Among ''evil demons''. Dark thoughts..

 

Among ''evil demons''. Dark thoughts (1).

---

a.

When you are confronted with two opposing ''diabolical'' world powers, the leftists call them "global imperialist / capitalist poles", you may think that you are already in the middle, in an oppressed but intermediate "space".

Do you think, then, that it is enough to exercise an active extension of this ontological position of yours in the "neutral middle".

I think that most anarchists and Marxists think that this is the case, so I think they think that it is enough to intensify a difficult but real ontological quality which actually means the "placement" of the social subjects whom want to represent in a burdensome but really real "intermediary" position within an ontological structure of the world classsociety.

But although every people, whatever that term means, generally (as a working majority) is "trapped" in intra-sovereign intracapitalist dipoles (imperialist dipoles are not limited to the states of the world), none of them "holds" a burdensome but really "intermediate" ontological class position, which would simply suffice to intensify, thus turning it into a revolutionary dynamic position of negative-positivetranscendence of all the dipoles that "surround" it (as an ontological class position).

Every people, or every working class, is in a cage that is structured in an asymmetric, unequal way, under unique conditions but also according to the specific position of each capitalist social formation (in which it is "integrated") in the world form of power. .

Thus the unequal and complex anisomeric development of world capitalism corresponds to an even greater complexity of the position of the subordinate classes.

But it is not only the national-state national-capitalist dimension of this heterogeneous position of the capitalists but also of the workers / petty bourgeoisie that determines the type and degree of the alienation and cage complexity of the position of the subordinate social classes.

The world hegemonic structure, as it is usually formed as a competing dipole, plays an active role in complexity of the cage of these subordinate classes.

Capitalism permeates and overdeterminate the subordinate social classes by constructing them as internal structural elements of the asymmetry of the world hegemonic system.

Everyday people do not integrate into the world hegemonic game exclusively in the "ideological" way, as if a falsification of their conscience was enough to accept their place in this alienation game.

The structural asymmetry of the wage labor system over-determinate them in an objective way, objectively.

b.

Otherwise is determinated our class position as subordinates peroples depending on whether we are at the core of a global imperialist pole, or whether we are at the geostrategic boundaries of that pole, or outside all poles (albeit in relation and interaction and dependence on one of them), differently is determinated our class position according to the special structural substance of the respective world hegemonic pole (if it is "finalstructured" like the wider western pole or if it is ''emerging'' like the new eastern pole).

c.

Our non-position in a metaphysical / ontological de facto neutral "intermediate" creates "against us" a number of problems in terms of our true unity, if we belong to the oppressed social classes,

since each working class separately according to the pole in which it is integrated must to face a really different opponent, as "own" opponent.

The "differentiation" that we see emerging as a problem of misunderstanding between movements operating elsewhere in the world, actually means (as a problem) the reflection of this different objective ''position of classwar'' within this already formed sovereign "world space".

The enemy of our enemy is objectively ''our friend'', but that means that we may ultimately have as ''friends'' the enemies of people who belong to the same world social class like us.

These ''our friends'' are their direct class enemies.

It is not an ideological problem, "alienation", but it is a problem of tactics, and tactic as we know it are already strategic dimension.

 

 

-----

 

 

Among ''evil demons''. Dark thoughts (2).

---

Let me get into the more subjective, therefore awkward, part of this post.

As I said, I believe that no objective-ontological "position" of the movements of the oppressed "places" them in a de facto neutral position towards all hegemony-imperialism, etc.

Being in the bowels of your immediate class enemy you objectively ally with the enemy of this enemy, even in the sense that you can take up arms from that enemy of your enemy.

But this enemy of your enemy, most of the time, is also an abysmal oppressor who has an another oppressed person in his bowels.

There is not a single Marxist, anarchist, democrat, who could prove to me that I am wrong.

Even the most careful ideologues of absolute class purity hide behind this false purity an easily identifiable one-sidedness that means one of their real alliances with an enemy of their enemy (that enemy, which is for them considered as the most immediate and formidable enemy).

This mere thought of the terrible situation, which is formally understood as "tactics", could lead you to complete detachment from any version of radical politics.

What conscious and morall person would want to be involved in such stories?

If radical politics is also a cynical, "dirty" affair, why waste one 's only life, to experience the same frustration one always feels when a love, an ideal, turns out to be "one of the same situations" ?

Returning to a strictly defined self-interested "self" is inevitable through such a fearless reflection of the situation.

People become frustrated, revert to a narrower understanding of things, and thus begin to care more about this individual, national, or other "self."

The subsequent invocations of those who remain in utopia, to restore the original "purity" sink into the void, and the only thing they may cause is a greater rage on the part of the deceived former (?) Radical.

My purpose is not to justify and applaud such a reflection, but to remain in the radical thought / action without providing any facilitation to the moralist and ideological concealment of our antinomies, as most radicals do, colliding with each other, in the middle, about who is the "cleaner" and "purer" person.

So let them accept that they are talking, as much as they want, with the dirtiest person of them all.

Critique of the pure radical theorem, on the part of historical rust and one-sidedness.

---

So what's the problem?

For me the problem is the conscious recognition and the clear theoretical acceptance that the varied and numerous radical movements are not only different, but may in addition have direct tactical contradictions and antinomies between them, but in the sense that the ''tactical'' is ''strategy'' and not just a subordinate "lower" part of it.

These contradictions arise from the divergence of popular and workers' interests in proportion to their "point" of residence in an ever-bipolar and fragmented hegemonic imperialist framework (world imperialist poles), which incorporates these special interests with its over-determination.

The opportunities presented, by reality itself, for overcoming this over-determination are rare, valuable and usually unknown to their subjective actors.

For example, while all movements, east and west, north and south, are obliged to follow the rule "alliance with the enemy of our enemy", the movement in Iran has a unique opportunity not to follow this ("geopolitical") rule, for objective structural reasons and not because the Iranian communists, democrats, leftists, etc. are better people (they are great guys anyway), but because that is how the objective structures ''around them'' "speak" to them.

----

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος