10 Points

 

Prologue..

 

I quote non-systematically the storm of reality, at all levels of its capitalist and state formation.
You will understand why this is inevitable.
----
In the midst of all that is "hit" us, the wretched Sultan of Istanbul reappeared.
It blackmails with a possible veto, to prevent Finland, Sweden from joining NATO, in order to obtain as exchange weaponsystems from the USA. He wants to use these weapons systems to upset the balance of power that has been achieved with the rearmament of the Greek bourgeois state.
The Islamo-fascist rat Erdogan also shows his usefulness to the Tsar.
I am not happy about this Greek-state rearmament, but tell me, why does the pseudo-sultan fascist want to maintain his superiority in his competition with the Greek bourgeois state?
He want to organize a kind of intervention against Greek islands, expelling their native Greek inhabitants.
This is what we have to face in Greece.
Every country on the borders of the new imperialist-capitalist east has to face similar threats and actions (like Ukraine today).
Would you describe me as a suspect as a Greek nationalist, if I said that I was worried about the tolerance shown by the Greek left but also for most of the world left, in the face of such non-Western fascist expansionist monsters?
I always have in mind what capitalism, western capitalism, NATO, etc. mean, in the final analysis I am a wage-earning worker, why should I think differently from the left?
I tell you why.
Because You are stupid.
Left of Vichy, left of Chamberlain, left of abstract internationalism in favor of the most powerfuls, as long as they are ''enemies of our enemy'', FUCK YOU...

 

-----

 

Point (1).

The honorable leader of the "left" opposition (2nd largest party in the Greek parliament) believes that the right-wing government has fallen into disarray, sending military aid (a few old East German tanks) to unfortunate Ukraine.

In fact, he stated that the right-wing government of Greece, with these -what are considered as- "extreme" actions, is turning Greece into an advanced outpost of the West. We are talking about obsolete tanks which will in fact be replaced by more modern German ones which will be provided by the German government (without, it is true, knowing other economic terms).

Mr. Tsipras, a former co-ruler of the far-right pro-Russian Kammenos, believes that Greece should have a flexible, not entirely pro-Western policy.

While one might agree with the "left" politician, from an a priori ideological or even "geopolitical" point of view, one might still wonder:

How does this heavy "left" gentleman mean the flexible foreign policy of a country like Greece, from a leftist point of view?

I guess he means that through a neutral and mild response to the Russian imperialists, the country could not be endangered by Turkish expansionist policy.

Tsipras and his peacekeeping staff, with the ideological and political help of the Greek Stalinists and sectarians who dominate the "wild base" of the social movement in Greece, opposed the rearmament of the Greek army with modern French planes and frigates, for "class" reasons but also because the left in general in Greece is against the Greek "bourgeois army" and "militarism", especially if "their" nationalism is oriented towards the western NATO alliance (as and it is).

To counter Turkish expansionism, the Greek leftists anarchist communists, etc. consider:

or a) that "Greek imperialism" is similar (perhaps worse) to Turkish imperialism,

or b) that it exists but will be dealt with through negotiations, diplomacy, love and flowers, but as we assumed above also with the licking of mother Russia, so that this friendly country mediates so that Turkey does not swallow us.

These people are stupid.

I wonder, can I call myself a leftist and be like-minded with such pro-Russians and sectarian idiots at the same time?

I don't live in the whole world at the same time, I live in Greece, and in Greece "left" and anti-capitalism is this stupid thing.

 

----

 

Point (2).

In order to understand more deeply what is wrong, about the naive neutrophilic attitude of the Western (and Latinamerican) left in the Ukrainian issue, I want to "remove" the reasons for interests, although there are such reasons, in many cases.

A capitalist left is "thinking" of an alternative national-state capitalism, so it has no problem sanctifying, for example, Iranian or Russian oil as holy anti-imperialist oil.

I don't want to dwell only on this (existing) dimension, because I am more interested in the left as an ideological psychosis, for which I don't see a quick cure.

The psychosis as I see it diffused in the social whole, is not a mental illness but a deeper existential passion, which even Lacanism can not adequately examine, I think. Lacanism and neo-Freudianism now have such an "internalengagement'' with the left, so that they should probably sit together in the bed of healing.

 

----

 

Point (3).

I wonder, with "our" philosopher.

Badiou has great depth. Heidegger in front of him is like as a simple essayist.

Likewise, Deleuze, and other profound sages of the new left, who read, suffered, searched deeply in all the texts, not content with the sacred Marxist texts.

We were inflated with pride that "we" also gave birth to such incomprehensible philosophical monsters.

But there comes a time when the monster speaks like a baby or like a teenager who likes repetitions, the primary and unaltered a priori thoughts, like the mummies of the Kremlin, once upon a time.

When the saint, guru, sage, deep-seated Badiou was asked about the Ukrainian issue, he stood for a while, like any wise cloud preparing another thunderbolt, and said, in a deeply contemplative voice:

(approximately, I will not quote, mercy comrades!)

It is like the First World War, when the exclusion of Germany from the imperialist booty, led to the war (he said more, more boring words, I get bored, ... I suffer, I can not bear to mention them in detail).

What the infantile, atavistic does reveal, to the sacred monster of our post-Lacanian anarcho-Stalinist-Trotskyist-delusional ideological Being?

That in order to think da-da "Being" the sectarian, today, must make an ideological-fundamentalist leap, over the Second World War.

Antifascist fronts? alliances with imperialists? national independence? Oh no! these distract us from the pure infinity, the infinite, the beyond all conditions pure, high, immaculate, sanctuary!

Digging under thousands of layers of heavy philosophy, you see the eternal pre-adolescent, the unrepentant neo-Platonic micro-Plato (nothing to do with Plotinus), wanting to remain forever embraced with the untouched Idea.

Is this the philosophical new left?

Convenient for any Putin invader.

I don't want this, baby.

But there is a good. He was not sold as a slave, and so he escaped suffering, because no one would be able to free him, like someone liberated the Plato.

 

----

 

 

Point (4)

Those who desire unity while ignoring the existing division, even if they build this ignorance by invoking a future unifying definition/determination, do not bring unity but a new division, which seems like unity for a comforting intermediate historical-time period.

 

-- 

Point (5)

As we have said before, there are countries where their very position within a global imperialist pole but within the internal-external limits of this pole, forces them as a whole (regardless of which social class dominates) to "play" with all possibilities.

In the event that Greece is abused by the other country on the western-eastern border, Turkey, it has every right to distance itself from the western imperialist camp, and to build strategic alliances elsewhere.

Some will say that I overlook the "class factor" and classdetermination the possible developments, but I answer:

The different versions of such a secessionism contain within themselves this different determination, but apart from the possibly different version of a general evolution of this type as we have described it, it does not remove the common element that exists in all versions.

Because I was asked by foreign friends and comrades about the fact that a strong Stalinist "tradition" has survived in Greece and there may also be a question about the existence of a strong left and far-right pro-Russianism, I would like to tell them to look at the dimension of possible (future) distance of this country from the "western camp", especially in case of a large-scale national defeat and destruction.

Then, the intertwined unconsciously intermingling factions of historical anti-Westernism, from the far right and the Theocrats to the radical left and the Stalinists, will unite their destructive power in a rampage against the pro-Western establishment.

Do you think that if, for example, Greece loses people, territory, receives wounded, abused refugees, from the then Turkish-occupied Greek islands, and the West does nothing or does little, the Greek people will continue to tolerate the country's integration at the western imperialist pole?

In no case.

The pro-Western "social contract" that Greek society has "signed", and that the vast majority of its working class has tacitly accepted, will then become dust.

Of course, there will be, especially then an abysmal struggle between the left and the extreme right over who will rule in the new non-western country, there will be "fermentation" in the Greek army, there will be "fermentation" in the Greek intellect, and above all there will be a strategic "fermentation" in the working class, in the midst of a complex though abysmal competition between the "grooms" of the young "bride", which, however, will not exclude indirect tactical forms of alliances against the western enemy ( because then the west, if it sells Greece, will immediately become an immediate enemy).

These things, of course, hide many complex mediations, which we will try to understand and predict, in their different versions.

 

----

 

 

 

Point (6)

Leaving one hegemonic imperial pole does not necessarily mean joining another, competitive against the previous one.

The "ideal" case is a revolutionary movement of the working class and its social allies, leading this process without entering into any alliance, even indirect, with the "enemy of the direct enemy" imperialism.

The non-openly pro-Russian Stalinists, as well as the left-wing, anarchists, of Greece, categorically deny any scenario of joining the "opposite" imperialist pole, but with the their narrative, especially as it appeared at the beginning and the continuation of Russia- Ukrainian war, they proved to every experienced and non-naive observer their deep intentions for an indirect alliance with the emerging imperialist east.

This narrative is not just hypocritical, is not hiding, as fanatical pro-Westerners say, a pure pro-Russianism pro-Chineseism.

Indeed, the Stalinists, but also others, even the most autonomous, the anarchists, seek a semi-independent relationship in a non-Western imperialist "space", even exerting a demolitionist critique of it in advance, in order to point out - define the future autonomy of their "local" left hegemony.

So it would be good, beyond our rhetorical wars, to see the complexity of the situation in the "anti-Westernism" of the left, anarchism and communism in Greece.

The Greek leftists, etc. know very well that the "eastern" pole is not going to give them all these exchanges that they would like in order for the country to leave the western-NATO camp safely, they know the danger of the Turkish-Russian alliance (although it would be convenient for them it break), as well as they know the dangers that come from the immediate alliance especially of Russia with the theocratic and fascist right of Greece.

But they will never close the door on Russia in particular, which is why they are anxious for Russia not to lose the war completely, they are anxious in favor a compromise at the expense of Ukraine, so that Russia remains always open and very promising (to the apostates) non-western imperialist country.

What they may not know yet, something that the far more irrational far-right and theocratic pro-Russians also not know, is that Russia would prefer a deeply defeated Greece, to adopt it, without being forced as a new "high protector" to "return" to it a lost territorial or maritime sovereignty.

Russia's goal is to keep its commitments to its allies more consistently than the West does, but first the (new) ally has to lost a significant part of its sovereign power (if it is unable to maintain it from alone).

 

----

 

 

Point (7)

 

Russian imperialism deceived, charmed, instrumentalized the majority of the world left.

The hegemony of the imperial powers does not apply to the whole world, it is limited to points within the field that "belongs" to them or at the borders of this field (which are not always defined as geographical, geopolitics is a one-sided and sometimes misleading representation of these limits, although it has as an empirical theory some important ontological foundations in reality).

So when there is competition between the empires, and no extensive direct war has broken out between them, the aggression of each and its expansion takes place either within the core of this "occupied" field, or at vague boundaries (boundaries are always, into a degree, vague) between one imperial ''agglomeration-home'' and another, or at a remote point of world territory that can not yet be defined as a boundary.

Thus, in the face of each imperial aggression and expansionism, we can not always maintain our own class and popular's neutrality towards imperialist-imperial aggression and expansionism as a whole.

There are cases, most of them, where the imperialist enemy is mainly the one and not the other imperialism.

When then, we put them all in the same political "box" in reality, either out of deep intent or out of ignorance, we favor the immediately appearing imperialism, who at that moment is the direct enemy- imperialism.

It is not wrong, in general, to criticize imperialism as a whole, since always -in addition- the other imperialism (not the one that attacks directly, at that stage-moment) is present, exerts political and military influence (we said that it does not we are talking about a world war), but if we exaggerate in this co-presentation of all imperialisms, then, as I said, we acquit and favor the immediate present imperialism, the one that is attacking at that moment.

I do not know if some have understood it, but they helped Russian imperialism as much as they could, even through their ideological nonsense and analytical incompetence.

 

----

 

 

Point (8)

I will quote Engels (from memory): The world is not determined by its unity but by its materiality.

Imperialism that oppresses you, has you in its "womb", is not always the imperialism itself that oppresses another people.

There is no "one" imperialism, there are many imperialisms.

But is not imperialism a single (today-)capitalist phenomenon?

Yes, it is, it is a single phenomenon which, however, exists as a single multiplicity of material social (capitalist-imperialist) beings and not as a single substance that is simply "expressed" in many external forms.

(Capitalist) imperialism, like capitalism itself as the deepest socio-ontological material determination of the present historical-social being, is not a one "One", which simply manifests itself in many external forms.

Its multiple appearances, its manifold morphological dimension, are part of its essential essence, and not external forms.

We are always talking about the most comprehensive form of competitive class societies, capitalism, the wage-labor system, and not about the classless society.

The sectarians, we when we think as idealistic Neoplatonic Marxists, theologically project the greater and deeper unity that the future classless societies will have as their material quality, in capitalism itself and capitalist imperialism.

 

----

 

Point (9)

 

When revolutionaries think as religious, theologians, they would like to make a revolution based on the foundations of an already united world, but in this way they forget their sacred atheistic goal, which is to unite through revolution the disintegrated divided world, that was handed from unjust class societies as a destructive legacy.

 

-----

 

 

Point (10)

Also in the ''east'' there are mass murderers, fascists, imperialists, who are sanctified by the leftists, wich disagreeing in their "inside" only about who is the "best" murderer.

-

Multiplicity as a determination of the capitalist imperialist mode of production, refers not only to the singularity of its respective "localizations", but to the historical-chronological, therefore structural asymmetry of the emerge of the general polarities that make it up.

The Westphalian nation-states that emerged as sovereign capitalist "units" emerged as such "within" a wider (so-called) Western imperialist polarity, which although torn apart by the contradictions between these "units" formed a wider intra-contrastic unity.

Now, in our time, we are not experiencing a transgression of this intra-contrastic monopoly of the western capitalist imperialist pole from a capitalist-imperialist multipolarity, instead we are experiencing the transgression of this mono-polarity from the emergence of a new bipolarity, through the emergence of the eastern imperialist pole.

The antagonisms between the sovereign western nation-states and the Capitals, however, within the relatively unified western uni-polarity while they do not cease or merge completely within this uni-polarity nor within someone wider multipolarity they acquire substance and are subject to the new, more general and global, competition that takes place mainly in the "competitive ground" of the conflict between the west capitalist-imperialist pole, which is relatively complete, and the emerging eastern pole.

The asynchrony and asymmetry of the historical-chronological appearance of the two poles, determines the special existence of each, forming a single but nevertheless fragmented existence of the capitalist-imperialist phenomenon.

The ideological catastrophe within post-colonial studies-and-politics is based on complete ignorance and complete immoral alienated disregard for the danger of the (self-victimized and sanctified by the "leftists") eastern (capitalist-imperialist) pole.

While in the east there is a primary accumulation of power and a special imperialism that historically corresponds to this process that took place in a similar way in the west at the general historical moment of the emergence of the Westphalian western nation-state and the (wider) westpole, the leftists sanctify the post-colonial self-victimized east murderers, sanctify this horrible process, since "we must not meet double standards" in the ''right'' to mass murder, homogenization, imperialist interventions.

 

------

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος