You said it well about what you wouldn't do if you were faced with a persecuted foreign person, and even a like-minded person.
You shall not offend him, anyway it is not good to offend people, or if it is sometimes unavoidable, because of a harsh conflict Ok, but the stranger, the persecuted by power man, you should not offend him anyway.
He is supposed to be like-minded, in the broadest sense, at least.
Well now, my lads, let's not get into that, because I already have my objections.
It reminds me of a tribe and a family, and something grabs me, a tightness, something anyway.
Anyway.
Now I'm thinking the reverse of things, not the opposite.
I mean the position of the Iranian communist political refugee who was take some punches from Greek ''leftists''.
Normally, I think, he would say to himself, these are the ideological political struggles within the movement, we are fighting, and above all there are comrades in the wider ideological space of the anti-capitalist movement, left communist anarchists, who do not shared the views and practices of these people (who abused him).
Yes, let's say, the issue was reported, it was even internationalized, etc., etc.
Sharp.
The political stake is again very large, of global scope, and I will define it schematically.
Behind and beyond this global new competition, as an economic political and geopolitical competition between great imperialist superpowers, the mature - to the point of crisis of decline some say - dominant West and emerging authoritarian East (figuratively speaking), there is issues that have equally important in objective importance and more in a essential view, for people all over the world.
The freedom of people, women, minorities, democratic values and institutions as they exist, elementally yes, mainly in the Western world.
Since this ideological space, in which the abused Iranian is located, even now has trouble recognizing these elements, and the majority keeps an equal distance, or even worse, some flirt with the new authoritarian east, what reason do we have to see and worry about which punches do those equidistant from the LeftTaliban, that are take from their common space?
One would cynically say, that is their problem, let them solve it.
I'm not saying that.
First of all, the problem is bigger, because some of those who keep supposedly equal distances, also throw punches at others who are really consistent in this logic.
But who, after all, is consistent?
Shall we now think to find, what?
I suspect that the most consistent in the political space of ''equal distances'' are those who use them as a pretext.
So the honest people of this logic are simply probably suffering from Bukharin's stupidity.
I won't take it any more.
Whoever still has this divine nonsense, I congratulate him, I pity him, I respect him, but I will not take it.
The game is lost again.
Be careful dear ones.
I warned you.
---
Varoufakis of the "equal distances east-west'', violently expels a Russian anti-regime pacifist activist, from a event of the leftist party he founded.
Other, more hard-line Greek leftists beat up an Iranian communist political refugee when he protested the pro-theocrat, pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine lies they were telling at their event.
-------------
Σκέφτομαι τώρα και λέω στον εαυτό μου.
Ωραία τα είπες για το τι δεν θα έκανες αν είχες απέναντι σου έναν κυνηγημένο ξένο άνθρωπο, και μάλιστα ομοϊδεάτη σου.
Δεν θα τον προσβάλλεις, έτσι κι αλλιώς δεν είναι καλό να προσβάλλεις ανθρώπους ή αν κάποτε είναι αναπόφευκτο, λόγω μιας σκληρής σύγκρουσης, τον ξένο άνθρωπο, τον κυνηγημένο, δεν πρέπει να τον προσβάλλεις ούτως ή άλλως.
Υποτίθεται ότι είναι και ομοϊδεάτης σου, με την ευρεία έννοια, έστω.
Καλά τώρα, παλικάρια και παλικαρούδες μου, μην το πιάσουμε και αυτό το θέμα, γιατί ήδη έχω τις ενστάσεις μου.
Μου θυμίζει tribe αυτό και οικογένεια, και κάτι με πιάνει, ένα σφίξιμο, κάτι τέλος πάντων.
Τέλος πάντων.
Τώρα σκέφτομαι την αντίστροφη τροχιά των πραγμάτων, όχι την αντίθετη.
Εννοώ τη θέση τού Ιρανού κομμουνιστή πολιτικού πρόσφυγα που έφαγε τα σπρωξίματα του και ίσως και κάποιες μπουνιές.
Κανονικά, σκέφτομαι, θα είπε μέσα του, αυτά έχει ο ιδεολογικός πολιτικός αγώνας μέσα στο κίνημα, παλεύουμε, και κυρίως υπάρχουν σύντροφοι στον ευρύτερο ιδεολογικό χώρο τού αντικαπιταλιστικού κινήματος, αριστεροί κομμουνιστές αναρχικοί, που δεν συμμερίζονται τις απόψεις και τις πρακτικές αυτών των ανθρώπων (που τον κακοποίησαν).
Να, ας πούμε, έγινε καταγγελία τού ζητήματος, διεθνοποιηθηκε μάλιστα κ.λπ κ.λπ.
Ορθά κοφτά.
Το διακύβευμα τής πολιτικής είναι πάλι πολύ μεγάλο, παγκόσμιας εμβέλειας, και θα το ορίσω σχηματικά.
Πίσω κάτω και πέραν αυτού τού παγκόσμιου νέου ανταγωνισμού, ως οικονομικού πολιτικού και γεωπολιτικού ανταγωνισμού μεταξύ μεγάλων ιμπεριαλιστικών υπερπόλων, ώριμης -έως σε κρίση παρακμής λένε κάποιοι- κυριαρχικής Δύσης και αναδυόμενης αυταρχικής Ανατολής (σχηματικά μιλώντας), διακυβεύονται εξίσου σημαντικά σε αντικειμενική σημασία και περισσότερο σε ουσιαστική σημασία πράγματα, για τους ανθρώπους σε όλο τον κόσμο.
Η ελευθερία των ανθρώπων, των γυναικών, των μειονοτήτων, οι δημοκρατικές αξίες και θεσμοί όπως υπάρχουν, στοιχειωδώς ναι, κυρίως στον Δυτικό κόσμο.
Αφού αυτός ο ιδεολογικός χώρος, που μέσα του βρίσκεται ο κακοποιημένος, ακόμα και τώρα έχει πρόβλημα να αναγνωρίσει αυτά τα στοιχειώδη, και τηρεί πλειονοτικά ίσες αποστάσεις ή ακόμα χειρότερα μερικοί φλερτάρουν με την νέα αυταρχική ανατολή, τι λόγο έχουμε να βλέπουμε και να προβληματιζόμαστε ποιες μπουνιές τρώνε οι των ίσων αποστάσεων από τους Ταλιμπάν τού κοινού τους χώρου;
Κυνικά θα έλεγε κανείς, δικό τους πρόβλημα, ας το λύσουν.
Δε λέω αυτό.
Καταρχάς το προβλήμα είναι μεγαλύτερο, διότι μερικοί από αυτούς που κρατάνε υποτίθεται ίσες αποστάσεις, ρίχνουν κι αυτοί μπουνιές σε άλλους που είναι πραγματικά συνεπείς σε αυτή τη λογική.
Ποιος όμως εντέλει είναι συνεπής;
Θα κάτσουμε τώρα να βρούμε γωνία στο δίφραγκο;
Εγώ υποψιάζομαι ότι οι πιο συνεπείς στον χώρο των ίσων αποστάσεων είναι αυτοί που τις χρησιμοποιούν σαν πρόφαση.
Οπότε οι τίμιοι αυτής τής λογικής απλά μάλλον πάσχουν από την ανοησία τού Μπουχάριν.
Δεν θα πάρω άλλο.
Όποιος έχει ακόμα αυτή τη θεϊκή ανοησία, τον συγχαίρω, τον λυπάμαι, τον σέβομαι, αλλά δεν θα πάρω.
The ideological colonialism to which the Iranian and Kurdish leftists have (unwittingly?) submitted.
Western left, to the Iranian-Kurdish leftists:
"Be good girls, don't hang out with the western imperialists, they are our common enemies, right girls?"
I, the heretic possessed, to the western leftists:
“You bastards, then why are you having secret sex orgies (I'm speaking metaphorically) with the Russians and Chinese imperialists? why when you see the mullahs you move with the desire to have secret allied sex with them?".
The Western leftists to me, after first they slander me with the well-known slang characterizations of the left:
"But we do allied sex with Putin and Mullahs because we want to fight Western imperialism, which is the common enemy of us all, isn't that right girls?"
جنگ در اکراین جنگ فاشیسم بایدن و فاشیسم پوتین است و علیه مصالح عمومی طبقه کارگر جهان و کل بشریت است
«Πόλεμος στην Ουκρανία. Ο πόλεμος αυτός είναι ο φασισμός του Μπάιντεν και ο φασισμός του Πούτιν.
Και αντιβαίνει στα δημόσια συμφέροντα της εργατικής τάξης του κόσμου και όλης της ανθρωπότητας..»
The leftists of the West will say the same about your own struggle.
It will be enough for them to show a few pictures of Fascist monarchists, a Marxist analysis of the bourgeois character of the uprising, a little Mossad, a little Orange Revolution, and voila, they will have the conclusion ready, the Iranian working class was seduced by Western imperialism, end. They have already done that. As a Greek proverb says, you plucked out your eyes with yours hands, my dears Iranian Kurdish friends.
--
Το ίδιο θα πούνε οι αριστεροί τής Δύσης και για τον δικό σας αγώνα.
Θα τους είναι αρκετό να δειξουν μερικές φωτογραφίες με Φασίστες μοναρχικούς, μια μαρξιστική ανάλυση για τον μπουρζουάδικο χαρακτήρα τής εξέγερσης, λίγο Μοσάντ, λίγο πορτοκάλι επανάσταση, και να το, θα το έχουν έτοιμο το συμπέρασμα, η ιρανική εργατική τάξη παρασύρθηκε από τον δυτικό ιμπεριαλισμό, τέλος.
Το έχουν κάνει ήδη.
Όπως λέει μια ελληνική παροιμία, με τα χέρια σου έβγαλες τα μάτια σου, αγαπητοί Ιρανοί Κούρδοι αριστεροί.
''..Unfortunately
things are getting worse among certain circles of the Greek Left. There
is a worrying tendency among them to refuse listening to refugees and
migrants who come from countries that are considered by left dogmatism
as "anti-imperialist". Last year an Iranian refugee (coming from the
Iranian communist movement) was physically assaulted after trying to
protest the pro-Putinist & pro-Mullah propaganda he heard at an open
event by supposed "leftists". More
recently a leftist activist, who was forced to flee Russia to avoid
persecution, was denied to express his disagreement with what was spoken
at another event, organized this time by more moderate leftists. Their
excuse of throwing him out of the event was a classic example of
tone-policing - he "sinned" by using the word 'bu||sh!t and apologised
right after that. The Greek people in general, but also certain segments
of the Greek Left as well, has a problematic and clearly visible
chauvinist attitude (expressed either by boasting about glorious ancient
past, or more recent massive social struggles). It comes as no surprise
that the only other voices this tendency is prone to take seriously are
those coming from the equally chauvinistic France and Italy. And the
fact that the Left in those countries has indeed an impressive history,
does not diminish the potential of people coming from elsewhere to
contribute to the transnational pool of grassroots knowledge. Those who
refuse to understand this increasingly sound and seem as racists...''
Russian and Ukrainian activists silenced at Greek MeRA 25 party event
Comment,
Russian
activist Artem Temirov writes on what he sees as a concerning trend
within the Hellenic left to fall into a knee-jerk “anti-imperialism”
that is in fact anything but.
Author’s note:
A significant part of the Greek Left for a very long time has been
plagued by narrow anti-Americanism that has replaced genuine
anti-imperialism. As a result of that even supposedly more moderate
voices on the Left often fell in the trap of siding, even if in a subtle
way, with regimes that supposedly oppose the West, regardless of how
authoritarian and oppressive they might be. This has created an
increasingly widening gap between this Greek Left current and leftist
dissidents that come from countries whose governments are perceived by
the former as “anti-imperialist”. It seems that the former are
disinterested in listening to those who have come to seek refuge and
avoid arrest and torture. There have even been recorded cases of
representatives of the more hard-line pro-Putinist Left in Greece
physically attacked
an Iranian refugee at a public event, because the latter protested the
pro-Putinist, pro-Mullah propaganda he was hearing. The case presented
below, if much milder in regards the confrontation, represents
continuation in this worrying trend of Greek leftists refusing to listen
to the voices of those who have lived under the boot of supposed
“anti-imperialist” regimes. This comes to indicate an ideological
dogmatism, as well as a loss in trust in the abilities of common people
to self-organize and initiate from below revolutionary change. In the
imaginary of such leftists greater hope for social change is placed not
on the potentials of popular self-determination and self-emancipation,
but on foreign geopolitical powers. This must be perceived as drastic
counter-revolutionary regression towards Stalinist type of thinking that
can only nurture authoritarian logics.
Last
year, my wife and I arrived in Greece. While I am a Russian citizen, my
wife is a citizen of Ukraine. She left Kyiv a week after the start of
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I left Russia a few days
later because it became dangerous to stay there with an anti-war
position, with both us always holding left-wing and antifascist
positions. In Greece, we are living under a temporary protection program
for Ukrainian families.
On Monday, February 20, we were invited to speak at an event entitled “Ukraine, 1 year of war: The people under the boot of the Russian invasion”.
There we spoke with members of the Greek left-wing, anarchist, and
anti-authoritarian movements about resistance in Ukraine and the
anti-war movement in Russia.
Two days later, a friend of ours invited us to a public event organized by the Greek political party MeRA 25 titled “From crisis to war: one year later”.
Although I was unfamiliar with MeRA 25’s stance on war, I was intrigued
by the list of speakers announced for the event. I was particularly
interested in hearing what individuals holding seats in parliament and
teaching at universities had to say on this topic.
The speakers
included: Angela Dimitrakakis (Senior Lecturer at the University of
Edinburgh), Amineh Kakabaveh (former member of the Swedish Parliament),
Stathis Kouvelakis (former Reader in political theory at King’s College
London) and Yanis Varoufakis (Professor at the University of Athens,
Secretary of MeRA 25, co-founder of DiEM25, and a former finance
minister of Greece).
What I heard
Amineh
Kakabaveh began her speech by stating that she voted against arming
Ukraine in the Swedish parliament because weapons kill people.
Overall,
she opposes supporting Ukraine in the conflict, seeing it as a war
between Russia and the United States. Kakabaveh believes that by
supporting Ukraine, Europeans are indirectly supporting the United
States and increasing US influence over the European Union.
She ended her speech by saying that she wishes peace for the entire world.
Stathis
Kouvelakis reproduced speeches made by Vladimir Putin verbatim.
Kouvelakis stated that the conflict in Ukraine is an imperialist war
between Russia and the collective West, led by the United States, taking
place on Ukrainian territory. He also referred to the war as
“asymmetric” because Russia does not possess the same military power as
the United States.
Furthermore, Kouvelakis claimed that Russia had
no choice but to take action against Ukraine, as NATO had planned to
increase its presence in the Baltic Sea region.
It seems that
Stathis Kouvelakis has relied solely upon Russian sources for his
knowledge of modern-day Ukraine. He has stated that in 2014,
nationalists supposedly took power in Ukraine and began oppressing the
Russian-speaking population.
Kouvelakis maintains that Europeans
should not offer support to Ukraine or its supposedly nationalist
regime. He opposes the provision of weapons to Ukraine or endorsing its
demands for the de-occupation of territories occupied by Russia and the
return to internationally recognized borders, as of 1991.
Yanis
Varoufakis started by referring to his own article, published in the
first days of the war, in which he stated that the West must end the war
within the first week. He argued that “Moscow and Washington must come
to an agreement.” Putin must withdraw troops to the borders that existed
before February 24, 2022. In turn, Biden must guarantee Putin that
Ukraine will remain a neutral territory and that new European countries
will not become NATO members.
Varoufakis remarked that “the
fighters of Azov are, of course, Nazis.” However, “there is no need to
assume that Putin is a leftist; he is a fascist as well”. Varoufakis
suggested that “we examine the dialectical relations and mutual
empowerment of the different forces: both the totalitarian and fascist
forces of Russia and the fascist forces of Ukraine. This is an
amalgamation of two forces.”
What happened
During
the Q&A session of the event, I stood up to express my disagreement
with the speakers’ position. I started with an important disclaimer,
saying that I am from Russia.
I expressed my belief that
everything they said was bullshit and that it seemed to me they were not
well-informed about the situation in Russia or Ukraine. I suggested
that their sources of information were limited and that they were not
interested in the opinions of real people.
Out of all the
speakers, Angela Dimitrakakis was the only one who knew my wife and I. A
few days prior to the event dedicated to Solidarity with Ukraine, she
had listened to our speeches and even quoted positively my wife in her
own speech. Despite this, Angela interrupted me and asked, “Who are you?
Who brought you here?”. Although she already knew the answer to the
question.
After this, Yanis Varoufakis called me a fascist, and
they turned off my microphone. My wife (the only Ukrainian citizen in
the hall) and I were forcibly removed from the event without being
allowed to say another word.
I was surprised that there was so
much resistance to hearing from two refugees from the countries that the
previous two hours of discussion were focused on. On the video, it’s
very clear to see my willingness to apologise and tone down my emotions,
but we were roughly escorted out of the room, and Yanis Varoufakis
continued to shout after me that I was a fascist.
It’s not very
clear how a politician can accuse a stranger of fascism without
bothering to find out their opinion. But as the Putin regime says in
Russia, “parliament is not a place for discussion.” And so this event,
timed to the anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine,
turned out to be not a place for any alternative opinion, even when it
comes from refugees from Russia and Ukraine. This is a very common
strategy in discussions among conservative parties – to accuse their
opponent of excessive emotionality or verbal rudeness, with the aim of
depriving them of the opportunity to express their position, or with the
aim of avoiding a substantive response to the position that was
expressed. It is called tone-policing.
Credit: Yuliia Leites, Ukrainian feminist and activist
However, there is a lot to say to MeRA 25 and its supporters.
I
cannot comprehend how individuals who identify as left-wing politicians
and internationalists can repeat Russian propaganda word-for-word about
the Ukrainian supposedly nationalist regime that took power in 2014.
You don’t even need to personally know anyone from the Ukrainian Left –
just use the internet to learn that in the most recent parliamentary
elections of 2020, the Right Sector coalition only managed to secure
2.17 percent of the vote.
After a year of war and numerous
atrocities committed, how can anyone publicly justify the Russian
invasion? In March 2022, anti-NATO and anti-US statements may have
appealed to part of the leftist electorate. But after witnessing the
devastation in Bucha and a year of full-scale war, it is difficult to
understand how anyone could justify the Russian invasion by citing
NATO’s supposed intentions to expand its presence in the Baltic Sea at a
public event hosted by a left-leaning party.
After all, how can
the leader of the left-wing internationalist party, who claims in
interviews to support the people of Ukraine, state that the war in
Ukraine should be seen as a dialectical fusion of the fascist forces of
both Ukraine and Russia?
These speeches lacked stories of living
Ukrainians – their opinions, needs, aspirations, voices, and views.
Instead, there was much reflection on the historical role of the left,
political theory, geopolitics, the importance of the pacifist movement,
and the struggle for world peace. At the event marking the anniversary
of the war in Ukraine, there was also much discussion of US atrocities
around the world, as if the US had unleashed the war.
What do the
Ukrainians who are fighting think about this? What about the civilians
who have chosen to remain in their homes, knowing that every day could
be their last? Curiously, the speakers at their event decided not to
address these questions.
Meanwhile, Ukrainians insist that the
ongoing war is their fight for independence and decolonization. They are
unwilling to compromise with Russia and unwilling to cede any
territory. Surrendering now would not make them feel secure, as they
would anticipate a new attack from Russia. They desire complete
independence, not on Putin’s conditions, but rather the kind of
independence that any European country would fight for. This
independence would allow them to determine their country’s development,
culture, and languages, as well as which alliances to form, without
consulting Russia.
But the speakers easily deprived the population
of one of the largest European countries of political subjectivity,
giving up political rights of 43 million people. They openly stated that
Putin and Biden should end the war and that Russia and the United
States should come to an agreement.
These speakers define their
position on the war in Ukraine not based on solidarity with the
inhabitants of Ukraine or knowledge of the Ukrainians’ desires, but
rather on how they believe the war should end in order to prevent the
strengthening of the United States.
These speakers, who identify
as leftists, are willing to enable the strengthening of Russia, the
fascist regime responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of
civilians, the destruction of Mariupol, and the perpetration of
atrocities in Bucha and Izium. By allowing Russia to become stronger and
keep its occupied territories, they are effectively allowing war
criminals to remain free and creating horrors both in Ukraine and within
their own country.
The speeches were phrased in such a way that
one would assume any outcome of the war in which Russia wins is
preferable to Ukraine’s victory. This is because Ukraine’s victory is
not viewed as the victory of its inhabitants, but rather as the victory
of the United States.
If someone view people as nothing more than
numbers and votes, countries as mere drawings on a map, and believe that
Ukrainians have no real say in their own affairs. That they are merely
puppets of the United States, can they still be considered left-wing
politicians and internationalists?
~ Artem Temirov (Prolubnikov)
Yanis Varoufakis gave us this statement:
“The
said gentleman requested and was given the floor (and microphone) to
put his point of view to the audience and to the panel. He immediately
abused the privilege by using offensive language and threatening
behaviour especially toward a female member of the panel who,
appropriately, challenged his behaviour. In response, the said gentleman
– accompanied by a person filming the scene he was causing – continued
to use abusive language and gestures at which point he was asked to hand
back the microphone and leave. His intention was, clearly, to break up
the meeting, not to contribute a point of view – a fascist practice that
Greek audiences are familiar with. Thus, the organisers had no
alternative than to remove him from the auditorium, as was their duty.”
Angela Dimitrakakis and Amineh Kakabaveh did not respond to our request to comment. Stathis Kouvelakis was unreachable.
Image and video: Yuliia Leites, Ukrainian feminist and activist
