Experimental texts about line.

Experimental texts about line (1). The "right-wing" version of the socialist transition. [Following in the experimental text (2), the "leftmost" version of the socialist transition].

Now, especially in this day and age, and from now on, there is something about the radical socialist libertarian movement, which has always been true, but in the past there were violations of it that had no immediate political consequences for the movement.

Now it has these effects.

What is this?

Democratic strategy is not only necessary for the proper replication and substantial success of any anti-capitalist effort, but is an immediate necessity for the very existence of radical socialism within the existing capitalist world.

That is, the anti-democratic, whether bureaucratic or sectarian (they seem more innocent, but they are not) ideological and practical logics, destroy this radical movement (for the ultimate prevaile of a classless society), by preventing it from even existing within of capitalism in mass and therefore essentially militant terms.

It is for me a huge, gigantic mistake what the whole of the radical intelligentsia is doing everywhere, that is, trying to go itself to some ideal direct-democratic or libertarian past, as a moment, a sperm, etc., because in this way it reproduces exactly those elements that were creating -through ellipticity them- this very impasse.

The reduction to this indeed containing positive elements but democratically elliptical ideological political practical past is unfortunately not done in a truly critical and self-critical way, which is evident by the aggressiveness of the way in which any attempt to critically reconstruct the leftist or anarchist past is made. More or less all this new effort is made in the warped light or half-light of the insubstantial incrimination of the class enemy, who is discovered to be harboring in the bowels of a class or anti-state consciousness which supposedly has failed to keep its virginal purity intact. .

This thing is not a democratic libertarian critique of an old self that also contained authoritarian anti-democratic elements, this thing is an anti-democratic critique of an old anti-democratic ''self'', that is, a critique that deftly eliminates some authoritarian elements of that ''self'' while simultaneously reinforcing some other, equally authoritarian ones .

A democratic path to a classless society does not mean a class compromise with sections of the bourgeoisie, but it means that:

1. This society cannot exist without the active free and voluntary agreement of the vast majority of the population of a country and the entire world people.

2. The democratic movement of working people which sets such a great goal cooperates fervently and openly but without class compromise with whatever section of the imperialist or non-imperialist ruling class or bourgeois liberal democratic elite stands for the democratic principle of majority rule with absolute respect of the minority and individual and minority rights.

3. All this cannot be ensured without general and free elections for the election of elected representatives.

The democratic exit from capitalism, without necessarily (on the contrary) meaning a peaceful exit, sounds like a utopia to the ears of today's leftists and anarchists.

Don't be fooled, some, even the neo-leftists who are sometimes enthroned in bourgeois government positions, listen to this request, this perspective, with the same suspicion, like a utopia, actually grumbling about some "negative correlations of forces", otherwise "I would show you ", they say, with a shining eye.

People cannot understand that a mass, therefore real exit from capitalism that does not mean another non-capitalist (or state-capitalist) statist monster, means one thing and one thing only:

A democratic road to socialism.

----

 

Experimental texts about line (2). The "leftmost" version of the socialist transition].

What I consider to be the only alternative "further left" strategy for achieving a classless society to the strategy of a radical democratic socialism (not to be confused, despite their "affinities", with the new left-wing social democratic democratic socialism) is the strategy of a Marxistically-fertilized anarcho-communism.

Here my heart likes it more, it burns, but I have to put the two alternatives in a equallity.

Let's see.

Who knows the great revolutionary strategist but full of passions and ultra-left contradictions Guy Debord?

It is worth reading his work, despite its various lunatic aspects, to see this strategy which also has lunatic but solid neo-Hegelian underpinnings, and marks the most vividly Marxist-inspired (self-evidently anti-Leninist) anarcho-communism of our time.

Let us stick to one of his proposals described in one of his brilliant phrases: "non-state dictatorship of the proletariat".

At another point, Guy Debord, with the cunning of a strategic ideological genius, had predicted, for he was certainly it tormented him, and probably worried, the reappearance of the concept-value and idea of democracy as a refuge for all the Stalinist and Trotskyist ruins when they will arrived to the historical wall that would crush their Bonapartist and dead-end adventurism.

It would be worth reading in his writings with what vitriolic irony he hurls this especially ideological prophecy, he was a real infernal revolutionary dragon spewing flames from his mouth.

I'm not flattering him, I'm a humble devil's advocate who wants to cause disruption to all vanguards, including the ''Situationistic'' anarcho-communist vanguard that he himself founded as a key appendage of revolutionary hell.

All power in the workers' councils and only in them, abolition of all territorial-ethnic and other divisions, absolute abolition of social hierarchies, re-appropriation of experienced creative time, abolition of wage labor but also of labor for free creative action, but, but, and here is the gist of his position: non-state dictatorship of the proletariat, exercising an immediate revolutionary destruction of any institution of mediation of the living forces by any representative or "political" institution including workers' "democracy".

Guy Debord is not a "democratist" by any means, and accepts the existence of a moment of absolute power of the working class (dictatorship of the proletariat) as long as it means the immediate, without delay, predominance of a non-state workers' communism and the abolition of any state or central-regional authoritarian institution of sovereignty.

This, yes, could be something that would not be related to some "democratic transition to socialism/communism" or the existence of a "workers' democracy", but I will do injustice to Guy Debord and the complex philosophical, artistic, revolutionary work of if I don't let you read it for yourself.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

Διόρθωση, ενδιαφέρουσας ψυχαναλυτικά, αβλεψίας.

Η εξέγερση στην Αθήνα έγινε το 2008 και όχι το 2018 όπως έγραψα.

Ευχαριστώ τον φίλο που το επισήμανε.

Ενδιαφέρον πάντως.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Bonapartism is like an onion-mirror..

Bonapartism is like an onion-mirror with many skins (or peels), which all left-wing Bonapartists see when it is the their "next" Bonapartism to replace the previous other, but do not see themselves as the previous Bonapartism.
Only the later leftist-marxist Bonapartists saw  some ''leftist-marxist selves'' as Bonapartists.
Leninist Bonapartism showed the Mensheviks their own bourgeois liberal second-internationalist Bonapartism, Stalinist Bonapartism showed the Trotskyist Bonapartists who were the real Leninists the adventurist Bonapartism of Leninism by replacing it with their own Stalinist Bonapartism, and the Maoists who were the real post-Stalinist Bonapartists they showed to the real continue of Stalinist Bonapartism who were the Khrushchev-Brezhnevists (Stalin after he gained a lot of weight and he's got a big fat belly) the their Stalinist Bonapartism.
In the end, a Yeltsin and a Gorbachev come and close the shop, because the onion of "Marxist" Bonapartism also has an end, capitalism itself without "socialist" names and a mafia-like private sector now formed..by bonapartistic way.
Sometimes this game with the mirror onion seems to me to exist from the first Marxist moment, from the moment of the big explosion called Marx, who, looking at Louis Bonaparte in the mirror of his historical dialectic, peeling the mirror onion of bourgeois revolutions as if he saw himself as continuing in a series of Bonapartist unfoldings of the "Marxist self."
--
For reasons of meticulous clarity, I note at the end that apart from Lenin who spoke with a similar example about Thermidor that the Mensheviks would bring (analogously something like a Bonapartist version of the revolution, which however referred to the conservative deviation brought about by the "Thermidorian" regime after the execution of Robespierre) about Bonapartism in relation to a socialist revolution literally only Trotsky spoke, while the Stalinists spoke about something similar about Trotskyism and their relations between each other with other related terms, such as left or right revisionism (the Maoists)..and other labyrinths.
The most classical terminology of the phenomenon (with two different, as we have seen, but similar historical-analogical versions are of Marx himself, Lenin and Trotsky).
--
Are you saying that Bakunin was right after all?
Probably, but he and ''his'' movement had other problems, of a different nature, which also have a similar quality to the Bonapartist phenomenon.
 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Δεκέμβριος, μη-επετειακό..

Τιμώ την εξέγερση τού Δεκέμβρη, γιατί δεν την τιμώ επετειακά, και έχω την φιλοσοφική έπαρση να λέω ότι μόνον έτσι τιμάται αυτή η εξέγερση, όταν δεν την τιμάς επετειακά.

Όποιος δεν αγγίχθηκε από αυτή την εξέγερση δεν έχει καταλάβει τίποτα από αυτό που έγινε τότε και από αυτό που θεμελιώθηκε τότε ως το πραγματικό μέλλον αυτής τής χώρας ως μιας ελευθεριακής και τολμώ να πω πραγματικά δημοκρατικής χώρας.

Δεν ήμουν τότε ενεργό στοιχείο τής εξέγερσης ούτε όμως απλός θεατής της.

Θυμάμαι όμως την μέθη, έλλογη μέθη, τον πραγματικό ρυθμό μιας εξέγερσης και τον φόβο και τον τρόμο «συναδέλφων» στη δουλειά μου που έπειτα αποδείχτηκαν σάπιοι, όχι ότι δεν φαίνονταν, διεφθαρμένοι, χαφιέδες και οικονομικά εγκληματικά στοιχεία. 

Θυμάμαι πόσο φοβόντουσαν, θυμάμαι πόσο μισούσαν, και θυμάμαι πόσο αλαλάζαμε εμείς, όσοι ζούσαν ακόμα, περνώντας αμήχανα σαν θεατές και μη θεατές από τα «πεδία των μαχών», ποιών μαχών δηλαδή, οι αστυνομικοί και οι ρουφιάνοι είχαν κρυφτεί σαν ποντίκια.

Αυτά, και τίποτα άλλο, μεγαλόστομο και μεγαλοπιασμένο..

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Personal (perhaps heterodox) conclusions from the youth uprising in December 2008 in Athens.

Personal (perhaps heterodox) conclusions from the youth uprising in December 2008 in Athens.
1. 

In December I learned not to celebrate anniversaries. 

Our lives are founded every moment.
2. 

The rebellious youth of this country decisively turned their steering wheel towards the rejection of statism of the nation state and statism in general.
3. The well-meaning libertarian values that flourished in the West in the last centuries, and spread to a boundless globalism, were established in the youth of this country, in its most active part.
4. 

Anarchism has acquired eternal roots in this country, so even if it is tormented by sectarianism, especially here, it will be an integral part of any future insurrectionary or revolutionary process. 

Anarchism in this country after 2008 became bureaucratized, it became a fashion, it fell into the bureaucratic spider web of the radical left, but nevertheless it has been established as a structural element of its culture, so in the future it will come back in other, more vibrants forms, it will be bureaucratized again but again it will come back.
5. 

I am not an anarchist but I have to recognize the reality in which I live. 

My confrontation with anarchism will continue "infinitely" but nevertheless I consider it as a current, a crazy but living current.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

Μη-επετειακό για τον Δεκέμβρη.

The last major riot in Greece took place in December 2008 when a police officer murdered a teenager, Alexandros Grigoropoulos.

This uprising have been politically-and-ideologically exploited by the extreme left and sectarian anarchism, but that's okay, the main thing is that Athens stopped being under the control of power for 2 weeks, and that's the foundation for the future of this country, whatever that they say-and-believe against the youth the leftist/anarchist bureaucrat-exploiters and the centrist/rightist/far-right terrorists-exploiters .

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Αυτός ο πόλεμος μάς αλλάζει όλους.

Παρόλο που η Δύση δεν ξεκίνησε αυτό τον πόλεμο, ένα μεγάλο μέρος τής παγκόσμιας κοινής γνώμης παραμένει πεπεισμένο ότι η ουσιαστική αιτία τής εκκίνησης αυτού τού πολέμου ήταν η Δύση.

Ένα άλλο ιδεολογικοποιημένο μέρος της παγκόσμιας κοινής γνώμης (περισσότερο μάλλον αριστερού ιδεολογικού-αξιακού προσανατολισμού) πιστεύει μεν ότι και η Ρωσία και οι άλλες ανατολικές ιμπεριαλιστικές δυνάμεις ήταν υπεύθυνες επί το ίσο για αυτό τον πόλεμο, αλλά για να το αποδείξει αυτό που λέει χρησιμοποιεί τα ψευδή επιχειρήματα τής ρωσικής πλευράς, άρα είναι στη πραγματικότητα μέρος αυτού του ευρύτερου αντιδυτικισμού που έχει πλέον σπάσει σαν ιδεολογικό απόστημα και μολύνει μεν τον κόσμο ακόμα, αλλά αρχίζει πλέον να παύει να έχει την μολυντική δύναμη που είχε προτού γίνει αυτός ο πόλεμος.

Αυτός ο πόλεμος μάς αλλάζει όλους.

Εγώ ανακάλυψα άλλη μια φορά πόσο μακρυά είμαι πλέον από την ελληνική αριστερά, η ελληνική αριστερά αποδείχθηκε για μένα μια από τις πιο σκοτεινές σεκταριστικές αριστερές δυνάμεις στον πλανήτη, όχι μόνον ως μια νεοσταλινική αριστερά, αλλά ακόμα δεν έχω καταλάβει τι γίνεται αλλού στον κόσμο, όσον αφορά την αριστερή συνείδηση παγκοσμίως.

Κάποια θετικά σημάδια δεν αναιρούν τα ανησυχητικά σημάδια, και το αντίστροφο. Ίσως τα αρνητικότερα φαινόμενα εμφανίζονται τελικά πάλι στον "παγκόσμιο νότο", όχι μόνο στην Λατινική Αμερική, όπου ξέραμε τη δύναμή του αντιδυτικισμού και τού σταλινισμού, αλλά ακόμα λ.χ στο Ιράν όπου η αριστερά φαίνονταν να είναι εκ των πραγμάτων πιο ικανή να διαβλέπει τον κίνδυνο τού αντιδραστικού αντιδυτικισμού ως καμμένη από χυλό που φυσάει και το γιαούρτι.

Δεν είναι έτσι όμως.

Ακόμα και οι Χεκματιστές που δέχονται τα πυρά όλων των υπόλοιπων αριστερών και κομμουνιστών ως πολύ φιλο-δυτικού προσανατολισμού, εκδήλωσαν άθλιες απόψεις και αφηγήματα που σε μεγάλο βαθμό προσέγγισαν τα τυπικά σεκταριστικά ουδετερόφιλα ή ακόμα και νεοσταλινικά ημι-ουδετερόφιλα αντιδυτικά αφηγήματα τύπου ΚΚΕ στην Ελλάδα κ.λπ.

Μεγάλη απογοήτευση για μένα, το τέλος των τελευταίων ελπίδων ότι κάπου στον κόσμο μια μαζική αριστερά δεν θα έχει μολυνθεί από τον καρκίνο αυτό που είδαμε να κάνει μετάσταση σε όλη την αριστερά παντού, όταν η Ρωσία εισέβαλε στην Ουκρανία.

Το σοκ από την αριστερή αποβλάκωση όμως, στην οποία συμπεριλαμβάνονται νομίζω και διαφορετικές μεταξύ τους ακραίες αντικαπιταλιστικές μαρξιστικές ομαδούλες στα όρια τού αναρχικού χώρου, δεν έφτασε σε ένταση το σοκ που νιώσαμε όταν διαβάσαμε την τοποθέτηση των Ζαπατίστας τις πρώτες μέρες τού πολέμου. Δεν έχω αναφερθεί σε αυτό, άλλη φορά θα αναφερθώ.

Δεν ήμαστε καινούργιοι στις απογοητεύσεις, ούτε κρύβουμε ότι σε βάθος χρόνου, με βάση και κάποιες στιγμές καμπές, είχαμε μετατοπιστεί ήδη (πληθυντικός γελοιότητας) πιο κεντρώα, οι σύντροφοι θα το έλεγαν δεξιά στροφή ή σοσιαλδημοκρατική στροφή, αν ήταν λίγο ευγενικοί, διότι οι περισσότεροι είναι αυταρχικοί μέχρι το μεδούλι και προτιμούν πιο χυδαίους ταξικισμούς.

Τώρα όμως έφτασε η κρίσιμη ώρα.

Παραιτούμαι φίλοι, έτσι απλά.

--

 

That the Russian fascism it says about Ukraine (that it is an instrument of the West that threatens Russia, since it does not accept its assimilation into the Great Russian nation, etc.) the same says Turkish fascism, through Erdogan and other Turkish fascists about my country Greece.

The rapist misogynist homophobic murderer always reverses reality.

The first ''historical teachers'' in this reversal of reality are the Turkish, Russian, Italian and German fascist rapists.

--

I don't find anyone who does not succumb to some "whataboutism", the anti-Westerners now, the Westernists before.
Then the westernists will do it, then the anti-westerners, and so on.
This is a form of what Hegel called "bad infinity."
You have all disappointed me.

Frozenheart
---

I said and I mean it that I closed my accounts with the lies and dishonesty, so from here I tell you what I think is right for all of us, I mean those who have a special interest in Iran and Kurdistan, like me the foreigner, your uninvited friend.

I no longer consider myself a leftist although I firmly believe in a classless democratic society where the producers will reap all their labor products and manage the production process themselves.

I don't believe that the left and Marxism can help achieve this goal anymore.

I believe that in today's conditions, which have a long historical time horizon, the emerging non-Western capitalism-imperialism is worse than the old sinful and bloody Western capitalism-imperialism.

I am not suggesting that the Iranian and Kurdish communists hand over the keys of their country and movement to the Western rulers, I am asking them to understand that the Eastern rulers, who are the ones directly oppressing them, are now worse, they are fascists in every sense depth and breadth of the word.

The not only tactical, perhaps indirect, strategic alliance (within strict limits) with the Western world, which is not only Western capitals states, etc., is under these conditions a one-way street for movements like that of Iran-Kurdistan.

No illusions, with strict limits, with a gun in hand.

--

 

I don't idealize the West, and especially Europe.

That's why I'm sure for example that at least half of Italians are fascist Mussolini nostalgics.

On the outside they are good and kind people but inside them they hide what PP Pasolini showed so penetratingly, dark fascists who fantasizing an absolute misogynist homophobic anti-worker state.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

 

 

 من به دنیا آمدم تا به تو کمک کنم گناه کنی

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

If you friends are materialists, I am Nebuchadnezzar!!

 

The anti-fascist struggle, the real antifa, means -probably not just temporary- alliance with parts of Capital and Imperialism. 

This was amply proved in World War 2.

Also, in the 2nd world war it turned out to something else, which the holy leftist/anarchist, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist consciousness not accept (many holy sanctities gathered here and I must perform some exorcism probably).

What did it turn out to be?

It turned out that many of these capitalist bourgeois forces (not all) that actually fought against fascism had strong clearly colonialist imperialist proto-fascist tendencies both as ideological and political factors (there were, however, bourgeois liberal-democrats who did not have such tendencies).

This is the harsh, bitter, unimaginable truth, for the holy unsullied virgin leftist/anarchist historical consciousness.

What did the logical and pragmatic leftists and anarchists do in practice, when faced with the dilemma, with Churchill or with Hitler?

They did not respond with neutrality, no.

They said "with Churchill!" but also "with Stalin" (by mistake anti-fascist, he wanted to distribute Europe with Hitler, but Hitler as a true psychopathic narcissist could not bear to accept such a realistic totalitarian proposal, and attacked the Soviet Union).

But here there was a problem with the holy consciousness of the people who still believe that they are the representatives of the God-Allah of history on earth (the poor Yahweh bears no responsibility for this abnormal minimum-or-maximum gnosticism).

Pragmatism is good to "get the job done", but us as pure virgins with immaculate holy consciences? they said, the leftist demigods of history..

How will we restore our dualistic theology, where the good "living labor" is the one completely heterogeneous pole and the bad "Capital, Imperialism etc" the other???? (evil has many forms while good always has one, hahaha).

Here we had polyamorous orgy sex with Churchill, how are we now going to revive our dualistic conflict with these monsters?? (like e.g. Churchill, but actually Capital).

Many responses were given by the leftist/anarchist priesthood:

First, well-known, "capitalism is to blame, we just made tactical alliances"..

Second, more vicious, far-left and bitter, "we made tactical alliances, but maybe we made them badly, we had to continue the hardest class struggle without any compromise with parts of Capital".

Imagine such a continuation on the front line of war with the Nazis! these people are idiots, like those today who ask Ukrainian workers not to fight Putin's mass-rapist murderous fascists, because "deep down" they are also.. "class brothers".

Another wing of the left describes all this in even narrower terms of tactics:  

''We simply take arms from any imperialism that is convenient for us at the time that another, openly fascist, imperialism attacks us, at the time that it attacks us, and besides, all this is not a historical alliance, we are not in a structured alliance, it is not that we, also, participating in an imperialist war...''

But comrades, it is also this, although it is not only this (we have analyzed it, but it is obvious, e.g. also the second world war was imperialist but the one imperialism that participated was worse, and we chose the other one that was less worse ).

Why do leftists/anarchists lie all the time??

For their holy holy pure virgin dualistic consciousness can do nothing but say something, for which the sinful body cannot follow, the body must sin to live, this is the holy Lie!

If you friends are materialists, I am Nebuchadnezzar!!

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

National independence for Kurdistan.

National independence for Kurdistan.

A nationally independent Kurdistan will decide whether to participate in a broader socialist or simply democratic federation, and not the other way round, as demanded by sectarianism and the compromised bourgeois and leftist Kurdish parties, which ask the Kurds to fight first for a socialist or democratic federation.

The Kurds will not find redemption and freedom without having secured from the outset and as a precondition their independence and the independence of their nation, which is one and has the right to exist in a separate geographical political form.

 

Εθνική ανεξαρτησία για το Κουρδιστάν.

Ένα εθνικά ανεξάρτητο Κουρδιστάν θα αποφασίσει αν θα συμμετάσχει σε μια ευρύτερη σοσιαλιστική ή απλά δημοκρατική ομοσπονδία, και όχι το αντίστροφο, όπως τού ζητά ο σεκταρισμός και τα συμβιβασμένα αστικά και αριστερά κουρδικά κόμματα, τα οποία ζητάνε από τους Κούρδους να πολεμήσουν πρώτα για μια σοσιαλιστική ή δημοκρατική ομοσπονδία.

Οι Κούρδοι δεν θα βρουν λύτρωση και ελευθερία χωρίς να έχουν διασφαλίσει εξαρχής και σαν προϋπόθεση την ανεξαρτησία τους και την ανεξαρτησία τού έθνους τους που είναι ένα και έχει δικαίωμα να υπάρχει σε ξεχωριστή γεωγραφική πολιτική μορφή.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

Reply to the Iranian Communist's (Torab Saleth) article on the constituent assembly.

Reply to the Iranian Communist's (Torab Saleth) article on the constituent assembly.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=595352039116908&id=100059263519392

1.

He rightly accepts that this demand is not exclusively reformist, nor limited to a bourgeois outcome and demarcation of the revolution.

However, it does not refer more extensively to the structures of democracy that a non bourgeois version of the revolution will bring.

What little and hypothetical is said on his part sounds rather like a typical Bolshevik falsification of the free will of the people, despite his efforts, indeed, not to dogmatically follow the institutional logic of the Bolsheviks. The triple system of representation he proposes can work precisely as a falsification of the immediacy of the electoral process.

2.

There is no mention of the historical failure of bureaucratic and sectarian communism to help create a truly democratic central representative body composed of freely elected representatives of (socialist) society.

Like all Marxists today he speaks as is being in a historical metaphysical Beyond, in which Marxism had no negative contribution to the destruction of the possibility of a real workers' socialist democracy.

3.

He rightly judges the impossibility of conceptualizing the socialist revolution not exclusively in relation to the workers' councils, but the broader political body that he posits as possibly adequate does not meet the needs of a modern representative workers' democracy, since it is understood as non-regional and non-local/geographically determined.

It is even considered that the geographical definition of democracy is limited to bourgeois contexts.

However, a democracy without narrow and at the same time broad geographical territorial determination in relation to the principle that each vote has the same institutional weight in relation to another (one person one vote), does not exist.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

Iran. No way out.

The Iranian society and youth rose up, but what political prospects were offered to it by the given political camps of the opposition?

The monarchist and their semi-liberal followers propose a pro-Western regime with vague, rather absolutist powers for the Shah, with no guarantee of the establishment of a sovereign representative body of freely elected representatives of the people.

The Iranian left is closer to democracy, but as it is fixated on Soviet or neo-leftist (also sectarian) models of democracy, it also does not propose anything specific for the emergence and consolidation of such a sovereign political body (of freely elected representatives of the people).

The Iranian people are asking for a way out of the theocratic regime, and those responsible for charting this path are unable to transcend their authoritarian political ideological traditions.

The biggest responsibility for the destruction of the democratic political horizon is taken by the monarchists, they are completely stupid and reactionary, but this does not mean that the Iranian left is in good shape.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Your hypocrisy chokes me..

The judge and the judged each say what their position dictates and they always say the same thing according to their position.

Thus, when the judge become judged, he says what the one who was under his judgment said before, and so, also, he who was before judged and became a judge (the judge to the one who judged him before), says the same as it said the now-judged when it was judge.

Your hypocrisy chokes me.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Their master.

The favorite child of Marxists, Russia, has made another imperialist intervention today, and Western mainstream Marxism is keeping quiet. From tomorrow, Marxist analyzes of equal distances will be launched, again blaming the West. 

Who does this? mainly Western Marxists. 

Their own boss bothers them, they hate him, and they will not cry more than normal if their enemy's enemy rapes a country. 

The world is theirs, the high intellect is theirs, the problem is theirs, their master is the worst because he is THEIR master. 

The other master, the one who is away from their ass, can be a little useful for their purpose of building their own socialism, their own paradise. But how much they look like their master! how much they look like their own enemy! they are western, but more western than the "normal" western rulers. 

Their anti-Westernism stinks of colonialism in reverse, their anti-imperialism is selective, because what concerns them mainly is their over-inflated philanthropic and narcissistic radicalism, and their own Father-master. 

They are the prodigal sons of their Father, they target their own Father mainly, they do not care about the rape of other peoples by their own Fathers-Monsters. 

They only care about their own Father-Rapist-Monster, the Fathers-Monsters of non- Western peoples seem in their eyes somewhat likeable, for everything only their "own" Father is responsible because he is "THEIR OWN" Father.

The Eastern fascists appear to them as extensions of their "own" Fascists, since their own Fascists are a more important enemy because they are their familiar enemy. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Melodramatic anti-NATO language.

According to the melodramatic language of the left, NATO is a "criminal organization", while what was the "Warsaw Pact"? flower shop? and who did the operation in Czechoslovakia in 1968? The aliens? Who performed the operation in Hungary in 1956? People from space?

Who suppressed the free will of the Polish people? The inhabitants of Patagonia?

Who supported all the bloodthirsty Ba'athist regimes in the Arab world? William Shakespeare?

Who made the first invasion of Afghanistan after wolrldwar 2 ? Julius Caesar?

Yes, NATO can be called a criminal organization if the same is done with the Warsaw Pact, the pact of the pseudo-communist countries of non-existent - existing real or not, socialism.

Also, because there is the Hitlerist-Nazi-inspired argument that it is not permissible to have a NATO presence next to Russia, I would say the following:

Why shouldn't the opposite be the case when there was a Warsaw Pact? Let's say that next to Greece was Bulgaria, which was a member of the Warsaw Pact, so Greece had to declare war on Bulgaria according to this ugly "logic"?

The "logic" that next to a strong country there should be no threat, in the sense that there should be a ban on arming its neighbors if they belong to another military coalition or have alliances with the enemies of that powerful country was exactly  the argument used by the Nazis, in accordance with the doctrine of "living space". The same argument is used today by Turkey, which demands the disarmament of the Greek islands, because ... it is threatened by Greece. 

There was once an agreement to demilitarize the Greek islands, on the condition that the Greek minority in  Istanbul, Imvros and Tenedos [Greek islands under the Turkish state], be protected, and this did not happen: Happened rapes and arsons by Turkish nationalists (especially in Istanbul, where there were many) and the Greeks gones all out . 

So Turkey, using the same Nazi arguments as Russia, is calling for the demilitarization of the Greek islands because it says its hinterland is in danger. 

Lies, reversal of reality, violation of all international rules, brazen threats, immoral propaganda.

But let's continue:

And tell me, when Castro wanted to bring nuclear weapons to Cuba, was he right or not? If it did, why does Ukraine not have it accordingly, and if it did not, why are you defending Castro?

I forgot, you are also defending the adventurer handsome man Castro's comrade who would preferred a nuclear war event, to have nuclear weapons in Cuba.

Pro-Sovietism and later, today, pro-Russianism of the left is a spiritual cancer.

---

The fact that the imperialist east is not at the top of the imperialist pyramid does not make it any better. It probably makes it worse. See Germany in the interwar period. The vengeful ''wronged'' imperialist powers are always worse! Don't be so naive anymore! Both the new-Turks and Kemal came after the development of nationalism in the Balkans (which also operated with ethnic cleansing, etc.), showed themselves as victims of Western imperialism and finally ended up committing 3 genocides! not one, 3!

People of the east, workers of the east, wake up from your Marxist lethargy, is this Marxism? I don't know, but I know that you have not yet stood up, and listened the flattery of the anti-Western Western(!) leftists, which because they are incapable of making a workers' revolution in their countries are waiting for you as their ideological salvation but want you to defeat their own special internal class enemy, without caring about your own terrible internal class enemy, which is the Eastern imperialists and capitalists.

Let the western leftists defeat their own enemy mainly with their own forces, and then ask you for help for it, after letting you concentrate on your own enemy. 

--

I came to this world to whip you with truths. 

Your comrades in the west are constantly flattering you, calling you to their countries for help, because they are incapable of doing anything other than anarcho-syndicalism for high school students.

You come or live through the fire, you have crossed mountains and seas, you have been persecuted by rulers who do not joke, they kill in the cold, while the western left and anarchists have participated in marches at most, they may have thrown some Molotov cocktails, but they are unable to take part in any military revolutionary formation, and if some of them finally succeed, they are presented here in the west as if they were the gunpowder-smoked Guevara in person. They brag like generals about what a Kurdish or Afghan farmer does to defend himself daily against ISIS or the Taliban. 

Everything you have to do for yourself, and you do it anonymously, sacrificing yourself anonymously, for them it's a Joker movie adventure. 

--

The wrong anti-imperialist distance:

''Even though NATO provoked the war, this does not mean that we agree with Putin..''

The right anti-imperialist distance:

''Although Putin and Russia provoked the war, this does not mean that we agree with the West and the United States..''

Everything else is nonsense of people who have not understood the extreme reactionary role of the new Eastern imperialism. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Secular religions

Secular religions have a quality that gives them both an advantage and a disadvantage compared to purely transcendental religions: the hope for the realization of the heavenly vision on earth.

When this heavenly vision is "applied" there are some problems, paradise then appears either as a semi-paradise (at best) or as a normal hell. But even then, if the visionaries are at a guaranteed great spatial distance, then the vision can remain intact, with propaganda lies and ideological drugs. That is why modern ideological religions keep their "self" strong when they "operate" idealizations from a safe distance, "away from our ass".

But when the existence of this false State ceases, when the realization of Paradise collapses even far away from us, then there is a problem. Paradise was fake, even though it existed somewhere as a Name as a point as a flag, while now it has disappeared from the earth, so what do we do?  

Here is the disadvantage compared to purely transcendental religions: 

The (imaginary too) Paradise of purely transcendental religions is so ... far away that no refutation can touch it.

The wounded visionaries of the worldly Paradise, however, counterattack and close their deep wound with a new vision, of a distant place, yet existing on earth again.

So they discover new exotic movements, heavenly, far removed from their ass.

And the life of religions goes on.

Amen. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Stalin and Trotsky..

Both Stalin and Trotsky coldly plotted a mass crime against the poor peasants of their country. 

Stalin did it. 

All this under the pretext of communist collectivization and the war against the Kulaks. Liars both. 

The state collectivization was done with the aim of enslaving the poor peasants to the new exploiters and tyrants, state and party bureaucrats. If the Stalinists and the Trotskyists are real communists, I am the Sultan of Brunei. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

The Charter movement

The Charter movement is better than the right-wing movement of superficially pro-Western followers of the would-be Shah, but it is a movement that does not raise the issue of multi-ethnic democratic representation of the multi-ethnic Iranian people, through a "body" of directly and freely elected representatives, as a direct revolutionary demand.

The Iranian people expect democracy and what do the opposition offer them?

Bonapartist monarchical pseudo-liberalism of the Right and radical semi-democracy of the Left, without either of them talking about a freely elected constitutional "body" of power.

The impasse theirs, of the right and the left Iranians.

----

Το κίνημα τής Χάρτας είναι καλύτερο από το δεξιό κίνημα των επιφανειακα φιλοδυτικών, ακόλουθων τού επίδοξου Σάχη, όμως είναι ένα κίνημα που δεν θέτει το ζήτημα για πολυεθνική δημοκρατική αντιπροσώπευση τού πολυεθνικού ιρανικού λαού, μέσω ενός σώματος άμεσα εκλεγμένων αντιπροσώπων, ως άμεσο επαναστατικό αίτημα.

Ο Ιρανικός λαός περιμένει δημοκρατία και τι του προσφέρουν οι τής αντιπολίτευσης;

Βοναπαρτιστικο μοναρχικό ψευτο-φιλελευθερισμό οι Δεξιοί και κοινωνικό δημοκρατισμό οι αριστεροί, χωρίς κανένας από τους δύο να μιλά για ελεύθερα εκλεγμένο συντακτικό σώμα εξουσίας.

Το αδιέξοδο δικό τους, των δεξιών και των αριστερών Ιρανών.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Kind of comical..

Kind of comical.

Separate grassroots movements sometimes want a useful transient relationship with the enemy of their enemy (who, transient lover, is not the best dude), but they receive criticism from other grassroots movements who do the same thing, but with the dude who is the enemy of the other dude (the dude who is in a temporary romantic relationship with the criticized).

The criticized's answer is that everyone does the same.

However, when the criticized comes to the position of the criticize, he does not say the same thing as what he said when he was criticized! He also says what his critics used to tell him.

We are all hypocrites, that's what I have to say.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

The situation on the political stage of Iran's wider perceived opposition

The "Charter of Minimum Demands" presented by a multitude of trade union and social organizations in Iran, is a positive democratic step to create a broader democratic unity of leftist and progressive forces against the theocratic regime. 

However, it does not suggest the question of creating a constitutive constitutional assembly of freely elected representatives. 

In this sense the whole text is incomplete. 

On the other hand, the most sectarian, extreme Leninists, etc., who judge this Charter negatively, don't also raise the question of a freely elected democratic governing body of Iran, building this their inability to propose the correct no on the shyness of the left-wing democrats who drafted the Charter, but on their incurable sectarianism. 

The Iranian left is entrenched in an ideological system that promotes the shyness of democratic initiative or the sectarianism. 

However, the source of shy action is also sectarianism. n

The authors of the text of the Charter are also influenced by a dogmatic type of neo-Marxism that may seem satisfactory to the movement in the West as a neo-leftism that coexists normally with a mature bourgeois democracy, but this dogmatism does not meet the needs of a movement that has as its historical task also modern democracy.

---------

The situation on the political stage of Iran's wider perceived opposition is further complicated by the strange reappearance of a top security guard and torturer of the Shah's old regime at a demonstration. 

It is generally considered that this appearance had a symbolic character and sent messages from the monarchists and the would-be Shah himself, but to whom? 

Was the would-be Shah aware of this strange reappearance? 

Was it done with his approval? 

Could it be that an essentially insignificant event, was exploited by the Russian Putinist and Iranian theocratic propaganda machines to create a complete alienation between the secular right/extreme right and the rest of the (left, democratic, centrist) wing of the Iranian opposition?

For 2 years, but also now, since the beginning of the new movement in Iran, I have said that there is a special propagandistic collaboration between Russian Putinists and Iranian theocrats so that, when there is appearance of far-right elements "next to" the Iranian movement, to become "useful objects" of propaganda campaign to slandering the whole movement. I can prove this that I have predicted this and I have said this. I asked the Iranian friends in Left to keep calm, but I see that if there is a theocratic and Russian trap, they are already trapped. Does what I say mean that the royalists are justified? No. 

Does this mean that surely the would-be Shah has also fallen prey to a provocation trap? No. The Shah and his followers, as well as the semi-liberal circles around the Shah, have shown that they have clear Bonapartist authoritarian aspirations, since they do not openly talk about a representative parliamentary sovereign democratic system. Neither did the would-be Shah separate himself from his father's crimes, nor did he separate himself from the torturers of Savak.

---

There is no political scene as complex as the Iranian one. 

Vertigo of multiple contrasts forming a maze of possibilities.

To say my stereotype, Iran is the land of multiple mirrors.

I hope the left and the centrist forces succeed, that's all I can say.

---

The revolution is in the streets, it is not "begging for something from the West" but also it does not keep equal distances between "Eurasia" and the West. 

Because whoever keeps these equal "anti-imperialist" distances, ultimately does not keep real equal distances, it doing the favour of "Eurasia", i.e. Eurasianism.

Why is he doing that? because of ideological virginity?

I hope that's it, and that he doesn't harbor hopes of future alliances with the emerging Hitlers of the East.

--

I read, but I hope it is a rumour, that the European Parliament has invited as a speaker the would-be, and probably far-right, Shah.

See now what is the difference, for example, between the USA and the European Union.

The Americans (capitalist-imperialists) support whoever it is convenient for them to support, without being so strict in their bourgeois ideological preferences, and without raising their ideological stature until they become the judges of the universe, without on the other hand avoiding their own messianic or other bad moralisms.

In the Iran issue there has been support for the would-be Shah, also for the People's Mujahideen (MEK), which was founded as a left-wing Islamic anti-imperialist organization that killed American agents and ended up, after an unacceptable alliance with Saddam Hussein, having a strategic relationship of support from circles of the US Republican party (no offense to them by me).

Also the US has generally helped others, centrists, groups and personalities, and as a western country has certainly offered political asylum and a well-meaning hospitality and acceptance to many known and unknown Iranians and Kurds.

In general, the USA plays with everyone and everything, and of course as a superpower it also plays games with the theocratic elite, especially the so-called reformers.

Behind and beside everything, of course, there is a continuous economic game of capital, legal or semi-legal or illegal activities, the well-known of capitalism.

What is Europe doing? (we mean the European Union).

Similar things, almost the same, but by adding we would say that there is help from state and European institutions and civil societies not exclusively to the Iranian and Kurdish leftists, but nevertheless the Iranian and Kurdish leftists feel perhaps in the territory of the European Union somewhat like at home.

All good so far.

And so a moment comes the European Union, this undefined Thing, and after supporting the Iranian democrats, in general the anti-establishment ones, says in its broadest "wisdom" the irresistible, and finally unaccountable, "maybe we should call prince (would-be Shah), to his make a speech in the European Parliament?".

These people, if this invitation is valid and it is not a rumor, they are idiots, they are dumb, they are stupid lobbyists, scumbags, small-minded people.

They commit the politics and the name of Europe and its citizens to the promotion of a successor of a bloodthirsty regime, who indeed does not guarantee a smooth democratic transition from a theocratic regime to a parliamentary democracy, but plays with all possible bonapartist semi-dictatorial semi-fascist scenarios succession of regime from another regime.

There was a networking of the monarchists and the so-called experts of the European institutions, who fell like a ripe fruit, something like the "unfortunate" Greek MEP?

I hope the information I am conveying to you is not valid.

But when one looks at and compares European with American and British bourgeois politics, one sees the difference in the level of power, seriousness, coherence and simultaneous multiplicity in strategic thinking and action between the two main pillars of the West's international dominance.

The bastions of the West are not, therefore, the carnivals of the European Union, they are the USA, NATO and Great Britain.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Very general conclusion.

It is known that Khomeini returned to Iran to take power on an Air France plane, we also know that he was playing games with both French capital and American capital to prevent the rise of leftist and communist forces after the imminent fall of the Shah.

At that time the West believed, rightly if one looks at it cynically, that such a rise would benefit the Soviet Union.

All of these correctly reflect some aspects of the rise of theocrats to power, but on the other hand, through this narrative, when it is absolutized, we forget the equally important other side of the political and economic reality that was signaled and recommended by this triumphant return of the dark Imam in "his" unfortunate country.

The maneuvering of the West and the naivety of its pragmatistic anti-Soviet cynicism did not leave it unscathed in the end, when it was revealed that the dark Imam and his faction did indeed aim, and succeeded, at creating a harsh dark and reactionary capitalist theocratic regime which indeed it was independent and hostile towards the Western world and Western imperialism.

Iranian leftists will of course object to this fact saying that this regime continued to have capitalist dealings with Western capitalists, etc.

But this does not negate the aforementioned.

We should not judge the Iranian theocrats from an assumed "common value" that consist of opposition to Western imperialism, as if they abandoning it because they are not consistent with the "untouchable" that this supposed value means.

If we do this, it will be as if we are assuming that indeed the opposition in the West and also in imperialism in general should be intrinsically good and benevolent, the "Indeed Good", which these Islamists supposedly betray with their parallel dealings with the "Western Enemy".

The very leftist criticism against the Iranian theocrats on the basis of (usually always) ontological anti-imperialism does not reveal their supposed inconsistency but our possible involvement with a dangerous politically metaphysical ideology called "anti-imperialism".

--

 

Very general conclusion:

Anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism usually means an ideological expression of a capitalist state opposition on the part of the weaker capitalism and state.

However, the cure from this wrong positioning of the problem, which concerns the overcoming of imperialism without this overcoming falling into "anti-imperialism/anti-colonialism", is not a reductionism in the general "anti-capitalism" in a competitive distinction from "anti-imperialism".

Therefore?

What is the medicine for critical theory?

I don't know.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

The imminent democratic revolution..

 

The imminent democratic revolution in Iran has begun, still faintly, and must make way by rapidly and relentlessly breaking through the jungle of theocrats and Bonapartists, monarchists and sectarian Leninists, which surrounds it from its first moment.

To revolution, put aside all the Bonapartist delusionalists who think that the history of the abuse of the democratic and socialist ideal can be repeat forever.

---

The great democratic revolution in Russia is not called the "October revolution", ''October'' was the Bonapartist coup of the pseudo-communist Bolsheviks, which overthrew the democratic revolution and established from the first moment a state-capitalist totalitarian system of exploitation of the working class, extermination of the middle class and the poor peasantry, prohibition of free political activity, prohibition of the freedom of intellectuals, and had as its ideological culmination, as a Bonapartist coup, the calumniation (for centuries) of the sacred idea of a classless socialist society.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Cogitations. February 19, 2022, Facebook.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

February 19, 2022

 

When ''the'' dialectic ends in a fiasco, ''it'' accuses the fiasco of being "anti-dialectical".

 

Dialectical philosophers feel no guilt.
Others are always to blame,
or rather the "other".

 

The dialectic of fiasco
is a bigger fiasco.

 

The dialectic after the fiasco does not always call itself dialectical.
Known for ''its'' ability to put on masks.

 

Everything is calm in the dialectical consciousness.
It will find the explanation for fiasco through a dialectic, of course.

 

Ignoring the fiasco is the infamous achievement of these philosophers who declared to their astonished dazzled audience that from now on nothing will be overlooked. 

Oh dialectic of the new glorious times! you did it again! you sanctify in every way the neglect and sophistry that gives its "foundation".  

 

Looking for the right starting point for interpreting thought forms, you run the risk of never interpreting them, you may even avoid a more substantial contact with these forms.

However, there is a valid requirement from this search for the right start, in the sense that in this way - even if it means avoiding "contact" with this "object" - you can express a resistance of yourself to a a specific form of thought or an entire era of thought.

So, basically it is like preventing an alienation of your thought from its already existing beginnings.

When this strange struggle is over, you can now come in contact with the "object - thought form" you wanted to interpret.

So you probably know why you wanted to interpret it and many times you find that you wanted to interpret it because through this interpretation you wanted to get rid of some theological type of bonds and chains that had been imposed on you by the "yours community" as sacred preconceptions.

Now you know that you were actually resisting to something that was for you a "foreign body of thought" and which the leaders of this community had introduced into your "body of thought". 

But why did I say all this? 

What was the reason? 

I said this to confess to you that in fact I always saw Hegelianism as something that did not make sense, even when I was obliged as a Marxist to respect it and to believe that it contained a truth that was valid for my (then) community.

Something was protecting me and I could never go any further. 

Something? Myself. 

 

There is an absolute suspicion that does not necessarily lead to paranoia.

You do not want to believe in assumptions about a redemptive future, no matter how many conditions and guarantees are in front of you.

No, I will not sign any contract, you say, I will not give my consent to any strategic vision and idea, even if its represantives are obviously good and are able to sacrifice their sweet lives to do what they say.

You ask for something more than guarantees and good intentions, you ask for an image of reality that does not mean something so easy, so ideal, so beautiful, that it probably means an unfulfilled wish.

You have no problem with crazy desires and great loves, you have a problem with their bitter cancellations that could have been prevented.

 

When they start looking for you, do not forget to tell them that you have already left.
Tehran is the destination.

 

Between one phrase and another phrase there is another phrase.
What a fuck, fuck them babe!

 

You are hegemonic when the others translate you, before you translate these others.

 

You are hegemonic when you interpret before you are interpreted.

 

In addition to the primary accumulation of Capital there is (in parallel, but not identically) the primary accumulation of Power and Sovereignty, which always takes place as the formation of a separate world-wide sovereign metropolitan pole-world through and beyond the ''individual'' national state powers.

The western world has already been formed as a separate sovereign pole-world, so it has made the primary accumulation in both the economic and the political-military field.

The non-Western world, especially the "east", is still ''finishing'' the incomplete yet primary accumulation of power and sovereignty while it has completed the primary accumulation of capital, although we do not know whether it will end it as a metropolitan accumulation of power and dominance [as a one distinct metropolitan sovereign pole-world].

The primary accumulation of power and sovereignty means, among others (such as the development of nation-states) blood, war, continuous rearrangements of borders and state territories.

It is a dehumanizing process that has ethnic and other minorities as its first victims, as long as the working class maintains a class waiting attitude.

Just because this process contains all these "necessary" dehumanizing socio-historical "stages" as historically "necessary" does not mean that these are "rights" in the case of the emerging capitalist East.

The fact that the West has committed them is not an element of a sin that must be punished, and therefore does not mean that Western societies, and not just their bourgeoisie, have no right to defend themselves to stop this rotten dynamic.

The argument of the post-colonialist ideologues that the West is sinful, and therefore that the fanatics, emerging imperialists, nationalist-fundamentalists of the East also have the right to do what the West did in its beginnings, is a rotten argument.

The ''fact'' that my "grandfather" was probably a Western colonialist, and that the West formed [in the way we know] "itself" as an imperialist supranational international pole, does not mean that we, the new Westerners citizens, we have a moral obligation to tolerate the repetition by the eastern rulers of the crimes committed by this supposed "grandfather" of ours.

There is a historical analogy, and a similar historical ''necessity'' to the formation of a distinct new hegemonic pole, but we are obliged to restrain it and fight it from the point of view of our own national, class and cultural interests.  

 

One can write a dictionary of the demonological categorizations used by Marxists against their ideological enemies inside and outside the left.

These are faithful people who theologize in everything, but have a lie on their forehead that says:

"I am an atheist".

 

The famous cultural revolution of the Maoist Red Guards ushered in a new era of pseudo-Marxist Stalinist paranoia, in which the absence of internal enemies in a ''wannabe'' socialist system was transformed into the production of these enemies within the working classes. 

Of course, this paranoia has always existed in the wider (and not only in the Stalinist) Marxist "camp", in the form of racist anti-petty bourgeoisie ideology. Any internal ideological opponent within the left could be accused of being a petty bourgeois, with no criteria other than some possible "class descent" or a bad habit of reading ''more than normal'' books or wanting to have a personal life that is not completely transparent and entirely dedicated to the struggle. 

Of course the accusers themselves may have had the same intellectual habits, and a well-hidden personal life, but that did not matter, since the very absurdity of the class slander, its non-foundation, is precisely the method by which one can use it in a slander and ultimately legal prosecution, which sometimes resulted it in the execution of individuals or even masses of people.

Until the specific paranoia of Maoism, however, there was no greater systematization of irrationality, the sin of being supposedly a petty bourgeois was confined as an active sin in the phases of "socialist primary accumulation" and in individual persecutions.

With Maoism there was a Puritan radicalization of the theological pseudo-class persecution and all the intellectual sub-classes were directly guilty just because they were intellectuals, regardless of whether some of them were hungry and starving or were made up of workers without property. Are you an intellectual? are you a scientist so you are rather bourgeois or petty bourgeois etc. As long as the class struggle continues so you are also a class enemy. The very doctrine of the continuation of the class struggle within a society that has supposedly abolished class exploitation, even as an early classless society, has this significance: to justify the continuation of state repression within a society in which there is supposedly no class exploitation etc. In order to find these potential exploiters, a new type of paranoid "class theory" must be constructed that exacerbates the already existing anti-petty-bourgeois paranoia of Marxism to the point of absolute paranoia.

It is not difficult to understand that none of these things have anything to do with a real working-class socialism and with the working class itself.

But the problem with the radical sects is bigger, and it is not limited to the Maoists.

There is a broader mentality and ideology that is rooted in the popular movement and infects all its tendencies, rather expressing the historical weakness and immaturity of this movement.

That is why even today, despite the decline of Stalinism-Maoism, we see these ideological and cultural ills continue to exist in ideological "spaces" that are not Stalinist.

 

A basic principle of political immorality is not to accept any strategic mistake of those who formed and then those who implemented a strategic idea. The "others" are always to blame. ''This'' can to call itself "science".

 

There will be a revolution in Iran.

It is as certain as the law of universal gravitation.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

On this point, to the leader of the Hekmatists..

A general idea or ideology that extends its claim to political power throughout the human world must contain intrinsically a controlling conceptual-ideological self-limitation, which would correspond as a political act to a corresponding material self-limitation expressed in a free-for-all demokratic institution.

I see no such thing in the "communists" of the only-and-only generalized workers' councils or soviets.
The generality and abstract generic power of the worker's communist idea without a (conceptual and material) democratic-institutional self-limitative counterbalance, can very easily turn into another version of class exploitative tyranny.

--

 

On this point, to the leader of the Hekmatists: the patriotism of the Ukrainians, who are facing a conquering force that aims at the appropriation of their country's resources but also at the assimilative disappearance of the Ukrainian nation, is, as patriotism, an exclusively "bourgeois-capitalist" affair of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie?

I don't expect a straight answer, something like "yes, that's it".

Surely this leader would also condemn the Russian invasion, but not forgetting to remind that "in the final analysis" capitalism is generally to blame (or more generally the system of exploitation, etc.), that is, in simple moralistic language, everyone is equally to blame, meaning "all nationalisms" (they are to blame for the same).

Correctly. I don't have much to add to this supreme almost transcendental truth, I am left speechless again, especially when I realize once again that when you have with you a right of such general force of judgment, no one can catch you from anywhere, simply because even without invoking of "patriotism" (you flatten it like a marxist paver) you still have the possibility, if you want, on the basis of a non-racist workers' state run by your internationalist party, to prevent the Kurds, again for one reason for good, from seceding from "socialist Iran". It's simple, it doesn't take much ''patriotic'' effort, you will accuse them of..nationalism. Marxism is a very powerful religion..indeed.

 

اسخ به سئوال دوست عزیزی از ایران بنام مهران در مورد وطن

مهران: با پیشرفت جوامع بشری ناسیونالیسم و ارزشهای قومی و قبیله ای حتا مرزهای ژیوپالیتیک بی رنگ و کم اهمیت میشوند .ولی متاسفانه در تبلیغات بورژوازی ، کمونیست ها افرادی خائن ،وطن فروش معرفی میشوند که چاقو برداشته و می خواهند کشور را تجزیه و تیکه پاره کنند آنها دلسوز خانه بزرگ ما ایران نیستند، ناسیونالیسم را لگد میزنند ولی برای استقلال و یک پارچگی کردستان خودکشی می کنند ، فرهنگ و سنت های مردم را به نیشخند میگیرند ..ارزشی برای فرد و یک کارگر زحمتکش قائل نیستند ، بیشتر به حرکتهای توده ای یا حرکت گله ای مردم توجه دارند . در ایدیولوژی ایشان ارزشهای اخلاقی ، محبت ، مهرورزی ، لطافت و ظرافت کمرنگ است

بیشتر خردگرا ، خشک و ماشینی هستند ...

این گفتار بالا را پاسخ بفرمایید. هنگامیکه در سرود ای ایران ، خواننده می خواند : مهر تو از دل برون کنم... پس رفقای گرامی برای کدام سرزمین و خانه انگیزه خدمت دارند؟

حمید تقوائی: انگیزه ما خدمت به مردم است و نه آب و خاکی که وطن نامیده میشود. مهر مردم با مهر وطن نه تنها هم ارز نیست بلکه این دو نقطه مقابل هم هستند.

بورژوازی همیشه و در همه جای دنیا منافع خاکی و مادی اش را پشت مقولاتی نظیر قدوسیت وطن و کشور و تمامیت ارضی و آب و خاک پرستی پنهان کرده است و حمله اش به کمونیستها نیز دقیقا به این علت است که این منافع زمینی و مادی یعنی استثمار کارگران وطن و تصاحب و غارت منابع و معادن وطن و سلطه بلامنازع اش بر بازار وطنی کار و کالا، را از "خطر سوسیالیسم" مصون بدارد. این وطن پرستی بورژوائی هیچ ربطی به انس و علاقه توده مردم به محل زندگی و جامعه خود ندارد. منشا آن سودآوری است و نه احترام به فرهنگ و علایق و ارزشهای انسانی "هموطنان". همه جنگها و لشکرکشیها و نسلکشیها در تاریخ معاصر - از دو جنگ جهانی گرفته تا جنگهای محلی و منطقه ای - همیشه با پرچم وطن پرستی و دفاع از میهن در برابر بیگانگان توجیه شده است. جنگهائی که برای حفظ و بسط منافع اقتصادی بورژوازی حاکم در این کشورها برپا میشوند و از خون "هموطنان" مایه میگذارند. کاربرد ناسیونالیسم در زمان صلح هم دامن زدن به تعصبات ملی برای پرده پوشی تبعیضات و نابرابریهای طبقاتی در جامعه و جا زدن منافع طبقه سرمایه دار بجای منافع همه "هموطنان" است و بس. به این دلایل است که وطن پرستی در نقطه مقابل انساندوستی قرار میگیرد.

شما همین امروز در تبلیغات نیروهای راست، اعم از سلطنت طلبان و جمهوریخواهان و ملی اسلامیون حرف مشخصی در دفاع از مردم پیدا نمیکنید. در مورد حقوق بشر کلی بافی میکنند اما تا دلتان بخواهد در قدوسیت و اهمیت تمامیت ارضی و پرچم و آب و خاک، در ادعای مالکیت ابدی ازلی بر "سه جزیره" ، در دفاع اتشین از "خلیج همیشه فارس" و در خط و نشان کشیدن برای هر نیروی سیاسی که این نوع مقدسات را برسمیت نشناسد سنگ تمام میگذارند. هموطن هم به دو نوع تقسیم میشود: فارس ها که نسلشان به "نژاد پاک آریائی" و کورش و داریوش و امشاسپندان میرسد و غیر فارسها که اگر با موقعیت خود بعنوان شهروندان درجه دو بسازند "مرزبانان غیور" ایران هستند اما اگر این موقعیت را نپذیرند و برای رفع ستم ملی بپا بخیزند به سرعت به حضیض "تجزیه طلب" و "وطن فروش" و "خائن به وطن" سقوط میکنند! افغانیها و دیگر مهاجرین ساکن ایران هم که اصلا بحساب نمی آیند! این معنی واقعی وطن پرستی است.

معیارها و ارزشهای ما کمونیستها از جنس دیگری است. اساس سیاست و دکترین ما انسان و انسانیت است، آزادی و برابری و رفاه انسان است، و نه نژاد و وطن و ملیت و آب و خاک. نیروهای راست نه تنها دفاع از انسانها را به دفاع از هموطنان تقلیل میدهند، یا در واقع مسخ و تحریف میکنند، بلکه منظورشان از حمایت از "هموطن" هم چیزی بجز دفاع از تمامیت ارضی و پرچم و ایرانیت و ملیت نیست. به همین دلیل است که در عرصه مبارزه علیه اعدام، در دفاع از حقوق کودک، در دفاع از حقوق پناهندگان، در مبارزه علیه حجاب و آپارتاید جنسی و کلا بی حقوقی و ستم فاحشی که بر زنان روا میشود، در مبارزه علیه ستم ملی و برخورداری همه "مرزبانان غیور" از حقوق شهروندی برابر با "ملت همیشه فارس" از جمله حق سخن گفتن و تحصیل کردن و نوشتن به زبان مادری خود، در دفاع از زندانیان سیاسی و کلا در همه عرصه های مشخص مبارزه در دفاع از حقوق و آزادی و رفاه انسانهای ساکن جغرافیای ایران مستقل از ملیت و نژاد و زبان و محل تولدشان، عرصه هائی که ما کمونیستهای کارگری همیشه در صف اول مبارزه بوده ایم، نشانی از نیروهای راست نمی بینید. ظاهرا ابراز وفاداری به "دموکراسی" و "حقوق بشر"، که اسم رمز تعلق به اردوگاه سرمایه داری غرب است، کافی است. مبارزه مشخص این دموکراسی و حقوق بشر پناهان - آنهم حقوق بشری که ظاهرا کورش کبیر سردمدارش بوده است- از شمشیرزدن در دفاع از تعلق سه جزیره به مام میهن و دفاع از "خلیج همیشه فارس" و قدوسیت تمامیت ارضی و خط و نشان کشیدن علیه تجزیه طلبان فراتر نمیرود. هر جا هم حرفی علیه اعدام - که بیانیه حقوق بشر در موردش سکوت کرده است- و یا در دفاع از سکولاریسم زده اند تحت فشار و مبارزه جنبش چپ بوده است. ازین بابت باید خوشحال بود اما حقیقت اینست که اهداف و ارزشها و معیارهای هویتی و خصلت نمای جنبش ناسیونالیستی تماما در نقطه مقابل انسانیت و خواستها و نیازهای انسانی افراد جامعه قرار میگیرد.

در بخش دوم این سئوالتان از قول نیروهای راست مینویسید که کمونیستها "ارزشی برای فرد

و یک کارگر زحمتکش قائل نیستند ، بیشتر به حرکتهای توده ای یا حرکت گله ای مردم توجه دارند .

در ایدیولوژی ایشان ارزشهای اخلاقی ، محبت ، مهرورزی ، لطافت و ظرافت کمرنگ است

بیشتر خردگرا ، خشک و ماشینی هستند ..."

امیدوارم با توضیحاتی که در رابطه با وطن پرستی و کلا ارزشها و معیارهای جنبش راست دادم معنی واقعی "ارزشهای اخلاقی و محبت و مهرورزی و لطافت" نیروهای بورژوائی هم روشن شده باشد. ظاهرا امثال پینوشه و سوهارتو و شیخهای کویت و عربستان سعودی و جرج بوش و ریگان و مارگارت تاچر و میلتون فریدمن و دکترین ریاضت کشی افتصادی و توحش بازار آزاد و همه چیز در خدمت سود خیلی مهر ورز و با محبت و لطیف و اخلاقی و غیر ماشینی است! اما کمونیستهائی که میگویند اساس اقتصاد باید نیازهای انسانها و شعار "به هر کس باندازه نیازش" باشد و نه سود و سودآوری، "ماشینی و خشک و خشن" هستند! ببیند چطور تبلیغات جنگ سردی همه چیز را وارونه جلوه داده است. باید به این تبلیغات چی های جنگ سردی گفت حتی اگر میخواهید کارنامه امثال استالین و دیگر نمایندگان سرمایه داری دولتی را بحساب کمونیستها بنویسید لطفا اول یک سوزن بخودتان بزنید و بعد یک جوالدوز به کمونیستها. حتی در مقایسه کارنامه سرمایه داری بازار آزاد با سرمایه داری دولتی نوع روسی سابقه کمپ غرب - از جنایات هیتلر و دولت اسرائیل تا قساوت خونتاهای نظامی آمریکای لاتین و تا به آتش اتمی کشیدن هیروشیما و ناکازاکی و تا تاچریسم و ریگانیسم و فریدمنیسم، تماما گوی سبقت را از رقبای کمپ روسی اش - در تمامی زمینه های مربوط به مهرورزی و لطافت و ارزشهای اخلاقی و غیره ربوده است! از این نظر آن نیروئی که تماما به بشریت بدهکار است بورژوازی و جنبش ناسیونالیستی است و نه کمونیسم کارگری و جنبش کمونیستی.

حمید تقوایی

 

Tell us, Oh great leader of Hekmatism!

If there is no freely elected representative body of the whole (of socialist, or capitalist damn it!) society, and not just"worker's councils", who will control the leader if he wants to condemn one or the other as a "nationalist"?

Could it be that means, that beyond the democratic or non-democratic political bodies that pronounce judgments, there is some objectively grounded transcendent entity in which the correct judgments of judgment are de facto located?

Nothing else? No.. But this thing reminds me of..something.

What is it?

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος