With love and respect, this is my opinion.

Firstly, many thanks again Amir for share that interesting info an keep
opening a complete need society debate, almost here on the mailing list.

By the moment, I have read until half of this text, which I recommend
you all to review:

http://rojavaplan.com/uploads/ocalan/parezname-en-1.pdf

Also I recommend you to read this other interview: ‘A real revolution is
a mass of contradictions’:

http://paramedic.com/2017/02/01/a-real-revolution-is-a-mass-of-contradictions-interview-with-a-Rojas-volunteer/

We all feel our own contradictions (almost those ppl with a min of
empathy) which is an interesting first step to start to walk as
individuals for a collective goal.

[...]

I think that "better" or "worst" aren't the best terms to use when
comparing something so relevant as Democratic Confederalism and Anarchism.

Is better mum than daddy?. Mum vs Daddy?. Black vs White?. Trump vs
Hillary?. Sorry, I cannot see arguments on that way, Amir.

We are talking about different (old) political strategies for different
contexts, nothing new.

Let's review first some short definitions:

"A confederation (also known as a confederacy or league) is a union of
sovereign states, united for purposes of common action often in relation
to other state."

"Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed
societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as
stateless societies."

Theoretically, you can create an anarchist confederation by federating
voluntary institutions.

So, why "Democratic"?. Are we falling again on majorities decision?.

Maybe I don't understand complete this term. Or maybe the plan for
west-Occident is to have flags with faces representing a new movement
based on old strategies?.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pkk_supporters_london_april_2003.jpg

Do you realize that, for example in Spain, we had during 40 years the
face of a guy on every place of life?.

Really, I think that some ideas should be adapted a bit more related
with geopolitical situations (context) but also withe education level
and history of the people.

[...]

Let me be a bit "punk" with your list of arguments:

Amir Taaki:
> Why?

Why, not? ;-)

> - Anarchism is excessively materialist.

Are you sure of that first sentence?. Is not decrement (kind of
austerity) of capital forces one of the first goals of every school of
anarchism?. Are we talking about intellectual materialism?. What means
materialist for you, our squats, computers and so on?

> Democratic Confederalism is both ideological and materialist,
> integrating both sides of the philosophy.

Of course, because they are different stuff. One is based on a
perspective of life from individuals (of any kind on any place at world)
and the other is related with political strategies for a collective
empowerment.

> In practice anarchists focus on structure and action while neglecting
> belief and ideology. Some anarchists even pretend we are post-ideology.

This is not true. Not all anarchist schools are Nihilist. Anarchism is
not only a question about to be "against" (ideology, state, religion..)
is more than this.

It is about realize that to "build" something new, we need to "destroy"
the old ones. But not just because we hate it or because that we know
that is not equal for every life form. No, it is more because we
know/feel that we are oppressed so we cannot build openly our way of life.

And that is more than ideology, is a philosophy.

> - Anarchism is anti-value forming. Anarchism is oriented completely
> around negation of things (state, hierarchy, capitalism .etc).
> Democratic Confederalism is instead based around positive values, a
> driving vision.

Here, I am more or less agree with that sentence.

I realize a component of negativism on anarchism, mostly based on "no
future" frontiers, some romanticism, past fails on wars against
different forms of fascism, general stupidity/alienist of contemporary
ppl, etc.. for individuals but also for collectives, that I think that
can be fixed with for example, exposing seriously some new roads to
explore like this Democratic Condeferalism that you are sharing here.
For that, thanks again.

But please, don't forget that Anarchism has been the house of all
minorities during decades.

> - Anarchism has no plan of action except abolition of the state (and
> capitalism).

Well. Is it not enough for a plan?. Where is daily anarchistic
pragmatism on it? :-)

> Democratic Confederalism has a more realistic agenda for the
> strengthening of the "democratic nation" (civil society) that gradually
> erodes state influence.

Can you define realistic agenda?

"The stronger the participation the more powerful is this kind of
democracy. While the nation-state is in contrast to democracy, and even
denies it, democratic confederalism constitutes a continuous democratic
process."[1]

> - Anarchism has a strong Marxist influence. Democratic Confederalism
> rejects Marxist materialist dialectic.

Can you define rejects?

"While originally a Marxist–Leninist organization, the organization
modified their views as Öcalan began corresponding with Murray Bookchin
and incorporating his ideology."[1]

> - Anarchism is an incoherent eclectic mix of concepts.

Can you define incoherent eclectic mix of concepts?

What about anarchistic cosmogonist relativism?

"Anarchism or die" is not a sentence really easy to graffiti on streets
enough coherent for you?. ;-)

> Democratic
> Confederalism starts with the idea of nature being divine, and all the
> philosophy expands from that basis.

Eco-anarchism school.

> - Anarchism has been infiltrated by third-wave feminist degeneracy while
> Democratic Confederalism strongly affirms gender characteristics.
> Focus is on liberation of people, not hedonism.

I like this sentence as theoretical:

"The central pillars of democratic confederalism are social ecology and
anarchist feminism."[1]

But, are anarchist feminism correctly (mainstream or not) differentiated
nowadays from "third-wave" feminism?

> - Democratic Confederalism integrates contemporary philosophical thought
> whereas anarchism does not.

Sure of that?. Can you explain it a bit more?

> - Anarchism has no historical narrative,

What are you telling on this, Amir?.

I can explain you here some historical narratives for example, about how
anarchism frighted against fascism and communism, at same time, during
Spanish Civil War. And how they lost...

Sad stories told by "our" grandfathers and grandmothers, that were there.

Also, I can provide you a lot of details about how many dictatorial
presidents of Spain were assassinated by anarchists during history of
that country (almost 5 of them) and what was the political context of
that violent acts or the new ways taken by society because of that.

Aren't those historical narratives about pragmatic decisions made by
anarchist?.

Do you think that anarchism cannot decide about "way of life" and just
only can be used to fight (violent or not) against others?.

Are we entering on same box, anarcho-capitalism school (mostly
represented by anarchists nowadays) and classic (historical) anarchism?

Again, now way, Amir.

> whereas Democratic
> Confederalism has a strong historical basis that appears in early human
> societies across all major continents that explains the origins of the
> state.

First human (rational) societies were complete anarchist (for that there
is also an anarcho-primitive school, that wants to fallback on history).

The concept of "state" was invented a lot of time ago, but not before
natural rules of survival.

[...]

Mostly, What is a state (government)?.

How is possible that a definition so transcendental such as "government"
on Wikipedia is so short like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

I think that before to realize "new" things we should understand/fix
those that we have now. And this is not a conservative (reactionary)
position, I am talking about pragmatism first. Short on a famous sentence:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
results."

> - Anarchism can be very dogmatic in its refusal of electoral politics
> and state power whereas Democratic Confederalism is pragmatic in using
> all available means to further its ends, even laying out methodologies
> of using local municipalities to gain political power.

That's true.

> ... many other reasons. I suggest people start studying it. Anarchism is
> rubbish, this is the new thing.

Thanks for that quest? ;-)

> Start here:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/rojava/comments/5h6fho/democratic_confederalism_study_material/
>
> We have to approach our ideology now like a religion and work from that
> basis.

I think more than on a "religion" like the unique way to survive (as
free individual, but also as society).

-----------------


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_confederalism