armsforrojava

Ανοιχτή καμπάνια για την οικονομική και πολιτική στήριξη του αγώνα των ανταρτών και ανταρτισσών του YPG/YPJ


Leave a comment

Kurdistan Anarchist Forum – Kobane’s Second Phase: Resistance and Necessities

 

After 134 days of fierce resisting and defending. The women, men and their combatants with the support and solidarity from millions of people around the world had finally defeated the vicious attack from ISIS and liberated their town Kobane.

This was not just a defeat for ISIS and it’s dream to establish an Islamic Kelifat. But it had also destroyed the ISIS’s ally the current Turkish government’s dream to resurrect a Neu-othman empire.

The attack on Kobane was a proxy war launched by ISIS on behalf of the regional regimes and others against the bravery people in Kobane and the Democratic Self administration (DSA).

This war has left a great impact on people of Kobane socially and psychologically and including the people who left the town and sought refuge in the neighboring regions.

The war is not over yet. The ISIS is still intimidating and threatening the villages around Kobane with their frightening missions and propaganda. Obviously, this threat will remain until their total eradication from the region.

We are now in the second stage of resistance and that is to deal with the aftermath of the war. Clearing the land mines, unexploded bombs and explosives. Clearly, this operation cannot be achieved by the people of Kobane. This needs technical support and expertise.

To rebuild Kobane: the people of this town need the international solidarity from the vast majority of people in the world in order to save the Democratic Self Administration. This is the only way to protect the revolution there. Asking the international finance bodies and big corporations to help with the rebuilding of the town is not the best option. In fact this approach as the history tells us might well results in destroying the revolution altogether.

Some suggestions for the international solidarity and support in reconstruction of Rojava:

– Forming committees and associations to collect money, reconstruction materials and cleaning the environment especially in Kobane .
– Opening bank accounts for donation and making contribution under the control of the Rojava Solidarity groups in towns and countries.

– Forming different groups and committees in the towns of any countries where is possible to collect anything, any materials that Rojave needs for reconstruction. Ensuring that whatever has been collected will be transferring quickly and safely to Rojava. Setting up storages on the borders of Kurdistan region of Iraq, Iran and Turkey before transferring them to Rojava through opening of humanitarian corridor.

– Collecting medicine and hospital equipments to all three Cantons of Rojava: Jazeera, Kobane and Efrin
– Building schools, hospitals, play fields and special places for rehabilitation and psychological supports of war’s victims and refugees.

– Providing independent telephone lines and Internet connection to all three Cantons : Efrin, Jazerra and Kobane, not relying on neighbouring countries lines any more, the lines and Internet connection should be outside of their control.

– Allowing the volunteers who can help physically and mentally to go there in order to participate directly to support people and also helping in reconstruction of Kobane and the rest of Rojava.

– Allowing the volunteers who are expert in energy fields, agriculture, industries and building construction to participate and offer whatever they can.

– Any steps that will be done must be in consultation with the local people in Rojava who involved in Communes and the rest of the other local groups with coordination with people of DSA and they should be the decision makers.

– We see the participating and solidarity to Rojava as an anarchist natural practical duty. We hope the above suggestions and some more from other comrades be put in practice. We believe this practical work should not be just related to Rojava , but can be considered to anywhere in this world especially those places that has been destroyed by war. This can be an evident that anarchists work in rebuilding the society in every aspects of life.

We believe that nothing is perfect and immune from criticism, so do these suggestions. We hope our suggestion create debates and discussion among all the anarchist comrades . We also like to stress that our suggestions are not just about Kobane / Rojava because there is possibility that we face the same duty in elsewhere in this world in nearest future .

Kurdistan Anarchist Forum (KAF)
4th Feb 2015

http://libcom.org/forums/middle-east/kobane%E2%80%99s-second-phase-resistance-necessities-02032015

Advertisements


Leave a comment

VIDEO: A NEW DAWN IN THE MIDDLE EAST: DEMOCRATIC CONFEDERALISM: WOMEN’S FREEDOM, ECOLOGY AND DEMOCRACY

VIDEO: A New Dawn in the Middle East: Democratic Confederalism: Women's Freedom, Ecology and Democracy

http://kurdishquestion.com

06 March 2015

The following talk (video at the bottom of the page) was given by Havin Güneser at the ‘National Self-Determination versus the Global ‘Counter-Terror’ Regime: CAMPACC research and public outreach project’ event at SOAS University, London on 21st February 2015.

Title: A new Dawn in the Middle East:
Democratic Confederalism: Women’s freedom, Ecology and Democracy

Abstract

This paper will focus on the ideological and organisational transformation of the PKK over the years since 1978. Looking for answers to the crisis of real socialism and national liberation in the 1990s, the movement arrived at new political concepts. Especially striking is the shift of the ideological focus to women’s freedom, a distinctive new approach to violence and the nation-state. Taking the establishment of patriarchy in early societies as the starting point for an analysis of the establishment of hierarchies and finally of states, the movement developed a new body of original theoretical approaches.
The movement thus developed a new concept which it calls “democratic confederalism”. It clearly rejects the creation of a Kurdish nation-state or any kind of statist approach and argues for a non-state structure. The basic pillars of this system are direct democracy, gender liberation and ecology. This approach has changed the PKK, Kurdish society and indeed the parameters of Middle Eastern politics. The self-administrated cantons that have been created in the Rojava region amidst the war in Syria, Kobanê being one of them, are the most visible attempt to implement the new strategy–with remarkable outcomes.

Biography

Havin Guneser is an engineer, journalist and a women’s rights activist with intimate knowledge of Kurdistan and the Middle East. In recent years she has translated Abdullah Öcalan’s writings from prison. She is a spokesperson for the International Initiative “Freedom for Abdullah Öcalan–Peace in Kurdistan”.

We’d like to thank CAMPACC, SOAS Kurdish Society, Joost Jongerden and Saman Gareeb.

For more information: http://www.campacc.org.uk/

 


Leave a comment

BRIDGES BETWEEN ANARCHISM AND DEMOCRATIC CONFEDERALISM – 2 FEATURED

Written by 

Demonstration in Suruc, the border town to KobaneDemonstration in Suruc, the border town to Kobane

11 March 2015

Introduction to this particular issue

In this part I will expose some basic historical information about the anarchist political organisation model and in the end, make a comparison between these experiences and the nowadays mission of the political organisation that intends to be the catalyst of a Democratic Confederalist social change.

The ancestry of the anarchist organisational model: three important experiences

International Alliance of Social Democracy: As I mentioned in the first part of the essay, the federalist organisational model is not new.  In 1868, within the International Workers’ Association (IWA, also known in Latin languages as AIT) the so-called federalist wing included an organised political force called the International Alliance of Social Democracy (known as a Bakuninian type of Alliance), whose best known public reference was the Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin (1814/1876). The Alliance worked according to an organisation of cadres, of a “Carbonarian” type and with most of its militants acting in secrecy. Some public references were made to well-known leaders within the IWA and this association did not act only in a specific country or territory. It was usual to send delegates and operators (agents with militant commitment) to distant countries or regional divisions to promote social organisation, to form a cell of the Alliance or to support occasional episodes of rebellion. We can observe the role of experienced militants inside the Alliance, acting as social activists, political organisers and ideological propagandists. Also, sometimes, those who would be in the first line for a higher level of social struggle — like that which occurred during the Paris uprising and the Commune — Alliance militants were part of the political forces organising the first worker’s self-government in modern times (from March to May, 1871)

Socialist Revolutionary Anarchist Party:Another mentionable experience for this party model was founded in 1891, the Socialist Revolutionary Anarchist Party (SRAP, PRSA in Latin languages, known as Malatestian Party) and its most famous reference was the Neapolitan anarchist Errico Malatesta (1853/1932). Although the SRAP had a clandestine wing, it had a party structure most similar to the usual type of organisation. Its militants were references for the mass level (social) and intermediary level (political and social), as well as distributors and producers of political propaganda. The members were more of the multiple role type (multifunctional cadres), including types of direct action carried out in Italy at the time (from the foundation of the party until the fascist coup of 1922).

Ukrainian Insurgent Peasant’s Army: From the Russian Revolution, specifically in Ukraine, came the acquisition of experience in terms of mass political organisation during the civil war (1918-1921). The Ukrainian Insurgent Peasant’s Army (Black Army, also known as Makhnovichnian or Makhnovist), whose militant reference was Nestor Ivanovich Makhnó (1888/1934), had the political, military and administrative hegemony of large regions of Ukraine and developed a modus operandi based on collectivised production and its military section was an army based on mobile cavalry and whose command posts were all elected. Then there was the political/militia merger of the organisation, which promoted at the same time a higher level of conflict against the White Army (right-wing and tsarist) and also against the Red Army (the Bolshevik Party armed force).  The military wing was the self-defence institution to guarantee a political federalist form of self-government and socioeconomic self-management.  With the defeat to the Red Army in 1921, some survivors of the General Staff of the Black Army got together in Paris, France, and wrote a political manifesto, known as a piece of anarchist political theory called the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists. This document, which was widespread in the 1920s and 1930s, contained four basic theoretical guidelines for the model that is still valid today:  Tactical Unity, Theoretical Unity, Collective Responsibility and Federalism.

Common aspects between the three experiences and similarities to the PKK’s actual mission

The exhibition of historical experiences and the accumulation among and from these organisations could result in an entire thesis solely discussing the concepts of the anarchist party. However, I want to emphasise in this series the common aspects between these organisational models: the selection of membership (party of cadres); non-participation in state elections (anti-electioneering); active minority action-type (against the conception of class vanguard); internal federative structure considered as a form of social organisation (political federalism); systematic use of force in collective and mass conflicts (direct action as a priority means of generating political events); projection of social structures organised as a priority (building a strong people), eliminating the professional intermediation  (popular direct democracy); and existence of possible criticism and internal promotion, increasing the political responsibilities according to the militant’s degree of commitment (internal democracy and renewal).

The similarities between the anarchist organisation model and the role of the Kurdistan freedom movement’s political instrument is so impressive and clear that it is easily proved through a simple reading of this paragraph written by comrade Mustafa Karasu and published in the PKK’s English website:

“The PKK has restructured itself as a result of extensive self-criticism and a thorough criticism of classical socialism and its practiced forms. It sees classical socialist theory as insufficient. The PKK believes that classical socialism is not anti-capitalist enough and is too involved with the state; whereas the state is a tool of suppression. To topple a state in order to create a new one is not revolutionary practice, rather, to surpass, topple or minimize the hegemonic system and replace it with a socialist system by implicating socialism in the moment is the PKK’s adopted method. To topple a state is not the same as toppling the system. To liken these two things together is a sign of deviation from socialism.”

When we study socialist history and workers movements in several societies, Western or not, we can observe that this kind of criticism against state and state oriented so-called socialist parties were exactly the same criticism made by thousands of totally committed anarchist militants since, at least, 1864!  After reading a sentence that starts by saying “PKK has structured itself through self-criticism” we can easily observe almost the exact same method of the anarchist political organisation, a constant inner struggle to avoid internally reproducing the political sphere and ideological thoughts that belong to authoritarians and capitalist (liberal or not) traditions. As I said in the first part of this essay, the PKK’s actual praxis can feed anarchists worldwide and vice-versa. The first step is a common recognition and approach between both traditions. To contribute to this common effort is the reason for this series.

Link to Mustafa Karasu article: http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=186

Bruno Lima Rocha has a PhD and MSc in Political Science and is a Professor of International Studies and Geopolitics teaching at 3 local universities in Southern Brazil.

website: http://www.estrategiaeanalise.com.br / e-mail: strategicanalysis@riseup.net / Facebook:blimarocha@gmail.com


Leave a comment

Rojava’s Threefold Economy

01.03.2015

On December 2, the academic delegation to Rojava visited the economic center in Dêrîk. There we heard a presentation on Rojava’s economy from Abdurrahman Hemo, the adviser for economic development for Cizîre canton. Hemo explained what he called Rojava’s three parallel economies: the community economy, the war economy, and the open economy.

I. Community Economy

Hemo: Our economic project is the same as our political project. We call it “community economy,” and all parts of society participate. It’s cooperative. We have started to build cooperatives in all different sectors: we have trade cooperatives, company cooperatives, construction cooperatives. The organizational model for our economy is the cooperative. Our aim is to be self-sufficient. If there is just bread, then we will all have a share. This is the main principle of cooperatives.

For two years now, we have tried to develop this economy. Before [the revolution] the culture was different, so now we have academies to promote the cooperative mentality. We’ve organized seminars and discussions, so that the community can be convinced this kind of system is better. Currently participation is at a good level.

The main economic activity here is agriculture, and so the majority of cooperatives are concentrated in agriculture. That is our community economy. The other cantons function in the same way.

Cudi Ossi of the economic office shows us a cooperative greenhouse

Let me explain that in all three cantons we are surrounded—we are embargoed. Rojava is rich in natural resources and agriculture, but we receive no infrastructure investment. Internationally there’s no investment here. Internationally Rojava isn’t recognized—it doesn’t exist. If we want to develop in Rojava, we have to build everything ourselves.

So in the revolutionary process we created companies to develop agriculture economy, and to supply seeds to the peasants so they can continue to cultivate their lands. And we supply them with diesel for the agricultural machinery.

And we created companies to refine oil, produce diesel and other products. To produce diesel is actually less expensive than water. Water costs 25 cents a half-liter, while a liter of diesel costs 25 cents. Water is twice as expensive as oil. In Cizîre canton we have thousands of oil fields. But at the moment only 200 of them are active, because where would we send the oil? We are embargoed—we can’t trade with the outside world. So we just exploit the oil for our own use here in Cizîre.

Jack pumps in Rimelan

Some oil fields are under the control of ISIS—one emir owns five or six oil fields. ISIS can sell their oil to Turkey–they have contacts with Turkish side and trade with Turkey. We have thousands of oil fields, but we can’t exploit them even for the use of the rest of Syria. We exploit oil only for our own use, for our own income.

We have also created companies to develop infrastructure and to build roads, with asphalt. All these are local companies—we get no assistance from outside.

Q: Who decides how much to produce, of what, and how to distribute surplus?

Hemo: The situation is complex. The democratic self-government, the committees for agriculture and finance, and the companies are all involved.

Q: Who owns the companies?

Hemo: Some of companies are private—the canton self-government has no control over them. Some of them made agreements with the self-government so they can cooperate. For instance, an oil company can be privately owned, but it has an agreement with the self-government. We own the oil, they give us diesel. The energy committee decides how pure the product has to be and how to price it. It’s similar for agriculture—there are private companies that have agreements with the self-government.

The new flour mill in Dirbespiye

Q: How do individuals and people with families make money to live? What occupations are there? Have women and men changed in relation to the economy?

Hemo: There’s no division of labor. Agriculture is the main occupation. This is an economy of survival. There are no wages. Some people just make their living from a cow.

II. War Economy

The second big part of Rojava’s economy is the war economy. Under the democratic self-government, 70 percent of the budget is spent for defense—for the YPG, YPJ, and Asayiş. The war costs us $20 million each year. We buy all our weapons, and weapons are very expensive. We have an army that needs clothes and food. The need to finance the army forces us to centralize the war economy—otherwise it’d be impossible for fighters to live in these conditions.

The rest of the budget is used by the self-government provide public services and to finance itself. It finances all the costs of the schools in Rojava. We give the schools diesel. Before the revolution, the regime financed them, but now we are obliged to. We finances heat for the buildings.

And we finance bread. Every family can get three breads a day. [They are yeasted flatbreads.—ed.] Each bread costs us 100 Syrian lire, and we give it to the people for 60 Syrian lire. And we have to finance this. Just for supply bread to the population for a month, we take a loss of 20 million Syrian lire.

The staff of life

Q: You say 70 percent of the budget goes for defense, and 30 percent goes for public services. But where does the money come from? You can’t export the oil, and you consume your own vegetables.

Hemo: The income comes from selling oil products in the local economy.

Q: People have to pay for oil?

Hemo: Yes. Everything we get is just for us.

Q: But there’s just one source, oil, for domestic income? That’s all?

Hemo: And we also have some income from the border crossings.

Q: There must still be some people from the old days here who have more money than others, some wealth. Can’t you ask some kind of tax or contribution from them?

Hemo: We plan to ask for that. But most of the population is very poor. We decided not to collect taxes from the people. If we did, it would all be over. So we get no fixed income in the form of taxes to finance the system.

Since we are under an embargo, we get no outside help. Everything we produce goes for our own needs. We have limited electricity, clean water, the necessities of daily life. We used to get electricity from Raqqa, but not anymore—ISIS controls it. All we have to rely on is the diesel generators.

A lot of displaced people come here, to the Kurdish areas, and they live in very basic conditions. In this war situation, the UN agencies should supply electricity and access to clean water. Education and health are basic needs. Some international humanitarian institutions are in the refugee camps here, and they should help us provide such services, but their presence is just symbolic.

Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, the Assad regime has received billions of dollars in humanitarian help from the UN, the United States, and the European Union. But the Kurdish areas get no assistance from international humanitarian organizations.

A baklava shop

No state helps us defend ourselves, and no one provides assistance. We consume bread together, and if there is no bread, we do not get bread.

III. Open Economy

The economy in Cizîre/Rojava is functioning on a survival basis. The other cantons, Afrin and Kobanê, depend on the wealth of Cizîre. Our economy is vital for the others.

We are paying all costs for institutions of self-government and public services.

We have no surplus to reinvest. We don’t have the means to develop our economy. We need it to invest in other areas, but we can’t. We’re not able to create an environment where everyone can a chance to work, where professionals can get jobs, because we don’t have the means to create companies.

The community economy income is all we have. The costs are growing because of the war. And the self-government’s administration, which we have to finance, has more members now.

If we get no opening to the outside world, our economy will stay the same, and there will be no development. But we need outside investment. To organize it, the government has passed a law called “open economy” to organize it. Any outside investor would have to respect the economy.

But there’s been no development. The resistance in Kobane has been discussed in the world, but officially Rojava doesn’t exist. International organizations that want to act here are told that they have to go through the KRG or Damascus.

There is a political embargo against us. The Turkish state sees nothing good happening here. Our boundary with Turkey is 900 kilometers long. In Afrin there is a border crossing, but it’s closed. Kobanê had a crossing, and Cizîre had three. They’re all officially closed.

When Al Nusra was occupying Sere Kaniye [in 2012-13], the border crossing was open. But after Al Nusra was expelled, Turkish officials closed the border—with a concrete wall. We need to open the Turkish border, so that all our cantons have access to the outside world. Within Syria, our neighbor is ISIS. With Iraq, we have just a small border. Three months ago, after ISIS occupied Sinjar Mountain, the KRG opened the border gate, but unwillingly. For now we have only the border crossing at Semalka with Iraq. What we call our brothers in KRG, in South Kurdistan, they just act in their own interest to open their borders; if it weren’t in their interest, they’d close it.

A greenmarket

We need to change this situation internationally, to be recognized by the international community, to force Turkey to open the border crossing.

Q: It sounds like you are calling to the outside world invest in the existing system. You say you can’t be self-sufficient, but autonomy, as in “democratic autonomy,” means self-sufficiency. Yet you are asking for outsiders to help. Also contradicting democratic autonomy: you spoke about a centralized economy, which would be an economy founded on a state. Isn’t there a big contradiction between the political and economic paradigms?

Hemo: Yes, even in this war situation, we want to be self-sufficient. But let’s have no misunderstanding. To raise the quality of life as a whole, we need some kind of industry, we need electricity. Our oil industry is very primitive–we can just barely produce diesel. We need to build a refinery, but we need $300 million for that. Unfortunately the community cooperatives can’t pay for it.

We need electricity. To build ourselves a power plant would cost us $400 million, but we don’t have it. Community cooperatives can’t finance it. Yet we still need electricity. So we need help from outside, private or public.

We don’t have any factories to produce fertilizer for the farmers. We have all the raw materials to produce fertilizer, but don’t have the factories. We have to buy fertilizer from Iraq now. We need $5 million to build a fertilizer factory. Community cooperatives can’t provide have that money.

But we need them to come here so that we can build a kind of social economy together.

That’s why I described the system in terms of the three different economies. All three together constitute our economy, and we have to develop all three of them. The main activity will remain the community economy, but it cannot stand alone. If we were to insist on community economy alone, it’d last maybe one or two years. We have to finance the war. If the war situation becomes stable enough that we can develop industry, we will open to the outside world, in the open economy. If there is any opening, we have to develop industry.

Q: How big is the open economy? How is it implemented?

Hemo: We passed a law for it, but up to now we’ve had no investors. They have no access to our country. No one from outside has come and invested here. All the investment is local. The private companies are all local.

Shopkeepers in Qamislo

Q: What about the Kurdish diaspora? Can it link to the open economy?

Hemo: We are open to them, but no one is active. There’s no direct help. Perhaps it’s possible. Please organize it.

Q: Could other oil-producing countries, like perhaps Venezuela, help with refineries?

Hemo: We have some ties, and some people promised things, but practically they have done nothing. There’s been some communication, but … if you know of a company, please help.

Q: What about the airport?

Hemo: The Qamişlo airport is occupied by the regime. Building an airport could be a project to develop the economy here, if someone is willing.

Q: How would you like the economy to work ideally?

Hemo: Our main focus for development would be on the community economy. But it will coexist with the open economy and the private economy. For instance, we need factories related to agriculture. We need processing facilities. We need fertilizer, cotton processing. We produce petroleum, but we need facilities to produce plastics, benzene from it. If there is an opening, we can create facilities. We need some kind of common economy, and factories should be communally owned. But we won’t create a state economy, or a centralized economy. It should be locally organized.


Leave a comment

ΔΕΛΤΙΟ ΤΥΠΟΥ

Eutopia_post_4Eutopia_post_eng2

 

 

 

Το τριήμερο 13-14-15 Μαρτίου 2015διοργανώνουμε μία σειρά εκδηλώσεων με τίτλο “Η ανατολή της Αυτονομίας”, και κύριο στόχο την έμπρακτη αλληλεγγύη στον αγώνα του κουρδικού λαού για την ελευθερία του. Το πρόγραμμα των εκδηλώσεων έχει ως εξής:

 

Παρασκευή 13 Μαρτίου – Κατάληψη Ευαγγελισμού – ώρα 19:00

Εισαγωγή στο Δημοκρατικό Συνομοσπονδισμό

 Ιστορική παρουσίαση της πολιτικοκοινωνικής κατάστασης στις περιοχές του Κουρδιστάν και του γενικότερου κουρδικού ζητήματος, όπως έχει εξελιχθεί μέχρι σήμερα.

 Προβολή βίντεο με θέμα τον αγώνα του κουρδικού λαού για την αυτοδιάθεσή του. Θα ακολουθήσει συζήτηση και εισαγωγή στο μοντέλο οργάνωσής τους, αυτό του δημοκρατικού συνομοσπονδισμού.

 Καφενείο οικονομικής ενίσχυσης στον ένοπλο αγώνα που διεξάγει ο κουρδικός λαός.

Σάββατο 14 Μαρτίου – Τεχνικό Επιμελητήριο (Πρεβελάκη & Γρεβενών) – ώρα 19:00

Το κουρδικό πείραμα για τη Δημοκρατική Αυτονομία

 Παρουσίαση του βιβλίου “Το κουρδικό πείραμα για τη δημοκρατική αυτονομία” (εκδόσεις Ευτοπία), από μέλος της ομάδας TATORT Kourdistan που το συνέγραψε.

 Ακολουθεί συζήτηση, με σκοπό την εμβάθυνση στο κουρδικό ζήτημα και ιδιαίτερα στα πρακτικά αποτελέσματα από την εφαρμογή των αμεσοδημοκρατικών λειτουργιών που εφαρμόζουν.

Κυριακή 15 Μαρτίου – Κατάληψη Ευαγγελισμού – ώρα 19:00

Θεμελίωση μορφών Κοινωνικής Αυτοδιάθεσης

 Παρουσίαση της πρότασης για ένα μοντέλο κοινωνικής αυτοδιάθεσης με ορίζοντα τον ελευθεριακό συνομοσπονδισμό και αφετηρία τις αξίες για Αυτονομία, Αυτάρκεια και Ισότητα.

 Ακολουθεί συζήτηση, με στόχο να αναδειχτούν οι προοπτικές ενός τέτοιου εγχειρήματος στο δικό μας τοπικό επίπεδο με τη συμμετοχή συλλογικοτήτων και ατόμων.

Αντίστοιχες εκδηλώσεις υποστήριξης και αλληλεγγύης γίνονται αυτό το διάστημα σε 6 πόλεις σε όλη την Ελλάδα (Ηράκλειο, Ρέθυμνο, Αθήνα, Θεσσαλονίκη, Λάρισα, Ιωάννινα)

 

Λίγα λόγια για την εκδήλωση Ο κουρδικός λαός διεξάγει έναν συνεχή αγώνα για τη γη και την ελευθερία που τόσο έχει στερηθεί. Εν μέσω ιμπεριαλιστικών δυνάμεων, αυταρχικών καθεστώτων και φονταμενταλιστών φασιστών, γνωρίζει πολύ καλά ότι τίποτα δεν σου χαρίζεται αν δεν το κατακτήσεις εσύ ο ίδιος. Η κατάκτηση αυτή αφορά τόσο το ατομικό επίπεδο πολιτικής συνειδητοποίησης, όσο και τη συλλογική οργάνωση στα πλαίσια μιας δημοκρατικής αυτονομίας. Το καλοκαίρι του 2012, ένα χρόνο περίπου μετά την έναρξη του εμφυλίου στη Συρία, ξεκίνησε η εξέγερση των Κούρδων στη Rojava (δυτικό Κουρδιστάν) στη βάση αμεσοδημοκρατικών δομών (λαϊκές συνελεύσεις κ.α.) και σε συνεργασία με κουρδικά πολιτικά κόμματα και οργανώσεις.

Με αιχμή τις μονάδες λαϊκής αυτοάμυνας (YPG) κατάφεραν να απελευθερώσουν πολλές περιοχές με απώτερο στόχο την οικοδόμηση μιας κοινωνίας βασισμένης στην άμεση δημοκρατία, την οικολογία και την ισότητα. Ο αγώνας αυτό δέχθηκε καίριο πλήγμα από το φασιστικό μόρφωμα του ISIS, με αποκορύφωμα τη μάχη που διεξήχθη το τελευταίο διάστημα στην αυτόνομη κουρδική επαρχία του Kobane.

Παρά την οπλική υπεροχή του αντιπάλου και την απομόνωση που είχε επιβληθεί στα κουρδικά εδάφη, κυρίως από μέρους της Τουρκίας, οι Κούρδοι μαχητές, γυναίκες και άντρες, κατάφεραν να αποκρούσουν την επίθεση. Με όπλο τη αστείρευτη αλληλεγγύη και το πείσμα στο δίκιο του αγώνα τους συνεχίζουν να διεκδικούν την πλήρη απελευθέρωσή τους. Ο αγώνας αυτός, για μας, ενσωματώνει την αυτονόητη ανάγκη κάθε ανθρώπου για αυτοδιάθεση. Αμφισβητώντας κάθε εξουσιαστική σχέση, συγκεντρωτικά μοντέλα και κυρίαρχους θεσμούς τασσόμαστε έμπρακτα αλληλέγγυοι. Παράλληλα οραματιζόμαστε και ψηλαφούμε τη δική μας “Ανατολή της Αυτονομίας”, εδώ