Among ''evil demons''. Dark thoughts (2).
---
Let me get into the more subjective, therefore awkward, part of this post.
As I said, I believe that no objective-ontological "position" of the movements of the oppressed "places" them in a de facto neutral position towards all hegemony-imperialism, etc.
Being in the bowels of your immediate class enemy you objectively ally with the enemy of this enemy, even in the sense that you can take up arms from that enemy of your enemy.
But this enemy of your enemy, most of the time, is also an abysmal oppressor who has an another oppressed person in his bowels.
There is not a single Marxist, anarchist, democrat, who could prove to me that I am wrong.
Even the most careful ideologues of absolute class purity hide behind this false purity an easily identifiable one-sidedness that means one of their real alliances with an enemy of their enemy (that enemy, which is for them considered as the most immediate and formidable enemy).
This mere thought of the terrible situation, which is formally understood as "tactics", could lead you to complete detachment from any version of radical politics.
What conscious and morall person would want to be involved in such stories?
If radical politics is also a cynical, "dirty" affair, why waste one 's only life, to experience the same frustration one always feels when a love, an ideal, turns out to be "one of the same situations" ?
Returning to a strictly defined self-interested "self" is inevitable through such a fearless reflection of the situation.
People become frustrated, revert to a narrower understanding of things, and thus begin to care more about this individual, national, or other "self."
The subsequent invocations of those who remain in utopia, to restore the original "purity" sink into the void, and the only thing they may cause is a greater rage on the part of the deceived former (?) Radical.
My purpose is not to justify and applaud such a reflection, but to remain in the radical thought / action without providing any facilitation to the moralist and ideological concealment of our antinomies, as most radicals do, colliding with each other, in the middle, about who is the "cleaner" and "purer" person.
So let them accept that they are talking, as much as they want, with the dirtiest person of them all.
Critique of the pure radical theorem, on the part of historical rust and one-sidedness.
---
So what's the problem?
For me the problem is the conscious recognition and the clear theoretical acceptance that the varied and numerous radical movements are not only different, but may in addition have direct tactical contradictions and antinomies between them, but in the sense that the ''tactical'' is ''strategy'' and not just a subordinate "lower" part of it.
These contradictions arise from the divergence of popular and workers' interests in proportion to their "point" of residence in an ever-bipolar and fragmented hegemonic imperialist framework (world imperialist poles), which incorporates these special interests with its over-determination.
The opportunities presented, by reality itself, for overcoming this over-determination are rare, valuable and usually unknown to their subjective actors.
For example, while all movements, east and west, north and south, are obliged to follow the rule "alliance with the enemy of our enemy", the movement in Iran has a unique opportunity not to follow this ("geopolitical") rule, for objective structural reasons and not because the Iranian communists, democrats, leftists, etc. are better people (they are great guys anyway), but because that is how the objective structures ''around them'' "speak" to them.
----
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος