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

 

 

Sahra Wagenknecht’s demonstration.

Adina Danes

 

I see discussions about how many far-right participants were at the Sahra Wagenknecht’s demonstration. Before the demonstration, the organizers sent ambiguous messages like “everybody is welcome” but “no far-right or Russian flag is allowed”. In other words, anybody can come, just hide your face under a “peace” flag instead of the flag that you would like to show. If there are doubts about the number of dubious people from the demonstration, just listen to the video below. In this video, when the organizers say that no pro-Russia-flags, -military symbols or -maps are allowed, you start hearing more and more booing sounds from the crowd (minute 0.54 is the peak): https://tinyurl.com/3jkendtx

A lot of people were revolted that they could not show these symbols at the demonstration. These sounds show that in the crowd there are a lot of people who are pro-aggressor or pro-aggression. Only based on this sound alone, we can say without exaggerating that this was a cross-front demonstration (querfront). If we also add all the images with persons from far-right circles (most came with peace signs btw), then any doubt will dissipate. Of course, if everybody comes with peace signs, how can you distinguish one group from another: https://twitter.com/Gegen_die_AfD/status/1629839196545269763

In addition, anybody with mild pro-Ukraine symbols or messages (so not about arms deliveries) would not have been safe during this demonstration, but, on the contrary, they would have been harassed (it happened).

This was a pro-Russia protest, with different subgroups of participants subscribing to this position and coming from different directions: DDR-nostalgia, pro-war Russian-Germans, far-right groups, conspiracy-oriented and Corona deniers, hard-campists/tankies-left (which I would not call left).

There were also left-wing people who don’t support the aggressor but went there because they thought it is a demonstration for peace, and because they are too stuck in their narrative to be able to distance themselves from the obvious toxicity of this protest.

Sahra Wagenknecht has a history of flirting with the far right on different topics, according to a lot of left-wing people. So, there is no wonder that a call launched by her, that focused on the safety of the “German people”, would gather such a mix of people.

 

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

 

 

 

Numb [Official Music Video] - Linkin Park

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Real socialism

Real socialism is not built with only 50+1% of the population, nor certainly with below that percentage (as imagined by the revolutionary left and anarchism), real socialism is built with the vast majority of the working population, so there is no other strategy from the democratic strategy for the labor socialist movement.
Democratic strategy does not mean vague Bonapartist fantasies according to which democracy will mean only direct democracy of workers' and people's councils, democracy means the possibility of direct administration, and also through free elections, of all political institutions.
They want the supporters of the direct democracy of the councils tell us who will elect and who will control the political parties or the one party?? (of the working class, as they say).
The party members or the entire working society?
Who will elect and directly control the central administrative and state institutions?
The representatives of the representatives of the representatives of the "councils" or the whole working society?
So, when we talk about democracy, and indeed revolutionary democracy, we are talking about a political system in which there is direct and elected as revocable representation, of all political institutions and not a Stalinist or Trotskyist pseudo-democracy where the workers and the people will elect some of their direct representatives in the factory or the neighborhood but the central sovereign institutions will be under the control of some "vanguard".

--

 

Because the capitalist and state emergence in the non-Western world comes "second" in historical time order, while already, as being "second" focus of this process, it has received the accelerating violence of the "first", the social institutional result of this violent acceleration of a given violent process is an inflated statism.

All radical theories and ideologies imported by the West into this hastening-to-be "second" (ontologically-chronologically) sovereign world, they give the paradisiacal illusion that this hastening can exist with good results, as long as it is covered by "socialism" or radical nationalism, which would break down local feudal or conservative bourgeois inhibitions.

So statism was the inevitable framework of this violent fantasy of most radicals of the non-Western emerging capitalist world against the "colonized" local "pro-Western" establishments and the West.

Today we see this ''framework-result'' matured, also with "neoliberal" improvations, in its most extensive and aggressive, world-imperialist version, with the new and brazenly authoritarian new eastern imperialist powers.

All it deserves is to lose to the West, first and foremost for the good of non-Western peoples.

--

The "global south" suffers from a justifiable but now unacceptable misunderstanding of European and Western history in general, and for this the ultra-radical version of Marxism is responsible, which, if taken on its own, without its bourgeois opponent and counterpart, creates to non-Westerners a one-sided and harmful historical optimism about the "path" that must be traveled for the non-West world or the "global south" to they reap the "positive fruits" contained in a horrific process of capitalist and state emergence that preceded before the "positive fruits" creation.

-- 

The founding - genesis - emergence of strategic structures contains mass violence and mass death, imagine if "this" having to be hastened by the competition caused when the focus of this historical creation comes "second" in relation to another focus that which has already existed and which (first focus) has already exerted formative violence on the emerging other "second" focus of such a creation.

 

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

 

Lesson for Kindergarten Marxists..

 

The difference between ultranationalism and patriotism/defensive nationalism is simple.

Lesson for Kindergarten Marxists:

Russia = consumes its military youth as if in a meat grinder, sends them with lies, as an invader to a country that did not threaten Russia and sacrifices it like a poultry farm sacrifice its chickens for slaughter.

Ukraine = all the people, in the front the youth, willingly sacrifice themselves to defend the freedom of the nation, the defense of its legitimate territorial integrity, and the protection of civilians.

"Marxists" of Kindergarten, stop spouting shit.

 

Η διαφορά μεταξύ υπερεθνικισμού και πατριωτισμού/αμυντικού εθνικισμού, είναι απλή.

Μάθημα για μαρξιστές τού νηπιαγωγείου:

Ρωσία = αναλώνει την στρατευμένη νεολαία της σαν σε κρεατομηχανή, την στέλνει με ψέματα ως εισβολέα σε μια χώρα που δεν απειλούσε την Ρωσία και την θυσιάζει όπως ένα πτηνοτροφείο τα κοτόπουλα που έχει για σφαγή.

Ουκρανία = όλος ο λαός, μπροστά η νεολαία, θυσιάζεται αυτοβούλως για να υπερασπιστεί την ελευθερία τού έθνους, την υπεράσπιση τής νόμιμης εδαφικής ακεραιότητας του, και την προστασία των αμάχων.

«Μαρξιστή» τού νηπιαγωγείου, πάψε να βγάζεις σκατά από το στόμα.

 

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

 

 

 

 

So why not state the obvious?

 

Two days ago I humorously posed the following question to an Irish friend on Facebook, who is of course left-wing (in a good way, by my own standards).

Assuming that there is a global left-wing public opinion, what percentage of them unreservedly support the Ukrainian struggle against fascist genocide by Russia?

After my question, there was a clarification, so to speak, as to why it was asked as a question.

Depending on the answer, I told my friend, I will judge whether my humility can define itself as left-wing humility, or whether I must finally discard this self-identification altogether.

The same goes for the anarchist space, etc.

Someone will reasonably say, "but man do you mind if the pro-Ukrainian stance is in the minority within the left?

Whatever is a minority position, you will belong to it until you together with the other participants (in that position) can make it the majority.

You will fight your fair struggle within the left, and in the end the truth will shine.."

I will answer as briefly as I can:

I have no more endurance to struggle for a lifetime as a minority position, within an ideological space that continues to show a fundamental difficulty in having a self-evident correct reflexivity towards obvious facts concerning international politics and ideological-value reality, as I mean it of course.

The post-WWII left is supposed to have changed its original doctrine to a pragmatic alliance-building when the problem is a global fascist threat.

This adjustment it made several times in a covert way, so that there would be a historical interval that would enable it to change some doctrines which history itself showed to be completely inadequate.

One of these doctrines was that we never ally with imperialist powers, or to put it in a Leninist way (which became a favorite way of the Maoists), we never develop a social-imperialism.

The historical reality that broke out in the second world war, crushed this position.

Being naive, I believed, as in other critical strategic issues, that the indirect and unacknowledged would at some point turn into open and acknowledged, but the very ideological-value reality of the left, worldwide, bitterly disproved me.

Never has a leftist managed to say what he necessarily did, and well he did, clearly, through speech and within his speech.

We also see this in the Ukrainian issue, where the best, that is, those who showed a directly correct attitude of support for the Ukrainian struggle, did NOT dare and do not dare to say what I said:

Yes, the alliance of a people, and also of us its supporters, with an imperialist camp, is right, it is necessary, it is proper, when there is a problem of survival of this people, and when this imperialist camp meets a minimum of ideological conditions.

So why not state the obvious?

When even the honest ideological-value minority within an ideological-value world has trouble speaking the truth that shatters false theological dogma, then why should I trust it even when become a majority trend?

And what is it about this doctrine that makes it so important that a political "ideological factor" with a global reach should hold it inviolable and sacred?

The same applies to many other doctrines and transcendental principles of the left (and of anarchism), which would take us days and nights to present to you.

The point of my post is simple:

It is not only that I disagree with some doctrines but also (that I disagree) with the way the left defends them.

This way shows a political and ideological essence that scares me, I think not without reason, because it directly refers to a hard religion, to a metaphysical ideological and political system of thought and action.

Great discussion, I will continue it, not only in relation to the left and anarchism, but now what is urgent for me is an immediate and final political and ideological personal decision.

--

 

Πριν δύο μέρες έθεσα με χιουμοριστικό τρόπο το εξής ερώτημα σε έναν Ιρλανδό φίλο στο Facebook, ο οποίος είναι φυσικά αριστερός (με την καλή έννοια, κατά τα δικά μου κριτήρια).

Αν υποθέσουμε ότι υπάρχει μια παγκόσμια αριστερή κοινή γνώμη, ποιο είναι το ποσοστό αυτών που υποστηρίζουν ανεπιφύλακτα τον ουκρανικό αγώνα ενάντια στην φασιστική γενοκτονία εκ μέρους τής Ρωσίας;

Μετά από το ερώτημα μου αυτό, υπήρχε μια ούτως ειπείν διευκρίνιση, για τον λόγο για τον οποίο τέθηκε ως ερώτημα.

Αναλόγως τής απάντησης, είπα στον φίλο μου, θα κρίνω αν η ταπεινότητα μου μπορεί να αυτοπροσδιορίζεται σαν αριστερή ταπεινότητα ή αν πρέπει επιτέλους να αποβάλλω δια παντός αυτόν τον αυτοπροσδιορισμό.

Το ίδιο ισχύει για τον αναρχικό χώρο κ.λπ.

Θα πει εύλογα κάποιος, "μα άνθρωπε μου σε πειράζει αν η φιλο-ουκρανική στάση είναι μειονοτική μέσα στην αριστερά;

Τι κι αν είναι μειονοτική στάση, εσύ θα ανήκεις σε αυτήν ώσπου μαζί με τους άλλους συμμετέχοντες (σε αυτή την στάση) να μπορέσετε να την κάνετε πλειονοτική.

Θα κάνετε τον τίμιο αγώνα σας εντός τής αριστεράς, και στο τέλος η αλήθεια θα λάμψει..".

Θα απαντήσω εν συντομία, όσο μπορώ:

Δεν έχω άλλες αντοχές να αγωνίζομαι μια ζωή ως μειονοτική στάση, εντός ενός ιδεολογικού χώρου που συνεχίζει να δείχνει θεμελιώδη δυσκολία στο να έχει μιαν αυτονόητη ορθή αντανακλαστικότητα απέναντι σε προφανή γεγονότα που αφορούν την διεθνή πολιτική και ιδεολογική-αξιακή πραγματικότητα, όπως την εννοώ εγώ βέβαια.

Η αριστερά μετά τον δεύτερο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο υποτίθεται ότι είχε προσαρμόσει το αρχικό δόγμα της σε σχέση με την ρεαλιστική συγκρότηση συμμαχιών όταν το πρόβλημα είναι ένας παγκόσμιας εμβέλειας φασιστικός κίνδυνος.

Αυτή την προσαρμογή την επιτέλεσε πολλές φορές με υπόρρητο τρόπο, ώστε να υπάρχει ένα ιστορικό χρονικό διάστημα που να τής δώσει την δυνατότητα να αλλάξει μερικά θέσφατα και δόγματα που φανερώθηκαν από την ίδια την ιστορία ως εντελώς ανεπαρκή.

Ένα από αυτά τα δόγματα ήταν ότι ποτέ δεν συμμαχούμε με ιμπεριαλιστικές δυνάμεις, ή για να το πω με λενινιστικό τρόπο (που έγινε ένας προσφιλής στους μαοικούς τρόπος), δεν αναπτύσσουμε ποτέ έναν σοσιαλιμπεριαλισμό.

Η ιστορική πραγματικότητα που ξέσπασε στον δεύτερο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο, συνέτριψε αυτή την θέση.

Όντας σε αφέλεια, πίστεψα, όπως και σε άλλα κρίσιμα στρατηγικά ζητήματα, ότι το έμμεσο και το ανομολόγητο, κάποια στιγμή θα μετατρέπονταν σε ανοιχτό και ομολογημένο, αλλά η ίδια η ιδεολογική-αξιακή πραγματικότητα τής αριστεράς, παγκόσμια, με διέψευσε οικτρά.

Ποτέ ένας αριστερός δεν κατόρθωσε να πει αυτό που αναγκαστικά έπραξε, και καλώς έπραξε, καθαρά, δια τού λόγου και εντός τού λόγου του.

Το βλέπουμε αυτό και στο ουκρανικό ζήτημα, όπου οι καλύτεροι, αυτοί δηλαδή που έδειξαν μίαν άμεσα ορθή στάση υποστήριξης τού ουκρανικού αγώνα, ΔΕΝ τόλμησαν ούτε τολμούν να πούνε αυτό που εγώ είπα:

Ναι, η συμμαχία ενός λαού, αλλά και ημών των υποστηρικτών του, με ένα ιμπεριαλιστικό στρατόπεδο, είναι ορθή, είναι απαραίτητη, είναι πρέπουσα, όταν υπάρχει πρόβλημα επιβίωσης αυτού τού λαού, και όταν αυτό το ιμπεριαλιστικό στρατόπεδο πληροί ένα minimum ιδεολογικών προϋποθέσεων.

Γιατί λοιπόν δεν λέγεται το προφανές;

Όταν ακόμα και η τίμια ιδεολογική-αξιακή μειονότητα εντός ενός ιδεολογικού-αξιακού κόσμου έχει πρόβλημα να πει την αλήθεια που θραύει το αναληθές θεολογικό δόγμα, τότε γιατί να την εμπιστευτώ ακόμα κι αυτήν αν θα γίνει πλειονοτική τάση;

Και τι σημαίνει αυτό το δόγμα που το καθιστά τόσο σημαντικό ώστε να το κρατήσει ένας πολιτικός ιδεολογικός παράγοντας που έχει παγκόσμια εμβέλεια αλώβητο και ιερό;

Το ίδιο ισχύει για πολλά άλλα δόγματα και υπερβατικές αρχές τής αριστεράς (και τού αναρχισμού), που θα μας χρειάζονταν μέρες και νύχτες για να σας τα παρουσιάσω.

Το νόημα της θέσης μου είναι απλό:

Δεν είναι μόνον ότι διαφωνώ και με κάποια δόγματα αλλά επίσης (ότι διαφωνώ) με τον τρόπο που η αριστερά τα υπερασπίζεται.

Ο τρόπος αυτός δείχνει μια πολιτική και ιδεολογική ουσία που με φοβίζει, νομίζω όχι άδικα, διότι παραπέμπει άμεσα σε μια σκληρή θρησκεία, σε ένα μεταφυσικό ιδεολογικό και πολιτικό σύστημα σκέψης και δράσης.

Μεγάλη συζήτηση, θα την συνεχίσω, όχι μόνο σε σχέση με την αριστερά και τον αναρχισμό, αλλά τώρα αυτό που επείγει για μένα είναι μια άμεση και τελική πολιτική και ιδεολογική προσωπική απόφαση.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Imagine when the regime falls in Iran..

At first, joking a little.

Imagine when the regime falls in Iran, what.. nice political interactions there will be in the post-theocratic political scene -of the street though.

Crazy royalist Persians who think they belong to the "Persian-Aryan race" and hate everyone else, want a monarchy, communists who think it's time for a socialist revolution, ethnic minorities or nations who want to secede, and of course quite a few supporters of theocracy even if has just fallen, but so have other groups.

Everything will be transformed in good, if -at least initially transitory, will transform into a multi-party democracy otherwise there will be a bloodbath.

They need all of them prudence and realism, as long as the destructive of the Pahlavi-scenario about the triumphant return of the Shah ceases in advance.

The only thing that would "enable" the royalists not to destroy everything, but also their stupid selves, would be to build an ultra-conservative party and nothing else. Otherwise, they lead Iran to an absolute dead end.

 

Iran.

In the first revolution, the mutuallymirroring between far-right fascist royalist semi-secular absolutism and emerging left-nationalist bonapartism (which had both a secular and a semi-secular wing), was reflected (as mutuallymirroring) in the theocratic bonapartism.

Today, already at the beginning of the second great Iranian revolution, the game with Iranian mirrors has become even more dangerous and impasse.

I am unable, not only because I am a foreigner and irrelevant, to understand where this game of political and ideological mutuallymirroring will go in Iran.

 

The most consistent non-compromise of the Iranian democratic revolutionary forces, apart from class-worker non-compromise (respectable logic, perhaps even holy, I have followed it for 54 years), would be possible if an open parliamentary multi-party institution (consisting of freely elected by society representatives) would emerge as the dominant representative political body of the entire social body.

Now, why aren't the Iranian leftists saying this?

Because are they perhaps afraid of "becoming bourgeois"?

I don't know what to tell you anymore.

May the Buddha enlighten them.

I now give up the arguments.

Everyone is dear to me.

Good luck.

----

Ο πιο συνεπής μη συμβιβασμός των ιρανικών δημοκρατικών επαναστατικών δυνάμεων, εκτός τού ταξικού εργατικού μη συμβιβασμού (σεβαστή λογική, ίσως και σεβάσμια, την ακολουθούσα 54 χρόνια), θα ήταν εφικτός, αν εδραιώνονταν ένας ανοιχτός κοινοβουλευτικός πολυκομματικός θεσμός (απαρτισμένος από ελεύθερα εκλεγμένους από την κοινωνία αντιπροσώπους), ως κυρίαρχο αντιπροσωπευτικό πολιτικό σώμα όλου του κοινωνικού σώματος.

Τώρα, γιατί οι Ιρανοί αριστεροί δεν το λένε αυτό;

Γιατί ίσως φοβούνται ότι θα γίνουν μπουρζουαζία; δεν ξέρω πλέον να σας πω.

Ο Βούδας ας τους φωτίσει.

Εγώ πλέον εγκαταλείπω την επιχειρηματολογία.

Όλοι μου είναι αγαπητοί.

Καλή τύχη.

--

They told you, they told him, you heard, you heard that someone heard, that the West does not want to help the people of Iran to overthrow the theocratic regime, because it is cold and only thinks of its own interests.

But if it goes to help then it is imperialistic.

You in the east don't know what you want sometimes.

First decide what your limits are in terms of the help you want from the West, then let's discuss what the West wants, what the West is, etc.

--

Σου είπαν, τού είπαν, άκουσες, άκουσες ότι κάποιος άκουσε, ότι η Δύση δεν θέλει να βοηθήσει τον λαό τού Ιράν να ρίξει το θεοκρατικό καθεστώς, γιατί είναι ψυχρή και σκέφτεται μόνο τα συμφέροντα της.

Αν όμως πάει να βοηθήσει τότε είναι ιμπεριαλιστική.

Εσείς εκεί στην ανατολή, δεν ξέρετε τι θέλετε μερικές φορές.

Αποφασίστε πρώτα ποια είναι τα όρια σας ως προς την βοήθεια που θέλετε από τη Δύση, και μετά ας συζητήσουμε τι θέλει η Δύση, τι είναι η Δύση κ.λπ.

--

 

The West helped Ukraine after Ukraine stood alone without any help at first, having only its democratic values, its united people and its clown hero president.

We democrats want to be Clowns, you see, you the serious leftist anti-imperialists, what are you?

--

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nations living within but on the limits of a world-wide sovereign entity..

Abandoning the geographical boundary of a sovereignty on its part would mean the ultimate collapse of that sovereignty.

Putin knows this, not because he defends the limits of the sovereignty he represents, as most leftists on the planet (not all) and almost all extreme rightists on the planet say.

Ukraine is not a threat to Russian sovereignty, not even if we mean this sovereignty as part of a wider (imperialist) sovereignty, Ukraine has always been and today especially is an essentially Western country, this indicates the constant will of its inhabitants over time when they can express this will freely.

This is known by Putin and the Russian fascist elite who are a continuation of the pseudo-socialist Great Russian Soviet elite, and what they really want is to strategically cause the fall and deconstruction of the West as a whole, which may go as far as the colonization of Europe and isolation then of the US in its shell.

As a person who belongs to a country on the borders of the West, which is both a colony of it but also a constituent part of it, I believe that my own people, the Greek people, have no room to accept such a scenario, the dissolution of the Western empire that is, in the way that all anti-Westerners imagine this together today, each type of anti-Western differently but all types of anti-Western together, in a vile barbaric vindictive and reactionary way.

It may be that some, mainly anarchists and leftists, imagine beautiful and ideal ways through which there will be a dissolution of all geopolitically formed coalitions and worlds, and thus also imagine the dissolution of the world of Western domination, in which we live and they live with us , but I, for example, and anyone who does not live with imagination and visions in their sleep and wakefulness, I do not intend to listen to nonsense about my life and the lives of my fellow citizens on this side, on this border of Western domination .

In this sense, the support of Ukraine is posed for me and for all those who think like me, as aware of WHERE we are, as a matter of life and death, as an immediately vital issue that can no longer be debated.

In this sense, even more so, the special interests and special values of those Western or Western-oriented peoples who live right on the borders of this new Asian aggression prompt them to be more cruel towards it compared to peoples who live in a more safe hinterland of western sovereignty.

We, e.g. Greeks, Poles, Ukrainians, and others, we don't have the possibility for other alternatives, as perhaps the citizens and workers or petty bourgeois of the USA have.

--

 

Η εγκατάλειψη τού γεωγραφικού ορίου μιας κυριαρχίας από μέρους της θα σήμαινε την τελική κατάρρευση αυτής τής κυριαρχίας, κάποτε.

Αυτό το ξέρει ο Πούτιν, όχι διότι αμύνεται για τα όρια τής κυριαρχίας που εκπροσωπεί, όπως λένε οι περισσότεροι αριστεροί τού πλανήτη (όχι όλοι) και σχεδόν όλοι οι ακροδεξιοί τού πλανήτη.

Η Ουκρανία δεν αποτελεί απειλή για την ρωσική κυριαρχία, ούτε αν εννοήσουμε αυτή την κυριαρχία μέρος μιας ευρύτερης (ιμπεριαλιστικής) κυριαρχίας, η Ουκρανία ήταν πάντα και σήμερα ειδικά είναι μια ουσιαστικά δυτική χώρα, αυτό υποδηλώνει η σταθερή βούληση των κατοίκων της διαχρονικά όταν τούτοι μπορούν να εκφράσουν αυτή τους τη βούληση ελεύθερα.

Αυτό το ξέρει ο Πούτιν και η ρωσική φασιστική ελίτ που αποτελεί συνέχεια τής ψευτοσοσιαλιστικής μεγαλορωσικής σοβιετικής ελίτ, και αυτό που πραγματικά θέλει είναι να προκαλέσει στρατηγικά την πτώση και αποδόμηση τής Δύσης στο σύνολο της, που μπορεί να φτάσει ως την αποικιοποίηση τής Ευρώπης και την απομόνωση τότε των ΗΠΑ στο καβούκι τους.

Ως άνθρωπος που ανήκω σε μια χώρα των συνόρων τής Δύσης, η οποία είναι μεν αποικία της αλλά και συστατικό μέρος της, θεωρώ ότι ο δικός μου λαός, ο Ελληνικός λαός, δεν έχει κανένα περιθώριο να δεχτεί ένα τέτοιο σενάριο, την διάλυση τής δυτικής αυτοκρατορίας δηλαδή, με τον τρόπο που το φαντασιωνονται αυτό όλοι μαζί οι αντιδυτικοί σήμερα, ο κάθε τύπος αντιδυτικού διαφορετικά αλλά όλοι οι τύποι αντιδυτικών μαζί, με έναν άθλιο βάρβαρο εκδικητικό και αντιδραστικό τρόπο.

Μπορεί μερικοί, αναρχικοί και αριστεροί κυρίως, να φαντάζονται ωραίους και ιδανικούς τρόπους μέσω των οποίων θα υπάρξει διάλυση όλων των γεωπολιτικά διαμορφωμένων συνασπισμών και κόσμων, και έτσι να φαντάζονται επίσης την διάλυση τού κόσμου τής δυτικής κυριαρχίας, στον οποίο ζούμε και ζούνε κι αυτοί μαζί μας, αλλά εγώ λ.χ και όποιος δεν ζει με υποθέσεις φαντασιακής εργασίας και οράματα στον ύπνο και τον ξύπνιο του, δεν προτίθεμαι να ακούω μαλακίες για τη ζωή μου και την ζωή των συμπολιτών μου σε αυτή την άκρη, σε αυτό το σύνορο τής Δυτικής κυριαρχίας.

Υπό αυτή την έννοια, η υποστήριξη τής Ουκρανίας τίθεται για μένα και για όλους αυτούς που σκέφτονται όπως εγώ, ως συνειδητοποιούντες ΠΟΥ βρισκόμαστε, ως μια υπόθεση ζωής και θανάτου, ως ένα άμεσα ζωτικό ζήτημα στο οποίο δεν χωράει πλέον συζήτηση.

Υπό αυτή την έννοια μάλιστα, ακόμα περισσότερο, τα ειδικά συμφέροντα και οι ειδικές αξίες αυτών των δυτικών ή δυτικότροπων λαών που ζούνε ακριβώς πάνω στα σύνορα αυτής τής νέας ασιατικής επίθεσης τους ωθούν να είναι περισσότερο σκληροί απέναντι της σε σύγκριση με λαούς που ζούνε σε μια πιο ασφαλή ενδοχώρα τής δυτικής κυριαρχίας.

Εμείς, λ.χ Έλληνες, Πολωνοί, Ουκρανοί, και άλλοι, δεν έχουμε την δυνατότητα για άλλες εναλλακτικές, όπως ίσως έχουν λ.χ οι πολίτες και οι εργάτες ή οι μικροαστοί των ΗΠΑ.

--

Nations living within but on the limits of a world-wide sovereign entity, "within-out of-the-boundaries" of a sovereign supranational subsystem, are necessarily thrust into a paradoxical relationship with the so-called hinterland of that subsystem, but also into an equally paradoxical relationship with other - the competitive to their familiar - global subsystem of sovereignty.

We necessarily speak generally, by means of horrible generalizations, so that you may understand the position of these nations as the Ianus of international politics, where, however, the double gaze of Ianus should not be regarded as equivalent in its two limbs.

The new Greece, for example, always looks outside the West, but its gaze since it was founded as a new nation remains a gaze within the West.

Because it was founded on the border of the West, being itself a movement of the border of the West towards the East, it is always in a position of danger, in the sense that the West itself neither wants nor can guarantee its absolute security vis-à-vis the Asian despotism (because the West is not only a cultural institution but also a coalition of domination), but also treats this country as a luxurious colony, suitable for the implementation of economic imperialist despotism, ideological Western fantasy, but also ideological humiliation when the West has its nerve with the neo-Greeks when do they not suit to its direct sovereign, economic and political interests.

Then the West forgets modern Greece as a humble but living continuation of ancient Greece, and through its propagandists proclaims that it has nothing to do with ancient Greece but is a mish-mash of mixed bastards, Albanians (yes, we have a large Albanian contribution to our new nation and it is our honor, those of us who do not have a racial cultural complex) and Slavs, etc., a Byzantine extremity.

So then the western rulers of this luxurious and semi-independent colony, remind the neo-Greeks that they are unworthy bearers of a great name, then the neo-Greeks remember again that they are alone on this border that they were destined to live and emerge as a new nation.

So then, the double gaze of Ianus that is called modern Greece exists as a gaze towards the east, towards the non-western sovereign world.

I said all this so that some people, inside and outside of Greece, understand what it means for a country and a nation to live on the borders of a sovereign world, so that they can stop deceiving themselves about the stability of some self-identifications and hetero-identifications.

Everything is played, not every day, but everything is played in this life, especially if you live "within" the limits of a house.

 

-- 

 

Τα έθνη που ζούνε εντός μεν αλλά στα όρια μιας παγκοσμίου εμβέλειας κυριαρχικής οντότητας, "εντός-στα όρια" ενός κυριαρχικού υπερεθνικού υποσυστήματος, ωθούνται αναγκαστικά σε μια παράδοξη σχέση με την ούτως ειπείν ενδοχώρα αυτού τού υποσυστήματος, αλλά επίσης σε μια εξίσου παράδοξη σχέση με το άλλο -το ανταγωνιστικό προς το οικείο τους- παγκόσμιο υποσύστημα κυριαρχίας.

Μιλάμε αναγκαστικά γενικά, μέσω φρικτών γενικεύσεων, ούτως ώστε να κατανοήσετε την θέση των εθνών αυτών ως Ιανών τής διεθνούς πολιτικής, όπου όμως το διπλό βλέμμα τού Ιανού ας μη θεωρηθεί ως ισοδύναμο ως προς τα δύο σκέλη του.

Η νέα Ελλάδα λ.χ κοιτάει πάντα και εκτός Δύσης, αλλά το βλέμμα της από τότε που ιδρύθηκε ως νέο έθνος παραμένει βλέμμα εντός τής Δύσης.

Επειδή ιδρύθηκε πάνω στο όριο τής Δύσης, όντας η ίδια μία μετακίνηση τού ορίου τής Δύσης προς τα ανατολικά, βρίσκεται πάντα σε μια θέση κινδύνου, με την έννοια ότι η ίδια η Δύση δεν θέλει ούτε δύναται να τής εγγυηθεί την απόλυτη ασφάλεια της απέναντι στον ασιατικό δεσποτισμό (διότι η Δύση δεν είναι πολιτισμικό ίδρυμα μόνον αλλά επίσης συνασπισμός κυριαρχίας), αλλά επίσης αντιμετωπίζει τη χώρα αυτή και ως πολυτελή αποικία, κατάλληλη για την εφαρμογή οικονομικού ιμπεριαλιστικού δεσποτισμού, ιδεολογικής δυτικής φαντασίωσης, αλλά και ιδεολογικής ταπείνωσης όταν η Δύση έχει τα νεύρα της με τους νέους Έλληνες και δεν τής ταιριάζουν στα άμεσα κυριαρχικά, οικονομικά και πολιτικά συμφέροντα της.

Τότε η Δύση ξεχνάει τη μοντέρνα Ελλάδα ως ταπεινή μεν αλλά ζωντανή συνέχεια τής αρχαίας Ελλάδας, και μέσω των προπαγανδιστών της διακηρύσσει ότι δεν έχει σχέση με την αρχαία Ελλάδα αλλά είναι ένα συνονθύλευμα μπάσταρδων μιγάδων, Αλβανών (ναι, έχουμε μεγάλη αλβανική συνεισφορά στο νέο έθνος μας και είναι τιμή μας, όσοι δεν έχουμε φυλετικό πολιτισμικό κόμπλεξ) και Σλάβων κ.λπ, ένα βυζαντινό έκτρωμα.

Τότε λοιπόν οι δυτικοί κυρίαρχοι αυτής τής πολυτελούς και ημι-ανεξάρτητης αποικίας, θυμίζουν στους νεοέλληνες Έλληνες ότι είναι ανάξιοι φορείς ενός σπουδαίου ονόματος, τότε οι νεοέλληνες Έλληνες θυμούνται ξανά ότι είναι μόνοι πάνω σε αυτό το όριο που τούς έλαχε να ζήσουν και να αναδυθούν ως νέο έθνος.

Τότε λοιπόν, το διπλό βλέμμα τού Ιανού που λέγεται σύγχρονη Ελλάδα υπάρχει ως βλέμμα προς την ανατολή, προς τον μη δυτικό κυριαρχικό κόσμο.

Τα είπα όλα αυτά για να καταλάβουν μερικοί, εντός και εκτός Ελλάδας, τι σημαίνει να ζει μια χώρα και ένα έθνος στα όρια ενός κυριαρχικού κόσμου, ώστε να πάψουν να αυταπατώνται για την σταθερότητα μερικών αυτοπροσδιορισμών και ετεροπροσδιορισμών.

Όλα παίζονται, όχι κάθε μέρα, αλλά όλα παίζονται σε αυτή τη ζωή, ειδικά αν ζεις στα όρια ενός οίκου.

--

 

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