Beastie Boys - Sabotage

Westernism/pro-Westernism or anti-Westernism?

Westernism/pro-Westernism or anti-Westernism?

The Western and also the Latin American new left, as an ideological force exercising a new Critique of Western capitalist and colonial history, also as a would-be new representative of the old colonized societies or societies considered captive to a new (indirect) colonialism, has undertaken a analytical/ideological and therefore political error of terrifying negative significance.

It radically and fundamentally disputes that the Western world during its capitalist emergence contained a strange combination of progress and horror. 

It sees only the horror and questions the objective progress achieved through this strange combination. The error of this perception, which is partly an extension of old errors but also partly a new error, is supplemented by another error, which most of the Western left commits. 

Does the left of late capitalist modernity not see that the corresponding process that is now taking place in the East, as the emergence of a new mega-imperialist world-imperial pole, competing with the existing - now overripe - Western pole, does not contain the same degree of horror but more . 

The horrors in the emerging imperialist capitalist East have already exceeded the corresponding horrors historically was concentrated in the West. Does this mean that the West is better as a democratic and libertarian balance than the non-West? 

Now yes, this means, while earlier, when the West was emerging, there was every reason for someone to judge the West with stricter criteria and to question the then coexistence (in the West) of the so-called positive and negative elements of the process of emergence. 

A moderate and critical anti-Westernism was justified then, while a new and critical pro-Westernism is now justified and imperative. 

Life changes and things reverse, otherwise what should we do with the dialectic? 

An additional reason to support this position is that the new East is not only living in the moment of Sovereign authoritative primary accumulation, which means something equivalent to the primary accumulation of Capital in production, from the point of view of state and mega-imperialist power, but is living it the phase without this being necessary for world society (as it was in the first, western, emergence), and also without this being necessary for the workers and society as a whole of eastern or more broadly non-western countries. This is an unnecessary repetition.

---

Δυτικισμός/φιλο-δυτικισμός ή αντι-δυτικισμός;

Η δυτική αλλά και η λατινοαμερικάνικη νέα αριστερά, ως ιδεολογική δύναμη άσκησης μιας νέας Κριτικής τής δυτικής καπιταλιστικής και αποικιοκρατικής ιστορίας, επίσης ως επίδοξος νέος αντιπρόσωπος των παλαιών αποικιοκρατουμένων κοινωνιών ή των κοινωνιών που θεωρούνται δέσμιες σε μία νέα (έμμεση) αποικιοκρατία, έχει προβεί σε ένα αναλυτικό/ιδεολογικό άρα και πολιτικό λάθος τρομακτικής αρνητικής σημασίας.

Αμφισβητεί ριζικά και θεμελιακά ότι ο δυτικός κόσμος κατά την διάρκεια τής καπιταλιστικής ανάδυσης του περιείχε έναν παράξενο συνδυασμό προόδου και φρίκης. 

Βλέπει μόνον την φρίκη και αμφισβητεί την αντικειμενική πρόοδο που επιτεύχθηκε μέσω αυτού τού παράξενου συνδυασμού.  

Το λάθος αυτής τής αντίληψης που αποτελεί εν μέρει προέκταση παλαιών λαθών αλλά επίσης αποτελεί εν μέρει ένα νέο λάθος, συμπληρώνεται με ένα ακόμα λάθος, στο οποίο προβαίνει το μεγαλύτερο μέρος τής δυτικής αριστεράς. 

Δεν βλέπει η αριστερά τής ύστερης καπιταλιστικής νεωτερικότητας ότι το αντίστοιχο προτσές που πάει να λάβει χώρα πλέον στην Ανατολή, ως ανάδυση ενός νέου μεγα-ιμπεριαλιστικού κοσμοκρατορικού πόλου, ανταγωνιστικού προς τον υπάρχοντα -υπερώριμο πλέον- δυτικό πόλο, δεν περιέχει τον ίδιο βαθμό φρίκης αλλά περισσότερο. 

Η φρίκη στην αναδυόμενη ως ιμπεριαλιστική καπιταλιστική Ανατολή έχει ήδη υπερβεί την αντίστοιχη φρίκη που συγκεντρώθηκε ιστορικά στην Δύση. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι η Δύση είναι καλύτερη ως δημοκρατικό και ελευθεριακό ισοζύγιο σε σχέση με την μη-Δυση; 

Τώρα ναι, αυτό σημαίνει, ενώ παλαιότερα, όταν η Δύση αναδύονταν, υπήρχε κάθε λόγος για να κρίνει κάποιος την Δύση με αυστηρότερα κριτήρια και να αμφισβητήσει την τότε συνύπαρξη (στην Δύση) των ούτως ειπείν θετικών με τα αρνητικά στοιχεία τού προτσές ανάδυσης. 

Ένας μετριοπαθής και κριτικός αντι-δυτικισμός ήταν τότε δικαιολογημένος, ενώ τώρα δικαιολογημένος και επιβεβλημένος πλέον είναι ένας νέος και κριτικός φιλο-δυτικισμός. 

Η ζωή αλλάζει και τα πράγματα αντιστρέφονται, αλλιώς τι να την κάνουμε τη διαλεκτική; Ένας λόγος επιπλέον για να υποστηρίξουμε αυτή την θέση είναι ότι η νέα Ανατολή όχι μόνον ζει την στιγμή τής εξουσιαστικής πρωταρχικής συσσώρευσης (που σημαίνει κάτι αντίστοιχο με την πρωταρχική συσσώρευση Κεφαλαίου στην παραγωγή, από την σκοπιά τής κρατικής και μεγα-ιμπεριαλιστικής ισχύος), αλλά ζει αυτήν την φάση χωρίς τούτο να είναι αναγκαίο για την παγκόσμια κοινωνία (όπως ήταν στην πρώτη, δυτική, ανάδυση), και χωρίς επίσης αυτό να είναι αναγκαίο για τους εργάτες και την κοινωνία συνολικά των ανατολικών ή ευρύτερα μη δυτικών χωρών. 

Πρόκειται για μια μη αναγκαία επανάληψη.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Narrative from the industrial working class in Greece.

Yesterday my father met with an old colleague of his. They worked together in the metal industry, my father as a sheet metal welder and his friend as an electrician.

What did his friend say to my father?

That of their (approximately) 150 fellow workers, only these two survived past the age of 65.

My father because he was fired relatively early, and his electrician friend because as an electrician he worked inside a protective canopy.

The rest almost all died of cancer because the metal shavings entered their respiratory system and caused cancer. 

Back then there were no strong health and safety measures for workers (and now there is a problem, somewhat less so).

Why was my father fired, then, in 1970?

As he has told me, one day they had received a visit from the boss and his son. 

The foreman had told the workers that "when the bosses come, you will stand up".

Then my father turned to his dick, saying to him:

"Did you hear? when the boss comes, you'll stand up."

Glory and Honor to the working class!

Death to Bosses!

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Golems

There are no anti-Westerners. There is the West and the Golems of the West (Eastern nationalists, communists, etc.). 

The Golems want to become something of their own, but repeating a world-empire that horribly propelled humanity forward is neither historically necessary nor leads to something better, it doesn't mean the western emergence in past, which, once, meant progress+horror, as it believe all the vindictive neo-communists who naively believe that this way reopens a historical dialectical process plus that they will get through it a historical revenge for their defeat mainly by the West. 

The lust for the new imperialist world-pole that is about to emerge, a lust that is masked with the theories of a multipolar world, a lust that is also an official ideological lust of the eastern new imperialists themselves, is absolutely dead-end, meaningless, stupid and ultimately shows the quality of the new left. 

A bunch of idiots who objectively become tails of the extreme right through their delusional stupidity that passes through the necessary station of conscious or indirect-unconscious pro-Russian or pro-Eastern western anti-Westernism. 

The far-right of the West is now an open fifth column of the new fascist East, but they objectively have more possibilities to implement their geopolitical alliance because they have a deep affinity with this new phenomenon.

--

Δεν υπάρχουν αντιδυτικοί. Υπάρχει η Δύση και τα Γκόλεμ τής Δύσης (ανατολικοί εθνικιστές, κομμουνιστές κ.λπ). 

Τα Γκόλεμ θέλουν να γίνουν κάτι από μόνα τους, αλλά η επανάληψη μιας κοσμοκρατορίας που ώθησε με φρικτό τρόπο την ανθρωπότητα προς τα εμπρός δεν είναι ούτε ιστορικά αναγκαία ούτε οδηγεί σε κάτι καλύτερο, δεν σημαίνει όπως κάποτε σήμαινε η δυτική ανάδυση πρόοδο+φρίκη, όπως ίσως πιστεύουν όλοι οι μνησίκακοι νεοκομμουνιστές που αφελώς πιστεύουν ότι έτσι ανοίγει ξανά μια ιστορική διαλεκτική διεργασία συν ότι θα πάρουν μέσω αυτής μιαν ιστορική εκδίκηση για την ήττα τους κυρίως από την Δύση. 

Η λαγνεία προς τον νέο ιμπεριαλιστικό κοσμοκρατορικό πόλο που πάει να αναδυθεί, λαγνεία που μασκαρεύεται με τις θεωρίες περί πολύπολικού κόσμου, λαγνεία που είναι και επίσημη ιδεολογική λαγνεία των ίδιων των ανατολικών νέων ιμπεριαλιστών, είναι απολύτως αδιέξοδη, ανούσια, ανόητη και εντέλει δείχνει το ποιόν και τής νέας αριστεράς. 

Ένα μάτσο ηλίθιοι που γίνονται αντικειμενικά ουρές τής ακροδεξιάς μέσω τής τεθλασμένης ανοησίας τους που περνάει μέσα από τον αναγκαίο σταθμό τού συνειδητού ή έμμεσου-ασυνείδητου φιλορωσικού ή φιλοανατολικού αντιδυτικισμού. 

Οι ακροδεξιοί τής Δύσης, είναι πλέον μια ανοιχτή πέμπτη φάλαγγα τής νέας φασιστικής Ανατολής, αλλά έχουν αντικειμενικά περισσότερες δυνατότητες να εφαρμόσουν την γεωπολιτική συμμαχία τους με αυτήν διότι υπάρχει βαθιά ιδεολογική συγγένεια τους με το νέο φαινόμενο αυτό.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Westerners adopt people..

Again for northern Syria.

The new alliance of the PKK with the forces of Assad (we assume with an agreement between Russia and Iran), is happening at the same time as the Assad-Turkey agreement. 

That is, Assad (and also Russia and Iran) wins a guarantee of compromise with Turkey while Turkey sells its jihadist allies in the bazaar but also more broadly sells Assad's opponents as meat to the butcher, at the same time that Assad uses the PKK to put pressure on them as well as the Turks, at the same time that it is preparing to sell the PKK to the Turks in the future.

The anti-Assad people are killing PKK members and PKK members are killing anti-Assad people. 

O peoples of Syria, what foolish tool you have become because of your narrow-minded ethnic conflicts.

--

I have played the PKK supporter game (also) in northern Syria, as a Greek so as a (semi) Western supporter observer and solidarity, I do not regret it, but this shame today, of all non-Assad Syrians and their Western supporters, supporters observers solidarity, I don't like it, it angers me, it saddens me, it leaves me speechless. War within the people, mutual accusations, all correct, shame on everyone, especially on the supporters from the west. 

I refuse to play this game anymore, insisting that it is ridiculous for anyone to blame the PKK alone. 

That's enough.

--

Westerners adopt people, peoples and movements, become their uncritical mouthpieces wherever it suits them, then use the uncritical evidence provided by the adoptees to confirm the adoptive parent's narcissism, pitting self as adoptive parent against the other adoptive parents, also they provide patron advices to their adoptees. 

I took a stand too, but sorry, I will not play the role of step-parent, and if I did in the past I deny it today. I ask for brothers and sisters, not flatterers or flattered adoptees.

--

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

Οι ευαίσθητοι συκοφάντες

Η βασική ιδεολογική συκοφαντία που εξαπολύει ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, και γενικότερα ο πολιτικός χώρος που στην Ελλάδα αυτοπροσδιορίζεται ως αριστερός, αναρχικός αντικαπιταλιστικός πολιτικός χώρος, είναι ο προσδιορισμός τού πολιτικού αντιπάλου ως ακροδεξιού. 

Δεν είναι μια απλή ιδεολογική επίθεση αλλά η κορωνίδα αυτού τού είδους των επιθέσεων. 

Στην πραγματικότητα με αυτό τον τρόπο επιχειρείται η ολοκληρωτική απαξίωση τού πολιτικού αντιπάλου, ακόμη κι αν τούτος έχει όντως υπερσυντηρητικές αντιλήψεις που θα δικαιολογούσαν κάποια συσχέτιση με αυτόν τον προσδιορισμό. 

Ας φανταστούμε λοιπόν ποια καταστροφική ηθική επίδραση μπορεί να έχει η εξαπόλυση ενός τέτοιου όρου/κατηγορητηρίου εναντίον ανθρώπων που έχουν αριστερές ή προοδευτικές αντιλήψεις και απλά δεν συμφωνούν με το «κίνημα» όταν τούτο εκφράζει σεκταριστικές, μηδενιστικές, ακραίες αντι- εθνικιστικές ιδέες που στην πραγματικότητα υπηρετούν τον ξένο εθνικισμό και την φασιστική ακροδεξιά μιας ξένης επιθετικής χώρας.

Η ελληνική αριστερά που συγκυβέρνησε με ένα ακραιφνώς  δεξιό φιλορωσικό κόμμα, έχει το απόλυτο θράσος να προσδιορίζει μετριοπαθείς ανθρώπους με αυτόν τον συκοφαντικό τρόπο, και σε αυτή την θύελλα συκοφαντίας που εξαπολύει έχει σαν συνέταιρο της και τούς σταλινικούς και τους αναρχικούς και όλο τον ψευδοευαίσθητο κόσμο των μετρίων αταλαντων καλλιτεχνών και διανοούμενων που έδειξε την ιδεολογική και πολιτισμική εξαχρείωση του με την στάση του στο ουκρανικό.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

The Fifth Column of the Russian and Turkish imperialists in Greece..

I have no problem with 1,000,000 or more refugees coming to Greece permanently, but extensions of Erdoğan's and Turks' dicks, we will cut them off by the root and throw them to the dogs and hyenas.

 

The fifth phalanx of the Russian and Turkish imperialists in Greece, are leftist, liberal, anarchist sensitive receivers and traffickers of the Turkish propaganda that Greece is the mainly responsible for the deaths of the refugees in Evros and the eastern Aegean.

The most innocent, other leftists in other countries, if they do not belong to the psychopathic category of pseudo-humanist super-internationalist sectarian idiots, hear and see anti-nationalist anti-Greek propaganda, pro-refugee lamentation, see charred mothers and corpses, and do not think for a moment if this "anti-nationalism" binds and sticks with the interests of Erdogan's Islamo-Kemalist fascist state and the interests of the Russian killers.

Who lied or forced the refugees to go to the Greek-Turkish border in Evros?

Why are there refugee camps near the Greek-Turkish border, which are managed by the Turkish gendarmerie?

Why, in the earlier events in Evros, did the Turkish gendarmerie help lightly armed "refugees"? 

Who organized them and helped them to attack the borders with slingshots and stones and molotov cocktails?

The Turks.

Why don't the "leftists" and "anti-authoritarians" say anything about all this, just as I described it to you? or, why do they say little and whisper?

What the left and anarchism showed in Ukraine, in Kurdish issue, most of them, they are now showing in Greek-Turkish conflict.

We don't want you anymore, we don't trust you. 

You have to understand it.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

 

Το ιστορικό «κενό» και οι ιδανικοί κι ανάξιοι εραστές τής Ιστορίας.

Το ιστορικό «κενό» και οι ιδανικοί κι ανάξιοι εραστές τής Ιστορίας.

--

Η αγαπητή φίλη στο Facebook, Νέλλη (δεν λινκάρω για να μη την φέρω σε δύσκολη διαδικτυακή θέση), μου επισήμανε ότι όταν μιλάμε για «αριστερά» στην Ελλάδα κάνουμε λάθος να μιλάμε για αριστερά γενικά κ.λπ, εφόσον εδώ έχουν υπογράψει μνημόνια και τα γνωστά.

Είναι αλήθεια ότι ο όρος αυτός στην Ελλάδα έχασε εν μια νυκτί την αναφορά του σε αυτό που εννοούσαμε κάποτε, ακόμα κι όταν όλοι μας ήμασταν μέσα στις κατακόμβες ως μετα-σοβιετικοί αριστεροί, κομμουνιστές, κ.α αναμένοντες τη νέα ιστορική εμφάνιση τού οράματος και θάματος, αμήν.

Μετά τα γεγονότα στο Σηάτλ και μετά από τα ανεξήγητα και μυστηριώδη παραψυχολογικά φαινόμενα ή UFO που έλαβαν χώρα στον θαυμαστό κόσμο τού αριστερού Λακανισμού, η ελπίδα αναβίωσε, και γενικά υπήρξε μια νέα γενιά, και ξαναζεστάθηκε η καρδιά μας, ένα μικρό καρβουνάκι άρχισε να βγάζει σπιθίτσες, σαν το '68 (εγώ τότε, το 1968, ήμουν 1 έτους) και άλλα, γνωστά επίσης.

Όλα καλά, και μέχρι κάποτε, για μένα τουλάχιστον συμπαθητικά και κάτι παραπάνω. 

Πήγαμε και στην διαδήλωση τού παγκόσμιου κοινωνικού Φόρουμ στην Αθήνα, ήταν μεγάλη, και είδαμε μια νέα αριστερή-αριστερίστικη κουλτούρα να δημιουργείται, παντού.

Μην αναφερθούμε στο σωτήριο έτος 2009, όπου άρχισαν όλα, ενόσω είχε προηγηθεί το φούντωμα τού αναρχισμού και τού νεοαριστερισμού με τον Δεκέμβρη τού 2008.

Τα άλλα τα ξέρουμε και ακόμα τα χωνεύουμε. 

Εγώ έχω μεγάλη δυσπεψία είναι αλήθεια, η οποία όμως ξεκινάει από παλιά, και η οποία επιτάθηκε ως τον βαθμό να αρχίσει να κινδυνεύει το ιδεολογικό μεταβολικό σύστημα μου, και το έντερο γενικά.

Κι αυτό διότι, συν όλα αυτά, κάποια θέματα παραμένουν «αιώνια» και αφορούν και την Ελληνική αριστερά και την «παγκόσμια», και τούτα επίσης δεν μπορούν να χωνευτούν από εμένα, τίποτα δεν έχει αλλάξει από τότε που η αριστερά στην Ελλάδα ήταν όντως αριστερά, κατά τα πρότυπα τής διάκρισης όντως όντος και επιδερμικής, ουχί «φαινομενολογικής», φαινομενικότητας.

Γιατί η αριστερά εδωνά, πάντα το έκανε τουμπεκί ψιλοκομμένο και γαργάρα, και από εδώ πάνε κι άλλοι, κι άσε τα τώρα αυτά, σε ό,τι αφορά στην Τουρκία.

Ας πούμε ότι εδωνά ήταν και είναι πάντα το πρόβλημα, αλλά είναι μόνον εδωνά;

Πάω τώρα με ένα μεγάλο γεωγραφικο-ιστορικό άλμα, από αυτά που κάνουν τους σεβάσμιους επιστήμονες να φρίττουν, στο Ιράν, στο επαναστατικό/μετεπαναστατικό Ιράν, όταν ο Σαντάμ Χουσεϊν, και το τότε Ιράκ ΤΟΥ, ξεκίνησε την εισβολή στο Ιράν.

Τι κάνανε τότε οι όχι εδωνά αλλά οι εκειδά; (αυτό το λέμε στην Λακωνία, δεν είναι μεταφραστική ακροβασία τού Τζαβάρα, επιτυχής).

Τα ίδια, και τα ίδια, και τα ίδια, οι εκειδά αριστεροί με τους εδωνά αριστερούς. 

Περιττό να πούμε ότι οι Χομεϊνιστές και ο Ιμάμης τους προσωπικώς, κερδίσανε την ηγεμονία, παίρνοντας τον πατριωτικό λαό μαζί τους, τον εκειδά πατριωτικό λαό, ως ηγέτες τού αμυντικού εθνικού αγώνα, αξιοποιώντας αυτήν τους την ιδιότητα για να εδραιωθούν για τα καλά και την ιδεολογική και πολιτική αφλογιστία των εκειδά για να τους σκοτώσουν, φυλακίσουν, εξαφανίσουν βιολογικά και πολιτικά.

Αριστεροί κι αυτοί, τους ρώτησα λοιπόν, από εδώ, ποιος έφταιγε για τον πόλεμο; (εκτός τού καπιταλισμού, ιμπεριαλισμού κ.λπ κ.λπ, ναι ρε παιδιά, ό,τι πείτε, τα ξέρουμε αυτά).

Τι μου απάντησε ο ένας τολμηρός;; (οι Ιρανοί αριστεροί είναι πολύ επιφυλακτικοί, δεν τους βάζεις εύκολα σε κουβέντα, μούρες, έχουν καεί κιόλας).

Μου απάντησε ότι για τον Ιρακινο-Ιρανικό πόλεμο έφταιγε το Ιράν και η νέα θεοκρατική εξουσία...

Αριστερά. 

Όχι η ψεύτικη τού Σύριζα. 

Βγάζεις εσύ άκρη; εγώ πλέον όχι. 

Μα είναι ψεύτικη η αριστερά τού Σύριζα; 

Όχι Νέλλη, αληθινή είναι.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Ο Σύριζα είναι ένα επικίνδυνο κόμμα, πρέπει να συρρικνωθεί πολιτικά..

Ο Κατρούγκαλος προσπαθεί να μαζέψει τα αμάζευτα, επιστρατεύοντας το τελευταίο ορθολογικό επιχείρημα που απέμεινε στους κακόβουλους. 

Αφού η περίφημη νησίδα ανήκει στα κιτάπια τού ελληνικού κτηματολογίου, άρα δεν υπάρχει αντίφαση με τους επίσημους χάρτες τής γεωγραφικής υπηρεσίας; (ή κάπως έτσι, λέγεται, δεν θυμάμαι τώρα).

Αν το κράτος παραδεχτεί ότι η νησίδα υπάρχει στα κιτάπια αυτά, τότε ο Κατρούγκαλος θα μιλήσει για εθνική παραχώρηση εδάφους από την μεριά τής κυβέρνησης (θα το πει πιο συριζαίικα, αμφίσημα, «διαλεκτικά»), ώστε τούτη να συνεχίζει να αποδομεί το επιχείρημα τής αριστεράς ότι η νησίδα είναι ελληνικής ιδιοκτησίας.

Με λίγα λόγια, καμία αυτοκριτική, έστω έμμεση και ύπουλη (όπως αυτές που μισο-έγιναν από όσους αριστερούς ελληναράδες ξερόλες) δεν γίνεται αποδεκτή από τον Σύριζα, ο οποίος σκοπεύει να παίξει «σκληρό ρόκ» σε όλα τα θέματα που προκύπτουν.

Αναμενόμενο αυτό, και στα πλαίσια τής θεμιτής ιδιότητας τής πολιτικής να είναι όσο αιχμηρή την θέλουν να είναι τα πολιτικά υποκείμενα που την ασκούν ως δημοκρατικοί πολίτες, όντας όμως -για να είναι θεμιτή- εντός των πλαισίων των επιχειρημάτων.

Όμως, και αυτή η σχετικά τεκμηριωμένη επιχειρηματολογία τού Κατρούγκαλου πάσχει από έλλειψη «ουσίας» και λειτουργεί σαν γραφειοκρατικό προπέτασμα καπνού, προς χρήσιν από έναν ευρύτερο χώρο, τον χώρο τού ελληνικού «κινήματος», ο οποίος ακόμα κι αν (και όταν..) θέτει κάποια όρια στον εαυτό του χαρακτηρίζεται από κακοήθεια, στρεψοδικία, συκοφαντικές επιθέσεις, νοοτροπία όχλου που λιντσάρει κάθε αντίθετη άποψη, προγραφές, έλλειψη θεμελιωδών δεσμεύσεων απέναντι σε μια αμυνόμενη ασθενική αστική-μπουρζουάδικη Πολιτεία, που χρειάζεται σε πολλά βοήθεια -και όχι πόλεμο εκ των έσω, όταν έχει να αντιμετωπίσει έναν αποφασισμένο επεκτατιστή εχθρό.

Ο Κατρούγκαλος έμεινε στο νομικο-πολιτικό σκέλος, και κάπως διασώζεται ως πολιτικός και ως νομικός, αλλά και αυτός εξυπηρετεί τον σκοπό τής εκ των έσω υπονόμευσης τού ελληνικού έθνους κράτους, όταν ο εχθρός είναι η έτοιμη για πόλεμο και αιματοχυσία Τουρκία.

Για τον Φίλη, τι να πούμε; τηρεί ίσες αποστάσεις μεταξύ ελληνικής και τουρκικής κυβέρνησης, λες και έχουν την ίδια στάση, ακολουθώντας ως νεο-σταλινικος και νεο-αριστεριστής, λάιτ, την πιο χυδαία, δημαγωγική και απαράδεκτη «αριστερή γραμμή».

Ο Σύριζα είναι ένα επικίνδυνο κόμμα, πρέπει να συρρικνωθεί πολιτικά προτού «πετύχει» να βάλει καθοριστικά «το χέρι» του σε μια εθνική και λαϊκή καταστροφή.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Draft Critique of Neo-Marxism/Post-Marxism.

Draft Critique of Neo-Marxism/Post-Marxism. 

The general theoretical framework of Marxism was handed down to us through Karl Marx's "Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy." The basic concepts that make up this scheme, such as "productive forces, productive relations, base and superstructure" etc., are subject to the basic ontological division "base-superstructure", where the productive factor and main is the (economic) base and the produced and secondary is the superstructure (ideas, legal forms, state, institutions, etc.). 

This supposed ontological division has been exhaustively criticized by both Marxist-neo-Marxists and anti-Marxists. 

A criticism that is largely apt and sometimes subversive, in order to either destroy or complement Marxism. But let's look at a bad version of this criticism within the left and anarchism. 

The old Marxist scheme may have contained a dogmatic reductionism in relation to a basic single cause and its many manifestations presented as the many effects of that one cause, but the new post-Marxist/neo-Marxist scheme replaces this metaphysical proto-Marxist division with a holistic form that ultimately suffers from a more intolerable and dogmatic monism. 

The "many" causes of the neo-leftists, as "causes" that explain the ontological reason why a class-dominant system exists or does not exist, merge into a complex whole-One (Eν), which, however, as an One (Εν), constitutes primarily an object that is judged with a moralistic sectarian indictment by an ideological tribunal. 

Nothing remains separate as a structure, everything is unified in a ontological monistic multiplicity, in which is "Evil", and in the end there is a complete impossibility of any analytical or moral judgment. The older Marxist scheme as we traced it initially was more apt and through its dogmatism provided the possibility to better understand a concept of multiplicity and freedom.

---

To support a hypothesis we brought a first example from the Marxist tradition.

Our hypothesis is that an ontological theoretical position that separates a primary from a secondary element in relation to the determining function of the social structure, while it seems that it downplays the ontological power of what is considered as secondary and also that it overlooks the unity of the social phenomenon, in reality it may give the supposed secondary element more ontological material freedom than the freedom given to it by supposedly holistic theories of "fixing" the original first theory.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

This is the Truth.

I am not in direct moral and ideological conflict with the old comrades.  

I avoid them, they avoid me.  However, my attachment to the truth does not allow me to maintain a neutral, indifferent comfortable attitude.  I harass them, like a lone wolf, waiting for the ultimate slander.  I know they are insidious neo-Bolsheviks, and they leave no stone unturned.  Before there is the sneaky blow, I'll tell them straight.  The bourgeois state and the corrupt bourgeois government of Greece are brighter things than their black rotten soul.  Turkey threatens a bourgeois democratic country (using immigration too), Ukraine is right, the Kurds are right, but even the anti-Assad Syrians are basically right.  The Iranian left will make a historic surprise.  This is the truth, these are the truths that hurt and destroy them, the black-minded Greek leftists.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Άγριο Κέντρο, σε πολλά, και καλά κάνουμε../ Wild Centrism, in many cases, and we are doing well..

New term proposal.
The far-left, professional sycophants, have marketed (I think only in Greece, but I may be wrong) the term "extreme Center" and "extreme Centrists", in order to forcibly drag the Center to the Right.
I propose as a new term, a word, the "wild Center".
In some matters, crucially matters, and despite my anti-capitalist identity, I was, am and will be a Centrist, and now I have just realized that I am indeed a Wild Centrist. 

This identity is our honor and our pride, and we can, those of us who agree with each other, establish and support our Centrist ideological position, on many critical issues, regardless of whether not we want capitalism and state (pseudo-)socialism, as I do.

--

Πρόταση «νέου όρου».
Οι ακροαριστεροί, επαγγελματίες συκοφάντες, έχουν πλασάρει (νομίζω μόνον στην Ελλάδα, αλλά μπορεί και να κάνω λάθος) τον όρο «ακραίο Κέντρο» και «ακραίοι Κεντρώοι», για να σύρουν με το ζόρι το Κέντρο στην Δεξιά.
Προτείνω ως νέο όρο, λέξη, το «άγριο Κέντρο». 

Σε μερικά ζητήματα, καθοριστικά όμως, και παρά την αντικαπιταλιστική ταυτότητα μου (δεν σηκώνω αμφισβήτηση επί αυτού), ήμουν είμαι και θα είμαι Κεντρώος, και τώρα μόλις συνειδητοποίησα ότι είμαι μάλιστα Άγριος Κεντρώος. 

Τιμή μας και καμάρι μας, και μπορούμε, όσοι συμφωνούμε μεταξύ μας, να θεμελιώσουμε και να υποστηρίξουμε την Κεντρώα ιδεολογική τοποθέτηση μας, επί πολλών κρίσιμων ζητημάτων, ανεξάρτητα αν θέλουμε ή δεν θέλουμε τον καπιταλισμό και τον κρατικό (ψευτο-)σοσιαλισμό, όπως εγώ.

--

 

A self-critical attitude is saying that I should care, when I don't care in advance, and not saying and advertising that I care, in advance, already creating moralist judgments.
So does this concern you "in advance" "humanitarians"-and-"internationalists"? 

The creation of a new sacred examination? Come to your senses, because the only result of the moralistic-slanderous and at the same time self-advertising campaign by you,
of blaming "xenophobes" and other "-phobes", had, has and will have the sole effect of facilitating and strengthening the process of the rise of the extreme right, Trump Putin, etc. etc.

--

 

Ideologies feed on deads, I, looking for bread and water every day.

--

 

Οι ιδεολογίες τρέφονται με νεκρούς, εγώ ψάχνω για ψωμί και νερό κάθε μέρα.

--

 

ΚΑΙ ΦΥΣΙΚΑ, ακόμα κι αν η νησίδα είναι ελληνική, η πιθανότητα τής τουρκικής παγίδας/προβοκάτσιας, λόγω τής αμφίβολης «εδαφικής οριακότητας» που ενέχει η περίπτωση, δεν σας πέρασε από το μυαλό, έτσι;
Kωθώνια. 

--

 

AND OF COURSE, even if the islet is Greek, the possibility of a Turkish trap/provocation, due to the dubious "territorial limitation" involved in the case, did not cross your mind, did it?

Idiots..

--

 

Επίσημο όργανο τού ελληνικού κράτους, λέμε τώρα, Ανεξάρτητη Αρχή είναι μάλλον, ΔΗΛΑΔΗ ΣΚΑΤΑ (κατά την δική μου αντίληψη των πραγμάτων, με το συμπάθειο) και ψεύδεται; χρησιμοποιώντας ανακριβή ή αμφίβολα στοιχεία, για να μιλήσει ουσιαστικά εναντίον τού ίδιου τού ελληνικού κράτους;

Γιατί τούτο το ενδεχόμενο θεωρείται απίθανο από πολλούς;

Το ελληνικό κράτος λοιπόν είναι ένα τρύπιο πανέρι στο οποίο πάνω ζούνε και «μεγαλουργούνε» Συριζαίοι/ΠΑΣΟΚοι, Δεξιοί και άλλοι καριερίστες, σε μια διαρκή (αν-)ισορροπία στον «συσχετισμό δύναμης» (ανάλογα με το ποιος κατέχει το γκουβέρνο) που είναι και ιδεολογικός και θεσμικός-εξουσιαστικός «συσχετισμός δύναμης» και άλλα..

-

Αυτό το άθλιο κείμενο ξέρω να το διαβάζω διότι έχω διαβάσει άπειρες εγκυκλίους, τού «παλαιού» κρατικού μηχανισμού, ως υπάλληλος, και έχω να πω το εξής: διέπεται από την ίδια γραφειοκρατική ασάφεια που διέπει και τις «παραδοσιακές» εγκυκλίους...τα ίδια σκατά και απόσκατα δηλαδή, και κάνει και μια λαδιά στο τέλος που μόνον κωλοτριμμένοι υπάλληλοι όπως εγώ καταλαβαίνουν: μιλάει για 5 Σύρους μετανάστες που έχουν βρεθεί σε ελληνικό έδαφος, όντως ελληνικό έδαφος, «επιπλέον», χωρίς να διευκρινίζει ΠΟΥ ΚΟΛΛΑΕΙ αυτό το «επιπλέον». 

ΠΟΥ ΚΟΛΛΑΕΙ συριζόψυχοι σύντροφοι νεο-γραφειοκράτες; στην ήδη υπάρχουσα ομάδα προσφύγων που βρίσκεται στην νησίδα; 

Ή μήπως αφορά σε άλλη περίπτωση; οεοο; αν αφορά σε άλλη περίπτωση, γιατί η «ανεξάρτητη αρχή» κολλάει αυτή την νέα περίπτωση στην ήδη υπάρχουσα; 

Μήπως για να περάσει μετωνυμικά ένα Μήνυμα ότι αφορούν το ίδιο, άρα το έδαφος γίνεται έτσι (μετωνυμικά) «ελληνικό» και σε ό,τι αφορά στην αρχική ομάδα; Ντροπή ρε για τις σπουδές σας, νεο-γραφειοκράτες τής Μετωνυμίας! ξεφτίλες..

-

 

Non-governmental organizations "in favor (over) refugees-immigrants" on the Greek-Turkish border:
We are talking about many, many and hot money baby.

--

The ideological and institutional "adoption" of refugee-immigrants and all minorities, attempted by the neo-left/neo-anarchists of the West, led, leads and will always lead to the election and strengthening of politicians like Trump and Orbán.

The responsibility of the "left-liberal" "open borders" philanthropists fraudsters and liars is enormous.

In fact, they do NOT care about refugee-immigrants, they care about votes, new followers, increasing ideological influence, and are engaged in exercises in ethno-Machiavellianism and ethno-engineering, playing on ethnic hatreds to sharpen them rather than reduce them.

I tell them directly, repeating:

You are garbage, and you are the ones who bring far-right and reactionary ethnocentrism to the ideological and political forefront.

--

 

Propaganda operation "Evros".

The Greek left/and/anarchism actively participated in the dissemination of an unconfirmed and rather false information about an immigrant group and a family (that their child died and could not bury it, etc.) who was trapped in Greek territory on the Evros etc.

As the "leftist" bums and liars later admitted, the islet in Evros where the immigrant-refugees were trapped belongs to Turkey, so what are they asking for? for the Greek state and the Greek border guard to intervene in Turkish territory?

Willing, and always slimy "open borders" humanitarians (Greeks and Foreigners) who play the game of the Turkish propaganda and Turkish biopolitical machine, ready to adopt every lie and every rumor that "circulates" in the fake news market.

THESE are the ones who strengthen the far right, THESE "human-ideo-types" of ideological obfuscation are the ones who inflate the danger of Trump being re-elected.

--

AND OF COURSE, even if the islet is Greek, the possibility of a Turkish trap/provocation, due to the dubious "territorial limitation" involved in the case, did not cross your mind, did it?

Idiots.

--

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

''The King is nake''

It applies to the whole "neutral" left, anarchism, etc. "The King is naked", but he still plays with his dick in public.

 

To Iranian Hekmatists:

Do you remember when a senior party-official of You celebrated the mobilization of an Italian labor union against the shipment of arms to Ukraine?

You are not Stalinists, supposed, nor do you support the Russian imperialist campaign, but you keep an equal distance to Western (American) and Russian (Eastern in general) imperialism-nationalism.

See now what this union is that excited your leadership with its action.

Excerpt from an article on the Italian left:

''On the other hand, the position of the organization Potere al Popolo (Power to the People), which was formed by some of those who left Rifondazione along with other political and social groups, and the union Unione Sindacale di Base (USB)—which are linked organizationally and directed politically by the organization Rete dei Comunisti (which produces the electronic magazine, contropiano.org)—should be noted. USB played a leading role in the port workers’protest against sending weapons to Ukraine, trying to block the loading of them, an anti-militarist practice already used in other conflicts where NATO was a direct player in a war of aggression. 

USB is part of the World Trade Union Federation (www.wftucentral.org) and has participated in several meetings with it in Damascus, including at the invitation of President Assad. This detail is not secondary. 

Even in the case of the Syrian conflict, USB sided decisively with Assad (and thus with Russia) in the face of an uprising supposedly desired and financed by U.S. imperialism, which was alleged to have also invented and financed ISIS, like Al Qaeda before; this also explains the USB’s coldness toward the experience of Rojava and the YPG, which at one stage of the conflict leaned on the U.S. to fight ISIS...''

 

"We must not become again like the Others".

Once the question was "what to do".
Τoday it has been completed, but in a way that radically changes its essence, as follows "what to do, and what not to do again".

--

Expanding on what I said:

Leftist-anarchist-marxist-communist-radical friends.

Perhaps you agree with this question as I presented it to you as a supplemental question after so much has been thrown at our heads (after the Soviet Union turned out to be a huge state-capitalist state-socialist fraud).

But most of you give the wrong, narcissistic, self-righteous answer:

"We must not become again like the Others"

You mean the "capitalist world", so you say that what (as mistake) should not be done again is to "not be yourself but the Other".

If this is historical self-criticism I am either Nebuchadnezzar or some Caliph in Baghdad.

When you say that something must not happen again, on your part, you must not only say "don't become like the Other again" (the class enemy), but also to add that you ''must not remain the same as your former revolutionary self", for which the Other (the enemy) is not only to blame.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

That's enough, we're sick of You.

 

Out of respect for the Arab Syrian Facebook-friend, I will not provide the link to his article on the attempted assassination of Salman Rushdie.

He practices a kind of ''Whatabοutism'', too, although he has criticized this "heterodetermination" in relation to Ukrainian.

There, in this matter (Ukrainian issue), he knew how to criticize ''Whataboutism'', because the "Russian enemy" "appeared" in the picture, and he was right.

But now that political Islam appears in the picture, he forgot (fraudulent or unconsciously) his criticism of "heterodetermination" and practices ''Whataboutism'', citing the example of a writer's murder by the Israelis.

I will tell you my sin.

Father, I have sinned.

What the Arab Syrian NOW did for the Israelis (and probably the Kurds, I suppose) I did, and continue to do, for the Arab anti-Zionists (and other anti-Zionists), while I also criticize Whataboutism elsewhere.

I have sinned, and since I am not a Christian, nor a Muslim, nor a Buddhist, nor a polytheist, nor a Hindu, nor even a Marxist (can you imagine? the guy has a big problem), I will tell my second and biggest sin, which already has imprisoned me in various rooms of hell:

Unless we confess our sins at the same time, all together, and ask forgiveness from ourselves, I am not going to stop sinning, Zionistically.

Whatever you do, Israel was borned again, to exist forever, until the end of the Dominion world, because before it has no reason for a Jew to trust you, that he is not targeted from all of you.

The friend is anti-Assad, but the pro-Assads say the same.

The various anti-Zionists are capable of eliminating each other, but when it comes to Israel they agree that it is to blame for everything, and ''why don't we talk about it and only talk about Rushdie?''

That's enough, we're sick of You.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

The sophistry upsets you..

The sophistry upsets you, not because it is sophistry, thus a violation of Reason, but because it reveals the gaps in your own, apparently coherent, argument, but also (it upsets you, because it reveals) the possibility that your own Reason as a whole, as an edifice, to has hidden sophistic underpinnings.
Sophistry disturbs a hidden sophistry, who has married, settled down, decided to have children, and teaches them the "Reason Against Sophistry".

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Until then, I fight.

I declare my unilateralism in some issues concerning people, places, ideological nuances, and I pledge to continue to exercise this unilateralism by trying not to lie to myself and others.
I hate Turkey, and I say it openly, cynically, without any shame.

--

 

When the Treaty of Lausanne was concluded between the defeated Greece and Turkey, it was institutionalized through this treaty that in Greece there is a Muslim minority in western Thrace, and in Turkey an Orthodox-Christian minority in Constantinople. 

The choice to define these now institutionalized minorities based on their religious rather than their ethnic/national identity was Turkey's choice, not Greece's, and it was chosen because Turkey wanted to bury and assimilate the citizens of the former Ottoman Empire who were Muslim but NOT Turks, as for example the Kurds were (who fought in the Greco-Turkish War of 1920-22, on the side of the Turks, hoping that the bastard Kemal would recognize them as a nation in a Turkish-Kurdish federation, but he deceived them, let them be careful too, when they slaughtered Armenians and Greeks they did it for the sake of the Turks but the Turks have no respect, or dignity and never keep their promises).

The two minorities had hundreds of thousands of members.

How many Greek Christians remained in Constantinople today?

3-4,000. The rest were driven out by pogroms, rapes, mass murders, threats and terrorism.

The Turkish minority of western Thrace, in Greece (a part of the Muslims in western Thrace are not Turks), increased, and they enjoy the rights of the Greek citizen, under a regime of oppressive or semi-oppressive surveillance of course. 

Maybe we should treat them to something sweet?

If Turkey starts a war against Greece with the aim of seizing territories, the Greek nation has every right to expel the Turks from Greek western Thrace. If they want let them go to their beloved Turkey, unless they fight on our side against Turkey.

--

 

Turkey reconciled with the Chechen collaborators by selling in the bazaar the Islamic National Guerrilla (which is right to fight the Russians).
Turkey sold in the bazaar the anti-Assad Syrians, Islamist or not, and makes dirty arrangements with the Assad regime, the Russian neo-tsarists and the Iranian theocrats, who also use the Kurds to "reduce" Turkey, as long as they need this "reduction''.
The middle east (and the Caucasus) is full of fools, but I forgot... "it's all Zionism's fault"...

--

 

When you are betrayed you must betray those who betrayed you while you did not betray them. Otherwise, you're an idiot, man.

--

 

When war as a means of settlement and completion of human antagonisms (which are not only class antagonisms) is over, notify me.
Until then, I fight.

--

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

Η περιπέτεια μιας λέξης: «αναθεωρητισμός». The adventure of one word: "revisionism".

 

Η περιπέτεια μιας λέξης: «αναθεωρητισμός».

---

Στα νιάτα μας, στην Ελλάδα, αυτή η λέξη πρωτακούστηκε όταν την χρησιμοποιούσαν οι μαρξιστές-λενινιστές (συνήθως σταλινικοί τού ΚΚΕ) για να χαρακτηρίσουν τα μέλη τού ευρωκομμουνιστικού ΚΚΕ-Εσ.

Μετά από πολλά χρόνια άναψε σε όλο τον κόσμο (εμφανίστηκε στην κοινή θέα) μια υφέρπουσα συζήτηση για τις γενοκτονίες που διέπραξαν οι Ναζί, ειδικά για το ολοκαύτωμα, και για την ιστορική διαφορά και ομοιότητα μεταξύ ναζισμού και (σταλινικού) κομμουνισμού.

Υπήρξε μια σειρά κρυφο-χιτλερικών δυτικών ιστοριογράφων που από την μια σχετικοποιούσαν τις ναζιστικές γενοκτονίες και από την άλλη εξομοίωναν αυτές τις γενοκτονίες με τις σταλινικές μαζικές δολοφονίες και γενοκτονίες.

Έπρατταν θεωρητικά αυτή την εξομοίωση όχι από την πλευρά ενός προοδευτικού ή συντηρητικού φιλελευθερισμού (όπως άλλοι) αλλά εκκινώντας από μια ακροδεξιά οπτική γωνία.

Ονομάστηκαν (κι αυτοί) «αναθεωρητές», ως αναθεωρητές τής κοινής μεταπολεμικής ιστορικής αλήθειας που μέχρι τότε δομούνταν ως κοινή δια-ιδεολογική δυτική διαπίστωση ότι ο Ναζισμός υπήρξε μια ιδεολογία και μια πολιτική πρακτική που υπερέβη (προς τα κακά «άνω») κάθε όριο δολοφονικότητας, απανθρωπιάς και τερατωδίας.

Η στάση αυτών των αναθεωρητών κατακρίθηκε έντονα και με ισχυρά επιχειρήματα, και τέθηκαν στο περιθώριο τής σοβαρής ιστοριογραφίας.

Το μεγάλο σκάνδαλο ξέσπασε όταν ένας δεξιός Γερμανός ιστοριογράφος και στοχαστής, ο Νόλτε, έπραξε μιαν ανάλογη ιστορική εξομοίωση, μεταξύ Ναζισμού και Κομμουνισμού, χωρίς να ξεπέφτει μεν στα προπαγανδιστικά ατοπήματα των φιλο-χιτλερικών αναθεωρητών ιστοριογράφων αλλά πλησιάζοντάς τους με έναν τρόπο που απέδωσε στα θεμελιώδη επιχειρήματά τους μια «στερεότερη» θεμελίωση.

Το κεντρικό απαράδεκτο επιχείρημά του ήταν ότι ο Ναζισμός-Φασισμός ήταν μια ολοκληρωτιστική «απάντηση» στον προϋπάρχοντα ολοκληρωτισμό τού Κομμουνισμού.

Πρέπει να επισημάνουμε σε αυτό το σημείο ότι «παράλληλα» με όλες αυτές τις δεξιές-ακροδεξιές «ζυμώσεις» υπήρχε ένα ευρύ φάσμα αντι-σταλινικών αλλά ακόμα και αντι-κομμουνιστών αριστερών και φιλελεύθερων, οι οποίοι στάθμιζαν (και σταθμίζουν ακόμα) τούς «δύο ολοκληρωτισμούς» (Φασισμός/Ναζισμός-Κομμουνισμός) ως ουσιαστικά όμοιους, αλλά δεν ενοχοποιούν περισσότερο τον Κομμουνισμό, τείνοντας μάλλον στην «παραδοσιακή» μεταπολεμική άποψη ότι ο Φασισμός είναι (ήταν) χειρότερος.

Ωστόσο, το μεταπολεμικό ιστοριογραφικό δια-ιδεολογικό «κοινωνικό συμβόλαιο» απέκτησε τις πρώτες του ρωγμές.

Τι συνέβη επιπλέον που μεγάλωσε το ρήγμα στην μεταπολεμική ιστοριογραφία;

Είδαμε εν συντομία και δια παραδειγμάτων ότι οι πρώτοι που έσπασαν την δημοκρατική αντιφασιστική αφηγηματική σύμβαση στον δυτικό κόσμο ήταν καταρχάς ακροδεξιοί ιστοριογράφοι που κρύβονταν μέσα στο κύριο ρεύμα τής δυτικής μη-φασιστικής δεξιάς, «έπειτα» ήρθε (εμφανίστηκε) η πρόκληση τού Νόλτε.

Η αριστερά ως αντιφασιστική/αντιναζιστική ιδεολογική και πολιτική δύναμη (και δίπλα της ο αναρχισμός με τις δικές του εναλλακτικές αλλά συνεπώς αντιφασιστικές αφηγήσεις) αντεπιτέθηκε, όχι αποκαθιστώντας την κοινή δια-ιδεολογική αντιφασιστική μεταπολεμική αφήγηση, αλλά επιτιθέμενη ΚΑΙ στην «αναθεωρητική κρυφοχιτλερική ακροδεξιά» ΚΑΙ στην «αναθεωρητική δεξιά» τύπου Νόλτε, αλλά ΚΑΙ στον κεντρώο σοσιαλδημοκρατικό και φιλελεύθερο «χώρο» κατηγορώντας τον το τελευταίο ότι βρίσκεται σε ουσιαστική, ως καπιταλιστική, αντι-αριστερή σύμπραξη με την δεξιά ακροδεξιά κ.λπ

Η βρώμικη απαράδεκτη «αναθεωρητική» ιστοριογραφική και εντέλει αφηγηματική επίθεση τής δεξιάς στην αριστερά, απαντήθηκε από την αριστερά με μια σχεδόν εξίσου αλήτικη και λούμπεν αφήγηση, που ενοχοποιούσε συλλήβδην όλους τους αντι-ολοκληρωτιστές αριστερούς και φιλελεύθερους, κατατάσσοντάς τους στον ευρύ όρο τού (ιστοριογραφικού-αφηγηματικού) «αναθεωρητισμού».

Καμία ελπίδα, κανένα φως, ΤΙΠΟΤΑ δεν άλλαξε.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

---

 

The adventure of one word: "revisionism".

---

In our youth, in Greece, this word was first heard when it was used by Marxist-Leninists (usually Stalinists of the KKE) to characterize the members of the Euro-communist KKE-Es.

After many years a debate was ignited around the world about the genocides committed by the Nazis, especially the holocaust, and about the historical difference and similarity between Nazism and (Stalinist) Communism.

There has been a series of covert-Hitler Western historians who on the one hand relativized the Nazi genocides and on the other equated these genocides with Stalinist mass murders and genocides.

They theoretically did this simulation not from the side of a progressive or conservative liberalism (like others) but from a far-right perspective.

They were (also) called "revisionists", as revisionists of the common post-war historical truth that until then was structured as a common inter-ideological Western finding that Nazism was an ideology and a political practice that exceeded (to the worse "above") any limit of murder , inhumanity and monstrosity.

The attitude of these revisionists was strongly criticized and with strong arguments, and they were put on the sidelines of the serious historiography.

The big scandal broke out when a right-wing German historian and thinker, Nolte, made a similar historical analogy, between Nazism and Communism, without falling for the propagandistic naiveties of pro-Hitler revisionist historians.

He approached them in a way that gave their fundamental arguments a more "solid" footing.

His central objectionable argument was that Nazism-Fascism was a totalitarian "answer" to the pre-existing totalitarianism of Communism.

We must point out at this point that "parallel" to all these far-right "fermentations" there was a wide range of anti-Stalinist and even anti-communist leftists and liberals, who weighed (and still weigh) the "two totalitarianisms ” (Fascism/Nazism-Communism) as essentially similar, but they do not blame Communism more, leaning rather towards the “traditional” post-war view that Fascism is (was) worse.

However, the postwar historiographical inter-ideological "social contract" developed its first cracks.

What else happened that widened the rift in postwar historiography?

We saw briefly and by way of examples that the first to break the democratic anti-fascist narrative convention in the Western world were first far-right historiographers hiding within the mainstream of the Western non-fascist right, ''then'' came Nolte's challenge.

The left as an anti-fascist/anti-Nazi ideological and political force (and alongside it anarchism with its own alternative but therefore anti-fascist narratives) fought back, not by restoring the common inter-ideological anti-fascist post-war narrative, but by attacking BOTH the "revisionist Hitlerian far-right" AND the "revisionist right" of the Nolte type, but ALSO in the centrist social democratic and liberal "space", accusing them (liberalleftists-socialdemocrats ect) of being in an essential, as capitalist, anti-left partnership with the far-right, etc.

The dirty unacceptable "revisionist" historiographical and ultimately narrative attack of the right on the left, was answered by the left with an almost equally vagrant and lumpen narrative, which implicitly incriminated all anti-totalitarian leftists and liberals, classifying them in the broad term of (historiographic- narrative) "revisionism".

No hope, no light, NOTHING changed.

Ioannis Tzanakos

 

 

 

1) Healthy Political Cynicism, 2) Comparisons and evaluations of political and value similarities and differences // 1) Υγιής Πολιτικός Κυνισμός, 2) Συγκρίσεις και αξιολογήσεις πολιτικών και αξιακών ομοιοτήτων και διαφορών.

1) Healthy Political Cynicism.

 

I don't know if there is politics without "cynicism"*, but I am beginning to believe that when it comes to the analysis of political phenomena and what it has to do with making political judgments, a way of "cynicism" is necessary in order for someone to be able to unmask the extreme moralism and idealism of all of us, so that he can see the real face of our narrowheartedness and our attachment to our material-interests and value choices. 

The purpose of this kind of "cynicism" is not necessarily the sanctification and moral legitimization of this narrowness or finitude of ours, since an unmasking can potentially have many and contradictory developments, if it happens.

 

* We are of course referring to the modern meaning of the term, and not to ancient cynicism.

---

 

 

Many years ago, I criticized the use of the term ''proxy'' to incriminate alliances of weak political, class and national 'bodies' that are in an objectively weak position in the global balance of power.

There is no weak factor in the world struggle for politico-military existence which is not forced to resort to an alliance with a great politico-military power.

Contrary to what many otherwise "humanist" or "Marxist" people say, I believe that people and movements have dignity, even when they are reactionary.

Everyone has their own agendas, and everyone at some point is looking for support, weapons, money, networks and direct or indirect contacts with a large civil-military force.

Look at what Lenin did using German imperialism during WW1, and look at it from a non-conspiracy point of view, as another manifestation of this aspect of political affairs.

Accepting the presence of this "earthly" dimension of politics and strategic practice, how do we construct analytical and value judgments for the alliances of the Ukrainians, the Kurds, and the Palestinian fighters?

Without moralizing, with accepting a degree of "political cynicism" as an element of political and civil-military practice, which alliances as cynical alliances are justified? and to what extent?

At what point does justified cynicism in geopolitical and political-military issues turn into unjustified destructive dead-end cynicism?

--

 

When you consider "supreme value" as a constituent term of a theory that intends to explain the world, then probably - so I believe - you either want to be deceived by the "literalism" of ideologies or simply to deceive.

Let us consider as an interesting aspect of things the fact that in many cases the "impostor" and the "deceived" may be the same person.

-----

 

2) Comparisons and evaluations of political and value similarities and differences.

Azov battalion in Ukraine is politically weak, still, but I don't think Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza are politically weak.
Want comparisons?
I have more others in my pocket.

-

If the Ukrainian resistance was led by Banderists and fascists, I would not support it. 

The Ukrainian resistance is led by a bourgeois authoritarian but also a democratic state, which is why I support it (even if there are some strong far-right elements there as well). 

The Palestinian resistance in Gaza is led by the Islamofascist gangs of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who are indeed exploiting their own people - not that Israel is not to blame. 

My heart is cold for the movements in the Arab world, since many years, and I am not alone in this feeling. I just haven't learned to hide my feelings.

-

There is a simple reason that I only hope for the democratic labor movement in Iran and partly in Kurdistan, and I have NO hope for the movements in the Arab world. 

I hate religion and there is no going back on that. Islam, Christianity, Judaism and religions in general, if you take them seriously, they turn you into a bastard or a seriously ill person.

I don't want to be related to religion, directly or indirectly. 

Today's Arab world stinks of religion.

-

Israel uses the same argument as Russia, since both countries mention the existence of an absolute Evil (fascism-Nazism or Islamofascism) within the peoples that are subject to their attacks. 

To the extent that this fact is valid, the argument is strong, but it is more valid in the case of Gaza, while it was not valid or is valid very little in the case of Ukraine. 

Well, it is wrong to consider an argument as invalid only because it can function as a pretext if it is not based on facts. 

Russia's argument is weak because it is not based on facts, not because it is invalid on its own. 

If what Russia said based on facts was valid, the argument would be correct and the intervention justified, but this was not the case. 

In the case of Israel there is a greater degree of truth in its argument, mixed of course with lies and propaganda.

-

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

Ukraine, Palestine, Israel, Kurdistan, Yezidi. A personal look. [1-2]

 

Ukraine, Palestine, Israel, Kurdistan, Yezidi.

A personal look. [1]

---

In a decisive moment (for my "own" subjectivity) of my humble ideological interventions in the public scene of my country, wanting to provoke as much as possible ideological and political opponents within the Greek left, I wrote a brazenly provocative article on my blog that was immediately republished on a Greek Zionist (center-right) website.

In this article, among other things, I provocatively stated that I consider myself a Zionist.

It is obvious that I could not be a Zionist, unless I had also decided to become a Jew but additionally to added to this new quality of mine the "Zionist" quality. Simply and in a clear provocative way, I was manifesting at that moment a direct pro-Zionist and pro-Israel position.

So what had happened, apart from the fact that I was at that moment expressing a rage stemming from other political and ideological events?

Before we answer this most essential question, let's first solve the first questions that will surely form in the astonished minds of my leftist and other friends. So what had preceded that, "the guy went crazy"?

What events caused my immediate anger?

In short, expressed in points:

1.

No leftist anarchist etc organization in Greece has shown any interest in the ISIS genocide of Yezidis. None, apart from sympathetic articles (''tea and sympathy'').

There was even an anarcho-Stalinist group (yes, this also exists in the country imaginary-descendant of Plato and Aristotle), which declared about the sufferings of the Kurds of northern Iraq "they are reaping the fruits of their pro-Americanism and pro-imperialism". It goes without saying that the Yezidis were also included in this cynical "account", even if they are not exactly Kurds (they are an ethnic group related to the Kurds but with a separate ethnic and religious identity).

I partially understand the hostility towards the Kurdish national/ethnic movement, in all its aspects, in the sense that it is involved in controversial international alliances, but what did the Yezidis do? Why such cruelty and apathy against them, from the "left"? But they also, within the Greek and international movement who show sympathy towards the PKK (including me) why didn't they deal with the Yezidis? Only if you have weapons and flags and heroes, you arouse interest, perhaps for an another "oriental fantasy", if you are unarmed, small, unknown, a pure victim, you do not attract attention. I say this, wich I loved the PKK, since I was a teenager, and I support it as much as I can to this day, even by propaganda.

So why such apathy? Do you really, if you are a victim genocide nation/ethnicity, have to instill absolute fear in order to be respected by wolves, jackals, echidnas and supposedly "friendly" other peoples?

Does this remind you of something?

To me it reminds me of a people who lived for thousands of years without their own Leviathan, suffered genocide until absolute extermination, and came to say at the end "so, I will never again exist without Leviathan, I will never again be subject to mercy of the brother people''

If the Yezidis will developed their own "Zionism", well, yes, I would be a Zionist then, and I would not regret it any more than I have regret for my provocative statements in that once stormy past.

2.

I did not see, perhaps there is, ANY Palestinian leftist or patriotic organization protesting the Yezidi genocide. I only saw some ridiculous attempts by Arabs and Western leftists to "register" ISIS in the forces that serve Zionism or even more as "created" by Zionism and Israel. Mercy friends. This monster is an Islamist and mainly Arab Iraqi-Syrian Sunni creation, with the help of Islamofascist Turkey.

But I will continue, stating in advance that I still defend the right of the Palestinian Arabs to have their own state but perhaps also to return to their homeland, wich was stolen by others.

But other things, I will tell you gradually..

 

---

Ukraine, Palestine, Israel, Kurdistan, Yezidi.

A personal look. [2].

 

My brief narrative on the analogy between the Ukrainian and the Israeli-Palestinian (and Kurdish) issue was creatively interrupted by the intervention of Michael Karadjis.

In these rapid situations we are experiencing, it is probably pointless to immerse ourselves in subjective memories and "reconstructions".

However, keeping my promise I will conclude my narrative, squeezing it in a few points, without avoiding the subjective aspects.

1.

There is an issue of the potential transformation of the victim into a perpetrator, sometimes within a short period of time. This "inversion" has of course been "tooled" by conservatism to relativize the victim's "hypostasis" and to exonerate the perpetrator. The conservative-reactionaries say: "You are victims, but very quickly you will turn into perpetrators, so you are not really victims".

This rhetoric of conservatism exists in many patterns which also appear as criticism of "reverse racism" of black people, Muslims, colonized peoples. Personally, I strongly blame both Nietzsche and wider Nietzscheism for philosophically entrenching such a malicious critique of "inversion".

The great, albeit controversial, Orwell is also responsible for this diversion, at the level of the intellect.

However, here too is the difficulty, there is indeed this possibility of "reversal" of the "offender-victim" roles, with a truly tragic historical form and with paradoxical consequences or forms. Look at the Jewish people, or rather, the Jewish peoples (for before the emergence of Jewish nationalism, there was not national but ethno-religious homogeneity among these peoples). From victims of a two-thousand-year persecution, they turned in a short time into perpetrators of a persecutory process of colonization and expulsion of a native Arab people who had nothing to do with the persecution of the Jews. This "reversal" therefore took place, and even without the victim of this former victim ever being an ''structurally'' aggressor against him in the past.

At the same time, the oppressor state that is the "property" of this former victim, and the former victim himself, are not in a world that love the Jews.

Tell me, how will the Arab-Israeli issue, or if you prefer the issue of the "occupation of Palestine" really be resolved, if we do not examine this whole process of "reversal" with a certain moral and moral-political method that works as method of solving the universal problem (of this type) of "inversion"?

2.

In a corresponding and more extensive series of "things", the dilemma of inversion that we have just mentioned, acquires a larger and more complex structural dimension, when we place it on the "map" of all the conflicts and antagonisms that over time govern the class-hierarchical societies but more specifically modern class-hierarchical societies. We want to find a "dipole" and we find a labyrinth of heterodeterminations, inversions, impasses and asymmetrical mutualreflections.

3.

I begin with the axiom, that I see only the shadow of this labyrinthine scheme of human affairs, and declare without fear that I have fallen into all its grave snares.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος