Informing the non-Greek public opinion about Greek left.

 

Informing non-Greek public opinion (1).

Panagiotis Lafazanis, now the leader of a small left-chauvinist movement, former central minister in the SYRIZA-Tsipras and Extreme Right (ANEL) government, fierce "anti-Zionist", pro-Assad, pro-Khomeinist, anti-imperialist, pro-Russian, here, in the picture, with the Russian ambassador to Greece, he states:

"Russia is right."

Greek left: Rotten to the marrow.

 

 

 

----------

 

 

 

Informing the non-Greek public opinion (2).

Panagiotis Lafazanis, one of the former leaders of the KKE (Stalinist Communist Party), later one of the leaders of SYRIZA, now the leader of a small left-wing chauvinist movement, former central minister in the SYRIZA-Tsipras and Far Right (ANEL) government, a staunch "anti-Zionist", pro-Assad, pro-Khomeinist, pro-Russian, here, in the picture, with a important executive of the Russian big capitalist company Gazprom, while he (Lafazanis) was a central minister in the left-far-right SYRIZA (Tsipras, Varoufakis, Lafazanis)-ANEL (Kammenos, far-right pro-Russian) government .

If he bent down more, he would fall to the ground, the slave of the Russian imperialists, another "defender" of the Palestinians and Iran (of the Mullahs).

Greek left: rotten to the marrow.

 

 

 

-----------

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

 

 

Points mediated by the Ukrainian, Iranian and the Middle East "field".

 

A brief and necessarily inadequate summary of another position of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) (Stalinist Commounists of Greece) on the Ukrainian issue (via the party newspaper "Rizospastis"), or:

The hypocrisy of an incomplete "critique".

Among ''evil demons''. Dark thoughts..

 

Among ''evil demons''. Dark thoughts (1).

---

a.

When you are confronted with two opposing ''diabolical'' world powers, the leftists call them "global imperialist / capitalist poles", you may think that you are already in the middle, in an oppressed but intermediate "space".

Do you think, then, that it is enough to exercise an active extension of this ontological position of yours in the "neutral middle".

I think that most anarchists and Marxists think that this is the case, so I think they think that it is enough to intensify a difficult but real ontological quality which actually means the "placement" of the social subjects whom want to represent in a burdensome but really real "intermediary" position within an ontological structure of the world classsociety.

But although every people, whatever that term means, generally (as a working majority) is "trapped" in intra-sovereign intracapitalist dipoles (imperialist dipoles are not limited to the states of the world), none of them "holds" a burdensome but really "intermediate" ontological class position, which would simply suffice to intensify, thus turning it into a revolutionary dynamic position of negative-positivetranscendence of all the dipoles that "surround" it (as an ontological class position).

Every people, or every working class, is in a cage that is structured in an asymmetric, unequal way, under unique conditions but also according to the specific position of each capitalist social formation (in which it is "integrated") in the world form of power. .

Thus the unequal and complex anisomeric development of world capitalism corresponds to an even greater complexity of the position of the subordinate classes.

But it is not only the national-state national-capitalist dimension of this heterogeneous position of the capitalists but also of the workers / petty bourgeoisie that determines the type and degree of the alienation and cage complexity of the position of the subordinate social classes.

The world hegemonic structure, as it is usually formed as a competing dipole, plays an active role in complexity of the cage of these subordinate classes.

Capitalism permeates and overdeterminate the subordinate social classes by constructing them as internal structural elements of the asymmetry of the world hegemonic system.

Everyday people do not integrate into the world hegemonic game exclusively in the "ideological" way, as if a falsification of their conscience was enough to accept their place in this alienation game.

The structural asymmetry of the wage labor system over-determinate them in an objective way, objectively.

b.

Otherwise is determinated our class position as subordinates peroples depending on whether we are at the core of a global imperialist pole, or whether we are at the geostrategic boundaries of that pole, or outside all poles (albeit in relation and interaction and dependence on one of them), differently is determinated our class position according to the special structural substance of the respective world hegemonic pole (if it is "finalstructured" like the wider western pole or if it is ''emerging'' like the new eastern pole).

c.

Our non-position in a metaphysical / ontological de facto neutral "intermediate" creates "against us" a number of problems in terms of our true unity, if we belong to the oppressed social classes,

since each working class separately according to the pole in which it is integrated must to face a really different opponent, as "own" opponent.

The "differentiation" that we see emerging as a problem of misunderstanding between movements operating elsewhere in the world, actually means (as a problem) the reflection of this different objective ''position of classwar'' within this already formed sovereign "world space".

The enemy of our enemy is objectively ''our friend'', but that means that we may ultimately have as ''friends'' the enemies of people who belong to the same world social class like us.

These ''our friends'' are their direct class enemies.

It is not an ideological problem, "alienation", but it is a problem of tactics, and tactic as we know it are already strategic dimension.

 

 

-----

 

 

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

 

10 Points

 

Prologue..

 

I quote non-systematically the storm of reality, at all levels of its capitalist and state formation.
You will understand why this is inevitable.
----
In the midst of all that is "hit" us, the wretched Sultan of Istanbul reappeared.
It blackmails with a possible veto, to prevent Finland, Sweden from joining NATO, in order to obtain as exchange weaponsystems from the USA. He wants to use these weapons systems to upset the balance of power that has been achieved with the rearmament of the Greek bourgeois state.
The Islamo-fascist rat Erdogan also shows his usefulness to the Tsar.
I am not happy about this Greek-state rearmament, but tell me, why does the pseudo-sultan fascist want to maintain his superiority in his competition with the Greek bourgeois state?
He want to organize a kind of intervention against Greek islands, expelling their native Greek inhabitants.
This is what we have to face in Greece.
Every country on the borders of the new imperialist-capitalist east has to face similar threats and actions (like Ukraine today).
Would you describe me as a suspect as a Greek nationalist, if I said that I was worried about the tolerance shown by the Greek left but also for most of the world left, in the face of such non-Western fascist expansionist monsters?
I always have in mind what capitalism, western capitalism, NATO, etc. mean, in the final analysis I am a wage-earning worker, why should I think differently from the left?
I tell you why.
Because You are stupid.
Left of Vichy, left of Chamberlain, left of abstract internationalism in favor of the most powerfuls, as long as they are ''enemies of our enemy'', FUCK YOU...

 

-----

 

Point (1).

The honorable leader of the "left" opposition (2nd largest party in the Greek parliament) believes that the right-wing government has fallen into disarray, sending military aid (a few old East German tanks) to unfortunate Ukraine.

In fact, he stated that the right-wing government of Greece, with these -what are considered as- "extreme" actions, is turning Greece into an advanced outpost of the West. We are talking about obsolete tanks which will in fact be replaced by more modern German ones which will be provided by the German government (without, it is true, knowing other economic terms).

Mr. Tsipras, a former co-ruler of the far-right pro-Russian Kammenos, believes that Greece should have a flexible, not entirely pro-Western policy.

While one might agree with the "left" politician, from an a priori ideological or even "geopolitical" point of view, one might still wonder:

How does this heavy "left" gentleman mean the flexible foreign policy of a country like Greece, from a leftist point of view?

I guess he means that through a neutral and mild response to the Russian imperialists, the country could not be endangered by Turkish expansionist policy.

Tsipras and his peacekeeping staff, with the ideological and political help of the Greek Stalinists and sectarians who dominate the "wild base" of the social movement in Greece, opposed the rearmament of the Greek army with modern French planes and frigates, for "class" reasons but also because the left in general in Greece is against the Greek "bourgeois army" and "militarism", especially if "their" nationalism is oriented towards the western NATO alliance (as and it is).

To counter Turkish expansionism, the Greek leftists anarchist communists, etc. consider:

or a) that "Greek imperialism" is similar (perhaps worse) to Turkish imperialism,

or b) that it exists but will be dealt with through negotiations, diplomacy, love and flowers, but as we assumed above also with the licking of mother Russia, so that this friendly country mediates so that Turkey does not swallow us.

These people are stupid.

I wonder, can I call myself a leftist and be like-minded with such pro-Russians and sectarian idiots at the same time?

I don't live in the whole world at the same time, I live in Greece, and in Greece "left" and anti-capitalism is this stupid thing.

 

----

 

Point (2).

In order to understand more deeply what is wrong, about the naive neutrophilic attitude of the Western (and Latinamerican) left in the Ukrainian issue, I want to "remove" the reasons for interests, although there are such reasons, in many cases.

A capitalist left is "thinking" of an alternative national-state capitalism, so it has no problem sanctifying, for example, Iranian or Russian oil as holy anti-imperialist oil.

I don't want to dwell only on this (existing) dimension, because I am more interested in the left as an ideological psychosis, for which I don't see a quick cure.

The psychosis as I see it diffused in the social whole, is not a mental illness but a deeper existential passion, which even Lacanism can not adequately examine, I think. Lacanism and neo-Freudianism now have such an "internalengagement'' with the left, so that they should probably sit together in the bed of healing.

 

----

 

Point (3).

I wonder, with "our" philosopher.

Badiou has great depth. Heidegger in front of him is like as a simple essayist.

Likewise, Deleuze, and other profound sages of the new left, who read, suffered, searched deeply in all the texts, not content with the sacred Marxist texts.

We were inflated with pride that "we" also gave birth to such incomprehensible philosophical monsters.

But there comes a time when the monster speaks like a baby or like a teenager who likes repetitions, the primary and unaltered a priori thoughts, like the mummies of the Kremlin, once upon a time.

When the saint, guru, sage, deep-seated Badiou was asked about the Ukrainian issue, he stood for a while, like any wise cloud preparing another thunderbolt, and said, in a deeply contemplative voice:

(approximately, I will not quote, mercy comrades!)

It is like the First World War, when the exclusion of Germany from the imperialist booty, led to the war (he said more, more boring words, I get bored, ... I suffer, I can not bear to mention them in detail).

What the infantile, atavistic does reveal, to the sacred monster of our post-Lacanian anarcho-Stalinist-Trotskyist-delusional ideological Being?

That in order to think da-da "Being" the sectarian, today, must make an ideological-fundamentalist leap, over the Second World War.

Antifascist fronts? alliances with imperialists? national independence? Oh no! these distract us from the pure infinity, the infinite, the beyond all conditions pure, high, immaculate, sanctuary!

Digging under thousands of layers of heavy philosophy, you see the eternal pre-adolescent, the unrepentant neo-Platonic micro-Plato (nothing to do with Plotinus), wanting to remain forever embraced with the untouched Idea.

Is this the philosophical new left?

Convenient for any Putin invader.

I don't want this, baby.

But there is a good. He was not sold as a slave, and so he escaped suffering, because no one would be able to free him, like someone liberated the Plato.

 

----

 

 

Point (4)

Those who desire unity while ignoring the existing division, even if they build this ignorance by invoking a future unifying definition/determination, do not bring unity but a new division, which seems like unity for a comforting intermediate historical-time period.

 

-- 

Point (5)

As we have said before, there are countries where their very position within a global imperialist pole but within the internal-external limits of this pole, forces them as a whole (regardless of which social class dominates) to "play" with all possibilities.

In the event that Greece is abused by the other country on the western-eastern border, Turkey, it has every right to distance itself from the western imperialist camp, and to build strategic alliances elsewhere.

Some will say that I overlook the "class factor" and classdetermination the possible developments, but I answer:

The different versions of such a secessionism contain within themselves this different determination, but apart from the possibly different version of a general evolution of this type as we have described it, it does not remove the common element that exists in all versions.

Because I was asked by foreign friends and comrades about the fact that a strong Stalinist "tradition" has survived in Greece and there may also be a question about the existence of a strong left and far-right pro-Russianism, I would like to tell them to look at the dimension of possible (future) distance of this country from the "western camp", especially in case of a large-scale national defeat and destruction.

Then, the intertwined unconsciously intermingling factions of historical anti-Westernism, from the far right and the Theocrats to the radical left and the Stalinists, will unite their destructive power in a rampage against the pro-Western establishment.

Do you think that if, for example, Greece loses people, territory, receives wounded, abused refugees, from the then Turkish-occupied Greek islands, and the West does nothing or does little, the Greek people will continue to tolerate the country's integration at the western imperialist pole?

In no case.

The pro-Western "social contract" that Greek society has "signed", and that the vast majority of its working class has tacitly accepted, will then become dust.

Of course, there will be, especially then an abysmal struggle between the left and the extreme right over who will rule in the new non-western country, there will be "fermentation" in the Greek army, there will be "fermentation" in the Greek intellect, and above all there will be a strategic "fermentation" in the working class, in the midst of a complex though abysmal competition between the "grooms" of the young "bride", which, however, will not exclude indirect tactical forms of alliances against the western enemy ( because then the west, if it sells Greece, will immediately become an immediate enemy).

These things, of course, hide many complex mediations, which we will try to understand and predict, in their different versions.

 

----

 

 

 

Point (6)

Leaving one hegemonic imperial pole does not necessarily mean joining another, competitive against the previous one.

The "ideal" case is a revolutionary movement of the working class and its social allies, leading this process without entering into any alliance, even indirect, with the "enemy of the direct enemy" imperialism.

The non-openly pro-Russian Stalinists, as well as the left-wing, anarchists, of Greece, categorically deny any scenario of joining the "opposite" imperialist pole, but with the their narrative, especially as it appeared at the beginning and the continuation of Russia- Ukrainian war, they proved to every experienced and non-naive observer their deep intentions for an indirect alliance with the emerging imperialist east.

This narrative is not just hypocritical, is not hiding, as fanatical pro-Westerners say, a pure pro-Russianism pro-Chineseism.

Indeed, the Stalinists, but also others, even the most autonomous, the anarchists, seek a semi-independent relationship in a non-Western imperialist "space", even exerting a demolitionist critique of it in advance, in order to point out - define the future autonomy of their "local" left hegemony.

So it would be good, beyond our rhetorical wars, to see the complexity of the situation in the "anti-Westernism" of the left, anarchism and communism in Greece.

The Greek leftists, etc. know very well that the "eastern" pole is not going to give them all these exchanges that they would like in order for the country to leave the western-NATO camp safely, they know the danger of the Turkish-Russian alliance (although it would be convenient for them it break), as well as they know the dangers that come from the immediate alliance especially of Russia with the theocratic and fascist right of Greece.

But they will never close the door on Russia in particular, which is why they are anxious for Russia not to lose the war completely, they are anxious in favor a compromise at the expense of Ukraine, so that Russia remains always open and very promising (to the apostates) non-western imperialist country.

What they may not know yet, something that the far more irrational far-right and theocratic pro-Russians also not know, is that Russia would prefer a deeply defeated Greece, to adopt it, without being forced as a new "high protector" to "return" to it a lost territorial or maritime sovereignty.

Russia's goal is to keep its commitments to its allies more consistently than the West does, but first the (new) ally has to lost a significant part of its sovereign power (if it is unable to maintain it from alone).

 

----

 

 

Point (7)

 

Russian imperialism deceived, charmed, instrumentalized the majority of the world left.

The hegemony of the imperial powers does not apply to the whole world, it is limited to points within the field that "belongs" to them or at the borders of this field (which are not always defined as geographical, geopolitics is a one-sided and sometimes misleading representation of these limits, although it has as an empirical theory some important ontological foundations in reality).

So when there is competition between the empires, and no extensive direct war has broken out between them, the aggression of each and its expansion takes place either within the core of this "occupied" field, or at vague boundaries (boundaries are always, into a degree, vague) between one imperial ''agglomeration-home'' and another, or at a remote point of world territory that can not yet be defined as a boundary.

Thus, in the face of each imperial aggression and expansionism, we can not always maintain our own class and popular's neutrality towards imperialist-imperial aggression and expansionism as a whole.

There are cases, most of them, where the imperialist enemy is mainly the one and not the other imperialism.

When then, we put them all in the same political "box" in reality, either out of deep intent or out of ignorance, we favor the immediately appearing imperialism, who at that moment is the direct enemy- imperialism.

It is not wrong, in general, to criticize imperialism as a whole, since always -in addition- the other imperialism (not the one that attacks directly, at that stage-moment) is present, exerts political and military influence (we said that it does not we are talking about a world war), but if we exaggerate in this co-presentation of all imperialisms, then, as I said, we acquit and favor the immediate present imperialism, the one that is attacking at that moment.

I do not know if some have understood it, but they helped Russian imperialism as much as they could, even through their ideological nonsense and analytical incompetence.

 

----

 

 

Point (8)

I will quote Engels (from memory): The world is not determined by its unity but by its materiality.

Imperialism that oppresses you, has you in its "womb", is not always the imperialism itself that oppresses another people.

There is no "one" imperialism, there are many imperialisms.

But is not imperialism a single (today-)capitalist phenomenon?

Yes, it is, it is a single phenomenon which, however, exists as a single multiplicity of material social (capitalist-imperialist) beings and not as a single substance that is simply "expressed" in many external forms.

(Capitalist) imperialism, like capitalism itself as the deepest socio-ontological material determination of the present historical-social being, is not a one "One", which simply manifests itself in many external forms.

Its multiple appearances, its manifold morphological dimension, are part of its essential essence, and not external forms.

We are always talking about the most comprehensive form of competitive class societies, capitalism, the wage-labor system, and not about the classless society.

The sectarians, we when we think as idealistic Neoplatonic Marxists, theologically project the greater and deeper unity that the future classless societies will have as their material quality, in capitalism itself and capitalist imperialism.

 

----

 

Point (9)

 

When revolutionaries think as religious, theologians, they would like to make a revolution based on the foundations of an already united world, but in this way they forget their sacred atheistic goal, which is to unite through revolution the disintegrated divided world, that was handed from unjust class societies as a destructive legacy.

 

-----

 

 

Point (10)

Also in the ''east'' there are mass murderers, fascists, imperialists, who are sanctified by the leftists, wich disagreeing in their "inside" only about who is the "best" murderer.

-

Multiplicity as a determination of the capitalist imperialist mode of production, refers not only to the singularity of its respective "localizations", but to the historical-chronological, therefore structural asymmetry of the emerge of the general polarities that make it up.

The Westphalian nation-states that emerged as sovereign capitalist "units" emerged as such "within" a wider (so-called) Western imperialist polarity, which although torn apart by the contradictions between these "units" formed a wider intra-contrastic unity.

Now, in our time, we are not experiencing a transgression of this intra-contrastic monopoly of the western capitalist imperialist pole from a capitalist-imperialist multipolarity, instead we are experiencing the transgression of this mono-polarity from the emergence of a new bipolarity, through the emergence of the eastern imperialist pole.

The antagonisms between the sovereign western nation-states and the Capitals, however, within the relatively unified western uni-polarity while they do not cease or merge completely within this uni-polarity nor within someone wider multipolarity they acquire substance and are subject to the new, more general and global, competition that takes place mainly in the "competitive ground" of the conflict between the west capitalist-imperialist pole, which is relatively complete, and the emerging eastern pole.

The asynchrony and asymmetry of the historical-chronological appearance of the two poles, determines the special existence of each, forming a single but nevertheless fragmented existence of the capitalist-imperialist phenomenon.

The ideological catastrophe within post-colonial studies-and-politics is based on complete ignorance and complete immoral alienated disregard for the danger of the (self-victimized and sanctified by the "leftists") eastern (capitalist-imperialist) pole.

While in the east there is a primary accumulation of power and a special imperialism that historically corresponds to this process that took place in a similar way in the west at the general historical moment of the emergence of the Westphalian western nation-state and the (wider) westpole, the leftists sanctify the post-colonial self-victimized east murderers, sanctify this horrible process, since "we must not meet double standards" in the ''right'' to mass murder, homogenization, imperialist interventions.

 

------

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

 

 

Θα πιω κρασί στο κρανίο σας..

Δεν είναι δυνατόν να έχουν επιβεβαιωθεί πλήρως όλες οι προβλέψεις μου για ένα συγκεκριμένο θέμα και να υποχωρήσω.  

Δεν είναι δυνατόν να έχω πληρώσει προσωπικό κόστος σε «φίλους» και «συντρόφους» (ευτυχώς τούς ξεφορτώθηκα τούς σάπιους αριστεριστές, καλή καριέρα τούς εύχομαι), να έχω σπάσει όλο μου το ιδεολογικό «περιβάλλον», γι' αυτό τον λόγο, να έχω υποστεί κάθε είδους συκοφαντίες και «ιδεολογικές» ταπεινώσεις από αυτούς που θεωρούσα ομοϊδεάτες μου, να μου έχουν πει «δεν θα σου μιλάει κανείς», και εγώ να υποχωρήσω.  

Δεν γίνεται, να έχω θυσιάσει την «καλή» μου εικόνα και το «καλό» μου όνομα στους αριστερούς κύκλους της σάπιας ελληνικής αριστεράς, να έχουν σταματήσει την επιστημονική μου πορεία, επειδή υποτίθεται ότι ήμουν εθνικιστής, και μετά, αυτό που είπα για το τουρκικό κράτος και τις φιλοδοξίες του να επιβεβαιώνεται στο σύνολό του και εγώ να υποχωρήσω. 

Όχι μόνο δεν θα σταματήσω, αλλά θα πιω κρασί στο κρανίο σας προδότες τής ελληνικής αριστεράς και του ψεύτικου ελληνικού αναρχισμού. 

  

Κάτω η Τουρκία!

Κάτω η Ρωσία!  

Θάνατος στους κατακτητές!

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Ο ντεφετισμός των σάπιων.

 

I am not a nationalist, right-wing or left-wing nationalist, I don't consider myself even a patriot, but the politics of Turkey, the politics of Russia and the politics of the majority of the (western) left are ''good conditions'' for altering the conscience of people like me, because there is this "sufficient and necessary reason".

Unfortunately, all my ominous predictions (2009-2022) are confirmed, since against 99% of the Greek left and Greek anarchism, I had pointed out that Turkey as a nation-state has no aspirations only in wealth-producing sources that don't belong to the Turkish state but has additional aspirations to conquer lands.

If the issue were limited to wealth-producing sources, I say it and I mean it, I would not be in favor of the property of the Greek nation-state and the Greek capitalists against the Turkish, Russian capitalists, in order to justify a capitalist defense war from the point of view of the interests of the Greek capitalists and the Greek nation-state.

The point, however, is that Turkey, and behind it Russia, are aiming at the violent change of national-state borders in the region, and that means blood, mass violence, deportations, mass rapes, bombings, force immigration for the Greek population in the east aegean, and also destruction of their homeland in the eastern aegean which is Greek or Greekspeaking for thousands of years.

Anyone who does not understand this special intensive and beyond all limits aggression of the Turkish nation-state and its Russian allies, whatether Greek or non-Greek (leftist, anarchist, etc.) is simply an idiot, morally depraved, ideologically degenerate ''defeatist''.

So, whoever does not support the Greek national defense, also the present Ukrainian national defense, is all of the above.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Dar Rahgozar Bad

Salar Aghili - Sarve Chaman ( Tasnif Homayoun ) | سالار عقیلی - سرو چمن

The empty but full of zeros anti-Platonic sky

 

Some think that if they superficially reject the Platonic ontology, and its consequences, and launch an idea of ​​an indefinite freedom, as it appears to arise from a non-Being (as it is as Being, etc)., they will thus transcend their overdetermination by Platonism. 

 

But, also in this way, they follow this "sky" that they denied exactly as it was before they denied it.

The empty but full of zeros anti-Platonic sky is Platonic.

Only through Aristotelianism is Platonism really transcended.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign meeting on Syria, Ukraine, geopolitics and working class

13 σημεία για την έννοια τού Κεφαλαίου

* Χρησιμοποιούμε τον όρο μισθιακό εμπόρευμα ετερόδοξα.

1

Θεωρούμε ότι ο δομικός «πυρήνας» τού Κεφαλαίου είναι πολλαπλός, και σε αυτήν μας την θεώρηση υπάρχει θαρρώ μια συμφωνία με την ουσία τής μαρξικής θεώρησης επί του συγκεκριμένου «θέματος» διαλεκτικού «προσδιορισμού» τής έννοιας τούτης.

Oudak Rannan

زياد في قلب دمشق Oudak Rannan

Phil Collins - I Don't Care Anymore

Φονιάδες των λαών Ρώσοι και δυτικοί Ιμπεριαλιστές.

 

I can not bear to hear the pro-Russian propagandist on Greek television say that the Russian attack on a pediatric hospital was a "provocation" by the Ukrainian nationalists.

The same was said by Assad's criminals and their Russian alies when they dropped chemical bombs on the innocent people of Syria, blaming the "Islamists" alone, the same Ba'athist and Russian lies.

---

Όχι στον ανατολικό φασιστικό Ιμπεριαλισμό! This is not a war that came from NATO but from the emerging Eastern imperialism.

Marxists would like all resisting Ukrainians to be Nazis.

You will see in the coming days by the Marxists an incredible advertisement of any Ukrainians who are Nazis.

Marxists advertise Nazi Ukrainians, because in this way they will get an excuse to continue to maintain "equal distances" or to support Putin.

The Marxist slogan "neither-nor" means:

"You are all the same, you are all perpetrators."

Marxism breathed a last this week, showing once again that it has nothing to do with the purpose of classless society, of freedom and workers' democracy.

It is an authoritarian ideology that has as its code the predominance of a state exploitative system, which has a Priesthood, Priests, secret agents, theologians of "Holy Marxism". 

 ----

 

I AM FOR THE WAR of the democratic people of Ukraine AGAINST the neo-tsarist vampire, who is loved by the old Stalinist culprits and tolerated by the western far-left idiots.

Not in the pacifism of SLAVES. 

When did the PKK save the Yezidis who were the other?

 

When did the PKK save the Yezidis who were the other Kurdish organizations and the Kurdish communist organizations? 

They only know how to slander people who are full of political and strategic flaws but save lives. 

They equate them with Barzani's nationalists or even with Isis. Factionalism and ideological warfare have some limits. Especially when your ideological opponent has shown in practice that he helps his people. 

The slanders against the PKK, especially the slanders of the Maoists and the Stalinists but also of some extreme anarchists, go beyond all limits of audacity and political immorality, and I already know them in my country.

Criticism of Stalin, who was responsible for huge mistakes and crimes, they do not know how to do, they are annoyed with a petty bourgeois patriotic party that has shown in practice that it is fighting against the Islamo-fascist enemy, even ending up in cynical alliances. 

So what to do? 

Can you wait for the global labor movement? Where is; 

Where are the radical intellectuals of the west? What your Western comrades are doing now is working to structure a lacy "critique" of Putin and to justify even theocrats in Iran for "anti-imperialist reasons"

I did not see any of them, and in my country Greece, refer to the struggles of the Iranian working class and the thousands of dead in 2018-2019, in Iran, from the repression of the Theocrats. 

On the contrary, there were some, leftists !, who marched in Athens against the assassination of Soleimani! 

 

Stop the slander of the PKK by the sectarians and the extremist Stalinists. 

It is not a working class organization, nor is it responsible for its alliance with the United States. 

Be silent at last and make substantial criticism, not slander.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

The political contradictions and antinomies that I touch

 

The political contradictions and antinomies that I touch as a blind man will not be solved by me but by people who will be neither crowds nor individuals. I trust the people who come, I hope mainly to the people of West Asia, for reasons that do not make sense to analyze again. However, I do not want to hide from these contradictions, nor do I want to believe in a point of escape on a redemptive horizon. 

These contradictions are presented to me in sleep and wakefulness as unresolved, forever unresolved, and only in this way can I expose them in a way that makes them visible to everyone and to me. 

Anyone who rushes to overcome them by recruiting horizons and future redemptions is not a stranger or an enemy to me, but I feel, I believe, I claim that with his optimism he prevents their complete appearance.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Orbital The Box

Σημείο

 

Σημείο μιας νοηματικής εκκίνησης τής έννοιας τής παγκόσμιας Κυριαρχίας.

 

Η στήλη απεικόνισης τής νίκης του Ακκαδαίου βασιλιά Naram-Sin επί του λαού των Lullubi είναι μια θριαμβική απεικόνιση αυτής της νίκης.

Εμφανίζει την σκοπιά των νικητών, δίνει μια υποκειμενική εικόνα για το τι συνέβη κατά τη διάρκεια της μάχης από την σκοπιά τους.

Η ιεραρχία της κλίμακας τής εικόνας δείχνει ότι ο Naram-Sin είναι το πιο σημαντικό σημείο τής ιεραρχικής απεικόνισης.

Ο καθένας στην απεικόνιση κοιτάζει προς τον Naram-Sin, ο οποίος ορθώνεται σε μια ηρωική και θεία στάση πάνω στο βουνό.

Οι στρατιώτες του Naram-Sin κατευθύνονται με ομαλό τρόπο στην άκρη του βουνού, ενώ οι ηττημένοι πέφτουν κάτω από το βουνό.

Ο ανοργάνωτος τρόπος των ηττημένων ενισχύει την εικόνα τής υποταγής τους.

Η αποδιοργάνωση τους δείχνει την ταπεινή και βάρβαρη φύση τους, η οποία καθιστά την ήττα τους μια νίκη τής Κυριαρχίας επί των αδύναμων.

Τα στρατεύματα τής Κυριαρχίας περπατούν στην κορυφή των πεσόντων στρατιωτών, δείχνοντας την ανωτερότητα τους και την αδιαφορία για τη ζωή τους.

Οι άνθρωποι τού λαού Lullubi πέφτουν ως ηττημένοι με έναν ανοργάνωτο τρόπο, δείχνοντας κατά την απεικόνιση τής στήλης ότι είναι βάρβαροι.

Με την απεικόνισή τους κάτω από τα στρατεύματα, νομιμοποιείται ηθικά και οντολογικά η ήττα τους.

Ο Naram-Sin ισχυρίστηκε ότι ήταν «βασιλιάς των τεσσάρων τεταρτημορίων του σύμπαντος» και άρχισε να γράφει το όνομά του με ένα σημάδι που σήμαινε τον εαυτό του ως έναν θεό ισότιμο με οποιονδήποτε στο μεσοποταμιακό πάνθεο.

 

Η ύβρις του Naram-Sin. Η ίδρυση της απόλυτης κυριαρχίας...

Η κορύφωση της κυριαρχίας της Ακκαδικής αυτοκρατορίας ήταν η ηγεμονία του πρώτου αυτο-ανακηρυσσόμενου [ως] θεού-ηγεμόνα στον Μεσοποταμιακό χώρο.

Ο Naram-Sin ήταν ο ηγεμόνας εκείνος που μεταμόρφωσε την παράδοση της θεοκεντρικής πολιτείας των κατακτηθέντων Σουμερίων που είχε περάσει στα χέρια των κατακτητών Ακκαδαίων σε ένα πρωτογενές θεοκρατικό σύστημα, εις το οποίο όμως ο ηγεμόνας κυρίαρχος αποτελεί το κέντρο της λατρείας. Βλέπουμε λοιπόν έναν ηγεμόνα ενός κατακτητικού πρώην νομαδικού λαού που έχει οικειοποιηθεί τον πολιτισμό των μη-νομάδων Σουμερίων να μετατρέπει το θεοκεντρικό σύστημά τους σε θεοκρατικό με την έννοια όμως που έχει ένας τέτοιος προσδιορισμός στα πλαίσια μιας ηγεμονοκεντρικής λατρείας και θεοποίησης (κάτι σαν αρχέγονος πρωτο-θεοΚαισαρισμός).

Ο Naram-Sin ανακηρύσσει τον εαυτό του «Κύριο των 4 διαστάσεων-τεταρτημορίων-οίκων του σύμπαντος Κόσμου»... 

Αυτή η αυτο-ανακήρυξη έχει έναν κοσμο-ιστορικό χαρακτήρα, εφόσον δεν σημαίνει έναν περιορισμό στην αναλογία θεού ηγεμόνα και θεού ή θεών που κυριαρχούν στον σύμπαντα Κόσμο αλλά μια επέκταση της Ί-διας κυριαρχίας του ηγεμονικού υποκειμένου, έναν αποκλειστικό χαρακτήρα της ειδικής [ως θεϊκής] κυριαρχίας του.

Το γεγονός της αρχεγονότητας αυτής της ανακήρυξης, στο πρώτο σκαλοπάτι μετά τον πρώτο παγκόσμιο πολιτισμό, αποδίδει στην πράξη μιαν εξέχουσα συμβολική και οντολογική σημασία που ενισχύεται ακόμα περισσότερο από την εκδηλωνόμενη οντολογική και νοηματική θρασύτητά της, την οποία δεν βρίσκουμε σε κανέναν άλλο ιστορικό κόσμο και σε καμία άλλη ιστορική στιγμή (πλην ίσως της Ρώμης, και αυτό έχει την σημασία του).

Πάλι η Μεσοποταμία διδάσκει ιστορία.

Η ύβρις και η βεβήλωση που πραγματοποίησε ο Naram-Sin έγινε ήδη από τότε ξακουστή και αποτέλεσε ένα αντι-πρότυπο που πυροδότησε μιαν ολόκληρη μεσοποταμιακή λογοτεχνική και μυθολογική παράδοση.

Εκεί που πραγματικά κορυφώνεται η ιστορικο-οντολογική σημασία της ύβρεως του ηγεμόνα είναι στην αποτύπωση και συμβολοποίηση της νίκης του επί των «ανθρώπων των βουνών» (Victory Stele of Naram-Sin) (οι σύγχρονοι Κούρδοι εθνικιστές και εθνοαπελευθερωτές δεν έχουν χρησιμοποιήσει τυχαία το γεγονός αυτό, και βέβαια την αποτύπωσή του που έχει ίσως μεγαλύτερη σημασία γιατί σημαίνει).

Όπως θα δείτε εγκαθίσταται ήδη από τότε, πολύ πριν την Θεογονία του Ησιόδου, η ριζική διαφορά Τάξεως και Χάους, όπου η Τάξη εκφράζεται στην μορφή του ηγεμόνα και του στρατεύματός του ενώ το Χάος στις μορφές των νικημένων ανθρώπων του βουνού που πεθαίνουν πέφτοντας στο βάραθρο με χαοτικό ασύντακτο τρόπο, δείχνοντας έτσι πως το Χάος για την πρωτο-θεοκρατική σκέψη και νοηματοδότηση δεν είναι μόνον κάτι εις το οποίο πέφτεις αλλά είσαι κιόλας αν πέφτεις (πεθαίνεις στην μάχη) με ασύντακτο τρόπο. 

Το Χάος δεν προϋπάρχει, κατά την Ακκαδαϊκή σκοπιά, μόνον, αλλά υφίσταται στην «βαρβαρική» ασύντακτη τροπικότητα της στρατιωτικής δράσης. 

Η Ακκαδική κυριαρχία στην κορύφωσή της παραδίδει ρατσιστικά «αντι-βαρβαρικά» «μαθήματα» στους ηττημένους προ-κρατικούς ανθρώπους, και αυτά τα μαθήματα είναι πολιτικο-στρατιωτικά μαθήματα που αυτοί (οι προ-κρατικοί ή μετέπειτα αντικρατικοί άνθρωποι, λαοί ή τάξεις) καλούνται να πάρουν χωρίς να δεχτούν την βεβήλωση της ανθρώπινης υπόστασής τους και την κυριαρχική αποτύπωσή τους (κατωτεροποίησή τους) από τον νικητή Κυρίαρχο, αλλά και χωρίς να επαναπαυθούν στην ανοργανωσιά τους.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος