What do you think?
Rate this book
International Initiative brochures #2
Confederalismo Democratico
In this brochure Öcalan's political project, the Democratic Confederalism, is developed systematically. A fundamental criticism of the nation state is followed by a description of its possible alternative, a transnational grass-roots democracy. The texts that form this brochure have been compiled from several of Öcalan's, as of today, still untranslated books.
48 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
21 people are currently reading
1123 people want to read
About the author
Abdullah Öcalan
84 books343 followersAbdullah Öcalan is the founder of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). From 1984, under his leadership, the PKK fought for Kurdish liberation. Since his kidnapping and arrest in 1999, he has been in solitary confinement in Imrali Island Prison.
Since his imprisonment, Ocalan has written extensively on Middle Eastern and Kurdish history. With his books he has significantly influenced the course of Kurdish politics in the last two decades.
He argues for the concepts of Democratic Autonomy and Democratic Confederalism that are considered an alternative to a Kurdish nation-state.
From 2009-2015, the Turkish state held negotiations with him about a solution of the Kurdish Question. Since the collapse of the talks in 2015, Öcalan has been under total isolation.
Since his imprisonment, Ocalan has written extensively on Middle Eastern and Kurdish history. With his books he has significantly influenced the course of Kurdish politics in the last two decades.
He argues for the concepts of Democratic Autonomy and Democratic Confederalism that are considered an alternative to a Kurdish nation-state.
From 2009-2015, the Turkish state held negotiations with him about a solution of the Kurdish Question. Since the collapse of the talks in 2015, Öcalan has been under total isolation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
February 23, 2017
I guess my only problem with Democratic Confederalism is that I keep thinking of Adam Curtis' argument (from Hypernormalization, I think) where he says that any attempt to build a hierarchy-free society is eventually subverted by hierarchical forces (i.e. bullies). He cites hippy communes from the sixties as the classic example.
On the other hand, you can't argue with success. I mean, here are the Kurds living in what's objectively the roughest neighbourhood on the planet, and not only do they have democracy and egalitarianism, but it actually seems like they're more democratic and egalitarian than any society in the West.
On the other hand, you can't argue with success. I mean, here are the Kurds living in what's objectively the roughest neighbourhood on the planet, and not only do they have democracy and egalitarianism, but it actually seems like they're more democratic and egalitarian than any society in the West.
April 10, 2016
Short and concise, a must read introduction to the ideas that drive the YPG and the Rojavan revolution today.
Although not very in depth Öcalan gives an overview of some of the historical and cultural issues facing the Kurdish people and the broader Middle East and explains how the modern capitalist nation-state and the influence of imperialism has failed the people and created artificial divisions within the societies.
To challenge this he advocates a democratic confederalist approach that begins with the grassroots across all rural villages and urban neighborhoods.
This is a short work so fails to expand greatly on these ideas, but peaks the interest enough to search out more reading on the subject.
Although not very in depth Öcalan gives an overview of some of the historical and cultural issues facing the Kurdish people and the broader Middle East and explains how the modern capitalist nation-state and the influence of imperialism has failed the people and created artificial divisions within the societies.
To challenge this he advocates a democratic confederalist approach that begins with the grassroots across all rural villages and urban neighborhoods.
This is a short work so fails to expand greatly on these ideas, but peaks the interest enough to search out more reading on the subject.
June 15, 2016
Can't recommend this enough. Ocallan is both profound,l and clear in his description of his libertarian socialist form of organization he coins democratic confederalism. This is a solution not just for the middle east but for the whole world, and I think we need to all give this brief pamphlet a read or two before the nation state, capitalist modernity dooms us
January 21, 2018
As I read the brief political manifesto of Abdullah Ocalan and now write this review, Turkey had begun it's invasion of the Afrin canton of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (Rojava) with a full-on air and land campaign, the project of Ocalan and of the new revolution in political and economic organization under threat.
Inspired by the writings of American anarchist/communalist theorist Murray Bookchin, Ocalan argues in this brief and summarized work for a transition from the concept of the hierarchical nation state, liberal democracy and capitalism to a societal structure based on local non-hierarchical communities working in cooperation, confederated at a national level but with bottom-up power structure, democratic confederalism. Ocalan sees the nation state as failing the Middle East (and rightfully so) in forcing a transition from religiously conservative structures to a Western inspired ''democracy'' , failing to bring about freedom and ushering in an era of genocide, war and sectarian strife instead.
Ocalan attempts to transcend the narrative of the nation state and focus on a confederated society of free communities, based on grass roots organization, self-defense as opposed to aggressive expansion and collectivized economy. Important to note is the flexibility of his theory, it does not involve an absolute integration of these concepts, it accepts both the existence of the state as well as capitalist private ownership but rather seeks to lead by example in terms of social progress and parallel and ignore the functions of the state and the borders of nation states. The network of communities working together, under the core values of ecology, equality and freedom strive to abolish the ancient patriarchal structures and savage ethnical differences in showing the ability of communities to cooperate to their best interest but retain their own cultural heritage and freedoms both poilitical and economic, thus creating a balance and counterweight to capitalist influenced statism, a much needed balance for the Middle East. Ocalan also highlights the importance of women liberation as staple of his theory especially in the context of the Middle East but also taking into consideration capitalism's historical oppression of women in the interest of profit. In the context of the Middle East, women are seen as the new proletariat, the most oppressed historical group.
The current flourishing of Rojava in Northern Syria on these principles of self determination and diversity despite the emabrgo imposed on it by international powers, the large numbers of internally displaced, Turkish bombings, fighting a the fascistic and powerful ISIS and on guard against Assad and the multitude of economic problems is testimony to the possibility of leading by example. However, as Noam Chomsky very well stated ''the threat of a good example'' is one that the current hegemony might not accept and seek to extinguish before it spreads. Writing this, we might see just that happening under the assault of Erdogans Turkey
Inspired by the writings of American anarchist/communalist theorist Murray Bookchin, Ocalan argues in this brief and summarized work for a transition from the concept of the hierarchical nation state, liberal democracy and capitalism to a societal structure based on local non-hierarchical communities working in cooperation, confederated at a national level but with bottom-up power structure, democratic confederalism. Ocalan sees the nation state as failing the Middle East (and rightfully so) in forcing a transition from religiously conservative structures to a Western inspired ''democracy'' , failing to bring about freedom and ushering in an era of genocide, war and sectarian strife instead.
Ocalan attempts to transcend the narrative of the nation state and focus on a confederated society of free communities, based on grass roots organization, self-defense as opposed to aggressive expansion and collectivized economy. Important to note is the flexibility of his theory, it does not involve an absolute integration of these concepts, it accepts both the existence of the state as well as capitalist private ownership but rather seeks to lead by example in terms of social progress and parallel and ignore the functions of the state and the borders of nation states. The network of communities working together, under the core values of ecology, equality and freedom strive to abolish the ancient patriarchal structures and savage ethnical differences in showing the ability of communities to cooperate to their best interest but retain their own cultural heritage and freedoms both poilitical and economic, thus creating a balance and counterweight to capitalist influenced statism, a much needed balance for the Middle East. Ocalan also highlights the importance of women liberation as staple of his theory especially in the context of the Middle East but also taking into consideration capitalism's historical oppression of women in the interest of profit. In the context of the Middle East, women are seen as the new proletariat, the most oppressed historical group.
The current flourishing of Rojava in Northern Syria on these principles of self determination and diversity despite the emabrgo imposed on it by international powers, the large numbers of internally displaced, Turkish bombings, fighting a the fascistic and powerful ISIS and on guard against Assad and the multitude of economic problems is testimony to the possibility of leading by example. However, as Noam Chomsky very well stated ''the threat of a good example'' is one that the current hegemony might not accept and seek to extinguish before it spreads. Writing this, we might see just that happening under the assault of Erdogans Turkey
November 23, 2021
Abdullah Öcalan's solution is not only intended for Kurdistan, but for the whole of the Middle East and world.
Democratic confederalism is the way out of destruction and annihilation by the capitalist patriarchate.
Fascinating read. Learnt a lot from Öcalan. A great thinker.
It's time to acknowledge Rojava!
Democratic confederalism is the way out of destruction and annihilation by the capitalist patriarchate.
Fascinating read. Learnt a lot from Öcalan. A great thinker.
It's time to acknowledge Rojava!
April 28, 2017
The main point (I think) of this pamphlet is that the nation-state is antithetical to freedom, it has assimilated all the oppression that has been done in the central civilization building process throughout history, and embodied within its very institutions. Therefore any "national liberation" movement is seen as counter-productive, because in the very process of nation-state building the nations that seek liberation will wind up enslaving themselves.
As as solution Abdullah Öcalan proposes democratic confederalism, a praxis inspired in great part from Murray Bookchin's communalism, and tailored to the cultural and historical proclivities of the Middle East and of the Kurdish struggle. Öcalan also repudiates violent, and turbulent overthrow of the existing order: Revolutionary overthrow or the foundation of a new state does not create sustainable change. In the long run, freedom and justice can only be accomplished within a democratic-confederate dynamic process.
And this is NOT utopic, it is currently being done in northern Syria, in what was previously known as Rojava and now known as Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria. The very name change is a sign that the movement is definitely committed to shedding its Kurdish nationalist elements.
Unfortunately, these past few days (at the time of writing of this review, April 2017) Turkey has started invading, and bombarding Northern Syria... I am deeply worried that the democratic confederalist experiment might come to a halt soon.
As as solution Abdullah Öcalan proposes democratic confederalism, a praxis inspired in great part from Murray Bookchin's communalism, and tailored to the cultural and historical proclivities of the Middle East and of the Kurdish struggle. Öcalan also repudiates violent, and turbulent overthrow of the existing order: Revolutionary overthrow or the foundation of a new state does not create sustainable change. In the long run, freedom and justice can only be accomplished within a democratic-confederate dynamic process.
And this is NOT utopic, it is currently being done in northern Syria, in what was previously known as Rojava and now known as Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria. The very name change is a sign that the movement is definitely committed to shedding its Kurdish nationalist elements.
Unfortunately, these past few days (at the time of writing of this review, April 2017) Turkey has started invading, and bombarding Northern Syria... I am deeply worried that the democratic confederalist experiment might come to a halt soon.
January 3, 2018
Important concepts are presented here, although this text lacks the depth or nuance necessary to be anything more than an outline. Interesting analysis of the Middle East and vision for a path towards global peacefare and elevating the power of individuals to become decision-makers in the processes that affect their daily lives.
September 5, 2021
A very good and very short text that provides a great introduction to practical non-hierarchical organization theory.
July 28, 2023
Öcalan es el fundador del PKK. En este libro expone de alguna forma su postura política como posibilidad de independencia para el pueblo Kurdo.
Esta frase me hizo acordar a lo que decía hace un rato sobre Laculau en La razón populista: “No necesitamos grandes teorías, lo que necesitamos es la voluntad para dar expresión a las necesidades sociales a través del fortalecimiento estructural de la autonomía de los actores sociales y de la creación de las condiciones para la organización de la sociedad cómo un todo.”
Y esta otra me hizo acordar a Gadaffi en El Libro Verde: “Mientras que el Estado-Nación contrasta con la democracia e incluso la niega, el Confederalismo Democrático constituye un proceso democrático continuo.”
Es curioso porque según Wikipedia, Öcalan está preso por separatismo, cuando el tipo claramente dice que no tiene sentido intentar fundar un Estado-Nación, que le parece contrario a su propuesta.
Me parece interesante, incluso factible, de hecho me parece que hay lugares donde las cosas funcionan más o menos así. Me hace pensar en los territorios bajo control del EZLN, o de las FAR, donde claramente el Estado-Nación Mexicano o Colombiano respectivamente no tienen mucho para decir. De todas formas la convivencia no es tan fácil como acá se plantea. Entiendo que en el Kurdistán pasa algo parecido.
Vengo obviamente afectado por La razón populista pero claro, el problema está en que las demandas heterogéneas no pueden surgir porque no hay nada que las unifique, nada que les de fuerza. La salvación que trae el estado es por otro lado también su condena como bien explica Öcalan.
Me gustaría saber un poco más que opina este muchacho sobre la situación de Palestina, si le parece que el CD es una buena alternativa, si alguna vez lo charló con Abbás o con alguno de esos, etc.
Esta frase me hizo acordar a lo que decía hace un rato sobre Laculau en La razón populista: “No necesitamos grandes teorías, lo que necesitamos es la voluntad para dar expresión a las necesidades sociales a través del fortalecimiento estructural de la autonomía de los actores sociales y de la creación de las condiciones para la organización de la sociedad cómo un todo.”
Y esta otra me hizo acordar a Gadaffi en El Libro Verde: “Mientras que el Estado-Nación contrasta con la democracia e incluso la niega, el Confederalismo Democrático constituye un proceso democrático continuo.”
Es curioso porque según Wikipedia, Öcalan está preso por separatismo, cuando el tipo claramente dice que no tiene sentido intentar fundar un Estado-Nación, que le parece contrario a su propuesta.
Me parece interesante, incluso factible, de hecho me parece que hay lugares donde las cosas funcionan más o menos así. Me hace pensar en los territorios bajo control del EZLN, o de las FAR, donde claramente el Estado-Nación Mexicano o Colombiano respectivamente no tienen mucho para decir. De todas formas la convivencia no es tan fácil como acá se plantea. Entiendo que en el Kurdistán pasa algo parecido.
Vengo obviamente afectado por La razón populista pero claro, el problema está en que las demandas heterogéneas no pueden surgir porque no hay nada que las unifique, nada que les de fuerza. La salvación que trae el estado es por otro lado también su condena como bien explica Öcalan.
Me gustaría saber un poco más que opina este muchacho sobre la situación de Palestina, si le parece que el CD es una buena alternativa, si alguna vez lo charló con Abbás o con alguno de esos, etc.
June 20, 2020
No longer using this website, but I'm leaving up old reviews. Fuck Jeff Bezos. Find me on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/profile/...
The formation of nation-states, and the cultivation of nationalism has severely weakened the political imagination. They have inevitably given rise to governmental systems which strive to homogenize the population and use this "unity" or purity as a bludgeon to rule over the population they administer. Ocalan points outlines how this has specifically occurred in the Middle East. Democratic confederalism, by contrast, stitches together a quilt of ethnic, gender, neighborhood, and political assemblies and forms the basis for shared purpose and affinity rather than shared nationality and essential categorization as governing principle.
One of the strengths of this tiny little book is it's idea of the way that religion and its devotion is passed into the secular state. A weakness is that it's not a unifying theory, you're going to need to accompany it with a thorough criticism of capitalism and property relations. It is a political book, not an economic one, which is a little disappointing in its compartmentalism.
The book is so tiny you can crush it in an hour, but it's dense enough that if you're reading it before bed (like I did), you should allow yourself a little more time to absorb it.
The formation of nation-states, and the cultivation of nationalism has severely weakened the political imagination. They have inevitably given rise to governmental systems which strive to homogenize the population and use this "unity" or purity as a bludgeon to rule over the population they administer. Ocalan points outlines how this has specifically occurred in the Middle East. Democratic confederalism, by contrast, stitches together a quilt of ethnic, gender, neighborhood, and political assemblies and forms the basis for shared purpose and affinity rather than shared nationality and essential categorization as governing principle.
One of the strengths of this tiny little book is it's idea of the way that religion and its devotion is passed into the secular state. A weakness is that it's not a unifying theory, you're going to need to accompany it with a thorough criticism of capitalism and property relations. It is a political book, not an economic one, which is a little disappointing in its compartmentalism.
The book is so tiny you can crush it in an hour, but it's dense enough that if you're reading it before bed (like I did), you should allow yourself a little more time to absorb it.
July 13, 2019
Quite interesting ideas being presented here although I feel like it isn't concrete enough in its explanation of the implementation of democratic confederalism.
It is more theoretical. This would be fine except that as it compares democratic confederalism to modern nation-states and discusses their connection to capitalism it makes a lot of assertions which are not backed by anything. I understand that this is supposed to be a short introduction on the topic but I would at least expect some kind of explanation of how an assertion was derived or a pointer to a source. This would make the work more easy to understand as well as more credible.
It is more theoretical. This would be fine except that as it compares democratic confederalism to modern nation-states and discusses their connection to capitalism it makes a lot of assertions which are not backed by anything. I understand that this is supposed to be a short introduction on the topic but I would at least expect some kind of explanation of how an assertion was derived or a pointer to a source. This would make the work more easy to understand as well as more credible.
April 11, 2017
More of a pamphlet than a book so don't expect it to go to the depths of the issues touched upon. With that said it's an excellent primer on the idea of Democratic Confederalism, a further development of anarchist ideas explored by Murray Bookchin. It should not be read as a set of theoretical answers to all the worlds problems but rather a starting point for actual practice. A very worthwhile read for anyone interested in socialism, feminism and/or the Middle East.
January 31, 2018
Great introduction into the principles for social/political thought of Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK, and the developing revolution in Rojava today. I only give it four stars because it is far from a complete account of what is needed to understand Ocalan's thought, and the movements that these thoughts have influenced.
March 18, 2018
A new future
Ocalan provides a short but succinct analysis and ideas for a peaceful future in the Near East, North Africa and maybe even in the Balkans. Our diversity can be our strength.
Ocalan provides a short but succinct analysis and ideas for a peaceful future in the Near East, North Africa and maybe even in the Balkans. Our diversity can be our strength.
November 15, 2015
Not great piece of prose, but amazing in its implications and the maturity of insight.
February 22, 2017
Offers a critique and a great alternative to the modern day capitalist nation state
April 11, 2017
Political perfection.
October 23, 2017
While grounded in the specific realities of Kurdistan, this update to Bookchin's naïve philosophies gives new life to a frankly stale strain of leftist thought.
November 11, 2017
Ocalan isn't much of a writer, but his political philosophy is super interesting and he manages to articulate it fairly well in this pamphlet.
February 9, 2021
I've recently been discussing Murray Bookchin with an old high school friend. We both share an interest in leftist politics, and he recently brought up Bookchin who I had discovered from a 'post-anarchist' professor named Richard Day at the place I studied as an undergraduate student. He used to run a course called something like Technology and Development, though by the time I had discovered it, I was in my last year and it was not being run that year. However I had emailed Prof Day about it and he sent me the curriculum and a website full of book and essay titles. I'm not sure if the website is still up anymore, but that is how I discovered Bookchin, who had written quite a bit about technology from the perspective of social ecology. So when my friend brought up Bookchin I had mentioned how his daughter Debbie Bookchin was somewhat involved with the Kurdish revolutionary communes in Rojava, as they're pretty into Bookchin over there. Since my friend's really into Palestinian politics (being someone who self-identifies as Arab), I had asked him about how he sees Rojava fitting into the political landscape of MENA, as I had found Ocalan portrayed a sort of accommodation towards the state of Israel that is not common among leftists, at least he did so in this text at hand (Democratic Confederalism). My friend had mentioned that the 'Kurdish question' was fairly complicated and he did not have a fully realized opinion of it. But he did mention that Israel's semi-support for Kurdish separatism was in his view a 'divide-and-conquer' strategy. This is something I will have to revisit again some time soon. I still don't have a clear view of the Rojavan view of Israel, as it seems like something that is always shifting.
Anyway, this was a short yet somewhat interesting text. I think it remained a bit vague for me, but I do agree with some of its sentiments. However, there are not a lot of details about how confederalism would function in detail and the paradoxes and tensions involved. It was really interesting to read this side-by-side with Jodi Dean's "Crowds and Party" because some of her critiques of more 'libertarian' leftist tendencies, particularly anarchism, are very relevant to this text. I'm wondering how confederalism with respect to the politics of the American Civil War era fits into things. Dean mentions this a little bit and I have to think through these things more myself. [I have to step afk right now, but more to come.]
[I'm back.] Dean mentions Alexander Stephens, a VP in the Confederacy of the Southern States who identified in as a 'communist' in the sense of believing in power being located at the more local level. Dean writes:
"Some Southerners embraced the parallel between Paris and the Confederacy, particularly the revolt against a repressive governmental authority. Weirdly, a former vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, who became a member of Congress from Georgia after the war, identified himself as a communist in 1880. For Stephens, to be a communist means to favor home rule, the sovereignty of the local government. He explicitly rejects the abolition of private property, capturing communist desire in a racist ressentiment that substitutes for and attempts to displace class struggle."
I had also seen something about Canada's so-called 'fathers of Confederation' drawing inspiration from the Confederacy of the Southern States (although I can't seem to find the text I have in mind at the moment, I believe the Marxist historian Stanley Ryerson may have mentioned this, and I also saw it in a piece demanding the removal of John A. MacDonald's statue). On the other hand, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is often recognized as the oldest participatory democracy in the world, and both Marx and Engels were very interested in it and wrote about various facets of Haudenosaunee society, in Marx's case in private notebooks that I don't think Marx intended to be published. I think Ocalan has a very romanticized view of confederalism that I think makes sense in certain ways, but performs a type of sleight of hand in other ways. I think Dean deals with these tensions in a more rigorous way, even if I disagree with some of her conclusions. Yet I do yearn for the same sort of decentralized vision that Ocalan yearns for, although Dean goes through the many ways in which anarchist organizing results in similar concentrations of power that are simply masked by rhetoric or framing (e.g. the charisma of particular people within groups or the most vocal or confident people ending up establishing an agenda that seems to proceed by consensus, or the very undemocratic nature of 'direct action' or 'revolutionary violence' that lacks the sort of consensus that is often claimed). I think Ocalan's criticism of particular socialists within the MENA landscape are very important though. I think his suspicion of state power is ultimately important, although I wonder how practical it is with respect to accomplishing Kurdish goals. As much as I disagree with nationalism in theory, I do recognize its necessity in some contexts as a matter of pragmatism and a stage that is sometimes important for gaining a foothold to progress towards more internationalist goals. I think Dean wrestles with these themes from the other side of the Civil War also writing:
"Some in the North saw Paris as wrongfully seceding from France, just as the Southern states wrongly left the Union. Commune and Confederacy both rejected legitimate centralized government. Others in the North, increasingly mistrustful of popular sovereignty, used the Commune as an emblem of the failure of Reconstruction. An editor of the Nation railed against the 'Socialism in South Carolina” that came from “allowing incompetent black men to govern and vote.'"
So there's definitely a tension here. Decentralized government is not necessarily good or bad. The decentralized tendencies of the Southern Confederacy was focused on maintaining local circumstances of slavery and severe oppression. This is also the case of modern American republicanism which actually has shared roots with Marx's own radicalism, yet in the case for contemporary Republicans decentralized governments are a means of achieving free markets, unfettered private accumulation outside the realm of redistributive tax policies. In such circumstances (especially in the case of slavery and the Southern Confederacy) I can understand why 'authority' would be a seemingly necessary stage to pass through to set the stage for a more egalitarian future. Again though it comes with many risks and has seen many failures in the past. A lot to think through here still.
Anyway, this was a short yet somewhat interesting text. I think it remained a bit vague for me, but I do agree with some of its sentiments. However, there are not a lot of details about how confederalism would function in detail and the paradoxes and tensions involved. It was really interesting to read this side-by-side with Jodi Dean's "Crowds and Party" because some of her critiques of more 'libertarian' leftist tendencies, particularly anarchism, are very relevant to this text. I'm wondering how confederalism with respect to the politics of the American Civil War era fits into things. Dean mentions this a little bit and I have to think through these things more myself. [I have to step afk right now, but more to come.]
[I'm back.] Dean mentions Alexander Stephens, a VP in the Confederacy of the Southern States who identified in as a 'communist' in the sense of believing in power being located at the more local level. Dean writes:
"Some Southerners embraced the parallel between Paris and the Confederacy, particularly the revolt against a repressive governmental authority. Weirdly, a former vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, who became a member of Congress from Georgia after the war, identified himself as a communist in 1880. For Stephens, to be a communist means to favor home rule, the sovereignty of the local government. He explicitly rejects the abolition of private property, capturing communist desire in a racist ressentiment that substitutes for and attempts to displace class struggle."
I had also seen something about Canada's so-called 'fathers of Confederation' drawing inspiration from the Confederacy of the Southern States (although I can't seem to find the text I have in mind at the moment, I believe the Marxist historian Stanley Ryerson may have mentioned this, and I also saw it in a piece demanding the removal of John A. MacDonald's statue). On the other hand, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is often recognized as the oldest participatory democracy in the world, and both Marx and Engels were very interested in it and wrote about various facets of Haudenosaunee society, in Marx's case in private notebooks that I don't think Marx intended to be published. I think Ocalan has a very romanticized view of confederalism that I think makes sense in certain ways, but performs a type of sleight of hand in other ways. I think Dean deals with these tensions in a more rigorous way, even if I disagree with some of her conclusions. Yet I do yearn for the same sort of decentralized vision that Ocalan yearns for, although Dean goes through the many ways in which anarchist organizing results in similar concentrations of power that are simply masked by rhetoric or framing (e.g. the charisma of particular people within groups or the most vocal or confident people ending up establishing an agenda that seems to proceed by consensus, or the very undemocratic nature of 'direct action' or 'revolutionary violence' that lacks the sort of consensus that is often claimed). I think Ocalan's criticism of particular socialists within the MENA landscape are very important though. I think his suspicion of state power is ultimately important, although I wonder how practical it is with respect to accomplishing Kurdish goals. As much as I disagree with nationalism in theory, I do recognize its necessity in some contexts as a matter of pragmatism and a stage that is sometimes important for gaining a foothold to progress towards more internationalist goals. I think Dean wrestles with these themes from the other side of the Civil War also writing:
"Some in the North saw Paris as wrongfully seceding from France, just as the Southern states wrongly left the Union. Commune and Confederacy both rejected legitimate centralized government. Others in the North, increasingly mistrustful of popular sovereignty, used the Commune as an emblem of the failure of Reconstruction. An editor of the Nation railed against the 'Socialism in South Carolina” that came from “allowing incompetent black men to govern and vote.'"
So there's definitely a tension here. Decentralized government is not necessarily good or bad. The decentralized tendencies of the Southern Confederacy was focused on maintaining local circumstances of slavery and severe oppression. This is also the case of modern American republicanism which actually has shared roots with Marx's own radicalism, yet in the case for contemporary Republicans decentralized governments are a means of achieving free markets, unfettered private accumulation outside the realm of redistributive tax policies. In such circumstances (especially in the case of slavery and the Southern Confederacy) I can understand why 'authority' would be a seemingly necessary stage to pass through to set the stage for a more egalitarian future. Again though it comes with many risks and has seen many failures in the past. A lot to think through here still.
April 28, 2025
La carátula tiene más texto que el libro
December 16, 2019
Toplumları ilkel, köleci, feodal, kapitalist, sosyalist olarak düz bir çizgide sürekli ilerleyen biçimler altında tasarlamak, hakikatlerini kavramaya katkı sunmaktan çok çarpıtmaya ve
örtbas etmeye hizmet eder. Bu tür açıklamalar propaganda yüklüdür. Ahlaki ve politik nitelik
ana toplum karakteri olup, bunların varlık derecesine göre toplumları nitelemek en doğrusudur.
Gerek sınıf ve devletin nitelikleri, gerek endüstriyel ve tarımsal gelişme seviyeleri toplumun
esas karakterini oluşturmayan, geçici olgular durumundadı. (sy : 12)
Demokratik konfederasyonun ulus-devletlerle ilişkisi ne sonuna kadar savaş, ne de içinde asimile
olmaktır. Bu ilişki birbirlerinin meşruiyetini kabul eden, barış içinde bir arada yaşamayı esas alan iki
özne varlığın kabulüne dayalı ilkeli ilişkidir. Devrimle ne kadar devlet devrilse ve yenisi kurulsa da, özgürlüğe ve adalete hizmet açısından pek değişiklik olmaz. Ancak demokratik modernitenin siyasi ayağı olarak demokratik konfederatif gelişmeler kısa, orta ve uzun vadeli adalet ve özgürleşmeyi sağlayabilecek yetenektedir. (sy : 22)
Benim demokratik konfederalizm tanımım kitaplarda yok. “Ulus-Devletin Çöküşü” kitabında biraz
var. Bookchin, Wallerstein biraz tartışıyorlar ama bunu kitaplarda bulamazsınız. Bir yandan devletçilik, imparatorluk varken kölecilik gelişiyor, ama arada kalan bir halk topluluğu var, bizim aşiret benzeri yapılar gibi; bu konfederalizmdir. Bunun dillendirilmeme sebepleri var; burjuva devrimciliği ile yine feodal monarşi el ele vererek bu toplumsal yapıyı yok etmeye çalışıyor. Şimdi sivil toplum, dernekler var, ama bu halkı tatmin etmez. Marks’ın politik biçimi, manifesto, özünde halkın önüne politik çizgiyi koyamadı. Lenin de benzer durumda. Devlet oyununa düştüler. Anarşistler, Bookchin, Wallerstein benzeri düşünürler devleti tartışıyorlar, ama net koyamıyorlar. Varmak istedikleri sonuç şudur: Konfederalizm demokrasinin var olma biçimidir. İçinde herkese yer var. Konfederalizm bunların üstteki organizasyonudur. (sy:25)
örtbas etmeye hizmet eder. Bu tür açıklamalar propaganda yüklüdür. Ahlaki ve politik nitelik
ana toplum karakteri olup, bunların varlık derecesine göre toplumları nitelemek en doğrusudur.
Gerek sınıf ve devletin nitelikleri, gerek endüstriyel ve tarımsal gelişme seviyeleri toplumun
esas karakterini oluşturmayan, geçici olgular durumundadı. (sy : 12)
Demokratik konfederasyonun ulus-devletlerle ilişkisi ne sonuna kadar savaş, ne de içinde asimile
olmaktır. Bu ilişki birbirlerinin meşruiyetini kabul eden, barış içinde bir arada yaşamayı esas alan iki
özne varlığın kabulüne dayalı ilkeli ilişkidir. Devrimle ne kadar devlet devrilse ve yenisi kurulsa da, özgürlüğe ve adalete hizmet açısından pek değişiklik olmaz. Ancak demokratik modernitenin siyasi ayağı olarak demokratik konfederatif gelişmeler kısa, orta ve uzun vadeli adalet ve özgürleşmeyi sağlayabilecek yetenektedir. (sy : 22)
Benim demokratik konfederalizm tanımım kitaplarda yok. “Ulus-Devletin Çöküşü” kitabında biraz
var. Bookchin, Wallerstein biraz tartışıyorlar ama bunu kitaplarda bulamazsınız. Bir yandan devletçilik, imparatorluk varken kölecilik gelişiyor, ama arada kalan bir halk topluluğu var, bizim aşiret benzeri yapılar gibi; bu konfederalizmdir. Bunun dillendirilmeme sebepleri var; burjuva devrimciliği ile yine feodal monarşi el ele vererek bu toplumsal yapıyı yok etmeye çalışıyor. Şimdi sivil toplum, dernekler var, ama bu halkı tatmin etmez. Marks’ın politik biçimi, manifesto, özünde halkın önüne politik çizgiyi koyamadı. Lenin de benzer durumda. Devlet oyununa düştüler. Anarşistler, Bookchin, Wallerstein benzeri düşünürler devleti tartışıyorlar, ama net koyamıyorlar. Varmak istedikleri sonuç şudur: Konfederalizm demokrasinin var olma biçimidir. İçinde herkese yer var. Konfederalizm bunların üstteki organizasyonudur. (sy:25)
December 28, 2019
Je trouve son argument contre l'état-nation convaincant et puissant--il semble raisonnable de voir beaucoup de problèmes dans le moyen-orient comme (en partie) un résultat de l'idéologie de l'état-nation. Il semble toujours, toutefois, que cette brochure soit un peu trop vague pour être vraiment utile. Qu'est-ce que c'est précisément le confédéralisme et serait-il vraiment durable comme un système politique? Certes, il me semble très jolie, mais comment pourrait-on commencer à l'instituer? Et est-il peut-être nécessaire d'avoir un sentiment de l'identité basée sur une idéologie et une imagination exclusive? Est un état pluricentrique vraiment durable?
Certes, l'intention d'une brochure n'est pas de donner un traitment exhaustif à une question. D'ailleurs, c'est vrai que je comprends mieux la situation Kurde après avoir lu cette brochure et que je vois plus que jamais l'importance d'une résolution à non pas seulement la question kurde, mais aussi la question moyenne-oriente. Plus centrale encore, cette brochure affirme pour moi l'importance de trouver une alternative de l'état-nation capitaliste qui est la norme actuelle. Celle-ci m'a donné de plaisir en lui lisant.
Libérez Öcalan!
Ελευθερία στον Οτσαλάν!
Certes, l'intention d'une brochure n'est pas de donner un traitment exhaustif à une question. D'ailleurs, c'est vrai que je comprends mieux la situation Kurde après avoir lu cette brochure et que je vois plus que jamais l'importance d'une résolution à non pas seulement la question kurde, mais aussi la question moyenne-oriente. Plus centrale encore, cette brochure affirme pour moi l'importance de trouver une alternative de l'état-nation capitaliste qui est la norme actuelle. Celle-ci m'a donné de plaisir en lui lisant.
Libérez Öcalan!
Ελευθερία στον Οτσαλάν!
April 28, 2017
Short but powerful, part genealogy of and manifesto against the capitalist nation-state, and part theory for a stateless nation of direct democracy, multicultural participation, and women's liberation. Democratic confederalism sees a way for Kurds in particular and Middle Eastern people in general to move past nation-states and Islamist authoritarianism to build self-determining societies free from foreign exploitation. It's a beautiful idea, and I hope Rojava survives long enough to legitimize it more.
September 9, 2022
The only sophisticated enough practical alternative solution to communism (not to be confused with socialism). Capitalism has given everything to humanity, goods and bads, but it is now left with nothing more. So sooner or later it will need to be replaced and we want as much alternative feedback as possible. These guys are doing it, they are living it and it has led them to a serious number of innovations, especially in the climate sector.
February 3, 2018
Είναι εντυπωσιακό ως προς το οτι διαβάζοντάς το ανακαλύπτεις την στροφή του εθνικού κινήματος των Κούρδων της Τουρκίας και της Συρίας σε ελευθεριακές ιδέες και πρακτικές. Ο Οτσαλάν δείχνει να κατανοεί πλήρως την εποχή και επιλέγει να κατευθύνει το κουρδικό κίνημα σε υπερεθνικό και υποεθνικό επίπεδο. Δεν είναι ωστόσο αρκετά αναλυτικό.
July 3, 2020
I was excited to learn about the structures of Democratic Confederalism but did not find much detail in this text. It seems to be a short introduction to the need for a more democratic governance structure, but does not elucidate what that structure actually looks like.
If you are looking for insight into the mechanisms of Democractic Confederalism, this is not the text.
If you are looking for insight into the mechanisms of Democractic Confederalism, this is not the text.
August 4, 2019
An interesting critique on capitalism and what Abdullah Ocalan believes is the solution. The book is a bit short and I found that I still had questions afterwards, but I appreciate its brevity and will probably look more into its implementation in Rojava for further understanding.
January 19, 2021
Una alternativa política y social al modelo capitalista basado que tiene como pilares fundamentales la ecología, la liberación de la mujer y la producción local y autosuficiente. Genial para derribar estereotipos sobre las sociedades que habitan la región del Creciente Fértil .
February 2, 2018
Very interesting and concise. I will have to look into this idea more.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews