February 19, 2022
When ''the'' dialectic ends in a fiasco, ''it'' accuses the fiasco of being "anti-dialectical".
Dialectical philosophers feel no guilt.
Others are always to blame,
or rather the "other".
Others are always to blame,
or rather the "other".
The dialectic of fiasco
is a bigger fiasco.
is a bigger fiasco.
The dialectic after the fiasco does not always call itself dialectical.
Known for ''its'' ability to put on masks.
Known for ''its'' ability to put on masks.
Everything is calm in the dialectical consciousness.
It will find the explanation for fiasco through a dialectic, of course.
It will find the explanation for fiasco through a dialectic, of course.
Ignoring
the fiasco is the infamous achievement of these philosophers who
declared to their astonished dazzled audience that from now on nothing
will be overlooked.
Oh dialectic of the new glorious times! you did it
again! you sanctify in every way the neglect and sophistry that gives
its "foundation".
Looking for the right starting point for interpreting thought forms, you run the risk of never interpreting them, you may even avoid a more substantial contact with these forms.
However, there is a valid requirement from this search for the right start, in the sense that in this way - even if it means avoiding "contact" with this "object" - you can express a resistance of yourself to a a specific form of thought or an entire era of thought.
So, basically it is like preventing an alienation of your thought from its already existing beginnings.
When this strange struggle is over, you can now come in contact with the "object - thought form" you wanted to interpret.
So you probably know why you wanted to interpret it and many times you find that you wanted to interpret it because through this interpretation you wanted to get rid of some theological type of bonds and chains that had been imposed on you by the "yours community" as sacred preconceptions.
Now you know that you were actually resisting to something that was for you a "foreign body of thought" and which the leaders of this community had introduced into your "body of thought".
But why did I say all this?
What was the reason?
I said this to confess to you that in fact I always saw Hegelianism as something that did not make sense, even when I was obliged as a Marxist to respect it and to believe that it contained a truth that was valid for my (then) community.
Something was protecting me and I could never go any further.
Something? Myself.
There is an absolute suspicion that does not necessarily lead to paranoia.
You do not want to believe in assumptions about a redemptive future, no matter how many conditions and guarantees are in front of you.
No, I will not sign any contract, you say, I will not give my consent to any strategic vision and idea, even if its represantives are obviously good and are able to sacrifice their sweet lives to do what they say.
You ask for something more than guarantees and good intentions, you ask for an image of reality that does not mean something so easy, so ideal, so beautiful, that it probably means an unfulfilled wish.
You have no problem with crazy desires and great loves, you have a problem with their bitter cancellations that could have been prevented.
When they start looking for you, do not forget to tell them that you have already left.
Tehran is the destination.
Tehran is the destination.
Between one phrase and another phrase there is another phrase.
What a fuck, fuck them babe!
What a fuck, fuck them babe!
You are hegemonic when the others translate you, before you translate these others.
You are hegemonic when you interpret before you are interpreted.
In addition to the primary accumulation of Capital there is (in parallel, but not identically) the primary accumulation of Power and Sovereignty, which always takes place as the formation of a separate world-wide sovereign metropolitan pole-world through and beyond the ''individual'' national state powers.
The western world has already been formed as a separate sovereign pole-world, so it has made the primary accumulation in both the economic and the political-military field.
The non-Western world, especially the "east", is still ''finishing'' the incomplete yet primary accumulation of power and sovereignty while it has completed the primary accumulation of capital, although we do not know whether it will end it as a metropolitan accumulation of power and dominance [as a one distinct metropolitan sovereign pole-world].
The primary accumulation of power and sovereignty means, among others (such as the development of nation-states) blood, war, continuous rearrangements of borders and state territories.
It is a dehumanizing process that has ethnic and other minorities as its first victims, as long as the working class maintains a class waiting attitude.
Just because this process contains all these "necessary" dehumanizing socio-historical "stages" as historically "necessary" does not mean that these are "rights" in the case of the emerging capitalist East.
The fact that the West has committed them is not an element of a sin that must be punished, and therefore does not mean that Western societies, and not just their bourgeoisie, have no right to defend themselves to stop this rotten dynamic.
The argument of the post-colonialist ideologues that the West is sinful, and therefore that the fanatics, emerging imperialists, nationalist-fundamentalists of the East also have the right to do what the West did in its beginnings, is a rotten argument.
The ''fact'' that my "grandfather" was probably a Western colonialist, and that the West formed [in the way we know] "itself" as an imperialist supranational international pole, does not mean that we, the new Westerners citizens, we have a moral obligation to tolerate the repetition by the eastern rulers of the crimes committed by this supposed "grandfather" of ours.
There is a historical analogy, and a similar historical ''necessity'' to the formation of a distinct new hegemonic pole, but we are obliged to restrain it and fight it from the point of view of our own national, class and cultural interests.
One can write a dictionary of the demonological categorizations used by Marxists against their ideological enemies inside and outside the left.
These are faithful people who theologize in everything, but have a lie on their forehead that says:
"I am an atheist".
The famous cultural revolution of the Maoist Red Guards ushered in a new era of pseudo-Marxist Stalinist paranoia, in which the absence of internal enemies in a ''wannabe'' socialist system was transformed into the production of these enemies within the working classes.
Of course, this paranoia has always existed in the wider (and not only in the Stalinist) Marxist "camp", in the form of racist anti-petty bourgeoisie ideology. Any internal ideological opponent within the left could be accused of being a petty bourgeois, with no criteria other than some possible "class descent" or a bad habit of reading ''more than normal'' books or wanting to have a personal life that is not completely transparent and entirely dedicated to the struggle.
Of course the accusers themselves may have had the same intellectual habits, and a well-hidden personal life, but that did not matter, since the very absurdity of the class slander, its non-foundation, is precisely the method by which one can use it in a slander and ultimately legal prosecution, which sometimes resulted it in the execution of individuals or even masses of people.
Until the specific paranoia of Maoism, however, there was no greater systematization of irrationality, the sin of being supposedly a petty bourgeois was confined as an active sin in the phases of "socialist primary accumulation" and in individual persecutions.
With Maoism there was a Puritan radicalization of the theological pseudo-class persecution and all the intellectual sub-classes were directly guilty just because they were intellectuals, regardless of whether some of them were hungry and starving or were made up of workers without property. Are you an intellectual? are you a scientist so you are rather bourgeois or petty bourgeois etc. As long as the class struggle continues so you are also a class enemy. The very doctrine of the continuation of the class struggle within a society that has supposedly abolished class exploitation, even as an early classless society, has this significance: to justify the continuation of state repression within a society in which there is supposedly no class exploitation etc. In order to find these potential exploiters, a new type of paranoid "class theory" must be constructed that exacerbates the already existing anti-petty-bourgeois paranoia of Marxism to the point of absolute paranoia.
It is not difficult to understand that none of these things have anything to do with a real working-class socialism and with the working class itself.
But the problem with the radical sects is bigger, and it is not limited to the Maoists.
There is a broader mentality and ideology that is rooted in the popular movement and infects all its tendencies, rather expressing the historical weakness and immaturity of this movement.
That is why even today, despite the decline of Stalinism-Maoism, we see these ideological and cultural ills continue to exist in ideological "spaces" that are not Stalinist.
A basic principle of political immorality is not to accept any strategic mistake of those who formed and then those who implemented a strategic idea. The "others" are always to blame. ''This'' can to call itself "science".
There will be a revolution in Iran.
It is as certain as the law of universal gravitation.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
