Every wrong contains a degree of subjective guilt..

Every wrong contains a degree of subjective guilt, not absolute guilt, since there is always a heterodetermining system that co-creates ('with' the subject) that wrong.

When the guilty (individual or collective) subjectivity recognizes its mistake, openly and without excuses, then it can correct it and not repeat it.

After the self-destruction of the authoritarian and exploitative statist system of bureaucratic "socialism" (Soviet Union, etc.), but also before its fall (by anti-Stalinist leftists and anarchists) the left and anarchism sought to find "what was wrong'' and who was its subjective bearer (on a macroscopic historical-subjective and micro-subjective level).

The variously and polymorphously unified answer of all was that the fault was again capitalism, or (in a more anarcho-communist version) capitalism plus the abstract structure: ''State''.

Even when capitalism was not defined by some directly as directly responsible, e.g. the Trotskyists, the bearer of the error was responsible because it brought capitalism "through the back door" (bureaucratic Bonapartism which ultimately leads to capitalism, etc.) .

When Stalin died and his potential successors were neutralized (a similar thing happened with Mao), those who remained loyal to the Stalinist version of state authoritarianism accused their opponents of introducing capitalism (this is what all Maoists did after Stalin's death, but, also, after the death of Mao and the neutralization of his widow who wanted to continue the Maoist version of state authoritarianism).

But there were also the far-left "workers' council" anti-Leninist communists, such as Pannekoek and Gorter, who believed that bureaucratic "socialism" was from its inception a "state capitalism", again..capitalism.

Some Leninists, who were not Trotskyists though, thought (and still think) that in "socialism" after Lenin there was a return to capitalism as "state capitalism".

The anarchists, from a distance, believed that all the evil happened because the authoritarian structure of the "state" was maintained, but they also (most of them), believed and still believe that the result of ideological and political submission to the institution of the state, had as a direct result the rapid predominance of..capitalism, state capitalism or as they call it in their slang, the predominance of the nexus "[state] Capital-State".

Ugh.

As you understood, it is all the fault of the enemy, satanic capitalism, which was able, through its flexibility and known indirectness, like any satanic spirit, to penetrate the insufficiently virtuous souls of believers.

If this thing comrades is "self-criticism" then there is no doubt, I am the Caliph of Baghdad.

In order to fight capitalism and statism again with sufficiency and new strength, we must, in addition to capitalism itself, strictly judge ourselves, not (only) because the leftists retreated to the capitalism (again some others, not us! from the other leftist sect ), so it's not just capitalism and its disguises that are to blame for every stupid thing we've done, but also us, not completely, but somewhere and in something.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Το ανεξάρτητο υποκείμενο ως ετεροκαθορισμός.

Neutrality as defense of the unjust.

Socialism.

The social historical effort to replace property and dominance, demands an increase in the active practice of (working) people at the level of both rights and responsibilities:

1.

Regarding the administration of the separate economic units and the entire economy/production.

2.

As for the administration of each separate political and social institution and the set of social and political institutions.

--

The "property-dominance" nexus (even if it is defined as social "property-dominance") deprives the majority of society of the rights to actively manage material resources and institutional structures, but at the same time this means absolving the corresponding responsibilities and actions (for this majority).

The abolition of individual and oligarchic forms of "property-dominion" does not mean automatic ability and disposal of administration and management energy on the part of subjects deprived of (these properties) due to the pre-existing structure.

An unprecedented and very rapid training and practical undertaking of actions is required to immediately cover the gap that will be left by the non-existence of the previous structure.

A basic ideological and practical condition for covering the structural vacuum that will result from the abolition of individualistic and oligarchic institutions is a deep open and extensive democracy, which, however, will not be understood or acted as it is usually understood and acted (until now) by the radicals circles, as an inductive mass generalization of some form of direct democracy of local and workers' councils.

Democracy was and will remain a totality, which as made up of many small institutional "cells" does not stop having to function as a totality that must be directed as a totality in itself.

The democracy of the councils will again end up in a one-party dictatorship if it is not continuously subject to a large representative assembly of freely elected representatives who, although elected and immediately recalled, must constitute a solidly founded institutional body with critical responsibilities and powers.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

The abolition of private ownership of the means of production and material resources.

The abolition of private ownership of the means of production and material resources necessary for the reproduction of human life, although a necessary condition for the transition to a socialist social and economic system, does not in itself constitute the fulfillment of all the conditions for there to exist this system.

When the original socialists and communists set this negative condition, most of them talking about the abolition of private ownership of wealth primarily through the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, they defined the new system by a positive term: social-public ownership of the means of production .

This is a false and alienating definition if we are talking about real socialism.

Socialism, if it is real and not bureaucratic, by abolishing individual property does not replace it with another property, since the term property itself is intertwined with a form of individual or oligarchic rule of the distribution of the production process and its products.

Socialism will only come if it means in practice the complete replacement of all ownership and appropriation by the collective management and self-management of all social affairs, equality of pay, the weakening and even the abolition of hierarchical divisions in their practice and management.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Αντιστροφή (9)

When you refuse to equate the (less-than-worst-of) evil with the worse-than-that evil, this does not mean that you identify the lesser evil with something that is thereby the better of that which is worse than it.

The lesser evil is not necessarily defined as something "better".

And in this way, which if you pay attention to it is not so difficult to understand, I choose the Western and not the non-Western world, as it is currently constituted as a world.

There is also a more positive form of what I just said, but I ultimately prefer the negative pessimistic form of choosing between dominant structures, because as a thinking citizen I must think as coldly as possible about evil and vice versa, i.e. without idealization.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

Pussy Riot — MAMA, DON’T WATCH TV / МАМА, НЕ СМОТРИ ТЕЛЕВИЗОР