đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș hevale-big-talk-with-tekosina-anarsist.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:43:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Big talk with TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst Author: Hevale & TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst Date: 09/08/2019 Language: en Topics: TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst, Rojava, Revolutionary Anarchism, armed struggle Source: Retrieved on 2020-05-25 from https://hevale.nihilist.li/tekosina-anarsist-1/]
Anarchist Struggle (Kurdish: TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst) is the organized
structure of libertarian revolutionaries who actively participate in
ongoing revolution in Rojava. We took a chance to make an interview with
the comrades. In first part of our conversations we discussed relations
of A.S. with Marxist-Leninist organizations and contradictions in Rojava
social development from Anarchist perspective. We didnât try to avoid
complicated questions and uncomfortable topics and received very
meaningful answers from TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst participants. We hope that
this sincere dialogue will be important for libertarian readers
worldwide.
Hevale: You participate in International Freedom Batallion (IFB). As far
as we know this structure is managed by Marxist-Leninist parties such as
MLKP, TKP-ML and others. How you manage to arrange your relations with
this organizations in libertarian way taking into account military
hierarchy and their non-libertarian ideology? Which benefits you see in
collaboration with Marxist-Leninist organizations?
TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst: IFB was formed as a coalition of revolutionary
organizations primarily from Turkey, mostly Marxist-Leninist formations,
in order to support revolution in Rojava. The participation of
international fighters and volunteers, in particular anarchists, was
always a point of complexity. We do collaborate with these organizations
to a certain degree due to our principle of non-sectarianism, with sort
of a coalition of various forces that are doing solidarity work in
Rojava. It is a part of our lesson that we learned here as anarchists â
making enemies needlessly is a bad idea. However, these kinds of
relationships are of course rather strategical and we always keep in
mind that we have our own aspirations, our own path to walk as
anarchists.
In fact, during the participation of anarchists and some other
internationals in IFB, they have been continuously challenging political
decisions made by these parties, often the decision making process was
excluding the participation of international comrades.
As for military hierarchy, us being a military structure, we recognize a
vital need of forming an effective fighting force and for that some form
of a command structure is necessary. For example, we as a structure have
multiple positions and responsibilities which are delegated and rotated
inside of the organization, for instance, a member of a collective who
takes the responsibilities of military commander does carry a certain
authority in combat situations, being responsible for military
decisions. However, a military commander does not have any authority in
our daily life and any other matters than those of a military.
Furthermore, in daily life we attempt to maintain mechanisms that allow
us to counter-act emergence of informal hierarchies and managing the
group dynamics.
IFB has always been a frontline fighting unit. We would respect the
decisions made by the commander of the battalion, as long as the
commander is chosen based on experience and abilities, as well as the
military decisions being made without interference with political
agenda. If commander is proven to be incompetent, we would bring the
matter to the âuni-teamâ which is a sort of the management committee of
the battalion, consisting of all participating organizations. For
example, in Raqqa, IRPGF, an anarchist organization in the battalion was
a part of that committee. Speaking very generally and comparing with
state and paramilitary state formations, a structure like IFB is much
more democratic in some ways, respectively including particular
democratic mechanisms and somehow more âfreeâ.
Here, unlike some of our anarchist comrades, we donât use the term
âdemocraticâ in a libertarian sense, but rather in a neutral way, to
underline a bottom-top system which allows participants to make appeals
in direction to the top, and make mutual criticisms, but does not
include inner mechanisms of preventing authoritarian tendencies,
regulating and balancing the power potential which such structure always
embodies. We donât consider democratic tools as something we use in our
organizational and political tools as anarchists; we have a different
understanding of what âdemocraticâ means, and what âlibertarianâ or
âanarchistâ mean. That is due to the fact that we have serious
criticisms to the term of democracy and itâs use in political movements
as well as deeper analysis of democracy itself. It is coming from
anarchist experiences with democracy from all around the world. It is
quite different meaning than the one which the democratic confederalism
stands for, and there are reasons for that â the way how the word
âdemocracyâ is used here is very different. Ideology of the so-called
new paradigm tries to re-invent that word and use it for the description
of the free civilization that it strives for. However, that difference
does not prevent us from listening to different comrades here in Rojava,
opening up for various discussions and seeing where they come from
politically and historically and learn from it. It is a very unique
context and looking at it with the Western political approach and
criticizing it from this point of view, would be a mistake. We should
look and listen carefully, and not shut down our hearts from embracing
challenging ideas and making ourselves stronger with that.
Overall, the armed struggle and political organizing both in Rojava and
back in our home contexts is and will always be essentially full of
contradictions and it is a lesson that we as anarchists have opportunity
to learn from and find out our stance in it. To conclude for this
question, however we are different from all the Maoist and
Marxist-Leninist groups that are located here in Rojava, we disagree
with many things and have our point of view on everything, but
nevertheless we have a lot to learn from them in some things.
Hevale: Ideology of Rojava Revolution, i.e. Democratic Confederalism,
promotes direct self-government and society-oriented economy. However we
can see that still is unclear which institutions actually govern Rojava.
In parallel with councils there exist some para-State structures such as
ministries. The structure of mandate and elections in councils is also
unclear. Certain continous PKK party-control over society exists as
well. In a sphere of economy we also see still widespread pretty
capitalist relations, party-control over key economy sectors (oil
extraction) and unclarity about if the situation is tending to change.
What is your analysis and expectations about further social development
in Rojava under these circumstances?
TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst: Here are two views we have on that matter.
First, one can easily come across some cadres of the Party and have
discussions with them about these same topics, and some of them would
honestly tell you that the situation here is rather a failure, and their
ideology of Democratic confederalism and the reality in practice are
very different. However, recognizing that they reached only small piece
of what revolution was striving for, they would rather take it as the
strongest motivation to question themselves and fully commit to make
that reality different.
And we as anarchists also recognize that very often our ideas, the life
that we all live and the world around us are so far from each other. So
how do we approach this? Either we admit that this is the reality, that
this is where we stand, and that we have a long way to go, or we hide
these questions and challenges behind blind narrow-minded, sometimes
even hurray attitude. Both are present here and our analysis is coming
from a point of critical comradeship.
Here in Rojava, we and many other comrades we cooperate with, are
working in solidarity with people of Northern-Eastern Syria and fought
by their side against the Islamic State as well as the turkish army and
itâs proxies. Thus it is one of the ways how we are practicing
solidarity with the movement here.
But understanding of âthe Movementâ is also something that influences
our positions. Who is âthe Movementâ? Is it the Party and its cadres? Is
it all the institutions and ministries that exist here? Or is âthe
Movementâ presented by all the âwelatparezâ families and martyrs that
gave their lives to make the current, however not perfect reality in
Rojava possible in these incredibly hard conditions? Or is âthe
Movementâ also embodied by all people who want to live better lives,
struggling every day against hardships of economy in condition of war,
losses of the loved ones yet still standing by our side on the
barricades simply because Assadâs regime, Turkey and Islamic state are
just way worse scenarios for majority of population? Different people
here see that definition differently.
Obviously the real implementation of democratic confederalism here is
known for radical social changes that represent most libertarian
tendencies among neighboring regions. Everyone heard of gender quotas
and woman/man co-presidency in councils and communes. In Mala gel
(Peopleâs house or House of people) and Mala jin (Womenâs house or House
of women) as well as the communes, there are educations so the ideas of
societal changes can be shared and discussed. Overall education is very
accessible to people and without cost.
There are also conflict resolution processes so that conflicts can be
managed locally instead of taking it to court, but there is of course a
particular judicial system as well as prisons, which are a reality here
still as is progressing bureaucracy and control including centralized
decision making. Here, the question of social change and for example
prison abolition (as a big and serious topic and area of organizing in
places beyond Rojava) faces challenges of IS insurgency and overall
economical and geopolitical situation.
One way or another, situation here is so complex, that being too picky
about who you work with or not, is a choice between life and death. It
may sound like we are clearly pragmatic about the reality here, but
where we really come from, is a desire to learn from this place and
events here rather thanks to these contradictions, than in spite of
them.
Secondly, everything that we see right now in Rojava displays very
challenging situation which can offer us tips about how it will look
like in the near future.
The fact that after the military defeat of the Caliphate in March 2019,
the struggle against IS is far from being over. Fighting jihadists and
their ideology in the desert is a very difficult task that seems to be
accomplishable rather through social struggle besides an armed one,
especially strong organizing of the youth and women. Sleeping cells of
the IS increased their activity and at the moment it is a full-on
guerrilla warfare, which targets key people in the society structures as
well as military formations within SDF (which stands for the umbrella of
Syrian Democratic Forces). Alongside burning crops in large scale and
other everyday challenges, any attack of IS hits twice as hard and IS
ideology is not something which can be eliminated in any close future.
Rojava is facing a difficult economic situation. Being sometimes labeled
as a âwar communismâ but still being far away from bolshevik/stalinist
economical and political scenarios, Rojava is under a sort of embargo
and has to rely on smuggling and diplomacy, while not all the economics
are completely under control of the administration of Rojava and there
is a mix of areas with authorities of Assadâs regime.
However, it is not possible to smuggle everything and such things of a
level of for example gas turbines for power plants is something that is
highly needed, the ones that are now in use are very old and need to be
changed; but how to bring a gas turbine for the power plant to Rojava?
The whole geopolitical situation is extremely complex and not only in
the economical matter. It constantly leaves the choice between lesser
and bigger evils and cooperation with clear enemies, which is also given
by the reality of the question of survival being a dominant one.
The system of cooperatives is inspiring, but it rather remains marginal
and not providing answers for very complicated economical questions
connected to capitalism. There are also still areas of land ownership by
the regime of Assad or Syrian feudal businessmen on the territory of
Rojava. And however there are attempts of developing ecological
perspectives in Rojava, the climate crisis is visible here in very
explicit forms which may be even bigger problem than everything
mentioned so far, especially in the long run.
All that doesnât leave much space for a radical move towards different
forms of economy in nearest future. Which doesnât mean that people will
stop struggling and stop working on getting the best out of the local
conditions. But how about people who are not necessarily part of the
movement, people who are absolutely sick of war, and/or deciding about
which side of the barricade to choose according to their material
conditions? That all together is a challenge that we all are facing now
here.
In that current picture we see the womenâs movement and autonomous
womenâs structures as very important for anything to happen in the
future. Out of all parts of the struggle and movement in Rojava and
beyond, we see womenâs structures as something that stands in forefront
of social change and represents most radical and progressive tendencies
in both the society and the movement. Womenâs units of self-defense,
autonomous space for development of women-oriented science, historical
knowledge and conflict resolution led by women is an incredible change
for this region which has to be maintained.
In the end of the day, many questions and problems are part of the
matters of diplomacy. That is increasingly hard to manage with threat
from Turkey, and dealing with Assadâs regime, not so directly Iran and
other political figures. Geopolitics remain a big topic of research and
constantly field of tricky political game.
As anarchists, we rather find ourselves in a situation where we canâ t
influence a lot but we can learn from that situation, this place and
ideology here, because wherever other place in the world we would be,
any idealistic views and blueprints of how social struggle has to happen
in our contexts, will be confronted toughly and we one way or another
will be walking very contradictionary path. It is necessary to develop
an approach which would allow us to be flexible, open, understandable,
and stand our anarchist ground, and our anarchist ideas and practices
strongly, and to be very well organized.
Hevale: All tasks in Rojava are distributed in a way of strict limits.
For example, people from military structures usually have almost zero
opportunity to intervene into social issues. Also in every institution
you operate in Rojava there are responsible people who can easily limit
your ability to operate and to implement any initiative. What you think
are your realistic tools to influence society and movement there?
TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst: The existing division between the military and civil
society is sometimes not so strict. We can also speak about the youth
movement which is itself a civil structure and is completely based in
civil society. It does intervene into social issues and plays an active
role in society. But at the same time they are very close to a military
mentality and military type of organizing. Also, they do have military
academies. Some structures, particularly youth structures are regarded
as part of vanguard and are tasked with influencing the society, in
order to develop a militant mindset and spread the ideology of
democratic confederalism.
Another good example is HĂȘzĂȘn Parastina CivakĂź (HPC), a armed civil
self-defense militia consisting of autonomous male and women structures.
These structures are organized differently than the military, they are
working with the concept of self-defense and they are primarily based in
social self-organizing. Yes, they do have their own cadres, but they
still are much closer to whatever you may understand under the term of
peopleâs self-defense than YPG/YPJ and overall SDF, which organization
is much closer to the professional military structures.
There are various limitations and specifics in functioning within the
revolutionary structures here in Rojava, whether that be civil or
military. There is a reality of more or less strict controlling dynamics
especially with the international volunteers and limitations existing to
their initiative. Sometimes the dynamics between the âresponsiblesâ
(cadres) and people under their responsibility can be quite toxically
hierarchical.
Some structures organize with internationals in being responsible for a
specific structure and also with several people included. Movement here
invites internationals in hope of fulfilling certain goals, specific
purposes. Those not necessarily align with what internationals want or
can contribute with themselves. In other words, there is often a
difference between what internationals want to do and what the party
will tell them to do. However, not all doors are closed for all the
initiatives, even though a real influencing and working with the society
is still very complicated question.
It is important to understand how things work here, how work is being
done, how communication within an organization and externally is being
done. It is very different from the home countries of volunteers coming
to join events on the ground in Rojava. There is always a chance of
achieving oneâs ambition. Yet very often it requires to put tremendous
amount of work, pre-planning and pre-thinking about what you will do and
how you will do it. It takes to be prepared to take a lot of initiative
in networking and meeting new people yourself. To present and insist on
the work you wish to do continuously and how it will be relating to the
work of the movement here and itâs perspectives and ideology. On top of
that, understanding of peopleâs relation and itâs social code, is very
important. For example, often work-related discussions and meetings are
taking place alongside social events, and there is hardly any division
between social interaction or event and a work meeting or discussion.
Last, but most important, the absence of language skills will
fundamentally limit oneâs ability to do basically anything at all. Good
knowledge of all that is something that can be a tool for being part of
what is happening.
In words of our fallen member, comrade and dear friend ĆehĂźd Ćevger
Makhno who was killed while defending Afrin from Turkish invasion, we
ourselves might not be a huge change in whatâs happening, but whatâs
happening will definitely make a tremendous change in and for us. This
is where we stand between being part of what is happening in Rojava and
learning from it.
In the second part of our interview with the combatants of Anarchist
Struggle they specify the role of their project in the context of global
anarchist struggle and send a message to Russian comrades. This message
reflects on deepest and most serious problems and aspects of current
libertarian practice worldwide: the questions of self-dedication,
criticism and self-criticism as well as one of organization. Comrades
finilized their part by paying honour to the martyrs of anarchist
struggle â Mikhail Zhlobitsky and Willem Van Spronsen.
Hevale: What is your concept concerning a place of your project in a
context of global anarchist struggle? What role the group Anarchist
Struggle want to play for the international anarchist movement?
TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst: The purposes of us, organize as anarchist and
libertarian in the Rojava revolution can be summed up into critical
solidarity and internationalism. We are here to practice solidarity with
the people, the movement and their ideology here, but we also want to
acquire a holistic and non-dogmatic understanding of the dynamics of
this place, and eventually develop new perspectives on organizing,
militancy and revolutionary process from the unique experience here. We
as internationalists are committed to defend the revolution
shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Rojava, but simultaneously we
are here to engage in praxis, to learn and gain experience and to
develop ourselves in revolutionary ways and militancy. So that we can
build, improve and develop revolutionary struggles elsewhere.
We do not want to simply replicate the methods, ways of organizing and
ideological frameworks from the revolutionary movement here, and
reproduce them in other parts of the world. Instead, we recognize that
how struggle and resistance shall be organized should be based on the
locality; the particular historical, social, cultural background of
such.
We recognize there are shortcomings in how resistance and struggle
elsewhere are organized currently but in particular drawing from the
experience of European anarchist scene; that different nods or aspects
of resistance are atomized, there is a void in the ability to develop
revolutionary strategy, holistic analysis and revolutionary blueprint
that are able to organizationally and ideologically link up particular
and localized struggles into a greater framework. We desire to
contribute to finding the solutions to these limitations in order to
move struggles forward. We want to create, advance and maintain
infrastructure that can allow international anarchist/libertarian
revolutionaries to learn, to gain experience, knowledge and different
expertise from self-defense and social revolution, train, educate and to
work in different capacities. Not just learning in an individual
fashion, but accumulating knowledge collectively, taking up of
responsibilities and self-organizing.
We also acknowledge the importance for queer people to participate and
learn in the Rojava revolution, thus this project creates the
possibility for people who donât fit into the gender norms and binary to
be able to come to Rojava, which otherwise is at the moment still very
hard place to be accepted when you have different sexuality or different
identity than a binary one.
Hevale: What else important you would like to add now? Would you like to
send any specific message for the Russian-speaking audience?
TekoĆĂźna AnarĆĂźst: Okay so this one goes out specifically for
Russian-speaking audience, but not necessarily in Russia. Russia and
surrounding post-soviet countries have similarities and differences, and
Russian speaking comrades are spread all over the world. Sometimes it
seems like we speak very different languages and come from very
different contexts. But there are many topics that we could all speak to
each other about. Due to the fact that we are based in Rojava and
experiencing quite different reality from our home contexts, we would
like to mention several self-criticisms that are directed to us as
anarchists in general; Russian-speaking audience is no stranger to the
matters that we want to mention. In fact, some of the things that we
want to point out are very actual for anarchists movement in Russia and
neighboring countries. The intention of that critique made from the
heart and comradeship, is to bring people into asking themselves
questions that they may not yet have asked, and/or looking at things
from slightly different angles. We donât pretend to come out with an
in-depth analysis and we are rather posing questions; all of these are
topics, that we are discussing within our organization on a daily basis.
We would like to share them with you all.
To begin with, we would like to point out to several things in relation
to organizational culture. We see several matters that need serious
reflection:
A common thing in the anarchist movement is a problem of something that
we call âdisposable relationshipsâ. It means that people easily get
involved into conflicts within the groups and organizations, and are not
holding on to their comrades and relationships with them, treating it
like if nobody has to care if people stop to cooperate and there are
many people around they can work with instead. It literally means making
enemies and separation needlessly. It typically goes in the circles
again and again, and people âchangeâ their comrades, collectives and
projects like gloves. Some individuals are even taking personal and
inter-organizational conflicts as a matter of war. Personal ego and
patriarchal, competitive mentality often goes above common interests and
even common threats that we are facing. These conflicts between us are
hugely destructive and damaged a lot of anarchist and related subversive
structures that were built in past 15 years in Russia, for instance.
Meanwhile, we donât have effective solutions for many questions in the
scale of the movement; for example, how to overcome such obstacles like
economy and logistics, which would allow us to organize more in more
committed and effective fashion, without putting entire capacities that
we have into basic surviving in capitalism? How not to create
competitive relationships between organizations or members and people
outside of them?
How do we build collective understanding of tactics and strategy of the
movement by constant sharing and progressing them, instead of making
entrenched centralized decisions? How to formalize things to overcome
informal hierarchy, without making party hierarchy? How not to exclude
people after major shortcomings but progress beyond the usual solution
of kicking them out, and give people meaning instead of creating
separation? How to resolute conflicts effectively? How to create
critical solidarity â comradary yet critical relationship between people
and groups?
Here in Rojava, we learned that the formalized tool of bringing mutual
critique and self-critique to each other and between organizations,
which here is called Tekmil, can be used in an anti-authoritarian,
healthy and horizontal way. At the moment, bringing critique to our
comrades beyond Rojava is rather hard. Criticism is often seen as a
personal attack and disrespect; criticized people have strong defensive
reactions and have a high wall of their own ego that is very hard to
overcome. On the other hand, Tekmil must not become a way to bash down
your comrades but rather giving them critique in a loving way with
perspectives and a belief that we all can change our destructive
approaches and hierarchical mindset. It is a consequence of the
societies we grew up in. We can create our own values, our own way how
to relate to each other. Critique can be a gift, with belief in your
comrades, that they can become better. Not with an aggressive intention,
but rather with an intent of reflection and development. For that, a
revolutionary culture of criticism and self-criticism needs to be
developed.
Then, it necessarily comes to a point of reflection on a militant
personality and commitment to revolutionary organizing. The lack of
commitment is a big problem in anarchist movement. We all ask ourselves,
how to approach daily life and relations with people in connection to
our political believes? Is that something that we do at all? And inside
of our organizations, how do we balance between the responsibility,
individual wishes and desires, so we ensure continuation of some kind of
our common line which, on the other hand, is what keeps us all alive and
going? How can we develop understanding that revolutionary organizing
isnât a hobby or free time activity, and take it seriously without
loosing our desires and joy in life?
And finally, we see a lack of serious political analysis, which is
necessary instead of constant reacting on the events that are happening
around us. Which is also needed, but how to keep up with events
happening, meanwhile not letting it to drag us away from building our
own strength and figuring out a long-term strategy and understanding our
tactics? And especially now, when FSB is in full scale war against
anarchists and overseeing all dissent in Russia and beyond, how do we as
anarchists understand self-defense beyond the physical/military one? How
to not create an elitist cult or macho bullshit? There is a need of
developing a focus with a serious analysis, with a deep understanding of
not only actual burning social and economical issues, but also look back
to history and see which things worked and which not, and look for deep
connections in the present day. That is to say, there is a need of
holistic approach to the anarchist analysis, and we donât necessarily
mean academic research by that.
In all post-soviet countries (and elsewhere) a connection between
widespread patriarchal reaction, âhurrayâ nationalistic chauvinism and
necessity of struggle against prison system can be understood even on
the most simple daily basis and you donât need to be a political
activist or sociologist to understand what these things are about, and
to know which side of barricade are you at â for instance, any average
person in Russia or Belarus can relate to the topic of prison industrial
complex or corruption, in one way or another.
There is a need of self-defense, both in terms of attack and creativity
and building our own structures, strength and capacity.
Our Russian-speaking comrades have a unique heritage of historical
experience of GULAG system and devastating experience of Soviet union, a
look on it from anarchist point of view. It is something that
drastically influenced every single detail of social and economical
reality that we live in present day in a very specific manner. On the
other hand, a patriarchal, chauvinist and homophobic state reaction is a
reality which goes hand to hand with prison system and question of itâs
abolition. There is a vital need of strong movements influenced by and
also inspiring abolitionist narrative reflecting on experiences of
revolution, counter-revolution, prisons and patriarchy for at least last
150 years.
Creation and direct involvement into peopleâs self-defense in various
forms is needed, as well as strong participation of non-male comrades,
with creating autonomous non-male structures which would allow to grow
and expand diversity and include various groups of people. We think that
there is a possibility of creation of new narrative with overall focus
on struggle for prison abolition and new understanding of justice,
uniting people in front of capitalism and wage labor, and strong focus
and practice on gender liberation and libertarian forms of social
organization. On the other hand, there is a need for strong
organizations and reliable structures, as well as understandable open
proposals to come up with when shit will start to go down and Kremlin
will not be able to suppress social upheaval so effectively anymore â
with not only proposing, but enacting our ideas directly.
For the last words, we would like to honor the memory of anarchist
comrades Mikhail Zhlobitsky and Willem Van Spronsen, and many others,
who gave their lives for others, who struggle behind prison bars. The
legacy of our fallen comrades is lightening our path.
We would like to send revolutionary greetings to the Russian-speaking
audience and thank for the opportunity to share some of our thoughts,
hopes, and aspirations.