The process initiated under the agreement signed on 29 January between the Autonomous Administration and the Syrian Transitional Government, following the attacks on North and East Syria, is continuing. Italian thinker Andrea Surbone, who sees the “Rojava model” as a source of inspiration, proposes an approach centred on labour, equality and environmental limits through his Filoponìa model, which offers an alternative framework to existing economic and social systems. Surbone’s “anti-accumulation” model, which aims to transcend a debt-based economy, encompasses not only economic but also social and ethical transformation. Filoponìa stands out as a search for a new paradigm that places humanity and nature at the centre in response to the crises of capitalist modernity.

 

Abdullah Öcalan’s Democratic Confederalism paradigm, seeking to find a practical application in North and East Syria, aims to build a democratic, ecological and women’s liberation-oriented society. Shaped through local councils, cooperatives and mechanisms of social participation, this model offers an alternative governance approach to the centralised state structure. The points of intersection between Surbone’s Filoponìa approach and the Democratic Confederalism paradigm, as embodied in Rojava, are bringing discussions regarding the possibilities of an alternative social order back to the fore. 

 

Surbone answered questions of the Mezopotamya Agency (MA) regarding the Filoponìa model and the Rojava model.  

 

In your criticisms of capitalism, you emphasize that the system has collapsed not only economically but also ethically, ecologically, and democratically. In the context of this multi-layered crisis, how do you position the experience in Rojava?

 

I consider the experience of Rojava to be fundamental to address the issue of self-determination, which is very dear to me; I regard it as the essential foundation for embarking on a path, finally ethical, eco-friendly and democratic: that differs from the one humanity has followed so far. To get there, the world needs also positive role models, especially in these dark times when we are seeing so many negative behaviours, even at the highest levels.

 

As for the collapse, I believe it is more a case of a serious degeneration of capitalism than of its collapse; a degeneration into financialisation, the outcome of which is also the collapse of capitalism in the sense that revenue – that is, the way in which income is earned in financialisation – has supplanted profit, which is, in contrast, the typical form of capitalism and is linked to production.

 

And with financialisation, which has pushed ethical, ecological and democratic concerns to the limit – and even beyond.

 

The Filoponìa model you have developed offers a radical alternative to the paradigm of accumulation. To what extent do you think the economic and social structure in Rojava approaches this paradigm shift?

 

I am not thoroughly familiar with the situation in Rojava; however, I believe that its social structure is suitable for Filoponìa. After all, the participatory democracy that underpins Filoponìa is inspired by Democratic Confederalism.

 

In my view, the situation is different when it comes to the economic structure. To me, accumulation and self-determination are an oxymoron, just as finance and ethics are; the same applies to microcredit, which, at its best ethical value, can be to paternalism or charity: both of these, however, reflect a social disparity between the two parties; a disparity which, in itself, is not ethical. In this sense, then, I believe we need a combination of the two models – Democratic Confederalism and Filoponìa – in order to achieve genuine and profound self-determination. 

 

What is your general assessment of the “democratic, ecological, and women’s liberation paradigm” implemented in Rojava theorized by Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan?

 

That’s obviously a very positive assessment! I believe Öcalan and I are saying the same thing regarding the outcome of the proposed model; I do not know, however, whether our analysis identifies the root of the problem; let me explain, in Italy, there’s a saying: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?: It seems to me Öcalan identifies patriarchy as the root cause, whereas I identify it as accumulation (that is, during the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers, when food storage – which agriculture made possible on a stable and predictable basis – became linked to power, turning into accumulation). But matters little which of the two is the cause and which is the effect; what matters, at least for a practical model such as Filoponìa, is the formula for dismantling patriarchy. And this, in Filoponìa, is self-determination – including economic self-determination – at every level, from individuals to their organisations (associations, companies, States). 

 

Whereas, when it comes to democracy and ecology, the two models offer the same approach: participatory democracy (which, however, is much more developed in Democratic Confederalism) and degrowth (which, in Filoponìa, goes together with economic compensation: sacrifices for the environment, but in a society that offers economic serenity).

 

When you compare Filoponìa’s idea of “equal starting conditions for everyone” with the pursuit of social equality in Rojava, what similarities and differences stand out?

 

I would say they are different approaches to the same goal: I don’t see any differences; the filoponic approach puts equality among the pillars, whereas in Rojava it relates to the objectives.

 

Furthermore, the form of the proposition in Filoponìa is that of a model; that is, a framework – or a container – based on a single rule (or, at any rate, very few rules) that cannot be transgressed, and within which humanity moves freely (for example, there is real equality at every level, but there is no rule of dual presidency; or, in ecology, there are none of the specific prohibitions proposed by Degrowth): in Filoponìa, it is the shift of the limit from the economy to the environment, which is the natural limit. His motto, in fact, is a society free from the economy and an economy free from debt.

 

Turning to the six guiding principles in Rojava, women’s liberation (Jineolojî) and pluralistic coexistence are integral to the social serenity of the model; two examples: the self-determination income, which is equal in value for everyone (i.e. commensurate to the cost of living in each location), and remuneration for the quantitative aspect of work (i.e. hours worked) based on a universally equal hourly rate (i.e. with no distinction between tasks, locations, genders, etc.). 

 

We have already spoken of Democratic Confederalism, and we shall speak of it again. As for ecology, let us consider its role as the limit of society and the function of degrowth, which I have already mentioned. As for Socialism, the answer is more well-structured; Filoponìa is not socialist because it employs a market economy, albeit one that is disarmed by micro- and macroeconomic measures, ensuring that it can no longer be a tool for exploitation and power’s abuse. At the same time, it is socialist because it is based on equality.

 

Finally, with regard to social economy, based on cooperatives, Filoponìa – having initially emerged as an economic model – resolves at source the problem of exploitation and power’s abuse, as we have just seen. 

 

The fundamental characteristic, for example, is the abandonment – even at a conceptual level – of the investment: no capital is required (whether your own or borrowed); access to do enterprise is open, democratised (for technical details, please see the link below). In this way, the idea – which also at the base of Rojava economy – that every person plays an active economic role in society is established as a cornerstone.

 

What would you like to say when you consider especially the ecological and women’s freedom dimensions of this paradigm in relation to your concept of “ehumanism”?

 

As I mentioned earlier, participatory democracy is much more developed in Democratic Confederalism, and so is Öcalan’s entire theoretical framework.

Öcalan deserves immense credit for being one of the greatest thinkers in the History and in ehumanity – and, moreover, he is also the architect of this history; whereas I have merely attempted to write a sort of instruction manual for humanity (and I say this with sincere humility, aware of my limitations, particularly my cultural ones; at the same time with equally sincere pride, I am satisfied with Filoponìa).

 

Another difference lies in the target audience; Öcalan primarily to the Kurdish people, and I to to every people. The Kurdish people, because of their history but also because of Öcalan’s intellectual clarity, are very different from the Western people to whom I am referring: I am fortunate to have Kurdish friends and had the honour of meeting, albeit briefly, Şoreş Mardin and other fighters – both women and men, some wounded and some unharmed – and I wrote about them: all with joy in their faces, pride in their bodies and will in their minds: to continue working for revolution and freedom. Quite different from fakedepressed westerners. In contrast to Kurds, who are on a path of growth and self-awareness, humanity as a whole is, in my view, at one of its lowest ebb and seems so set back that it is struggling to recover.

 

This introduction serves to highlight that the ecological and women’s freedom dimensions in Rojava are already taking shape and are part of everyday life, thereby reinforcing these proposals as they develop.

 

Filoponic ehumanity, on the other hand, is a goal (rather, an expected consequence) to strive for; and we must do so in the knowledge that the new man cannot be constructed from the outside - that is, in a sense, imposed - but arises from personal growth; in other words, the model – in this case, the Philoponic model – creates the right conditions for humanity to evolve into ehumanity.

 

You define peace not as a goal but as a “cornerstone.” Is such a peace-based society possible in Rojava, which exists under the constant threat of conflict?

 

This is the lacerating dilemma of every Revolution; it is certainly possible to have a Revolution that is peaceful within itself, and democratic; nevertheless, when under constant threat, even the most noble Revolution is forced to be prepared for conflict. It is a dichotomous condition that creates a contradiction; but unfortunately, it is both necessary and imposed from outside, as it is imposed by the aggressor.   

 

Military and political attacks on Rojava have been interpreted by many as “an attempt to eliminate an alternative model.” Do you agree with this assessment?

 

Absolutely! Öcalan’s intellectual stature is such that it makes Rojava much more than just a virtuous community; it is a practice that sets an example and, as such, it is truly dangerous to the single-minded that governs the world. In the case of Rojava, this is an aggravating factor in addition to the normal state of geopolitics, which is so inflamed in the Middle East.

 

Do you think the current global system is opposed to alternative experiences like Rojava? If so, what is the main reason for this?

 

Strictly speaking, the answer is the same as to the previous question.  Going into a little more detail, I would highlight three aspects of Rojava, all of which represent a break with the present. Democratic Confederalism; because it goes far beyond being merely an alternative institutional framework, being also a cultural movement that stands in sharp contrast to the prevailing subjugation: this is the formation of the new man mentioned earlier, which is already taking shape in Rojava.

 

Peace, too, is bucking the trend; the laying down of arms, proposed by Öcalan and implemented by the PKK, is a practice that is now deemed unacceptable by those who fan the flames of war with all their might, inventing enemies, fabricating evidence, controlling the information, and launching massive attacks.

 

The third reason, which is just as important, is the dismantling of patriarchy brought about by Jineolojî. Similarly, Filoponia, too, due to its innovative investment structure based on self-determination (i.e. by eliminating the credit/debt system), goes against the grain and thus acts as an obstacle to the current system; and this is despite the fact that it is a positive rather than an oppositional model.

 

Today, an integration process between Rojava and the Syrian state is being discussed. If you have had the opportunity to observe this process, what would you like to say about it? Is this process the absorption of an alternative model into the system, or an opportunity for the transformation of the system?

 

I am not familiar with the details of the current discussion; but, based on the work I am currently doing for Filoponìa, I believe it must involve the absorption of an alternative model into the system. The Rojava proposal is too radical to immediately become an opportunity for the transforming of the system: even in the rest of Syria the obstacle of the absence of the new man would also be present.

 

This may be a gradual process which, in order to succeed, will require guarantees from the Syrian state regarding the stability, peace and integrity – including economic integrity – of Rojava; and which call for Öcalan’s release, not only for the many reasons we are all aware of, but also as a symbolic act of recognition of the Rojava model.

 

If this integration takes place while preserving Rojava’s democratic and social achievements, what kind of model could this create for Syria?

 

It would serve as a very important model, and not just for Syria.

 

We have seen the implications, albeit only briefly. I believe that the key issue is how it is communicated and disseminated, which is a common feature of any alternative proposal. There is no doubt that being part of a state entity – and thus officially recognised by the international community – would be very important and useful: to move from a cultural dimension – however global it may be – to an institutional one; a step forward, not in terms of theoretical development or practical optimisation (experimenting with the model is the aspect Filoponìa is seeking to resolve), but rather in the official recognition of its existence and, consequently, of the results achieved.  

 

From a broader perspective, what do you think is the potential of such a model to spread or inspire across the Middle East?

 

I shall begin by reiterating the positive nature of the Rojava model, which is rooted in ehumanity – the very condition necessary for it to be both spread and inspire. Serving as a source of inspiration, at least in cultural terms, it is already a reality, and global. Its potential for spread is also global, but in practice it is subject to the question of the new man, hard to find and, in the Middle East, perhaps even more rare (but this is just my own personal, Western impression, based only on the information that reaches me).

 

Democratic Confederalism is designed to bring about a new man but, if it were to spread beyond Rojava, I imagine the process would be a long one: in Filoponìa, I speak of a few generations, even though the beginning is instantaneous. Added to this is the resistance that the current system will undoubtedly put up.

 

How do you see the relationship between the global transformation proposed by Filoponìa and local experiences such as Rojava? Can local experiences be the starting point of global change?

 

As for the relationship between Filoponìa and Rojava, I do not believe it is a matter of local experience and global transformation; both share the goal of a new humanity, what I call ehumanity. In this sense, the relationship can be one of integration, of cooperation: that is what I hope for.

 

I believe, in fact, that the similarities far outweigh the differences: whilst Democratic Confederalism is more advanced than Filoponìa in the practice of democracy (Filoponìa is intended to be realised here and now, and is therefore tailored to a humanity that is still far from ehumanity), the filoponic economic system is more radical in terms of self-determination.

 

Certainly, Öcalan’s analysis, with which I agree, has inspired me but also prompted me to make some changes; I am referring, for example, to the concept of the state, which I refined following the international conference held in Rome in April 2025, whilst at the same time incorporating a function of oversight over the state into the tasks of participatory democracy.

 

In short, I believe that cooperation between the two models is both feasible and desirable. As for the possibility that local initiatives in general could serve as a starting point for global change, my honest answer is: I am sceptical.

 

It is a topic I discuss in Filoponìa, where I describe them as ineffective. If, however, I shift from the general to the specific case of the Rojava experience, viewed from a filoponic perspective, the argument is turned on its head: for global filoponic change, I place my trust in social deliberation, a field in which Democratic Confederalism is master.

 

In conclusion, I encourage cooperation and believe that the local experience in Rojava can serve as a starting point for global change.

 

MA / Hivda Celebi