The right historical narrative corrects mistakes, and safeguards the right future.

The right historical narrative corrects mistakes, and safeguards the right future.

Iranian leftists recount the Bonapartist Khomeinist diversion of the anti-monarchist revolution by using the word "hijacking".

This verbal expression of the Bonapartist diversion [made by Khomeini together with the theocratic-nationalist factor of the Iranian political life, of that time (also helped by the all-wise Tudeh, the stupid pro-Soviet party)] hides something that the Iranian leftists don΄t want to admit nor to themselves: no ideological or political faction at the time held the concept of "pluralist democracy" in high esteem, the left itself envisioned a revolutionary socialist anti-Westernimperialist regime, which might wear the already worn clothing of "socialist democracy" but it would be a left-wing dictatorship through perhaps popular workers' councils, for a time, until the Iranian version of the left-wing Bonaparte Stalin or Trotsky appeared. 

Known ending, in similar cases, repeated like the succession of day and night.

At that time there was no other, non-authoritarian, mass ideological trend in Iranian society, I don't know if it exists now, I hope it exists through the heroic Iranian youth inside Iran.

So who, with what ideological load, could beat Khomeini in an ideological-political struggle?

Khomeini didn't hijack the revolutionary plane, he just won the battle about which Bonapartism will prevail, the ultra-leftist or theocratic?

--

 

Stalinism takes its surreal revenge deep existing within the anti-Stalinist left & anarchism as a solipsistic cult of violence.

--

 

Don't look at the articles in the "serious" left magazines, look at the comments, under the articles, and you will understand how rotten the left people are, mainly in the west, but also in the non-western world.

They have become completely bogged down in an anti-Western grudge that brings them very close now, almost all of them, to a pseudo-neutral grey-red zone of moral-ideological twilight.

I'm not going to read an article in such a magazine before reading the comments, if I even read an article in a leftist magazine.

Some leftist intellectuals are trying to plug the holes in a sinking boat, but they are not going to do anything.

--

 

The 1% of the global left believes that the 1% of the Ukrainian people who are Nazis do not identify with the 99% who are not Nazis, and half of that 1% do not believe that the Ukrainian people are fighting as a proxy for NATO, and should Ι stay in left, because there is this 1%?

Those idealistic intellectual leftists some of whom are my friends here consider me more of an idiot than 99% of the majority.

I don't know how they feel, but I'm not fooled again.

--

 

You don't have to be 55 to realize you're an idiot because you think some other idiots are listening to you.

But if, nevertheless, you have succeeded in this way, then you must write your pseudo-epic of stupidity as a soap opera and not as if it were the Divine Comedy.

This is a difficult thing, especially when you leave a place where this thing is common, i.e. they narrate the stupidity of a soap opera life as if it were the divine-human drama of the purification from...alienation.

--

 

Intellectuals of the Western New Left! (except Pasolini only).

You made a monster worse than the old fashioned one, almost sympathetic, Stalinist monster.

You won't see it clearly appearing in the proper articles of Jacobin magazine (and in other magazines).

You'll see it pop up, below, in the comments, usually made by your crowd, by those people wich are always irritated by "western colonialism" etc.

You may think that it's all the fault of the old Stalinist tradition in the leftist populace (Stalinism as the perpetrator for all sins), you may think that the Russian disinformation machines, with many rubles, have done a great job, and you will thinking all right, in part. Because the other part of the responsibility lies with you.

Now, fend for yourself your movement, with "your people".

I'm going to the center.

--

 

So the old left had in its ideological arsenal a "must" to be moral, to be educated, not to burden the work and responsibility on someone else, not to justify your unjust actions towards other "simple" man, but the new left forgot this and created the saga of the always wronged always victims, always irresponsible because society is "to blame" capitalism and I don't know what other structure (maybe Althusser who drowned his wife, once, knows, since he could not be accused of femicide, so as a leftist of the new left he was saved from hell).

Let me tell you. From all this ideological havoc within the movement, only one contradictory person named PP Pasolini is saved as a moral subject. He alone is worth dealing with.

--

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

So you are obliged to do a general rough weighing.

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

 

---

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

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

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

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

But I can't fool myself anymore.

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

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

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

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

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Pro-Western campism? Yeahh.

 

Pro-Western campism? Yeahh.

-

Iranians, Kurds and other eastern leftists and communists (including their Greek comrades, since Greece is not a "normal" western country), and most western leftists, despite the honorable efforts of internationalist Marxists (such as Oakland socialists, Michael K. and others) and some anarchists, do not want to show solidarity with Ukraine's struggle, because they consider its struggle part of an imperialist war in which Ukraine is simply a proxy of western imperialism.

I was deeply saddened to see that Avakian's neo-communist movement, whom I deeply respect as a person, expressed the same views.

Also disappointing, apart from Boric (Chile), was the attitude of the Latin American left movement in general, sometimes downright miserable, like the attitude of the Cubans.

I am sorry, but while I remain steadfast, faithful, unwavering in favor of the Iranian and Kurdish movement, I love them, at the same time I am obliged to declare to them, expressing many people in the progressive political factor of the west, that the struggle for the hard progressive liberal but also essentially leftist core of the West, imposes, now dictates, a frontal alliance with the Western world, which has and will have important ideological and political characteristics that will not leave any "normal" ideological leftist position unscathed.

In the final analysis, this war, within the west as well as the west against the new authoritarian anti-western expansionism, is our war, so even if it is not of interest to you, it is of interest to us.

In this war we will also defend the "bad boys" of the West in the Middle East, without perhaps being fair as pure ideology dictates. You know who we're talking about.

Long live Ukraine!

--

 

Zionism was a peculiar colonial project, which, although it confirms the general negative definition/determination of the colonial situation, at the same time negates this generalization, not in the sense that it also contains positive elements, but in the sense that it was the colonial project of a people persecuted for thousands of years..

Were not the first utopias also colonial ventures?

The fact that the colonies had a "bad end" does not solve their enigma as post-colonial ideologies claim.

The Zionists were not Boers.

--

 

Anyone who talks about "world Zionism" is anti-Semitic and has the same ideas as the Hitlerites. Anyone who speaks against Zionism in general is not always anti-Semitic, but if he does not clarify that Zionism does not mean anything special compared to any colonial nationalism, he is also anti-Semitic. 

Also, even in these contexts, Zionism did not begin as an ordinary nationalist colonial venture but as the forced colonial venture of a persecuted people, who are still hated by all overt or covert anti-Semites. 

The Zionists were not Boers, Zionism is not inherently racist, there are many versions of it, non-racist and racist.

--

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

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

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

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

But I can't fool myself anymore. 

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

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

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

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

 

 Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Απάντηση στον (τίμιο μαρξιστή) Michael Karadjis..

 

 

Το κείμενο τού

Michael Karadjis

 

For decades, the Palestinian liberation movement has raised the slogan 'From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free', with the simple meaning that in no part of Palestine should Palestinians continue to be unfree, occupied, dispossessed, massacred, locked in bantustans, daily humiliated, starved, killed with impunity etc.

Yet for some reason, just recently I seem to be seeing a more than usual number of people claiming this slogan means driving the Israeli Jews into the sea. I have no idea why anyone would think it means that, and I assume Zionist propaganda has just been unusually active in a period when everyone from Amnesty International to Israeli human rights organisations now loudly, and rightly, but very belatedly, charge Israel with the relatively meek 'apartheid' label.

I suppose I just assumed there was a certain amount of common knowledge out there. For example, it was not yesterday, or 10 years ago, or in the 1990s, but 55 years ago, in 1968, that the new Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and its dominant faction, Arafat's Fatah, raised the slogan as the solution to the Palestine/Israel issue, 'For a democratic, secular Palestine for Jews, Christians and Muslims' (ie, all of Palestine, from River to Sea), and this has been the formal position of the Palestinian liberation movement ever since - that explicitly does not sound like "driving the Jews into the sea."

Of course, Israel and the US rejected this idea, and as it seemed a tough sell to convince the majority of Israeli Jews, who already had an ethno-supremacist state to themselves in 80% of Palestine, to share it with the Palestinian people on a democratic basis as proposed by the PLO, we got the rise of the 'two-state solution' in the 1970s, symbolised by Arafat holding up a gun and an olive branch in the UN, while the PLO declared it was willing to set up a Palestinian state just in the illegally occupied (after 1967) 20% of Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza. This implicitly left the 80% to Israel. So the change was a massive, massive, massive concession - and sounds even less like "driving the Jews into the sea."

Of course, the PLO officially maintained its original one state 'democratic, secular Palestine' position as well, with the meaning that this would be in the future: military struggle was necessary to evict the illegal Israeli occupation from the 20% so a mini-state of Palestine could exist, whereas the ongoing struggle for the democratisation of the 80% 'Israel-proper', and for the right to return of Palestinian refugees ethnically cleansed in 1948 to all of Palestine, would take the road of civic resistance, negotiations etc, over a longer period. I mean, if the Palestinians set up a democratic secular state, and a civil struggle within 'Israel' to end the ethnocratic, racist state and replace it with a democratic secular state succeeded, there would be no point having two democratic, secular states, so they would eventually form one (possibly a bi-national state, as advocated by another major PLO faction, the Democratic Front). Naturally, Israel refused to withdraw and rejected any Palestinian state even in an inch of Palestine, and was fully backed by the US in this rejectionist position.

Soon, however, the PLO's mini-state view was seized on by the Arab states and by European countries and the USSR etc, and hardened into the two-state "solution", which implied a permanent situation (and much later, in the 1990s, this also became official US policy, but never actual policy, which remained 100% support for Israeli maximalism). In 1982, the 12th Arab League Summit took place in the Saudi city Fez and put forward the Fez peace plan, for a Palestinian state in the 20% (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem), with Jerusalem as its capital, in exchange for implicit Arab recognition of Israel in its legal borders (the 80%, "guarantees of peace between all States of the region, including the independent Palestinian State"). Every Arab state except Libya signed up, and the PLO itself signed up. Even further from "driving Jews into the sea." Of course it was met with US and Israeli rejection, and Israel made this graphic by immediately organising and facilitating the Sabra-Shatilla massacre of 3000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, via the Lebanese Phalange. Since the late 1970s, the UN General Assembly with overwhelming majorities have voted for this Palestinian state to be established in the occupied territories following an Israeli withdrawal (as also demanded by UN resolutions forever since 1967, always ignored by the US and Israel)

In 1988, Arafat officially recognised the UN resolution of 1947 which had originally partitioned Palestine into a 55% Jewish state and 45% 'Arab' state - actually this could be interpreted as an advance on the mini-state - claiming 45% rather than just 20% - but in practice it simply meant further accommodation; 6 years later, the PLO/Fatah leadership accepted Oslo, a powerless Palestinian authority in just a fraction of the occupied territories. Of course, this assumed negotiations with Israel and the US over final borders, Jerusalem, refugees etc, ie, the official position was still for a Palestinian state in the full 20%; but anyway you look at it, it was a further massive concession.

Of course, Israel simply took full advantage, refusing to ever discuss any of these final status issues, and instead filling up the West Bank and Jerusalem with hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli colonisers who have stolen half the territory and live like kings surrounding the separated, locked-in Palestinian bantustans where the Palestinian 'Authority' has zero authority, where the people have zero rights within apartheid Israel, are constantly dispossessed, expelled, humiliated at checkpoints, and killed. The Saudi-launched Arab Peace Plan of 2002, again endorsed by the entire Arab League including the PLO, essentially re-stated the Fez Plan, but this time made recognition of Israel explicit and declared the Arab-Israeli conflict would be "over" if Israel allowed a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Of course it was rejected by Israel. At the next Arab League Summit at Riyadh in 2007, it was again re-endorsed by all states; notably, Hamas, which had been elected to head the Palestinian Authority, abstained but did not vote against, Fatah (which has been in control of the Authority most of the time since), accepted it. Israel rejected it as a non-starter.

Yet apparently, according to various people being influenced by Zionist lies, it is the Palestinians guilty of rejectionism, of refusing an agreement with Israel, of wanting to drive the Jews into the sea. It is difficult to know here to start when you hear this kind of bullshit now, in 2023, other than offer a reading list; some are genuinely ignorant, but those who are deliberately and consciously ignorant should know they are being apologists for a murderous Ku Klux Klan-style colonial regime.

From the River, to the Sea, Palestine will be free!

 

Οι απαντήσεις μου:

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Το γεγονός ότι (κυρίως) η Hamas δεν μπορεί λόγω συσχετισμού δυνάμεων να υλοποιήσει το σύνθημα αυτό όπως το εννοούν οι υποστηρικτές τής διάλυσης τού Ισραήλ, δεν το καθιστά λογικό ή δημοκρατικό, ακόμα κι αν εννοηθεί με την πιο καλοπροαίρετη, αρχική, μορφή του, όπως ορθά την καταγράφει ο Michael.

Θα ήταν προτιμότερο να το ερμηνεύσουμε ως σύνθημα ως αποτέλεσμα μιας δίκαιης οργής για την αποστέρηση τής πατρίδας σου από μια αποικιστική δύναμη, που ως οργή σε οδηγεί στην συνέπεια της που είναι η πλήρης αντιστροφή των αδίκως επιβληθέντων ιστορικών συνθηκών.

Σαν να λέμε, ότι μια αντίστροφη εκδίωξη εθνοκάθαρση θα έφερνε τα πράγματα στην αρχική κατάσταση τους.

Ας μην ερμηνεύσουμε μάλιστα την εκδίωξη ή εθνοκάθαρση με τους ηθικολογικούς όρους τής μεταπολεμικής αριστεράς.

Επίσης οι Σουδήτες Γερμανοί τής Τσεχίας ή οι Αλβανοί Τσάμηδες τής Θεσπρωτίας (στην Ελλάδα) που τάχθηκαν με το μέρος τής κατοχικής φασιστικής δύναμης (1940-1944) υπέστησαν ένα είδος εκδίωξης ή εθνοκάθαρσης, το οποίο βέβαια ήταν αδικαιολόγητο και ανήθικο, αλλά την ίδια στιγμή αντανακλούσε την δίκαιη και δικαιολογημένη οργή εκ μέρους των θυμάτων τής φασιστικής κατοχής, με την οποία συνεργάστηκαν εγκληματώντας από κοινού.

Φέρνω αυτό το παράδειγμα για να κατανοήσω θετικά και όχι για να κατακρίνω τούς Παλαιστίνιους για το σύνθημα τους αυτό, την ίδια στιγμή όμως που το θεωρώ ως σύνθημα, ειδικά στην σημερινή εκδοχή του, ως ένα απειλητικό μήνυμα προσδοκίας μιας ιστορικής εκδίκησης που έχει σαφή χαρακτηριστικά αντίστροφης επιθυμίας εθνοκάθαρσης.

Και οι Εβραίοι τού Ισραήλ δεν ήταν ούτε είναι ακόμα σαν τους Σουδήτες, για να μην αφήσουμε τα μεγάλα κενά τής ιστορικής αναλογίας που κάνουμε να κρύψουν αυτήν ειδικά τη διαφορά.

Ειδικά σήμερα το σύνθημα αυτό έχει ξεφύγει εντελώς από την αρχική και σχετικά δικαιολογημένη αντανακλαστική νοηματοδότηση και χρήση του.

Οι ισλαμιστές, εμψυχωμένοι όπως είναι από την ανάδυση ενός νέου διεθνούς χάους, προσδοκώντας ακόμα μεγαλύτερο χάος και πτώση τής Δύσης, η οποία είναι το κύριο στήριγμα τού Ισραήλ, εννοούν κυριολεκτικά αυτό το αρχικά πολεμικό σύνθημα, και είμαι σίγουρος ότι θέλουν να το υλοποιήσουν, όποτε μπορέσουν.

---

Answer (1).

Palestine and "Israel" (1) or "Palestine" and Israel (2)?

Among the left-wing political factor worldwide and Arab nationalism+fundamentalism, the 1 prevails, among the Zionist political factor and among the pro-Zionist right/far-right political factor worldwide, 2 prevails.

Israel according to the supporters of 1 is an artificial entity, a colonial construction, not only as a political entity but also as a name, while on the contrary, according to the supporters of 2 Palestine is an artificial construction of Arab nationalism.

Usually those who support 1 at some point deny both politico-ontological definitions, and when you ask them what the new secular democratic state will be called that will integrate the Israeli and Palestinian entities into one form, they tell you that the problem is not a semiological one, so the name doesn't matter.

But if the problem is not also semiological, then why should it matter what the slogan (uttered by all Palestinians) means

"Palestine from the river to the sea"?

Will not this justified Palestine lose its name so that Israel also loses its?

Really, who do the Arab nationalists and their supporters want to convince?

--

Answer (2).

'From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free'.

Does it make sense to consider what a slogan means in all possible versions of rendering a special meaning to it through its use?

For me it makes sense, because human language did not reflect only an already given use of its forms but also a present use of them that can represent a new meaning of them.

"Palestine from the river to the sea" already means something that is non-Israel without ceasing to be Palestine.

It is a logical reaction of a people expelled from their land to want the situation to return to its original form, before the persecution, with a single conversion in favor of the Jewish settlers (after the Second World War) the legalization of their stay in a land in which they will they have a political but not nominal symbolic share, which would belong again and only to the original founders, the Arabs.

This justified but already, from the beginning, unrealistic and also unacceptable demand to restore a not only superficial symbolic political sovereignty, continues to exist.

However, through which semantic versions does it exist today? What does Hamas mean, for example, when it uses this slogan as a top slogan?

Does it mean the same things that the PLO meant? And how will we know what it really means and desires?

Does it only want the return of the expelled? does it mean only symbolic sovereignty in a new multinational state?

Because if we say that Hamas also wants this new state to be a democratic secular state, we will surely have made another big joke.

--

From the River to the Sea, Palestinians and Jews will be free from Hamas, Plo, Zionists, antizionists, ultra leftists, rightist, theocrats, westernists, easternist..

--

Something similar in Cyprus: neither Turks nor Greeks, Greek Cypriots Turkish Cypriots only Cypriots.

---

Realistic and at the same time moral goal:

To abolish all settlements in the West Bank and to return all Israeli settlers to Israel.

No "anti-Zionism" can achieve this just and realistic goal.

--

Answer (3).

The combination of a very obvious truth, that Israel does not keep its agreements with its victim, with the non truth, that the victim of Israel is not imagined that will be the perpetator against the present perpetator that makes it victim, this reasoning combination can also be read as sophism.

--

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

Postscript.

The fact that I consider and certify Michael as an honest, honest Marxist does not mean that I indirectly declare that I too am an honest "something".

We said it, I am all your devils advocate.

 

 

  

 

 

Simple.

I owe Michael an answer. So I took a long genealogical breath, since Michael is a serious Marxist, and I, I am all devils' advocate, and must muster all my sophistrys.

--

 

How do you turn the steering wheel when you drive? to go left you turn it a little more to the right, and then you take the left turn smoothly, not like a far-left moron.

--

 

Don't try to find a way to rest your back against the most leftist or most classist wall, because you will end up like Tsipras and Varoufakis and the far-left/anarchist garbage who follow them like loyal dogs.

--

 

Socialism without national independence is a joke.

--

 

We did not leave Stalinism to become hens.

The ideological genealogy of each of us is a thriller, but I have never been afraid of these films.

--

 

Socialist relations of production can exist in a country. Socialism can exist in a country. Wow. Stalin? No, Stalin and Bukharin, but Gramsci too.

--

There are also Stalinists or stalinogenic (Me) ex-but-not-quite-ex-post-Stalinists who will never capitulate to neo-ultra-leftism (Me) who support Ukraine, Kurdistan (normal) and the uprising of the Iranian youth, as there are Trotskyist pro-Russians, pro-Khomeinists enemies of the Kurdish and Iranian movement.

Life is strange, and so are the fronts.

Shake it shake it baby

Shake it shake it baby

Shake it shake it mama

 

Τώρα οι αναρχικοί, όχι όλοι, και οι υπεραριστεροί, όχι όλοι, γλείφουν το νέο PKK, αλλά εγώ θυμάμαι, δεν ξεχνώ τίποτα, δεν συγχωρώ κανέναν, κρατώντας την παλιά σημαία τού PKK ψηλά.

--

Αισθάνομαι σαν ξεχασμένος Σαμουράι τού παλιού PKK.

 

 

I'm serious, the Greek left has many agents of Russia and Turkey within it, although in general what characterizes it is the ideological super internationalist paranoia.

Those of us in the Greek left, as pro-Kurds, held high and unwaveringly the flag of the PKK, especially the old Stalinist PKK, we have not surrendered our weapons.

 

The main leftist party in Greece which is the 2nd most powerful party in the country, Syriza, is already questioning the upcoming elections, as if it is a Trumpist party, it has indirectly and subtly supported Putin (criticizing arms aid to Ukraine), but also the Iranian theocrats, together with Varoufakis and his sect, next to him, indirectly, by insidious consent, the Stalinist communist party, all of them, criticize the defensive nationalism of the Greek citizens, and also undermine the national defense of the country against the expansionist fascist Turkey, with the help of ultra-left and anarchist groups wich support Syriza behind the scenes.

How do I stand against all this?

How should I stand?

I question what the ''left'' and ''the movement'' can mean in the western world.

There is something rotten.

 

 

 

With your own weapons, comrades:

Your uncompromising classism is "subjective idealism", not the solipsism of (misreaded, by you) Berkeley.

Marxism, anarchism, etc. as a classist sectarian "subject-idealist" extreme solipsistic perversion of Kantian and Hegelian Reason.

Reality as it suits you, and when it doesn't suit you "down with reality!", that's who you are.

 

Με τα δικά σας όπλα, σύντροφοι:

Ο αδιάλλακτος ταξικισμός σας είναι ο «υποκειμενικός ιδεαλισμός», όχι ο σολιψισμός τού (κακοδιαβασμένου από εσάς) Μπέρκλευ.

Ο μαρξισμός, αναρχισμός κ.λπ ως ταξικίστικη σεκταριστική «υποκειμενο-ιδεαλιστική» ακραία σολιψιστική εκτροπή τού Καντιανού και τού Εγελιανού Λόγου.

Η πραγματικότητα όπως σας βολεύει, κι αν δεν σας βολεύει κάτω η πραγματικότητα, αυτό είστε.

 

Life is an adventure that ends in some of its beginnings, that is, in same.

I don't regret anything after all.

I was an enemy of Turkey, I am an enemy of Turkey, and I will die an enemy of Turkey, and I was right then, also now, and until the end.

The Greek leftists, and probably the vast majority of the global left, anarchy, and other revolutionary forces, then now and probably in the future, did not understand, do not understand now and will never understand this thing.

Therefore?

We will notify you.

Long live the PKK, shit to Turkey.

Simple.

 

Event of one of the main Trotskyist sects in Greece (OKDE), against the country's national defense against Turkish expansionism.

They spoke ones also about myths.

From the title of the event alone you understand that this cement in the brain is never going to break.

What did we call it in our youth?

Extreme solipsism.

We'll let you know, at the polls.

Not to you directly, but to your spokesmen masquerading as patriots, and sometimes even as super-patriots (my name is Alexis and I'm a leftist).

The neutrality of idiots?

Not only.

The neutrality of idiots who insist on seeing reality as an extension of their idea.

Postscript.

Why in our youth were we Stalinist and indeed of the nationalist pro-PKK deviation?

Simple.

 

 

Η ζωή είναι μια περιπέτεια που καταλήγει σε κάποια από τις εκκινήσεις της, στα ίδια δηλαδή.

Δεν μετανιώνω για τίποτα τελικά.

Εχθρός τής Τουρκίας ήμουν, εχθρός τής Τουρκίας είμαι, και εχθρός τής Τουρκίας θα πεθάνω, και τότε είχα δίκιο, και τώρα, και μέχρι το τέλος.

Οι Έλληνες αριστεροί, και μάλλον η συντριπτική πλειονότητα τής παγκόσμιας αριστεράς, αναρχίας, και λοιπές επαναστατικές δυνάμεις, τότε τώρα και μάλλον στο μέλλον, δεν καταλάβαινε δεν καταλαβαίνει και δεν θα καταλάβει ποτέ από τέτοια πράγματα.

Επομένως;

Θα σας ειδοποιήσουμε.

Ζήτω το PKK, σκατά στην Τουρκία.

Simple.

 

Εκδήλωση μιας από τις κύριες τροτσκιστικές σέκτες στην Ελλάδα (ΟΚΔΕ), ενάντια στην εθνική άμυνα τής χώρας απέναντι στον τουρκικό επεκτατισμό.

Κάτι για μύθους λέει και τα σχετικά.

Από τον τίτλο τής εκδήλωσης και μόνον καταλαβαίνεις ότι αυτό το τσιμέντο στον εγκέφαλο δεν πρόκειται να σπάσει ποτέ.

Πώς το λέγαμε στα νιάτα μας;

Ακραίος σολιψισμός.

Την Μαρία παιδιά, και τα μάτια σας.

Θα σας ειδοποιήσουμε, στις κάλπες.

Όχι εσάς ευθέως, αλλά τους μασκαρεμένους σε πατριώτες, και ενίοτε μάλιστα υπερπατριώτες, εκφραστές σας (με λένε Αλέξη και είμαι αριστερός).

Η ουδετερότητα των ηλίθιων;

Όχι μόνον.

Η ουδετερότητα των ηλίθιων που επιμένουν να βλέπουν την πραγματικότητα σαν επέκταση τής ιδέας τους.

Υστερόγραφο.

Γιατί στα νιάτα μας ήμασταν σταλινικοί και μάλιστα τής εθνικιστικής φιλο-ΡΚΚ παρέκκλισης;

Για να μη καταντήσουμε σαν αυτούς τους ηλίθιους.

Simple.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

  

 

California Love (Original Version)

Shake it shake it baby..

Putin, Trump, Xi, Erdogan, Khamenei, Kahanists, and other idiots, are afraid that their dick will fall and the world will be filled with "gays".

Indeed, this is a world war, and i'm on the gay side.

An old song, from the old days, for us old people, when we left the ''revolutionary'' music to live with sounds.

I need to clarify something.

Iran. When old age must bow humbly to youth, then, yes, revolution comes.

-

-

The today global multinational youth is the locomotive of the global revolt for freedom and equality.

-

Today's global multinational youth cannot easily or at all become dough to be sealed by some transcendental ideology, today's youth is an unbridled creature that has a measure to judge its own life, a measure that it also receives from old "teachings" but treating these "teachings" (even the best of them) as a tool for immediate happiness and freedom.

-

I need to clarify something.

The intracosmic non-transcendent immanence of today's youth does not ''remind'' us of neo-gothic (Hegelian or non-Hegelian) Marxist or anarchist theories (not even the worst fascist ones), nor does it ''remind'' us of Nietzsche, Deleuze and others, but it ''refers'' to Wittgenstein's language games.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

When in dialectics you rush to unify determinations, you do not unite, you weld.

You need to know who disagrees with you but could sacrifice his life for you and who agrees with you but may sell you to the enemy at the crucial moment.

--

What if you can fit another one, two thousand infinite hearts in your heart, and you can't operate on the wound.

Better an empty heart with strong hands and mind.

-- 

When in dialectics you rush to unify determinations, you do not unite, you weld.

But in order not to rush, you have to accept the possibility that this unification of the determinations you wish to unite will never happen.

But in order to accept this possible possibility, that propably will there is no final unification of these determinations, you must clear your thinking, as much as possible, of "desire"...Gentlemen, "Marxists", Lacanians and Deleuzians.

Marxists! I want to see you progress.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

The (political) purposes I serve..

The (political) purposes I serve in theoretical, propagandistic, aesthetic ways are:

1. The total liberation of the Kurdish nation (with or without a Kurdish nation state).

2. The emergence of a democratic state in Iran, whether it is a working class democratic state, or whether it is a normal bourgeois (parliamentary, secular) democratic state.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

Δομή.

 

 

The silent heart of lightning, the frozen heart of lava.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

There is an ideological entrapment..

 February 1, 2022

There is an ideological entrapment (intertwined with a corresponding theoretical entrapment) which rests on a mistaken assumption about historical development.
I begin with my objection to this view which I consider to be wrong and arbitrary:
What does not exist as a social form/situation and in some broad historical moment appears/is created, is not defined only as a result of the specific contexts and conditions* that gave birth to it, and furthermore it is not necessary that it once disappear due to the very fact that it once did not exist and then it was/appeared/created.
__
Let's see more specifically what this wrong view is and how I try to combat it with some arguments (initial argument draft):
Those who analyze the historical appearance of these social forms often see them only in relation to this specific historical-generative context of their emergence and consolidation, and if this specific context is considered by them to be transitory (a thought that may be correct) they are making a fundamental mistake to identify the transitoriness of this special framework with the as perceived transience of the forms that emerged through that context.
Champions of the fundamental errors in the reading of historical development and in this general field that we are now mentioning are again the Marxists and the anarchists.
Let's take a look at their logic:
Because: (1) once there was no state and because the state was formed through the process of creating class society (correct reasoning), therefore: (2) along with the historical destruction and transcendence of class society there will be an immediate or slower transcendence of the state.
This is an arbitrary reasoning that is not based on empirical observations and experimental confirmations, but on the metaphysical utopian choice of one of the 2 alternative versions that exist as -implied- possibilities.
It may be shown in the future that there were no two possible versions necessarily equivalent, but today we have no evidence to prove that one of the two possibilities understood by us today - that there is or is not a state in classless society - is the necessary prevailing in the future.
What applies to the concept/status of the state also applies to the concept/status of the nation.
* When we talk about the specific historical context for the emergence of general social forms such as the state, we are referring more to the specific context that explains their emergence as general forms and not to the more specific or historically peculiar conditions that make this emergence possible.

 

Υπάρχει ένας ιδεολογικός εγκλωβισμός (που συνυφαίνεται με έναν ομόλογο θεωρητικό εγκλωβισμό), ο οποίος στηρίζεται σε μιαν αστόχαστη υπόθεση για την ιστορική εξέλιξη.

Ξεκινάω με την αντίρρηση μου σε αυτήν θεώρηση που θεωρώ λανθασμένη και αυθαίρετη:

Ό,τι δεν υφίσταται ως κοινωνική μορφή/κατάσταση και σε κάποια ευρεία ιστορική στιγμή εμφανίζεται/δημιουργείται, δεν ορίζεται μόνον ως αποτέλεσμα των ειδικών πλαισίων και συνθηκών* που το γέννησαν και επιπλέον δεν είναι αναγκαίο να εξαφανιστεί κάποτε λόγω ακριβώς τού γεγονότος ότι κάποτε δεν υπήρχε και έπειτα υπήρξε/εμφανίστηκε/δημιουργήθηκε.

__

Ας δούμε πιο συγκεκριμένα ποια είναι αυτή η λανθασμένη θεώρηση και πως επιχειρώ να την καταπολεμήσω με κάποιες επιχειρηματολογίες (αρχικό σχέδιο επιχειρηματολογίας):

Όσοι αναλύουν την ιστορική εμφάνιση αυτών των κοινωνικών μορφών πολλές φορές τις βλέπουν μόνο σε σχέση με αυτό το ειδικό ιστορικογενετικό πλαίσιο τής ανάδυσης και εδραίωσης τους, και αν αυτό το ειδικό πλαίσιο θεωρείται από αυτούς παροδικό (σκέψη που μπορεί να είναι ορθή) κάνουν το θεμελιώδες λάθος να ταυτίζουν την παροδικότητα αυτού τού ειδικού πλαισίου με την θεωρούμενη από αυτούς παροδικότητα των μορφών που αναδύθηκαν μέσω αυτού τού πλαισίου.

Πρωταθλητές των θεμελιωδών λαθών στην ανάγνωση τής ιστορικής εξέλιξης και σε αυτό το γενικό πεδίο που αναφέρουμε τώρα είναι πάλι οι μαρξιστές και οι αναρχικοί.

Ας δούμε λίγο την λογική τους:

Επειδή: (1) κάποτε δεν υπήρχε κράτος και επειδή το κράτος σχηματίστηκε μέσω τής διεργασίας δημιουργίας τής ταξικής κοινωνίας (ορθός συλλογισμός), άρα: (2) μαζί με την ιστορική καταστροφή και υπέρβαση τής ταξικής κοινωνίας θα υπάρξει άμεση ή βραδύτερη υπέρβαση τού κράτους.

Πρόκειται για αυθαίρετο συλλογισμό που δεν στηρίζεται σε εμπειρικές εποπτείες και πειραματικές επιβεβαιώσεις, αλλά στην μεταφυσική ουτοπική επιλογή μιας από τις 2 εναλλακτικές εκδοχές που υπάρχουν ως -εννοούμενες- πιθανότητες.

Μπορεί να φανερωθεί στο μέλλον ότι δεν υπήρχαν δύο πιθανές εκδοχές ως αναγκαία ισοδύναμες, αλλά σήμερα δεν έχουμε κανένα στοιχείο για να αποδείξουμε ότι η μία από τις δύο εννοούμενες από εμάς σήμερα ως πιθανότητες- να υπάρχει ή να μην υπάρχει κράτος στην αταξική κοινωνία- είναι και η αναγκαία υπερισχύουσα στο μέλλον.

Ό,τι ισχύει για την έννοια/κατάσταση τού κράτους ισχύει και για την έννοια/κατάσταση τού έθνους.

* Όταν μιλάμε για το ειδικό ιστορικό πλαίσιο ανάδυσης γενικών κοινωνικών μορφών όπως το κράτος αναφερόμαστε περισσότερο στο ειδικό πλαίσιο που εξηγεί την ανάδυση τους ως γενικών μορφών και όχι στις ειδικότερες ή ιστορικά ιδιόμορφες συνθήκες που κάνουν εφικτή αυτήν την ανάδυση.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Α perverted Kurdish version of the Iliad..

If I had talent, I would write a perverted Kurdish version of the Iliad, where the angry Achilles would be the Kurdish Saladin, who after the betrayal of the Arab and Turkish allies against the Kurds, being angry, would join the Crusader camp, defeat the Islamic army and then would turned against the crusaders as well, giving Jerusalem to the Jews and the Kurds.

--

 

Azerbaijan is an ally of Israel and of course Turkey (brotherly nation, brotherly nationalisms) and Armenia is an ally of (theocratic) Iran.

What's up with the Iranian Azeris?

Do they follow the nationalism of Azeris of Azerbaijan?

Do they follow the choices of their parent nation?

I'm afraid so, if not all, certainly many.

The combination of Iranian theocrats and Armenia on one side and Azeri Turks and Israelis on the other, and somewhere in the dark conspiratorial depths of Russia, worries me deeply.

How can a socialist democratic revolution in Iran proceed without falling into semi-dictatorial Bonapartism if it does not peacefully and through free will seal off the Azeri minority (in a similar case, also the Arab minority) from the influence of adventurous nationalists outside of Iran?

Everyone is suspicious of the Kurds who have shown with their blood, to the point of becoming almost fools, their intention of unity with the entire Iranian people, and no one is talking about the real problem which is Azeri nationalism, which under the strange help by Israel and Turkey may cause the disintegration of Iran.

--

 

Everyone blames, slanders, vilifies and hates Kurdish nationalists for (real or imaginary) suspected links with the West and Zionism, but they are deliberately or stupidly wrong to blame them, because Kurds, of all ideological shades, are good guys, they speak openly and they are not intransigent separatists, although they have the right to be.

On the contrary, when the discussion turns to the Arab minority of southwestern Iran or the Azeri minority of northwestern Iran, there is an excess of respect and a cover-up of the dangers for the democratic revolution in Iran due to the connection of these minorities with many very reactionary centers outside Iran (Turkey, Israel, Arab countries, anything but progressive).

Do you know what I have to say to the Iranians and especially the Persian Iranian leftists?

You respect those you fear more (Azeris and Arabs), and you don't respect those (Kurds) who have shown that they are your given brothers, and weaker in reality, despite their alliances with the west and Israel.

I'm sorry, but this is a bad sign for you.

--

 

Show not, less respect to your milder, more peaceful, more brotherly brother, and more respect to your harsher, angrier, less brotherly brother.

Show respect to all your brothers, but more to him who shows more patience, more fidelity, more intention of unity with you.

If you do the opposite, it will be as if you are rewarding the tendency towards inappropriate behavior and as if you are punishing the best behavior.

I have experienced it in my life, the best is treated as a given, as something certain and safe naïve and then neglected, while the awkward and dangerous for divisive and competitive intentions and actions is treated as recpectable and smarter that must be vorgived.

--

 

I mentioned just before what I consider proper in retribution for proper or improper fraternal conduct.

The big question for me is:

When the brother rewards the wrong behavior towards him, i.e. he honors and respects the one who does not cares about him, and does not respect you who have shown solidarity and unity with him, then what do you do?

My heart cries out, makes a great noise, to the ears of my mind:

"Let you betray the traitor to the brotherhood, also abandoned the one who covered him justifying this betrayal - let be betrayed from you too".

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος