It is not only a matter of political/geopolitical cynicism..

It is not only a matter of political/geopolitical cynicism, which is a shitfood that you have to eat and turn it into delicious food, it is also a matter of political ethics that requires you to put the ''clean's'' positions under strict and thorough control, because the so called impeccable moral non oportunistic attitude maybe cause moralistic paralysis in your mind and action, to such an extent that you cannot serve your most important moral and political purposes.

After all, usually those who claim an impeccable political and moral stance, sprinkling this self-proclaimed stance with melodramatic sugar dust, turn out to be in the their direct reactions quite harsh and morally inconsistent.

Certainly within an ideological political factor, especially when we are talking about a global ideological factor, there are also some really impeccable moral and political attitudes towards an immediate international political event that "must" to be under positioning immediately.

But usually, these flawless attitudes are in the minority ''in relation to'' mainstream within that factor, so choosing one (factor) over the other or others (factors), cannot be made on the basis of the some perfectionist currents that may exist to the one or the other (factor) as some separate currents within it which would sanctify that factor as a "whole".

So you are obliged to do a general rough weighing.

In this weighing, in reference to the Ukrainian issue and the issue of the libertarian movement of the Iranian and Kurdish youth, the global left was weighed as a "small amount", the western center-right and the western liberal center were divided but generally weighed more from the left, and the western far right turned out to be simply non-existent in its democratism, mostly pro-Russian, certainly worse than the left, but very close to the vast majority of the left in their totalitarian anti-democratic pursuits.

 

---

Your first attitude and reaction to the Ukrainian issue pushes us out of the common ideological space.

When I saw a leading figure of the Hekmatists, adopting the attitude of a pro-Russian Italian trade union, which was sabotaged the shipment of weapons to the struggling Ukraine (this union participated in a conference of unions in Syria organized by the Assad regime), something began to worry me very much.

We're talking about the Hekmatists in Iran, the communist faction considered by their inner-left enemies in the Iranian left to be too neutral towards the West, perhaps pro-Western, even "pro-Zionist" (they're not, imagine what are they that they talk so).

The more objective, generally correct attitude of some Marxists like Michael K., the socialists of Oakland, some anarchists, the correct attitude of Boric (Chile), kept me in reserve for a long time, I postponed the ideological and political rupture again.

But I can't fool myself anymore.

The vast majority of the left and anarchism, kept and keeps a neutral (at best, or hypocritically) or a pro-Russian stance.

I cannot base my adherence to a global ideological faction on the positions of the correct stance of a small ideological minority within it.

I hand over my ideological ''police identity card'' to the competent left-wing authorities.

Now, the honest struggle is for the defense of freedom equality and democracy, but also for the defense of some well meaning Western political and ideological institutions, beyond their narrow leftist terms, and such a struggle it surely will be, too, in many aspects of also a dirty game.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος