Rojava: Model of Liberation or Repudiation of Anarchism?

Much has been written on the contemporary plight of the Kurds. Sandwiched between rivals and granted no homeland by the Sykes-Picot Agreement that still has a heavy influence on contemporary mideast politics, the Kurds are an interesting, and in many cases polarizing, people among anyone interested in politics. As Armenian nationals I’ve talked with would say, “they’re always caught in the middle”.

Currently their situation is the locus of crisis, under attack by Turkey, abandoned by the US, and turning to allegiance with western Syria, Iran, and Russia in a desperate struggle for survival amid the vacuum of the US pullout from the region. Hotly contested across both ends of the political aisle, the question of the Kurds in Syria and Iraq were a point of interest for both the mainstream Right in an effort to find a stable ally in the region and the Left, which viewed the social policies and internal politics of the Kurds as a model for praxis in leftism. Involved in combat for at least the past five years, leftist activists romanticizing the Spanish Civil War sought their piece of the action and a chance to fight for their larger revolution. But the question remains as it did in the late 1930s; are these concepts viable as a governing system?

The Syrian region under Kurdish control and largely granted autonomy, Rojava, has been looked towards by the contemporary Left as proof positive that the politics of Revolution indeed have merit. Imagery, philosophy and praxis of what they term ‘ecological feminism’, rooted in voluntarism, syndicalism and anarchism have headlined thesis statements of the op-eds and praise pieces coming out of its ideological defenders and in turn the universal condemnation of US’ pullout. While there should be no question that the decision has severely damaged the US’ capability to build allies in any region- it’s not the first time we’ve ducked out on groups fighting the good fight for Ol’ Glory– the current conditions on the ground paint a very painful reality for ideologies which reject the existence or importance of a nation state.

Anarchism, despite any clarifying hyphen, is at its heart a question. A question on the role of authority, the need for authority over autonomy, and the source from where such an authority draws its legitimacy. It is a question, answered in that context, through the definition of the role of the individual in terms of liberation from a central authority. Is one to be liberated? And if so liberated from what, exactly? Marx defined this liberation as liberation from alienation due to exploitation. Bakunin would call this the ‘flower of the proletariat’, or the awakening of the most socially oppressed through direct revolt. Bookchin would define this as liberation from consumerism. Chomsky will define this as political alienation from a larger global economy due to the entanglement of both. And Rothbard would define this as alienation from one’s sense of destiny or self ownership.

They are all in some ways correct, or, at least, not all wrong.

The question then for anarchism, voluntarism, and any philosophy focused solely upon the individual is where they lay amid the power of a State. Not their State in a collective or representative sense. But a State against them. Rojava is a fundamental answer of the viability of such a philosophy amid outside powers willing to either exert a relationship of hostility or one of exploitation. The power of the individual amid a larger mechanism of influence will certainly be insignificant amid larger social forces at work. In the very visceral example of Rojava, that role is one certainly to be crushed in a vacuum from which it is no longer fostered.

A pullout of US forces had been anticipated from the region for a long while now. Talking with vets from the conflict in Syria, both in the US uniform and under the banner of the YPG International Battalion, it was assumed for nearly six months now that amid a US pullout a bloodbath would ensue. Unfortunately no one was wrong. The Turks are no ally of anyone and have proven historically to have no compulsion toward the preservation of human rights. Theirs was a model of genocide. Many of the traditional Armenian villages of eastern Turkey no longer exist, crushed under the weight of the Ottoman Empire in an effort to crush internal rebellion during WWI. Most recently Erdogan, who fancies himself the inheritor of an Ottoman reincarnate, has alluded to a genocide of the Kurdish people in the same vein as the Armenian Genocide which they still refuse to acknowledge. He has made good on his promise to exterminate anything which threatens his own territory whilst looking to expand Turkey’s influence in the region. This should not overlook Turkey’s support of the jihadists in the region, both clandestine and overt.

So we have the might of a State pitted against the plight of the Individual. The Kurds were left as a people without a state as a result of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The Ottoman Empire was broken up as a result of their loss in WWI, and the individual allied tribes were given their respective homelands. The Kurds had aligned themselves with the losing side and as a result were left without any of the spoils of war. Fortunately they were not subjected to forced migration from their traditional territory. The Soviets brought their philosophical influence and that tradition continues today. Kurdish culture could be described as many of the leftist politics embodied in a people; feminist liberation, ecological justice, Marxism, and a strong reverence for American Anarchist Murray Bookchin. Their attitude is one of individualism against the world, against the State, and against all that threaten Revolution.

Its certainly one that’s resonated with a larger world community, either through political ideology or through mutual respect. There is something to be respected about a people who stand against certain death. The very name Peshmerga means exactly that. And as one who was active in training and fighting alongside them in northern Iraq I can say that their validity as fighters is one to be respected above their peers. But with that said, and in taking the totality of the circumstances, is there an answer of the power of the individual amid the weight of a State looking to crush their very existence?

No.

The power differential of the individual versus a defined people unified in common cause is a stark repudiation in real time of the very validity of anarchism or voluntarism in any form. Within twenty four hours of the US announcement of withdrawal from the contested regions, Turkey had made moves to capitalize on their promise to eradicate the region for “breathing room”. And in the same span of time the Kurdish authorities both pleaded for a change in policy and immediately began talks with Syrian (and at the time of this writing, Russian) forces for aid in defending Rojava.

Were the ideology of anarchism so effective why then would they defer to the power of nation states, first the US, then Arab Syria, Russia and by proxy, Iran, to combat the weight of a nation state? Why, if no borders are to exist, would you seek so rapidly to define your own? If such an association is exclusively voluntary, why would you expect anyone to come to your aid at the cost of their life?

That answer is simple- in reality it doesn’t work. Without a State of your own, without a central authority, without a feasible and realistic plan for defense that does not include reliance on outside nation states, and only deferring to the ‘individual’, nothing can be expected to be accomplished in any real sense. This is not to negate the principles of personal liberty or control of one’s destiny, rather, a recognition that the preservation of such a principle requires at least a definition of borders and a means to defend them as such. A people without a nation will continuously be at the mercy of the one who is. The person clamoring about individual sovereignty alone absent any recognition of this reality is delusional at best; that is, unless you enjoy the churning of your own families, tragic though it is, those Kurds are now experiencing. Anarchism absent the recognition of the very real role of larger society and realpolitik cannot and will not survive. It can only exist where it is allowed to exist. To that end, Rojava serves as a tragic lesson in the infeasibility of anarchist schools of thought and direct democracy amid the plight of a State willing to crush them.

Spread the love
                

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: admin

19 Comments

  1. Anonymous October 21, 2019 at 21:25

    3

  2. Robert H Betts October 21, 2019 at 21:34

    The sad thing about this is that we could have changed the fate of the Kurds after the Gulf War by allowing them to form their own nation. Instead we actively worked against it in order to mollify the larger Iraqi population and the Turks (neither of which has ever done a damn thing for us). Who knows, maybe that “individual sovereignty” would have worked within the framework of their own nation-state. A somewhat similar concept did o.k. here in the US until the Bill of Rights was hijacked.

  3. Jamin Hübner October 22, 2019 at 15:34

    To push back. Rojava’s model is explicitly communitarian , not individualist and isolationist. And the survival and military might of a nation state says nothing about either its success, long term survival, or desirability. Just look at Stalinist Russia, Moaist China, and the hundred other examples of hells on earth could never have occurred without the state, couldnt sustain themselves, and continue to collapse in on themselves in slow motion – all until another person takes the throne to they the impossible all over again. Nation states are what dont work.

    Special jurisdictions and economic zones, seasteading, and other projects like Rojava are proof of concept and will only grow as the demand for freedom grows. Nation states didnt exist for thousands of years of human history, and will join the dustbin along with Pharoahs and Caesars and chieftains which all had their glory days, for thousands more years ahead. The only obstacle for a post-state world is this imaginary construct called “political authority” that populations are trained to believe and accept, no matter how many oceans of blood are spilled by their “leaders.”

    • NC Scout October 23, 2019 at 22:32

      Jurisdiction doesn’t mean what you think it does. What you are calling ‘political authority’ is in fact a ‘jurisdiction’. To say something is a ‘special jurisdiction’ says it exists on part of some allowance by another entity. Exactly the flaws I’ve pointed out here. On the Kurds- have you been there? Have you lived among them, trained and fought with them? I have.

      Further, explain this “thousands of years” where nation states did not exist. I’ll save you some time: there isn’t.

      From the times of homo sapiens out competing neanderthals for hunting space to the national boundaries of today, nations are easily defined first by boundaries of influence and dominion over that region’s resources and then through the spread of culture as a reflection of that influence. Both Anthropologists and Sociologists call this ‘tribalism’ which evolves into the nation state.

  4. NC Scout October 23, 2019 at 05:40

    5

  5. Michael Gladius October 23, 2019 at 11:46

    To Robert: actually, Turkey did a lot of things for us during the Cold War. They fought alongside us in Korea and Vietnam. A solid chunk of Turks today are still less-than-obsessed with fantasizing over their past. The big problem for Turkey today is that the Kurds’ birth rate is 2x higher than Turks, and they may become a minority in their own country within a generation. Had the Kurds been less hasty in demanding autonomy along the Turkish border, they could have played the long game and kept their royal flush hidden until the right moment.

    To Jamin: the collapses we are seeing today are because of atomization of individuals. Modernity has attacked the nuclear family and undermined it. Nationalists saw it as a mass-breeding program to create armies of males to sacrifice for the greater collective, with or without a state. Benevolent liberals wanted to drop the restraints of traditional values in favor of gorging themselves. Until the nuclear family is restored as the building block of civilization, unchecked individualism will lead to dissolution and anarchy, which an organized society will always defeat. The joker is the embodiment of an atomized, chaotic society.

  6. Anonymous October 24, 2019 at 10:35

    1

  7. Devin S October 24, 2019 at 10:57

    Wow! Great job poisoning the well of Anarchism and Volunteerism with no direct evidence of their actual ideology and trying to relate it to Marxism and Feminism. Honest I’m surprised you sunk so low. The Kurd situation in virtual no way resembles Anarchism, if you think so you are vastly ignorant. What a hit piece on the only true and purest eat form of Liberty formerty. As if government is any better, you know, the group responsible for more deaths, mutilations, beatings, enslavement, extortion, theft, exploitation, pain,suffering, starvation, desease, and pointless wars than any ideaology or group ever in history. Enslavement for the illusion of peace is what you’re preaching here, plain and simple. This is all while your beloved government extorts you, runs up national debts so highit will collapse the economy, which will destroy the military and end the endless wars, why you police state brutalizes and cages it’s citizens multiple times a day, while your government spies on every aspect of your life, while you government fines you for practice actions like driving a car or having a profession via a “license”, I can go on with examples. But you would have security over liberty.

    I know you want limited government, but the ultimate and logical conclusion of such a view is Anarchism because that go ernment will NEVER be limited a d will ALWAYS have to fight it because of its extortions and abuses. Libertarian and AnarchoCapitalism is the only conclusion for Liberty. Check out ZeroGov’s Bill Buppert, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Lysander Spooner, Lauarnce Vance, Lew Rockwell, The Dangeours History Podcast, Mises Institute, Future of Freedom Institute, Jacob Hornburger, and The Libertarian Angle YouTube channel for reality and truth on what Anarchism and Volunteerism really is.

    • NC Scout October 24, 2019 at 12:57

      Kurds are self professed anarchists and voluntarists. To argue otherwise is ignorant.

  8. devin82m October 24, 2019 at 15:27

    Sorry, the reply button does not work even after trying three different browsers. I was going to say that there are Communists who call themselves Anarchists, which of course is not true, so calling one self an Anarchist does not mean you actually are. Besides that, just because the US government abandoned them once again does not mean they are a failure, nor does it mean that somehow government would be better. You are making some major leaps in logic here. If anything the evidence proves we are no more safer with a government than individually, except individually I can take all life matters into my own hands and work with others freely to our mutual benefit, all without government. State sponsorship of a rebellion is tricky business, but that has nothing to do with Anarchism or Volunteerism. It’s a supply issue, we know that rebellions can succeed with small groups, and that small groups can defend large areas. Look at our own military, it’s a joke, it can’t even clean out goat herders in the mountains of Afghanistan. The Russians couldn’t clean out the Fins or the Afghans (granted the Afgans had US support, but the Fins sure didn’t, they had the opposite actually.) Also, looks at all the small countries our Fascistic Imperial government has manipulated, invaded, and destroyed, being a country with a government did squat for those people except getting them killed, and another government did the killing. Government is evil. As a Christian I believe that will be the case until Jesus comes back, we should all stand for personal liberty with limited or not government until then.

    • NC Scout October 24, 2019 at 15:38

      None of that speaks to the facts. Tell me about the roots of the philosophy which were laid out for you in the article.

      Afghans are not anarchists. They’re patriarchal tribalists, which is the exact opposite.

  9. devin82m October 24, 2019 at 17:24

    I understand the Afghanis are not Anarchists, I brought the example in regards to rebels fighting against a state actor. Furthermore I brought it up as a contrast to what you are saying, which is that the reason the Kurds will fail is because they are Anarchists, which is exactly what you are saying. In reality they are failing because of their small numbers and now lack of external support, which we both know is virtually essential to a successful rebellion or insurgent war if they are not self sufficient. Another point to make is that they have fought well for a group claiming no government, against gigantic Fascist governments. Of course if we look closer they are not Anarchist in the least, they actually do have a government structure in the form of tribes, with laws and enforcement of said laws. Granted, Anarchism is a form of tribal government in that you make voluntary contracts with others for various things like judicial decisions and joint military action in the defense of your tribe or co-signers of said contract. But, that is a little bit of a stretch.

    I find it funny that you claim Anarchism doesn’t work, yet our own revolution consisted of essentially a war of Anarchists against the British Empire. You can claim states or provinces and all that, but it still came down to voluntary defense made of individuals who could walk away at any moment, at least initially. There was a reason why they pledged their “Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor” to fight, not some forced obedience to a state. You can’t have complete Liberty without Anarchism, otherwise you only have partial Liberty that can be taken away at any moment if you don’t pay your taxes.

    By the way, it doesn’t matter if it was an external state or not giving the aid, as long as no strings are attached. It will work for them possibly if they made it painful enough for which state of the week attacks them. You neglect to mention the various rebel groups who were successful against various states throughout history, granted they were small states themselves, but the concept is still the same. They did enough damage to make further war distasteful to the large foe. There is a reason Admiral Yamamoto make his comment (if he did, it seems to be in question these days, but that could be a pro-gun control disinformation campaign) about not invading the US because the citizens (not government) had a gun behind every blade of grass. Whomever said it, it’s still applicable.

    Besides that, your point about being continuously at the mercy of those whom have a state power is valid. But it is also equally valid that we are at the mercy of our own government’s abuses, enslavement, murder, extortion, and theft, we see it on a daily basis. I would rather have Liberty than safety, the same EXACT argument can be made for gun ownership and self defense. The same for a national defense, which originally was meant to be militias, not a standing army. Also the case can be made that governments inherently create incredibly high levels of danger via national debt, interventionist foreign policy, and weapons development (which is what we see currently). It’s all trade offs and I would rather make my own way and keep the fruits of my labor making contracts with whom I please for goods and services (including defense). Either you are a Statist or a you are a self reliant free human being.

    • NC Scout October 24, 2019 at 18:57

      “Anarchism is a form of tribal government in that you make voluntary contracts with others for various things like judicial decisions and joint military action in the defense of your tribe or co-signers of said contract. But, that is a little bit of a stretch.”

      Anarchism is a form of government…no. This is completely incorrect. Anarchism cannot allow for a judicial body, this would imply authority over another. What would allow for such a governing body? What would enforce its decisions?

      “I find it funny that you claim Anarchism doesn’t work, yet our own revolution consisted of essentially a war of Anarchists against the British Empire”

      Wrong again. An aristocracy sought their own autonomy, funded it, and gained it. What followed was them trying to figure out what to do with it.

      “By the way, it doesn’t matter if it was an external state or not giving the aid, as long as no strings are attached.”

      This was the point of the article, that such a philosophy cannot exist where an external State stands against it. One that you apparently missed.

  10. devin82m October 24, 2019 at 22:47

    You mischaracterized my comments about similarities between Anarchists (self ownership with voluntary contracts and transactions) and tribal government (which is what the Kurds actually practice). I did not say they are the same, just that they are like one another in some ways. But that’s a red herring to distract from the point that the Kurds are tribal…
    In the case of judicial oversight, if two parties go into a contract with a private judge (which in fact actively and regularly happens in our own society independent from the state run injustice system), they agree to accept the judge’s ruling. It’s all voluntary, so yes that is an Anarchist thing. The agreement with penalties written there in is the authority the two parties agree two witnessed by a third party judge or whomever they deem worthy. This is entirely a classic answer Anarchists use when asked how disputes could be handled and are in fact handled. The Mises Institute and others have a few good papers on the subject and it used to be a big practice back in the day. Private security forces and private police paid for by groups/communities voluntarily is also a thing, even here in the USA, and they are far more effective and offer better customer service than state run law enforcement.

    As for the revolution, you are partially incorrect. Some wealthy and powerful people may have influenced, lead portions of, and funded some of the revolution, but ultimately it was a bunch of free individuals who acted together, there was no government among the early revolutionaries. Many individuals and small groups acted independently of the greater revolution as well. I will grant that it became a government of sorts after a while, but initially it was volunteer only and without government oversight.

    OK, and the point you missed is that ANY group, small obscure government (which is what the Kurds are) or a group of “Anarchists” will fail without external support against a much larger foe unless they are self reliant. Being Anarchist has nothing to do with it. That’s not to say they still couldn’t fight and create an issue for their larger enemy, we’ve seen this in several countries where some groups have created essentially no go zones and government troops don’t go there, even in France.

    You took some creative liberty in stretching the situation to fit your bias towards and ignorance of Anarchism. You make the same sort of equivocation as an atheist claiming Mormons, Roman Catholics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians because they claim they are say “Christ’s Name”, yet with closer inspection you see their beliefs don’t match the Biblical narrative in the least.

    OK, I’ve had my fill of arguing for the day, but I suggest you research beyond the obscure Anarchists you have referenced here in your article and to me via email. Whomever you have been lead to believe most Anarchists follow/read/agree with is grossly wrong. But furthermore your statement that the Kurds are some sort of Anarchists is blatantly wrong, they openly practice tribalism and is provable historical fact. Not to mention Anarchism has nothing to do with winning wars of numbers. If anything an anarchist is more likely to fight harder and more intelligently (not following the rules) than any Statist is, they have far more to lose.

    • NC Scout October 25, 2019 at 04:50

      “You mischaracterized my comments about similarities between Anarchists (self ownership with voluntary contracts and transactions) and tribal government (which is what the Kurds actually practice).”

      This is 100-level philosophy. Nothing has been mischaracterized, you’re simply labeling things what you want them to be. The rest is nonsense.

      These types of opinions happen when we only read what we prefer, not what challenges us. Even better would have been to actually go there and get some experience. But why fight for anything when we can just talk about it, eh? Any quick search on the Kurds, anarchism, and anarcho-feminism would render lots of results. Here’s one: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/06/15/how-my-fathers-ideas-helped-the-kurds-create-a-new-democracy/

      “Whomever you have been lead to believe most Anarchists follow/read/agree with is grossly wrong”

      Who? Actually reading and studying the people who’ve founded the ideology? Apparently one of us has, the other wrote a bunch of drivel.

      “I suggest you research beyond the obscure Anarchists you have referenced here in your article”

      Bakunin, Bookchin, Chomsky…are obscure. Ok.

      You’ve successfully listed a large number of internal contradictions, which is exactly why I let this go on.

  11. Anonymous October 26, 2019 at 00:06

    5

  12. […] Violence. Individually, interpersonal violence exists as a resolution. However what of the concept of violence when extended to whole categories of people? When I am told “Hell Yes we are going to take your AR-15!” I consider this aggression […]

  13. […] Violence. Individually, interpersonal violence exists as a resolution. However what of the concept of violence when extended to whole categories of people? When I am told “Hell Yes we are going to take your AR-15!” I consider this aggression with […]

  14. Robert H Betts October 31, 2019 at 16:50

    As said before By Devin82m, reply button seems to be fubar’ed. To Michael, I’d love to see the sources you have for Turkish troops in Vietnam, because I can’t find any (not to say there aren’t any, I just can’t find them. Your post is the first time I’ve ever heard of them being there.) Material aid sent to the Vietnamese (medicines and cement), yes, the Turks did that. As to Korea, they went as part of the UN action, not solely to assist the US. While the US was the primary partner in the UN action, there is a distinct difference. Turkey’s main support to the US in the Cold War was 1) giving Russia another front to worry about (I imagine that 600,000 Turkish troops looking at lands that used to be Turkish controlled would do that- yeah it was in the 1700’s, but Russians have institutional memories) and 2) denying access from the Black Sea to the Med. Sadly, the Black sea/Med Sea issue was partially negated by the Syrians allowing the Russians basing rights. Were those helpful? In a strategic sense yes, but otherwise… In my opinion, the US was far more beneficial to the Turks during the Cold War than they ever were to the US. And still are.
    As to the idea of the Kurdish long game; I think that waiting for their autonomy since 1918 is already a fairly long game. Can’t blame them if they took the chance when it appeared- I would have too.

Comments are closed.

GUNS N GEAR

Categories

Archives

Spread the love