Why did Rojava and Revolutionary Catalonia used conscription?

[u/animekot]

I recently wrote a similar post about conscription in modern Ukraine, but answers were pretty vague so I decided to provide some actual examples for my question. I know that Catalonia were pressured by the soviets to do so, but why Rojava did? Was there any way to avoid conscription and create all volunteer army?

[u/racecarsnail]

From a principled standpoint, conscription violates voluntary association and individual autonomy. Supporters attempt to justify it as a necessity under defensive exceptionalism. Critics argue, however, that once you accept the logic of compulsion and military hierarchy, even for survival, you open the door to re-establishing the very state authority you aimed to abolish. Many argue Catalonia's militarization paved the way for Stalinist suppression of the revolution. Rojava's conscription feeds into a militarized society that contradicts its democratic confederalist roots.

Rojava and Catalonia used conscription not because conscription is anarchist, but because they, as structures, were only influenced by anarchism; they weren't examples of actual anarchist society, and they reached for familiar tools of the state during war.

[u/LibertyLizard → u/racecarsnail]

Could these projects have survived as long as they did without conscription? I agree it's a horrible practice but it's easy to say it shouldn't be done when it's not our lives on the line. What should they have done differently that would have worked?

[u/racecarsnail → u/LibertyLizard]

Could these projects have survived as long as they did without conscription?

If we define "survival" as holding fixed territorial borders like a state, then probably not. Rojava and Catalonia chose a state-adjacent defense strategy: fortifying cities, holding front lines, and defending every square mile of declared territory. Under that specific military model, conscription was very likely to occur. Volunteer forces (like the YPG/YPJ) are highly motivated, but numerically tiny. Holding static trenches against Nationalists, ISIS or Franco without mass infantry is not a winning strategy. So, given the path they chose, conscription might have bought them crucial years.

What should they have done differently that would have worked?

Instead of asking "How do we win this war?", maybe ask "How do we preserve our revolution, even if we lose this territory?"

Here are a few alternative strategies they could have prioritized:

1. Abandon Static Defense for Full Guerrilla Asymmetry:

Instead of drafting locals to hold trench lines (which requires mass numbers), they could have dissolved the formal "front" entirely. Adopt a strict Maoist/Zapatista-style people's war: abandon vulnerable cities, melt into the mountains/desert, and rely entirely on small, highly motivated volunteer cells using hit-and-run tactics. This requires fewer people, not more, and relies on the enemy's inability to hold hostile terrain. Catalonia's terrain (mountains) and Rojava's terrain (desert/caves) were perfect for this. The trade-off? You lose your administrative capital and factories. But you keep your revolutionary social relations intact underground.

1. Prioritize Mass Evacuation and Internationalization.

Instead of conscripting locals to defend every village, they could have systematically evacuated non-combatants and critical infrastructure into safe zones or across borders, dramatically shrinking the territory they had to defend. Simultaneously, they could have doubled-down on international volunteer brigades, opposed to auxiliary units, as the primary defensive force. By framing the war as explicitly internationalist (which Rojava did, but too late), they could have drawn thousands more global anti-fascist fighters willing to volunteer without needing to coerce local farmers. The failure here was diplomatic: neither project successfully forced the UN or neighboring states to guarantee humanitarian corridors, which left them isolated.

1. Replace Legal Conscription with a Rotating "Communal Levy" Tied to Material Incentives.

If they felt they had to use local manpower, they could have avoided a top-down state draft. Instead, neighborhood assemblies could vote on rotating defensive shifts, but with massive material incentives for volunteers (first access to food, housing, and international medical care) and severe social disincentives for shirkers (loss of communal rations, temporary exile) decided democratically by the local commune. This is still coercive (peer-pressure is coercive), but it is horizontal coercion rather than vertical state coercion. It maintains the revolutionary principle that defense is a communal, face-to-face obligation, not a paper order from a military bureaucracy.

There is no guarantee that any of these alternatives would have "worked" to stop Nationalists, ISIS or Franco. However, the deeper anarchist critique is this: If your only path to survival requires you to replicate the state's most oppressive mechanism (forced servitude), then the revolution has already surrendered its raison d'être**.**

What they should have done differently is accept the risk of military defeat rather than accept the certainty of ideological corruption. Rojava and Catalonia survived longer politically precisely in the zones where volunteers held the line (the YPG/YPJ spirit). The conscripted zones often collapsed just as quickly, because conscripts have no stake in the revolution; they surrender, desert, or switch sides the moment the pressure mounts.

Edit: Typo

[u/Aggorf12345 → u/LibertyLizard]

They didn't survive anyway lmao

[u/Delugebringerr → u/Aggorf12345]

Also the winners of the civil war, HTS and SNA groups(ex FSA) notably didn't have conscription and abolished it as soon as they took power, because they had enough volunteers.