Gilles Dauvè: Kurdistan?

  • Posted on: 17 February 2015
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

From Libcom - by Gilles Dauvé

“There are times in which we can do nothing except not lose our head.”
Louis Mercier-Vega, from La Chevauchée anonyme [1]

When workers are forced to take in hand their own affairs in order to survive, they open the possibility of social change.

Some Kurds have been forced to act in the conditions that they find and attempt to create, in the midst of an internationalized war unfavourable to emancipation.

We are not here to “judge” them.

Nor to lose our heads.

Self (defence)

In various parts of the world, proletarians are led to self-defence through self-organization:

A vast cloud of “movements” — armed and unarmed, and oscillating between social banditry and organized guerrilla activity — act in the most wretched zones of the global capitalist junkyard, presenting traits similar to those of the current PKK. In one way or another, they attempt to resist the destruction of already marginal subsistence economies, the plundering of natural resources or local mining, or the imposition of capitalist landed property that limits or prevents access and/or use. […] [W]e can randomly cite cases of piracy in the seas of Somalia, MEND in Nigeria, the Naxalites in India, the Mapuche in Chile. […] It is essential to grasp the content they have in common: self-defense. [O]ne always self-organizes on the basis of what one is within the capitalist mode of production (workers of this or that company, inhabitant of this or that district etc.), while the abandonment of the defensive terrain (“demands”) coincides with the fact that all these subjects interpenetrate each other, and that as the capital/wage-labour relation that structures them starts to disintegrate, the distinctions cease to exist. [2]

In Rojava, has self-organization led (or could it lead) from the necessity of survival to an upheaval of social relations?

It is unnecessary to repeat here the history of the powerful Kurdish independence movement in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. The Kurds have been torn apart for decades through the rivalry between these countries and the repression that they suffer there. After the explosion of Iraq into three entities (Sunni, Shiite and Kurd), the Syrian civil war has liberated a territory in Syria where Kurdish autonomy has taken a new form. A popular union (that is to say cross-class) was established to manage this territory and defend it against a military threat. The Islamic State (IS) has served as the agent of this break. The resistance mixes old community ties and new movements, in particular women, through a de facto alliance between proletarians and the middle classes, with “the Nation” [acting] as cement. “The transformation taking place in Rojava rests to some extent on a radical Kurdish identity and on [a] substantial middle class […] contingent who, despite radical rhetoric, always have some interest in the continuity of capital and the state.” [3]

Democratic revolution?

In politics there is much in the words. When Rojava elaborated its constitution and called it Social Contract, it was echoing the 18th century Enlightenment. Lenin and Mao forgotten, the current Kurdish leaders read Rousseau, not Bakunin.

The Social Contract [of Rojava] proclaims the “mutual and peaceful coexistence and understanding between all strands of society” and recognizes “Syria’s territorial integrity“. It is what all democratic constitutions say, and there is no reason to expect praise for the class struggle, nor the demand for the abolition of borders, thus of states. [4]

It is the discourse of a democratic revolution. In the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the right of “resistance to oppression” explicitly provided went hand in hand with that of property as well. Freedom was full but defined and limited by the law. It is the same in Rojava — “private property” is a right under the law. Although opting for the descriptive term “autonomous region“, the Social Contract provides for administration, police, prisons, taxes (thus a central power raising money).

But we are at the beginning of the 21st century: the reference to “Almighty God” stands alongside “sustainable development“, quasi-parity (40% of women), and “gender equality” (although linked to the “family“).

Add the separation of powers, that of the church and state, an independent judiciary, an economic system to ensure “general well-being“, a guarantee of workers’ rights (including the right to strike), and the limitation of the number of political offices, etc. — a left-wing, republican program.

If some people in Europe and the US see in such goals the announcement of social revolution, fault lies without doubt in “cultural relativism”. In Paris, this program would only provoke mockery among the radical milieu, but “over there, it is already not bad…”.

Those who draw a parallel between Rojava and the Spanish revolution should compare this Social Contract with the program adopted by the CNT in May 1936 (and with the way in which it was concretely translated two months later).

New nationalism

Like any political movement, a national liberation movement provides itself [with] ideologies, means, and allies that it is able to, and changes when it is convenient. If the ideology is new it’s because it reflects a change in time.

“One cannot understand the present turn of the Kurdish question, nor the trajectory of its political expressions — the PKK in the first place — without taking into account the end of the golden age of a socialist or “progressive” “Nationalism from below” in the periphery and semi-periphery of the capitalist system, and its causes. “[5]

The PKK has not given up the usual goal of national liberation movements. Even if it now avoids a word that sounds too authoritarian, the aim of the PKK is still today as it was yesterday, the creation of a central apparatus of management and of political rule over a territory — and there is no better word than State to describe this thing. The difference, apart from its administrative designation, is that it would be so very democratic, so much more in the hands of its citizens that it would no longer deserve the name of State. Here is ideology.

In Syria, the Kurdish national movement (under the influence of PKK) has replaced the demand for a state of law by a more modest and more “basic” [basiste — from the base, lit. ‘base-ist’] program: autonomy, democratic federalism, the rights of men and women, etc. What is put forward, instead of the ideology of socialism led by a single workers and peasants party developing heavy industry, or references to “class” and “Marxists”, is self-management, the cooperative, the commune, ecology, anti-productivism and, as a bonus, gender.

The goal of a strong internal autonomy with a democratic life at its base is not absolutely utopian. For instance various parts of the Pacific live thus, the governments leaving a wide margin of self-government to populations that do not interest anyone (except when mining interests are at stake — then the army is sent). In Africa, Somaliland has the attributes of a State (police, currency, economy) except that it is not recognized by anyone. In Chiapas (which many compare to Rojava) people survive in a regional semi-autonomy [that] protects their culture and their values without bothering the world outside. Incidentally the Zapatista uprising, the first of the anti-globalization era, did not seek independence or the transformation of society, but [rather] the preservation of a traditional way of life.

The Kurds live in the heart of a coveted oil region torn by endless conflict and dominated by dictatorships. This leaves little margin for Rojava… but maybe a small place though. Although its economic viability is low, it is not non-existent thanks to a little oil windfall. Black gold has already created puppet states like Kuwait, and allows the survival of the Iraqi Kurdish mini-state. Suffice to say that the future of Rojava depends less on the mobilization of its people than the interplay of the dominant powers.

If the abandonment of the nation-state project by the PKK is real, we must ask what a federation of three or four autonomous areas would be [like] — crossing borders in at least three countries — as the coexistence of several autonomous zones would not abolish the central political structure that brings them together. In Europe, cross-border regions (e.g. around the Oder-Neisse) do not diminish State power.

Another everyday life

Sometimes, such as in this case, solidarity against an enemy has caused the temporaryeffacement of social differences: the management of villages by collectives, links between combatants (men and women) and the population; dissemination of medical knowledge (the beginning of the overcoming of specialized powers); the free sharing of some food-stuffs during the worst moments ([of] fighting); innovative treatment of mental disorders; the collective life of male and female students; justice rendered by joint committees (elected by each village) arbitrating disputes, deciding punishments, [and] seeking to reintegrate and rehabilitate; [the] integration of ethnic minorities in the region; the self-organisation of women outside the home. [6]

Is this “a democracy without the State”? Our intention is not to oppose a list of the negatives to a list of the positives drawn up by supporters. It is necessary to see from where this self-administration comes and how it can evolve, because we have never yet seen a State dissolve itself in local democracy.

An unchanged social structure

No one argues that it is only the “Kurds” who have the privilege of being the only people in the world who have always lived in harmony. The Kurds, like all other peoples, are divided into groups of opposing interests, into classes — or if “class” feels too Marxist, divided into rulers and ruled. Now, one sometimes reads that a “revolution” is under way or in preparation in Rojava. Knowing that the ruling classes never willingly cede power, where and how have they been defeated? What intense class struggle has taken place in Kurdistan to trigger this process?

This [talk of “revolution”] tells us nothing. If slogans and headlines speak of revolution, articles affirm that the inhabitants of Rojava fight the IS, patriarchy, the State and capitalism… but, on this last point, no one explains why or how the PYD-PKK could be anti-capitalist… and no one seems to remark on this “absence”.

The so-called Revolution of July 2012 corresponds in fact to the withdrawal of Assad’s troops from Kurdistan. Having disappeared the previous administrative and security power was replaced, and a self-government called revolutionary has taken things in hand. But for what “self” is it acting? [And] of what revolution?

If one speaks willingly of taking power at the base [of society] and of changing the domestic sphere, it is never a question of the transformation of the relations of exchange and exploitation. At best, we describe cooperatives, without the least indication of the beginning of collectivization. The new Kurdish state has reopened the wells and refining centres, and produces electricity — [but] nothing is said about those who work there. Commerce, handicrafts and markets function, money continues to play its role. Zaher Baher, a visitor and admirer of the Kurdish “revolution” [says]: “Before leaving the region, we spoke with shop keepers, businessmen and people in the market. Everyone had a rather positive opinion on the DSA [Democratic Self Administration] and TEV-DEM [‘Movement for a Democratic Society’ — a coalition of organizations of which the PYD is the centre of gravity]. They were happy about the existence of peace, security and freedom and running their own business without any interference from any parties or groups.”[7] Finally a revolution that does not scare the bourgeoisie.

Soldiers

It would be enough to change the names. Much of the praise today addressed to Rojava, including on the question of gender, was, around 1930, addressed to the groups of Zionist pioneers in Palestine. In the first kibbutz, alongside the often progressive and socialist ideology, were the material conditions (precarious and necessary for defence) that obliged them to not deprive themselves of half of the labour force: [thus] women had an obligation to participate in agricultural activities and defence, which implied their liberation from “feminine” tasks, including the collective rearing of children.

No trace of this in Rojava. The arming of women is not everything (as the Israeli Defence Force clearly shows). Z. Baher testifies: “I made one interesting observation: I have not seen a single woman working in a shop, petrol station, market, café or restaurant.” The “self-managed” Refugee camps in Turkey are filled with women caring for the kids while the men look for work.

The subversive nature of a movement or organization cannot be measured by the number of armed women — nor its feminist character either. Since the 1960s, across all continents, most guerrillas have included or include numerous female combatants — for example in Colombia. This is even truer amongst Maoist-inspired guerrillas (Nepal, Peru, Philippines, etc.) using the strategy of “People’s War”: male/female equality should contribute to the tearing down of traditional structures, feudal or tribal (always patriarchal). It is in the Maoist origins of the PKK-PYD that one finds the source of what specialists call “martial feminism”.

But why do armed women pass for a symbol of emancipation? Why do we see here so easily an image of freedom, even going so far as to forget what they are fighting for?

If a woman armed with a rocket launcher can appear on the cover of Le Parisien-Magazine or a militant newspaper, it is because it is a classic figure. The monopoly of the use of arms is a traditional male privilege; its overturning must prove the radicality and exceptionality of a particular battle or a war. Hence the pictures of beautiful Spanish militia women. The revolution is at the end of the Kalashnikov… held by a woman. To this vision is sometimes added a more “feminist” one, of the armed woman vindicated, gunning down the bad guys, the rapists, etc.

Note that the IS and the Damascus regime [i.e. Assad’s regime] have constituted some all-female military units. However, and contrary to YPJ-YPG, they do not criticise gender distinctions, they do not seem to be used in the front lines, and are confined to supporting or police roles.

To arms

During Parisian demonstrations in support of Rojava, the banner of the united anarchist procession demanded “Arms for the Kurdish resistance.” Considering that the average proletarian does not have assault rifles and grenades to clandestinely send to Kurdistan, from whom do we demand such weapons? Should we rely on international arms dealers or NATO for weapons deliveries? Such deliveries have cautiously begun, but anarchist banners have nothing to do with them. Apart from the IS, nobody is considering new International Brigades.[8] So what type of armed support is this? Is it about demanding more Western air strikes with the “collateral damage” that we all know? Obviously not. It is, therefore, an empty formula and this is perhaps the worst of the deal: the so-called revolution is a pretext for demonstrations and slogans which no one seriously expects to be acted upon. We are as right-on in politics as in representation.

We are less surprised that people always ready to denounce the military-industrial complex now issue these calls if we remember that already in 1999, for Kosovo, some anarchists supported the NATO bombing… to prevent a “genocide”.

Anarchist

What is sad, more so than the organisations that have always supported national liberation movements, is that this exaltation reaches a wider milieu, of anarchist comrades, squatters, feminists and autonomists — often friends generally more lucid.

If lesser evil politics penetrates these milieus, it is because their radicalism is spineless (though this doesn’t prevent personal courage or energy).

Today it is much easier to get excited about Kurdistan (as 20 years ago it was for Chiapas) while militants despair over Billancourt.[9] “Over there”, at least, there are no resigned and drunken proles who vote for the FN [Front Nationale] and dream only of winning the Loto or finding a job. “Over there” there are peasants (even though the majority of Kurds live in cities), the mountain people in struggle, full of dreams and hope…. This rural-natural aspect (thus ecological) is mixed with a desire for change here and now. Gone are the days of the great ideologies and promises of the “Grand Soir” [10]: we make some things, we “create links”, despite the lack of means, we cultivate a vegetable garden, we realize a small public garden (like the one mentioned by Z. Baher). This echoes the ZAD [11]: roll-up our sleeves and make something concrete and small scale, in the here and now. This is what they do “over there”, with an AK-47 at the shoulder.

Some anarchist texts only evoke Rojava in terms of local achievements and neighbourhood assemblies, almost never speaking of the PYD and the PKK, etc., as if they were only spontaneous actions. It would be a little like if, in order to analyse a general strike, we only spoke of the self-management of strikers and of strike pickets, without considering the local unions, or the manoeuvring of the union management, or their negotiations with the State and the bosses…

The revolution is increasingly seen as a question of behaviour: self-organization, interest in gender, ecology, creating links, discussion, affects. If we add here disinterest or carelessness regarding State and political power, it is logical to see well and truly a revolution — and why not “a revolution of women” in Rojava. Since we speak less and less of classes, of class struggle, does it matter that this is also absent from the discourse of the PKK-PYD?

What criticism of the state?

What bothers radical thought in national liberation struggles is the goal of creating a State. It suffices for it to renounce this and consider that at its base, the nation (provided it is stateless) is the people — and how can we be against the people? [In it] is a little bit of us all, almost 99%. No?

Anarchism has the characteristic of (and to its merit) a principled hostility to the State. Given this, and this is something, its great weakness is to consider it primarily as an instrument of coercion — which it certainly is — without wondering why and how it plays this role. Therefore, it is sufficient to wipe out the most visible forms of the State for some anarchists (not all) to conclude that its disappearance has happened or is near.

For this reason, the anarchist is disarmed before what looks too much like their own program, having always been against the State but for democracy, though naturally they favour democratic federalism and social self-determination. The anarchist ideal is to replace the State by thousands of federated communes (and work collectives).

On this basis, it is possible to be internationalist and support a national movement, so long as it practices generalized self-management, social and political, now called “appropriation of the common”. When the PKK no longer claims to want power, but a system where everyone will share power, it is easy for the anarchist to recognise themselves there.

Perspectives

The attempt at democratic revolution in Rojava, and the social transformations that accompany it, have only been possible because of exceptional conditions: the breaking up of the Iraqi and Syrian states and the jihadist invasion of the region — a threat which had the effect of promoting radicalisation.

With Western military support it now seems probable that Rojava can (in the image of Iraqi Kurdistan) exist as an autonomous entity held at a distance on the margin of a persisting Syrian chaos. In which case, this small state, however democratic it wants to be, by normalising [its relations] will not leave intact social conquests or advancements. At best there will remain some local self-government, progressive education, a free press (on the condition of avoiding blasphemy), a tolerant Islam and, of course, gender-parity. No more. But still enough for those who want to believe in a social revolution to continue believing in one — needless to say by wishing for this democracy to become even more democratic.

As for the hope of a conflict between the self-organization at the base and the structures that oversee them, this is to imagine that there exists in Rojava a situation of “dual power”. This is to forget that the power of the PYD-PKK itself has driven this self-government, and retains the real power, both political and military.

To return to the comparison with Spain, in 1936 it was the “beginning” of revolution that was then devoured by war. In Rojava there was first the war and, unfortunately, there is still no sign that a “social” revolution is about to be born.

G. D. & L.T.

FOOTNOTES

Unless otherwise stated all footnotes are from the original article.

[1] Translator’s note: “Born Charles Cortvint in Brussels in 1914, Louis Mercier Vega was an anarchist journalist who was very active in the French labor movement. After fighting with the Durruti Column in the Spanish Civil War, Mercier returned to France, where in 1938 he joined (as Charles Ridel) a group of young anarchists called Révision, which demanded a process of radical ideological and strategic rethinking. During World War II Vega lived in Latin America, a continent he later analyzed in some of his works. In the late 1950s Mercier became co-editor of Volontà , an Italian newspaper of the anti-organizational current in anarchism that defended creative spontaneity and free experimentation in spheres such as education, culture, and aesthetics. In 1958, he created with Helmut Rüdiger the Commission Internationale de Liaison Ouvrière (CILO), a network around a bulletin of the same name published in Paris until 1965, which aimed to redefine the role of libertarian syndicalism in new contexts of production. His last endeavor was Interrogations , a quarterly review founded in 1974 and written in French, English, Italian, and Spanish, updating key concepts of anarchist political thought, especially the role of the state and the ruling class. The publication lasted until 1979, two years after Mercier committed suicide.” From: (http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405184649_yr201...)

[2] Il Lato Cattivo , ‘The “Kurdish Question”, ISIS, USA, Etc.’

[3] Becky, ‘A revolution in daily life’

[4] The Social Contract (of Rojava)

[5] Il Lato Cattivo, op. cit.

[6] A relative eclipse of social disparities since the richest Kurds avoid participating in the self-government of camps by taking refuge in other countries with more comfortable conditions.

[7] Zaher Baher, « Vers l’autogestion au Rojava ? », Où est la révolution au Rojava ?, n°1, juillet-novembre 2014 p. 21. English version available as ‘The experiment of West Kurdistan (Syrian Kurdistan) has proved that people can make changes’

[8] Translator’s note: However a small pro-Albanian Stalinist group in Turkey, the ‘Marxist-Leninist Communist Party’ (Marksist-Leninist Komünist Partisi in Turkish) has commited to organising International Brigades for Rojava. Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_Communist_Party_(Turkey).

[9] Translator’s note: I think this is a reference to the old centre of industrial working class radicalism in Paris. From Wikipedia: ‘Boulogne-Billancourt is a suburb in the western suburbs of Paris, France. […] Formerly an important industrial site, it has [been] reconverted into a business services centre and is now home to major communication companies headquartered in the Val de Seine business district.’ Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulogne-Billancourt

[10] Translator’s note: The ‘Grand Soir’ is a term common in the French far-left, anarchist, socialist and communist, stretching back at least to the 19th century (though some have noted older, Christian origins). The ‘Great Night’ is in essence the night of the Revolution, the night of the reversal of the social order, the night of the final reckoning. According to Maurice Tournier it has more recently been recuperated by sections of the far right. See (in French): Maurice Tournier, « Le Grand Soir », un mythe de fin de siècle.

[11] Translator’s note: ZAD or ‘Zone À Défendre’ (Area to Defend). A name given by protestors to the area they wish to protect from the proposed ‘Aéroport du Grand Ouest Project’, i.e. the planned airport north of the city of Nantes. Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9roport_du_Grand_Ouest.

TRANSLATION LAST UPDATED 17 FEBRUARY 2015, 15:21 PM

Link: https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/kurdistan/

category: 

Comments

What's the difference between Dauvé's "communizational" critique and that of "anarchists?" Why all the dichotomy between the two? Aren't they really just the same?

I'm no expert on this, but I honestly think a big part of the supposed difference is that the anarchist milieu/tradition in France is much different than that in America. In the US, anarchists have long been influenced by the SI and other ultra-left commies, and there is a tradition of post-leftism that grew out of that influence, as well. As I understand it, in France very leftist/syndicalist/activist strains of anarchism have held the dominant position for anarchists. It's a different context, but similarly you can read about the SI's battles with anarchists in Italy and ask yourself who most US anarchists today would side with: the SI. If the difference between such groups and anarchists seems so minimal, it's at least partially because we US anarchists are actually more in the same tradition as them than, say, the French CNT.

Thanks, that seems to make sense. I sometimes get lost in the ideological turf wars of what equates to be actual "anarchism." I actually find most "post-left" shit to be terrible.

Np, btw I meant the French Anarchist Federation, not the CNT, which I think exists in France but is not anarchist, even in name, or something like that.

Their biggest difference with the NEFAC is that they just won't die. lol

The Italian anarchists in the '70s were known to cooperate with Maoists and socialists, so yeah I think the SI had definitely an edge over them for for this, though I'd like to read more on their critic of those anarchists... But the SI was really just a small band of people, probably an equivalent of the CI people a few years back, before they got taken over by a second gen of people worst than socialists. To describe them as a movement is rather tongue-in-cheek.

Anarchism is really an old tradition in France and you never really had a huge, complete breakup as with North America, and the class struggle movement never really died... it's so full of powerful meaning that it no longer needs effort to be passed from a generation to another. Just look at the wild opposition movement in the suburbs and in several small cities. Though there are many families who've passed the ideological torch from a generation to the other.

Identified as ultra leftist up until the beginning of the 80s. The SI/Ultra Leftists actually are more reminiscent of the Franco-Italian Stirnerians then most crude post ww2 anarchists.

Please refer me to even a few "Franco-Italian Stirnerians" that the SI resemble. Please also specify which other ultra-leftists resemble "Franco-Italian Stirnerians." Because that sounds like some straight made up bullshit. But I'm willing to give a shot to prove me wrong about that.

Well if you know anything about Vanegeim he was influenced to so degree by Stirner and the individualists. Note that I'm not saying there is a direct relationship, just that they are closer to them then the crude leftist anarchists are and many of the post 68 neo Stirner types were SI/Ultra left influenced at least for a little while.

So you can't even name one "Franco-Italian Stirnerian" who the SI resemble? Because Stirner, as you know, is not a "Franco-Italian Stirnerian". And you can't name what ultra-left groups resemble the "Franco-Italian Stirnerians" that you also can't name. Hmm, could it be because, exactly as it seemed, you were bullshitting?

Of course Stirner is not italian you fucking retard. You have some basic comprehension problems of what I was getting at. I am roughly talking about the Franco-Italian individualist currents of anarchism in the late 19th and early 20th century and the similarities that some of the better strands of SI/Ultra leftism have with those currents as compared to the more crude leftist elements of anarchism post ww2. Vaneigem was influenced for instance was partly influenced by Stirner.

Comprende dumbass?

Its like Dali, and surrealism, its a talent one is born with, the individualist edict, I am what my innate talent requires me to create, not about education, not about social ethics. That is lol really dumb thinking Stirner was Italian, oh fuck retard go to the frikkin library!

Are you a brilliant troll or an average imbecile? Please refrain from posting until you understand what's going on: for example, no one said Stirner was Italian.

Umm, I merely accommodate and then subtly critique an adverse fallacious proposition, that is all. I have experience on my side, I immediately comprehend the flaws apparent in any argument For instance, your attack upon my self, I have endured abuse continuously all my life, like water of a capitalist's ego, I,,,,

"Stirner was not a "Franco-Italian individualist" "

This is what your other tweedle half is somehow reading into my original post. Your not the dumber half are you?

That is what me and Gunter are laughing at

I have "some basic comprehension" that you said that the SI and unnammed ultra-left groups resemble "Franco-Italian individualists" and that sounded like made up bullshit to me so I asked you which ones. Of course, it was made up bullshit, so you could not name which individualists or which ultra-left groups, so you changed the subject to say that "if I knew anything about Vanegeim," I would know he was influenced by Stirner. Which is totally beside the point and doesn't support your point at all--Stirner was not a "Franco-Italian individualist" and that he influenced Vanegeim lends no credence to the claim that the SI/(still unnamed) ultra-left groups resemble "Franco-Italian individualists." I comprendo that you were making shit up and when you got caught doing so, you changed the subject and just kept it vague to try to avoid acknolwedging you didn't know what you were talking about.

True that!

"Stirner was not a "Franco-Italian individualist""

No shit Sherlock! You completely misread my original post. I used the phrase 'more reminiscent' and pointed out in the 2nd post that this was not any direct continuity via intellectual tradition as opposed to similarities.

Your lobotomic understanding of my phrasing is down right laughable anon. You could have made yourself look less a retard and just asked me to spell out FOR YOU what I was getting at.

Again dummy Franco-Italian individualists refers to those currents in France and Italy that were to varying degrees influenced by Stirner. The likes of Armond to Novatore. From there I make a comparative link to the later ultra leftist commies(the edgy avant-garde types). Are you understanding now? Franco-Italian-Stirnerian is not a literal term idiot.

Got it now tweedles?

Haha oh okay, your assertion that vague, non-identified ultra-left groups resemble Franco-Italian-Stirnerians who until now you couldn't identify wasn't literal, it was a metaphor. Right. BTW, no, ultra-left groups do not resemble Novatore or Armond, and, yes, when I asked you to name names you only could name Stirner's influence on Vanegeim. Nice try--but it's clear you were bullshitting. I can see why you keep company with Gunter, who apparently thinks the issue is that I think Stirner was Italian or that I don't have a nearby library or haven't read the Ego and Its Own? You must feel smart in the company of such a fool.

I never talked about specific groups and I used the term reminiscent(similar could also suffice) which is different from resembling, and I never mentioned specific comparisons as you are trying to impute to me. You also don't seem to know what a metaphor is either. Analogous would be the more correct term.

You do know that there is such a thing as communist egoism right? The fact is there are continuums within these radical thought patterns. Ever heard of 'for ourselves' out of Frisco in the early 70s. That you don't know much as regards to cross current radical history between libcoms and anarchists is your stupidity to bear not mine.

Yes, you never talked about specific groups because you don't know of any--that's precisely the point. You were bullshitting, or as you say in an attempt to save face, not speaking "literally"--by the way, I do know that a metaphor is of course a form of figurative speech, and the reason I bring it up is your ridiculous claim that you weren't speaking literally implies you were speaking figuratively, not analogously. The one thing you are right about is that I should quit while I'm ahead, because I am quite ahead and to continue further will simply be a loss of my time. But honestly it's fun to watch you try and fail to explain away the fact that you got caught slinging b.s. you can't substantiate. Now you're stuck arguing the semantics between "reminiscent" and "resembling" and bringing up yet more irrevelent topic changes, such as the existence of egoist-communism and groups from a different time and place. Yes, I am aware of the group that you mention, but of course I never denied their existence or their ideology's; I simply challenged you to substantiate your claim about the SI and ultra-left groups and Franco-Italian-Stirnerians, and you quite spectacularly failed to do so.

"I simply challenged you to substantiate your claim about the SI and ultra-left groups and Franco-Italian-Stirnerians, and you quite spectacularly failed to do so."

I'll quite simply leave your idiocy on display.

You are completely dumb fucking retarded on the term F-I-S which I meant as a broad historical descriptive. There was never anything to substantiate nor was there any BS for those in the non-retarded know of 20th century radicalism. Someone like Gunter for example who's been around the block reading this stuff knows what I was getting at. The existence of egoist-communism communist-egoism pretty much makes my point dumbass.

You can stop bending over anytime now:)

Yeah, egoist-communism exists at some point and time, therefore, ultra-left groups and the SI resemble "Franco-Italian-Stirnerians" more than post-WW2 anarchists. Wow, excellent logic skills.

#EgoistCommunistLivesMatter

Keep it dumber tweedlez:) It's been fun.And to be clear since your pee brain at least partially gets it, I am talking about a specific kind of anarchist.

As the immortal bard would have said inversely, stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. Thus subjectivity and its essential claim to being a non-partisan and individualist pursuit of autonomous existence free of the shackles of the State and its religious social obligations is the ultimate quest which Franco-Italian Stirnerisns are the symbolic caricature of. Capeesh?

Ha ha, man you really are either a brilliant troll or brain damaged. Like, you're almost a part of the same conversation as me and Sir E, but just not quite. It's like two people arguing about a bus route being interrupted by a drunk rambling about what exactly a bus is and what it's for.

I go from A to B intellectually at the snap of my fingers! I am a radical sadhu after all the trimmings and cultural identity camouflage is removed.

I'm actually driving the bus donated by Sir E and you are at the back of it standing up and reading the route map and I'm going to slam the brakes on.

There ARE libraries where you live are there not, or do you inhabit an enclave of hillbillies who only get excited by banjo riffs and drinking over proof alcohol?
Listen, give me your address and I'll post you a photocopy of The Ego and Its Own.

Thats anarchistnews for ya: always talking about the relevant stuff.

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE, YOU FUCKING LOSERS!!!

Marx's mother was from Kurdistan?

Dauvé begins, like any cafe Frenchman, by looking at their texts, and critiquing its political content. Sure, the "social contract" of the "post"-state structures in Rojava is democratic in the worst way. But I'm more interested in what everyone else is doing on the ground there. If you measured the anti-globalization movements by the statements of ATTAC or whatever, I'm sure you'd be disappointed, too, but you'd also be missing most of what was happening in the street. Dauvé is a paper fighter, used to pitting his ideology against his opponents ideologies, unused to putting his feet on the ground and joining those who write their ideas in blood rather than ink. Why is France tilting towards fascism now, with so little momentum towards the kind of revolution we want to see? Is it because the comrades there are great at writing, but simply being right is not enough? Given what's happening in France, it almost seems petulant for him to spend so much verbiage affirming his cherry-picked pessimism about a struggle so far from him.

Actually cafes and texts are great, you Stalinoid.

You're the one defending a Marxist here, buddy.

I don't know who Gus Dauve is and I don't care. I'm defending cafes and texts, which are cool, from a Stalinoid. Pay attenion, dumbass.

everyone thinks you're really clever.

Look at the Stalinoid speaking for "everyone." Typically mass-minded authoritarian diversion tactics.

Meh, have to agree with the OP and that tendency certainly isn't limited to France. I always end up sounding like knuckle-dragging macho douche when I point out that gap between real fighters and the academic world but it's a very real, problematic thing. You can't debate, critique or dialogue with most forms of tyranny.

Yeah but you've never been in a real fight in your life so you don't sound like a real knuckle-dragging macho douche but a wanna-be knuckle-dragging macho douche. See you at the cafe, watching street fight vids on youtube on your phone.

You're cute *pinches cheek*

Didja mean "paper tiger"? lol

Activist lefty moralism. Is that all you got?

I feel depressed they should be home not lined up like sitting ducks!

Maybe they think that it's worth fighting for, even the limited freedoms that Duave describes.

I wonder if GD would prefer Venezuela over Rojava because in the former there is his much lauded class conflict? I would prefer Rojava, as the capitalist class has largely already fled and what remains is merely the petty bourgeois shop-keepers.

We should of course be as many have said, offering critical support. And GD is correct not too put too much emphasis on armed women in National Liberation struggles, as the examples of Israel or Vietnam point out ( the latter, where nearly every citizen had a gun, now only permits a few shot guns for citizens who hunt ).

That said, it is the very decentralized system of Rojava, including its own proclomation that it has no desire to become a state, though it is in fact like one (Much like Makhno's Ukraine) that should compel our solidarity. Unlike Venezuela, which also has citizen councils with little real power, Rojava is a weak state-like entity where people have much greater self-determination.

And as nasty as nationalism is, I would challenge any historian of revolution to find a successful revolution that did not have an element of nationalism. As anarchists we believe in autonomy and cultural plurality. Social geography would dictate that as revolutions are localized, they take on the charachter of the people whom fight them.

But there have never been any communist revolutions. That's sort of one of Dauve's thing's, no? The inability to push past the boundaries of bourgeois nation-states is one of the reasons that we've never had a revolution. also there's a pretty wide gulf between something being localized and it being nationalist don't you think?

Some glorify Rojava, others the Zaragoza Congress. 2 observations. It's hard to see how the rustic fantasies of Isaac Puente shaped the revolution in urban Spain. Maybe we should look to the present more and not a glorified, imagined past. Or probably I'm just a reformist....

A narrative about how a modern state was born out of the sentimental longings of grandparents. Sort of like Israel.

A key part of the Origin Myth of People's Libertarian Rojova has an odd ring to it:

Former nationalist and at least quasi-Stalinist killer and thug Ocalan is moved by the writings of Murray Bookchin -- and certainly it's more likely that someone in the real world is going to be persuaded by an authentic anti-capitalist thinker like Bookchin that by the gaseous pretensions of "post-left" anarchism or primitivism -- in effect Ocalan converts to some version of libertarian socialist because of his encounter with Bookchin, and then all the rank and file of the formerly national liberation struggle-oriented PKK all become way-big into Bookchin down the line.

All the PKKers automatically convert to something that is radically different from the politics and world view they've been fighting on behalf of for several decades, without any internal dissent or struggle? Something is rotten in the non-state of Kurdistan. Somehow this reminds me of that line of Eugene Debs about how a savior who can lead you into the Promised Land can lead you right back out of it again.

I'd like to think that what's going on in Rojova is what I've been seeking since age twelve but paraphrasing Orwell on Gandhi, saints should be presumed guilty until proven innocent...

Well thank you for your input, Edgar J. It was really needed!

How about you also give us your comparable views on Nikki Kish and Mumiah?

Bla bla bla mister tiger paper Gilles Dauvè.But lets leave the real old tiger to speak, he is talking about for another Subversion which apparently happen 15 years ago in Albania!! ''Anarchists are also taken by surprise. They are elsewhere, spread throughout the world, busy going into theories or distinguishing themselves from each other on the basis of metaphysical levels of reciprocal impurity. So they have other things to think about. Insurrection is knocking at the door but they are deaf to it, slow to act.'' The Albania, Laboratory of Subversion. by Alfredo Bonano. The history repeat herself like farce here and again!! unfortunately!!
There is international Calls here in anarchistnews to rebuild the City of Cobane. Well lets do it!! Like Anarchist did at the past! And then we will start to sharing knowledge and then to discuss which way goes the revolution! If it is wrong or if it is wright But when we will be there! And not here!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
4
t
4
5
3
v
t
Enter the code without spaces.