Some vaguely positive news from the Iraq - Syria - general middle east mess. An attempt to build a modern society amongst the ruins of war.
Of course, politics being the tragic joke that it is, Western governments designate these people as terrorists, and the Daesh supporters in Turkey and Saudi as our allies.
Okay… I finally got around to finishing this. What an interesting turn of events! But I’d posit that it’s only working because right now, it’s in this weird liminal zone between states and war zones. That gives them the space to experienment with Bookchin’s ideas. But once the wars are settled (hopefully), it’s back to the nation-state for all of them. I’d guess that a Kurdish state is going to happen, but it’s going to ditch all of Ocalam’s and Bookchin’s concepts for a nation-state that privileges Kurdish national identity, because that’s the way to get legitimacy in our world, as it stands.
I think they should keep doing what they’re doing, and just be more careful in knowing who their friends are. Who needs “legitimacy” from nation-states of jerks, when they can find better allies?
(disclaimer: I haven’t read the whole thing yet)
It seems an interesting experiment in actual democracy, but my point is that once the situation in syria is sorted, it’s likely to be violently squashed. I doubt a new Syrian state, Turkey, and Iraq would let an independent Kurdish state, lacking the “legitmacy of the nation-state”, backed by American state power, could be allowed to stand. It could also be internally squashed by competing interests, acting with support from one of the above powers or someone else.
The question is less is it a good idea (it seems to be) and more will it be allowed by people with a monopoly on violence.
This topic was automatically closed after 447 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
