Το ερωτικό μήνυμα ενός φίλου..

"...Αγαπητέ Γιάννη, για την πρώτη και δεύτερη ουσία στον Αριστοτέλη στα έργα του: α) Κατηγορίαι 2a, 2b. β) Μετά τα Φυσικά Ζ3...''

 

Pasolini After Dante

Pier Paolo Pasolini Speaks

Canto Dei Sanfedisti

Σοσιαλιστική δημοκρατία και έριδα..

Υπάρχουν διάφορες προσπάθειες για την καταγωγική θεμελίωση τής έννοιας τής δημοκρατίας, και δεν προτίθεμαι βέβαια να τις παραθέσω τώρα, αλλά μπορώ να σας δώσω ένα μεζεδάκι για το πως θεωρώ εγώ ότι μπορεί να οριστεί μια νέα σοσιαλιστική μορφή της χωρίς να δεσμεύεται απόλυτα από την οποιαδήποτε καταγωγική θεμελίωση:

Βασικό στοιχείο των ανταγωνιστικών ταξικών κοινωνιών είναι η έριδα και η αγεφύρωτη σύγκρουση μεταξύ ατόμων, κοινωνικών τάξεων και μεταξύ άλλων κοινωνικών ή "ιδεολογικών" ομάδων.

Δεν θεωρώ ότι στον σοσιαλισμό που επιθυμώ θα εκλείψουν οι σκληρές αντιθέσεις, άρα και οι αντιπαραθέσεις μεταξύ ατόμων και κοινωνικών ομάδων, αν και οφείλω να "ξεκαθαρίσω" ότι για μένα δεν νοείται σοσιαλισμός χωρίς να υπάρχει δια αυτού κατάργηση των σχέσεων οικονομικής εκμετάλλευσης και καταπίεσης, χωρίς δηλαδή να υπάρξει κατάργηση τής ύπαρξης μιας ξεχωριστής τάξης ιδιοκτητών των [βασικών] μέσων παραγωγής και των πόρων.

Θα υπάρχουν άλλοι λόγοι σύγκρουσης και αντιπαράθεσης, θα υπάρχουν διαφορετικές γνώμες, διαφορετικές στρατηγικές για την πολιτική, οικονομική ίσως και πολιτισμική "υφή" του σοσιαλισμού.

Δεν θεωρώ ότι αυτοί οι ανταγωνισμοί θα είναι ήπιοι, όπως επίσης δεν θεωρώ ότι υπάρχει κάποια οντολογική διασφάλιση ότι οι συγκρούσεις που θα προκύπτουν από τις αντίθετες στάσεις και γνώμες θα είναι εύκολα αφομοιώσιμες σε ένα εκ των προτέρων διασφαλισμένο ως μη-ανταγωνιστικό κοινωνικό συνεχές.

Απλά το κοινό υπόβαθρο των συγκρούσεων θα είναι διαφορετικό από το κοινό υπόβαθρο στο οποίο έχουμε συνηθίσει να ζούμε ζώντας σε μια ταξική καταπιεστική κοινωνία όπου μια οικονομική ολιγαρχία "κανονίζει" την κοινωνική κανονικότητα σύμφωνα με τα οικεία ιδιοτελή συμφέροντα της και όπου τα υπόλοιπα "μέλη" τής κοινωνίας είναι "αναγκασμένα" να αγωνίζονται συνέχεια, υπό ανταγωνιστικούς όρους, για την ίδια την επιβίωση και αυτοσυντήρηση τους.

Η δημοκρατική απάλειψη των καταπιεστικών εκμεταλλευτικών όρων τής κοινωνικής παραγωγής, εν συντομία η υπέρβαση τού καπιταλιστικού αλλά και του κρατικιστικού τρόπου παραγωγής, θεωρώ όμως ότι θα φέρει ένα είδος δημοκρατικής ειρήνευσης, χωρίς να σημαίνει κατάργηση κάθε είδους ανταγωνισμού και σύγκρουσης.

Οι ποικίλες διατομικές και κοινωνικές συγκρούσεις θα συνεχίζονται σε ένα άλλο πλαίσιο, αλλά νομίζω ότι εντός τής σοσιαλιστικής δημοκρατίας θα εκλείψει η ακρότητα αυτών των συγκρούσεων, η αβυσσαλέα έκρηξή τους όπως λόγου χάριν παράγεται αναπόφευκτα από το ακραίο υλικό πλαίσιο ζωής των εργαζόμενων πολιτών μιας σύγχρονης καπιταλιστικής δημοκρατίας.

Η εικόνα ενός τέτοιου είδους σοσιαλιστικού δημοκρατισμού μάς ωθεί ή πρέπει να μας ωθήσει να αναθεωρήσουμε την μορφή και το περιεχόμενο τού μέχρι τώρα επαναστατισμού ή δημοκρατισμού μας, σε σχέση μάλιστα με όσα είπαμε στην αρχή.

Οι δημοκρατίες των ταξικών κοινωνιών [όταν υπήρξανε ή όπως υπάρχουν] δεν παύουν να είναι δημοκρατίες, δεν θεωρώ άρα ότι υπάρχει μια εντελώς "μη καταγωγική" θεμελίωση των σοσιαλιστικών δημοκρατικών προτύπων μας, αλλά ταυτόχρονα η δημοκρατία που θέλουμε να υπάρξει ως εργατική δημοκρατία πρέπει να κομίζει ένα νέο ιδιαίτερο στοιχείο που αφορά σε αυτήν την νέα μη-εριστική ή μη-απόλυτα εριστική και μη-δικηγορίστικη έκφραση και ουσία της.

Μέχρι τώρα ο δημοκρατισμός των εργαζόμενων πολιτών πιθήκιζε τον δημοκρατικό Λόγο των ρητόρων-δικηγόρων των ταξικών και ενδοταξικών συγκρούσεων των ταξικών δημοκρατιών, όπως διαμορφώνονταν και διαμορφώνεται [ως Λόγος] μέσα σε ένα πραγματικό ή φαντασιακό πεδίο μιας πραγματικής ή φαντασιακής ιστορικής δίκης. 

Η έριδα και η εριστικότητα παρουσιάζονταν ως ο μοναδικός τρόπος τής δημοκρατικής σοφιστικής. 

Τίποτα από όλα αυτά δεν πρόκειται να εκλείψει, οι αντιθέσεις και οι συγκρούσεις δεν θα λείψουν, αλλά υπάρχει ωστόσο ανάγκη να ανακαλύψουμε [πέραν των αστικών ή μικροαστικών "ευγενειών"] την ευγένεια τού σοσιαλιστικού ήθους, όπως τούτο θα προκύπτει [και] από τις συνεργατικές και συντροφικές σοσιαλιστικές παραγωγικές σχέσεις.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya on the Kurdish National Question

Πηγή: dazibao rojo

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya on the Kurdish National Question

The following text is excerpted from a lengthy polemic by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya entitled The National Question in Turkey. This work was originally completed in December 1971, before Ibrahim Kaypakkaya led the genuine Marxist-Leninists in splitting with the Shafak revisionists, who were also billing themselves then as the Revolutionary Workers and Peasants Party of Turkey (TIIKP), and founded the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML) in April 1972. The National Question in Turkey was re-edited by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya in June 1972, soon after the organisational split with the TIIKP revisionists.

The excerpts printed here are translated from a collection entitled Selected Writings, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, which was published by Ocak Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1979. AWTW

2. Who is subjected to national oppression?

According to the Shafak revisionists, it is the Kurdish people who are being subjected to national oppression. This fails to grasp what national oppression means. National oppression is the oppression to which the ruling classes of the dominant nation subject the oppressed, dependent and minority nations. In Turkey, national oppression is the oppression by the ruling classes of the dominant Turkish nation not just of the Kurdish people but of the entire Kurdish nation, and not even of the Kurdish nation alone, but of all minority nationalities.

Who is Ibrahim Kaypakkaya?

Πηγή:

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya – Selected Works

Who is Ibrahim Kaypakkaya?

İbrahim Kaypakkaya (1949 – May 18, 1973) was a major leader of the Communist movement in Turkey. He was the founder of the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML).

 

Following the military memorandum of 1971, the Turkish government cracked down on the Communist movement in Turkey and was successful in destroying the machinery of the TKP/ML. Kaypakkaya and several of his colleagues were arrested. Kaypakkaya died in prison in 1973 after being tortured for over 4 months and later being shot in the head by his interrogators.

He is revered by his admirers today as a symbol of resistance, who describe him as an aggregator of the ideas and traits of other major leaders and thinkers in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

How did the Iranian Revolution go so far off the rails? – People's World

Πηγή:

How did the Iranian Revolution go so far off the rails? – People's World

The Iranian Revolution was supported by millions of people from all walks of life. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran

Even though it has to wage much of its struggle underground, the Tudeh Party of Iran, 40 years after the overthrow of the autocratic U.S.-installed Shah, continues the fight for a secular, democratic, and socialist Iran. The following is an exclusive interview with Mohammad Omidvar, a member of the political bureau of the Tudeh Party.

Since left and progressive forces, including labor unions, wage an underground struggle in Iran, special measures had to be taken to conduct this interview. The questions and the answers were transmitted to and from Iran by a People’s World source outside that country. The Tudeh Party chose People’s World as the venue for this important interview because it wanted to give people in our country, on the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, a better understanding of what is happening in Iran.

The movement that started out with great hope for the future of that country became, for many reasons, a failed revolution. This interview helps clarify for our readers the reasons for this failure and outlines the direction in which the progressive forces in Iran hope to lead their country now. Omidvar also explains why the Tudeh Party opposes current U.S. sanctions against Iran and why the Trump policy of regime change is so fiercely opposed by the country’s progressive forces.

– John Wojcik, editor-in-chief, People’s World

People’s World: Progressive forces around the world had assessed the February 1979 revolution in Iran as a broadly-supported, all-encompassing social revolution, one of the most exciting and popular uprisings of the 20th century. What were the key factors in the final years of the Shah’s rule that led to the revolution? Iran under the Shah was often represented in the Western media as a strong, modern, and even democratic country. Was this the case?

Mohammad Omidvar—The 1979 revolution in Iran was a national democratic revolution, a classic example of a majority- supported revolution that took place in the particular circumstances of the growth of capitalism in Iran. In the 1960s and ’70s, Iranian society faced a profound structural crisis due to the expansion of capitalist relations whereby representatives of the comprador bourgeois class dominated the political and economic life of the country.

The ever-increasing influence of capital in the Iranian economy, with a police state that prevailed to safeguard the despotic client regime, resulted in the middle strata becoming ever more squeezed. This also led to the weakening of the economic positions of sections of the national bourgeoisie. It is also noteworthy that during the same period the working class was experiencing a modest growth due to the migration of a large number of people from rural areas into cities as a result of the pseudo-land reforms enacted. The real reason for these limited reforms was to eliminate the threat to the Shah’s regime from large landowners.

This gave the growing working class more social weight within the class structure of our society. The 1979 Revolution, therefore, arose from serious socio-economic crises and class contradictions created by the dominating interests of comprador bourgeois and the despotic rule of a corrupt, pro-western regime. It mobilized millions of people—from workers, peasants, and the petty bourgeoisie to sections of the small and medium national bourgeoisie—against the Shah’s regime.

The Iranian Revolution and the toppling of the Shah’s regime was supported by the vast majority of people; millions were in the streets calling for change. What were the key demands of the majority of these forces in the 1979 Revolution, and was the establishment of a theocratic state one of them?

As mentioned before, a wide range of social forces—from the working class to the national bourgeoisie, the middle strata, and the petty bourgeoisie, and the various socio-political forces representing their interests—participated in the revolution with different perspectives and programs. The people’s slogan was “Freedom, Independence, and Social Justice,” and that was the approach supported by our party. The religious forces insisted on adding the “Islamic Republic” to the people’s demands; they did not reveal, at first, what that would mean in practice. They revealed nothing of the characteristics of the kind of state they were planning.

How and why did the forces of what you describe as “political Islam” manage to gain the upper hand? Wasn’t it possible for other revolutionary and/or secular forces to prevent this?

People vs. Army – 1978. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran

The ruling theocratic regime’s propaganda claims that the people of Iran came to the streets to topple the regime of the Shah in order to establish the “rule of Islam.” In reality, the 1979 Revolution had a clear social and class context that was aimed at removing the destructive influence of imperialist monopolies from our country, securing Iran’s economic and political independence, establishing justice, and democratizing the political and cultural life of our society.

The 1979 Revolution ended up being taken over by religious forces for a number of critical reasons, dating right back to the aftermath of the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup d’état in Iran, which re-established the Shah’s regime. Over the following 25 years, while the left forces—especially the Tudeh Party of Iran, the nationalist forces and, later on, the guerrilla movements, including the People’s Fedaian and People’s Mujahedin—were heavily suppressed by the security forces, the clergy were allowed to use their networks, mosques, and religious events to organize and promote their agenda (Political Islam).

The Shah’s regime and its dreaded security force, SAVAK, saw the clergy as an important tool in countering the left and radical forces in Iran. Indeed, in letters exchanged between then-President Carter and Ayatollah Khomeini (now published in the mémoires of Dr. Yazdi, Khomeini’s close confidante in Paris and Iran’s first post-revolutionary foreign minister), the U.S. was prepared to tolerate Khomeini’s regime provided they guaranteed to stop the influence of the Tudeh Party of Iran in Iran’s post-revolution era.

In your publications, your assessment is that, after its initial success in overthrowing the Shah’s regime and bringing about a number of political changes, the 1979 Revolution was halted and ultimately failed. What characterizes it as a failed revolution, and was this inevitable? Could other revolutionary forces, including the Tudeh Party, have done things differently, thereby altering the negative course the revolution was taking? Did the left, including the Tudeh Party, make any mistakes, in your estimation?

Ehsan Tabari, one of the key leaders of the Tudeh Party of Iran, addresses a rally in    Tehran articulating the position of the Party on the drafting of the new constitution, November 1979. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran

The Iranian Revolution successfully completed its political phase of overthrowing the Shah’s despotic regime. It was clear to our party that for the revolution to succeed, it needed to evolve into its social phase, replacing the socio-economic order it had inherited from the Shah’s regime with a new order.

Many of our party’s slogans and our platform—including the nationalization of banks and multinational companies, as well as land reform—was carried out in the atmosphere that existed in the first year of the revolution. However, constant U.S. and reactionary interference in Iran, including the imposition of the imperialist-instigated Iraq-Iran War, stopped the revolution in its tracks and provided the backdrop for Khomeini and his followers to stop these programs and move towards the establishment of a theocratic regime.

At the time, conscious of challenges facing the revolution, our party called for the formation of a “people’s united front” with other revolutionary forces to make sure that the revolutionary movement would not be derailed, but this did not materialize due to significant political differences among those forces.

Our party, in its analysis of the early years of revolution, concluded that in our policy of “critical unity” with Khomeini and his followers, we were perhaps more concerned with unity than being critical of some of the policies that clearly were not in line with revolutionary ideals and the people’s demands. It is clear that had the left-democratic forces managed to come together, it would have been possible to change the balance of forces politically in the country for a different outcome. The reactionary forces, in a matter of three years, were able to attack the left and democratic forces one-by-one and then establish their absolute rule in Iran.

The major slogans of the 1979 Revolution were for freedom, independence, and the establishment of a republic, with democratic rights and structures, to replace the Shah’s dictatorship. What is the Tudeh Party’s assessment of the outcome of the revolution for democracy, gender equality, the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, and trade union rights in Iran?

Iran, 40 years after the revolution, is ruled by a despotic regime with no regard for human and democratic rights. Over past decades, we have witnessed laws restricting women’s rights and their treatment as second-class citizens. This has included medieval laws permitting the marriage of girls as young as 11, as well as enforcing gender segregation in places of education and even hospitals.

The regime has also ruthlessly suppressed the basic rights of ethnic and national minorities, as well as religious minorities. Its record on trade union rights remains appalling. Many trade unionists are imprisoned or exiled and trade union activity either restricted by the state or forced underground. The regime has never accepted the legal operation of trade unions. It only permits Islamic Labor Councils—tripartite bodies involving the employers, government representatives, and employees—thus breaching ILO Conventions 87 and 98, guaranteeing all workers the right to belong to a trade union of their choice and engage in trade union activities.

During the past forty years, many significant social movements have demanded, and continue to demand, change in Iran. Have these movements aimed to reform the political and socio-economic system in Iran, or have they been directed towards a more fundamental change in the social order?

Protest in the industrial city of Arak – workers of HEPPCO and Azarab, two major manufacturers, protesting against privatization, unpaid salaries, and unacceptable conditions of service. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran

Over the past two decades, powerful social movements have emerged in Iran demanding change in the way the country is ruled and rebelling against corruption and repression. In 1997, Mohammad Khatami became Iran’s president promising reform and the “rule of law.” There was a powerful social force, from women to youth and students, behind Khatami, and he received over 20 million votes in the election.

But his government’s promises were not realized due to their overriding belief that change could only take place if permitted by the “Supreme Religious Leader” and could not cross the “red lines” of the Islamic Republic. Over the eight years of Khatami’s presidency, despite some respite in terms of the oppression, real changes to Iran’s power structure never materialized, and the regime was able to neutralize the social movements and gain the initiative against them.

Socio-economic conditions continue to worsen in Iran. Poverty is at unprecedented levels, with some estimating 40 percent of the population being below the poverty line, all while the regime has sold over $800 billion worth of oil over the last three decades. Now we are witnessing a radicalization of people’s demands amidst growing workers’ strikes and protests. In late 2017 and into 2018, we had sporadic protests in 80 Iranian cities which the regime suppressed savagely. And over the past three months, we have been witnessing prolonged workers’ strikes in key industries such as steel, automobile, and sugarcane in the south of Iran. People are demanding an end to the current neoliberal policies of privatization, economic hardship, and the unprecedented levels of corruption.

One of the characteristics of the 1979 Revolution was its then-stated “anti-imperialist” position. Some of the acts of the theocratic leadership were seen by some on the left as having a progressive motivation, as Iran’s way of protecting its sovereignty. How does the Tudeh Party assess the theocratic leadership’s stated policy of being opposed to U.S. imperialism? Is it sincere? Has the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran benefitted the Iranian people in any way?

It is true that one of the key characteristics of our revolution was its anti-imperialism, and especially in opposition to U.S. imperialism, due to their long-term interference in our country and plundering of our national resources, including oil and gas. The religious leaders used these slogans, which were mainly viewed as Tudeh Party slogans, to consolidate their position in the revolutionary movement

Clearly, their anti-American slogans were not based on the same understanding as the anti-imperialist slogans of the left and our party, which reflected our view of the destructive role of monopoly capital on the world stage and our belief that anti-imperialist forces should unite and work together to build a different world. The Iranian regime’s ideal economic model was that of a capitalist order wrapped up with empty Islamist slogans.

For the Iranian regime, its influence in the region and the building of an Islamic empire was a critical part of its foreign policy and, as such, clashed with that of reactionary and puppet regimes in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in the Persian Gulf region. It is also important to note that at the most critical points in our region’s recent history, including the imperialist aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranian regime—according to its own leaders—helped U.S. plans by opening up the country’s airspace so that attacks could be carried out against both neighboring countries.

The Trump administration is now openly following a policy of regime change in Iran. What is your party’s position on the possibility of such an external intervention? Can you give us your opinion about the activities of President Trump, the Israeli government, Saudi Arabia, and their allies?

In a statement by our Central Committee on May 1, 2018, in response to the growing threat from the U.S. and its allies, our party opined that: “In analyzing the current developments in the Trump administration and the coordination—more than ever before—of the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia with that administration, many of the world news agencies have commented that the risk of a military conflict between Israel and Iran is now higher than ever.”

We further elaborated that: “Our country and the Persian Gulf region and the Middle East is once again faced with a very serious and urgent threat of catastrophic military conflicts which will have dire consequences for Iran and the entire region. Ignoring these threats and supporting the destructive and interfering policies of the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia, contrary to the claims of some of the foreign-allied, anti-people, so-called opposition not only will not lead to the liberation of Iran from the claws of the current theocratic regime but, like the imperialist-inflicted war of Iraq with Iran (1980-88), will have very damaging consequences for our nation, and for the popular movement for freedom, sovereignty, and social justice. The struggle of the Iranian people to dispose of the theocratic rule and establish a national and democratic regime in Iran…is not achievable through the destructive military intervention of such reactionary forces as the Trump, Netanyahu, and Bin Salman administrations. In such critical times, the most important task of all the national and democratic forces is to organize and mobilize all peace-seeking forces of the nation and the world to prevent another disastrous and destructive war in our region.”

What is the attitude of the Tudeh Party and the progressive and labor movement toward the sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against Iran? How do the sanctions hurt progressive forces?

Metalworkers protest the non-payment of their salaries. | Courtesy Tudeh Party of Iran

The Trump decision, in complete contravention of world public opinion, to take the U.S. out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Agreement with Iran…has significantly increased tension in the region and raised the threat of a new devastating war in the Middle East.

We condemn the re-imposition of economic and banking/monetary sanctions on Iran, which constitute an illegal violation of an international agreement ratified by the UN Security Council and mostly hurt the ordinary people of Iran. It is worth mentioning that similar sanctions against Iraq, prior to the U.S.’ military attack on that country in 2003, cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable citizens, including children and the elderly.

Despite Trump’s claim that his actions will help the Iranian people’s struggle, it is clear that U.S. policy is to change the course of the Iranian people’s struggle and facilitate a regime change to establish a puppet government.

The struggle of the Iranian people against the religious dictatorship in Iran can only be determined by the Iranian people and its progressive forces. The backing of John Bolton and the Trump administration for the Pahlavi family (the family of the deposed Shah of Iran) and the so-called “National Council of Resistance” headed by Maryam Rajavi—who for many years received the patronage and protection of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and who currently receives hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of support from the criminal Bin Salman government regime in Saudi Arabia—clearly shows the real intentions of the U.S. government towards Iran and our peoples’ struggle.

The Tudeh Party of Iran, along with other progressive forces in our country, view U.S. sanctions and its interference in Iran as directly opposed to the national interest of our country and our peoples’ struggle against the dictatorship in Iran.

What objectives is the Tudeh Party pursuing at this stage of the struggle for the transformation of your country?

Forty years after the victory of the 1979 Revolution, Iran is in need of fundamental and democratic change. The future of our country should be determined by our people, without external interference, through the establishment of a democratic political system.

Iran has remained at the stage of National Democratic Revolution and the Tudeh Party of Iran is committed to our country realizing the following objectives: safeguarding national sovereignty; rolling back and eliminating the neoliberal economic restructuring implemented by the Islamic Republic; limiting and directing the growth of capitalism towards the growth and development of the productive forces of our national economy; the fair redistribution of materials and wealth; and, the realization of democratic freedoms and social justice.

The Tudeh Party of Iran continues to believe that such a change requires the formation of a united anti-dictatorship front by mobilizing all social forces within our country and the emergence of a strong union of left and progressive forces with effective participation of the working class.

The Tudeh Party of Iran believes the most urgent goal of the progressive forces in Iran is that they work together to prepare the grounds for ending the absolute rule of the Supreme Religious Leader once and for all, in order to open the way for fundamental democratic and enduring change in our country.

Cavalier, تک سوار

1η Μάη 2019

1η Μάη 2019.

Η ιρανική εργατική τάξη βρίσκεται εδώ και δεκαετίες εγκλωβισμένη σε ένα αδιέξοδο δίλημμα:

Να διεκδικήσει ανυποχώρητα τα δικαιώματά της χωρίς να φοβάται το ενδεχόμενο μια εξέγερση της ενάντια στο θεοκρατικό καπιταλιστικό καθεστώς να χρησιμοποιηθεί-εργαλειοποιηθεί από τις δυτικές ιμπεριαλιστικές δυνάμεις και το αμιγώς πλέον ακροδεξιό Ισραήλ για να διαλύσουν και αποικιοποιήσουν δια της ψευτο-ομοσπονδιοποίησης την χώρα που ζει; με εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες θύματα και το έθνος κατεστραμμένο;

Ή να συνεχίσει να κάνει υπομονή και να δέχεται την ηγεμονία των θεοκρατών για να μην καταστραφεί η χώρα από τους λύκους που την περιτριγυρίζουν διψασμένοι για θάνατο και καταστροφή, με αποτέλεσμα όμως αυτής τής υπομονής την συνέχιση τής καταστολής της, και την ενδυνάμωση των αντιδραστικών αντιιμπεριαλιστών δολοφόνων;

Αυτό το δίλημμα είναι δικό της αλλά αν θεωρήσουμε ότι η εργατική τάξη του Ιράν, οι εργαζόμενοι της χώρας αυτής και τα φτωχά λαϊκά κοινωνικά στρώματα, είναι μέρος τής παγκόσμιας εργατικής τάξης, μέρος του παγκόσμιου λαού, τότε το δίλημμα είναι και δικό μας.

Πως θα απαντούσε ένα αυτόνομο δημοκρατικό ταξικό κίνημα σε μια άλλη χώρα στην αγωνία αυτών των ανθρώπων;

Πως θα απαντούσαν άραγε οι ξερόλες διανοούμενοι στην δύση και οι πολυάριθμες σεκταριστικές και ρεφορμιστικές αριστερές, κομμουνιστικές, αναρχικές ομάδες και οργανώσεις στην δύση και την Ελλάδα; πως θα απαντούσε άραγε το πρώην-κομμουνιστικό ΥπερΚόμμα ελλάδας; η Λαέ, οι Εξαρχειώτες;

Είμαι σίγουρος ότι όλοι αυτοί έχουν την απάντηση έτοιμη:
Η μια αντίθετη και συμπληρωματική προς την άλλη.

Τα συγχαρητήρια μου σε όλους.

Στις πορείες σας τώρα, άντε και καμιά μολότωφ να περνάει η ώρα..


Ζήτω η ιρανική εργατική τάξη και ο ηρωικός πολιτισμένος λαός τού Ιράν!

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Πουθενά-Πουθενάς

Δεν έχει αλλάξει τίποτα..

Αναδημοσίευσα έναν λόγο τού Ν.Μπουχάριν και ένα άρθρο του Κ.Κάουτσκι, σε αντίστιξη, και χωρίς να έχω την πρόθεση να προβώ σε "εμβριθείς" αναλύσεις, για να σας "δείξω" πως οι αντινομίες, οι αντιφάσεις και τα αδιέξοδα τού περιλάλητου "κινήματος", ήδη στις "δοξασμένες" εποχές του, χτυπάνε κόκκινο, είναι τυφλές, και σημαίνουν ένα στρατηγικό ανθρωπολογικό πρόβλημα που δεν πρόκειται να "αρθεί" εύκολα με την ανάκληση αγνών "θεμελίων" ή την επίκληση τής "νέας" εποχής τού καπιταλισμού ("ολοκληρωτικός καπιταλισμός" και άλλες ανοησίες).

Ο Κάουτσκι εκφράζει, ως ένα (συκοφαντημένο από τους αντι-σοσιαλδημοκράτες) ακέραιο πρόσωπο, την κοινοτοπία αλλά και την βαθιά δύναμη τού δημοκρατικού σοσιαλισμού, με όλες του τις ρεφορμιστικές αντιφάσεις και τους περιορισμούς αλλά και την δέσμευσή του στις αξίες της ελευθερίας τής δημοκρατίας και του αλληλοσεβασμού.
Η έλλογη κρίση του για τις απολυταρχικές μεθόδους των μπολσεβίκων είναι προφητική και εύστοχη, αν και δημιουργείται ως κρίση από την θέση υπεράσπισης ενός συμβιβαστικού μεταρρυθμιστικού σοσιαλισμού.

Η θέση του Μπουχάριν απέναντι στον "αριστερισμό" (Γκόρτερ και άλλοι υπερκομμουνιστές τής εποχής) και τον αναρχοσυνδικαλισμό, είναι αποκαλυπτική για τις μπλανκιστικές και αυταρχικές θέσεις των μπολσεβίκων, αλλά εμπερικλείει ως θέση μια σημαντική δύναμη κυνικής-ρεαλιστικής αλήθειας.
Βέβαια ο ίδιος ο Μπουχάριν δεν είχε την εποχή που έκανε τον διδάσκαλο στους αριστεριστές για τον "αντιαυταρχισμό" τους επίγνωση τής μελλοντικής δικής του μοίρας, όπως αυτή προκλήθηκε από την δράση του "επαναστατικού" μηχανισμού που υπερασπίστηκε και συνοργάνωσε μαζί με άλλους ομοϊδεάτες του.
Στο βάθος όλων αυτών, δια μέσω των επιχειρημάτων του Μπουχάριν, ακούμε την ίδια υστερική αριστερίστικη φωνή που τα καταγγέλλει όλα αυτά (και τον Μπουχάριν), και αυτή προφητικά αλλά όχι με τον ίδιο τόνο και προσανατολισμό όπως η προφητεία τού Κάουτσκι, αλλά χωρίς επίσης να προτάσσει ούτε ένα λογικό επιχείρημα.

Τίποτα δεν έχει αλλάξει, και δεν διαφαίνεται κάτι που να μπορούσε να τα κάνει "όλα αυτά" στιγμές που ξεπερνιούνται σε μια ευρύτερη διαλεκτική μετασχηματιστική-επαναστατική διεργασία.
 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Nikolai Bukharin / Third Congress of the Communist International - Speech in Discussion of Tactics and Strategy - July 1, 1921

Speech in Discussion of Tactics and Strategy - Marxists Internet Archive

Source: Published in To the Masses: Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 1921 (https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/897-to-the-masses), pp. 508-515
Translation: Translation team organized by John Riddell
HTML Markup: David Walters for the Marxists Internet Archive, 2018
Copyright: John Riddell, 2017. Republished here with permission

---

Comrades, the comrade who spoke before me, Comrade Malzahn, objected to the tone adopted by Comrade Heckert. However, Malzahn himself spoke in a similar tone. As a result, I am obliged to be as meek as a little lamb. (Laughter) In the present discussion of different positions and problems, in my opinion, we have quite often spoken of things that are truly obvious. So, for example, when Comrade Hempel of the KAPD spoke here of new methods of mass action, that is a quite obvious matter for us here. We discussed this theme in some detail even before the War. It is just as obvious that, as regards what has been said here about offensives in general, even Comrade Lenin recognises that there is no Marxist who could speak against offensives in general. It would therefore be perhaps desirable, to include that sentence by Comrade Lenin in the theses. (Laughter)

Trotsky: But only using the wording of Comrade Lenin: ‘Only asses could believe the contrary.’

Bukharin: In discussing the world situation as a whole, we must keep in mind that it is not at all excluded for the relative temporary equilibrium that seems to prevail in Europe to be suddenly disrupted, and for the situation in this or that country to suddenly change. In this regard, Comrade Lenin spoke of a number of things, and his remarks need to be interpreted somewhat – of course, to be interpreted strictly in the fashion of Lenin. Let me provide some examples.

In the first phase of our revolution, the Central Committee of our party sent instructions to all our agitators to protest against the shameless lies of the bourgeoisie, who claimed that we, the Bolsheviks, were for civil war. Those were our own instructions. And in the situation at that time, these instructions were entirely correct. Now if we take quite a different situation, for example, just before the October Revolution, this sentence and these instructions would be not only completely wrong but completely criminal. At that time, of course, we gave all our agitators instructions to carry out an uprising and engage directly in civil war.

Let us take a second example, which comes from after the winning of political power. During the [1918] Brest-Litovsk Peace, our party and Comrade Lenin, the recognised leader of our party, were for the Brest-Litovsk Peace, as you all know. Later, during the [1920] Polish events, the same Comrade Lenin was for the offensive, for a military policy. That was absolutely correct, of course. These examples show that the tactical line is something that is not fixed but is absolutely in motion, always determined by the specific position, specific conditions, and the specific conditions. If we can grasp that, we will be able to deliver a warning to comrades who find Comrade Lenin’s speech to be undialectical. (Laughter)

We all know very well that the future Executive, however it is composed, must heavily upbraid any party that, under certain circumstances, does not take the offensive. In other words, the general tactical line proposed in the theses by the Russian delegation cannot be used as justification for all conceivable future vacillations committed by opportunist forces inside the Communist Party. (Loud applause)

Now a few words about conditions in Germany. A certain entirely undialectical contradiction exists among the different comrades. On the one hand, it is said that we must study our errors very carefully, and, on the other, that we should talk only of the future. In my opinion that is not a contradiction but an absurdity. We must, should, and will talk about the conditions. Despite the various remarks of Comrade Malzahn, I will say a few words about the Levi affair, because it is by no means a personal matter but concerns a current. And we know very well that there is sill a certain political affinity between certain forces in the German party and Paul Levi. To continue to speak about the March Action now and going forward would be quite strange, since a great deal has been said already. Nonetheless, I would like to analyse certain passages of Levi’s most recent article, passages showing us that Levi has now developed into a quintessential Menshevik.

I will start with the question, ‘sect or party,’ which as you know plays a major role. When we look back on the past and recall what Levi did during the Second Congress, it is clear that during the congress he said that the Communist International should be pure, that it would be a crime against the Communist International to admit syndicalist trade unionists. If we do that – these were his very words – that action will amount to burying the International. (Shouts: ‘Hear, hear!’) That is what Paul Levi said during a session of the Executive. Now he has turned around completely. Now Levi is claiming that we were against mass parties and mass organisations of the proletariat. That is no dialectical contradiction. Rather it means that Levi is seizing hold of any argument in order to break free of the party. In the question of the relationship of masses to leadership, Paul Levi spoke out quite sharply against the KAPD, and rightly so, referring to this group’s lack of understanding of the role of leadership in a mass party. Now, however, an article by Levi expresses solidarity with a group within the Russian party, namely the so-called Workers Opposition, which is the embryo of the tendency that is fully developed in the KAPD.¹ This appears in black and white in Levi’s last article. That tells us, once more, that Levi grasps at any tool to destroy the big workers’ party, the Communist Party. (Loud applause)

Let us take a third question, ‘the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat’. For us, this struggle is of course self-evident. Even Levi could not think otherwise. Taking his most recent article, we find the following on conditions in Russia:

It seems to us that creating the possibility of political struggle is all the more urgent, given that Russia has entered the phase of granting concessions.²

What is that supposed to mean? The text of the article as a whole indicates what it means. Levi says that the situation in Russia is not yet sufficiently clear. In his view, Russia today is undergoing a political and social crisis. The Communist Party needs to make a correction in order to find the right path. From what side will this correction come? From the side of the Social Revolutionaries, of course, from the side of the Mensheviks, that is, against the dictatorship. That is clearly specified here. Of course this signifies a blow against all the policies of the Russian party. This also has a certain relationship with what Levi said earlier against Moscow and Moscow’s dictates. Aside from that, these are psychological considerations. From a logical point of view, what we have here is the embryo of a conception that is directed against the dictatorship of the proletariat as such. (Loud applause) Of course, this is a fully Menshevik conception. To express it differently, this is the transition from the concept of the dictatorship to that of free democracy. There is no other way to interpret it.

Then we have, in addition, the question of the dictatorship of the party. We Marxists – at least, we orthodox Communists – have always maintained that the dictatorship of a class can be expressed only through the dictatorship of the vanguard of that class; that is, the dictatorship of the class can be realised only through the dictatorship of the Communist Party. We have always rejected the entirely absurd concept that counterposes the dictatorship of the class to the dictatorship of the party. That is nonsense. And Levi was with us completely on that point. Now we find, in his most recent pamphlet, ideas regarding Russian affairs, but there are also conceptions that attempt to generalise the Russian experience. We read there:

Every dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship of Communists, but not every dictatorship of Communists is a dictatorship of the proletariat.

So if there is a rift between the proletariat and the Communist Party, then the dictatorship of the Communist Party is not the dictatorship of the proletariat. In response, I would ask: how do we determine in this case the classes in the party? Is it possible, from a Marxist standpoint, to form a classless party? Yes or no? Obviously, as Marxists, our answer to this question must be ‘no’. There is no classless party. It follows that if the Communist Party is at the helm, it represents the interest of some class. What class? If it is a Communist Party, it represents the interests of the proletariat.

So what can be the meaning of this sentence of Levi’s? The sentence has and can have only one meaning, namely, a concept hostile to the party dictatorship. From a purely theoretical point of view, the following situation may arise: The proletariat becomes demoralised. The party governs. The party does not have the support of the entire proletariat, and perhaps not even the majority of the proletariat. Now tell me please, in such a situation, where a part of the proletariat has been declassed, does the ruling party not represent the interests of the proletariat? In such a case, who does represent the real interests of the proletariat? The party, of course, the ruling party. What then is the point of all this talk? The goal of this chatter is simply to develop the embryo of a line of thinking opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat as such and therefore for bourgeois freedom, for democracy. This line of thought is absolutely clear.

We can observe that the embryo of such liberal concepts is also found in the KAPD. I have touched on this question deliberately because I consider this ideology and these symptoms very dangerous. In my opinion, this signifies the road to the Mensheviks and the road out of the Communist Party. (Loud applause) We must therefore draw the following conclusions: An energetic battle must be waged against such tendencies, or the remnants of such tendencies, in all parties, including the German party. Every formation, every group that crystallises out of such conceptions must be immediately dissolved. In my view, we must put an end to the opposition faction, as such, within the German party. (Loud applause)

I will now move on to another question, that of the KAPD. Comrade Hempel declares that we do not need leaders or theoreticians. This statement, in my opinion, stands as evidence that hatred of leaders is so strong in this party that it has made a poor choice of leaders. (Laughter) This party publishes various educational pamphlets and propaganda articles. Among the pamphlets we find one by their main theoretician, Hermann Gorter, Class Struggle and the Organisation of the Proletariat. This pamphlet presents the KAPD’s line of thinking and ideology much better than the speech of Comrade Hempel today. Gorter is not such an adroit diplomat as Hempel, although Gorter is a man of letters and Hempel an ordinary worker. By the way, we heard another ordinary worker today, Comrade Burian. Now let us listen to what Gorter says in this pamphlet.

The greatest weakness of the German and world revolution and one of the main causes of its defeats is the fact that it is not guided by a policy that is scientific, that is, historic-internationalist.

As we shall see, Gorter writes like a good Christian cleric. He continues:

In determining tactics and strategy, the question of productive and class relations in Germany, Western Europe, and America was not given priority and perhaps was not considered at all. The main responsibility here lies with the Russians – Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek, etc. – and the entire Third International.

The idea expressed in this sentence is then developed in the pamphlet along various lines. That was from page 1. At the end of the pamphlet, Gorter writes as follows:

The Kronstadt proletariat revolted against you, against the Communist Party. You proclaimed a state of siege in Petersburg that was also aimed against the proletariat. (Given all your policies, you had no choice in the matter.) After doing that, did it not occur to you that it might be better to have a dictatorship of the class rather than one of the party? And that it would perhaps be better in Western Europe and North America to have a dictatorship not of the party but of the class? And that the ‘Lefts’ are perhaps right after all?

To wrap up, he writes:

If the Russian policies of party and leader dictatorship are still pursued here, after the disastrous results they have already produced, that is no longer a matter of stupidity but a crime. A crime against the revolution.

So first Gorter says that for agrarian Russia the only correct policy is a dictatorship of the party. Naturally that does not apply to the developed capitalist countries of the West. Consequently, it is a crime against the International and the revolution to mix up these two different things. Then, on the last page, he says that mistakes have been made in Russia, and that KAPD policies must be applied in Russia as well. (Protests from the KAPD representatives) Dear comrades of the KAPD: it’s written here in black and white. Let me cite a Russian proverb. It says, ‘The crocodile is as long from tail to nose as it is from nose to tail.’ (Laughter) That goes for politics as well.

The final page of Gorter’s pamphlet refutes completely what he said on page 1. So there is no difference between Russia and North America, and vice versa. Then Gorter tells us about the trade unions, and that to impose the relationships of agrarian Russia on distant countries is a bankrupt policy. The trade unions are outmoded institutions and are therefore of no use.

KAPD representatives: That is not true.

Bukharin: Dear comrades, that is written here in black and white. Tell me, why should we not apply exactly the same policy to the parties? The parties, too, arose previously; they too arose in an earlier period. You respond that this is why the Social Democracy is of no use. That means, it follows, viewing the question by analogy, that the old trade unions were also useless. What has happened to the parties must also have happened to the trade unions. Either the one or the other. And if you apply the line of reasoning you have developed for the parties to the trade unions as well, the picture becomes quite clear. The old trade unions really had quite different functions, which by no means justifies the entire theory of the trade unions presented by Comrade Hempel in his speech today. We carried out a theoretical and practical struggle with the trade unions in Russia and in other countries. We always fought against those views on the trade-union question. We said that the unions are mass organisations of the proletariat, which must be educated toward the final struggle together with the party, together with the other party organisations. You have not offered any counter-argument.

Gorter relies here on quite a curious argument. Completely distorting the matter, he declares:

Our modern Western European and American world is cartelised, imperialist, and based on banking capital. In such a world, capital is no longer organised by trades but rather by enterprises.

So, not by trades but by enterprises. That is completely wrong. It is not a matter of enterprises, or even branches of production, but by various combinations of production branches. What Gorter says is complete nonsense. Suppose it were true, what would that tell us, according to Gorter? It would mean that we should also consolidate our trade unions. Gorter provides no other evidence, and neither does Comrade Hempel. You cannot say that new epochs demand new organisations. New organisations are all very good, but experience teaches us that the old organisations should not be given up. The sentence about organising by enterprise is wrong, factually speaking. All you can conclude from that is simply that the trade unions should be organised in the same fashion as production is. If you are satisfied with such generalities, why not apply this to the party as well?

The arguments about the relationships among the parties and between the leadership and the masses are just as weak. Gorter says that the party was able to win in Russia because the proletariat was small. In other countries, capitalism is enormously large and the enemy is much bigger and stronger, and therefore we do not need any leadership or party in the strict sense of the word, but rather entirely different organisations. I must reply that the entire argumentation is completely wrong. The party and the leaders cannot be counterposed one to the other. If we have a large party, it must have a central committee. What does ‘central committee’ mean? It means simply the leadership.

The [chair’s] bell has given me a signal. So in conclusion I will say only this to the comrades of the KAPD: You maintain that you are good Communists, as stated by your theoretician, who considers himself a representative of a proletarian party that is better than us. Any halfway intelligent person tries to establish the social causes of the crisis [in Russia]. How did this crisis find expression? Simply through an attempt at a peasant vendee aiming to overthrow the proletariat.³ You do not want to recognise that, and still you say, ‘We are a more proletarian party than you.’

KAPD representatives (raising objections): That’s a slander!

Bukharin: That is no slander. It’s written here in black and white. What other sense could these words have?

Radek: No sense at all. It’s nonsense. (Laughter)

Bukharin: In my view, we must tell the comrades that these goals and these ideas unite the KAPD fully with its most hated enemy, with Paul Levi. You stand on the same theoretical foundation as Paul Levi.

KAPD representative: And what about in practice?

Bukharin: Given that your practice is rather different from your theory, that shows you to be complete muddle-heads. That is why we call on the KAPD comrades not to let themselves be led astray in this fashion by their leaders. Their leaders must not write such things, otherwise we will have to finish off with the entire party. (Loud applause)

---

Notes

1. The Workers Opposition was a group within the Russian CP that led by Alexandra Kollontai, Aleksandr Shlyapnikov, S.P. Medvedev, and others. Formed in September 1920, it called for trade-union control of industrial production and greater autonomy for CP fractions in the unions. After its position was rejected by the Tenth CP Congress in March 1921, the Workers Opposition subsequently raised criticisms of measures adopted introducing the NEP. Following its censure at the party’s Eleventh Congress in March–April 1922, the Workers Opposition ceased organised activity.

2. Levi, ‘Von den Konzessionen’, published in Unser Weg (Sowjet), 6 (15 July 1921), pp. 167–72. ‘Concessions’ here refers to Soviet Russia’s willingness, under the New Economic Policy, to permit limited foreign investment projects, subject to government control.

3. Vendée is a department in northern France that was a centre of royalist and peasant insurrection against the French Revolution from 1793 to 1795.

---

3rd Congress Documents Translated by J. Riddell | Third Congress

Karl Kautsky / The Moscow Trial and the Bolsheviki. Preface to The Twelve Who are to Die: The Trial of the Social Revolutionists in Moscow (1923)

The Russian Party of Socialists-Revolutionists differs radically from the Social-Democratic Party; nay, more, both parties disagree in their basic conceptions of policy and principle. Nevertheless, I gladly accepted the invitation to write a preface to the book on the Moscow trial, published by the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists. More than that: I feel that I not only have a right but am duty-bound to write this preface, in the name of my social-democratic principles. For these principles indicate clearly that the proletariat, as the most exploited and enslaved of all classes, cannot emancipate itself without emancipating at the same time all those who are enslaved. A proletarian, Socialist party cannot fulfill its great, historic mission without making itself the protector of all the enslaved and oppressed.

For this reason, Marx and Engels took up the cudgels in behalf of oppressed Poland and raised their voices in defense of Ireland. For this reason, Socialists always fought for the liberation of native peoples suffering under the colonial domination of imperialist governments. And in doing so, Socialists frequently cooperated with non-socialist, bourgeois elements. We are, therefore, all the more obliged to come to the defense of the persecuted and oppressed when they belong to a party which, like ours, although not always in the same way, seeks the emancipation of the toilers, a party which, like ours, had for many years waged bitter, holy war against the meanest enemy of the world proletariat, – Russian absolutism. The fight waged today by the Socialists-Revolutionists is but a continuation of the old fight. For there is no substantial difference between an absolutist government which holds its power by heritage or one which is of recent creation. There is no material difference between the rule of a “legal” Czar and a clique that accidentally established itself in power. There is no difference between a tyrant who lives in a palace and a despot who misused the revolution of workers and peasants to ascend into the Kremlin.

And the fact that the new Russian despotism is bonapartist rather than czarist in character makes it all the more essential for the Socialist parties of the world to come to the defense of the Russian Socialists persecuted by this bonapartist regime. For what this regime seeks is to make the Socialists of the entire world its associates in its policy of persecution, – something which Czarism, for obvious reasons, never aimed at. The Bolshevist rulers want the Socialists of the whole world to applaud their persecution of the Socialists-Revolutionists and Mensheviki, but the time has passed when they could expect their assertions to pass unchallenged.

The Bolsheviki maintain that their policy constitutes the only genuine application of Marxism, that it constitutes a strict application of the principles of the class struggle. But the oppression and persecution of workingmen, belonging to another current of Socialist thought, and for no other reason than that these workers prefer to interpret Socialism in a manner different from the Bolsheviki, is in sharp contradiction with these class-struggle principles. We, Marxian Social-Democrats, in common with nearly all other Socialists, stand for democracy and for the right of unrestricted political propaganda for all political parties. This right of unrestricted propaganda we must, above all, demand for all the Socialist parties in Russia. It is quite inevitable for the respective Socialist parties to find themselves frequently in disagreement with one another. But this must be expressed only in a struggle of argument, in a struggle for the soul of the proletariat. Socialists who resort in this struggle against the opinions of other Socialists to guns, bayonets, Che-Ka organizations and jails are committing an act of violence against the proletariat and the idea of the class struggle.

Even the Bolsheviki themselves feel this. For this reason they seek to excuse their regime of violence in the eyes of the Socialists of the entire world by asserting, like the wolf in the old fable, that the sheep are trying to pollute the water which they, the Bolsheviki, forsooth seek to maintain unpolluted. To convince the world of the truth of this claim was the chief purpose of the Moscow trial. By this trial the Bolsheviki sought to destroy not only physically but morally the foremost representatives of the Socialists-Revolutionists. But the trial produced quite the opposite effect. It resulted in the moral victory of the accused and the moral execution of the accusers.

The Bolsheviki were first to use violence against other Socialists. They dissolved the Constituent Assembly not by way of resistance against any violence on the part of the Socialists-Revolutionists and Mensheviki but because of their realization of their own inability to obtain the support of the majority of the peasants and workers by means of free propaganda. This was the fundamental cause of the Bolshevist coup d’etat against the representatives of the revolutionary workers and peasants. Hence, the abolition of all rights of all other Socialists who refused to submit to the crack of the Bolshevist whip. Hence, the establishment of a political regime which leaves but one form of open, political action for the opposition – civil war. The Social-Democracy was never averse to the use of violence in resistance against violent persecution. It simply made the advisability of the use of such violence conditional upon considerations of purpose and the possibility of success. If the Social-Democracy found itself in disagreement with the Socialists-Revolutionists in this regard, it was not from considerations of principle but of tactics. But, if I am correctly informed on this point, there are no substantial differences of opinion at the present moment between the Socialists-Revolutionists and the Mensheviki. Both recognize that an anti-Bolshevist uprising at the present moment could not be successful and would even, under certain circumstances, lead to a result diametrically opposed to that sought, by provoking foreign and reactionary intervention. Armed uprising against the Bolsheviki, at the present moment, would only delay the process now in progress in Russia and pregnant with great consequences, – the process of the desertion of Bolshevism by the proletarian and peasant masses and their return to the other Socialist parties. This process represents a deadly danger for the Bolshevist dictatorship. The real crime of which the Socialists-Revolutionists are guilty before the Bolsheviki at the present moment is not in the preparation of terroristic acts and armed uprisings, but in that, like the Mensheviki and perhaps even to a larger extent, the Socialists-Revolutionists, whose ranks are constantly growing in number, are acquiring in ever increasing measure the confidence of the toiling masses of Russia. This bids fair to bring about the complete isolation of the Bolsheviki in a short time, so that the only ones who will stand behind them will be a few capitalists and the Red Army. Nor is the army, too, likely to continue its support of the Bolsheviki very long, for military dictatorships must have military successes abroad and cannot thrive merely upon suppression of uprisings of hunger-driven peasants. In vain do the Bolsheviki seek to stem the tide against them. The only thing they still command in full is the art of destroying their opponents by means of falsehood and violence. They have shown a complete lack of understanding of the pre-requisites under which alone Socialist production is possible, as well as entire lack of perspicacity in determining the conditions essential for the development of capitalist production. In their aspiration for the realization of Socialism they have destroyed Russia’s entire machinery of production, while their present effort to patch it up with the assistance of capitalism carries the danger of aggravating this destruction. But even should they succeed in establishing a new capitalism in Russia and to resume production with its assistance, they would do so in the presence of a proletariat which they themselves have rendered unfit for struggle and resistance.

In both cases, misery and poverty will continue to reign in Russia for many years and will continue to fan apathy and despair, on one side, and uprisings, provoked by the despair of the masses – on the other. The Moscow trial was intended to distract the growing opposition of the masses against the Bolsheviki and direct popular wrath against the Socialists-Revolutionists. How vain the effort! The arrow, in falling, struck the ones who fired it.

The Bolsheviki hoped to represent the accused Socialists-Revolutionists and their entire party as allies and associates of the counter-revolution and foreign powers. To accomplish this aim, they did not hesitate to employ the most shameless and dishonest methods of the regime of the old police. They outdid the limitless shamelessness of that regime, whose prosecutors, as is well known, needed but a few lines penned by the accused to send him to the gallows. With all that, however, the Bolsheviki succeeded only in exposing the mean depths of their own soul.

When the counter-revolution suppressed Marx’s Neue Rheinische Zeitung, in 1849, Freiligrath branded this act in words of fire as contemptible violence. He said: “This is not an open blow in an open fight. Against me are barbarism and meanness. This blow has been struck against me by the forces of sneaky, dirty, despicable Asiatic barbarism”.

The defendants in the Moscow trial were likewise struck not by an open blow in an open fight. The blow struck against them was delivered by the hired, contemptible, low hirelings of Tartar or Kalmyk socialism.

But how innocent was the despicableness assailed by Freiligrath in comparison with the despicableness revealed by the Bolsheviki in the Moscow trial! The shameless falsehood, contemptible cowardice and devilish cruelty of the prosecutors, judges and secret service men revealed in the Moscow trial are unprecedented in the history of the world and will mark one of its most shameful pages.

How heroic do the figures of the accused men and women appear and how disgusting and pitiful are the pack of hounds who demanded their blood, who hurled insult and humiliation upon them in their eagerness to persecute them in order that they might revel in their suffering!

The moral loftiness of the accused and the moral degeneration of their accusers at the trial were so self evident and convincing, that the whole thing formed a picture of remarkable clarity and produced an indelible impression upon everybody, with the exception of the pack of bloodthirsty hounds hired by the Moscow executioners to defend their miserable case in the European press and who were low and mean enough to do it.

The accused Socialists-Revolutionists saved the honor of Socialism, trampled by the Bolsheviki. The names of Gotz, Timofeyeff and their comrades will be enshrined in the hearts of the workers of the entire world, regardless of party affiliations.

Never did the Bolsheviki descend to their present low level. Time was when we knew many of them as honest fighters and idealists. But the coup d’etat of 1917 placed them in a false position, which was bound to lead consistently to their inevitable and ever-growing perversion.

From the very beginning, they founded their power upon falsehood and violence directed against the proletariat, upon the principle that the end justifies the means. This principle always and inevitably leads to the degeneration of the party applying it, for it perverts the party and paralyzes those who do not oppose this perversion.

Parties who aspire to great aims cannot afford to use any other means than those these aims demand. A party who seeks the emancipation of the proletariat cannot, in its efforts to gain and hold power, use means which disorganize and demoralize the proletariat. But it was only by such means that the Bolsheviki could strengthen their hold upon Russia and, therefore, they preferred the destruction of the Russian and the weakening of the world proletariat to understanding with the other Socialist parties of Russia, which alone could secure the establishment of a revolutionary regime that would support itself upon the broad masses and give these masses that freedom without which it is impossible for them to promote their spiritual development and economic well-being.

By resorting for the sake of the strengthening and preservation of their power to measures leading to the weakening and dissolution of the proletariat, the Bolsheviki have shown that they are not concerned with the emancipation of the proletariat but are simply a clique concerning itself solely with the preservation of its own power.

This attribute of Bolshevism makes it akin to the heritage of the French Revolution: bonapartism. Like bonapartism, Bolshevism is founded upon falsehood and violence. But both the first and second Empires marked the opening of new eras of economic prosperity for France and could, therefore, support themselves not only upon the capitalists and peasantry but also upon the broad masses of the people. Bolshevism, on the other hand, has destroyed Russia and set all the people against it. Its falsehood and violence, therefore, exceed the falsehood and violence of French bonapartism. And for this reason, despite its falsehood, meanness and cruelty, Bolshevism will not be able to maintain itself as long as did the regime of Bonaparte in France.

The Moscow trial constituted a desperate effort on the part of the Bolsheviki to discredit their most dangerous opponents at the present moment in the eyes of the Russian and world proletariat. They sought to represent these opponents as associates of the counter-revolution and thus rehabilitate the prestige of Communism, which has lost the sympathies of the overwhelming majority of the proletariat.

But the Bolsheviki lost the trial. It is not the accused but the accusers and their hirelings who today stand condemned in Russia and throughout the world. This trial, which provoked the deepest, universal contempt, revealed even to those who hitherto still failed to see the truth, the utter decay and degeneration of the Bolshevist regime.

But the Moscow trial is merely one of the episodes incident to the world-wide, historic conflict conducted by Bolshevism. Out of this conflict it will emerge discredited and condemned. A regime like that of the Bolsheviki has already grown rotten-ripe for destruction. It is impossible to foresee yet when and how it will fall but one thing can be said now and with absolute certainty:

BOLSHEVISM WILL FALL IN SHAME AND DISGRACE, BEMOANED PERHAPS ONLY BY THE SPECULATORS OF THE CAPITALIST WORLD, BUT ACCOMPANIED BY THE CURSES OF THE ENTIRE WORLD PROLETARIAT STRUGGLING FOR EMANCIPATION. THAT IS THE LESSON AND THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSCOW TRIAL.

K. Kautsky

Γεζίντι: Τα απομεινάρια μιας υπόθεσης που δεν έκλεισε..

Όταν δεν υπάρχει ακόμα κουβέντα από τούς Άραβες και Παλαιστίνιους "επαναστάτες" για την ειδική ευθύνη τού ISIS στην εξόντωση των κουρδογενών Γεζίντι, αλλά και την γενική αλλά όχι εξ΄αυτού μικρότερη ευθύνη του θεοκρατικού φονταμενταλισμού και του αραβικού και τουρκικού εθνικισμού σε αυτό το μαζικό έγκλημα, όταν η "παγκόσμια" "αντιμπεριαλιστική" αριστερά, τα κομμουνιστικά κόμματα σιωπούν, κρύβονται, και το μόνο που ξέρουν είναι να είναι όπως πάντα μόνον "αντισιωνιστές", όταν η ριζοσπαστική αριστερά (πέραν τού Σύριζα που ασχολείται με καρέκλες και διορισμούς) ή η αναρχία-αυτονομία (όταν δεν είναι χυδαία όπως η "Επιθεώρηση Σεράγεβο") προσπαθούν ακόμα και σήμερα να "συνθέσουν" τα ερείπια τής ιδεολογικής και ηθικής ενότητας των ανθρώπων και των λαών πάνω στο ρήγμα και το βάραθρο που ανοίχτηκε και από την αδιαφορία των Αράβων "επαναστατών" "αντιιμπεριαλιστών", όταν δηλαδή ψευτοπροσπαθούν να κλείσουν με εύκολες εξ' αποστάσεως και θεωρητικές μόνον ενώσεις τραύματα που δεν μπορούν πια να κλείσουν, όταν κρύβουν τα κενά αδελφικών πράξεων ή έστω σαφών διακηρύξεων και καταδικών που δεν υπήρξαν ούτε υπάρχουν, τότε το μόνο που μένει μετά από την οργή είναι η κατάπληξη, η απορία, η απόσταση, το χάσμα.
Καμία στήριξη σε κανέναν σας, καμία..
Σε κανέναν σας..

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Ικρίωμα

Βακχεύουν δηλητηριασμένοι
οι επιμελείς δαίμονες της αρετής 

Δεν υπάρχει Σωτηρία !
Δριμύς ο πόνος της επίγνωσης
το δοξάρι τους βαραίνει   

Κυρτώνουν τις πληγές τους
Ονομάζοντας
Χύνοντας βάλσαμα πράξεων 

Ας γνωρίζουν πως πεθαίνουν
Ορμούν στις πηγές
να πιούν αλμυρό φως 

Ο Δήμιος προσεύχεται
να τελειώσει η γιορτή
αφαιρεί το δέρμα τους και 

Πριν συνθλίψει την καρδιά τους
την στρέφει στο έκνομο πλήθος
κραυγάζοντας: Ο υ σ ί α !

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Mamak Khadem - Bigharâr (Restless Yearning)

Delil Dilanar - Qerîn - Γεζίντι. Αυτοί οι άνθρωποι σύμφωνα με τους μαρξιστές-λενινιστές, τους αναρχοσταλινικούς και τους αυτόνομους "έδρεψαν τους καρπούς" του "φιλοϊμπεριαλισμού-φιλοδυτικισμού" τους. Είστε φασίστες, "σύντροφοι"..

Τα είδη τού μηδενός (2014-2019)

Κείμενο σε αρχική ημι-επεξεργασμένη μορφή που αποσύρθηκε.

Κρατάω τον τίτλο τής ανάρτησης, για μελλοντική χρήση.