Rojava and Democratic Confederalism

I take a very pro-kurdish stance on this, as they have implemented what is essentially a Libertarian Mutualist system and managed to retain relative stability considering that Kurdistan is surrounded by war on all sides

Here's a few articles that serve as a good starting point:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Protection_Units

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Confederalism

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)

Step in the right direction

I know you didn't say they were. Casper did. And believe me I know. Ocalan is my daddy

No revolution is perfectly neat and tidy and 100% successful, but Rojava has had an unbelievable degree of success. This is especially true  when we consider the conditions and obstacles they are facing.

      For one, they are in the heart of the Middle East, most of which is an extremely deeply entrenched patriarchal culture. For another, they are in a country which is in utter economic devastation right now-- much of Syria (especially the biggest cities, like Damascus and Aleppo) has been virtually abandoned (with a huge fraction of Syria simply having to flee the country altogether), and the infrastructure has been ruined by Assad's bombing and the battles among Assad, FSA, ISIS, and others. Aside from the economic consequences, the revolution has been embattled by multiple aggressors-- primarily ISIS, but also opposition from the Turkish and Syrian states. Not to mention a serious lack of support from the US and Europe (in part at the behest of Turkish president  Erdogan, who insists that the US choose "us [the Turkish state] or them [the Rojavan Kurds]").

      Despite all of this, Rojava has not only succeeded in defending the bare minimal existence of the revolution, simply keeping it afloat, but they have managed to make massive strides towards eliminating patriarchy, capitalism, and ethnic/religious sectarianism, all while maintaining an anti-authoritarian ideology.

      Consider for a moment the atrocities, the repressions, and the failures that authoritarian leftists have blamed upon war and poor economic  circumstances. Consider the frequency with which their dictatorships have been justified by their absolute necessity in "defending the revolution." And then consider how uniformly they fail to actually create worker-controlled, socialist institutions, despite implementing this authoritarianism and centralization of power, at the cost of great human suffering.

      Now compare these many failings to how rapidly a functional stateless democracy was achieved in Rojava... Their success in defending the revolution without secret police, without gulags... The simultaneous military success in fighting off ISIS. The effectiveness of popular decision-making without Party discipline or an unaccountable Central Committee... The relative self-reliance during war-time without a state-run command economy. When you contrast the inputs and outputs of this revolution with vanguardist revolutions, you can't help but appreciate how remarkable the society they're building is, and how relatively little the cost. It should give us all cause to be that much more skeptical when the authoritarian left claims that dictatorship is the only way, and that the ends justify horrifying means.

      I think it's a bit of a moot point to argue about this. It's impossible to parse out all of the influences affecting a revolution like this. Obviously the primary influence has been stated as Bookchin's communalist take on anarchocommunism. But if your revolution is informed at all by Marx's critique of capitalism (as virtually any left-wing revolution is) then there is a Marxist influence that can't be denied. Once you get into anti-capitalist market systems, the lines between left market anarchism/mutualism, anarchosyndicalism, left Marxism, etc., start to get very blurry. In this case it is arguably transitional (if they are indeed communalist/anarchocommunist, then eliminating markets is another eventual goal), but I don't see the point in arguing whether this current phase is mutualist or left Marxist. They haven't actually called it either, and I think there's a significant amount of overlap and mutual influence among any and all of these libertarian left ideologies.

      I haven't seen tons of specific information available on their economy (if anyone can point me to some, I'd be very interested), but I get the impression that, at this point in time, they're basing their economic system more on pragmatism than on any purely ideological basis. They have been clear that they are anti-capitalist, but beyond that, I'm sure they are just trying to keep people working and the economy functioning while they make these major social changes. Trade has to be a wreck with Aleppo and Damascus abandoned or in ruins, ISIS to the southeast, and a hostile state to the north, so I assume the emphasis is on self-sufficiency and making sure the economy meets people's needs first and foremost. If either of you has evidence to suggest they are steering a purposefully mutualist or Marxist course, I'd definitely be interested to see it, but the only ideology I've ever heard them expound is communalism, which combines elements of Marxism, anarchism (which could include mutualism), and syndicalism. I do get the impression that the ultimate goal is on the communist side of the left anarchist spectrum, but I'm not sure exactly how they are organizing production at this point. My impression, from video footage within Rojava, is that they haven't eliminated markets or money (yet), but that is consistent with both mutualism and the Marxist idea of socialism as a transitional phase to communism.

This is true, but Ocalan himself is often thought of as a Post Marxist. From what I understand volume 1 of his manifesto, printed last October (not the Democratic Confederalism pamphlet) rehashes and modifies Engels's and Marx's work on Historical Materialism.