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