Kurd association

Is Rojava an anarchist project?

1. Can nationalist projects be anarchist ? On anarchist forums, in

anarchist literature, and from speaking to anarchists, I am consistently told
that nationalism as an ideological stance stands in contrast to anarchism,
reifying as it does spooks that are taken to denote specific groups of chosen
people, and excluding all others. Anarchist forums are replete with call-outs
against nationalists - look at the Michael Schmidt saga for a case in point. All
of this suggests an ideological opposition to the idea of nations and organizing
people along national lines (as opposed to class or humanity, for example).
But what we find in practice is that, of course, not all nationalisms are equal.
Those that are suggested by Western activists and thinkers are labelled as fas-
cist and rallied against. But when nationalisms arise in Mexico, in Palestine,
and in Rojava, they are celebrated as anarchist. It is simply absurd to argue
that EZLN, Fatah and the PYD are not nationalists. All three are explicitly
nationalist in their focus, their statements, and above all their actions: their
attempts to gain liberation for their nations.

2. Can anarchists have leaders? From my understanding of more than

ten years studying anarchist thought, Ive always thought that anarchists
ought not to have leaders, since if they did it would be a gross and obvious
contradiction of the no archons approach that anarchism is supposedly all
about. Yet the facts are clear about Ocalan: he is the ideological leader of the
PKK, and his face adorns flags and banners in Rojava in a fashion very rem-
iniscent of other Stalinesque cults of personality. I can find no reference to
the Kurds that live in Rojava attempting democratic confederalism until

KURD ASSOCIATION
 Ocalan told them to try it (so they are following him), and he openly admits
that he is a somewhat reformed Marxist guerilla. Personally, I find that a dif-
ficult personality to trust, let alone follow. This tells me that this particular
instance of followship is one rooted in desperation in the face of war and suf-
fering, not on philosophical consentience. I dont feel very enthusiastic about
people doing anything if they dont have a real understanding of what it is
theyre doing AND why. Thats not egoistic, its collectivistic.
3. Even if we accept that people want leaders, of the soft kind,
ought they not to be drawn from their own kin? If the people in Roja-
va who are currently followers of Ocalans philosophy are establishing
something like decentralised bands of people - as I am constantly told by
people like Paul Simons who claim to be more in the know than I am - then
why could they not find someone from amongst their own communities to be their
energising (as opposed to demagogical) leader? In other words, why do they
idolise a guy locked in a Chateau DIf style prison, rather than find some-
thing inspiring enough about free, local men and women, that they wouldnt
choose to use their face as a symbol? People risking their lives get Communes
named after them, sure, but Ocalan remains the symbolic focus. In this fash-
ion, the Rojavans are joining a long-running tradition of Middle Eastern
people whose leaders are not from where they are. Just ask the Palestinians
where their leaders are fromor the Bahrainis. In addition, its just one
more clue that these people are not considering things from an individual
point of view, but are under the spell of Der Geist der Menschen.

4. How is it anarchistic to take choice out of peoples lives? Thats

what militaries and governments do, and is usually why most anarchists op-
pose these things most of the time. However, up until very recently, the PKK
were forcibly conscripting people to fight for them. I cant understand how
anybody supposedly championing FREEDOM could possibly defend this! If

KURD ASSOCIATION
 the line taken was to talk about ends justifying means, then I would as always
go straight to my argument that consequentialist rhetoric is not morality, but
a rejection of it, since morality is concerned with choices of action, and if those
choices are forgotten in favor of some imagined outcomes, then the process is
entirely corrupted.

5. There are so many layers of competing and intersecting con-

trol in Rojava that to call it anarchistic is really truly absurd. The
PYD, offshoot of PKK, is the de facto political authority in Rojava. The de
jure authority is still the group that calls itself the Syrian State, who still
claim sovereignty over the land and are happy that the YPG are helping
them wipe out the other forces trying to seize control, and even happier that
the Rojavans do not call for regime change. Of course, there is also the Kur-
dish autonomous government (an absurd oxymoron), and countless levels of
councils, ministries, and commune meetings, where the reality is that people
are making decisions for their neighbours.maybe if we ignore ALL of
these, then we might see no heteronomy. But why would we try to delude our
selves like that? People who support Rojava are constantly singing the praises
of its localism, and would even suggest that having a small political unit like a
commune where decisions are made is a wonderful and promising sign. Not
only is this a step that reifies the unit as a thing and suggests that the thing
itself can make decisions (which it cannot, since it doesnt exist) but it com-
pletely moves the goalposts from opposing government to opposing hierar-
chy. People like me think that we can oppose bothand that opposition in-
cludes speaking out when people produce the absurd claim that Rojava is a
practical instance of anarchism or is in any way a stateless society.

KURD ASSOCIATION