Αυτοκαθορισμός

Σάββατο 18 Φεβρουαρίου 2023

On this point, to the leader of the Hekmatists..

A general idea or ideology that extends its claim to political power throughout the human world must contain intrinsically a controlling conceptual-ideological self-limitation, which would correspond as a political act to a corresponding material self-limitation expressed in a free-for-all demokratic institution.

I see no such thing in the "communists" of the only-and-only generalized workers' councils or soviets.
The generality and abstract generic power of the worker's communist idea without a (conceptual and material) democratic-institutional self-limitative counterbalance, can very easily turn into another version of class exploitative tyranny.

On this point, to the leader of the Hekmatists: the patriotism of the Ukrainians, who are facing a conquering force that aims at the appropriation of their country's resources but also at the assimilative disappearance of the Ukrainian nation, is, as patriotism, an exclusively "bourgeois-capitalist" affair of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie?

I don't expect a straight answer, something like "yes, that's it".

Surely this leader would also condemn the Russian invasion, but not forgetting to remind that "in the final analysis" capitalism is generally to blame (or more generally the system of exploitation, etc.), that is, in simple moralistic language, everyone is equally to blame, meaning "all nationalisms" (they are to blame for the same).

Correctly. I don't have much to add to this supreme almost transcendental truth, I am left speechless again, especially when I realize once again that when you have with you a right of such general force of judgment, no one can catch you from anywhere, simply because even without invoking of "patriotism" (you flatten it like a marxist paver) you still have the possibility, if you want, on the basis of a non-racist workers' state run by your internationalist party, to prevent the Kurds, again for one reason for good, from seceding from "socialist Iran". It's simple, it doesn't take much ''patriotic'' effort, you will accuse them of..nationalism. Marxism is a very powerful religion..indeed.

اسخ به سئوال دوست عزیزی از ایران بنام مهران در مورد وطن

مهران: با پیشرفت جوامع بشری ناسیونالیسم و ارزشهای قومی و قبیله ای حتا مرزهای ژیوپالیتیک بی رنگ و کم اهمیت میشوند .ولی متاسفانه در تبلیغات بورژوازی ، کمونیست ها افرادی خائن ،وطن فروش معرفی میشوند که چاقو برداشته و می خواهند کشور را تجزیه و تیکه پاره کنند آنها دلسوز خانه بزرگ ما ایران نیستند، ناسیونالیسم را لگد میزنند ولی برای استقلال و یک پارچگی کردستان خودکشی می کنند ، فرهنگ و سنت های مردم را به نیشخند میگیرند ..ارزشی برای فرد و یک کارگر زحمتکش قائل نیستند ، بیشتر به حرکتهای توده ای یا حرکت گله ای مردم توجه دارند . در ایدیولوژی ایشان ارزشهای اخلاقی ، محبت ، مهرورزی ، لطافت و ظرافت کمرنگ است

بیشتر خردگرا ، خشک و ماشینی هستند ...

این گفتار بالا را پاسخ بفرمایید. هنگامیکه در سرود ای ایران ، خواننده می خواند : مهر تو از دل برون کنم... پس رفقای گرامی برای کدام سرزمین و خانه انگیزه خدمت دارند؟

حمید تقوائی: انگیزه ما خدمت به مردم است و نه آب و خاکی که وطن نامیده میشود. مهر مردم با مهر وطن نه تنها هم ارز نیست بلکه این دو نقطه مقابل هم هستند.

بورژوازی همیشه و در همه جای دنیا منافع خاکی و مادی اش را پشت مقولاتی نظیر قدوسیت وطن و کشور و تمامیت ارضی و آب و خاک پرستی پنهان کرده است و حمله اش به کمونیستها نیز دقیقا به این علت است که این منافع زمینی و مادی یعنی استثمار کارگران وطن و تصاحب و غارت منابع و معادن وطن و سلطه بلامنازع اش بر بازار وطنی کار و کالا، را از "خطر سوسیالیسم" مصون بدارد. این وطن پرستی بورژوائی هیچ ربطی به انس و علاقه توده مردم به محل زندگی و جامعه خود ندارد. منشا آن سودآوری است و نه احترام به فرهنگ و علایق و ارزشهای انسانی "هموطنان". همه جنگها و لشکرکشیها و نسلکشیها در تاریخ معاصر - از دو جنگ جهانی گرفته تا جنگهای محلی و منطقه ای - همیشه با پرچم وطن پرستی و دفاع از میهن در برابر بیگانگان توجیه شده است. جنگهائی که برای حفظ و بسط منافع اقتصادی بورژوازی حاکم در این کشورها برپا میشوند و از خون "هموطنان" مایه میگذارند. کاربرد ناسیونالیسم در زمان صلح هم دامن زدن به تعصبات ملی برای پرده پوشی تبعیضات و نابرابریهای طبقاتی در جامعه و جا زدن منافع طبقه سرمایه دار بجای منافع همه "هموطنان" است و بس. به این دلایل است که وطن پرستی در نقطه مقابل انساندوستی قرار میگیرد.

شما همین امروز در تبلیغات نیروهای راست، اعم از سلطنت طلبان و جمهوریخواهان و ملی اسلامیون حرف مشخصی در دفاع از مردم پیدا نمیکنید. در مورد حقوق بشر کلی بافی میکنند اما تا دلتان بخواهد در قدوسیت و اهمیت تمامیت ارضی و پرچم و آب و خاک، در ادعای مالکیت ابدی ازلی بر "سه جزیره" ، در دفاع اتشین از "خلیج همیشه فارس" و در خط و نشان کشیدن برای هر نیروی سیاسی که این نوع مقدسات را برسمیت نشناسد سنگ تمام میگذارند. هموطن هم به دو نوع تقسیم میشود: فارس ها که نسلشان به "نژاد پاک آریائی" و کورش و داریوش و امشاسپندان میرسد و غیر فارسها که اگر با موقعیت خود بعنوان شهروندان درجه دو بسازند "مرزبانان غیور" ایران هستند اما اگر این موقعیت را نپذیرند و برای رفع ستم ملی بپا بخیزند به سرعت به حضیض "تجزیه طلب" و "وطن فروش" و "خائن به وطن" سقوط میکنند! افغانیها و دیگر مهاجرین ساکن ایران هم که اصلا بحساب نمی آیند! این معنی واقعی وطن پرستی است.

معیارها و ارزشهای ما کمونیستها از جنس دیگری است. اساس سیاست و دکترین ما انسان و انسانیت است، آزادی و برابری و رفاه انسان است، و نه نژاد و وطن و ملیت و آب و خاک. نیروهای راست نه تنها دفاع از انسانها را به دفاع از هموطنان تقلیل میدهند، یا در واقع مسخ و تحریف میکنند، بلکه منظورشان از حمایت از "هموطن" هم چیزی بجز دفاع از تمامیت ارضی و پرچم و ایرانیت و ملیت نیست. به همین دلیل است که در عرصه مبارزه علیه اعدام، در دفاع از حقوق کودک، در دفاع از حقوق پناهندگان، در مبارزه علیه حجاب و آپارتاید جنسی و کلا بی حقوقی و ستم فاحشی که بر زنان روا میشود، در مبارزه علیه ستم ملی و برخورداری همه "مرزبانان غیور" از حقوق شهروندی برابر با "ملت همیشه فارس" از جمله حق سخن گفتن و تحصیل کردن و نوشتن به زبان مادری خود، در دفاع از زندانیان سیاسی و کلا در همه عرصه های مشخص مبارزه در دفاع از حقوق و آزادی و رفاه انسانهای ساکن جغرافیای ایران مستقل از ملیت و نژاد و زبان و محل تولدشان، عرصه هائی که ما کمونیستهای کارگری همیشه در صف اول مبارزه بوده ایم، نشانی از نیروهای راست نمی بینید. ظاهرا ابراز وفاداری به "دموکراسی" و "حقوق بشر"، که اسم رمز تعلق به اردوگاه سرمایه داری غرب است، کافی است. مبارزه مشخص این دموکراسی و حقوق بشر پناهان - آنهم حقوق بشری که ظاهرا کورش کبیر سردمدارش بوده است- از شمشیرزدن در دفاع از تعلق سه جزیره به مام میهن و دفاع از "خلیج همیشه فارس" و قدوسیت تمامیت ارضی و خط و نشان کشیدن علیه تجزیه طلبان فراتر نمیرود. هر جا هم حرفی علیه اعدام - که بیانیه حقوق بشر در موردش سکوت کرده است- و یا در دفاع از سکولاریسم زده اند تحت فشار و مبارزه جنبش چپ بوده است. ازین بابت باید خوشحال بود اما حقیقت اینست که اهداف و ارزشها و معیارهای هویتی و خصلت نمای جنبش ناسیونالیستی تماما در نقطه مقابل انسانیت و خواستها و نیازهای انسانی افراد جامعه قرار میگیرد.

در بخش دوم این سئوالتان از قول نیروهای راست مینویسید که کمونیستها "ارزشی برای فرد

و یک کارگر زحمتکش قائل نیستند ، بیشتر به حرکتهای توده ای یا حرکت گله ای مردم توجه دارند .

در ایدیولوژی ایشان ارزشهای اخلاقی ، محبت ، مهرورزی ، لطافت و ظرافت کمرنگ است

بیشتر خردگرا ، خشک و ماشینی هستند ..."

امیدوارم با توضیحاتی که در رابطه با وطن پرستی و کلا ارزشها و معیارهای جنبش راست دادم معنی واقعی "ارزشهای اخلاقی و محبت و مهرورزی و لطافت" نیروهای بورژوائی هم روشن شده باشد. ظاهرا امثال پینوشه و سوهارتو و شیخهای کویت و عربستان سعودی و جرج بوش و ریگان و مارگارت تاچر و میلتون فریدمن و دکترین ریاضت کشی افتصادی و توحش بازار آزاد و همه چیز در خدمت سود خیلی مهر ورز و با محبت و لطیف و اخلاقی و غیر ماشینی است! اما کمونیستهائی که میگویند اساس اقتصاد باید نیازهای انسانها و شعار "به هر کس باندازه نیازش" باشد و نه سود و سودآوری، "ماشینی و خشک و خشن" هستند! ببیند چطور تبلیغات جنگ سردی همه چیز را وارونه جلوه داده است. باید به این تبلیغات چی های جنگ سردی گفت حتی اگر میخواهید کارنامه امثال استالین و دیگر نمایندگان سرمایه داری دولتی را بحساب کمونیستها بنویسید لطفا اول یک سوزن بخودتان بزنید و بعد یک جوالدوز به کمونیستها. حتی در مقایسه کارنامه سرمایه داری بازار آزاد با سرمایه داری دولتی نوع روسی سابقه کمپ غرب - از جنایات هیتلر و دولت اسرائیل تا قساوت خونتاهای نظامی آمریکای لاتین و تا به آتش اتمی کشیدن هیروشیما و ناکازاکی و تا تاچریسم و ریگانیسم و فریدمنیسم، تماما گوی سبقت را از رقبای کمپ روسی اش - در تمامی زمینه های مربوط به مهرورزی و لطافت و ارزشهای اخلاقی و غیره ربوده است! از این نظر آن نیروئی که تماما به بشریت بدهکار است بورژوازی و جنبش ناسیونالیستی است و نه کمونیسم کارگری و جنبش کمونیستی.

حمید تقوایی

Tell us, Oh great leader of Hekmatism!

If there is no freely elected representative body of the whole (of socialist, or capitalist damn it!) society, and not just"worker's councils", who will control the leader if he wants to condemn one or the other as a "nationalist"?

Could it be that means, that beyond the democratic or non-democratic political bodies that pronounce judgments, there is some objectively grounded transcendent entity in which the correct judgments of judgment are de facto located?

Nothing else? No.. But this thing reminds me of..something.

What is it?

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Η ριζοσπαστική σεκταριστική κριτική τής σύγχρονης δημοκρατίας.

February 18, 2022, Shortly before the beginning of the Russian fascist invasion (Facebook).

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

The Russian liars

---

Lying is closer to the fetishistic notion of ontological unity.

Lies look like other lies, one lie leads to another lie, a lie can be a false imitation of another lie.

There are a number of false reflections to live an entire life with one or more lies.

But lies also create a constant rivalry between them, one lie opposing the other and claiming a greater truth than the other, conquering an even higher position in the realm of falsehood.

But there are also lies that are not based on their false confrontation with another lie as truths but are based on a false reconciliation with an old lie without actually manifesting themselves as different lies.

The new Russia falsely presents itself as a continuation of a lie that falsely had the name of socialism, the new Russia lies that it is a form of continuation of another lie that lied that it is socialism.

Those deceived by the original lie that the Soviet Union was a socialist country even for a moment (because it was never a socialist country) are easily deceived by the lie that the new Russia of Putin's mobsters and thugs is in some sequel to the lie of the Soviet Union.

When they have been deceived by such a frightening lie that the Soviet Union had something to do with what would be real socialism, how can they not be deceived by the new lie that the new Russia has something to do with this first lie?

Lying destroys any possibility of discrimination even between different lies.

---

Anyone who is used to loving a lie has no problem loving a false imitation of it.

---

Anyone who cannot distinguish the lie from the truth can also not distinguish a lie from a false imitation of this lie.

Greece 2022.
The pro-Westerners are miserable supporters of the EU and the US and the anti-Westerners are pro-Russian former Stalinist or Orthodox Christians (theocratic worms), who also like the theocratic regime in Tehran.
The revolutionary left / anarchy has a position of neutral observer of geopolitical data, but tends to follow indirectly the narrative of anti-Western reactionaries.
No way out.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

When the Leninists use the term ''directly elected and revocable'' for the people's representative..

When the Leninists use the term ''directly elected and revocable'' for the people's representative, they hide from us (through an ideological bureaucratic silence) the scandal they promoted and promote, that, this direct electability-and-revocability, in their so-called ''worker's'' institutional vision, do not extend to all central legislative and governmental institutions, especially to the from them beloved so-called "party of the working class", which in the monstrous political system that they promote as so-called "workers' power" acquires brutal and total authoritarian legislative and governmental power.
This Thing has never brought and will never bring workers' and people's democratic power.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Οι τρεις ρωσόδουλοι σταλινικοί ξεφτίλες.

Μπογιόπουλε, Λαφαζάνη και Σάββα Μιχαήλ, είστε τρεις ρωσόδουλοι σταλινικοί ξεφτίλες.

Πίσω σας ακολουθεί μια στάνη από ρωσόδουλα πρόβατα τής ελληνικής ξεφτιλοαριστεράς.

https://www.ellinikahoaxes.gr/.../10-brygada-edelweiss.../

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

A critical point for the democratic revolution in Iran.

Neither the bourgeois forces that "support" the would-be Shah, nor the left-wing forces, put forward a demand for the formation of a constituent assembly, which will be made up of freely elected representatives of the people.

We understood the Bonapartist "nature" of the anti-theocratic but ultra-conservative Iranian bourgeoisie, but we also see that even the Iranian left does not make such a democratic revolutionary demand.

The Iranian left is locked in "Soviet-Leninism", in various harder or softer versions of it, so it does not want anything resembling "parliamentary democracy".

Given that even the global (revolutionary) left has not yet been able to solve the riddle of the positive-modern form of the central representative institution that will be corresponding as a "socialist democracy" to a socialist classless society, and also given that the Iranian (revolutionary) left expresses an obsession with the old outdated, and essentially Bonapartist, sovietic model, in relation to this critical issue, bad developments are perpetuated for this revolution.

A right-wing monarchist or militarist version of the revolution's post-revolutionary institutional developments is most likely to prevail, unless strong pro-Western but anti-royalist centrist democratic forces emerge.

However, in any case, the dogmatism of the Iranian left leads the democratic movement in Iran to an absolute dead end, since only through the Iranian left could perhaps be ensured a real democratic transition in Iran, and as it seems, beyond radical democratic imaginations, the Iranian left is not interested in such a comprehensive parliamentary transition.

These people live in another era.

The historical creation from the point of view of the people, of the working class, of a central representative "body" of freely elected representatives, which will positively replace (determined negation) the leading democratic institution of the bourgeois democracy which is the parliament, has not been still exist as a creation.

What has been its socialist replacement until now, through workers' and people's councils, has failed completely.

Workers'-people's councils cannot "alone" meet the task of the democratic functioning of a society in its entirety through a central legislative and governmental institution.

The highest expression of bourgeois democracy at this central level, the national assembly and the parliament, has not found a suitable and stronger "antagonist" and replacement on the part of the anti-capitalist left forces.

I emphatically emphasize here, that the problem of the central institution of sovereignty is not a "part" of the "superstructure" as the "Marxists" claim, but a determining element of the total production relations themselves, therefore the non-solving it no will lead to an authoritarian socialism of the working class, which then in a more mature phase will establish a more open workers' democracy, as perhaps the "Marxists" imagine it in their "realist" imagination, but ( as non-resolution) it will again lead to an exploitative class system.

Therefore, the left, especially the Iranian left, if it is NOT planning a form of Marxist dictatorship and wants to respond to the contemporary facts and understand the limits that still exist in terms of the strategic political alternative that the left does NOT offer, globally, yet, MUST become the preacher and ardent supporter of the (already existing, in West) parliamentary model of central government of a country, especially when we are talking about a phase where, as in Iran now, the type of political power is at stake in the immediate future.

If in a country under a regime of fascist rule (or hybrid semi-fascist rule) there are no political forces that openly support the formation of a national assembly (and then a parliament) of freely elected representatives of the people, in the end, after the fall of the existing dictator regime, a dictatorship or an authoritarian semi-democracy of the Bonapartist type will emerge again.

To the Iranian comrades:

Given the historical limits and impasses of the left worldwide, on the basis of the strategic ineptitude of creating a truly democratic central institution for the management of the social totality, which would positively replace (''with'' positive-determinative negation, Hegel my baby) the model of bourgeois parliamentary democracy (I have analyzed this, extensively).

If you don't turn your ideological-political rudder a little "right", demanding a democratically elected (through free elections) government and also a constituent assembly, then the rudder of your beloved country will go even more "right".

The more leftist line in the Iranian movement leads to a more rightist post-revolutionary Iran.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Historical asynchronicities, which lead to a historical synchronicity.

Lenin believed that state capitalism could be led by a strong workers' power, which of course he defined it in a horrible hierarchical party-statist way, but in the end state capitalism swallowed Lenin[-ism] (as an ideology and as a political practice) into its abyss, turning itself (as state capitalism) into something even more abysmal, into a statist totalitarian system of exploitation which could hardly even be called "state capitalism".

---

Since I find from publications of leftist Iranian friends that there is a great battle going on in the circles of the Iranian leftist movement for the "purer revolutionary line" and the discovery of the secret mercenaries, the Shah and the western imperialists or theocrats, I want to reassure them by saying that I, as both a right-wing and left-wing opportunist, a centrist, a Kautskyist, and of course a Mossad agent, have not received any messages of concern to you, regarding the dangers you fear.

On the contrary, the superior in the service where I work, as a mercenary of course of all the dark forces together, told me that everything is going well, according to the planning of the service.

---

Real "centrism" is the "holy grail" of Marxists. I see them from my somewhat distant prism as eternally seeking to find the dialectical balance of all the contradictory forces that they consider pulling at them as demonic forces, one here and one there, a right-wing opportunism and a left-wing opportunism, Western imperialism and Eastern imperialism, a bunch of attractions between "demonic poles" of the "satanic bourgeois ideology" and they in the middle squinting at each other, hurling at each other various critical categorizations, related to the above and countless others "demonic dipoles".

Due to age now, I have left myself to the passions of bourgeois ideology, I am tired now, and I say to accept all the demonic proposals, anyway I am not going to be accepted into the Marxist paradise, so comrades, I propose something.

Calm down a little, drink some wine, and fear no the demons more than suspicion.

The "Westphalian" foundation of the modern state has been reproduced in many of reverse each other mirror images..

I hear, for example, many "class arguments" that I could imagine, somewhat fictionally, to be extensions of the "Westphalian" foundation.

An idealized internal territory of an (ideological) sovereignty, a fear of the possible violation of this territory by "foreign" to it other (ideological) territories, a "law" of non-intervention of a of (ideological) sovereign territory in the "interior" of the other, in short a model of desired absolute purity.

In ours:

Someday the critique of the pure revolutionary Reason must be written.

You don't call it an insinuation, towards the Hekmatists, it is a normal attack, that they put the non-existent (according to the Hekmatists) national bourgeoisie through the back door or the window.

Is a democratic revolution possible without a progressive national bourgeoisie?

Of course not.

The question is who has the hegemony in the course of the revolution.

The Leninists, of course, the most "hard" among them, imagine this hegemony in their own tested way, which we have seen and learned its results, not for the possibly existing progressive bourgeoisie, but for society.

Needless to say, when I see Iranians Leninists puritans to they pour so much venom over a progressive program put forth by the Iranian left, I feel that something good is happening within that left. Iran's new left will not make it to the end, easily. Lurking are the Leninist guardians of revolutionary purity.

So, perhaps through this sectarian hold-up, who is most likely to take the hegemony?

The progressive national bourgeoisie of course!

بلاخره معلوم نشد این «بورژوازی ملی و مترقی» افسانه بود و باید به تاریخ می‌پیوست و یا در بزنگاه خیزش‌های انقلابی از طریق یک «منشور مطالبات حداقلی» از پنجره نقبی به داخل می‌زند!

----

The modern Leninist guardians of revolutionary purity are not the only ones, but they are the oldest and the most tested.

They turn you from in love with revolution to married to pure revolutionary workers' power in a minute.

Well, good marriages, comrades, we'll never get married, although as opportunists we have good marriage proposals.

---

The nicest thing about "Marxists" is when they transform their "structural analyses" into insults and threats.

I like this situation, where ''dialectical analysis'' turns into a verbal attack you hear on docks or in religious-style wars, something between ''You infidel'' and ''fuck you class traitor'', sprinkled with hints about your supposed "petty-bourgeois" class origin, and if it gets too hot, then accusations are made for you that you are a mercenary agent, etc.

Perhaps some think that the class struggle fluctuates in its "temperatures", so they wait for the hot, oh my baby.

I, on the other hand, think that especially the class struggle is a very cold situation, always below the zero degree Celsius, I'm cold baby, throw some ideological wood in the fireplace.

The ring of power cannot fit into a Leninist finger anymore. No matter how much the Leninists want to their opportunity, it is lost very deep in the glacier of historical oblivion, and no Arthur is going to appear to extract it from there. Young people around the world, when they rise up, hardly fit into stable forms of revolutionary vanguards, even if they are "victims" of some radical instrumentalization.

The revolutionary party or "revolutionary vanguard" as a thin veneer of a mass movement, without many "teaching responsibilities", is the only one that can exist, although this too is doubtful.

As I have said elsewhere any mass progressive movement of late mondernity contains a -sometimes unconscious- "anarchism". We are talking in simplification.

As long as there is no alternative modern-positive solution (certainly not Soviet-Leninist) for who will be the central representative sovereign institution of an in-seed or more mature classless society, in place of the bourgeois parliament, the political position of this alternative proposal will necessarily be occupied by a left-wing party of Syriza type (unfortunately for us here) or SPD or whatever else moves within the constitutional framework of a typical (''western type'') parliamentary bourgeois democracy.

The Soviet-Leninist fantasies of re-establishing a supposedly more purely "working-class" founded "general assembly" of workers' councils (soviets) are reheated stale Soviet food.

The "anarchist" base of modern movements can tolerate a bourgeois left, but it cannot under any circumstances tolerate a Soviet-Leninist Thing over its head, and this historical fact within the progressive (and labor) movements is not "right deviation" nor opportunism, I will not joke again, it is simply the depiction of the strategic political problem of the social left, which, however, within the limits created by this problem, is wiser than the Leninist fantasists.

---

Historical asynchronicities, which lead to a historical synchronicity.

When Eastern Europe was enslaved by the iron hand of Soviet state "socialism" (an exploitative system, which approached Nazi fascism, as the state capitalist/state "socialist" counterpart of state-centered Nazi capitalism itself), in the non-Western capitalist world the working classes and the petty-bourgeois/rural-or-urban social strata they were attracted by this hybrid statism, to enter, supposedly on their own class terms, the modern world.

The beneficiaries were the emerging "regional" bureaucracies and the national/nationalist bourgeoisies of these (non-Western) regions.

If you spoke then, "there", against the "holy Soviet revolution", and that it was worse for the peoples of the region themselves (also for all peoples), at all levels of social fact, than the dominant in these countries (just before, or still) western imperialism/capitalism, they would hear you as a class enemy or a class/national "traitor", or at best they would consider you crazy.

The horrible experiences of the peoples of the Soviet empire, and later of the peoples of Eastern Europe, sounded to these ears like vulgar propaganda lies of the West.

There was therefore an asynchrony of direct social and historical experiences between the peoples of Europe and the Latin American and non-Western peoples.

Today, slowly but surely, a synchronicity of the social historical experiences of the peoples is occurring, which does not, however, justify the experiences of the non-Western peoples as experiences that more correctly present the capitalist and modern state phenomenon, nor does (this synchronicity) mean a kind of balancing common negative "charge" of all capitalisms-imperialisms.

What seems, somewhat in hindsight, to vindicate Hegel and his "Westernism" is that the hybrid semi-Western state capitalism of the Nazis and the Soviets, as a model and as a specific capitalist form, which creatively determined the development of capitalist relations of production in the emerging capitalist-imperialist non-Western world, was, is, and will be always worse for all peoples, but especially a disastrous for non-Western peoples.

---

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Πέμπτη 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2023

The would-be Shah.

The would-be Shah, for whom the semi-liberal opposition has not clarified its position on what role it is preparing him for, presents itself as the guarantor of the continuity of the state.

At the boisterous bourgeois meeting in Georgetown, it was said by one participant (a woman, I believe) that it is a betrayal of the blood of the murdered Iranians to predetermine the type of state in the post-theocratic phase, but no one at that meeting deprived the would-be Shah of the role of guarantor of Iran's state continuity at this stage, a role he touts as his special future role.

Therefore;

Was the would-be Shah presented as an institutional guarantor of a future parliamentary democracy, in the symbolic role that kings have in Western democracies that maintain remnants of the institution of kingship?

No. Neither the would-be Shah nor those who accepted him in their oligarchic meeting as an equal member, did not clarify whether this is their goal.

So we have every right to assume that an authoritarian Bonapartist scenario is being prepared, in which the role of the monarch as an institution will not be symbolic or guarantor but decisive, in the sense that he will have powers that no king in any western democracy has.

Ο επίδοξος Σάχης, για τον οποίο η ημιφιλελεύθερη αντιπολίτευση δεν έχει ξεκαθαρίσει την θέση της για τον ποιο ρόλο τον ετοιμάζει, αυτοπροβάλλεται ως εγγυητής τής συνέχειας τού κράτους.

Στην θορυβώδη μπουρζουάδικη συνάντηση στο Georgetown, ειπώθηκε από έναν συμμετέχοντα (γυναίκα ήτανε θαρρώ) ότι είναι προδοσία τού αίματος των δολοφονημένων Ιρανών να προκαθοριστεί το είδος τού πολιτεύματος στην μεταθεοκρατική φάση, αλλά κανείς σε αυτή την συνάντηση δεν στέρησε από τον επίδοξο Σάχη τον ρόλο του εγγυητή τής κρατικής συνέχειας τού Ιράν σε αυτή τη φάση, έναν ρόλο που ο ίδιος διαφημίζει ως τον ειδικό μελλοντικό ρόλο του.

Άρα;

Παρουσιάστηκε άραγε ο επίδοξος Σάχης ως ένας θεσμικός εγγυητής μιας μελλοντικής κοινοβουλευτικής δημοκρατίας, στον συμβολικό ρόλο που έχουν οι βασιλείς στις δυτικές δημοκρατίες που διατηρούν απομεινάρια τού θεσμού τής βασιλείας;

Όχι. Ούτε ο επίδοξος Σάχης ούτε αυτοί που τον δέχτηκαν στην ολιγαρχική συνάντηση τους ως ισότιμο μέλος, δεν ξεκαθάρισαν αν αυτός είναι ο στόχος τους.

Έχουμε λοιπόν κάθε δικαίωμα να υποθέσουμε ότι ετοιμάζεται ένα αυταρχικό βοναπαρτιστικό σενάριο, εις το οποίο ο ρόλος του μονάρχη ως θεσμού δεν θα είναι συμβολικός ή εγγυητικός αλλά καθοριστικός, με την έννοια ότι θα έχει αρμοδιότητες και εξουσίες που δεν έχει κανένας βασιλιάς σε οποιαδήποτε δυτική δημοκρατία.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

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

Τετάρτη 15 Φεβρουαρίου 2023

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

Τρίτη 14 Φεβρουαρίου 2023

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