California Love (Original Version)

Shake it shake it baby..

Putin, Trump, Xi, Erdogan, Khamenei, Kahanists, and other idiots, are afraid that their dick will fall and the world will be filled with "gays".

Indeed, this is a world war, and i'm on the gay side.

An old song, from the old days, for us old people, when we left the ''revolutionary'' music to live with sounds.

I need to clarify something.

Iran. When old age must bow humbly to youth, then, yes, revolution comes.

-

-

The today global multinational youth is the locomotive of the global revolt for freedom and equality.

-

Today's global multinational youth cannot easily or at all become dough to be sealed by some transcendental ideology, today's youth is an unbridled creature that has a measure to judge its own life, a measure that it also receives from old "teachings" but treating these "teachings" (even the best of them) as a tool for immediate happiness and freedom.

-

I need to clarify something.

The intracosmic non-transcendent immanence of today's youth does not ''remind'' us of neo-gothic (Hegelian or non-Hegelian) Marxist or anarchist theories (not even the worst fascist ones), nor does it ''remind'' us of Nietzsche, Deleuze and others, but it ''refers'' to Wittgenstein's language games.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

When in dialectics you rush to unify determinations, you do not unite, you weld.

You need to know who disagrees with you but could sacrifice his life for you and who agrees with you but may sell you to the enemy at the crucial moment.

--

What if you can fit another one, two thousand infinite hearts in your heart, and you can't operate on the wound.

Better an empty heart with strong hands and mind.

-- 

When in dialectics you rush to unify determinations, you do not unite, you weld.

But in order not to rush, you have to accept the possibility that this unification of the determinations you wish to unite will never happen.

But in order to accept this possible possibility, that propably will there is no final unification of these determinations, you must clear your thinking, as much as possible, of "desire"...Gentlemen, "Marxists", Lacanians and Deleuzians.

Marxists! I want to see you progress.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

The (political) purposes I serve..

The (political) purposes I serve in theoretical, propagandistic, aesthetic ways are:

1. The total liberation of the Kurdish nation (with or without a Kurdish nation state).

2. The emergence of a democratic state in Iran, whether it is a working class democratic state, or whether it is a normal bourgeois (parliamentary, secular) democratic state.

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

 

 

Δομή.

 

 

The silent heart of lightning, the frozen heart of lava.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

There is an ideological entrapment..

 February 1, 2022

There is an ideological entrapment (intertwined with a corresponding theoretical entrapment) which rests on a mistaken assumption about historical development.
I begin with my objection to this view which I consider to be wrong and arbitrary:
What does not exist as a social form/situation and in some broad historical moment appears/is created, is not defined only as a result of the specific contexts and conditions* that gave birth to it, and furthermore it is not necessary that it once disappear due to the very fact that it once did not exist and then it was/appeared/created.
__
Let's see more specifically what this wrong view is and how I try to combat it with some arguments (initial argument draft):
Those who analyze the historical appearance of these social forms often see them only in relation to this specific historical-generative context of their emergence and consolidation, and if this specific context is considered by them to be transitory (a thought that may be correct) they are making a fundamental mistake to identify the transitoriness of this special framework with the as perceived transience of the forms that emerged through that context.
Champions of the fundamental errors in the reading of historical development and in this general field that we are now mentioning are again the Marxists and the anarchists.
Let's take a look at their logic:
Because: (1) once there was no state and because the state was formed through the process of creating class society (correct reasoning), therefore: (2) along with the historical destruction and transcendence of class society there will be an immediate or slower transcendence of the state.
This is an arbitrary reasoning that is not based on empirical observations and experimental confirmations, but on the metaphysical utopian choice of one of the 2 alternative versions that exist as -implied- possibilities.
It may be shown in the future that there were no two possible versions necessarily equivalent, but today we have no evidence to prove that one of the two possibilities understood by us today - that there is or is not a state in classless society - is the necessary prevailing in the future.
What applies to the concept/status of the state also applies to the concept/status of the nation.
* When we talk about the specific historical context for the emergence of general social forms such as the state, we are referring more to the specific context that explains their emergence as general forms and not to the more specific or historically peculiar conditions that make this emergence possible.

 

Υπάρχει ένας ιδεολογικός εγκλωβισμός (που συνυφαίνεται με έναν ομόλογο θεωρητικό εγκλωβισμό), ο οποίος στηρίζεται σε μιαν αστόχαστη υπόθεση για την ιστορική εξέλιξη.

Ξεκινάω με την αντίρρηση μου σε αυτήν θεώρηση που θεωρώ λανθασμένη και αυθαίρετη:

Ό,τι δεν υφίσταται ως κοινωνική μορφή/κατάσταση και σε κάποια ευρεία ιστορική στιγμή εμφανίζεται/δημιουργείται, δεν ορίζεται μόνον ως αποτέλεσμα των ειδικών πλαισίων και συνθηκών* που το γέννησαν και επιπλέον δεν είναι αναγκαίο να εξαφανιστεί κάποτε λόγω ακριβώς τού γεγονότος ότι κάποτε δεν υπήρχε και έπειτα υπήρξε/εμφανίστηκε/δημιουργήθηκε.

__

Ας δούμε πιο συγκεκριμένα ποια είναι αυτή η λανθασμένη θεώρηση και πως επιχειρώ να την καταπολεμήσω με κάποιες επιχειρηματολογίες (αρχικό σχέδιο επιχειρηματολογίας):

Όσοι αναλύουν την ιστορική εμφάνιση αυτών των κοινωνικών μορφών πολλές φορές τις βλέπουν μόνο σε σχέση με αυτό το ειδικό ιστορικογενετικό πλαίσιο τής ανάδυσης και εδραίωσης τους, και αν αυτό το ειδικό πλαίσιο θεωρείται από αυτούς παροδικό (σκέψη που μπορεί να είναι ορθή) κάνουν το θεμελιώδες λάθος να ταυτίζουν την παροδικότητα αυτού τού ειδικού πλαισίου με την θεωρούμενη από αυτούς παροδικότητα των μορφών που αναδύθηκαν μέσω αυτού τού πλαισίου.

Πρωταθλητές των θεμελιωδών λαθών στην ανάγνωση τής ιστορικής εξέλιξης και σε αυτό το γενικό πεδίο που αναφέρουμε τώρα είναι πάλι οι μαρξιστές και οι αναρχικοί.

Ας δούμε λίγο την λογική τους:

Επειδή: (1) κάποτε δεν υπήρχε κράτος και επειδή το κράτος σχηματίστηκε μέσω τής διεργασίας δημιουργίας τής ταξικής κοινωνίας (ορθός συλλογισμός), άρα: (2) μαζί με την ιστορική καταστροφή και υπέρβαση τής ταξικής κοινωνίας θα υπάρξει άμεση ή βραδύτερη υπέρβαση τού κράτους.

Πρόκειται για αυθαίρετο συλλογισμό που δεν στηρίζεται σε εμπειρικές εποπτείες και πειραματικές επιβεβαιώσεις, αλλά στην μεταφυσική ουτοπική επιλογή μιας από τις 2 εναλλακτικές εκδοχές που υπάρχουν ως -εννοούμενες- πιθανότητες.

Μπορεί να φανερωθεί στο μέλλον ότι δεν υπήρχαν δύο πιθανές εκδοχές ως αναγκαία ισοδύναμες, αλλά σήμερα δεν έχουμε κανένα στοιχείο για να αποδείξουμε ότι η μία από τις δύο εννοούμενες από εμάς σήμερα ως πιθανότητες- να υπάρχει ή να μην υπάρχει κράτος στην αταξική κοινωνία- είναι και η αναγκαία υπερισχύουσα στο μέλλον.

Ό,τι ισχύει για την έννοια/κατάσταση τού κράτους ισχύει και για την έννοια/κατάσταση τού έθνους.

* Όταν μιλάμε για το ειδικό ιστορικό πλαίσιο ανάδυσης γενικών κοινωνικών μορφών όπως το κράτος αναφερόμαστε περισσότερο στο ειδικό πλαίσιο που εξηγεί την ανάδυση τους ως γενικών μορφών και όχι στις ειδικότερες ή ιστορικά ιδιόμορφες συνθήκες που κάνουν εφικτή αυτήν την ανάδυση.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος

 

 

Α perverted Kurdish version of the Iliad..

If I had talent, I would write a perverted Kurdish version of the Iliad, where the angry Achilles would be the Kurdish Saladin, who after the betrayal of the Arab and Turkish allies against the Kurds, being angry, would join the Crusader camp, defeat the Islamic army and then would turned against the crusaders as well, giving Jerusalem to the Jews and the Kurds.

--

 

Azerbaijan is an ally of Israel and of course Turkey (brotherly nation, brotherly nationalisms) and Armenia is an ally of (theocratic) Iran.

What's up with the Iranian Azeris?

Do they follow the nationalism of Azeris of Azerbaijan?

Do they follow the choices of their parent nation?

I'm afraid so, if not all, certainly many.

The combination of Iranian theocrats and Armenia on one side and Azeri Turks and Israelis on the other, and somewhere in the dark conspiratorial depths of Russia, worries me deeply.

How can a socialist democratic revolution in Iran proceed without falling into semi-dictatorial Bonapartism if it does not peacefully and through free will seal off the Azeri minority (in a similar case, also the Arab minority) from the influence of adventurous nationalists outside of Iran?

Everyone is suspicious of the Kurds who have shown with their blood, to the point of becoming almost fools, their intention of unity with the entire Iranian people, and no one is talking about the real problem which is Azeri nationalism, which under the strange help by Israel and Turkey may cause the disintegration of Iran.

--

 

Everyone blames, slanders, vilifies and hates Kurdish nationalists for (real or imaginary) suspected links with the West and Zionism, but they are deliberately or stupidly wrong to blame them, because Kurds, of all ideological shades, are good guys, they speak openly and they are not intransigent separatists, although they have the right to be.

On the contrary, when the discussion turns to the Arab minority of southwestern Iran or the Azeri minority of northwestern Iran, there is an excess of respect and a cover-up of the dangers for the democratic revolution in Iran due to the connection of these minorities with many very reactionary centers outside Iran (Turkey, Israel, Arab countries, anything but progressive).

Do you know what I have to say to the Iranians and especially the Persian Iranian leftists?

You respect those you fear more (Azeris and Arabs), and you don't respect those (Kurds) who have shown that they are your given brothers, and weaker in reality, despite their alliances with the west and Israel.

I'm sorry, but this is a bad sign for you.

--

 

Show not, less respect to your milder, more peaceful, more brotherly brother, and more respect to your harsher, angrier, less brotherly brother.

Show respect to all your brothers, but more to him who shows more patience, more fidelity, more intention of unity with you.

If you do the opposite, it will be as if you are rewarding the tendency towards inappropriate behavior and as if you are punishing the best behavior.

I have experienced it in my life, the best is treated as a given, as something certain and safe naïve and then neglected, while the awkward and dangerous for divisive and competitive intentions and actions is treated as recpectable and smarter that must be vorgived.

--

 

I mentioned just before what I consider proper in retribution for proper or improper fraternal conduct.

The big question for me is:

When the brother rewards the wrong behavior towards him, i.e. he honors and respects the one who does not cares about him, and does not respect you who have shown solidarity and unity with him, then what do you do?

My heart cries out, makes a great noise, to the ears of my mind:

"Let you betray the traitor to the brotherhood, also abandoned the one who covered him justifying this betrayal - let be betrayed from you too".

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος