Add new comment

An answer by one of the interviewed called Ceren is illustrative, it begins with "A weapon cannot teach you how to love. It is easier to teach a revolutionary how to shoot than it is for a man who loves guns, war, and fighting to learn how to make a revolution, regardless of whether he is a great shot."

So what made the revolutionary a revolutionary and who taught them how to love? How many loving revolutionaries do you have to train at guns to defend them from the men that "loves guns, war, and fighting"? Will you ever win that war or find moments of peace to further the revolutions through the important tasks that are not combat oriented?

"As far as the drawbacks of organizing armed groups… one drawback is the people who tend to show up. Armed groups generally attract different kinds of people than other kinds of groups. Men are socialized to have a relationship with violence that is ultimately destructive. They need to overturn this in themselves. Even many anarchist men have not done this work before they show up to an armed group. Many women and non-male comrades are pushed out of these groups by patriarchal dynamics, or don’t show up in the first place because so many other projects would fall apart without the invisible work they do that men often don’t take up because it isn’t sexy or glorious work, or because they have been unable to access a process of learning how to use weapons that actually helps them advance rather than tearing them down. Autonomous structures are essential for all these reasons. It is also important for men to take a serious look at the foundation of their politics. Armed leftist groups cannot simply be a more “woke” version of LARPing, or a way to do all the same things right-wing militia members do but with a different aesthetic veneer. Armed aspects of self-defense must never be separated from other parts of revolutionary struggle."

Is this reflective of the dynamic of let's say U.S.A. or U.K.? Are there armed anarchist groups that form and fall apart due to toxic masculinity? I know precedent of cops using this to their advantage in groups, but not armed groups. Is an armed group even desirable in the first place? This discussion is still centered around an armed group due to the situation in Rojava. What distinguishes a group that fails at being inclusive vs one that is intentionally exclusive from the start?

Later on it's said:

"It’s important for friends returning to stay in connection with comrades and check up on each other. There have been suicides among people returning to the West, not only because of the impact of traumatic events but also because of withdrawal from the way of life experienced here. Capitalist modernity is cruel and isolating. Connection to other people and having the space to open questions about mental health without shame are key factors in dealing with these issues. There is a myth that war is like a gold standard to measure other types of trauma. This can create a hierarchy of suffering."

and then "What is needed is not for the comrade returning home to reintegrate into a community that is like the one they were a part of before they came to Rojava; what is needed is a meeting of this community and the comrade as they are now and a mutual development." Where are all the pro-Rojava people from "abroad" in real life? What are their connections or involvement with feminist groups? What are they relation to more liberal, or less anarchist and more communist, feminist squats?

Anyways, I point to these areas of conflict and tension as paths to explore, and I point this as an outsider with no hope for their resolution nor desire to be integrated into them, for their own sake of communalists and feminist communards, so that they may prosper and mutually defend their own spaces, or make further inroads into eroding or abolishing patriarchy and toxic masculinity.