I think if they were more successful/bigger than a just a regional player, they'd have to be more authoritarian or they would be perceived as such. But there's probably more to it than that. Does one have to be "authoritarian" to succeed?
Rojava exists at the behest of like 3 different nations bc it helps their foreign policy objectives. Why would I care about the success of an op? No shade to actual comrades, but it's laughable that this state dept shit gets fawning adoration and praise from American leftists when there are wildflowers of socialist activity growing fucking everywhere.
The Viet Minh got support from the US too. Were they just an op? However, they did succeed to the point that Vietnam supporters get called 'tankie' now.
They are their own thing that has arisen from the specific material and historical circumstances of their region (read this) I got the tude because american "anarchists" often tout them as an example of anarchy in action when they are definitely not an anarchist or even libertarian socialist organization. They have some overlap but they are absolutely unique and do not ascribe to those labels and do not like their struggles being exploited by americans.
What about Rojava and EZLN?
I think if they were more successful/bigger than a just a regional player, they'd have to be more authoritarian or they would be perceived as such. But there's probably more to it than that. Does one have to be "authoritarian" to succeed?
Rojava exists at the behest of like 3 different nations bc it helps their foreign policy objectives. Why would I care about the success of an op? No shade to actual comrades, but it's laughable that this state dept shit gets fawning adoration and praise from American leftists when there are wildflowers of socialist activity growing fucking everywhere.
The Viet Minh got support from the US too. Were they just an op? However, they did succeed to the point that Vietnam supporters get called 'tankie' now.
EZLN is explicitly not anarchist and they don't like it when american dipshits call them that.
They aren't libertarian socialist? What's with the 'tude, dude?
They are their own thing that has arisen from the specific material and historical circumstances of their region (read this) I got the tude because american "anarchists" often tout them as an example of anarchy in action when they are definitely not an anarchist or even libertarian socialist organization. They have some overlap but they are absolutely unique and do not ascribe to those labels and do not like their struggles being exploited by americans.