• mea_rah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah that one is probably closest. Still pretty far from socialism and held together by military with child soldiers.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Still pretty far from socialism

      Plenty of worker control and ownership. If you want to get technical I’d say it’s a mixture of state socialism (only other example: Yugoslavia) and anarchism.

      held together by military with child soldiers.

      You mean the less than 200 16-18yolds which were demobilised like ten years ago.

      The thing is that the YPG is organised horizontally, tons of independent militias and in some locales 16yold bearing arms was understood as being completely kosher, so it happened, and then the larger structure and the world got wind of it, and not doing it was added to the memorandum of understanding between all the sub militias.

      There might be some technical gripes as the YPG is not officially a state actor and according to the letter of international law only states are allowed to recruit 15yolds into the military (for non-combat roles), and you can join the YPG with 16, but frankly speaking that’s not really an argument, it can be countered by saying “de facto” a lot.

      You, OTOH, make it sound as if it were some African warlord with boot camps for 10yolds they raided as slaves. The situation is quite different, it was teens saying “ISIS killed my family I want a rifle to fuck them up”. And TBF there’s practically nothing more lethal than a 17yold gal with a sniper rifle and a grudge.

      • mea_rah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Thanks for detailed reply. I didn’t mean it in a bad way. It certainly wasn’t well written comment. Apologies.

        What I failed to convey is that IMO this is not best example as It’s a community stuck between rock and a hard place. A lot of what it is right now seems to exist out of necessity. Which makes me wonder how well would it work if there were other realistic options that aren’t absolutely horrible.

        Like if you lifted the entire land and dropped it in the middle of the EU with free market and mobility, would it still exist? I don’t think it would. For the same reasons I mentioned earlier.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Rojava could exist here, that’s for sure, if you somehow teleported it over it wouldn’t regress politically – what would be the reason for people to allow that?

          Heck they probably could even join the union: You need to be a democracy, and a market economy. Democracy goes without saying, and distributing food and decommodify what they can doesn’t mean that they aren’t also a market economy. They’re just taking the “social” in “social market economy” more seriously than our socdems over here. OTOH they probably wouldn’t want to but join EFTA instead.

          As to “not a good example”: It’s true that liberal democracies limit revolutionary zeal that’s why being an Anarchist in the west is kinda… erm. I don’t want to swear or jinx the nice stop-gap we have going on here. OTOH you should acknowledge that if they manage to do it between a rock and a hard place, the system itself is plenty stable enough to work under better conditions.

          • mea_rah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            if they manage to do it between a rock and a hard place, the system itself is plenty stable enough to work under better conditions

            That’s like saying that if fusion manages to happen in the middle of the sun, surely it can happen in my living room.

            if you somehow teleported it over it wouldn’t regress politically – what would be the reason for people to allow that?

            Why wouldn’t they? If my family is about to starve and most import and export is blocked, sure I will work on a farm to sustain our community, because ultimately that also feeds my family and I don’t have the option to seek better job somewhere in EU.

            If there is no ISIS on the border trying to murder me, why should I accept that the farm that belonged to my family for generations was collectivized and I’m working on it for a tiny share rather than benefiting from all it can produce?

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              That’s like saying that if fusion manages to happen in the middle of the sun, surely it can happen in my living room.

              It can. You’ll need a pressure vessel to get to the necessary combination of temperature and pressure, sure, but it’s perfectly possible.

              The question is not whether an Anarchist revolution could start here, which is an open question Anarchists in liberal democracies are banging their head against, but whether it could sustain itself if it is, as it is now, suddenly teleported to let’s say the middle of the North Sea. Ignoring impacts of sudden climate change on crops and whatnot because that’d be silly. It’s a proper magical teleportation.

              If my family is about to starve and most import and export is blocked, sure I will work on a farm to sustain our community, because ultimately that also feeds my family and I don’t have the option to seek better job somewhere in EU.

              Working abroad, maybe studying, and then coming back to develop your country supports your family even more.

              If there is no ISIS on the border trying to murder me, why should I accept that the farm that belonged to my family for generations was collectivized and I’m working on it for a tiny share rather than benefiting from all it can produce?

              There was no force-collectivisation. In fact there’s no collectives, there’s cooperatives. There’s also plenty of agricultural cooperatives in the EU, some of them ludicrously large, though granted Arla is capitalist AF. Models that right-out mirror what you have in Rojava also exist. If your farm was in a EU country you’d be paying taxes on income, in Rojava you’re sending out your surplus harvest for distribution and are getting all kinds of services from the wider community. And that decommodified community solidarity is a benefit in itself.

              Or do you think farmers will look at the EU, how farmers are protesting largely because they’re getting squeezed by middle-men (traders, supermarkets) and think “yeah we want that, that’s better”?

              • mea_rah@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                sending out your surplus harvest for distribution

                I fail to understand what surplus harvest is in this context. I have a friend farmer and he never mentioned that, because you know they generally sell stuff. The closest thing he mentioned was hay of which he might have more than he’ll need to feed the animals over winter, but even that is same product as any other and is sold to other farms. It’s not surplus, it’s par of the production.

                all kinds of services from the wider community

                What kind of services are we talking about? Farmers (and other citizens in EU) also get all kind of services. Also once they sell their produce, they can get all kind of services even beyond what local community provides. I don’t see any benefit outside of situation where the export/import is impractical. Hence my metaphor with fission. (even if not technically 100% accurate as metaphors are)