A brief and necessarily inadequate summary of another position of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) (Stalinist Commounists of Greece) on the Ukrainian issue (via the party newspaper "Rizospastis"), or:
---
The KKE strongly condemns the (Zuganov's) "communist" party of Russian Federation.
It considers that this party follows the interests of Russian capitalism like a tail, which is why it uses the term "Russian world" which is the chauvinist ideological legitimizing context of Russian intervention.
However, when the KKE thus judges the position of Zuganov's party, it "reveals" on the one hand the "economic-capitalist" aspect of Russian imperialist policy (referring to the wealth-producing sources of Ukraine, as a target of the Russian capitalists) but on the other hand it says NOTHING about the racist colonial content of this ideology (of the "Russian world"), thus limiting it in this way only to a narrow notion of (ideologization) the "capitalist interest".
A narrow pseudo-Marxist reductionist economic materialism, which, in addition to being used as an element of an anti-dialectical "Marxism", serves very well to hide the naked truth of racist fascist Russian-imperialist violence.
Following this dubious incomplete "critique" reminiscent of Stalinist kindergarten Marxism, follows emetic quotes from pro-Stalinist revisionist lies about Stalinist violence, about the Stalinist state Soviet genocides.
With a crescendo of hypocritical "accusation" against Zuganov's Stalinist-fascist party, considers this Stalinist-fascist formation as incapable or even reluctant to truly "defend" Stalinist ideology, because it does not make (Zuganov's party) an ideological attack on the Ukrainian state, which has established an official institutional recognition of genocide (mainly) of Ukrainians farmers.
The KKE denies the genocide of the peasants (mainly the Ukrainian peasants) by the Stalinists and their state, considers it a lie, which ''is spread by the fascists'', that is, those who are not Stalinist liars and defenders of the mass murderers and of the anti-workers' inhuman state of Stalin.
The KKE even remembers Solzhenitsyn, to make another version of an ideological narrative, with the aim of acquitting Stalin again and his state and the pseudo-communist thugs and murderers who served him.
The KKE confuses things, blurs the atmosphere, in order to serve the timeless purpose of Stalinist propaganda, which is to cover up mass crimes and slander the "enemy's".
----
Revolutionary culture for ''us'' is not "like" the "national culture", with its flags and memorials, its symbols and its flags.
That's what I thought, and I still think, that's why I fuck your symbols and flags, your memories, you, few and fatal ideologues of the revolution of memories and "glorious historical moments".
Written ''marxism'' in "Name", who is and who is not a communist, who is and who is not a Marxist communist, questions of ideological corpses of an idea that existed to really destroy all the flags and all the big Names, in one life will be for everyone without exception, in one life nondistributed.
----
The self-determination of a population that is (necessarily, in the capitalist conditions we live in) delimited "locally", does not have to be produced with nationally, patrioticall or nationalisticall understand (or selfdefinition).
The result of a colonial national oppression, an imperialist intervention, can be a hetero-determinated defensive nationalism, and this creates boundaries and constraints on an internationalist non-national ideological and political movement, but these boundaries can not be exceeded through the similation of the conqueror with the conquered.
The similation of the -in occasion sometimes- oppressed with the oppressive "nation" is not an internationalism of the poor and the proletarians but (is) an "internationalism" of the oppressive that it supports, sometimes with good intentions, the great nation the conquering nation, the oppressive nation.
In order to overcome defensive nationalism, at the same time or (more realistically) first we must radically fight the nationalism of the dominant nations.
In this truly revolutionary dialectic there are dangers, limits, restrictions, that we should be concerned about, so that we do not in any case even integrate into a defensive nationalism, but such dangers are faced when one assumes the responsibility to treat them as element of the struggle, and not with look from a distance as a passive judge and transcendental observer from the point of view of the ideal and untouched ideologist.
----
To Iranian friends (maybe even comrades).
You live in the same dilemma that we, the Greek proletarians, live in.
Between two poles of power and filth, between the imperialist west and the imperialist east, we are nailed to the rock, like Prometheus, hating both, one pole more than the other pole, both together -the same.
We must dispel this dichotomy, not through "national" or "religious-cultural" self-determinations, but with the hammer and the pen, with the internationalization of the daily people of toil.
Let even this distinction cease to exist.
West, east, what is this thing means?
A prison, with two windows in the gap, east and west, while there should be no prison, no NATO and a "new east".
Shit all, both windows show nothing else but prison, the grave, resonate the chains of our lives as they crawl with us.
Perhaps, it is your responsibility to break this impasse, and for the echoes of this breaking of the chains to reach Athens and Istanbul.
-----
The historically transient dexterity of the "neutral" though anti-Western strategy of the Khomeinists reaches the historical limits of its effectiveness, both in relation to the national capitalist interests it served, and in relation to the authoritarian hegemonical integration of the Iranian working peoples.
In any case, the Iranian national-theocratic capitalist strategy of equal distances between the "West" and Russia (then the Soviet Union was in place of Russia) has reversed itself with the shy accession the Iran in the newly emerging "eastern imperialist pole".
We know that there has been some tendency to criticize this accession -within the nationalist elite of the regime, mainly through the Ahmadinejad, but what ultimately prevailed as a strategic decision within the national-theocratic capitalist elite was to form a deeper alliance with the new pole.
Given the emerging global crisis, this nationalist strategy is increasingly manifesting itself in the popular public as radically ineffective in meeting its basic needs.
The intra-contradictions within the ruling wing of the Iranian bourgeoisie and the bureaucratic authoritarian state are sharpening because the khomeinist strategy itself is losing the last elements of its historically transient dexterity and effectiveness.
----
The uprisings in Iran have as their main focus bread, literally and
symbolically (for those who don't know, bread and all products with
flour as a component, is a key elements in the material reproduction of
the life of the Middle East working class).
The uprisings in Iran have a strong, so to speak, Marxist framework, because they are related to the powerful working class of Iran, an industrial capitalist society that is both objectively and subjectively the flagship of all revolutionary processes in West Asia (Middle East).
The uprisings in Iran have a strong, so to speak, Marxist framework, because they are related to the powerful working class of Iran, an industrial capitalist society that is both objectively and subjectively the flagship of all revolutionary processes in West Asia (Middle East).
----
For those who have waged an ideological struggle against anti-Semitism
and extreme fundamentalist fascist anti-Zionism (not every anti-Zionism
is a cover for anti-Semitism, but there is also fundamentalist fascist
anti-Zionism), for those who have -in any case- defended the right to
Jewish self-determination, the shameful attack of the far-right racist
state of Israel on a funeral of one of its victims symbolically marks
the end of an entire era.
----
About the moralist metaphysical / ontological use of the term "imperialism" (1).
--
We have pointed out the problems that this term contains and creates in radical theory.
In summary, before we talk about its ontological use:
1. The imperialism of each ''individual'' Capital or State is examined on the basis of qualitative and quantitative indicators and parameters, and thus the organization of the imperialist phenomenon in its most comprehensive form is ''eliminated'' theoretically.
2. This has been the case until now because the development of all intra-imperialist / intra-capitalist rivalries took place starting from an informally defined "common" western geostrategic framework.
Precisely because the current seat of the start of intra-imperialist / intracapitalist rivalries is global and not only Western, but without being "multi-polar" since it is again "bipolar", it emerges with greater clarity what was of imperialist capitalism but also what was opaque:
The polarities of a predominantly "bipolar competition" may be limited to a broader unified imperialist pole ("West") but may break this intra-Western structural dichotomy as intra-Western and to they broading in a broader context, truly global in its ''inception'', which means the production of the competitive (imperialist-capitalist) bipolarity as bipolarity consisting of two poles that are now identified with the broader non-national-state framework mentioned at the ''beginning''.
This does not mean that the initial contradictions cease, where they eventually formed a (initially intra-Western) bipolar competitive framework, but (means) that they are integrated into a broader framework, becoming part of a global capitalist competition, that assimilate them in the -from the ''beginning''- global framework of bipolar competition.
Obvious: there are now two world poles-bases-beginnings of the imperialist determination of the capitalist phenomenon, which are now identified in their super-totality also with the very polarity of capitalist-imperialist competition (while in the first form of the phenomenon, this bipolarity it was broked the only polarity on which it was based [in WW1-2 ] but did not cancel it as unique super-pole.
The super-pole [in WW1-2] was "digest" the bipolar opposition as ''its'' "internal" contradiction)..
In addition to the summary we have presented to you, in the next section of our brief note, we will refer to the moralist-metaphysical-ontological use of the term "imperialism".
--
About the moralist metaphysical / ontological use of the term "imperialism" (2).
------
I have noticed that in the whole of the left, the debate over whether or not Ukraine has the right to an armed self-determination, so the question of whether or not the left should approve of Ukraine's national defense, is "answered" as "question" depending on the (supposedly analytical) attribution [-in reality] or not of a metaphysically implied "imperialist quality / ontological quality" to the actors of the whole ''system of war conflict".
Our meticulous, almost medieval, Marxists attribute this quality, even through the quality of "war by proxy", for to they decide in their sacred pseudo-Hegelian court whether a persecuted nation should receive their support or not.
First of all, I want to inform them that no matter what decision is made by their holy pseudo-Hegelian court, the Ukrainian people decided to defend themselves against the occupier, and in this decision they would receive help from both them and the United States and from the west, and from the Pope, but also from the aliens if they existed.
The fate of peoples, and therefore the crucial decisions they make, whether they are mono-national or multi-national peoples, is not determined by the metaphysical quests of some ideological priesthoods that think that through the performance (or non-performance) of negative properties, they could influence these radical critical decisions.
The Ukrainian people have decided to defend themselves, and this can not be changed if they have even indirectly the bad "imperialist ontological quality".
There have been two ways, and there are two ways, for the far-left sectarians and Moscow spokesmen to deny the right of the people to defend Ukraine.
We outlined, how emerged this pathetic atittude in a disgraceful way, with our description of the rendering of the "imperialist ontological quality" in the unfortunate Ukraine, through the categorization of it as warrier in a proxy war.
Ukraine is not "personally" imperialist, obviously, so what should a sectarian do for example who does not want to let it have this presumption of innocence according to the criteria of the holy Marxist (Leninist) theory? The sectarian theologian will "add" this "guilty" "imperialist ontological quality", declaring Ukraine as a warrior of a "war by proxy".
So here it is! The sectarian sacred examiner, who may be the secretary of the political office of the Hekmatist party, will shout, in coordination with his Stalinist "ideological opponents"! "Ukraine is also imperialist, not directly, indirectly! so this war is imperialist in all its dimensions and aspects! therefore? Peace! class and not defensive national anti-imperialist war! ''
How nice the sectarians are! like the theologians of the Middle Ages, and like the persecutors of the sacred examination, they can prove your guilt based on their own metaphysical criteria, even if you don't meet these criteria!
'' What do you want my man? We have decided that this war is exclusively imperialist, from the point of view of everything, so whatever you say we do not hear!"
But beyond all this frustration with Marxism or "Marxism", there is, after all, another, more crucial question for those of us who no longer belong to the Marxist or "Marxist" sect:
If even one country, one state, etc. does not "have" the imperialist "ontological quality", why this "fact" makes it "potentially" "more innocent" than what it has it?
What scripture says that? In which Marxist Koran is this unproven Marxist truth written?
Serbia committed genocide in Bosnia, and it was not imperialist, and if the west had not stopped it, western imperialism (for its own reasons, okay), would also have carried out a complete ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Therefore? My Marxists, you are priests, mullahs, you are not materialists, at least ... most of you.
What I said, as a question, can be said again.
Even if it does not "have" a state, a country, etc. the imperialist "ontological quality", why this "fact" makes it "potentially" "more innocent" than that who does "have" it? Even if Russia is not imperialist, why does that make it "automatically" "more innocent" than a country that is imperialist?
The same question has many, and inverted expressions and versions, do the math yourself, Marxists, I'm bored.
The imperialist "ontological quality" if it exists, as long as it exists, is not an exclusive indicator and parameter for us to decide whether a country, a nation, etc. has the right of defense. Life, society, the class struggle, are complex, difficult things, for revolutionaries of the laboratory of one-dimensional theological "ideas".
The same question has many, and inverted expressions and versions, do the math yourself, Marxists, I'm bored.
The imperialist "ontological quality" if it exists, as long as it exists, is not an exclusive indicator and parameter for us to decide whether a country, a nation, etc. has the right of defense. Life, society, the class struggle, are complex, difficult things, for revolutionaries of the laboratory of one-dimensional theological "ideas".
--
-----------------
The Iranian dilemma, and some advices from a Nothing.
----
Tiring prologue
----
There is a Greek proverb that says: "Don't spring up where you are not sown".
It is obvious that I don't follow it, I spring up in ''foreign affairs'', and I entere houses uninvited, but forgive me, this is the fate of the philosophical unmodesty that I follow as an amateur philosopher.
Anyone who can not stand it, may not bother his senses with the strangeness of an uninvited.
As I saw, already annoyed people, mainly "compatriots" and "like-minded", hurried to leave, and I call on those who think this way and belong to these categories, to do so, because neither for "our" homeland no longer I care, not even for the supposed "common ideology".
I learned from my insignificant life that you must necessarily judge "inside", but also freely "outside", of these self-identifications.
So let's move on.
I want to be the awkward advisor to "species" of leftists around the world who meet my own criteria of strangeness, such as Ukrainians, Kurds, Iranians and the Iraqi leftists.
This desire of mine is not going to be answered, nor do I give it any weight in terms of its objective value, I just want to it because I have a habit of wanting to warn people who have similarities with my, and I believe are in danger from danger of innocence.
After these tedious clarifications, I will warn, rather uselessly, the left-wing Iranians of a danger that they underestimate as trapped persons from theoretical constructs of "Marxism."
----
Straight advice
---
The (aspiring) Shah, dear ones, has gained intelligence, he has developed his political plan, without changing the deepest essence of the strategy of the neo-Iranian monarchy.
Don't expect him to want to repeat his father's absolute rigid power.
The monarchists' plan is a "Bonapartistically" Shah-controlled reigning bourgeois parliamentary and secularized democracy, with a clear pro-Western geopolitical orientation and the re-establishment of Iran's once-deep-alliance with the state of Israel.
This plan is a coherent political plan, which can find support both in the popular masses and in the ruling class and in the ''Aryan''-Iranian extreme right and in the liberal center-right and in the center.
Its potential strength and success, will stem from the very structural nature of the "geopolitical dilemma" of modern Iran.
You will say, this is a capitalist dilemma, and you will be right, but partly right, because there is a chance that you will find yourself as left-wing revolutionaries in a relatively different but also relatively similar dilemma, in terms of your strategy towards the now more clearly formed two world powers poles.
Don't make ideological leaps into the void, see in the final analysis what your dear Lenin did, on similar occasions, when power had now passed into the hands of his party.
If you do not propose a coherent clear realistic geostrategic plan from the point of view of a workers' social power, in Iran and not in the metaphysical Beyond, then "grooms" of power like the (aspiring) Shah will fill the gap with Bonapartism.
And just as the Islamist nationalists filled the gap Bonapartistically at a time when the people of Iran were "thirsty" for anti-imperialist national sovereignty, so the old pro-Western pro-monarchists through their leader will Bonapartistically fill the gap for the iranian peoples who "thirst" for a specific realistic and weighted political plan for their integration into progressive humanity.
Don't be in the same position, "from the reverse start".
I said a lot, and I may be misunderstood. But it does not matter, who am I? The Nothing.
----
The asymmetric dynamics of capitalism and the modern state and the term "imperialism".
Based on the generalities I said in the first part of the post, I raise some issues, which I consider to be critical for the life of the democratic and anti-capitalist anti-state movements.
-
a.
If the phenomenon of "expansionism" exists from the beginnings of the capitalist mode of production, and from the beginnings of the modern (Westphalian) state, then the revolutionary critique of capitalism can only mean a continuous and uniform one over time critique of any expansionism.
That is, if the structure of "expansionism" is an intrinsic element of the essence of Capital and the (modern) state, then any critique of Capital and the State is not essentially anti-capitalist, if it does not contain as an its essential element the critique of expansionism.
b.
Philosophical and dialectical clarification, related to the above (a) and the first part of the post (1).
We have said that capitalism (and the modern state) as the primary cause of expansionism "produces" this phenomenon (expansionism) as one of its "formatived existations", but this does not mean that it "produces" it as superstructure (if we think proportionally the term as used in Marxism) or as a extrinsic element of capitalism.
The structural "placement" of the phenomenon of expansionism in a field "produced" by its deepest structure of capitalism does not, however, make it (as a phenomenon) a emerging as extrinsic element.
Can the "expansionist" phenomenon be an ''more'' external structural element in relation to the "deeper" capitalistic structure (surplus value, wage labor, dominance of the commodity-money form of exchange value, etc.) , but it is not an "external" structural element.
It is "part" of the more general "deep" capitalist structure.
-----
Overcome at last this sectarian madness of the "Coalition against War".
Corbyn is not anti-Semitic, but damn me, he was and remains idiot, along with all his "extreme left" tails.
I also heard Varoufakis, this inflated bag that we know well in Greece what a liar he is, talking about a "NATO aggressiveness"* and talking only shyly about the bloody expansion of the Russian fascists.
I don't want such a left, it does not inspire confidence in me, especially by Corbyn's friend, Varoufakis.
Just because of Tsipras and Varoufakis, almost half a million Greek citizens (most workers and petty bourgeois) got a final "divorce" from the leftist ideas.
*Specifically, he spoke about the "warlike NATO".
In another interview, he said that the West should give Putin a "way out".
-------
As I have believed for years, Iran is the revolutionary volcano that is about to erupt.
The lava that will be poured from this volcano will reach the whole planet.
The lava that will be poured from this volcano will reach the whole planet.
----
To the Iranian and Kurdish comrades. Positions and questions.
Position 1.
Supporting a national struggle does not mean supporting the national capitalist-bourgeoisie.
The fact that a popular or communist movement can support an honest struggle supported by the national bourgeoisie does not mean the support of the national bourgeoisie.
The fact that the national bourgeoisie can lead this struggle does not mean that you support the national bourgeoisie, even if you have to enter into a dangerous and transient alliance with it.
The notion that opposing interests between two social classes prevent their partial identification is a sectarian and dogmatic notion that has been completely overthrown in World War II.
Not only is it justified to enter into an alliance with the national bourgeoisie of your country but also to enter into a national bourgeoisie of a foreign country if there is an anti-fascist struggle.
Tudeh's mistake was not that he believed that there was a national bourgeoisie but that he did not understand a) the negative balance of power for such an alliance and that it did not understand b) the reactionary ideological character of the theocratic elite leading the national struggle against foreign imperialism.
However, despite this mistake, the perception of those who denied the national struggle as justified and honest appeared when Iran was attacked by Iraq. Iran was right in its defense against the invaders and Saddam Hussein.
The reactionary Bonapartist leadership of the Iranian national struggle against the invaders tarnished this struggle but did not cancel it.
The Iranian people and the Iranian working class defended the country and turned a blind eye to the fact that the leadership of the struggle was reactionary, because the people chose their homeland that was right, they chose the least evil in the face of the greatest evil that would be its occupation of his homeland by the fascist army of Ba'athist terrorists.
The left was surprised, because the trophy of popular sacrifice and victory became the trophy of the theocrats, but neither the people nor the Iranian nation are to blame for this surprise, the left is to blame when it does not know the power of national consciousness in the working masses. .
When the nation is right the working people defend the nation, and endure the oppression of the national bourgeoisie if the national bourgeoisie leads the nation that is right.
The game of national leadership in Iran was lost for the Iranian left before it was conquered by the theocrats, but for this the responsibility in the nation and the meaning of the nation should not be sought.
---
Western imperialism, the United States, Israel, are in partial but real conflict with the capitalist theocratic regime in Iran. Iran is a key ally and member of the new Eastern imperialist pole, which is why it is being targeted by Western imperialists. The competition is between imperialists, and Iran as a key semi-active member of the emerging imperialist pole is taking part in this competition at the risk of its very existence as a nation state.
The West has a clear and insidious goal: to use the Iranian working class, but especially the oppressed (and colonized by the central nationalist-theocratic core of the Iranian nation-state) non-Persian ethnic groups, to disrupt the unity of the Iranian nation-state.
The West wants to divide the Iranian nation-state into separate and hostile ethnic groups.
The main responsibility for this danger lies with the theocratic capitalist regime itself, but this does not mean that the West has no bloodthirsty adventurous plans.
How does the iranian left view these strategic plans of the West?
The regime uses fear, it uses national danger, to terrorize the Iranian people, but does that mean there is no danger?
---
Position 2.
When the PKK launched an honest nationalist struggle in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, it was forced to form an alliance with Assad's Ba'athist regime in Syria.
I think this alliance was necessary, but it turned into a disaster when Assad was pressured by the Turkish state with the threat of war, at a time when there was no longer a Soviet Union to support it.
The entire structure of the PKK was liquidated and its leader wandered all over Europe until he was sold by his false allies, such as the Greek state.
He made a mistake in trusting the Greek left and the Greek state.
Not only did they not support him but they handed him over to the enemy, in exchange for a peace that stems from the fear of the Turkish state.
What is the lesson?
When you belong to a weak and oppressed nation, even if your nation has a state (the Kurds do not have that either) you are a game in the hands of stronger powers and your allies are made of straw, they can sell you in the bazaar the next day.
When you set up politico-military structures but also camps in the area of a foreign nation, and not just a nation state, do you have control over the policies you pursue?
What will be the consideration that this foreign nation-state will ask you for?
What will the strong protectors of this seemingly hospitable nation-state ask you for in return?
If this nation-state has an ethnic composition like your own nation, your own ethnicity, yet by what political and class forces is it controlled? are they independent of other foreign powers?
What projects do you participate in?
How will you mitigate the inevitable influence of the hosts? will you be able to control this influence? or will your autonomy slowly erode?
And if, however, you have agreed to suffer this influence, because you have accepted without admitting it or even to yourself to form an alliance with the host, then how will you cut yourself off from him if necessary? Will you be able then?
---
Position 3.
The winner of the battle was Fidel Castro and not Che Guevara. Fidel won the fight because he fought mainly on the familiar national battlefield.
When Che went to a foreign country alone, without having (above him) a leader created by that country, he lost. And this defeat was not only certain but also fast like a passing night, like a meaningless moment.
When the passionate but deeply rooted in the nation and its citizenship, the great Peruvian revolutionary Abimael Guzman, fought, for years, in an unequal and desperate struggle, he may have lost but was slow to lose, he could have won because he was fighting within the nation of, in his country. He did not ask for help from any other nation.
Help from foreign people makes sense when you have practical control over your affairs, even if you are a communist movement.
---
---
---
Νotes
Those who see the notion of the nation as synonymous with the national bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie in general have lost, are losing, and will lose all political battles.
---
What was created through capitalism will not necessarily go away with its destruction. The dialectic of the deniers of the concept of nation is not dialectical, it is a metaphysical denial.
---
Some people think that if they stick the word "capitalistic" in another word, they will defeat that other word. This is even considered a materialistic analysis, while reminiscent of a religious naming ceremony.
---
The concept of the nation sinks into a conservative self-reproduction if abandoned by democratic citizens and the left. Then our friends from the far left accuse this meaning of being synonymous with conservatism, not blaming themselves for abandoning it to conservative logic and practice.
---
By continuing to ''structure'' your political notions, you will not be able to defeat either the emerging ethnic nationalism of the oppressed ethnic groups in Iran or the nationalism of the sovereign Iranian capitalist nation-state.
I don't know of any ready-made solution, nor do the neo-left neo-anarchist theories provide a better solution than those provided by historical communism.
The only solution I can imagine is to orient oneself into direct empirical reality with an anti-theoretical attitude, as if one wants to look at things as dead ends, to the point of despair.
One would say that this is not a "dialectical" or scientific theory.
But would such an attitude be preferable if he wanted to at least understand the danger of the situation.
Even Marxism has come to be used as a sedative. Since "dialectic" means an "end" then our "dialectical" Marxist is simply looking to find the right medicine, as if it were in some sky of Platonic Ideas.
I don't intend to hurt anyone's Marxist faith, after all, how can you distinguish in so many Marxisms and factions who is the truest, the true Marxism?
This situation is of a theological nature.
I look at a foreign nation or two foreign nations from a far. I don't understand their language. With a little English and the translator I catch the meaning. And I see the same peace of mind, the same faith, the same delusions that I see in the struggling and passionate progressive people that nest in my own nation.
Most of them no longer want to wear the clothes of the nation, their nation, and in a sense they do well.
But at the same time that they refuse to wear this outfit, they speak and act as if they live in a private ethnic world.
You get lost in the labyrinth of their own stories, you get lost without the thread of Ariadne in their own national world.
The very ones who deny the nation and feel that it is drowning them like a poisoned garment, are the ones who live mainly in this garment, breathe the sky of their beloved homeland even if they live thousands of kilometers away from it, exiled and wounded, wronged and despised, persecuted and exiled by the angry state that rules it.
Their comrades from other nations, who are also enemies of chauvinism and primitive nationalism, listen to them, respect them, help them, but they cannot understand them, even if there are no translation problems.
At the critical moment, when there will be a great uprising in the homeland, they will leave the foreign country, and will run to help their people.
The comrades will be in solidarity, some few and courageous internationalists will follow them, but their battle will be theirs, it will be the battle for the homeland.
Tell me now. If so, then where does the "dialectic" go? Where is the guaranteed solution to the tragedy that has migrated for many years to the heroic people of Iran and the mountains of Kurdistan?
Is there a solution to this tragedy?
Is there a way out of this Iranian impasse?
Is there a way for the glorious but sometimes talkative dialectic to solve the riddle?
---
Dear Iranian and Kurdish comrades, I translate for you what the slogan I republish here says, which has been written repeatedly on all the walls of Athens:
"Let Greece die and let us live"
This slogan is a widespread slogan of the left and anarchist anti-capitalists in my country, and it means a complete renunciation of the concept of nation and homeland.
According to the extreme sectarian logic, this meaning («nation») belongs to the class enemies of the working class, belongs to the capitalist social class, to the state.
The consequence of extreme sectarian internationalism is this slogan.
In this slogan to see the consistency and completion of the ideas of renunciation of the nation.
Would you like to see in your homeland for example a slogan:
"Let Iran die and let us live"?
or
"Let the Kurdistan die so that we can live"?
And yet the new left in the West thinks that with such "logics" it is fighting fascism, nationalism and racism.
What do you say?
There will be sectarians who will refuse to "sign" this slogan, but I want you to know that I do not believe them.
In their minds they have the same cement.
They just hide and speak with a deceitful moderation, which the people of the bottom, the illiterate people understand, and understand the meaning.
I want to know, are you related to these sick ideas?
Because in the West the revolutionary left and post-feminism are flirting with such ideas.
Do you think they will respect your country?
Do you think that they will care if your homeland is torn to pieces for the benefit of imperialism?
Do you think that their flattery matters to you?
---
Dear comrades, my thoughts on your movement start from a distant place. We are brothers, all people are brothers but we remain strangers to each other.
I don't want to teach people who have given their lives for their people, and are risking their sweet lives.
Maybe my thoughts are on the wrong track. However, they are clear on some issues.
I unconditionally support your movement, I have defended your movement in Greece when almost no one said anything. When Khamenei's theocrats in 2018-2019 killed cold-blooded, protesters, I was a conduit informations for the horrific events when Greek society was silent or suspicious of the movement, when the ISIS-theocrats exterminated the Yezidis, I shouted almost alone in absolute silence. When the Iraqi state exterminated young people, I shouted almost alone in complete silence.
Believe what I said it was wrong, but my support is real.
I expect a lot from you, I expect you to change the whole landscape of the Middle East, I expect you to illuminate our mistakes, to correct us, to give us again the lost ideological courage, I can say a new revolutionary faith.
---
"Dr. Marx then brought up the report of the subcommittee, also a draft
of the address which had been drawn up for presentation to the people of
America congratulating them on their having re-elected Abraham Lincoln
as President.
The address is as follows and was unanimously agreed to..''
---
"A long discussion then took place as to the mode of presenting the address and the propriety of having a M.P. with the deputation; this was strongly opposed by many members, who said workingmen should rely on themselves and not seek for extraneous aid....''
The address is as follows and was unanimously agreed to..''
---
"A long discussion then took place as to the mode of presenting the address and the propriety of having a M.P. with the deputation; this was strongly opposed by many members, who said workingmen should rely on themselves and not seek for extraneous aid....''
Thinking autonomously?
Suppose someone made a joke, and put (falsely) Marx, our great father, to speak in favor of an equal distance between Lincoln and the Southern slave owners, because in this way we would ensure the pure class autonomy of the workers from all the wings of the exploiters.
So if one "played" with the minds of the numerous and usually super super super-Marxists, and presented them with a "neutral" Marx against all forms of exploiters, then how many Marxists would agree with this (non-existent) Marx ;
Unfortunately many, too many.
------
When the term "colonization" is used to describe a process related to
the emergence of the (capitalist) nation-state and its "internal"
process of domination over its peripherical "regions", this use is
retrospective and metaphorical-proportional , "a posteriori".
We must not forget to check the metaphorical / proportional use of a term, especially when it is done "retrospectively", from a (theoretical) ''later''.
We must always find better terms, without completely denying the value and usefulness of metaphorical and proportional forms of speech.
We must not forget to check the metaphorical / proportional use of a term, especially when it is done "retrospectively", from a (theoretical) ''later''.
We must always find better terms, without completely denying the value and usefulness of metaphorical and proportional forms of speech.
----
The Turkish fascist and theocrat Erdogan, stated through his loyal dog who pretends to be the "honorable foreign minister" of Turkey, that the Greek islands of the eastern Aegean were given to Greece through the Treaty of Lausanne provided they remain demilitarized.
In short, he raised the issue of sovereignty for Greek territories.
The question is not whether Greece is violating this term of the Lausanne agreement, which if it does is justified by the principle of self-defense which is as a principle superior to separate articles of a sovereignty agreement.
The point is that the Turkish fascist militarists theocrats, co-creators of ISIS, declare that the legal and just sovereignty of the Greek state over its territories is valid only under conditions that, if violated, lead to the abolition of the principle of sovereignty between state or non-state political entities.
What Erdogan is saying through his loyal dog, but essentially what the fascist Turkish state of the 3 genocides is saying, is that he is preparing a military operation to conquer Greek territory, which means, according to Putin-Erdogan standards, and other, deportations, ethnic cleansing, mass rapes, destruction of urban cultural infrastructure and more.
Erdogan and Turkish fascist dogs, announce war genocidal campaigns, with the well-known pretexts, and NATO licks their boots, the Islamists they lick their boots, the nationalists but also the "Muslim brothers" Palestinians and other forgetful ones they lick their boots.
Greece has every right to defend its self and to conclude anyone cynical politico-military alliances to defeate these monsters.
I am ''Greek nationalist''?
Fuck You Putin, Fuck You Erdogan, Fuck You Arab or Turk nationaltheocrat.
----
Welcome to the jungle of Eastern Mediterranean and Middle Eastern contradictions.
We are not going to fall into the ideological trap, like the Kurds, the Ukrainians and other romantic internationalists leftists, who are still waiting for the west, and in fact the "left" west, to understand the elementary, the obvious, the blatant.
Nor does "brotherhood" to the neighboring people who continue to submit to those who foretell your murder have any sacred meaning for us who don't believe in religions, transcendental values, prophets, and other nonsense about suckers or murderers they need ideological, theological and other pretexts.
----
The right thing to do is to show openly what you are and what your positions are.
For those who are looking for flattery for their alliances, I don't care. International politics is for unbelievers and cynical intelligent people who may leaving ''space'' for "values" after first speaking openly and acting openly about their alliances.
This open "cynicism" contains more morality than the slimy religious or ideological vagueness and hypocrisy.
Everything else is either for suckers or for hypocritical moralists and ideologues.
----
Why is the dissolution of the Russian Empire in the interest of the whole Greek people, both the workers / petty bourgeois and the bourgeois.
-
A precondition for the progress and development of Greek society, in any form (capitalist, socialist, etc.), is the overthrow and extermination of the Turkish state (in the past the overthrow of the Ottoman caliphate).
Why didn't this monster go to hell as it deserved since the 17th century?
Because the west "maintained" it to prevent the "descent" of the Russian empire into the ''warm waters'' of the eastern Mediterranean.
If barbaric authoritarian Russia did not have such capabilities, the West together with the neo-Greeks would have dismantled the Ottoman monster very early, and now as Greeks we would border on the Kurds, the Iranians, and the Arabs, by far the best neighbors, despite the fact that I don't idealize them either.
Only to stop imperial Russia, and then the pseudo-socialist Soviet Union, the West "inflated" and provided "medicine" to the Ottoman animals.
Because the Ottomans were from an early age a moral, political, economic and cultural corpse, the West knew, on the other hand, that it had to organize the inevitable self-destruction of this monster.
It maintained it, without illusions that it could continue to exist, to prevent the descent of the Russians and then the Soviets.
If the new Russia disintegrates as an empire, we will be the first to be redeemed, because then the West will have no reason to continue to favor this huge-shit, which today is called "Turkey". Then the Kurds will be redeemed, and the eastern Mediterranean Arabs will decide to become serious people again, and not stare ''where'' the Arab civilization was destroyed.
Dissolved Russian Empire, defeated Turkey, two interdependent events.
---
Wounded empires, they say, are surrounded, wronged, have raised the banner of decolonization, as would-be rapists declare themselves enemies of these that are already givens as rapists because ... they don't allow others to become rapists as well.
-
Words, concepts, mental structures of explanation as crystallized in central concepts, lose the possibility of a correct or appropriate (hence ethical) use once they are used malicious excessively and incorrectly.
It is not a shame to abandon them as structures, then.
-
One would say that it would suffice to highlight the context, and a critique of the artificial-or-dominant semantic texture of the appearance of its subjectivity.
This desperate attempt to "save" the Reason, through an elaborate critique of its patriarchal phallic incarnation, was considered (how funny!) an attempt to deconstruct it, but knowing that it is not even that, we will drink the bitter poison, that this effort just as an endeavor of salvation and self-salvation of the Reason, was crushed on the same rocks that the Reason was crushed, before there was mediation of this desperate effort.
----
The people of the Reason have turned even the fact of the crash of the peoples, but also of the Reason, into a self-evident appearance of the non-crash of the Reason, since it has something right to say about this as well.
We are told, in fact, that this ''Reason of the crash'' (also, of the Reason) .. is not a Reason.
Shut up my dear ''Reason''!
Can't you stop keep talking with fucking reasonable way always anyway?
---
The Hegelian endeavor for the last Logos-Reason, reminds me of my an aunt in my village.
---
The Hegelian effort for the last Logos-Reason, causes me a nervous laugh.
Are you saying, perhaps, this laughter is the last Word of the Word-Logos-Reason?
Perhaps, if after each Logos/Reason as its depiction, follows as part of a chord another nervous laugh.
Are you saying, perhaps, this laughter is the last Word of the Word-Logos-Reason?
Perhaps, if after each Logos/Reason as its depiction, follows as part of a chord another nervous laugh.
---
The jump of the tiger in the void has not as prey the silence, but a
heart that laughs like a bad child, like when (s)he was a child.
---
There is no understanding, knowledge, art or technique that could be considered superior to our spontaneous inclinations and impulses.
The world needs people who cultivate the whim and inclination they have within them (regardless of how they acquired it), until they reach to be an over-processed garden of wonderful one-sidedness and otherness.
The whole, the total "dialectic" is a state party bureaucratic shit.
Education usually destroys the inclinations of people who are children, and each of us employs a technique to bypass this rape called school, university, so that together with the many shit they give you to save the minimum quality core that exists in this pile of shit.
There is no intellectual, artist, technician, who has reached a peak, who has not developed a "technique" of escaping from public and private "education" institutions.
---
Syria, the critical mistake.
-
When the issue of Western intervention in Syria was raised, in support of the Syrian revolution against the Ba'athist regime of the Assad family and the dominant Alawite minority, there was a reaction from the dominant liberal and leftist circles in the west.
The result was the rise of ISIS, which was dealt with by the PKK after US assistance.
Let me remind you that until the US assistance to the PKK, ISIS had invaded and occupied almost 2/3 of the Kobani, despite the heroic resistance of the Syrian PKK.
If the West had intervened earlier and helped the FSA in the war against the Ba'athists, what would have happened? the worst that could happen would be the prevalence of an Islamic democracy, much milder than the Iranian one, and the best that could happen would be the Tunisian scenario, where despite the problems there is a relative prevalence of some liberal democratic institutions.
Let us consider the influence of fascist Turkey somewhat as given to the whole formation, but this would be somewhat limited, while now Turkey has "colonized" a large part of the Syrian opposition, through the Islamist militias, and we know its infamous role in the emergence of ISIS.
In any case, the Western intervention and the extermination of the Ba'athist regime, the support of the Syrian opposition and the PKK, would bring better results, and the Syrian people would not be destroyed.
Liberal dogmatism, left-wing dogmatism, but also the emerging far-right Trump-type conservatism, destroyed Syria, and gave a big boost to Russian expansionism to spread its wings in global level.
For all these there are deeper causes, which we do not analyze now.
However, the game of "replacement" of Western and American imperialism has turned into a grotesque thriller, and not into something "more positive" as the left-wing clowns of Western post-colonial studies and politics may still fantasize.
We have to look at things again, and I don't see any deep intention.
However, through a first "reading", I have to say that based on the Syrian experience, the Kurdish experience, the Iranian experience, the "Syrian mistake" seems to be the first big fire of a new hell which still we don't know in all its extent and danger.
I would like to inform my leftist friends that many of the cauldrons of this hell (not all of course) are made by their own ideology.
----
Iranian people, break the global chains of Prometheus.
Only you can.
Only you can.
-
I don't rule out Western or Russian-Chinese imperialist intervention in
Iran when the inevitable social revolution breaks out, but I believe
that there are objective structural conditions so that this social
revolution does not have to rely on one or the other global imperialist
pole.
Forward Iranian people!
Forward Iranian working class!
Forward Iranian people!
Forward Iranian working class!
-----
-New rooms opened in hell, new guilts and new culprits.
-Why are you saying that; Nothing has changed.
-When the error is doubled and tripled, then is done this.
The unrepentants, my friend.
-Why are you saying that; Nothing has changed.
-When the error is doubled and tripled, then is done this.
The unrepentants, my friend.
----
A pseudo-pro-eastern western asshole, he cares about the cultural anti-westerncentrism, but he can not understand, he can not feel a single note from an Iranian classical song.
You fucking western assholes, fake friend of the east.
Stay you in the Beatles forever, and listen to a little fake Indian sound, as an echo, show solidarity from afar, do your Marxist teaching, your anti-imperialist teaching, to people who live every day with the fear of the gallows and the whip, watch a some incomprehensible confusing film of self-referential hypersensitivity, and leave us alone.
----
The post-colonial studies and policies of the new leftists and liberals of the West are an endeavor of an alternative Western colonialism.
Those paternalists, this type, who voluntarily adopt peoples from the east mainly, movements from the east, usually don't care about anything other than the self-affirmation of their paternalistic "alternative" western plan, which is also related to their own mental and ideological '' identity'' problem.
At critical moments, when people from some east ask for help, concrete help, against their "own" dynasties, the paternalistic "alternatives" of the west stand either neutrally (therefore in favor of the eastern tyrant of the eastern people) or in favor of the tyrant.
The few westerners (left-liberals) who show direct solidarity with these eastern people who are rebelling against a certain tyrant from the east, are waiting for the moment when they will show solidarity with another tyrant.
Their preference is usually for movements that collided with a previous tyrant, who then transform into a new tyrant.
The western liberal left and the western solidarity liberalism are Orwellians, in a multifaceted version of the Orwellian nightmare, where apart from the choice of "familiar" totalitarianism there is always the alternative choice of "unfamiliar" or potentional totalitarianism.
----
The repetition of an attachment to an illusion is manifested through the new reproduction of the illusion itself within a illusionary repetition of former illusion:
The Soviet Union was an illusion of socialism, and it was worshiped as socialism while it was socialism as long as I am the Caliph in Baghdad.
The new Russia of the rotten neo-Tsar, leader of an army of rapists and fascist gangs, bears the symbols of Soviet pseudo-communism, although it does not identify itself as "communistic". The leftists, deceived by the first ghost, by the first illusion, while they know that neo-Russia is not "communistic" (you don't need a mind to understand it), show a kindness to this ghost of the ghost (even wearing a old-fashioned "anti-imperialist neutrality"), because it preserves for them the fetishism of the first Soviet illusory ghost.
----
''A ghost wanders over the West, the ghost of ghosts...''
Pseudo-Baudrillard, the invisible
When you are subjected to an illusory reproduction and repetition of a
previous illusion, you reveal the true essence of this previous
illusion.
Not even in the first-previous form was you interested in the correlation of the linguistic image (that was the vehicle of illusion) with reality, since even when the linguistic image itself manifest itself openly as partially but essentially inconsistent with this reality, you continue to be enslaved in this illusion, so you can to continue be within in your favorite linguistic image.
(Putin is dressed in the hammer and sickle at the same time as he clearly states that he is anti-communist, but if he wears the symbolic communist clothes he becomes likable to the fetishists left, so, they were always fetishists).
Not even in the first-previous form was you interested in the correlation of the linguistic image (that was the vehicle of illusion) with reality, since even when the linguistic image itself manifest itself openly as partially but essentially inconsistent with this reality, you continue to be enslaved in this illusion, so you can to continue be within in your favorite linguistic image.
(Putin is dressed in the hammer and sickle at the same time as he clearly states that he is anti-communist, but if he wears the symbolic communist clothes he becomes likable to the fetishists left, so, they were always fetishists).
The skeletal ideological ghost says, "I am not communism but I will continue to wear the crown of King-communism".
One would expect that the leftists, hearing this naked but crowned king saying that he is not "communism", would decorate it with stones, pitch and feathers, but these (our vast majority) leftists don't do that, they like it, also the king, and they continue to worship his crown.
Well. I will not remain an idiot, nor in the manner of Dostoevsky, and I will say the following:
They always looked at the crown, not his body and clothes, so they knew, always knew, almost everyone except idiots like me, that the sign "communism" is a crown and only a crown.
Who cared about the body?
Someones, maybe something idiots like me.
----
Post-dialectical dialogue.
-
-The King is naked! It is not "communism" and he proudly states it!
-No, you are wrong, he wears the crown of "communism" in special glorious ceremonies. Maybe it is "communism" in depth? Hopefully, a crown always means something.
-What are you saying; Are you waiting for the crown to fall to understand that it had all this nothing to do with communism?
-And what do you think communism is?
-What; So is it a crown too? And the body? The Meaning? even clothes are something.
-You are anti-dialectical, we did not say that communism is an another crown, but if it exists even as a crown, it exists somewhat, as a trace.
- As we say, semi-pregnant?
-Again you are anti-dialectical, why the "semi-" impresses you? all nature and society are in transition, all are transitionals, so "semi-" can mean the essence sometimes.
- I declare surprised.
-With what;
- With my stupidity. In fact, this crown has interested and still interests you, the supreme symbol of power, for you the world is mainly a symbolic, but not a linguistic, game, and a war between central symbols.
----
The signifier?
---
Let us not forget that "initially" it was considered to be the sign of meaning, as its external correlative-differentiating essence.
The signifier is now defined as this whole or pseudo-wholeness, which ultimately constitutes the factor of active signification, so in a sense it is identified with the subject of signification.
This kind of "subjectivity" as long as it undertakes "within" the energy of (always) linguistic act of signification (which includes indirect linguistic elements) can only mean a loss of subjectivity as it be defined in the past as a transcendental mental or material-physical "self" or "I".
If all this is true (approximately ..), then every "separate" linguistic sign of the language - signifier (language as super-sign), can only be subject to the rule of arbitrariness, where however this arbitrariness it is abrogate in the general context of the signifier which is not arbitrary.
The formalistic arbitrariness of the linguistic sign actually means a fluidness of it as an element of a differentiating process "within" a more stable and almost metaphysicalized signifier-language.
When "some" linguistic signs are "raised" to the "height" of a centrallmeaningful "authority", they are supposed to derive their non-arbitrariness from the general (but specific in relation to them) framework of the categorical-linguistic structures.
The "-isms" of the modern age are defined presumably by their categorical meanings and not by their non-arbitrary endogenous meanings as "names".
The crown of each ideology, its name-sign, before referring to the ontological reality, refers to all these "transitional" categorical structures of the "idea-name".
The mondernity it defines these central linguistic signs of this type as empty linguistic signifiers, which are "filled" according to their special framing from other categorical linguistic-semantic structures (whether mondernity define this structure as an existing linguistic-social structure or makes it the regulatory framework of the language sign).
I intend to show that this is not the case with the central linguistic signs ..
The central linguistic "ideological" signs-crowns contain a special radioactive autonomy (allegorically speaking), about which I would like to talk.
----
The "first reaction" characterizes an individual, a movement, a subjectivity in general.
If this subjectivity manages to recognize a wrong "first reaction" it has not gone all the way to the necessary ideological and moral self-purification and repentance.
It has to dig deep inside itself, to see why the wrong "first reaction" was caused, and what is the deep-rooted structural problem that nestles inside.
If this subjectivity manages to recognize a wrong "first reaction" it has not gone all the way to the necessary ideological and moral self-purification and repentance.
It has to dig deep inside itself, to see why the wrong "first reaction" was caused, and what is the deep-rooted structural problem that nestles inside.
---
Turkey proposes the unacceptable claim that an international border demarcation treaty, such as the Lausanne Treaty, may include terms that, if violated, would call into question the borders and sovereignty of the country that violates one of them.
Even if we assume that Greece violates the term of this treaty that requires disarmament of the Greek islands of the eastern Aegean, this hypothetical fact does not mean the possibility of lifting its sovereignty over them.
These arguments of Turkey are arguments of barbaric hordes of the steppe of Genghis Khan's time, or they are reminiscent of Hitler or Putin's arguments in our time.
Greece "violated" this term of treaty due to the existence of an enormous turkish army on the west coast of Asia Minor, respecting the supreme international legal principle of the right of self-defense.
Even so, it does not lose the right of sovereignty over the Greek territories.
But beyond that, let's look at something else as well.
What is the position of the USA and the discusting country called Germany?
They keep an equal distance, especially Germany.
If my country is wronged again, do not expect it to remain in the western coalition.
We will leave then and go where we want.
--
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου