Well, this Matt Broomfield piece reads like work of an idealistic student activist certain that he’s discovered the crucible of a new revolutionary trend.
Reading between the lines though, I get the impression that Rojava is a gathering of various displaced people muddling through as best they can while an opportunistic intellectual class of wannabe revolutionaries exploit the fluid situation to try out their plans for that coveted “better world” they always imagine is their destiny.
I found it quite fascinating – and also encouraging. Why people working to cobble together some kind of democracy is seen as ‘Marxism’ on these pages I’ll never know.
I also found it fascinating (but not encouraging) as up to this point I had no knowledge of Rojava and the activities therein. I stand by my initial comment though.
I don’t see all idealists, activists and revolutionaries as Marxist – although Broomfield’s piece does rather remind me of the Leftist enthusiasm for 1980s Nicaragua. I remember socialist inclined friends at the time taking ‘daredevil’ vacations to Nicaragua just to be part of it all (however briefly).
By the way, while I am not suggesting an equivalence, it is worth pondering the fact that Western activists of the hard Left variety were enthusiastic about another crucible of revolution: Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in its earliest days. It was to be a pure form of communism that would put the compromise-riddled Chinese and Russian versions to shame. The enthusiasm quickly evaporated when the price of that purity became clear.
I also found it fascinating (but not encouraging) as up to this point I had no knowledge of Rojava and the activities therein. I stand by my initial comment though.
I don’t see all idealists, activists and revolutionaries as Marxist – although Broomfield’s piece does rather remind me of the Leftist enthusiasm for 1980s Nicaragua. I remember socialist inclined friends at the time taking ‘daredevil’ vacations to Nicaragua just to be part of it all (however briefly).
By the way, while I am not suggesting an equivalence, it is worth pondering the fact that Western activists of the hard Left variety were enthusiastic about another crucible of revolution: Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in its earliest days. It was to be a pure form of communism that would put the compromise-riddled Chinese and Russian versions to shame. The enthusiasm quickly evaporated when the price of that purity became clear.
I found it quite fascinating – and also encouraging. Why people working to cobble together some kind of democracy is seen as ‘Marxism’ on these pages I’ll never know.
N Satori
1 year ago
Well, this Matt Broomfield piece reads like work of an idealistic student activist certain that he’s discovered the crucible of a new revolutionary trend.
Reading between the lines though, I get the impression that Rojava is a gathering of various displaced people muddling through as best they can while an opportunistic intellectual class of wannabe revolutionaries exploit the fluid situation to try out their plans for that coveted “better world” they always imagine is their destiny.
Keppel Cassidy
1 year ago
A fascinating article by someone with real life experience of the messy, flawed but at times inspiring reality of Rojava. Bookchin and Ocalan may be idealistic, but I think they’re definitely onto something with the focus on decentralisation and community building from the ground up. Utopian social visions (such as communism of various flavours) generally failed because they are imposed from above on an unwilling populace, but I believe that the real key lies in community empowerment. The crisis and opportunity of the Rojava moment made creating something new a possibility, though creating something new can lead to both magnificent and disastrous outcomes (and sometimes both). I learned a lot reading this, and it inspires me to check out the book on Rojava he references.
One point that I think is missed by the author is that the kind of autonomous community building practised in Rojava, and especially the focus on creating economic co-operative structures at a local level, is by no means a trivial undertaking, and is going to become increasingly important as our growth-addicted global economic system approaches the physical limits of our planet’s energy resources and environment and starts to collapse, likely in the not too distant future.
Keppel Cassidy
1 year ago
A fascinating article by someone with real life experience of the messy, flawed but at times inspiring reality of Rojava. Bookchin and Ocalan may be idealistic, but I think they’re definitely onto something with the focus on decentralisation and community building from the ground up. Utopian social visions (such as communism of various flavours) generally failed because they are imposed from above on an unwilling populace, but I believe that the real key lies in community empowerment. The crisis and opportunity of the Rojava moment made creating something new a possibility, though creating something new can lead to both magnificent and disastrous outcomes (and sometimes both). I learned a lot reading this, and it inspires me to check out the book on Rojava he references.
One point that I think is missed by the author is that the kind of autonomous community building practised in Rojava, and especially the focus on creating economic co-operative structures at a local level, is by no means a trivial undertaking, and is going to become increasingly important as our growth-addicted global economic system approaches the physical limits of our planet’s energy resources and environment and starts to collapse, likely in the not too distant future.
Chauncey Gardiner
1 year ago
Thanks for this piece. It comprises more data. And we can put this data right next to the experiments in communal governance of, say, certain clusters of villages in Spain taken over by the “anarcho-syndicalists” of the Spanish Civil War. I will dig into the Rojava experience.
Last edited 1 year ago by Chauncey Gardiner
Chauncey Gardiner
1 year ago
Thanks for this piece. It comprises more data. And we can put this data right next to the experiments in communal governance of, say, certain clusters of villages in Spain taken over by the “anarcho-syndicalists” of the Spanish Civil War. I will dig into the Rojava experience.
Last edited 1 year ago by Chauncey Gardiner
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
“its detractors dismiss it as an ethnically segregated petro-statelet serving Kurdish national ambitions. Which side is correct?”
False dichotomy. Why not both at the same time? And what, exactly would be wrong with the Kurds preferring their own company? And why shouldn’t the Kurds have ‘national ambitions’? In a brutal, backward and generally disgusting part of the world, the Kurds seem to rise above the general shittiness of their neighbors. I hope they get their country one day and if they ‘ethnically segregate’ I congratulate them for it.
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
“its detractors dismiss it as an ethnically segregated petro-statelet serving Kurdish national ambitions. Which side is correct?”
False dichotomy. Why not both at the same time? And what, exactly would be wrong with the Kurds preferring their own company? And why shouldn’t the Kurds have ‘national ambitions’? In a brutal, backward and generally disgusting part of the world, the Kurds seem to rise above the general shittiness of their neighbors. I hope they get their country one day and if they ‘ethnically segregate’ I congratulate them for it.
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
I should know a socialist utopia when I see one.
Over the years I have signed up for a few
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
I should know a socialist utopia when I see one.
Over the years I have signed up for a few
T Bone
1 year ago
So this is like St. Marx with Kurdish characteristics? That should work out well. Probably days away from SuperAbundance. As is now obvious, and probably true Apriori, the Dialectic always resolves contradictions efficiently without ever creating new contradictions inspiring a bureacracy of contradictions.
The Forward March of History continues to be blessed with syncretic St. Marx in all of his peaceful, prosperous sublated forms.
It’s the exact same method of dialectical materialism that Marx created.
To me its obvious that Revolutionary Socialists avoid responsibility for past failures by modifying the Algorithm each time and saying “This time it’s different.” Or making people argue about some trivial technicality like whether something is “Marxist” instead of the historical results.
It’s not different because whether one studied Marx or not, if they’re thinking dialectically they’re using the same anti-scientific formula that Marx stole from Hegel. At least Hegel was just using the dialectic as an analytical tool. Marx was doing it to change conditions.
I’m over the technicalities. This is Marxism. If it succeeds it won’t take long to self-destruct.
It’s the exact same method of dialectical materialism that Marx created.
To me its obvious that Revolutionary Socialists avoid responsibility for past failures by modifying the Algorithm each time and saying “This time it’s different.” Or making people argue about some trivial technicality like whether something is “Marxist” instead of the historical results.
It’s not different because whether one studied Marx or not, if they’re thinking dialectically they’re using the same anti-scientific formula that Marx stole from Hegel. At least Hegel was just using the dialectic as an analytical tool. Marx was doing it to change conditions.
I’m over the technicalities. This is Marxism. If it succeeds it won’t take long to self-destruct.
I am not so sure there is very much Marx in the experiment. The people I speak with say that the model they are trying to emulate is Switzerland.
T Bone
1 year ago
So this is like St. Marx with Kurdish characteristics? That should work out well. Probably days away from SuperAbundance. As is now obvious, and probably true Apriori, the Dialectic always resolves contradictions efficiently without ever creating new contradictions inspiring a bureacracy of contradictions.
The Forward March of History continues to be blessed with syncretic St. Marx in all of his peaceful, prosperous sublated forms.
Last edited 1 year ago by T Bone
Emre S
1 year ago
Reading this article I’m getting the impression that this author thinks that being a socialist utopia in a war zone is a good thing – not a very dangerous experiment that’ll likely put everyone in danger.
Also, I somehow don’t see a reference here that the oil sales this Kurdish region makes, hence their life line money, is made possible through cooperation with the oh so horrible ethnic cleansing Turkey.
Emre S
1 year ago
Reading this article I’m getting the impression that this author thinks that being a socialist utopia in a war zone is a good thing – not a very dangerous experiment that’ll likely put everyone in danger.
Also, I somehow don’t see a reference here that the oil sales this Kurdish region makes, hence their life line money, is made possible through cooperation with the oh so horrible ethnic cleansing Turkey.
Well, this Matt Broomfield piece reads like work of an idealistic student activist certain that he’s discovered the crucible of a new revolutionary trend.
Reading between the lines though, I get the impression that Rojava is a gathering of various displaced people muddling through as best they can while an opportunistic intellectual class of wannabe revolutionaries exploit the fluid situation to try out their plans for that coveted “better world” they always imagine is their destiny.
I found it quite fascinating – and also encouraging. Why people working to cobble together some kind of democracy is seen as ‘Marxism’ on these pages I’ll never know.
I also found it fascinating (but not encouraging) as up to this point I had no knowledge of Rojava and the activities therein. I stand by my initial comment though.
I don’t see all idealists, activists and revolutionaries as Marxist – although Broomfield’s piece does rather remind me of the Leftist enthusiasm for 1980s Nicaragua. I remember socialist inclined friends at the time taking ‘daredevil’ vacations to Nicaragua just to be part of it all (however briefly).
By the way, while I am not suggesting an equivalence, it is worth pondering the fact that Western activists of the hard Left variety were enthusiastic about another crucible of revolution: Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in its earliest days. It was to be a pure form of communism that would put the compromise-riddled Chinese and Russian versions to shame. The enthusiasm quickly evaporated when the price of that purity became clear.
It literally follows the Dialectical Materialism formula that Marx created and uses it as a basis to change material conditions.
Democracy will eventually be unable to function in a socially planned society driven by “resolving dialectical contradictions.”
Explain to me the difference between Marxist Praxis Orthodoxy and what they’re trying to do here?
I also found it fascinating (but not encouraging) as up to this point I had no knowledge of Rojava and the activities therein. I stand by my initial comment though.
I don’t see all idealists, activists and revolutionaries as Marxist – although Broomfield’s piece does rather remind me of the Leftist enthusiasm for 1980s Nicaragua. I remember socialist inclined friends at the time taking ‘daredevil’ vacations to Nicaragua just to be part of it all (however briefly).
By the way, while I am not suggesting an equivalence, it is worth pondering the fact that Western activists of the hard Left variety were enthusiastic about another crucible of revolution: Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in its earliest days. It was to be a pure form of communism that would put the compromise-riddled Chinese and Russian versions to shame. The enthusiasm quickly evaporated when the price of that purity became clear.
It literally follows the Dialectical Materialism formula that Marx created and uses it as a basis to change material conditions.
Democracy will eventually be unable to function in a socially planned society driven by “resolving dialectical contradictions.”
Explain to me the difference between Marxist Praxis Orthodoxy and what they’re trying to do here?
I found it quite fascinating – and also encouraging. Why people working to cobble together some kind of democracy is seen as ‘Marxism’ on these pages I’ll never know.
Well, this Matt Broomfield piece reads like work of an idealistic student activist certain that he’s discovered the crucible of a new revolutionary trend.
Reading between the lines though, I get the impression that Rojava is a gathering of various displaced people muddling through as best they can while an opportunistic intellectual class of wannabe revolutionaries exploit the fluid situation to try out their plans for that coveted “better world” they always imagine is their destiny.
A fascinating article by someone with real life experience of the messy, flawed but at times inspiring reality of Rojava. Bookchin and Ocalan may be idealistic, but I think they’re definitely onto something with the focus on decentralisation and community building from the ground up. Utopian social visions (such as communism of various flavours) generally failed because they are imposed from above on an unwilling populace, but I believe that the real key lies in community empowerment. The crisis and opportunity of the Rojava moment made creating something new a possibility, though creating something new can lead to both magnificent and disastrous outcomes (and sometimes both). I learned a lot reading this, and it inspires me to check out the book on Rojava he references.
One point that I think is missed by the author is that the kind of autonomous community building practised in Rojava, and especially the focus on creating economic co-operative structures at a local level, is by no means a trivial undertaking, and is going to become increasingly important as our growth-addicted global economic system approaches the physical limits of our planet’s energy resources and environment and starts to collapse, likely in the not too distant future.
A fascinating article by someone with real life experience of the messy, flawed but at times inspiring reality of Rojava. Bookchin and Ocalan may be idealistic, but I think they’re definitely onto something with the focus on decentralisation and community building from the ground up. Utopian social visions (such as communism of various flavours) generally failed because they are imposed from above on an unwilling populace, but I believe that the real key lies in community empowerment. The crisis and opportunity of the Rojava moment made creating something new a possibility, though creating something new can lead to both magnificent and disastrous outcomes (and sometimes both). I learned a lot reading this, and it inspires me to check out the book on Rojava he references.
One point that I think is missed by the author is that the kind of autonomous community building practised in Rojava, and especially the focus on creating economic co-operative structures at a local level, is by no means a trivial undertaking, and is going to become increasingly important as our growth-addicted global economic system approaches the physical limits of our planet’s energy resources and environment and starts to collapse, likely in the not too distant future.
Thanks for this piece. It comprises more data. And we can put this data right next to the experiments in communal governance of, say, certain clusters of villages in Spain taken over by the “anarcho-syndicalists” of the Spanish Civil War. I will dig into the Rojava experience.
Thanks for this piece. It comprises more data. And we can put this data right next to the experiments in communal governance of, say, certain clusters of villages in Spain taken over by the “anarcho-syndicalists” of the Spanish Civil War. I will dig into the Rojava experience.
“its detractors dismiss it as an ethnically segregated petro-statelet serving Kurdish national ambitions. Which side is correct?”
False dichotomy. Why not both at the same time? And what, exactly would be wrong with the Kurds preferring their own company? And why shouldn’t the Kurds have ‘national ambitions’? In a brutal, backward and generally disgusting part of the world, the Kurds seem to rise above the general shittiness of their neighbors. I hope they get their country one day and if they ‘ethnically segregate’ I congratulate them for it.
“its detractors dismiss it as an ethnically segregated petro-statelet serving Kurdish national ambitions. Which side is correct?”
False dichotomy. Why not both at the same time? And what, exactly would be wrong with the Kurds preferring their own company? And why shouldn’t the Kurds have ‘national ambitions’? In a brutal, backward and generally disgusting part of the world, the Kurds seem to rise above the general shittiness of their neighbors. I hope they get their country one day and if they ‘ethnically segregate’ I congratulate them for it.
I should know a socialist utopia when I see one.
Over the years I have signed up for a few
I should know a socialist utopia when I see one.
Over the years I have signed up for a few
So this is like St. Marx with Kurdish characteristics? That should work out well. Probably days away from SuperAbundance. As is now obvious, and probably true Apriori, the Dialectic always resolves contradictions efficiently without ever creating new contradictions inspiring a bureacracy of contradictions.
The Forward March of History continues to be blessed with syncretic St. Marx in all of his peaceful, prosperous sublated forms.
Don’t be so cynical TB, this time the Marxists will get it right, and if they don’t, I bet they will the next time
I am not so sure there is very much Marx in the experiment. The people I speak with say that the model they are trying to emulate is Switzerland.
It’s the exact same method of dialectical materialism that Marx created.
To me its obvious that Revolutionary Socialists avoid responsibility for past failures by modifying the Algorithm each time and saying “This time it’s different.” Or making people argue about some trivial technicality like whether something is “Marxist” instead of the historical results.
It’s not different because whether one studied Marx or not, if they’re thinking dialectically they’re using the same anti-scientific formula that Marx stole from Hegel. At least Hegel was just using the dialectic as an analytical tool. Marx was doing it to change conditions.
I’m over the technicalities. This is Marxism. If it succeeds it won’t take long to self-destruct.
It’s the exact same method of dialectical materialism that Marx created.
To me its obvious that Revolutionary Socialists avoid responsibility for past failures by modifying the Algorithm each time and saying “This time it’s different.” Or making people argue about some trivial technicality like whether something is “Marxist” instead of the historical results.
It’s not different because whether one studied Marx or not, if they’re thinking dialectically they’re using the same anti-scientific formula that Marx stole from Hegel. At least Hegel was just using the dialectic as an analytical tool. Marx was doing it to change conditions.
I’m over the technicalities. This is Marxism. If it succeeds it won’t take long to self-destruct.
Don’t be so cynical TB, this time the Marxists will get it right, and if they don’t, I bet they will the next time
I am not so sure there is very much Marx in the experiment. The people I speak with say that the model they are trying to emulate is Switzerland.
So this is like St. Marx with Kurdish characteristics? That should work out well. Probably days away from SuperAbundance. As is now obvious, and probably true Apriori, the Dialectic always resolves contradictions efficiently without ever creating new contradictions inspiring a bureacracy of contradictions.
The Forward March of History continues to be blessed with syncretic St. Marx in all of his peaceful, prosperous sublated forms.
Reading this article I’m getting the impression that this author thinks that being a socialist utopia in a war zone is a good thing – not a very dangerous experiment that’ll likely put everyone in danger.
Also, I somehow don’t see a reference here that the oil sales this Kurdish region makes, hence their life line money, is made possible through cooperation with the oh so horrible ethnic cleansing Turkey.
Reading this article I’m getting the impression that this author thinks that being a socialist utopia in a war zone is a good thing – not a very dangerous experiment that’ll likely put everyone in danger.
Also, I somehow don’t see a reference here that the oil sales this Kurdish region makes, hence their life line money, is made possible through cooperation with the oh so horrible ethnic cleansing Turkey.