John Holloway: Rojava is a super crack in the system

2025-12-19 11:35:55


	NEWS CENTER - Marxist philosopher John Holloway stated that the feature distinguishing the Kurdish Freedom Movement from the Catalan, Basque or Irish movements is the idea of how it will transform society on a different basis and said, "Rojava is a super crack." 

	The Peoples' Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party held the "International Peace and Democratic Society Conference" in Istanbul on 6-7 December. While participants from many countries attended the conference, one of the most notable figures was Philosopher John Holloway, who explained his reason for travelling over 11 thousand kilometres by saying, "A light shining in the darkness of capitalism attracted me." 

	 

	Holloway, who became acquainted with the Kurdish movement through an invitation to a conference held in Hamburg, Germany, subsequently participated in a series of conferences. Holloway was also invited to join the founding committee of the Kurdish Academy of Social Sciences, which is being established in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 

	 

	We spoke with Holloway about his critiques of capitalism and Abdullah Öcalan's paradigm.

	 

	For many years you have been working on Marxist theory, the critique of stateless revolution and capitalism, and you consider the state not as an instrument of power but as the institutionalized form of capitalist social relations. Why do you see it this way?

	 

	I think it is partly a question of experience. Over the last 20 to 30 years, we have been living in a capitalist system that is becoming more and more frightening, more and more oppressive on the one hand. But we also look at the experience of the revolutions of the 20th century, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and others, and we see that they did not work. They did not create the society that people dreamed of. 

	 

	Then we have to think, “What went wrong?” I think that more and more movements, like the Kurdish movement, like the Zapatista movement, like many, many smaller movements, are saying that what went wrong was that they thought of change as coming about through the state. But that will not work, because the state is a particular form of organization that is part of the capitalist system.

	 

	You can think of this in at least three different ways. One is to ask, “What is the state?” The state is a form of organization that excludes us, because it is made up of full-time officials who try to resolve problems. And they try to resolve problems by telling us to go home and come back again in five years’ time, or four years’ time, to vote, and then go home again. So the state is a form of organization that actually excludes people from the organization of society.

	 

	The second thing is that, if you think of it in that way, it becomes clear that the state depends upon capital. It depends upon the accumulation of capital in order to receive its money, the money it needs to support itself. And since these officials are actually not producing anything, they have to get their income from the dominant form of production, which is capitalism. So the state has to promote capital accumulation, and therefore cannot be the way to change society.

	 

	And the third reason, I think, for rejecting the state is simply that every state is racist. It is racist because it starts by making a distinction between its citizens, who maybe receive some benefits, and the rest of the world. The rest of the world consists of people who are discriminated against and can be treated with violence, or worse. We see this more and more now if we think about what is happening to migrants. The violence against migrants is simply a reflection of the existence of the state. So not through the state but we have to think of other forms of organization. The other obvious form of organization is some form of communal organization. That is why the Kurdish movement is so exciting, and why the Zapatista movement is so exciting, along with many other movements.

	 

	 

	You also define seizing the state not as liberation, but as the deepening of alienation. Why?

	 

	When we think about revolution, we tend to think, “We will take the state, we will take power, and after that we will change society.” But when you take the state, you place yourself inside a form of organization that is already the ruling form of organization. It is the capitalist form of organization. From there, it becomes impossible to make the social changes that you actually want to make.

	 

	If we think in terms of experience, if we think about what happened in Russia or in the Soviet Union, if we think about China, it becomes very clear that this was a disaster.

	 

	You also said that the Kurdish movement and the Zapatista movement are exciting for you. When you consider these two movements, what can you say about the similarities and differences between the Kurdish movement and the Zapatista movement?

	 

	Yes, I think that is a very important question. I do not have any very clear answer. But as you know, the Zapatista movement appeared publicly in Mexico in 1994, so it has existed now for over thirty years. From the very beginning, it said that it would not do things through the state. There was a whole rethinking of what revolution means after the experiences of the twentieth century. Now, the idea was that things had to be done differently. They still talk about revolution, but revolution with a small “r,” not a capital “R.” They talk instead about movements of resistance and rebellion. They are saying, “No, we are not going to do this through the state.” It is really a question of building other forms of social organization on the basis of what already exists, while transforming it at the same time.

	 

	One major issue from the very beginning was the position of women in the movement and in society in Chiapas, where the movement is based in Mexico. The women imposed major changes in social organization right from the beginning. So what emerged is basically a communal form of organization based on community discussion in all their areas.

	 

	For those of us who live in cities, and I live in a city, this is a very exciting movement. But one of the problems is how to think about transferring, or reproducing, that sort of politics in the city.

	 

	When we look at the Kurdish movement, again from roughly the same period, perhaps slightly later, we see the Kurdish movement, and Öcalan in particular, saying, “No, we have to rethink what revolution means.” Capitalism is still a disaster. The Zapatistas say the same thing. It is worse than ever, and it is becoming more violent than ever. Both are saying that we are now living in situations of world war.

	 

	But we cannot do things in the same way as before. We have to rethink politics by moving away from the state and by building communal forms of organization, or by strengthening the communal forms that already exist. In that sense, I think there are very strong connections between the two movements, or very strong similarities. I think the Kurdish movement is more urban than the Zapatista movement. The style of communication is also very different. But there are strong connections that we still need to understand more fully, in order to see where the problems are in both movements.

	 

	You argue that it is possible to engage in politics without taking over the state or taking power. When we look at these movements, do you think this is their formula, engaging in politics without taking power? 

	 

	It depends on what you mean by politics. For me, to engage in politics really means to push, to think about how we organize socially in order to change the world and to break the rule of money. We now live in a world that is dominated by money and by capital. We know that this system of organization is pushing us, quite possibly, toward the extinction of the human race. So it becomes absolutely crucial to break that system.

	 

	For me, politics means asking how we engage socially in a way that pushes against the rule of money. It does not mean politics in the sense of state politics. No, it is clearly a rejection of state politics. The Zapatistas say this very explicitly. There were negotiations at the very beginning, but basically they say, “No. We are creating our own society. We are creating our own system of education, our own system of health care, our own system of justice, our own system of administration.” And they have been doing this for more than thirty years now, free of the state.

	 

	I also want to talk about your book, Crack Capitalism. You approach capitalism not just as an economic system, but as a holistic organization of social relations. How does capitalism organize social relations, and what arguments does it employ in your view?

	 

	I understand capital not as something economic, but as a form of social organization, or a form of social cohesion. It is the way people come together in society. Any form of society needs some form of social cohesion, some sort of connection between different people’s activities. In capitalism, that connection between people’s activities is established essentially through money and through the exchange of commodities, which in practice means through money. The fact that our connections are established through money shapes everything. It shapes everything we do, and it shapes the way we think. It also implies that, for money to dominate, the whole of society must be built on a system of exploitation.

	 

	We know that this is taking us deeper and deeper into catastrophe. We have to find some way of breaking the hold of money.

	 

	And how does capitalism organize social relations, and what arguments does it employ?

	 

	Yes, I think that is the argument. I suppose one of the arguments is that money stimulates production and creativity. We can say that, in a way, this is true. It does stimulate production and it does stimulate creativity. But it does so in a particular way. It does it in a way where all creativity and production are shaped by the need to generate profits. That is really the rule of money. It is the rule of profit. This means that all our activities are given a particular distortion, a particular form.

	 

	It also means that capitalism creates a dynamic of destruction. If we say that capitalism is a system of creation and destruction, then what is becoming clear is that the destruction is becoming greater and greater within that system. In Marx’s time, the destruction was the destruction of people’s livelihoods and the destruction of cultures. Now we have reached a stage where destruction is the destruction of the preconditions of human life itself. It is becoming more and more dangerous, more and more awful.

	 

	You say that it is becoming more and more dangerous, then which cracks can break the logic of capitalism? And, looking particularly at the communes mentioned in Abdullah Öcalan’s latest manifesto, how do you think communes can develop this idea and offer an alternative model of life?

	 

	First, about the cracks, perhaps a little advertisement for Crack Capitalism. Of course, it is the second of a set of three books. The first was Change the World Without Taking Power. The second was Crack Capitalism. The third, which came out in Turkish a few months ago, is Hope in Hopeless Times. The first book, Change the World Without Taking Power, was really the argument that I have already outlined, namely that thinking about changing the world through the state does not work. The second book, Crack Capitalism, is really about what on earth we do instead.

	 

	I think that, in a way, we do what we are already doing. We see that many, many people try to break with the logic of capital in some way. Lots of people say, “When I finish school, or when I finish university, I do not want to just sell my life to capital. I want to be able to do something that makes sense,” something that follows a different logic and has a different motivation behind it. Sometimes these movements are very small. It can be just a few friends getting together and saying, “We want to do critical journalism,” for example. Or it can be very big, like the Zapatista movement or the Kurdish freedom movement, saying, “No, we are going to go in a different direction, with a different logic.” These are what I think of as cracks in the logic of capital.

	 

	All of us, if we stop and think for five minutes, can probably think of ten different cracks. These cracks are always contradictory, but I think this is the only way we can think about really transforming society. We have to say, “We are going to recognize the cracks that already exist, because they are everywhere. We are going to create more cracks. We are going to make them bigger. We are going to think about how we can get them to flow together.” If we do not think of revolution in terms of seizing the state, then this really is the only way to do it.

	 

	And what about the communes?

	 

	The cracks, then, are really about trying to do things according to a different logic. This can imply many different things. But there is one tradition in the whole anti-capitalist movement that goes way back. The most obvious example is the Paris Commune of 1871. But in any movement of rebellion, you find some form of communal organization.

	 

	Communal organization is also something we practice in everyday life, even among friends. Quite often, for example, students say, “Let’s go out and have a meal together. Where are we going to go?” People have different opinions, but in the end, they come to some sort of agreement. A commune, as I understand it, is a form of coming together in which we express our different opinions and think about how to overcome those differences in order to reach a decision. This is a process of asking and debating. The state, by contrast, is completely different. The state is a process of telling. It is a process of commanding. It is a process of saying, “You will do that, and if you do not, we will exercise violence against you.” The state, as a form of organization, is inherently violent.

	 

	A commune, on the other hand, is about coming together not because we agree. We may disagree, but we say, “We are going to talk about those disagreements.” For me, this is a very important part of what the Kurdish movement is doing, as I understand it, with Rojava as the clearest example. It is also the process that we see in what the Zapatistas are doing.

	 

	 

	You also have some criticisms regarding party-centralized organization and representation policies. But can unorganized societies develop their resistance?

	 

	For me, I understand the party as a form of social organization that is directed towards the state and seeks either to take state power or to gain influence within the state. It involves a hierarchical form of organization. A commune, by contrast, is essentially the opposite. It is a horizontal, more or less horizontal, form of organization.

	 

	Abdullah Öcalan says state plus democracy. He is saying that democracy can exist with the state. How do you assess this? 

	 

	I think it is very important to say that there is no purity. We are always in contradictory situations, and that is inevitable when living in an antagonistic society, a society dominated by money and capital. Everything I write is, I suppose, against the state. But I am paid by the state. I work in a university. Within the university, I am able to create my own space. At my particular university, there has been a long tradition of collective struggle to create spaces where we can say what we want. But it is a contradictory situation. Many people who are very active in anti-capitalist movements also work for capital, perhaps two days a week or maybe all week. We are in these situations. If we think about how I got here, I am not sure. If we think about state democracy, the state cannot be democratic because it is tied to capital and operates within a capitalist context. It has to be in favor of the accumulation of capital. Of course, it also has to integrate social discontent, and the most effective way to do that is through formal democracy.

	 

	State democracy, yes, there is a difference between democracy and dictatorship. Democracy creates spaces which we can try to use against the state or against capital. But it is not really democracy.

	 

	 

	For me, the only democracy that would really work is some sort of communal democracy, which seeks to articulate people’s opinions. People come together, express what they think, and reach some sort of decision. That, I think, cannot work very well as long as we have a capitalist system. Most obviously, if people have to work for a wage, they will be too tired to attend assemblies. I think this is something that is happening now.

	 

	 

	Ideally, we would abolish the state and have only communes. But in reality, it is a process, and it is a contradictory process. Perhaps in that way, I could think of state plus communal democracy, but only if I think of the “plus” as being an antagonism at the same time.

	 

	 

	The autonomous administration model in Rojava advocates a structure based on communal local councils rather than a state. From the perspective of your theory of cracks, is Rojava a crack or an institutionalized alternative?

	 

	Oh, I think Rojava is a wonderful crack. But all cracks are never pure cracks. They always have contradictions and practical problems. One of the wonderful things, and one thing I respect very much about the Kurdish movement, is the willingness to develop criticisms within the movement. I think of Rojava as wonderful, but sometimes the assemblies do not work as well as one would want. Perhaps not as many people are involved as one would want. The organization of the economy is still very contradictory. The movement against ecocide is also contradictory, because the whole economy depends on the production of oil. So we have to try and work through these contradictions. In that sense, I have enormous admiration for the Kurdish movement and the Rojava movement, because they are trying to do this. Yes, Rojava is a super crack.

	 

	 

	And how can society defend itself against current hardship and violence? In Rojava, for example, it is defended through self-defense. How do you assess this form of self-defense? Does it align with your perspective?

	 

	Yes, I think there has to be some form of self-defense in any movement against capitalism. In the case of the Zapatistas, they are organized as an army. There is a movement, but at its center is the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. They no longer think in terms of national liberation, but they still have the army. They say that the army is completely against what they want to create, because the army is hierarchical, and they do not want a hierarchical organization. Yet they still have to keep arms and organize as an army just to defend themselves. In practice, I think the weapons have not been the most important part of their defense. The most powerful defense is popular support, both within their area and throughout the world. Self-defense is contradictory, but often necessary. We must think of defense not just in armed terms, but, above all, in terms of popular defense.

	 

	And now I want to talk about the process in Turkey and the confluence. When you observe the peace and democratic society in Turkey, what dynamics within the process do you consider important for transformation?

	 

	I do not know that I have a fully satisfactory answer. I have been listening to explanations by Öcalan's lawyers, and what I understand is that the process is really a two-stage process. First, the legal recognition of the Kurdish people, or the creation of spaces in which a different politics can develop. Second, the development of those different politics. That seems very important, but the crucial question in practice is the relation between these two processes.

	 

	Throughout the process, there are frequent calls for the recognition of Kurdish identity, the expansion of democratic rights, and an emphasis on social equality. What are your thoughts on these demands, and how do you think the steps taken in response to them will affect social transformation?

	 

	I think the question of Kurdish identity, or identity in general, is very important and very contradictory. In the case of the Kurdish people, from what I have learned, there has been a long period of oppression, a lack of recognition of the specificity of Kurds, and the oppression of the Kurdish language and culture. Clearly, the struggle against that is absolutely important.

	 

	I do not like the term identity, because for me it implies closure. You could say, “Yes, we will struggle for recognition of Kurdish identity, and then we will be happy.” I do not think that will work. We have to think not just “we are Kurds,” but “we are Kurds and more than that. We are Kurds, and we want to change the world.” There is a tension here, because if you think only in terms of establishing the rights to Kurdish identity, there is a danger that the struggle stops there. That would be very sad. For me, and for many others, what is exciting is that the Kurdish movement is a movement to transform the world.

	 

	The same applies to the Zapatistas. It is an indigenous movement, almost entirely indigenous in Mexico. Of course, part of the movement has been about indigenous rights and the rights of indigenous languages. But the exciting thing about the Zapatistas is that they have said from the beginning, as Öcalan also says, that they are not just a movement for indigenous rights. They want to transform the world. This overflow from identity seems absolutely crucial. If we think only in terms of identity, we lose the most exciting part of the movement.

	 

	But social equality, I think, is also impossible within capitalism. You cannot achieve social equality in capitalism, because the system is based on the generation of inequality. If you really want social equality, you have to get rid of capitalism.

	 

	What about the process?

	 

	You can start a process, but you always have to acknowledge that it is not enough. Of course, you can try to improve people’s lives or conditions of equality, but the real issue is what an awful, destructive, murderous system we are living in.

	 

	You are in Turkey for the first international conference that is part of this process. How do you feel about it?

	 

	I have come here with a lot of enthusiasm, and I want to say “yes” for Öcalan and “yes” for the Kurdish Freedom Movement. I am glad to be here, and I have traveled all this way to express my support. At the same time, I want to say, as with your previous question about identity, let us not allow the movement to become closed in on itself. If I have come all the way from Mexico, it is because I really see the Kurdish movement as an exciting movement that goes beyond mere Kurdish identity. It really aims to change the way society is organized, to establish society on a communal basis. A communal, anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, anti-ecocidal, and anti-state basis. That is what makes it so important, and that is my excitement.

	 

	This is why I am excited about the conference, and this is what I want to express there. Yes, it is fantastic, but let us not get lost in our Kurdishness, because it is much more than that.

	 

	You came all the way to express your support, but how does this affect the process?

	 

	I suppose what I hope, and what the organizers hope, is that the conference will display the strength of international support for the Kurdish movement and for the liberation of Öcalan. That seems very important. But I also think in the other direction. I hope that the debates we have over the next few days will stimulate discussions outside this region as well. I was at a Kurdish-organized conference in Vienna in February, and I was really impressed by the way so many young people from all over Europe were there, thinking about the Kurdish experience as an inspiration to change the world. That is very important. One thing the Zapatistas say is, “We are not a model. Do not take us as a model. At best, we are an inspiration for you to struggle in whatever way you can to change the world.” I hope this conference can also express that idea.

	 

	In the conference your presentation’s title was “A Light Shining in the Dark.” Why this title? 

	 

	I think, in a way, it is really what I have been saying. If we have come this far, it is because the Kurdish movement really is a light shining in the dark. The dark is the dark of the world we live in now: global warming, the growing threat of war, including nuclear war, and the growing violence against migrants. What Öcalan calls the Third World War, and what the Zapatistas call the Fourth World War, is essentially the same idea: we are living in a situation of terrible war in the Middle East and in various forms throughout the world. The question is, how do we break this? How do we overcome this kind of society?

	 

	I think there are two great lights shining in the dark. One is the Zapatista movement. The other is the Kurdish freedom movement. What is special about them? How does that fit into the congress? I do not know exactly. I always wonder, especially when I go somewhere new, what I am going to say, how people will react, and whether it really makes sense. In this case, I think it does.

	 

	I want to say, here we are in the middle of practical negotiations, discussing the Irish experience, the Catalan experience, the Basque experience, and so on. That is great. But let us not forget that the Kurdish movement is something very special. It is not the same as the Catalan movement, the Basque movement, or the Irish nationalist movement. It is really thinking about how we can reorganize society, how we can transform society on a different basis. Let us not lose sight of that while discussing the practicalities of the present situation.

	 

	How do you think a democratic society should be established? What role should society and organizations play in building a democratic society? How should the state act to resolve this issue?

	 

	Well, the state does not act to resolve this issue. States usually react to repress. That is of no help at all. How can we do it? I think in different ways. One important way is what I call communizing. People already do this a lot of the time. They ask, “What are we going to do together? How do we resolve problems together?”

	 

	I think it is very important to think of anti-capitalist revolution in terms of communizing. This partly recognizes the cracks that already exist. It is also related to the breakdown of existing forms of organization. In certain situations, such as climate disasters, earthquakes, or floods, the state does not work and is of no use. People have to get together and try to resolve problems communally. I think we are moving into a world where this will happen more and more, where people will face more and more disasters, both so-called natural disasters—which are not really natural—and social disasters caused by the non-functioning of the existing system.

	 

	In that case, communizing will gain strength. How people react in these situations will also depend on their experience with communizing as a practice and a form of thinking. When a disaster occurs, we should not just think, “Where is the state? Bring in the army as quickly as possible.” Instead, we should see it as a moment to demonstrate our truly communal and collective characteristics.