The genocidal policy of the state and the body in the box, By Ali Çiçek

 

If Kurdish society surrendered to its pain, it would not be able to live on. The Kurdish resistance draws strength from pain and life from death. Thus in Kurdistan “resistance becomes life”.

We all know Halime Aksoy now. The mother who fought for three years to have the body of her fallen son and guerrilla fighter Agit Ipek (Nom de Guerre: Kemal Berxwedan) handed over. Agit had fallen in 2017 in Dersim. His remains were finally handed over to her: in a box and by mail – sent by the General Prosecutor’s Office in Dersim. Even if we should forget her name, it will be difficult to forget the picture on which she is pictured with the postal package. Halime Aksoy commented on this situation with the words: “I cannot say anything about it, I cannot find the words for it…”.

This box will remain in our memory as truth from now on. It contains both the truth of Kurdish society and the character of the Turkish state.

All this happened very “normally”. Cahit Özkan, Vice-Chairman of the AKP parliamentary group, said in the Turkish Parliament that it was ‘a few pieces of bone’ and that it was a normal procedure. How much does this statement of the AKP politician Özkan remind us of the words of a Polish man who was able to flee from a Nazi concentration camp: “They were able to kill people and behaved quite normally, I could not understand that”[1]. The state of this “normality” has taken on a different dimension in Kurdistan in the last five years.

Defending the Kurdish society

Through the resistance of the Kurdish freedom movement led by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) for more than 40 years, the events in Kurdistan have attracted international attention. The Kurdish question has become an international issue in the 21st century. Moreover, the social awakening in Kurdistan has long since become a positive point of reference for leftist, progressive movements worldwide. Especially since the successful struggle for Kobanê by the self-defence forces of the YPG/YPJ, the revolution in Rojava with its pillars of radical democracy, women’s liberation and ecology inspires people worldwide to work for a just world without oppression and exploitation.

For these activists, a holistic approach to the Kurdish freedom movement and developments in Kurdistan is needed. Already in a previous article, we spoke of the “dialectic of revolution in Kurdistan”, and wrote “Because the resistance strategy of the Kurdish movement is a holistic one, political offensives in Northern Kurdistan support processes in Rojava. Backlashes in Southern Kurdistan can effect Rojava. The struggle is conducted on several levels. This is the dialectic of the revolution in Kurdistan, and within this framework, a holistic approach to the Kurdish freedom movement is needed, through which an effective solidarity can develop”[2].

Since the successful resistance in Kobanê in Western Kurdistan/Rojava, the focus has been on the social construction of an alternative social system oriented on the concept of “democratic confederalism” and its defence. Meanwhile, the geographically largest part of Kurdistan, namely Northern Kurdistan, is exposed to a real campaign of annihilation by the Turkish state. In this sense, the Kurdish freedom movement led by the PKK considers it as its main task to “defend (Kurdish society) under the threat of genocide”.

With this article, we want to take a closer look at this understanding of the Kurdish freedom movement. How does the Kurdish freedom movement evaluate its mission and task? What does it understand by the concept of “cultural genocide”, which for it is the central concept of the Turkish state? What does this mean for Kurdistan solidarity?

The box with the mortal remains of Agit Ipek was sent by the public prosecutor’s office to his parents in Amed (Diyarbakir)…

The defence of the “Kurdistan thesis” in the courtroom of Diyarbakir

The military prison of Diyarbakir is today best known for its role as a notorious torture centre after the fascist military coup of 12 September 1980 and the hunger strikes and resistance of PKK prisoners. The prison later became known worldwide under the name of “Diyarbakir’s hell”. The prisoners were systematically tortured and humiliated with brutal and fascist-motivated methods. Books and films like “14.Tîrmeh (July 14) – The Hell of Diyarbakir” describe the inhumane conditions in prison.

In the prison of Diyarbakir, alongside the resistance of the political prisoners, the political defence of PKK members like Mazlum Doğan or Mehmet Hayri Durmuş took place. This defence represents an important point in the history of the struggle for political self-determination in Kurdistan. The main PKK trial began on 13 April 1981 and was held against 591 PKK members. Despite five years of severe torture, at the trial a defence of around 20,000 pages was presented. This is the largest defence in the history of Kurdistan on this scale and holds great significance. Mazlum Doğan later said, in reference to the main trial, “the struggle for independence and freedom was settled in the court protocols.”

Let’s take a closer look at these logs:

Mazlum Doğan: If it wasn’t for the Kurdish question, we wouldn’t be here.

Kurdistan was characterized by colonial oppression, denial and self-denial. The existence of a Kurdish ethnic group was simply denied. At the beginning of his defence, Mazlum Doğan declared: “In the light of the present reality, I will not testify here either for myself or for the other persons who are on trial for the party cause, but I will testify as it is my responsibility to history.”

He then addressed terms and definitions in the indictment and explained, for example: “It is not called East and Southeast Anatolia, but Central-West-North Kurdistan”[3].

This introduction by Mazlum Doğan is significant in the context of colonialism and the relationship of oppression. Because the rulers define: they give the names. The relationship established with the defining power is important. It leads to objectification where there is no equal relationship. Instead, in court, the accused is prevented from forming his own sentences. The practice of power is legible and palpable in the protocols.

Mazlum Doğan picked apart the incorrect passages of the indictment piece by piece: “Here it says ‘independent, united, democratic Kurdistan’ and in other passages, it says ‘a Kurdish state based on Marxism-Leninism’. I must emphasise that the PKK’s programme does not say ‘Kurdish state based on Marxism-Leninism’, but as I explained. It is about building an independent, democratic and united country and a state which will be national and democratic and in which society will be self-governing. That is what the programme says.”

At the end of his defence, Mazlum Doğan entered the discussion about “Kurdish history”. He explained his knowledge about the Middle East, Kurdish society and Kurdistan: “The Middle East today is the centre of the contradiction between capitalism and socialism. Kurdistan is in a very strategic place in the Middle East. The geostrategic importance of Kurdistan must be properly understood. If you want to expel imperialism from the Middle East, to separate the Middle East from the imperialist-capitalist bloc, you have to make a revolution in Kurdistan where the reactionary of the Middle East is gathering. (…) I myself have read every publication about Kurdistan and the Kurds. I have not been satisfied with this, but I have also read texts in which there is only one sentence or word. If there was no problem called Kurds or Kurdistan, there would not have been people who deal with this topic. Social and societal phenomena are those that impose themselves at a certain time.”

Mehmet Hayri Durmuş: The existence of Kurdistan is no longer in question

Mehmet Hayri Durmuş, then a member of the PKK Central Committee, began his defence in court on 19 June 1981 after 45 days of hunger strike. Durmuş wanted to resolve one thing in his defence: The question of the “existence of the Kurds”. This issue was provocatively raised by the court again and again with racist and fascist questions. Some questions of the judge in this context were for example: “Where do you take this Kurd from, why do you fragment the Turkish nation? Where do you take it from without knowing the history? What is your source? What historical documents prove this? Where should this Kurdish language come from, it is only a mixture of 90 per cent Persian and 10 per cent Laristani? A mixture of Arabic, Persian and English is Kurdish after all. Have you done any research on the language?” Against this colonialist practice, Durmuş responded in a certain sense with the defence strategy of rupture (défence de rupture), which was theorized and practised by the French lawyer Jacques Vergès. He thus refused to accept the implicit consent that characterises conventional pleas, saying: “We do not have a racist, nationalist and chauvinist understanding and we do not have an eye for the land of others. The areas that are historically inhabited by Kurdish society are considered by us as Kurdistan. … I don’t want to go into this subject, I don’t want to make it a subject of discussion, but I see that the delegation of the court is always debating this subject, the existence or non-existence of the Kurds and Kurdistan. This situation is strange for us. This topic is so clear today that there is no need to discuss it …”[4]

On 14 July 1982, Mehmet Hayri Durmuş announced the start of a death fast, because the “right to political defence is prevented”. In protest against the unbearable torture, Mazlum Doğan had set fire to his cell and hanged himself more than three months earlier.

“A fight to clarify the question of whether the Kurds exist or not”

The basic goal of the PKK has so far been to make the Kurdish question visible. The fact that the Kurdish reality was being denied during its founding phase forced the question of existence. Therefore, the PKK first tried to prove the existence of this question. The current PKK programme, which was adopted at the 11th Party Congress in 2014, states: “Through its struggle, the PKK, whilst not achieving full national freedom, has seriously smashed the system of denial and annihilation and guaranteed the existence and free life of Kurdish society.

On this basis, the construction of a democratic nation on a certain level has been developed in Northern Kurdistan, the society of Western Kurdistan has been brought into a process of building social freedom and democratic nation, the society in Eastern Kurdistan has been brought into a process of creating awareness and organising the democratic nation, in Southern Kurdistan an indirect effect has been applied to the statist solution of the Kurdish question and the Kurdish diaspora has been brought into a position to support the freedom struggle of Kurdistan with the awareness of the democratic nation. Thus, Kurdish society has completed the first stage by making its existence, identity and reality visible and by the actualisation of the PKK. The second stage is now the democratic solution process of the Kurdish question. This will be developed and realised essentially within the framework of a solution based on a democratic nation”[5].

In his fifth defence paper, Abdullah Öcalan deals with this role of the PKK[6]: “The struggle carried out by the PKK in the last 30 years has been conducted only for the question of existence with regard to the Kurds. This struggle was in a certain sense a struggle to clarify the question of whether the Kurds exist or not. While one side declared that the Kurds exist, the other side denied it. (…) Without a doubt, it is a very dangerous and pathetic situation for an individual and a society to discuss its own existence. It shows the thin line between life and death.”

While the existence of Kurdish society and Kurdistan is taken for granted today, even if there is no recognised political status yet, the above-mentioned discussions in the courtrooms of Diyarbakir prison about the being or not being and the death of numerous PKK members clearly show this “thin line between life and death”.

The Turkish state as a regime of “cultural genocide”

The handing over of the mortal remains of Agit Ipek can be seen as a peak of the brutalisation of violence and the decline of morality in Turkey towards the Kurds. This event should not be seen in isolation from the developments in Northern Kurdistan since 2015. The achievements of Kurdish society have since then been exposed to a broad and multidimensional attack of the Turkish state. The Kurdish Freedom Movement summarises this state policy under the term of “cultural genocide”, which aims at a long-term and painful destruction of Kurdish life. In a certain sense, we can observe a process of recolonisation of Northern Kurdistan by the Turkish state after the breakdown of the so-called peace negotiations in 2014/15.

This policy of “cultural genocide” extends on the one hand to the political level with the repression of the Democratic Party of Peoples (HDP), half of whose members and sympathizers are in Turkish prisons. The regime of forced administration, under which democratically elected Kurdish mayors are removed from office and replaced by state representatives, also falls within this framework. However, the forced administrations are not only an attack on the democratic will in the Kurdish municipalities but also on culture. For example, the first official act of the forced administrators was to remove the Kurdish inscription plaques hung on the town halls. They changed the Kurdish names of parks, streets and avenues. For example, a memorial to the victims of the Roboskî massacre, the Tahir Elçi Park named after the human rights lawyer who was shot, as well as the names of the Kurdish poet Ehmedê Xanî and Uğur Kaymaz, the young man executed by Turkish security forces with 13 bullets, all disappeared from the streets of Amed. In this way, the state tries to erase the social memory of its massacres and the values of the Kurdish population.

Instead of the monuments of the murdered people, monuments for killed soldiers and policemen were erected. This was accompanied by a wave of closures of women’s centres and community centres. Kurdish schools were transformed into police bases. Multilingual theatre schools and dozens of theatres, art and cultural centres were closed or all employees were fired so that the centres are de facto inoperative. Religious schools or Koran courses are now being established in many of the closed art and culture centres.

Besides this cultural level, the attacks also have an economic dimension. The forced administrators have manoeuvred the local authorities into a debt swamp. Moreover, historical-cultural assets are also the target of this policy. The flooding of the 12,000-year-old city of Hasankeyf (Kurdish: Heskîf), which is one of the most magnificent cultural and natural treasures on our planet, is a symbol of this. Kurdish cities were also targeted by destruction in recent years. The greatest physical destruction of the historic old town of Sûr in Amed took place after the end of all armed conflicts from March 2016 onwards. Since then, the houses of 25,000 forcibly displaced people have been completely demolished. About 175,000 people in other destroyed places such as Cizîr (Cizre), Nisebîn (Nusaybin) and Şirnex (Şirnak) experienced the same. In these places and in Sûr, several hundred civilians were deliberately killed.

These are only a few examples of the Turkish state policy, which is called the policy of cultural genocide on the Kurdish side, according to the motto: “The best Kurd is a dead Kurd”. The anti-Kurdish policy practised today by the AKP government even outshines the policy of the years of the military dictatorship and the dirty war of the Turkish government in the 1990s. While in the 1980s and 1990s the state had Kurds who stood up for their identity first kidnapped by paramilitaries, policemen or soldiers, then killed and then thrown into mass graves or onto roadsides, today the state murders publicly, without cover, before the eyes of the world public. As if the killing of Kurds was completely legitimate and right.

By posting the mortal remains of killed PKK fighters, the aim is to increase the effect of the state brutality and to maximise the pain and anger of the relatives and Kurdish society. A collective feeling of helplessness is to be created. The aim is to extremely traumatise the relatives and thus force them to surrender by breaking their will to resist and their fighting morale.

Despite the multidimensional state terror, Kurdish society has been resisting ceaselessly for decades. This resistance continues despite all the massacres that have been committed, because Kurdish society does not surrender to its pain. It knows how to turn pain and anger into a source of resistance. If she surrendered to her pain, she would not be able to live on. And so in Kurdistan – in the words of Mazlum Doğan – “resistance becomes life”. The Kurdish resistance draws strength from pain and life from death. That the Kurdish people are forced to draw life from death and defend the right to live is terrible and awful. That a society must die so much in order to live is unimaginable. But this is reality in Kurdistan. And it is a shame for those who watch it. The only way to lift this shame and stop the killing in Kurdistan is to actively defend the right to life. And life is not just about survival. It means being able to live a life worth living. The resistance in Kurdistan is exactly that.

[1] Arno Gruen: The Madness of Normality

[2] https://anfdeutsch.com/hintergrund/rojava-wie-verteidigen-12967

[3] http://www.saradistribution.com/mazlum_dogan_savunma.htm

[4] http://www.saradistribution.com/hayri_durmus_savunma.htm

5] Translated from http://www.serxwebun.org/arsiv/385/files/assets/common/downloads/publication.pdf

6] The book was published in Turkish in 2011. It was written by Öcalan on the prison island Imrali. The title is roughly translated to: The Kurdish Question and the Solution of the Democratic Nation. An English translation is not yet available.

*Ali Çiçek is an employee of Civaka Azad – Kurdish Centre for Public Relations

 

Πηγή:

The genocidal policy of the state and the body in the box ...

Seeker of Truth By Abdullah Öcalan

 

This is a short extract from the defence the Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan prepared at the beginning of 2011. It was read at the opening of the first “Challenging Capitalist Modernity—Alternative Concepts and the Kurdish Quest” conference that took place in Hamburg, Germany from 3-5 February 2012.
The conference which was the first of its kind, had three big aims: To inform the international public of the new paradigm and vision of the Kurdish freedom movement, to strengthen and further discussions within the Kurdish community at large, and most importantly to establish a platform for alternative movements to come together and share theoretical and practical results. Each conference is summarized in a book, published as a permanent resource of political education.
The main organisers of the conferences “Network for an Alternative Quest,” announced that this year’s conference “Challenging Capitalist Modernity IV: We Want Our World Back!” that was supposed to take place this weekend (10-12 April) was regretfully postponed as a response to the public health concerns surrounding the Coronavirus pandemic, stating that the health and safety of people discussing alternative ideas was a priority.
At the time of the conference in 2012, Abdullah Öcalan’s conditions, and the Turkish state’s onerous treatment of him, prevented an effective connection to the conference. For almost seven months of the period between 2011 and 2012, Öcalan had been confined to strict isolation conditions, which prohibited him from seeing any of his lawyers or family members and even from sending letters. All the lawyers who had visited him until then had been detained and were held in high-security prisons.
Since then, the Imralı prison has been a place unable to be visited by a single lawyer for eight-years until single visits were allowed in the summer of 2019 again. Lawyers and family members are denied again in the current situation.
Despite 21-years of imprisonment on the Imrali prison island and the conditions of total isolation, Öcalan consistently demonstrates the determination to continue his struggle by remaining attuned to transformations outside, and by thinking and searching. The following text is a deep reflection on his quest and his transformations in isolation.

Seeker of Truth

Nothing is more valuable in one’s life than the attainment of truth that one lives. The quest for truth is the most valuable human activity, because it’s humans that constitute reality.

When I started on the adventure of my life I was unequipped for it. It was very difficult to grow up in a family which was in a decomposed state and struggling to get to its feet in a decomposed society. Underneath this difficulty

lies the long loss of the family’s own truth and the fact that there is nothing much left to give their child. What is left behind is a mentality void of substance and open to the lies of the rulers. Such mentalities, that are unable to oppose lies, are troublesome. It is inevitable that societies which exist under a status of colonisation or worse will eventually, either through force or persuasion, shall accept these lies. The sovereigns of the world have by now developed a vast pool of experience in ways to ensure that they do. They know very well how to convey their lies most efficiently and effectively. Only if people cross a threshold that removes their vulnerability to lies and illusions can the process of revolution be started.

I am a person who knows no boundaries. The adventure of my own life has inevitably led me to see behind the lies and face the truth of society. I have previously explained how social realities hit me at specific stages of life, and I have tried to ideologically and scientifically seek the truth. I have continued to do so so even as the powers-that-be have rejected my human and social identity, tried to annihilate me, and tried to punish me severely as if I were a fugitive; the collaborators primarily responsible were the United States, the European Union, and the Republic of Turkey.

Before prison, while I was able to develop both in theory and practical action, I did not have much of a chance to develop the perception of truth. For those who have grave problems, the circumstances of a prison are of educational significance. Thus, closed prisons although are not areas of theoretical and practical struggle but instead are areas where those who are not crushed by such problems may develop a successful perception of truth and necessary mode of struggle for it. Prison allows those who fight for exceptional causes to work hard each day to attain truth. Prison time that is spent on the acquisition of truth is, I am certain, worthwhile.

To all appearances, I arrived at Imrali as a result of a successful operation by Turkish Security Forces, according to legal methods, and that is the story that was told to the world. But my journey was actually made possible by the system of capitalist modernity headed by the United States and the European Union. More specifically, the enormous operation that brought me here was led by NATO’s unconventional and illegal force, Gladio.

I was brought here on February 15, 1999. Seventy-four years earlier to the day, on February 15, 1925, the republic initiated its conspiracy against Sheikh Said. A few months after my arrest, on June 25 a comical court trial sentenced me to death—and on that same date in 1925, Sheikh Said and a few of his friends were hanged. For three-quarters of a century, the state has continuously, without a break, carried out policies of annihilation and denial.

The United States and the European Union agreed that my execution would serve to intimidate resistance. But instead they decided not to go through with the execution, in order to use me to try to control and eliminate the Kurdistan Freedom Movement and the PKK. Of course they did so with the utmost subtlety, agreeing to trample on the legal ways of “combating terrorism.”

The conspiracy against me wished to have the effect of diminishing all hope for a Kurdish solution. The very act of prolonging my execution was intentional, a means of waging psychological warfare. At first I myself was unsure as to how long I could hold out under these conditions; to survive even a year seemed unthinkable. But then I thought to myself, “How can they imprison millions of people in a tiny space?” As the leader of the Kurdish people, I saw myself as the synthesis of millions. Most people can’t endure being apart even from their own families—how was I supposed to endure being separated from the will of millions of people for ever? I was not permitted even to receive letters from the outside. Up to now I have been allowed to receive only a few censored letters from my fellow inmates. I have been unable to send letters. All this may help convey the extent of my isolation. But my situation also has certain unique characteristics. I was responsible for many breakthroughs for our society. They are mostly only half finished and all are prerequisites of a free life. I have virtually dissolved myself in societal freedom areas leaving no ‘me’ behind. In societal terms my imprisonment began at such a time.

Even if the outside circumstances, state, the administration and the prison itself would have been equipped like a palace, it would not have been adequate to explain how I endure the isolation imposed on me. Fundamental factors should not be sought in the circumstances or state’s approach. The determining factor has been my own ability to persuade myself of the isolation conditions. I had to have enormous reasons to be able to endure the isolation and to prove that a great life can be displayed even under these conditions. In this regard, I must share two thoughts.

The first is about the status of Kurdish society. My thinking ran like this: If I am to desire free life the society to which I belong must be living freely. To be more precise, individual freedom cannot be achieved without the society. Sociologically the freedom of the individual is exactly linked to the freedom level of the society. Applying this hypothesis to the Kurds, with their lack of freedom, we must conclude that the life of the Kurdish people resembled a dark prison.

The second point is the necessity to be devoted to an ethical principle in order to be able to understand the concepts. The individual should make her/ himself conscious of the absolute necessity to live as a member of any given society. Modernity has successfully created the illusion that individuals may live untethered to society, but that’s impossible. Such a conviction is a false narrative. In fact there is no such life, but belief in such a fabricated virtual reality has been achieved. This demonstrates the poverty of ethics and principles today. But truth and ethics are mutually embedded. The notion of liberal individualism is only possible through the dissolution of the moral society and its connection with truth severed. The fact that liberal individualism is presented to be the dominant lifestyle of today does not mean it is right. Liberal individualism is the representative of capitalist system and it has been possible in the same basis. I have reached this conclusion as a result of my experience with the Kurdish phenomenon and my focus on Kurdish question.

And here I must highlight a duality in my nature; namely, my wish to escape from Kurdishness and simultaneously my embrace of Kurdishness. Because of the ongoing cultural genocide, opportunities for Kurds to escape Kurdishness are present everywhere, and such escapes are encouraged. But here is where ethical principles must step in. How right or good is it for one to escape from society in order to save oneself? I could have escaped—I almost finished my university degree, and could easily have done so, which would have practically guaranteed my personal survival. But it was at that time that I tilted toward Kurdishness, which signalled a return to ethical conduct. The individual must associate him or herself with a social phenomenon in order to become ethical. It was increasingly evident that I was not going to be unethical. My choice to embrace Kurdishness, with all its many problems, was an ethical choice, made in the knowledge that ongoing enslavement of the Kurds rendered impossible any fulfilment of my dream of a free life.

This world is not one in which I could live freely, even if I were living outside prison. Prison exists on the outside as well as the inside. Indeed, as I now realise, the outside prison is much more dangerous for the individual. A Kurdish individual living in the outside world who believes that he or she is free is seriously delusional. A life that is lived though illusions and lies is a life lost and betrayed. In my view, life outside can be lived under only one condition: by struggling twenty-four hours a day for the existence and freedom of the Kurdish people. For a Kurd, an honourable and ethical life may be had only by becoming an around-the-clock freedom fighter.

When I consider my previous life outside in relation to this principle, I accept that it was ethical. It is in the nature of our struggle that death and imprisonment are part and parcel of life. Life without struggle is dishonest and dishonourable; but life with struggle brings these likely consequences of death and imprisonment. It would contradict all my principles to find myself unable to endure the conditions of my imprisonment. But endurance is a necessity on the path to what you are fighting for. Especially for Kurds who are imbued with socialist thought, whose minds have not been captured by liberalism or some twisted religious cult, the only ethical life is lived through constant struggle. For such a person, no other life and no other world exists.

Second concept, in connection with the first, is to develop one’s perception of truth. The only way to persevere in prison is to do this. Even in ordinary life, having a strong perception of truth enables one to attain most joyous moment of life, that is, to grasp life’s meaning. For the individual who has grasped the meaning of his or her life, its specific location will no longer be a problem. A life enmeshed in lies and errors lacks all meaning—it is a degeneration and will naturally lead to discomfort, depression, violence, and degradation. But for those who have achieved a decent perception of truth, life appears like a miracle. Life itself is the source of excitement and pleasure. The meaning of universe is hidden in life. As one becomes aware of this secret, albeit in prison, life is no longer merely something to be endured. Indeed if one is in prison to attain freedom, then the only thing that will develop there is the perception of truth. Even the most painful emotions may be transformed into happiness if life is built upon the perception of truth.

Imrali Prison has become the arena for my quest for the truth in order to understand the Kurdish phenomenon and question as well as to construct opportunities for a solution. In the outside world, theory and practice were important—but here in prison meaning is. The political philosophy that I have developed here through my defences would have been very hard to develop had I been outside. Writing political philosophy requires a robust effort and a strong perception of the truth. I was able to profoundly grasp that I was in fact a dogmatic positivist—this understanding is highly connected to isolation conditions. Here I have been better able to distinguish among different concepts of modernity; that there can be various models of constructions of nations and it is here have I realised better that social structures are human creations and hence are by nature flexible.

To overcome the nation-state was especially important for me. This concept for a long time was an unchangeable dogmatic Marxist-Leninist principle for me. My explorations of history, civilisation, and modernity have since taught me that the nation-state has nothing to do with socialism—it is merely a residue of classed society and that it is nothing but maximal societal rule that has been legitimised by capitalism. Therefore, I never hesitated in rejecting it. If we are ever to achieve a real scientific socialism, then the masters of real socialism will have to change: their acceptance of a capitalist concept was a big mistake and dealt a terrible blow to socialism itself.

My realisation that capitalist liberalism is in fact a powerful ideological hegemony helped me better comprehend and analyse modernity. Democratic modernity, I found, is not only possible but is far more real than capitalist modernity, far more contemporary, and far more liveable. Unfortunately real socialism was not only not able to overcome nation-state but also considered it to be fundamental to modernity. This resulted in our, the socialists’, inability to envision the possibility of a different sort of nation—a democratic nation. We thought a nation had to possess a state! If the Kurds were to be a nation, then they must have a state! But as I pondered the question, I grasped that the nation-state is one of the gloomiest realities of the last couple of centuries, that it has been heavily shaped by capitalism, and that it is nothing more than an iron cage for societies. I then realised that concepts such as freedom and communalism are more precious. As I became aware that fighting for a nation-state is the same as fighting for capitalism there were huge transformations in my political philosophy. The narrow nation and class struggles would at the end result in nothing more than strengthening capitalism.

Another realisation of mine was that the social science produced by modernity is nothing more than contemporary myth—and that insight deepened my historical and societal conscience. This revolutionised my conceptualisation of the truth. Tearing down the capitalist dogmas, I gained pleasure in understanding history and society as well as the truth it contained. At this point in time I began to think of myself a “seeker of truth.” When perception of truth holistically develops, be it in the social, physical, or biological sphere, it attains a great leverage of meaning incomparable to the past. Under prison conditions I could have as many daily revolutionising truths as I want. Nothing else could have given me so much strength to resist.

The strengthening of my perception of the truth also enabled me to form better practical solution to problems. Divinity and singularity have always been ascribed to the Turkish statist mentality. That mentality conceives the only possible form of administration to be the state. This mentality has Sumerian origins and continues through Arab and Iranian culture of power. The roots of the single God concept is closely tied to theories of power. As power elites were formed, Turks developed fourth or fifth versions of this concept; they were always affected by the results rather than its etymological meaning. During the Seljuk and Ottoman periods, power lost all substance, and to attain it without a second thought brothers, sisters, and relatives were executed. With the entrance of the Republic this took on a new guise. To be more precise, national sovereignty and the nation-state models that were developed in Europe were mounted to power. Thus, the Turkish nation-state became an even more dangerous Leviathan. Anyone who dared touch it was executed. The nation-state was to be worshipped. This was especially so for the bureaucratic staff. The problem of power and the state was to become the most convoluted problem in history.

In Imrali, I applied my new ideas about power and the state to the problem of Kurdish and Turkish relations and as I saw what kind of a role they played I felt the need to find concrete practical solutions. I felt the need to examine the past one thousand year old development of power and state arrangements within the Turkish and Kurdish relations all the way back to the Hittites. I firmly understood the geopolitical and geostrategic connections between Mesopotamian and Anatolian power and state cultures. When I adapted this to the relationship of the Kurds and Turks I immediately understood that separation of power and state was not the right methodology. I did not accept state and power as they were concepts developed against democracy. When I saw that leaving all governance to the rulers and state incurred a big loss to the society, I understood the importance of democracy better. Although state and power are not methods that I approve of, I realised that an anarchical rejection of the state and power too was a hindrance to practical solutions. Democratic governance is our primary choice. However if I was to deny the power and state cultures that have become unitary throughout history, not grasping their aspects that can be shared communally, then as a result I could not attain any sound practical solutions. I thus realised the importance of common power and state concepts.

Throughout history hegemony and state policies and strategies in Anatolia and Mesopotamia have ensured intensive relations and various attempts at joint models were made. In Turkish-Kurdish relations similar models too have been preferred at all critical junctures, of which the War of Independence is the most recent example. I committed to a detailed analysis of this reality in my last defence. Although I presented a theoretic model, turning it into a practical model will not only solve the Turkish-Kurdish problem, but will be valuable in solving many of the other problems in the Middle East currently at an impasse. Such a model is not only in harmony with the historical realities against the positive dogmatism imposed by capitalist modernity, it also contained elements that were closer to everyone’s ideals in finding a practical solution. In light of historical developments I proposed concepts such as democratic modernity, democratic nation and democratic autonomy as opposed to state and power.

Another historical truth I realised was that centralised rule is an exception and local governance is the norm. If we are to understand the reason why centralised nation-states are presented to be the only and absolute model by capitalism then we should look at how they are interlinked. I thus understood the importance local solutions hold for democracy.

Finally, I also drew conclusions concerning the relationship between violence and power. It was clear that gaining power and nationhood through violence can not be our preference. The use of arms, except in self-defence, has absolutely nothing to do with socialism—it can only be the tool of oppressors. This realisation gave me the theoretical basis to approach the question of peace in a more meaningful and ethical manner. I therefore had attained enough conceptual and theoretical accumulation to invalidate the “separatist” or “terrorist” label given by the elites of state and power to not only Kurds but all those who are exploited.

Apart from the health issues that have arisen from the physical conditions of the prison, I can endure life on Imrali. My morale, my conscience, and the force of my will have not retreated one whit; on the contrary, they have all been enhanced. As social truths are explained through science, philosophy, and aesthetics, the potential for a more right, better and beautiful life increases. I would much rather live here on my own till I draw my last breath, than live with people whom the capitalist system has removed from the path of truth.

I must summarise, for me life is only possible if it is lived freely. A life that is not ethical, just, and political is not a life worth living in any social sense. In general civilisation and especially capitalist modernity allows and encourages the individual, through ideological pressure, to live an enslaved life full of lies and demagogy. This is how social problems form. Revolutionaries, whether they call themselves socialist, libertarian, democrat, or communist, must stand against the dominant lifestyle of a civilisation built on oppression and exploitation of excessive class, city and power. In no other way can a free, just, democratic and societal life be developed; and therefore lived. Only wrong lives full of lies and filth can be lived. This is called a life set on a wrong base. It must be well understood that all my life I have taken issue with this sort of life and have rejected it fully.

Another aspect of this question, that raises significant interest, is the relationship with the woman. This is a problem that occupies the heart of many social problems and therefore to solve it requires a scientific, philosophical, ethical and aesthetic approach. At present, living a free joint life requires not only a serious responsibility but keen scientific, philosophical, ethical, and aesthetic understanding. At present, to live a free joint life not only requires a serious amount of responsibility; but also strength in scientific, philosophical, ethical and aesthetic understanding. No matter what type of relationship is entered into, without a clear understanding of the status of women within this modernity and without an ethical and aesthetic approach, all such efforts will lead to lives full of wrongs, corruption and filth.

Modernity’s power-based civilisational morality, and the sexist principles it imposes on women, have brought about a life style that generates terrible ugliness and immorality. There is a need for each man and women—who feels responsibility—to liberate themselves in order to overcome such a life which I also have been striving for. There is a need especially for women to empower and free themselves as well as attain a balanced level of participation in all social spheres. There is also a need to develop a scientific, philosophical, aesthetic and ethical approach and work hard to enshrine this within the mentality and institutions of the democratic nation.

Whether one is inside prison or outside, in the womb or anywhere in the universe, a human life can only be lived in a society that is free, equal in diversity and democratic in essence. Lives outside of this are perverted and therefore can only be described as illnesses. For this to be put right all social movements including revolution may be utilised. But firstly, an ethical, aesthetic, philosophical and scientific mentality must be constructed.

In that case, at the moment of possible release, wherever I may be, wherever I may live, it is only natural that I will struggle tirelessly in theory and practice for the creation of a democratic nation of the Kurdish people, and then, the Democratic Union of Nations in the Middle East as a model for its liberation, and its peoples’ emancipation.

With the ethical, aesthetic, philosophical and scientific approaches that construct my personality as a seeker of truth I will win life, and share it with everyone!

Abdullah Öcalan

Imrali Maximum Security Prison

The first militant, the first comrade, the first martyr - By Mustafa Karasu

  

The following is an interview with PKK co-founder Mustafa Karasu, conducted by İsmet Kayhan. The interview is about Haki Karer, a Turkish internationalist and co-founder of the PKK. 

The years in which Haki Karer began to study at the university were the years of strong repression as a result of the military coup of March 12, 1971. The effects of the resistance of the revolutionary leaders Deniz Gezmiş, Mahir Çayan and İbrahim Kaypakkaya against the fascism of March 12 shaped Haki Karer very much. He took a place in the front ranks of revolutionary youth resistance, which spread like an avalanche from 1973. During this time, from 1973 onwards, he personally got to know the leaders of the left-wing and revolutionary youth movements. The person who shaped him most and was to change his life was the Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan.

He met Öcalan in 1972 and from then on their paths did not part. The central reason that brought these two revolutionaries together was the ideological line that saw the liberation of Kurdish and Turkish society as a unity.

Haki Karer lost his life on 18 May 1977 as a result of a plot by the “Sterka Sor” after a year in Dîlok (Antep). His death was to deeply affect Öcalan and his friends. Öcalan called his companion Haki Karer his “secret soul”. Mustafa Karasu, a member of the Executive Council of the Community of Societies of Kurdistan (KCK), has reported on Haki Karer’s organizational activities within the workers and students of Dîlok and on the ideological struggle with Turkish left circles. Karasu, who also took part in the funeral of Haki Karer, spoke extensively about this time.

Although there were not many, the Apoist group had created a core of cadres in Ankara in 1975. The same was to be achieved in Kurdistan’s cities. The logical step was to go to Kurdistan. At the end of 1975 the Apoists began their journey there.

Dîlok (Antep), Serhat, Amed (Diyarbakır) and Êlih (Batman) were the first cities organized by the Apoist movement. Haki Karer “shouldered his blanket” and went to Adana-Iskenderun. Kemal Pir, Cemil Bayık, Mazlum Doğan, Mehmet Hayri Durmuş, Duran Kalkan and Ali Haydar Kaytan also left for Kurdistan. Mustafa Karasu went together with Doğan Kılıçkaya, who later fall, to Dîlok in July 1976. There Haki Karer had returned from Êlih. He played a pioneering role in the ideological group formation of the Apoists and in the movement of the group to Kurdistan.

Where and when did you first meet Haki Karer? What impression did he make when you first met him?

I saw Haki Karer for the first time at a meeting in 1975. I don’t remember exactly which month it was. I didn’t know then that he came from the Black Sea, Ordu. I saw him as a normal member and cadre of the group. I didn’t know that he had met the chairman Apo and the movement much earlier, because I had never seen him with his friends before. So I thought he was new. He didn’t speak much at the meeting either, he listened more. But he was a quiet friend, serious and wise with a soft expression on his face. That was my observation. At first glance, he made the impression of revolutionary seriousness, determination, and commitment to the cause. We concluded this from his attitude and behaviour.

Ağrı was the first city in Kurdistan he went to?

It was the year 1975, when he went to Agirî (Ağrı), I don’t remember that month exactly. He went together with Abdurrahman Ayhan, who knew Agirî well. When they left, they took quite a few books with them. At that time we sent many books from Ankara to Kurdistan, especially books about national liberation movements and Marxist classics. Among the Marxist classics there were especially the books of Lenin on the right of self-determination of peoples and national liberation wars as well as Stalin’s book on the national question. We mainly sent books about organisation at that time. I think Haki also took many books with him to Agirî. It was his first trip to Kurdistan. It was not about staying there for a long time, but about getting to know Kurdistan, making contacts and having discussions.

In the first phase, it was mainly for this reason that people went there. They stayed in a city for a few months and returned to Ankara. Friends who studied went to their towns and villages during the holidays. Haki Karer was one of the friends who had gone to Kurdistan before the decision to return to the country, taken at the Dikmen meeting in January 1976. At that time, of course, we already knew his personality, his character and his origins in the Black Sea.

It is remarkable that he, as someone from the Black Sea, was one of the first to go to Kurdistan …

I remember that he went to Agirî with great enthusiasm. He reflected the first steps, the first attitude for the decision to develop the national liberation struggle in Kurdistan. The fact that he, as a friend from the Black Sea, was one of the first to leave shows how much importance and value Haki Karer attached to the liberation struggle of Kurdish society. He was one of the first friends of the chairman Apo. After the chairman was released from prison in 1972, he went to Haki and Kemal’s apartment at the suggestion of a friend. He then lived with them in the same house. Kemal and Haki as revolutionary youth immediately accepted that another revolutionary friend lived with them. This relationship and acceptance are also important to show the revolutionary character of Haki Karer.

A later meeting was important: The meeting in January 1976, when the decision to return to Kurdistan was made, was also attended by the friends Kemal and Haki. There I got to know their character and attitude better. At this meeting, everyone spoke about their family situation, their background, the social structure of the family, the course of studies, the first discussion of revolutionary ideas and the phase of joining the group. We heard the story of Haki and Kemal and learned that they had met the chairman Apo much earlier.

What role did Haki Karer play in the emergence of the Apoist movement?

His friend Haki embodied the Apoist culture, the cadre and cooperative understanding of the chairman Apo and the revolutionary attitude. He best represented the mentality, attitude, and life of the leadership in the communes and in Dîlok. He had many responsiblities, but was very modest. He was not one to carry out his responsibility with authoritarian behaviour, but rather with work, ideas and personality. His personality already created respect in one day. Those who knew him respected his friend Haki and listened to him. The chairman said about him: “He was my secret soul, we looked into each other’s eyes and understood each other”. The friend Haki did the work with his gaze, his word and his attitude. He shaped the standards of the commune with his friendship relations, his orderly attitude, his language and his character. He was strong in giving value to friendship relations. Where he stayed, he created the atmosphere of a commune, solidarity and a common spirit. This reality makes the difference between the Apoist group and other Turkish left or Kurdish groups. There were also communal houses in the Turkish left. But in the place where Haki stayed there was not only a common life, but a common spirit, an attitude of mutual respect and love, the fulfillment of work and the organization of life in collective competition.

At that time, everything was done together in the communal houses. The laundry was washed together, the food prepared together. There was no real system. If the situation was right, then the work was started. And comrade Haki was always in first place. He made most of the effort within the commune. He wore the oldest clothes. First and foremost he took care of his friends. Because he always wore the oldest clothes, the friends sometimes made jokes. Even in winter, Comrade Haki always wore the oldest clothes. There was a series on television at the time, Commissioner Columbo. The commissioner’s coat was always wrinkled, messy and old. Because Haki Karer also always wore the oldest, his friends sometimes said that he would wear Columbo’s coat.

The theoretical consciousness and ideological power of Haki were very pronounced. He explained the thoughts of the chairman and the line of the Apoist group in the best way and thereby gained reputation. When Haki spoke to someone, he gained respect and seriousness. Nobody could take a non-serious attitude towards Haki. He was a revolutionary personality with seriousness and a sense of responsibility.

The Turkish left claimed that the Apoists would not discuss, but force their ideas on them. Was this really the case?

It was necessary both in the ideological and in the anti-fascist struggle to be right at the front. The Apoists did both. They offered both a strong ideological resistance and constantly discussed and led an effective fight against the fascists. Therefore this assertion is not true. There was an intense ideological struggle with a militant attitude. The greatest peculiarity was that the Apoist group had detached itself from the system. It had broken away from the state, the family, the school, from petty bourgeois dreams and longings. There was no egoism, they had dedicated no second of their lives to anything other than the struggle for freedom, democracy and socialism. This made the ideological struggle so strong. For they were steadfast in word and deed. They were socialist in language and socialist in life. If they had been socialist and revolutionary only in their words and had not detached themselves from the system, traditional relations and traditional gender relations, they would not have been able to influence the youth.

They brought the body of Haki Karer to Ulubey … Can you tell us about the commemoration? In an article you wrote in 1991: ” We have not taken an appropriate attitude towards Haki”. Why?

When Haki Karer fell, we were not in Dîlok, but in Ankara. We heard about his death and left Ankara for Dîlok with some friends. We left with the perspective of fighting against the attackers. On the way, friends stopped us and said they would bring the body from Ankara to Ulubey. So we went from Ankara to Ordu, with over 30 friends, mainly from Ankara, and from Ordu to Ulubey.

Haki was a well-known personality in Ulubey and a youth that everyone liked. During his time in Ulubey he worked in the gardens and fields. He was known everywhere. That is why hundreds, if not thousands, of Turkish left-wing groups came to his commemoration. Every group was there. At that time there were sympathizers from China, the Soviet Union and Albania. They called each other social fascists and social imperialists. They all came to the memory of Haki. We were not able to classify this well. We were not good enough in bringing these groups, through the person of Haki, closer to the apoist group and building cooperative relations. We were just a group whose friend had fallen and buried him. But we should have had a different approach, at a memorial service for a friend like Haki who attracted so many people.

When we told Chairman Apo about the funeral, he criticized it. Two months later he went to Ulubey himself and expressed his condolences to the family. He brought the character and personality of Haki closer to his family and people he knew.

Kemal Pir gave a speech at the commemoration ceremony?

The funeral was attended by about 30 friends. Among them were Duran Kalkan and Muzaffer Ayata. The people had gathered in front of the house before going to the cemetery and a speech was to be made. Everyone said that Kemal Pir should talk. He was an agitator. But when he stepped up to Haki’s body, he could only say, “This friend, Haki.” His neck became narrow and he could say nothing more. He cried and stepped back. They had been long friends, lived in the same house, knew each other very well. Losing such a friend had touched Kemal very deeply.

In his defense writings, written on the prison island Imralı, Öcalan writes: “Haki was my invisible soul”. How was the relationship between Öcalan and Haki Karer? Were you able to witness a conversation between them?

 

The chairman Apo was always very respectful in his relationship with Haki. There was mutual respect. When you look at the Chairman Apo’s relationships with other friends, his relationship with Haki was a little different. The chairman said that Haki was his invisible soul. Invisible soul meant that Haki practiced what he thought; that he knew, without saying anything, how to behave. You didn’t have to say anything to Haki. He was aware of his responsibility anyway and fulfilled his duties wordlessly. This means secret soul.

 

Πηγή:

The first militant, the first comrade, the first martyr 

 

"The epical resistance in Garê brought guerrillas closer to success"

YJA Star guerrilla Bêrîtan Botan and HPG guerrilla Mahîr Cûdî said that the epical resistance in Garê brought guerrillas closer to success. 

 

The invading Turkish army launched an operation in Garê on 10 February. The operation was called "Claçe-Kartal 2". More than 40 aircraft, dozens of helicopters, drones, soldiers and special forces were used by the Turkish state in its attack on Garê.

However, the resistance carried out by HPG guerrillas under the command of Şoreş Beytüşşebap, meant that the invasion attack was defeated on 14 February.

YJA Star guerrilla Bêrîtan Botan and HPG guerrilla Mahîr Cûdî talked about the resistance in Garê.

YJA Star guerrilla Bêrîtan Botan said that they were marching towards success together with the resistance in the guerrilla areas and added: "The enemy could not overcome the resistance of the Kurdistan freedom guerrilla in Garê, despite using a wide range of sophisticated technologies. The fascist Turkish state was defeated and had to retreat. We know that this attack was actually a continuation of the international conspiracy [which led to the abduction of Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Ocalan on 15 February 1999]. This is why they planned this attack in February.

For us, defeating the enemy in Garê meant spoiling the international conspiracy. Defeating fascism is a success for us. Our will is strong; our goal is great. So we will resist until we succeed. Our goal is to live a free life together with Leader Ocalan and our people in a free Kurdistan. With this spirit, we will fight and succeed.”

For the Turkish army Garê was not the easy walk they imagined

HPG guerrilla Mahîr Cûdî emphasized that the guerrillas promised their people that they would protect Kurdistan against the invaders. "For the Turkish army, Garê was not the easy walk they imagined. Erdogan should have seen this. His plans were hit the guerrilla resistance. A great resistance was carried out against the comprehensive operation of NATO's second largest army under the leadership of Comrade Şoreş. We proved that will and determination can beat even the most sophisticated technology.”

Πηγή:

ANF | "The epical resistance in Garê brought guerrillas closer ...

 

 

Το αντισημίτικο κνώδαλο ξαναμίλησε..

 

Όταν οι εκπρόσωποι τής εβραϊκής κοινότητας ελέγχουν ένα πρόσωπο για συμβολική προπαγανδιστική εργαλειοποίηση και ευτελισμό τού ολοκαυτώματος, αυτό το πρόσωπο συνήθως απαντάει με το επιχείρημα ότι οι Ναζί δεν εξόντωναν μόνον Εβραίους, λόγου χάριν στο Άουσβιτς, αλλά και άλλες εθνότητες, μειονότητες, πολιτικούς αντιπάλους τους κ.λπ.

Αυτό είναι το προφανές, κανείς δεν είπε ότι οι Ναζί ήταν «μονοθεματικοί», όταν όμως εντάσσεται ως επιχείρημα στην «προσπάθεια» αυτού που επιχειρηματολογεί να μην απαντήσει γιατί εργαλειοποίησε  (ή ακόμα και αμφισβήτησε, σε άλλες περιπτώσεις) το ολοκαύτωμα, σημαίνει και φανερώνει τον αντισημιτισμό του.

Το συγκεκριμένο κνώδαλο (που δεν θέλω να λέω ούτε το όνομά του) είχε την πονηριά να «επισημάνει» βέβαια ότι όντως η πλειονότητα των εξοντωθέντων ήταν Εβραίοι. 

Με αυτό νόμισε, το αντισημίτικο κνώδαλο, ότι δεν χρειάζεται να απολογηθεί για το ατόπημά του, το οποίο είναι γνωστό, συνηθισμένο και «προβλεπόμενο» ατόπημα των αντισημιτών όλων των εκδοχών.

Δεν απάντησε γιατί χρησιμοποίησε την απαράδεκτη (και συνηθισμένη στους «αριστερούς» αντισημίτες) αναλογία, αλλά έβγαλε και «αριστερή» γλώσσα αναφέροντας τους άλλους εξοντωθέντες, ζητώντας μάλιστα από τους εκπροσώπους τους να πάρουν θέση περί τής αναλογίας αυτής, μπας και έτσι αντιπροσωπευτεί τάχα «όλη η αλήθεια» και όχι μόνο αυτή που παρουσιάζεται μέσω τής εβραϊκής κοινότητας.

Κουτοπόνηρο, προσεκτικό, γλοιώδες αφήγημα, χαρακτηριστικό τής «νέας αριστεράς», στα πλαίσια πάντα μιας πιο μαζικής και κιτς εκδοχής από ένα πρώην πασοκοειδές.

Να τους έχετε και να τους χαίρεστε, εσείς «εκεί» στο κίνημα, τους νέους συμμάχους σας, και τις νέες περσόνες σας.

Δεν σας έφτανε η Κανέλλη, δεν σας έφτανε η «ελληνοφρένεια», πάρτε τώρα να έχετε μαζί σας και το νέο ως αντισημίτικο κνώδαλο, να κάνει παρέα μαζί με τον Πελεγρίνη, όλοι μαζί για να ξαναβγάλετε το παιντί πρωθυπουργό.

Η κατάντια σας δεν έχει τελειωμό.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Ο δάσκαλος, ο πολεμιστής, το φτωχό αγροτόπαιδο, ο «εθνοσταλινικός». Αυτοί που ξέρουν να πολεμούν, αυτοί που πολεμάνε αληθινά..

 

Η ηθική και η αισθητική τής σύγκρουσης..

 

Κοίταξα και ξανακοίταξα με επιφύλαξη την σκηνή με την επίθεση στον αστυνομικό.

Δεν θέλω να βγάλω γρήγορα συμπεράσματα για το είδος τής επίθεσης και την σφοδρότητά της, πάντως ο τρόπος που ξεκίνησε και κυρίως ο τρόπος με τον οποίο συνεχίστηκε είχε κάποια εμφανή χαρακτηριστικά που θέλω να τα δούμε.

Καταρχάς είδα ότι ο αστυνομικός ενώ έπεσε μετά από τράβηγμα κάποιου διαδηλωτή εγκαταλείφθηκε από τους συναδέλφους του, αν και ήταν προφανές ότι θα δέχονταν επικίνδυνη επίθεση.

Αυτό σημαίνει, από όσο μπορώ να καταλάβω, ότι οι υπόλοιποι αστυνομικοί που ήταν στην φάση -δεν ήταν μόνο μια μοτοσυκλέτα με τους δύο αναβάτες της- είχαν πραγματικά χεστεί και δεν έδειξαν το στοιχειώδες θάρρος για να υπερασπιστούν τον δικό τους άνθρωπο. 

Τον άφησαν την στιγμή που έπρεπε -αν είχαν τσίπα- να παραμείνουν και να τον υπερασπιστούν εμπλεκόμενοι σε μάχη εκ τού συστάδην. 

Συγγνώμη, αλλά ως πιθανός ή υποψήφιος πολεμιστής δεν θα ήθελα να έχω τέτοιους συντρόφους.

Πάμε τώρα στην επίθεση καθαυτή.

Άλλη μια φορά τα φρικιά έδειξαν ότι δεν έχουν την στοιχειώδη αντίληψη τακτικής, όχι ως προς την ίδια την άμεση τέλεση τής εκάστοτε μάχης αλλά σε σχέση με την διαχείρισή της με την στοιχειώδη πολεμική αυτοσυγκράτηση:

Έχεις στα χέρια σου έναν «μπάτσο» και αντί να του ασκήσεις ήπια βία αν δεν γίνεται αλλιώς, επιδιώκοντας ίσως και να τον κάνεις ρόμπα και ρεζίλι (δεν θα πω τον τρόπο, παραπέμπω στους άψογους Νοτιοκορεάτες διαδηλωτές), αντί λοιπόν να κάνεις -ακόμα και εν μέσω τού πάθους σου- αυτό που πρέπει να κάνεις, φτάνεις στο όριο τής δολοφονίας.

Ήδη, με αυτή την πρακτική ό,τι έχασε ο Μητσοτάκης το ξανακέρδισε σε μια στιγμή, και όχι μόνον στο «μικροαστικό πόπολο».

Δεν θα πω αυτά που λέει το ΚΚΕ για «προβοκάτορες» κ.λπ τα οποία έχουν κουράσει και είναι τα ίδια και τα ίδια, ούτε θα πω αυτά που λέει ο Σύριζα που είναι ένοχος για «γλείψιμο» διαρκείας στα φρικιά, αλλά θα πω αυτό που θα έλεγα και στην αριστερά και στα φρικιά:

Και στο τακτικό και στο τακτικο-στρατηγικό επίπεδο, είστε όλοι για τα πανηγύρια, κάνετε τη δουλειά τού Μητσοτάκη και τού κάθε Μητσοτάκη, το κράτος γελάει μαζί σας, και το κυριότερο, πέραν τής πολεμολογικής αχρηστίας σας, έχετε ιδεολογικό και πολιτικό πρόβλημα, με την έννοια ότι έχετε χάσει εντελώς τη μπάλα ως προς το γενικό σχήμα τής κλιμάκωσης μιας σύγκρουσης.

Δεν υπάρχει κάποιο ηθικίστικο πασιφιστικό ή ρεφορμιστικό «όριο», αλλά μια γενικά ισχύουσα κανονιστικότητα ως προς την κλιμάκωση μιας σύγκρουσης.

Όταν κάνεις σύγκρουση για ένα άθλιο περιστατικό βίας από την μεριά τής αστυνομίας, αλλά «φροντίζεις» να την υπερκεράσεις φτάνοντας στό όριο τής δολοφονίας, τότε είσαι και άχρηστος και ανήθικος και ανόητος και πολιτικά βλαξ, για να μην μιλήσω για το επικοινωνιακό «μέρος» το οποίο πέραν τής άμεσης επικοινωνιακής του «επιφάνειας» περικλείει και ιδεολογικούς και ηθικούς και κοσμοθεωρητικούς προσδιορισμούς.

Δεν είναι εικόνα αυτή, στα όρια ή μήπως εντός των ορίων τού λιντσαρίσματος;, όταν σε τελική ανάλυση δεν υπάρχει σαν γεγονοτολογικό προηγούμενο κάτι το αντίστοιχο.

Θα πει κανείς ότι πάνω στην «στιγμή» όλα είναι πιθανά, και δεν πρέπει να μιλήσουμε εκ των υστέρων ή απ' «έξω από τον χορό» για μια σύγκρουση κ.λπ, αλλά νομίζω ότι αυτά είναι δικαιολογίες, εκτός αν παραδεχτούν όλοι αυτοί που κάνουν τον αντιεξουσιαστή ή τον αντιαυταρχικό εξεγερμένο ότι στην πραγματικότητα συγκρούονται δύο μορφές ισχύος, δύο εξουσίες, δύο αυταρχισμοί, οπότε κατά κάποια έννοια ό,τι επιτρέπεται στο (αστικό) κράτος επιτρέπεται και στους αντιπάλους του κ.λπ. 

Πάλι νομίζω ότι μιλάμε για να μιλάμε, άλλα λόγια να αγαπιόμαστε δηλαδή, πρώτον διότι οι «αντιαυταρχικοί» υποκριτές τής νέας αριστεράς/αναρχίας δεν πρόκειται ποτέ να παραδεχτούν (κυνικά έστω) την ανάγκη ενός επαναστατικού αυταρχισμού, όπως έκαναν κάποτε αυτοί οι ειλικρινείς άνθρωποι που κάποτε λέγονταν κομμουνιστές. 

Δεύτερον, διότι και να γίνει αυτή η αποδοχή δεν βλέπω να υπάρχει σκέψη, συζήτηση, σχεδιασμός, προβληματισμός, για το τι σημαίνει κλιμάκωση τής σύγκρουσης, αλλά και για το τι σημαίνει, πέραν των ηθικολογιών, η ηθική αλλά και η αισθητική τής σύγκρουσης από την σκοπιά αυτών που επαίρονται εδώ και δεκαετίες ότι θα φέρουν το «άλλο», το «διαφορετικό», υποτίθεται, σε σχέση με τον «σταλινισμό» και τον «κρατισμό».

Οπότε, ξέρω ότι μιλάω στο κενό.

Λέω όμως αυτά που θέλω να πω, και θα πω κι ένα τελευταίο (φαινομενικά άσχετο), για την ηθική πολεμολογία:

Όταν μιλάνε κάποιοι για το ΡΚΚ, ειδικά στην ώριμη φάση του (όπως είναι σήμερα), πρέπει πρώτα να πλένουν το βρωμόστομά τους.

Ξέρουν αυτοί τι λέω.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

 

 

Ό,τι πιάνουν θα γίνεται πηλός..

 

Όπως είπα χτες, η «επανάληψη» που φαντάζονται «εκεί» στις «ελίτ» και στην «βάση» τού κινήματος, δεν θα είναι και τόσο εύκολη υπόθεση όπως φαντάζονται.

Η κοινωνία έχει αλλάξει, πολλοί άνθρωποι που δεν το περίμενες έχουν αλλάξει, και το αποκρυστάλλωμα αυτής τής αλλαγής δεν σημαίνει αυτό που φαντάζονται όσοι προσδοκούν την «επανάληψη» τού 2008 και τού 2012-2015.

Το συμμαχικό κοινωνικό «σχήμα» των πλατειών, που χτίστηκε με επιδεξιότητα μεν αλλά είχε και πραγματικές κοινωνικές μαζικές βάσεις, δεν έχει φτιαχτεί, διότι λείπει ο λαϊκός «συντηρητικός» μικροαστικός ή μικροαστικός-εργατικός παράγοντας που το «εμψύχωνε».

Το γενικό περιρρέον γύρω από την καραντίνα, και το μέτωπο των ψεκασμένων, όχι μόνον δεν κολλάει με την ανάγκη τού Σύριζα να γίνει ένα κάποιο μέτωπο, αλλά έχει αποκτήσει τα δικά του «αυτόνομα» ιδεολογικά χαρακτηριστικά που είναι ανορθολογικά και έχουν συνάψεις με την παγκόσμια ακροδεξιά.

Μπορεί βέβαια, αν λήξει όλο αυτό το πράγμα με την πανδημία να παρουσιαστεί αλλού το μικροαστικό πόπολο, και έτσι να γίνει πάλι ο ποθητός γάμος που ζητάει η τυχοδιωκτική ηγεσία τού Σύριζα και οι  «ελίτ» των ακραιφνών σεκταριστών [ανταρσύα και άλλα ψυχιατρεία].

Και πάλι όμως απουσιάζει η έστω πλασματική στρατηγική τού «αντιμνημονίου», το «δραχμικό» αίτημα, και άλλα που προσέδιδαν στο συμμαχικό σχήμα μιαν εθνικολαϊκή (ίσως και αντιδραστική) «πατριωτική» ευρύτητα.

Μόνο με τους αριστεριστές και την ριζοσπαστική νεολαία, τις «συλλογικότητες» κ.λπ δεν φτιάχνεις «ηγεμονικό» λαϊκίστικο σχήμα.

Και αν δεν φτιάξεις λαϊκίστικο σχήμα, τι θα είσαι; Σύριζα τού 2012-2015; 

Δεν υπάρχει τέτοια περίπτωση.

Όπως είχα πει παλιότερα, ο Σύριζα κινδυνεύει να εγκλωβιστεί όχι στον «αριστερίστικο» πυρήνα του όπως λένε οι δεξιοί και οι ακροκεντρώοι, αλλά σε ένα «κοινωνικοανθρωπολογικό τοπίο» που είναι περίκλειστο και έχει συγκεκριμένα όρια, τα οποία όχι μόνον έλκουν τους «άλλους» να μπουν εντός τους αλλά τους απωθούν σε άγνωστη κατεύθυνση, οπουδήποτε αλλού και όχι εντός αυτού τού «κοινωνικοανθρωπολογικού τοπίου».

Ο ίδιος ο ευρύτερος χώρος τής «αριστεράς» και τού κινήματος βρίσκεται σε ουσιαστική κοινωνική περικύκλωση, με δική του ευθύνη όμως, όχι γιατί έχει γενικά και αόριστα πρόβλημα να προσεγγίσει τους μικροαστούς (εργαζόμενους ή μικρομεσαίους) ή την «στενά» ορισμένη εργατική τάξη (όπως ίσως «νομίζει»). 

Η τομή των κοινωνικών διαιρέσεων που προκαλούν την «περικύκλωση» τού «χώρου» αυτού είναι οριζόντια και έχει ιδεολογικά και πολιτισμικά χαρακτηριστικά που δεν μπορούν εύκολα να αναχθούν σε μιαν άμεση κοινωνική ταξική ή υπο-ταξική πραγματικότητα.

Μιλάω πάντα, ως εκτός αυτών των ορίων, και ως απόλυτα μη-διατεθειμένος να ξαναμπώ εντός τους, παρά την ιδεολογική συγγένεια και τις ιδεολογικές καταγωγές μου, και σκέφτομαι τον εαυτό μου ως ένα ακόμα παράδειγμα πολλών άλλων ανθρώπων που γνωρίζω, και άλλων που βλέπω σε μιαν «ευρύτερη ματιά».

Οι πιθανές «πτυχές» αυτής τής οριζόντιας τομής «περικύκλωσης» τού «χώρου» που εκτείνεται (ως «χώρος») από την αριστερίστικη σοσιαλδημοκρατία μέχρι τους αντιεξουσιαστές, είναι πολλές και ετερογενείς μεταξύ τους, και αυτό ίσως να σημαίνει ότι στην πραγματικότητα υπάρχει ένας πολυσυλλεκτικός «αντισυριζισμός-αντιαριστερισμός» που αν και δεν συνέχεται από κάτι το ενιαίο είναι ιδιαίτερα σκληρός ως προς το αδιάλλακτο αφήγημά του.

 

Ποτέ ξανά Σύριζα, η ανταρσύα πάντα κάτω από το 3%.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

Νέα Σμύρνη, Κυψέλη, Δραπετσώνα..

 

 

Ζούσα στην Νέα Σμύρνη από το 1977 έως το 2018, οπότε μετακόμισα στην Σπάρτη.

Η Νέα Σμύρνη δεν είναι συνοικία τού «δεξιού νοικοκυραίου»-μικροαστού, αλλά είναι η συνοικία τού «αριστερού-αριστεριστή νοικοκυραίου»-μικροαστού.

«Πάμε στον Άδωνι για καφέ», Πανιώνιος, ΚΚΕ-ΕΣ με 20% την εποχή που με το ζόρι έπαιρνε 3-4%, 2 ταγμένοι «εσωτερικάκηδες» Δήμαρχοι, πρώτα ο Μπεχλιβανίδης, τελευταία ο Κουτελάκης.

«Πάνθηρες», το αριστερίστικο-αριστερό κλαμπ φιλάθλων τού Πανιωνίου, και άλλα.

Δεν «έγινα» αριστερός στη Δραπετσώνα, δεν θα προλάβαινα άλλωστε μέχρι τα 9-10, αλλά στη Νέα Σμύρνη.

Η Νέα Σμύρνη είναι μια στάνταρ αριστερή-κεντροαριστερή μικροαστική συνοικία, που είναι (κυρίως ήταν) και λαϊκή-προλεταριακή στο άνω μέρος της (άνω Νέα Σμύρνη).

Αυτή τη στιγμή, μετά από διεργασίες δύο δεκαετιών, προτού ακόμα κάνει ντου ο δεξιομπατσο-μηχανισμός τού Χρυσοχοΐδη, η Νέα Σμύρνη είναι ήδη τα «Εξάρχεια τού μικροαστού».

Έχει υπάρξει, στο όχι και τόσο μακρινό παρελθόν, μια κατάληψη κεντρικού δημόσιου-δημοτικού χώρου στην κεντρική πλατεία [πρώην Καφετέρια «Γαλαξίας»], η οποία ήταν και το πεδίο ιδεολογικής ζύμωσης για να υπάρξει μια ευρύτερη διάδοση και εδραίωση των νεοαριστερών και νεοαναρχικών ιδεών στον μικροαστικό Δήμο (μαζί με τις αναρχικές συλλογικότητες, και την «εργατική λέσχη»).

Ενώ έγινε μια ανάλογη προσπάθεια «εξαρχειοποίησης» στην Φωκίωνος Νέγρη στην Κυψέλη, εφόσον υπήρχε πολύς κόσμος στο «κίνημα» στην Κυψέλη, «δεν έπιασε» λόγω ακριβώς τού λαϊκοπρολεταριακού χαρακτήρα τής Κυψέλης (τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες) και μάλιστα λόγω τού γεγονότος ότι οι λαϊκοί προλετάριοι στην Κυψέλη, άρα και όσοι συχνάζουν στην Φωκίωνος Νέγρη, είναι μετανάστες από πολλές εθνότητες.

Δεν μπόρεσε να πιάσει εκεί η «εξαρχειοποίηση» αν και ήταν  σκοπός τού κινήματος και επιχειρήθηκε, μιας και οι προλετάριοι στην καθημερινότητά τους, ειδικά οι ξένοι, δεν νοιάζονται για τέτοια πράγματα.

Λόγω τής συντρόφου μου που είναι Κυψελιώτισσα μέχρι το κόκκαλο, έχω ζήσει την Κυψέλη πολύ καλά, εδώ και δεκαετίες.

Η Κυψέλη δείχνει τα τελικά όρια τής αριστερίστικης-αναρχικής διείσδυσης στο προλεταριάτο, ειδικά το «ξένο».

Μπορεί να βλέπεις παντού αφίσες και τρικάκια, αισθάνεσαι την ζωντανή και μαζική παρουσία τού αριστερισμού και τού νεοαναρχισμού, αλλά το νιώθεις αμέσως ότι αυτή η παρουσία «απορροφάται» από μιαν αδιάφορη και πραγματιστικά προσανατολισμένη προλεταριακή λαϊκή μάζα.

Δεν σας κρύβω ότι μέσω τού κοριτσιού μου «απορροφήθηκα» και εγώ εν πολλοίς από την απίστευτη γοητευτική κυψελιώτικη λαϊκοπρολεταριακή «ατμόσφαιρα» και απέκτησα «ισορροπίες», ιδεολογικές και πολιτισμικές, τις οποίες δεν μου τις έδωσε ποτέ η Νέα Σμύρνη. 

Κατά κάποιο τρόπο, μέσω τής Κυψέλης «ξεπέρασα» την Νέα Σμύρνη, και επέστρεψα (νοερά) στην πρώτη, παιδική μου, συνοικία, την Δραπετσώνα, η οποία παρεμπιπτόντως δεν είναι «ακριβώς» Πειραιάς, είχε και έχει την δική της ταυτότητα. 

Ας έρθω στην «επικαιρότητα».

Δεν ξέρω αν η δεξιά και το παρακράτος της, το έκανε επίτηδες να κάνει ντου στην Νέα Σμύρνη, δεν τις πιστεύω αυτές τις συνωμοσιολογίες, αλλά με την εφόρμησή της στην Νέα Σμύρνη είναι σαν να «προκάλεσε» την καρδιά τού «αριστερού-αριστερίστικου μικροαστισμού» στην πόλη τής Αθήνας.

Αν το έκανε επίτηδες είναι ηλίθια, αν το έκανε κατά λάθος ή έπεσε πάνω στον αριστερό τοίχο που δεν ήξερε ότι υπάρχει, τότε είναι ακόμα περισσότερο ηλίθια και άσχετη από το κοινωνικοανθρωπολογικό «τοπίο» τής Αθήνας.

Αν οι δεξιάρες κατορθώσουν να φτιάξουν έναν ακόμα θύλακα μικροαστικού υπερεπαναστατισμού στην Αθήνα, κάπως πιο «κυριλέ», τότε είναι «άξιοι συγχαρητηρίων». 

Για Νόμπελ είναι οι άνθρωποι.

Εγώ πάντως, όταν γυρίσω, αν γυρίσω στην Αθήνα, θα πάω ή στην Κυψέλη ή στην Δραπετσώνα.

Τούς μικροαστούς δεν τους αντιπαθώ τόσο, όσο οι ίδιοι τον εαυτό τους (εξού και ο οντολογικός «αντι-μικροαστισμός» τους, έχω αναφερθεί: Ψάχνοντας τον ταξικό «εσωτερικό εχθρό»), αλλά τούς βαριέμαι αφάνταστα.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

    

ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΣΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΥΤΕΛΙΣΜΟ ΤΟΥ ΑΟΥΣΒΙΤΣ

ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΣΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΥΤΕΛΙΣΜΟ ΤΟΥ ΑΟΥΣΒΙΤΣ

Μόνο ντροπή προκαλεί η αναφορά της κας Έλενας Ακρίτα σε σχετικό άρθρο της «...Ζούμε σε ένα κρανίου τόπος. Ζούμε σε ένα Άουσβιτς. Σε λίγο θα ράψουμε κι αστέρια στο πέτο του παλτού μας για να ξέρουν ποιους ποδοπατούν σε αυτή την ατέλειωτη Νύχτα των Κρυστάλλων». Το Κεντρικό Ισραηλιτικό Συμβούλιο Ελλάδος αποδοκιμάζει τον απαράδεκτο και ανυπόστατο παραλληλισμό των συνθηκών του Άουσβιτς με τη ζωή σε μια δημοκρατική χώρα όπως η Ελλάδα. Γιατί στο Άουσβιτς οι άνθρωποι δεν ζούσαν... Πέθαιναν κάθε μέρα, κάθε ώρα, κάθε λεπτό, κάθε στιγμή... γιατί στο Άουσβιτς η ζωή είχε χάσει κάθε αξία... γιατί ο άνθρωπος είχε χάσει την ανθρωπιά του... γιατί στο Άουσβιτς επικρατούσε μόνο η απανθρωπιά... γιατί στο Άουσβιτς η κάπνα των κρεματορίων απλωνόταν στον ουρανό και η στάχτη της ανθρώπινης σάρκας σκέπαζε τη γη... γιατί στο Άουσβιτς εξοντώθηκαν 1.500.000 άνθρωποι που δεν είχαν τη δυνατότητα  να φωνάξουν «Πονάω ρε ...». Επαναλαμβάνουμε για μια ακόμη φορά ότι το Κεντρικό Ισραηλιτικό Συμβούλιο Ελλάδος, οι Έλληνες Εβραίοι, όσοι από εμάς διάβηκαν την πύλη του Άουσβιτς και επιβιώσαμε και είμαστε ακόμα ζωντανοί, οι απόγονοι των θυμάτων, δεν θα σταματήσουμε ποτέ να καταγγέλλουμε κάθε προσπάθεια ευτελισμού και εργαλειοποίησης του Ολοκαυτώματος που οδηγεί στη λήθη και στην παραποίηση της ιστορίας. Αθήνα, 9 Μαρτίου 2021 ΚΕΝΤΡΙΚΟ ΙΣΡΑΗΛΙΤΙΚΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ

 

Ajam - Sanam Bia [Official Music Video] / عجم - صنم بیا

Οι «διανοητές» και οι «ριζοσπάστες» τής (ιμπεριαλιστικής) περιφέρειας και ημι-περιφέρειας..

Όσο «περιφερειακότερη» είναι μια (αστική) κοινωνία, τόσο και «ιδανικότερα» θέλει να βλέπει και να πραγματοποιεί ό,τι τής «έρχεται» από τις μητροπόλεις.

Δεν νομίζω ότι θα μπορούσαν να βρούνε πιστότερους πιστούς μερικοί (ιδεολογικοί, πολιτικοί, «πολιτισμικοί») μητροπολιτικοί «ποιμένες» από αυτούς που βρίσκουν στις χάσκουσες ιδεαλιστικές επαρχίες τής μητρόπολής τους (δεν νομίζω ότι λόγου χάριν ο Μπαντιού ή η Μπάτλερ, θα έβρισκαν τόσους πιστούς στην χώρα τους όσους βρήκανε εδώ).

Έθνη-κράτη/έθνη «φαντάσματα» ως ημι-κυρίαρχα εθνομορφώματα, κράτη πελάτες, έτοιμα για υπηρεσία ή τυχοδιωκτισμούς για τους μεγαλοϊμπεριαλιστές αφέντες τους, και πελατάκια διανοούμενοι τής περιφέρειας.

Οι τελευταίοι πάντως «αναλαμβάνουν υπηρεσία» να καταπιούν αμάσητα τα πάντα από μόνοι τους, είναι εθελοντές τής πρώτης ιδεολογικής γραμμής, και ως τέτοιοι δεν είναι μόνον οι ακαδημαϊκοί ή οι αναγνωρισμένοι διανοούμενοι, αλλά και όλα σχεδόν τα «μορφωμένα» ή υπερ-ριζοσπαστικά υποκείμενα τής κοινωνίας.

Όταν ξυπνήσουνε, συνήθως απότομα, είναι αργά, αλλά μπορεί και να μην ξυπνήσουνε ποτέ.

Πάντα υπάρχει μια εκ των υστέρων μεταβίβαση ενοχής από μέρους τους, ακόμα κι αν τα πράγματα δεν πάνε καλά ούτε για τα ίδια (τα «διανοούμενα» ή «ριζοσπαστικά» υποκείμενα τής περιφέρειας):

«Δεν σας τα λέγαμε»;

«Καλά να πάθετε τώρα»..κ.λπ κ.λπ

Με αυτό τον τρόπο τής εκ των υστέρων (σεκταριστικής) ηθικολογίας καλύπτονται τα κενά ανάλυσης και η απόσταση από την συγκεκριμένη πολιτική πράξη, χωρίς ο σεκταριστής να χρειάζεται να κάνει ουσιαστική αυτοκριτική για την εξάρτησή του από τα δικά του μητροπολιτικά «διανοητικά αφεντικά» και τα θεωρητικά/ιδεολογικά τους σχήματα.

Κουραστικά επαρχιώτικα πράγματα, τής Αθήνας.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Μη-τεθειμένα αντινομικά διλήμματα.

 

Ο «τρόπος» με τον οποίο «διαμεσολαβείται», άρα αποκτάει νόημα ο αντιαυταρχικός, άρα και αντι-συντηρητικός αγώνας στην ελληνική (αστική) κοινωνία, δεν είναι «ξεκάρφωτος», σχετίζεται άμεσα με τον «τρόπο» αυτού τού αγώνα σε άλλες αναπτυγμένες καπιταλιστικές κοινωνίες και χώρες.

Υπάρχουν βέβαια μερικές κρίσιμες «ενοχλητικές λεπτομέρειες» γεωστρατηγικού-γεωγραφικού «χαρακτήρα» που καθιστούν την άμεση «ιδεολογική μεταφορά» τού «τρόπου» αυτού (από τις δυτικές μητροπόλεις σε χώρες σαν την Ελλάδα) προβληματική.

Δεν βλέπω να υπάρχει ιδιαίτερη επίγνωση τής ανάγκης προσαρμογής σε αυτές τις ειδικές συνθήκες. 

Το πρόβλημα είναι πολύ μεγαλύτερο από ό,τι νόμιζα μέχρι σχετικά πρόσφατα, και αποκρυσταλλώνεται σε μια σειρά από αδιέξοδα αντινομικά διλήμματα που δεν υπάρχουν όμως έτσι απλά, εφόσον δεν τίθενται στην κυριολεξία και την «αγριότητά» τους, άρα «διπλασιάζονται» ως προς την ένταση και το αδιέξοδό τους, ακριβώς διότι δεν υπάρχουν απλά αλλά υπάρχουν και ως μη-τεθειμένα. 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Λίγα λόγια και καλά..

 

Τίποτα δεν αποκλείει την επανάληψη τού 2008 και τού 2015, με σημαντικές διαφορές, αλλά μερικά πράγματα έχουν αλλάξει προς το χειρότερο, και με ευθύνη αυτών που ξυπνάνε και κοιμούνται με το όνειρο μιας επανάληψης.

Θα μπορούσα να πω, με βασική ευθύνη των προαναφερόμενων.

Δεν ξέρω τι να πρωτοπώ για να σας δείξω τι εννοώ.

Κακώς έχουνε μερικοί ξανασταθεί πάλι, με τόσο πάθος, μόνο στο «αντι-μικροαστικό» τους αφήγημα (και υπάρχουν τόσες εκδοχές του!), είτε για να τα «ξαναφτιάξουν» είτε για να τα «σπάσουν» με τον «μικροαστό», στην πραγματικότητα και τα δύο μαζί.

Κάνουνε μεγάλες προσπάθειες για να ξαναχτίσουν άλλη μια συμμαχία πάνω στα υποτιθέμενα ερείπια τού ταξικού ή κοινωνικού «μικροαστισμού».

Το τοπίο όμως είναι πολύ διαφορετικό, χωρίς να λείπει βέβαια και αυτή η «διάσταση».

Λείπει ο «μικροαστός» από τη χώρα αυτή;

Δεν υπάρχει περίπτωση.

Τέλος πάντων.

Βλέπω πάλι ένα συντονισμό ετερογενών δυνάμεων, βλέπω πάλι μιαν υπόγεια, μερικές φορές και ιντριγκαδόρικη συνεννόηση μερικών κύκλων, για να ξαναφτιάξουν νέες πλατείες και νέους αγανακτισμένους, και οι «συνθήκες» τής «αιώνιας» δεξιάς μπατσοκρατίας και αυταρχίας τούς δίνουν πραγματικές ελπίδες (αν και τα μίση μεταξύ των υπόγειων συμμάχων είναι ίσως μεγαλύτερα, και η συνεννόηση, «με τα μάτια» κυρίως, δυσκολότερη), αλλά επιμένω ότι η κατάσταση είναι πλέον πολύ διαφορετική.

«Και ποια είναι η κατάσταση»; θα πείτε..

Δεν θα προβώ σε ανάλυση.

Βγάλτε τα πέρα μόνοι σας, δεν έχετε ανάγκη από αναλύσεις ανθρώπων σαν και τού λόγου μου.

Εξάλλου και εγώ πλέον είμαι πολύ μακριά σας, όπως και πολλοί άλλοι.

Κάποια στιγμή η κεντροακροδεξιά με τους ακροκεντρώους συμμάχους της θα «πέσει» και θα «πέσει» παταγωδώς.

Τότε θα αρχίσει το πραγματικά χοντρό παιχνίδι, νομίζω.

Τότε μπορεί και να τα πούμε αναλυτικότερα.

Προς το παρόν..δεν θα πούμε τίποτα άλλο, και βέβαια δεν θα ξαναπέσουμε στην παγίδα τής πολιτικής «υπερθέρμανσης» τής περιόδου 2008-2015.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Ο καθορισμός τού «πολίτη»..

Ποια είναι η ελάχιστη ανθρωπολογική «μοναδολογική» υπόσταση μιας α-κρατικής αταξικής κοινωνίας;

Το «ελεύθερο άτομο»;

Το «κοινωνικό άτομο»;

Ένας «συνδυασμός» αυτών των καθορισμών;

Και η πολιτική ή πολιτειακή συγκρότηση αυτής τής ελάχιστης συστατικής «μονάδας»;

Η αστική κοινωνία ως αστική δημοκρατία, ή ως αστική μορφή τής δημοκρατίας, αναφέρεται στον «πολίτη».

«Εμείς» οι «υπόλοιποι» που ισχυριζόμαστε ότι θέλουμε να την «υπερβούμε», πως αντιμετωπίζουμε αυτή την «μοναδολογική» έκφανση τής ανθρώπινης κατάστασης;

Ως «αλλοτρίωση»; 

Όχι μόνον δεν πρέπει να απαρνηθούμε τον πολιτικό ή πολιτειακό καθορισμό τής «δημοκρατίας», όπως βλέπω ότι πράττουν μόνιμα πλέον οι σεκταριστές που έχουν ξεπεράσει ακόμα και τους κατηγοριακούς υπο-καθορισμούς της («αστική» και «εργατική» δημοκρατία), όχι μόνον λοιπόν δεν πρέπει να εγκαταλείψουμε τον γενικό «δημοκρατικό» καθορισμό, αλλά πρέπει να σκεφτούμε και να συζητήσουμε για τον άνθρωπο τής ακρατικής/αταξικής κοινωνίας ως πολίτη.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος