The new doctrine.

The New Internationalist Doctrine it mandates that you vote against the war spending of a bourgeois state, and anyone who supports that spending be accused of being a nationalist, a warmonger, a patriarchal sexist, a militarist.

My own political and politico-military Doctrine says that all of this is under review and constant review after the defining global historical event of World War II, where all alliances and therefore war spending became legitimate as long as they serve an anti-fascist purpose.

Turkey is not just an authoritarian capitalist state but an expansionist fascist state that has specific territorial ambitions against Greece.

There is not simply a competition between two capitalist states/capitals and countries but the competition of an authoritarian democratic capitalist state that has no territorial ambitions with a fascistized state that has territorial ambitions.

And when we talk about territorial ambitions, we mean a politico-military goal that includes the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the innocent Greek people, especially the islands of the eastern Aegean.

What is the point of the leftist and anti-capitalist Doctrine when it does not allow one to face this reality?

Not only does it have no meaning but sometimes it has a clearly negative destructive meaning, in short it does harm.

Are the Greek anarchist leftist anti-capitalists adapting this destructive Doctrine?

No, anything else.

In fact, they intensify it, sharpen it, push it to its limitless consequence.

Anyone who criticizes them, is slandered, in the way they know and learned from their environment, as a nationalist (at best) or (usually) as an ethno-fascist and far-right.

They are brazen sycophants who have no guts and little brain in their skulls.

So what should be done with this political space in Greece? Nothing special.

The democratic people just need to lead him back to the political sidelines.

There they can weep and wail about how evil and alienated the world and the damned people are, and we'll get into politics again.

Enough with the fools.

 

---

 

Those of us in Greece who support national defense against Turkish expansionism, if we were on the left have been expelled from it, and are now forced to shift the ideological, political and cultural axis of our subjectivity towards the "center" at least (some they go further to the right, not necessarily to the right-far right).

All this is a result of the politics of the Greek left in its entirety and of Greek anarchism.

So since the Greek left has decided to form in this way its absolute dividing lines, even hypocritically disguising them as moderate "patriotism", as Syriza did, we too are now obliged to fight this political opponent with hard lines.

No more political mercy towards Greek leftism and anarchism.

We will crush them.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Date in Hell comrades.

The only cassock worth wearing is the cassock of sin.
Date in Hell comrades.

---

I was given a key that would open no some lock, and I had no desire to make a lock to fit that key, because I was concerned with opening the door to the world's truth, not making locks for their ideological a priori.

---

In search of historical virginity?

No, friends, you lose your virginity only once.

Then you participate in the historic orgy.

Don't be late, and don't forget your whip.

---

Cold eye, forever hidden burning heart. If you want them to fall in love with you.

Cut the crying * .

*I give advice to Marxists who loves History.

 ---

In "History" there are final judgments too, but the judgment goes on and on until the guilt wears off and the Judges go to sleep in some museum.

Will this ever happen? I think, no.

But this constant judgment also does not lend itself to worship.

It's a chore as long as there are idiots, but we don't know how many idiots there are and how long they will continue to exist.

I know many mini versions of them in neighborhoods and apartment buildings and I see them reproduce, not necessarily through their children.

Supposing such morons cease to exist, won't we have other problems that need constant criticism?

Of course, yes. When you tell me, I'll tell you my opinion.

In my thinking, the fight against bullshit always comes first.

In this kind of polemic, the Hegelianism of a final judgment, provides me with some illusory hopes that may have a counterpartion in reality.

---

Apart from the good-natured image of contemporary epistemology about the "permanent Judgment" through the specter of "History", when I hear this I think of a hellish survival of criticism and (moral) Judgment in human condition, from all to all, like a constant minimum or maximum holy test, where all your actions will go through a constant test, even for how you opened the cap of a beer. 

This happens after all, people constantly judge others, for mistakes, omissions, obsessions or for deliberate selfishness.

Should we enlarge it? make it a social norm? to even find universal rules that constitute a common code of judgment on human behavior?

Better leave it.

I prefer to go to a sandy beach where everything is washed away by the wave.

---

Rational Hegelianism means incorporating epistemic errors or partialities into a larger rational truth or achievement, but it also means (something Hegel did not always do well) rejecting some errors and non-organically integrating them into the history of thought, since they were perhaps the result of a of possible weakness or incapacity (e.g. preventions).

---

I just saw a comment from a little American boy who once again declared his outrage at the murderous Assad, commenting on the butcher's rants against the "woke culture".

The little American, the scumbag, is rightly infuriated, but he had deleted me when I reported negatively about the ''holy'' anti-Assad opposition of the idiot decapitators, racist anti-Kurds, who had the audacity to criticize the PKK for "ethnic cleansing".

The pro-fascist pro-Islamo-fascist was offended that we tarnished the reputation of his beloved fascist Islamo-fascist pigs, and he considers his conscience clear because he is hostile to the other fascist, Assad.

Fascists here, fascists there, fascists everywhere and stupid westerners, fascists or pro-fascists.

Fuck you, all.

 

Fuck You Assad,
Fuck You FSA,
Glory to PKK!

 

Why did the West only support the PKK in Syria, and not the FSA to the end as well?

What a question!

The Arab chauvinists and Islamist-idiots thought that the West could continue to support their Islamo-fascist carnival, just because it was against the fascist Assad.

As if to support Goebbels against Hitler.

And they cry, they cry, like the little ones who were abandoned by the other fascist, Erdoğan, for the sweet eyes of the fascist Assad.

Cry all you want. I, who am not a moralist Marxist, refer you to my Greek and Kurdish balls.

 

My Greek one-sidedness is appalling, certainly un-Marxist, and whispers lustily in my ear:

In the middle east, I like the Iranians, the Kurds, and the Jews, for the others I have no lust for, okay?

I'm not a Marxist moralist, I openly confess my sins.

Will you forgive me, God?

I hate and love with a passion, but I love not the everyone.

 

I confess my sin, Oh God of Marxism and anarchism.

I speak the truth of myself and violate the scriptures.

I don't love all peoples the same.

Will I be judged in eternal punishment?

Sorry dear God, but some people are indifferent to me, even if they are right, some people are wonderful to me, even if they are sometimes wrong.

I know, I sin, but I can't help myself.

I am carried away by passion, and despite the fact that I keep saying the prayer of proletarian internationalism, after a while I succumb to passion and sin.

I have secured an eternal place in Marxist hell, and my perversion is that I enjoy it.

---

(Non-Christian) love is committed to its one-sidedness to the end, it is an eternal one-sidedness, until the end of life which is also the end of the eternity called life.

 

The "dialectical overcoming" of the one-sidedness of love reminds me of marriage or separation.
Sorry, I won't take it.

---

 

Universality is not an argument to support your morality, your morality is an argument to support your possible moral universality, and morality can be one-sided, without it being non-moral, i.e. a mask of hypocrisy.

In fact, it is usually the self-proclaimed universal morality that plays the role of the mask of hypocrisy.

Universality can become an argument in support of morality only if it is an argument that is first proven, if it is proven, and not an argument that prove itself the morality.

What makes and proves universality as an element of morality is morality itself, and that isn't happen always.

---

I am a damned centrist, but gentlemen Marxists and anarchists, I will tell you this once and for the last time:

You will not see Socialism even in the second coming without the Will of this political and cultural background that we express.

---

The unacceptably failed trade union organization of the working class in Greece after the fall of the Junta is a result of the sectarian and fascistic trade union policy of the Stalinist Communists, the extreme leftists, and the populist third world socialists of PASOK (of that time).

I wish we had a party in Greece like the British Labor Party or the SPD.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The realisation of a true socialism.

The realization of a true socialism would need the consent and participation of over 70% of a society. 

We need not only a democratic socialism that would start with the acceptance of the principle of the majority but a democratic socialism that would convince and activate the overwhelming mass of people.

---

A contemporary radical avant-garde would have a meaning of existence and function if it could convince people and not force them to take their own lives into their own hands by abolishing capitalism en masse and by also reducing en masse the functioning of the state, through self-governing economic and local units, with elected alternating and revocable local and central leadership, without bosses.

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος 

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