Δημοσιεύσεις στο Facebook, ένα χρόνο πριν, ακριβώς, λίγο πριν την φασιστική εισβολή τής Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία.

Δημοσιεύσεις στο Facebook, ένα χρόνο πριν, ακριβώς, λίγο πριν την φασιστική εισβολή τής Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία. 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

Iranian comrades, watch and study the biopolitical strategy of late neocapitalism:

It is not mediated "secretly", it is not "conspiracy", but it is deceitful, manipulative, insidious, cynical, meticulous and masses and their inactive vanguard are unprepared.

 

The geopolitical wisdom of most "Marxists" has reached the skies. These people can not see the obvious on planet earth.

 

The Russians imperialists make jokes by encircling an entire nation. 

They are not like their friends Turkish imperialists who have no humor. 

Genuine Vampires have no humor.  

 

It's blindness:
You don't see as an aggressive conquering force a state that threatens to occupy a country.

 

International bullies want to have a "safety belt" around them, made of blood, death and ethnic cleansing.

 

What is the "safety belt" that the "male" states around them want to have?

They want "around" from their state "body", submission, death, blood, rape, humiliation, that is, a death pillow. ... 

 

The alphabet of totalitarianism: "safety belt" and "Lebensraum".
It's students today:
Turkey, Russia, China.

 

Most Maoist and Stalinist Marxists have renounced present-day Russia and China as semi-statecapitalist countries, but a small but strong flame of love remains, and this sick flame makes them, on the one hand, wounded and frustrated as lovers, on the other hand, their wound does not extinguish their deep love with these countries of once-but-non-existent socialism. 

Thus, while cursing and harshly criticizing at the same time they keep deep inside their benevolence and positive one-sidedness for these countries of the once-but-non-existent socialism. This passion of theirs has become slimy. 

These people have as much to do with the ideal of a classless society as I do with understanding the Chinese language, that is, none at all.  

 

When was true socialism in the Soviet Union and China?

Until the time when Lenin and Mao died and not after the successors came? or even after? 

Until Teng and Khrushchev?

Hard truth:

NEVER! 

 

Yes, I'm right.

Socialism as a first model and as the first form of classless society, has not yet existed.

If you can not stand this harsh political and historical truth you can continue to live with dreams fantasies lies.

Reality and historical research itself will constantly refute you.  

 

Putin and his military state do not only want eastern Russian-[speaking] Ukraine, they want the whole of Ukraine.

 

Do not Ukrainians have the right to be part of the West? Why are they not entitled? 

Will they lose this right because Russia does not want it? 

Will an entire nation lose the right to define its place in the world because the neighboring arrogant hostile nation does not like it? 

So also Poland should not exist. 

Isn't that what the Russian nationalism wanted for a lifetime? 

To Exterminate Poland as an independent national entity. 

Russia to go to hell. 

Enough with the Moscow clique and its slaves.  

 

The biopolitical manipulations made by the powerful states are not done in secret, but with moralist craftsmanship and the use of the long-term horizon that the naive masses can not conceive mentally.

Turkey and ISIS are building a state of war on the racist remnants of so-called "European solidarity".

What does the Greek ruling class (bourgeois and intellectuals) do?

It hopes for "European solidarity" and when the critical moment comes, it expects something to stop Turkey.

What is the Greek left / anarchy doing?

It is waiting for the internationalist revolution, but without doing anything in practice for this revolution to take place.

What are the Greek people doing?

Nothing. They are just waiting.

 

All intellectual endeavors to understand the current geopolitical and biopolitical totality-framework of capitalism began with the erroneous assumption that we are active and coherent subjects of this situation.

The post-structuralists analysts, led by Foucault, have not escaped this sharpened delusion, despite their assurances. 

 

Those who raised the issue,

the post-structuralists,

they gave even his most erroneous explanation.

 

Who can understand the current geopolitical and biopolitical totality of modern capitalism?

Let us remind you of something. 

If French imperialism had not intervened with military presence and equipment of the Greek state, Turkey would have already invaded the eastern Aegean and started a war and ethnic cleansing.

The war was not stopped by the EU, nor by Germany, nor by NATO, nor by Russia, nor by the international labor movement, but by French imperialism, the French state. 

We are subservient to imperialist interests and the accidental synopsis of capitalist interests.

Our lives depend on the interests and whims of the "Gods" of destruction.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Continuing reflection on the democratic revolution in Iran. Dialogue with anarchism, and only with anarchism, on the crucial question.

History is not a train that if you get off, you can get back on.

As I have explained to you, I hope briefly and clearly, so far Marxists no longer have a clear alternative plan for the form of the polity that would correspond to the socialist system desired by all of us wage-earners/employees.

The fact that people who have broken away from Marxism but want a post-capitalist classless socialist system also do not have an alternative political plan does not mean that Marxists can meet this socialist political need with their well-known authoritarian "recipes" which refer to an indefinite democracy of workers' and people's councils that cannot solve the question of a direct democratic and of course representative central political/institutional management of society.

The solution that Marxists of almost all trends continue to put forward in relation to this issue is "off the train" forever, unless they think they can repeat the authoritarian totalitarian model of the Soviet Union, authoritarian since there was Soviet power and not only after Lenin's death, as they falsely imagine.

The most intelligent Marxists, from the beginning, such as Gorter and Pannekoek and others, returning in a necessarily ultra-left way to the livelier spirit of Marx's own Marxism, virtually joined their voices with the alive, still alive and will always be alive, anarchism.

The anarchists, as well as the aforementioned ultra-left communist-marxists, demanded an automatic abolition of the central mechanisms of authority, and only the Marxist ultra-left communists continued to raise the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but in a way that referred to the very spirit of Marxism itself, but also in its connection with anarchist communism.

As Guy Debord put it in an intelligent and perhaps sophistic way, later, this dictatorship of the proletariat will be a "non-state dictatorship of the proletariat".

The bottom line is that on the decisive issue of the central representative institution of workers' democracy, all of them, clearly and unwaveringly the anarchists, rejected it by proposing a "from below" communist federalism, whether defined as directly democratic or defined beyond definition/determination of democracy.

In short, I disagree, still or forever (I don't know), with this trend, but I see it as the only trend that, continuing the historical communist/marxist and anarcho-communist tradition, consists ideologically of living and logically consistent principles .

In short, the anarchist-leaning Marxists/communists of the Gorter type and the anarchists/anarcho-communists are still "on the train of history", regardless of whether we think that their position does not answer, as it should, the crucial question of how the social whole of a socialist/classless society will be centrally managed.

I repeat, that I consider this anarcho-communist model of thought to be deficient in my opinion, but at least it is not governed by the dead authoritarian and completely dead-end visions moste of Marxists, always talking about the central issue of central institutions or the central institution of a socialist society.

Let us now see what all these impasses might have to do with a modern democratic revolution, such as the one that has begun to take place in Iran.

I will get straight to the heart of the matter.

Typicall Marxists are roughly divided into two general tendencies, the revisionist social-democratic or left-socialist tendency Marxists who, after the destruction of historical communism, tend to follow the highest form of bourgeois democracy (bourgeois democracy, parliamentary type with guaranteed relative separation of powers), and the revolutionary Marxists (of all mutually exclusive tendencies) who are more or less calling for a "better" iteration of the Soviet model, or at best a return to the Paris Commune of 1871, but with a more ' "Soviet sense" of this rebellion (there is still little life here, but life).

Apart from the fact that this proposition is outside of historical reality, at the very same moment it reactively suspends both different/competing (at the ideological and class level of reality), but living, alternative possibilities that a democratic revolution of our time contains.

What are these two possibilities?

I sketched one by talking about anarcho-communism (of our time).

Every real democratic revolution today, based on the historical ideological data as I have outlined them, necessarily contains an "anarcho-communist" content, marginally Marxist, mainly anarchist, anarcho-communist, possibly direct democratic content: democracy from below, direct democracy of assemblies and councils of workers and people, but with hostility that is radically directed not only against the state but also against all leaderships.

Here, at this level, the "classical" Marxists can only function by confusing and disorienting the revolutionary issues, carrying with them ideological a priori that create a bureaucratic ideological and political cancer in the youth but also in the working class, the immediate, the real, living working class.

They constantly ask the workers, the young men and women, to organize themselves into sects, into parties, into bureaucratic groups, while what they should be asking would be to revolt immediately, without inhibitions, without all-wise leaders and "knowers".

If now, we return to the other competitive alternative to the one we have described, in relation to a democratic revolution, that is to say, that which is related to a rather bourgeois-democratic side of a democratic revolution that has to do with the desired central representative institution (this limitation applies today , although normally they shouldn't), the "classical" Marxists have, as we said, nothing to propose but a re-cooked same autocratic Bonapartist version of "democracy", which by the way does not lead to any real socialism.

While on the contrary, anarchists, anarchist communists, ultra-left version of left communists tend to deny participation in the creation of a central democratic institution, but do not radically undermine it as almost all Marxist-Leninist (Trotskyist, Stalinist, and other) sects tend to do.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

About "democracy of the grassroots"..

The central representative institution of a democracy (bourgeois or socialist type) must be:

1) the dominant institution in terms of decisions concerning the whole of society, and 2) directly elected, in order to speak of democracy, but also of real socialism if we speak for socialism.

Anarchists deny central sovereign institutions (not just the state, which they also deny as we know).

I find their position the most compellingly and exciting opposed to mine, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

How do the dogmatic sectarian Marxist-communists (which are the majority among Marxists) understand the position of this central sovereign representative institution?

First of all, they devalue it as another result of the base which is the mode of production, etc.

Then, when the issue is raised directly, in relation to the form of central authority, they define it in a context where it means a false integration in practice into the "democracy of the grassroots", i.e. the workers' and people's councils, which are also the only those who elect and are elected directly. 

Beyond that, i.e. beyond the supposed "people's sea" of councils, there is the "Party of the working class" and the general assembly of councils (soviets), which as political bodies are NOT directly elected, but by the representatives who elected within the party by its members as far as the party is concerned, and by the representatives elected by the already elected councils.

This has been in practice and nothing other in the communist programs and realisations of all past and present communist movements, and their praxis does NOT show anything other than what I have described to you.

This is an openly declared authoritarian semi-democracy, which is NEVER going to lead to real socialism/communism, where there will be no class exploitation and also (probably) no state (although there will be politics which is another thing, not identical to the state, oh Marxist know-it-alls).

--

 

When the only form of direct democratic representation is the "councils" and "assemblies" of the workers and the people, the only direct way left to governed a (socialist) society as a whole, as a total administrative form, so through a central institution, it is the one and only one Party.

At least the anarchists, as more honest in their utopia, are determined to fight every central administrative institution, while the sectarian Marxists insist on putting forward only the One party as a central strategic institution.

And how will the leadership of this essentially ruling party be elected? Perhaps from the entire working population of the socialist society?

I have not heard such a thing said by them. 

So, they stick to the old and tried Soviet model with perhaps an expansion of the role of workers' people's councils.

However, even the left-wing critics of the Soviet council institutional plan, the ultra-left, in a way "anarcho-communist" Marxists, e.g. Gorter, Guy Debord, removing the role of a party, what do they counter-propose as a positive replacement of the central elected institutions of bourgeois democracy?

Nothing. 

Like anarchists, they believe that this socialist society they envision will be self-governing "through the magic" of "self-direction self-management" and will not need a central democratic and elected institution.

Really, comrades, do you consider that you have an alternative institutional-political solution to bourgeois democracy, in the matter of the central institutional authority that will decide on critical issues expressing the whole of a working socialist classless society?

If we do not build a democratic alternative to capitalism and the bourgeois state, we will simply miss every train of history from now and beyond.

--

 

The Iranian/Kurdish revolutionary left is closer to democracy than all the Iranian bourgeois forces, but it is also possessed by Bonapartist authoritarian ideas, due to its archaic Marxism.

The way out can be found by themselves, the Iranian and Kurdish people.

But how?

Are these things easy?

--

 

Η ιρανική και η κουρδική επαναστατική αριστερά είναι πιο κοντά στην δημοκρατία από ό,τι είναι όλες οι ιρανικές αστικές δυνάμεις, όμως διακατέχεται επίσης από βοναπαρτιστικές αυταρχικές ιδέες, λόγω τού αρχαϊκού μαρξισμού της.

Την διέξοδο μπορούν να την βρουν μόνοι τους, ο ιρανικός και ο κουρδικός λαός.

Αλλά πώς;

Γίνονται έτσι εύκολα αυτά τα πράγματα;

---

 

I just read an almost sarcastic ideological distraction by an Iranian communist about the future form of the state in Iran.

The dilemma as "stated" in reality is not generally a priori democracy versus theocracy and monarchy, but our dear dogmatist would like to state it this way, so that he can make his easy reductionism and in the end propose his own class-based supposed solution, the working-class regime, which will overcome this dilemma.

A completely wrong antidialectical methodology which is, however, an expected result of the sectarian despair of the left after the fall of Stalinism.

However, with such a mind, stuck in ancient Marxism, you can fight neither against the theocrats nor against the monarchists.

--

 

The fact that according to the opinion most of our fellow non-Western people, we, as citizens of a pro-Western or Western state, "don't have the possible right" to defend ourselves but also possibly this state against a non-Western invader, if this state it is therefore fundamentally liberal and democratic, because -according to these friends- we are possessed by the original sin of Western colonialism, this fact, therefore, alienates us from you, my friends.

You can listen to your flattering Western comrades, but I live among the crowd of everyday people of my people and I know this:

In GREECE:

Ukraine is mainly supported by center-right democrats, center-left and some anarchists, while neutral pseudo-pacifists or open supporters of reactionary Russia are almost all the fascist Nazi far-right, the most reactionary part of the orthodox Christian church, and most radicals leftist and Marxist-Leninist "communists" .

There is something rotten in the Kingdom of the anti-colonial left.

--

 

The demand of part of the West Left, in this case the German left, for the war to end while the Russian imperialist occupation of parts of Ukraine continues proves once again the extent of the mental ideological distortion in the minds of these people.

The crucial question for me in the end is:

Were things ever different within the left, in the West or also more broadly?

Or there is a deep contamination from a kind of theology and metaphysics present as ideology?

Let me be allowed this medical term for the analysis of political and social phenomena.

I speak roughly and spontaneously.

I am beginning to believe that the problem with this hidden religion and metaphysics is deeper than we thought.

--

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

Iran. Crucial question.

 

How will the Iranian left be able to distinguish the truly democratic Iranian bourgeois ideological and political forces from the Bonapartist would-be followers of monarchists and also the semi-theocratic "reformists"? and how could it perhaps structure an even temporary anti-theocratic but democratic (and not only anti-theocratic) other alliance with realy democrats?

First, by asking the selfdeclaring as democrats what kind of form of state they desire.

Do they implicitly accept from the first constitutional "moment" that the sovereign "body" of sovereignty will be an assembly of freely elected representatives of the Iranian people?

No hybrid Bonapartist institutional additions.

Anyone who does not clearly answer this question in the affirmative is not a bourgeois democrat, or simply a supporter of a normal bourgeois democracy, but a Bonapartist adventurer who simply desires a more secular form of hybrid fascism.

---

From what I know, as a non-expert, I draw the conclusion that the only ideological faction in Iran that would respect even the narrowest version of real, i.e. bourgeois, democracy is the Iranian left, plus some centrist tendencies that have not succeeded yet to fully disassociate themselves from the monarchical Loop that suffocates the bourgeois liberal forces.

Next to these forces there is the reformist branch of the theocrats, which, however, seems to participate in underground collusions with the monarchists and some "high" pro-Western personalities.

As I have pointed out, the political imagination of these curiously intertwined "circles" is imprisoned in hybrid institutional-political imaginations, which not go beyond essential elements of Khomeini's authoritarian hybridism.

Besides, Khomeinism has created a Bonapartist theocratic hybrid, while the authoritarian semi-liberal circles around the would-be royal frog and the "reformers" dare not speak openly of a normal bourgeois, representative parliamentary democracy, so their political imagination is necessarily bound to the hybridism of Khomeinism, even if there is a non-theocratic or semi-theocratic variant of this hybridism.

There may be other political developments and emergences, or there may be data that I do not know yet, as I told you I am not an expert.

As long as these possible data apply to Iran's political system, as it is understood in its broadest form, which of course includes the entire opposition (and not only its established structure), ONLY the left in Iran has a structural and stable relationship with the demand of democracy, even if it is understood as bourgeois democracy.

But from this point and beyond, other "paradoxes" begin.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Continuation of reflection on the democratic revolution in Iran.

 

Without intellectually falling prey to a conspiracy theory, we can reasonably assume based on the position of this historic leader of the reformist wing of the theocratic establishment, that there has been some form of collusion between the rabbling bourgeois meeting, in fact between the would-be Shah, and a part of the "reformers".

They appear to have a common referendum platform, in which a question (or a set of questions) will be asked of a very narrower horizon than a question that would take representative democracy for granted and would simply ask a question of choosing one or the other form of it .

That is, both the "reformist" theocrats and the postmodern Bonapartists who frame the would-be Shah, a royal tadpole who wants to be a Kingfrog, did not start with the given prerequisite that the ruling body of the new era will be the assembly of free elected representatives (national assembly, parliament, etc).

They don't even put it as one of the alternatives to the possible referendum.

To me all of this, this coincidence, smacks of collusion, agreement, or remotely tacit consent among the conservative, even semi-deviant bourgeois forces, in order to make a smooth transition to a new regime which may range institutionally from a new hybrid post-theocracy that will transform the semi-hybrid monstrosity of the dark mind Khomeini (semi-representation under the absolute control of the priesthood and the "supreme leader") into a pure hybrid of all, up to a form of authoritarian -unter guardianship from military and royalShah- parliamentary democracy.

In any case, the political and institutional imagination of these two "in collusive" forces is imprisoned in the imaginative hybridity was created by the dark genius of Khomeini.

So also the postmodern prince carp would-be constitutional frog (as Shah) has been imprisoned as an imagined delusionist in imaginary prison of Khomeinism, imagining a new hybrid polity in the footsteps of the dark Imam's hybrid-creating imagination of institutional creations.

I think finally, and remember what I say, that the possible Bonapartist/deviant post-theocratic scenario, will not come from these delusionalist people, but from darker forces, perhaps the army itself, without "reformers" but also without a Shah, or with them but having them captives.

 

 

طرح شیر مرد کهنسال ایران، مهندس میر حسین موسوی، برای گذار از جمهوری اسلامی

دوستان سلام: در پستی که پریروز درباره مهندس میر حسین موسوی داشتم نوشتم که ایمان دارم میر حسین از جمهوری اسلامی گذشته است. امروز، این شیرمرد کهنسال ما که ۱۲ سال است در حصر است، در بیانیه‌ای دقیقا همین را تکرار کرد و طرح خودرا اعلام نمود.

متن کامل بیانیه ایشان از قرار زیر است:

"بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

اعتراضات به حق مردم و حوادث خونبار ماه‌ها و سال‌های اخیر حقایق بزرگی را به ملت ما ثابت کرد. لجاجت‌، اصرار بر روش‌های سرکوبگرانه به جای گفت‌وگو و اقناع، و خودداری از برداشتن کوچک‌ترین گامی در جهت احقاق حقوق مصرح شهروندان در قانون اساسی و مطالبات مردم سال‌به‌ سال بر دوری حاکمان از مردم افزود و جامعه را از اصلاح در چارچوب ساختار موجود مأیوس کرد.

زایش دلهره‌آور فاصله‌های طبقاتی، اثرات سیاست‌های ماجراجویانه دشمن‌محور به جای دوستی و همکاری جهانی و منطقه‌ای، فساد گسترده در نهادهای پولی و مالی، خفقان گسترده فرهنگی، فقدان آزادی‌ها و سرکوب وحشیانه زنان و مردان و حتی کودکان به ملت ما نشان داد که "اجرای بدون تنازل قانون اساسی،" به عنوان شعاری که سیزده سال پیش بدان امید می‌رفت، دیگر کارساز نیست و باید گامی فراتر از آن گذاشت. قانون به عنوان تنها راه نجات کشور زمانی معنا می‌دهد که خود بر ناموسی پیشین از عدالت و حقانیت تکیه کند. قانونی بهروزی به بار می‌آورد که برآمده از مردم و برای مردم باشد، نه در خدمت حراست از امتیازات ناروا و جایگاه کسانی که خویشتن را مافوق قانون می‌دانند.

اينک همه از وجود بحران‌های به‌هم‌پيوسته در کشور خبر دارند:

بحران اقتصادی (از گسترش فقر تا سقوط آزاد ارزش پول ملی و تورم کمرشکنی که بار سنگين آن قامت اکثر مردم را خم کرده است)،

بحران مديريت و ناكارآمدی (از ناتوانی حاکميت برای اجرای برنامه‌ها و سياست‌ها تا فساد ساختاری و شبکه‌ای)،

بحران سياست‌ داخلی و خارجی،

بحران زيست‌محيطی، بحران اجتماعی،

بحران مشروعيت،

بحران فرهنگی و رسانه‌ای و ...‌.

ولی بحرانِ بحران‌ها ساختار تناقض‌آلود و غیرقابل دوام نظام اساسی کشور است. این قدرت غيرپاسخگو و مسئوليت‌ناپذير است که روزگار را بر ما تاريک می‌سازد و راه را بر بهروزی مردم رنج‌ديده می‌بندد.

ایران و ایرانیان نیازمند و مهیای تحولی بنیادین‌اند، که خطوط اصلی‌‌اش را جنبش پاک "زن، زندگی، آزادی" ترسیم می‌کند. این سه کلمه بذرهای آینده روشن‌اند؛ آینده‌ای پیراسته از ظلم و فقر و تحقیر و تبعیض. اینها سه واژه‌اند که با خود تاریخی از تکاپو و تفکر و مبارزه و آرزو حمل می‌کنند؛ و در میان‌شان "زن" از همه امیدبخش‌تر است، زیرا در بین ما سعادت و خیر عمومی به دست نمی‌آید و مبارزات بزرگ اجتماعی به پیروزی نمی‌رسند مگر با حضور زنان و مردان در کنار هم. و هیچ مبارزه‌ای نیست که با این شرط به پیروزی نرسد.

همان حقی که شالوده‌ انقلاب مردم در سال ۱۳۵۷ و قانون اساسی فعلی قرار گرفت برای نسل‌های بعدی نیز محرز است، تا اگر تصمیم پیشینیان منجر به گره‌های کور در زندگی‌‌ جامعه شد، یا ابزار سوء استفاده‌ قدرت‌طلبان بود، بتوانند جهت عبور از بحران‌ها و گشودن مسیر به سمت آزادی، عدالت، مردم‌سالاری و توسعه دست به تجدیدنظرهای اساسی بزنند و به منظور حفظ امنیت عمومی و پیشگیری از خشونت خواستار تغییر نظم موجود یا تدوین میثاقی اساساً تازه شوند؛ میثاقی که پیش‌نویس آن از سوی نمایندگان منتخب مردم، از هر قومیتی و با هر گرایش سیاسی و عقیدتی تهیه شود و در یک همه‌پرسی آزاد به تأیید ملت برسد.

در این جهت اینجانب به عنوان یکی از آحاد ملت ایران با استناد به حق مستمر و غیرقابل‌سلب انسان‌ها برای تعیین سرنوشت خود پیشنهاد زیر را به پیشگاه مردم ارائه و با تمامی نیروها و شخصیت‌های آزادی‌خواه، مدافع استقلال و یکپارچگی سرزمینی، خشونت‌پرهیز و توسعه‌گرا در میان می‌گذارم:

اول- برگزاری همه‌پرسی آزاد و سالم در مورد ضرورت تغییر یا تدوین قانون اساسی جدید.

دوم- در صورت پاسخ مثبت مردم، تشکیل مجلس مؤسسان مرکب از نمایندگان واقعی ملت از طریق انتخاباتی آزاد و منصفانه.

سوم - همه‌پرسی درباره متن مصوب آن مجلس به منظور استقرار نظامی مبتنی بر حاکمیت قانون و مطابق باموازین حقوق انسانی و برخاسته از اراده مردم.

این پیشنهاد با ابهاماتی همراه است. کمترینش آنکه چه کسی قرار است آن را بپذیرد یا به اجرا بگذارد. از آن بالاتر چه باید کرد تا چهل سال بعد از نو به همین نقطه باز نگردیم و از سوی آیندگان سرزنش نشویم. از آن مبرم‌تر، چگونه به توانایی‌مان برای عبور از این مرحله ایمان بیاوریم. مثلاً نگاه کنیم که نفس طرح یک سامان نو چگونه بنای قدرت خودکامه را به لرزه در می‌آورد و او را به واکنش وا خواهد داشت. زیرا مأوای اقتدار مردم‌اند. اقتدار در سلاح و سرکوب نیست، بلکه در همراهی ملت است، همان ملتی که اگر نگاهش متوجه و علاقمند به نظمی جدید باشد ساختار پیشین، بخواهد یا نخواهد فرو می‌ریزد.

رفع این ابهامات نیاز به تأمل و همکاری دارد؛ برای نجات ایران، آن مادری که از او طفلی به نام شادی گم شده است، با چشم‌های روشن براق، با گیسویی بلند به بالای آرزو. هر کس از او نشانی دارد ما را کند خبر. این هم نشان ما:

یک سو خلیج فارس، سوی دگر خزر."

--

------------

Continuation of reflection on the democratic revolution in Iran.

I don΄t want to insult the national dignity of the Pakistani people, but I will talk about the danger of the "Pakistanization" of Iran.

The danger of a post-theocratic Bonapartist diversion of the impending democratic revolution is strong.

The "soft" scenarios of Bonapartism promoted by circles from the "reformers" of theocrats in indirect or direct consultation with the semi-liberal circles around the would-be "postmodern" Shah, are likely to be extinguished in the fire of extreme international political challenges that will bring the issue of a semi-secular coup of the Iranian army in the foreground, so that the almost Khomeinian hybrid institutional fantasies of these "soft" Bonapartist circles turn out to be the prelude to a controlled authoritarian semi-democracy along the lines of Pakistan.

A possible "Pakistanization" of Iran's state institutions will perhaps be done with a secular content, through a compromise with the priesthood, but the strategic result of the implementation of such a scenario will not herald a stable democratic future for Iran, despite whatever initial advances will occur after the fall of the theocratic monstrosity.

--

The dark genius of the reactionary Imam created a prototypical institutionally hybrid Islamofascist regime that not only expresses the inherent authoritarianism of the Iranian bourgeoisie, but has now bound/imprisoned the institutional imagination of bourgeois circles (around the would-be Shah, or "further" from him) in the dark cell of a (not necessarily exclusively theocratic) institutional hybrid fascism.

--

In an exclusively and restrictively bourgeois context of the outcome of the democratic revolution in Iran, only the complete domination of a "body" of freely elected representatives (sovereign national assembly, sovereign parliament) makes sense as the focus of a new, bourgeois-democratic Iran.

What the monarchists and pro-Western personalities, together with the "reformers" "mild" murderous theocrats, say about an indefinite Bonapartist referendum, offends our democratic conscience as democratic citizens of the world.

Some should be ashamed.

As a solidary Greek citizen who cares about my friends Iranians and Kurds for many decades, based on the above I declare the following:

I'm not even a "normal" leftist, I define myself in the left wing of social democracy (not the populist leftist social democracy like the German left party, or Syriza-Varoufakis), BUT regarding Iran I support despite my strategic disagreements completely and wholeheartedly the Iranian "extreme" anti-capitalist left.

Only the Iranian left can bring even the narrowest (bourgeois) democracy to Iran.

If other political forces emerge in Iran, closer to real democracy, we will see.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

 

Political notes on the Iranian democratic revolution and Turkey.

Political note on the Iranian democratic revolution (1).

 

Watching carefully the bourgeois meeting that had as its symbolic center the would-be royal frog, "prince" of Iran, I began to understand a little better the difficult political chess that is played within the Iranian people.

This chess actually has three relatively distinct players.

The Iranian left, the theocratic regime, and the monarchists. For the sake of narrative convenience, I am removing other, perhaps equally important political factors.

In the first revolution all the non-pro-Shah were against the monarchy, but there was ruthless competition between them as well.

In this second revolution which is just beginning, all the non-theocrats are against the theocrats, but there is also ruthless competition between them.

It's not that simple, I'm simplifying it, maybe the leftists simplify it a little more than they should, forming in their minds (according to their ideological habit) a deeper dipole in which one pole is themselves, while the other pole is a twoheaded/right-wing capitalist monster, one head of which is the theocrats and the other head is the monarchists.

I tend to like the leftist interpretation of the game more, but my humble little knowledge of political theory (that's what I studied anyway), it prompts me to point out that the leftist interpretation fails somewhere.

It is a moralistic, sometimes useful, interpretation which underestimates the deep division within the Iranian bourgeoisie, a division that exists not only to "stop" the leftist and truly democratic movement in Iran.

I agree that this intra-bourgeois division is a "reactionary division" that probably leads to the total entrapment of the popular masses of Iran, if it is not revealed as a reactionary and largely apparent-shallow division, but on the other hand I disagree with the Iranian left as to its practical and critical significance for Iranian society itself in terms of Iran's international and politico-cultural orientation in the future.

The question of ''imperialist West or imperialist new east'' is not and at the same time it is a very important practical strategic question posed to Iranian society, which the left cannot overcome with a general and metaphysically structured ''transcendence'' of, of the ''neither-nor'' type.

In any case, even if the left puts the question like this, as ''neither-nor'', the fact that the bourgeois elite puts it as a whole and also in effect as an ''either-or'' creates the game as super-super-complicated.

The leftist leaders, the leftist intellectuals of Iran, must start thinking in terms of chess and not just "binary".

Like it them or not, they too play a game of chess with three players, triple tri-pole chess.

Political note on the Iranian democratic revolution (2).

Even we non-experts in modern Iranian history know that the overthrow of the monarchy was decisively related to the hard and uncompromising strike of the workers of the Iranian oil industry.

Why today, while a important libertarian and democratic movement is developing in Iran, the Iranian industrial working class has not shown the necessary strong positive response to this movement?

Possible explanations:

1. There is control and suppression.

2. The movement is bourgeois-democratic and does not deeply move the industrial proletariat.

3. There is no proper socialist leadership of the industrial working class.

4. The importance of the industrial working class has been overestimated in relation to the modern democratic or even socialist revolution.

5. As has been shown by other historical examples from advanced capitalist societies, an industrial working class can become alienatingly intertwined with "its" chauvinistic nation-state.

----

Democracy is sometimes a cold-blooded moral-political system of thought.

For the democratic way of thinking, there are no general and vague political ''victims'', but only politically responsible citizens.

Democracy (of any form) transfers responsibility to the people, and it does well.

Whoever does not like it should look for a state form that transfers the responsibility to the ''unbelievers'', or to the (non-existent) ''God'' himself.

Political Islam in Turkey has relied on migrant smuggling, support for jihadists, also on a corrupt system of constructors and public works mega-contractors, and now Turkey's Islamist government is launching prosecutions against some constructors to wash away its sins for the deplorable state of construction in Turkey, wich caused the collapse of buildings that collapsed due to the great earthquake.

Is the end of Erdogan coming?

I don't know.

If the Turkish people do not wake up, there will be no end to Erdogan. But if this end comes, who will follow?

The Kemalists and Aksener?

There is no hope in Turkey, except...the Kurds.

The people who freely elect their leadership have the leadership they deserve.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

What is really important, however, is the critical non-religious return to Marx's work and the critical positive and cool reconstruction of it.

All Marxist thematization of democratic revolutions after the Leninist Paradigm has been created in relation to the transition from a pre-capitalist to a capitalist society and in relation to the development of capitalism in (once) dependent non-Western countries under the rule of Western capitalism-imperialism.

But Marx himself examined in a contradictory, sometimes sectarian ideological way, often with a supergenius open-mindedness way (this "combination" was Marx) the democratic revolutions within a dominant and already developed (for his time, but also with general criteria) capitalism.

I think the time has come to leave Lenin, his theories of democratic revolution and "imperialism" are snare, for to the radical thinking of the working class and wage-earning semi-proletarian and petty-bourgeois social strata, despite the evidence of truth they contain.

Critical return to Marx, repudiation of Lenin, this is the way.

But let me clarify some things here:

There has been criticism of Leninism from the left and from anarchism (and neo-anarchism), emerging many times the distinction between Marx and Lenin, as we mentioned above.

We mention for example Pannekoek, Gorter, i.e. the left anti-Leninist communism that developed in central Europe and was treated in the well-known vulgar libel and misinterpretation way by this aggressive lawyer, I mean Lenin, in his unacceptable slanderous distorting pamphlet "Leftism, the childhood illness of communism''.

Our detachment from Lenin and the desired return to the Marxist Paradigm as it can be understood in complete distinction from the Leninist Paradigm, is not based on this way chosen by the "left communists", since according to our own opinion this way, which -in fact- heralds the late ultra-left and hybrid anarcho-Marxism (workers' autonomy, etc.), is indeed possessed by a dogmatism, sectarianism and not rational criticism of both Lenin and Marx himself.

Of course, Lenin's slanderous and misleading criticism of the "left communists" refers to these negative elements, but in a way that we don't want to have anything to do with the way we choose.

At the very least, we need to see what these people were really saying, beyond the vulgar insults and slanders of Lenin and his descendants against them.

What is really important, however, is the critical non-religious return to Marx's work and the critical positive and cool reconstruction of it, also in the points we mentioned.

--

Leninism (Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.) is a metaphysical and underdeveloped distortion of the Marxist dialectic, for which Marx himself was partly but not entirely responsible (if we look at things with a reasonable, moderate retrospect).

The Marxist work has no essential relationship with the Leninist tradition which in fact and also ideologically-theoretically is nothing more than the construction of a state-capitalist or state-exploitative society in the context of the emergence of non-western statism and capitalism.

--

The irony of history. Marxism was that theoretical and ideological current which, through its founder Karl Marx, highlighted the term and profound political phenomenon of capitalist modernity wich called ''Bonapartism'', but it itself was proved (through simplifications, exaggerations and conversions by its main representatives) to as one of the more suitable "political and ideological backgrounds" (not the only one) for the development of this phenomenon.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

For the Iranian royal frog and his (on the surface) pro-Western company.

Do not worry, comrades, I am close to the ideological center (or centrism?), a friend of mine calls me centrist-extreme leftist, and I can assure you that this bourgeois meeting is not pregnant with anything powerful.

It is a defensive and temporary "postmodern" group.

--

 

A revolution, in Iran, which may have - as we used to say - mainly a "bourgeois-democratic" content, may be on the shoulders of the left to take place.

A center, a real democratic or social democratic center does not seem to be emerging, yet, and the bourgeois summit presented a rather pathetic and incoherent picture, this thing is not bourgeois leadership that carries weight.

A postmodern would-be Shah trying not to become a monarchist elephant but he seems rather like a stillborn carp who will never become a frog*, although he has the qualifications to be a frog, a football player, a former pro-regime, good speaker, but with contacts in suspicious American far-right circles, a more centrist with heterodox religious views, but he is Islamic secularist (!), and a Kurdish leader with an unknown amount of influence in Kurdistan itself within Iran, who receives the fire of hatred from all other (or most) Kurdish nationalist and leftist trends within Kurdistan.

The ring of new power is lost from the fingers of these people, already.

[*Royal Frog: Symbolic, constitutional king in a bourgeois parliamentary democracy..]

--

 

Since my leftist Kurdish and Iranian friends may have been disturbed by my "pro-Western" positions and I want to give them pleasure, I promise that I will give them (one of the next days) a brief, hopefully entertaining, illustration of the would-be but never-will-be Royal Frog*.

[*Royal Frog: Symbolic, constitutional king in a bourgeois parliamentary democracy..]

--

 

Khomeini:

مهمترین چیزی که مغز جوانها را خراب می کند و به فساد و هرزگی می کشاند ، موسیقی است. موسیقی خیانت به مملکت است !!!

«The most important thing that corrupts the brains of the young and leads them to corruption and debauchery is music. Music is treason to the country!!!»

I will now tell you a curse about Khomeini.

Yes, you dark Imam, you got it right, music is revolution, music and the hammer of the worker, the in loving youth of Iran, the love of life, will bury you and wipe out religious fascism from Iran and the planet.

The time has come, dark Imam, to enter your grave forever.

--

 

I've been saying this for years, for the last two years I've been shouting it to as many Greek comrades and fellow citizens as I could (becoming weird and strange to their ears with my obsession):

Τhe center of the global revolutionary volcano is Iran combined with Kurdistan.

I have repeatedly analyzed why I am convinced of this.

The truly democratic forces and the left of Iran are tasked with a huge historical task to politically represent this huge lava wave that comes mainly from the Iranian and Kurdish youth and the Iranian working class, but also from the deeper Iranian and also the separate but equally important Kurdish culture.

 --

 

If I understood correctly, the bourgeois meeting laid the foundations for a supposedly smooth succession of the theocratic regime by a "liberal" pro-Western political system.

1st failure of the would-be new bourgeois leaders of the new Iran:

They did not make it clear that they wanted a normal bourgeois parliamentary democracy to replace the theocratic regime, someone only talked about perhaps a referendum that would determine the form of the state.

The way this framework has been put is completely unacceptable even from an exclusively bourgeois democratic point of view.

This is a wretched sophistical oligarchical authoritarian and subversive framing of the issue, since a real democratic referendum has always as its first position that it will not bring about an undemocratic (monarchical) state.

There is no constitutional democratic referendum which could pose as a possible alternative the birth of a non-democracy.

Even Khomeini did not dare to violate this principle quite openly, and he even created a hybrid system of representation under the total control of the supreme clergy and the "supreme leader", but which provided a faint presence of a representation, while the pro-West ''democrats'' around the would-be royal frog, they don't even clarify whether there will be a representative body, they only talk about a referendum, without even guaranteeing that there won't be absolute personal power of a ruler with even a coating of a representation.

It sounds like a prologue to a secular but fascist one-man dictatorship.

If the meeting of oligarchs wanted to talk about the more special form of bourgeois parliamentary democracy in relation to a symbolic, and with constitutionally limited powers, power of a king (as they are in some "reigning bourgeois parliamentary democracies" in Europe, e.g. Britain), then they would be more honest, even if they didn't really mean it.

On the contrary, they left open the possibility of a constitutional monarchy, in which it is not even clarified what the powers of the Monarch would be, but it is certainly not clarified whether the main body of power would be the national assembly, the parliament.

This is a contingency that raises the possibility that in the future there will be a hybrid Bonapartist semi-secular pro-Western regime, in which various "repentant" murderers from the theocratic regime will have been integrated, but who will not simply be "integrated" ''repentant'' and controlled, but they will continue to exist as long as a kind of paramilitary parastatal authoritarian machinery is maintained as they are now in the theocratic regime.

It seems to me that in the rigged discussion of the oligarchs and featured celebrities, the supposedly strict (pseudo-democratic) duty to not have a split of the "democratic forces" now, stemming from a premature discussion about the type of government, was placed not clearly because the goal is clear, no to a real bourgeois democracy.

I said it at the beginning, but let's look at this again in more detail:

Who will frame the question of this potential referendum?

What will be the alternatives that will be proposed through the referendum?

Nothing was said about it.

This unsaid means and stinks of a Bonapartist perversion of the democratic revolution, even in its narrowest bourgeois-democratic possible context.

The supposedly pro-Western Iranian oligarchs pretend they don't know, but they do know, they are not stupid, that a democratic revolution is radical institutional-constitutional praxis and not simply a revision of an existing state regime.

As candidate constitutional legislators, they are further behind in terms of the clarity of their goals than even the theocrats of Khomeini, while they do not even make it clear that there will be a strong directly representative "body" of elected representatives.

They only talk about a possible "referendum", and say nothing else, not because they don't want to break the unity of the bourgeois democratic forces, but because they want from now on to play with all the Bonapartist diversionary scenarios, using the fictitious garb of "critical transitional period" and even worse using the guise of the "free will" of the Iranian people as predetermine in a fake referendum.

Deviants from Democracy from the start, that is.

This thing is not a democratic opposition even in bourgeois democratic terms.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος