former Regime that cost the life of over 180 thousand villagers who were evacuated and disappeared with their villages completely destroyed by way of demolition. When the uprising happened, the government forces were kicked out by the mass movement, and then the PUK and KDP with the help of US and Western countries came back. In the short time, they controlled these towns and cities that liberated by people. In May 1992, they formed and shared Administration through a scenario of the fake election. On 05/10/1992 they started fighting the PKK, this lasted about 3 months. In 1995, PUK and KDP became separated and started fighting one another and divided Kurdistan between them.
During the fighting PUK had defeated KDP almost completely, therefore, the head of KDP, Masoud Barzani, asked the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein for his support.
On 31/08/96, the former regime’s army had arrived Erbil and rescued the KDP. Afterwards, the KDP launched attacks on PUK and managed to control many areas including towns, cities and villages, which were under the control of the PUK previously. The PUK had no choice but to ask the Iranian regime for support, so with the help of Iran, PUK managed to gain control of those places that been lost to the KDP and set up its own administration. After this fighting, PUK and KDP controlled different regions of Kurdistan. KDP set up its Administration in Erbil and the towns around it. PUK set up its own Authority in Sulaymaniyah and the towns around.
In 2003 the former regime fell after the invasion of Iraq by the US and Western countries, nonetheless an extraordinary opportunity was created for PUK and KDP to form Kurdistan Regional Government, the KRG has formed as the result of the election of 2005. The second election after the invasion was in 2009. From 2005 to 2014 both parties (PUK & KDP) were the major powers in KRG. In the last election of 2014, the balance of power slightly changed. The so-called Movement of Change (Goran) that was formed in 2007, came second in the election, it entered the government shared power with KDP, PUK, Islamic organizations and other small parties. However, the corruption, terrorizing of people, disappearances, killing and assassinating of political activists, writers, journalists and women continued.
In short, no serious reforms took place while ’Goran’ shared power with KDP, PUK and the rest. In fact, the situation has got worse. In October of 2015, the KDP sacked all the MPs, Ministers and the heads of Parliament from ‘Goran’, Movement of Change, and were not allowed to return to Erbil. Since then there has been no effective parliament in Kurdistan.
It is People who are in crisis not the KRG:
Kurdish people in Iraqi Kurdistan (Bashur) under the control of KRG have dramatically suffered economically and politically. KRG has failed to pay its employees of 1.4 Millions since October 2015. From this month the teachers are supposed to receive only half of their wage. The KRG blamed the Iraqi central government for not sending the proportion of its annual budget of 17% when due. The KRG supposed to export 550 thousand barrels of oil daily via central government, then the central government should releases the proportion of the . I, the KRG has been selling the oil directly bypassing the central government and kept the money without showing any official record of the detail income, or how it was sold and to whom.
The KRG stated there are also other reasons contributing to the drying up its budget such as the tumbling of oil prices, war with Isis and the cost of having over 1.5 Millions of refugees from Syria and the south/ middle regions of Iraq.
Since October of 2015 trade, market, construction work has all slowed down and all projects have almost been stopped due to running out of money. In addition, thousands especially young people have left Kurdistan heading to Europe. It is difficult for people in Kurdistan to live in such miserable situation under the KRG. Therefore, people do not have any choice other than protesting and boycotting work, mainly in the towns and cities under the control of Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).
From the start of this month demos and protests of small scale have started in Erbil, the capital of KRG, that controlled by Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). Many of the offices and schools from primary to secondary have been closed because the teachers and other employees have no money to pay transports fares to reach their workplaces. The prices of everything has risen consequently, many shops and companies have been closed.
Like elsewhere it is the people who are in crisis not the system, not the government. It is people who are lack of confidence, dependant on political parties. It is the people lost faith in themselves and look for a leader to lead them. It is the people who have not learned from previous experiences, they still believe in the notorious and powerful historical lie of Parliamentary election.
We do not need any kind of uprising:
There have been many uprising in different countries in the past. More recently 1979 in Iran, 1991 in Bashur, Iraqi Kurdistan, and in the last five years the “Arab Spring” continues. However, the uprising in all these countries ended up with a terrible civil war or Regime change that in fact was not much better than their former rulers. The reasons for that are simple, either led by political parties or by people with no plan for the post-uprising and eventually tamed by US and Western countries. They mainly wanted to change the power not the society, they wanted the political revolution, not the social revolution, and they wanted to make changes from the top not the bottom of the society. Because of this they easily fell under the influences of the US, and other western countries’ political and neu-liberal economy. In the end, not only have failed to bring real changes, in fact, the post- uprising served the elites, upper class and the interest of the current system much better than previous regimes. The failure also disappointed people and made them not to believe in most of the protest, demos, and even uprising.
At present, there are lots of talks and suggestions among the Iraqi Kurdish especially into the ranks of communists, authoritarian socialists, lefties and the liberals for the uprising. What they want will not bring the better outcome than what has happened in the Arab Countries in my opinion.
In order to avoid that rout and bring the real changes we need to form radical, non-hierarchal local groups that are anti-authority, anti-state and anti-power. We need to organize ourselves in the neighborhoods, factories, work places, schools, universities, on the streets, and the villages. We need to form communes and cooperatives, to set up people’s assembly, citizen assembly, libertarian Municipalism in every village, city, and town. Using direct action and direct democracy in decision making that should be the way of progressing and developing people’s power. We need to do all these independently of the political parties.
Our goals must be to change the society from the bottom to the top, from the political and regime changes to economical, educational, social and cultural changes. We need to work on building people’s power instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat or any other class power.
We do not just need an uprising. We need a kind of uprising that enables us to make real changes in establishing a socialist/anarchist society. This can be done through Democratic Confederalism, Libertarian Communalism.
#Nobastan3Causales: seguimos luchando por aborto libre en Chile
Sun 18 Nov, 07:30
The Protest in Basra’s city, south of Iraq, continues Sep 09 00:57 0 comments
Ręka w ręke z kobiecą rewolucją Aug 09 21:02 0 comments
Confederalism, Democratic Confederalism and Rojava Feb 21 06:06 0 comments
We, supporters of Rojava, should be worried about its partnership with the United States. May 18 12:50 1 comments
What sort of Uprising do we need in Iraqi Kurdistan? Mar 06 00:58 1 comments
L'Anarchiste Révolutionnaire, N°5 automne 2012 Oct 09 00:32 0 comments
Principios ideológicos VS estrategia política Jun 01 03:56 0 comments
Una introducción al modelo de la economía participativa, o Parecon Dec 29 18:35 0 comments
Previniendo la infiltración del Estado en los movimientos sociales Mar 19 07:31 0 comments
Venezuela: Preventing the State’s Infiltration of Social Movements Mar 19 07:22 0 comments
The Anarchist School: Education For Equality Dec 19 10:37 0 comments
Escuela de la anarquia: educación para la igualdad Dec 18 00:12 0 comments
Afghanistan sept ans aprčs : Ni la sécurité, ni la démocratie Nov 03 08:08 0 comments
Afghanistan : Les mensonges de l’OTAN Nov 03 07:50 0 comments
No to New Caucasian War! Aug 12 16:22 0 comments
NEFAC-Boston Presents... Feb 15 02:34 0 comments
True Democracy: Anarchism as Order Dec 19 00:59 0 comments
Contemporary Review of Rudolf Rocker's "Nationalism and Culture" Nov 25 09:00 0 comments
An Interview with Farooq Tariq Nov 20 21:29 0 comments
Polish language added to Anarkismo Feb 28 20:51 0 comments
"Abolishing the Borders from Below" #27 (December 2006) is out ! Dec 18 18:46 0 comments
Talk by WTO Director Disrupted: Activists and Audience Members Forcibly Dragged Out Nov 06 21:32 0 comments
Anarquismo e Ecletismo, em geral e particularmente no Brasil Oct 10 03:36 1 comments
Anarquismo y eclecticismo, en general y particularmente en Brasil Oct 10 03:29 0 comments
New commenting guidelines for Anarkismo.net Sep 21 21:11 0 comments
Thinking about anarchism: State authority Apr 29 14:29 3 comments
Intellectual Property in the Age of the Internet Apr 19 19:12 4 comments
Stuart Christie's Obituary of Paul Avrich Apr 10 18:21 0 comments
Anarchism and the Peak oil argument Mar 21 23:14 42 comments
Civilización, primitivismo y anarquismo Feb 26 23:37 4 comments