Lenin
believed that state capitalism could be led by a strong workers' power,
which of course he defined it in a horrible hierarchical party-statist
way, but in the end state capitalism swallowed Lenin[-ism] (as an
ideology and as a political practice) into its abyss, turning itself (as
state capitalism) into something even more abysmal, into a statist
totalitarian system of exploitation which could hardly even be called
"state capitalism".
---
Since I find from publications of leftist Iranian friends that there is a great battle going on in the circles of the Iranian leftist movement for the "purer revolutionary line" and the discovery of the secret mercenaries, the Shah and the western imperialists or theocrats, I want to reassure them by saying that I, as both a right-wing and left-wing opportunist, a centrist, a Kautskyist, and of course a Mossad agent, have not received any messages of concern to you, regarding the dangers you fear.
On the contrary, the superior in the service where I work, as a mercenary of course of all the dark forces together, told me that everything is going well, according to the planning of the service.
---
Real "centrism" is the "holy grail" of Marxists. I see them from my somewhat distant prism as eternally seeking to find the dialectical balance of all the contradictory forces that they consider pulling at them as demonic forces, one here and one there, a right-wing opportunism and a left-wing opportunism, Western imperialism and Eastern imperialism, a bunch of attractions between "demonic poles" of the "satanic bourgeois ideology" and they in the middle squinting at each other, hurling at each other various critical categorizations, related to the above and countless others "demonic dipoles".
Due to age now, I have left myself to the passions of bourgeois ideology, I am tired now, and I say to accept all the demonic proposals, anyway I am not going to be accepted into the Marxist paradise, so comrades, I propose something.
Calm down a little, drink some wine, and fear no the demons more than suspicion.
--
The "Westphalian" foundation of the modern state has been reproduced in many of reverse each other mirror images..
I hear, for example, many "class arguments" that I could imagine, somewhat fictionally, to be extensions of the "Westphalian" foundation.
An idealized internal territory of an (ideological) sovereignty, a fear of the possible violation of this territory by "foreign" to it other (ideological) territories, a "law" of non-intervention of a of (ideological) sovereign territory in the "interior" of the other, in short a model of desired absolute purity.
In ours:
Someday the critique of the pure revolutionary Reason must be written.
--
You don't call it an insinuation, towards the Hekmatists, it is a normal attack, that they put the non-existent (according to the Hekmatists) national bourgeoisie through the back door or the window.
Is a democratic revolution possible without a progressive national bourgeoisie?
Of course not.
The question is who has the hegemony in the course of the revolution.
The Leninists, of course, the most "hard" among them, imagine this hegemony in their own tested way, which we have seen and learned its results, not for the possibly existing progressive bourgeoisie, but for society.
Needless to say, when I see Iranians Leninists puritans to they pour so much venom over a progressive program put forth by the Iranian left, I feel that something good is happening within that left. Iran's new left will not make it to the end, easily. Lurking are the Leninist guardians of revolutionary purity.
So, perhaps through this sectarian hold-up, who is most likely to take the hegemony?
The progressive national bourgeoisie of course!
----
The modern Leninist guardians of revolutionary purity are not the only ones, but they are the oldest and the most tested.
They turn you from in love with revolution to married to pure revolutionary workers' power in a minute.
Well, good marriages, comrades, we'll never get married, although as opportunists we have good marriage proposals.
---
The nicest thing about "Marxists" is when they transform their "structural analyses" into insults and threats.
I like this situation, where ''dialectical analysis'' turns into a verbal attack you hear on docks or in religious-style wars, something between ''You infidel'' and ''fuck you class traitor'', sprinkled with hints about your supposed "petty-bourgeois" class origin, and if it gets too hot, then accusations are made for you that you are a mercenary agent, etc.
--
Perhaps some think that the class struggle fluctuates in its "temperatures", so they wait for the hot, oh my baby.
I, on the other hand, think that especially the class struggle is a very cold situation, always below the zero degree Celsius, I'm cold baby, throw some ideological wood in the fireplace.
--
The ring of power cannot fit into a Leninist finger anymore. No matter how much the Leninists want to their opportunity, it is lost very deep in the glacier of historical oblivion, and no Arthur is going to appear to extract it from there. Young people around the world, when they rise up, hardly fit into stable forms of revolutionary vanguards, even if they are "victims" of some radical instrumentalization.
The revolutionary party or "revolutionary vanguard" as a thin veneer of a mass movement, without many "teaching responsibilities", is the only one that can exist, although this too is doubtful.
As I have said elsewhere any mass progressive movement of late mondernity contains a -sometimes unconscious- "anarchism". We are talking in simplification.
As long as there is no alternative modern-positive solution (certainly not Soviet-Leninist) for who will be the central representative sovereign institution of an in-seed or more mature classless society, in place of the bourgeois parliament, the political position of this alternative proposal will necessarily be occupied by a left-wing party of Syriza type (unfortunately for us here) or SPD or whatever else moves within the constitutional framework of a typical (''western type'') parliamentary bourgeois democracy.
The Soviet-Leninist fantasies of re-establishing a supposedly more purely "working-class" founded "general assembly" of workers' councils (soviets) are reheated stale Soviet food.
The "anarchist" base of modern movements can tolerate a bourgeois left, but it cannot under any circumstances tolerate a Soviet-Leninist Thing over its head, and this historical fact within the progressive (and labor) movements is not "right deviation" nor opportunism, I will not joke again, it is simply the depiction of the strategic political problem of the social left, which, however, within the limits created by this problem, is wiser than the Leninist fantasists.
---
Historical asynchronicities, which lead to a historical synchronicity.
When Eastern Europe was enslaved by the iron hand of Soviet state "socialism" (an exploitative system, which approached Nazi fascism, as the state capitalist/state "socialist" counterpart of state-centered Nazi capitalism itself), in the non-Western capitalist world the working classes and the petty-bourgeois/rural-or-urban social strata they were attracted by this hybrid statism, to enter, supposedly on their own class terms, the modern world.
The beneficiaries were the emerging "regional" bureaucracies and the national/nationalist bourgeoisies of these (non-Western) regions.
If you spoke then, "there", against the "holy Soviet revolution", and that it was worse for the peoples of the region themselves (also for all peoples), at all levels of social fact, than the dominant in these countries (just before, or still) western imperialism/capitalism, they would hear you as a class enemy or a class/national "traitor", or at best they would consider you crazy.
The horrible experiences of the peoples of the Soviet empire, and later of the peoples of Eastern Europe, sounded to these ears like vulgar propaganda lies of the West.
There was therefore an asynchrony of direct social and historical experiences between the peoples of Europe and the Latin American and non-Western peoples.
Today, slowly but surely, a synchronicity of the social historical experiences of the peoples is occurring, which does not, however, justify the experiences of the non-Western peoples as experiences that more correctly present the capitalist and modern state phenomenon, nor does (this synchronicity) mean a kind of balancing common negative "charge" of all capitalisms-imperialisms.
What seems, somewhat in hindsight, to vindicate Hegel and his "Westernism" is that the hybrid semi-Western state capitalism of the Nazis and the Soviets, as a model and as a specific capitalist form, which creatively determined the development of capitalist relations of production in the emerging capitalist-imperialist non-Western world, was, is, and will be always worse for all peoples, but especially a disastrous for non-Western peoples.
---
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου