In the 1990s, Abdullah Öcalan – the now imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – began to move away from Marxist-Leninist ideologies for social change, towards a new political direction. This political direction was heavily informed by Murray Bookchin’s concept of “democratic confederalism”, built on the principle of autonomy for a democratic, ecological and gender liberated society. Democratic confederalism attempts to build horizontal social institutions that can induce a permanent social revolution in every area of society.

Since 2005, the Kurdish Democratic Society Congress has attempted to build capacity for democratic autonomy in politics, justice, self-defense, culture, society, economics, ecology and diplomacy. For Kurds, dispersed throughout Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Armenia and Iran, the idea that the nation-state can be over-thrown once institutions of self-organization and self-management are in place at every level of society, is significant. In some areas, Democratic Society Congress members or affiliates have taken local state power, but hold themselves accountable to confederated councils. In taking local state power, they have access to funds and have built schools, refuges, and other services. This is true for Amed City Council, for example, which is in Turkish territory, but also for villages Wan, Gewer, Colemêrg, Dersim, and Sur.

The PKK is an anti-capitalist organization, and council’s have experimented with principles outlined in “Participatory Economics” as put forward by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Self-management, sustainability, equity, solidarity, diversity and efficiency are values which inform the work of council’s building throughout many liberated Kurdish villages.

Attempts at protecting ethnic and religious diversity for those who do not identify as Muslim Kurds is also underway, Zoroastrians, Armenians, Azeris, and other minorities are welcome and protected in councils.

The people of Kurdistan are experimenting with democratic models while facing extensive state repression, including bombardment from the Turkish state, as well as violent incursions into their territory from the Islamic State, who they have proven to be an effective bulwark against (to the dismay of Western governments). This is the context in which they are organizing for liberation.

Murray Bookchin was author of many articles and books on social ecology and instituting democratic forms of self-organization. Janet Biehl was Bookchin’s partner for many years, and she recently published a biography of his life “Ecology or Catastrophe: The Life of Murray Bookchin”. I spoke with Janet on her recent visit to the UK.

Preeti Kaur: How do you think Murray Bookchin would have felt to know that his ideas were being put into practice and experimented with in Kurdistan today?

Janet Biehl: I’m absolutely positive that he would be thrilled by their aspirations and by their apparent commitment to democratic confedaralism. I think he would find resonances between the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, and the Rojava Revolution. The actions of the beautiful revolutionaries who fought in the Spanish Civil War is what kept him an anarchist for so long, he was so impressed with them. I think the Spanish revolution was a touchstone for him in his life. He would definitely have seen echoes with the Spanish freedom movement, and with what is happening today in Rojava and with the Kurdish freedom movement more broadly too.

It’s funny because I’ve been to Kurdistan a couple of times, always in delegations. The local government and the political people always tell us what’s going on there. I saw an assembly and the legislative council but I haven’t seen democratic confederalism in action enough to know exactly how much it fulfils what Bookchin had in mind. On paper it does, from what they give out and tell us, it does.

But, I’m the kind of person that likes evidence and likes facts so I’m going to be cautious and qualify here and say; as far as I know, democratic confederalism in parts of Kurdistan seems to be, at least, approximating what he wanted.

I also know that the ideology is very, very, very important. You hear Kurdish people talk about it, you here the same ideas expressed by many different people. I think that commitment to ideas like self-management and active participation is what it takes to keep the system free and bottom up, and to help make it survive.

But, I also wonder, I don’t hear many individual voices. I would like to hear more individual voices.

I’m also mindful of what Bookchin would say about his own ideas. He would always quote Karl Marx saying “I’m not a Marxist”. So, I just have to qualify and say that Bookchin was also known to say “I’m not a Bookchinite”, because of the way in which ideology can concrete-ize things both for better and worse.

Preeti Kaur: A desire to have ideology provide a framework for action, but then seeing ideology constantly updated on the basis of practice seems to come out of what you’re saying.

Janet Biehl: Yes. Ideology is profoundly necessary, but can also become problematic. It is a double edged sword.

Preeti Kaur: Bookchin often said “There’s no substitute for consciousness.” What do you think is the relationship between a commitment to experimenting with ideology in practice, and developing a lasting project for revolution through generations?

Janet Biehl: Marxists gave us the idea that revolution would come almost inevitably as a result of historical forces; historical materialism, dialectical materialism. There would be an epic clash between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So, sometimes, in European radical movements some people thought all they had to do was sit back and wait for it, because revolution would take place inevitably. And, that of course, isn’t true.

We also got used to technological revolutions that did not require consciousness from most people (aside a few in Silicon valley). Yet, the internet has absolutely transformed the way in which many people throughout the world live. So, here, consciousness was not involved.

So, different ways of looking at social change have evolved. Except for this technological change, consciousness is essential, it’s indispensable; the all important thing. But, I also think that it’s strengthened – and not weakened – when it’s challenged by other ideas. I think it’s very important not to think that your ideology is so fragile that you need to protect it against outside ideas that might come and infect it. If your ideology is right, you need to engage in discussions around it and don’t be afraid by censoring other ideas. If you’re in Rojava and someone wants to publish a book saying capitalism is great, let them publish it and then have an argument. Let’s have the discussion.

Once you try to suppress ideas, you have the opposite effect. When I was in Rojava last time, I was shown a school book for kids. It was showing the kids; “this is our country, this is where we live, we have to share, we share everything, we live communally, we think it is important to value women, and value nature”, etc., instilling the necessary values in them. One of the young men (also on the delegation) sitting next to me, he was from Belarus, he said that he grew up with these kind of school books in the Soviet Union and they made him and his classmates into such rebels. That could happen in Rojava. Kids who grow up on these text books could grow up and become the biggest advocates of consumer culture, unless the argument is given to them. Eventually, they too will need to be given the pros and cons, and understand why a moral economy is truly better than a market economy.

Preeti Kaur: I wondered if you could talk about alternative forms of justice that are developing throughout various parts of Kurdistan? In the book by TATORT members (which I understand you translated from German to English) Democratic Autonomy in North Kurdistan: The Council Movement, Gender Liberation and Ecology – in Practice; attempts at building equality for women, as well as new justice mechanisms for domestic disputes are highlighted. But the book also makes clear that there is unequal development in creating these new justice mechanisms, and in fermenting the importance of gender equality. It appears from the book that, particularly in cases of domestic violence, in some communities there is a real commitment to feminism and gender equality so that – through a deliberative process – community members are able to move the perpetrator of violence to an understanding that violence against their daughter, wife, sister, etc., is not justified, but in other communities, there is still an expectation for a women to remain in a violent marriage, because of the sacredness of marriage as an institution. What do you think the opportunities and challenges for alternative forms of conflict resolution are, and for gender justice in the region too?

Janet Biehl: In Rojava they’re called Peace and Justice communities and they try to resolve disputes. I think they’re brilliant, and they were early institutions that were formed so that Kurds would not have to go to the Turkish courts and institutions, they could resolve them among themselves. I think it’s a brilliant idea.

And, they’ve decided among themselves that domestic violence and patriarchal violence is taboo. The development is – of course – unequal but they have decided that it’s completely inappropriate. It used to be that the woman was automatically blamed. If she was raped, she was automatically blamed for the rape, and due to the shame, her family would have to kill her, or she would have to kill herself.

As a result of these new principles of justice, and new alternative conflict resolution commitments, women and girls are not automatically blamed. The accused man is brought in and they hear both sides. There are sanctions. For example, if a man is found guilty in Rojava – of domestic violence – he cannot sit on any committees, or if a man has multiple wives – he cannot sit on committees; he has to pay a price for it. That’s a huge advance and it’s so striking that it’s happening at the most local level as a result of this great part of the ideology, and I’m sure other circumstances too.

Preeti Kaur: Thank very much for speaking with me Janet.

Janet Biehl: Thank you.