Both Stalin and Trotsky coldly plotted a mass crime against the poor peasants of their country.
Stalin did it.
All this under the pretext of communist collectivization and the war against the Kulaks. Liars both.
The state collectivization was done with the aim of enslaving the poor peasants to the new exploiters and tyrants, state and party bureaucrats. If the Stalinists and the Trotskyists are real communists, I am the Sultan of Brunei.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
One year after the Russian invasion.
Personal detachment, complete ideological apostasy, not for to I fall into the arms of the right or to the bourgeois liberalism, but to think alone, without any ideological family chain anymore.
Alone, you and me, opposite.
---
I judge a global political space, a global political subjectivity, based on its first (as a majority within it) immediate reactions to an important international political event.
Today a large part of the global left has slightly corrected its positions on the question of the genocidal attack of the Russian imperialists, but even now there is in its popular base (all over the world) a significant luben current of support for Russia, and inside the somewhat more intellectual currents in circles of intellectuals and journalists, there is a significant current of critics of the Russian intervention, but most of them in retrospect and without making open self-criticism for their first neutral reactions, and also unfortunately there is a more insidious neutral current in which secret pro-Russians or sick anti-Westerners are hidden, or simply expresses through it the ultimately most reprehensible attitude of the left today, which is however an extension of old ideological and moral sins, which manifests a incredible and vast political cynicism that competes with the right-wing/fascist cynicism.
The global left, as an overall ideological current, was not completely defeated in 1989, with the fall of Stalinism, it is breathing its last breath now, on the ruins of Ukraine.
Personal note
---
What is left, for me, as a living thing within the so-called movement, is the ruin, but alive as a ruin, of anarchism.
Of course, I don't declare myself an anarchist, but if there is something that makes sense to put in front of me in order to judge it and practice polemics against it or to convince me, that is anarchism.
Besides, in my humble opinion, the deepest core of radical movements in the modern era is the anarchist ideological core.
In the light of this core and in the light of the possible criticism we will bring to it, we will also see the "left" phenomenon.
With the left, I will not talk in essence again, as we would commonly say.
I don't talk truly to them anymore.
I talk to everyone, but I will only talk to the leftists and to the right-fascists only as a complete stranger.
I tell them clearly. To me they are strangers forever.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
The Charter movement is better than the right-wing movement of superficially pro-Western followers of the would-be Shah, but it is a movement that does not raise the issue of multi-ethnic democratic representation of the multi-ethnic Iranian people, through a "body" of directly and freely elected representatives, as a direct revolutionary demand.
The Iranian people expect democracy and what do the opposition offer them?
Bonapartist monarchical pseudo-liberalism of the Right and radical semi-democracy of the Left, without either of them talking about a freely elected constitutional "body" of power.
The impasse theirs, of the right and the left Iranians.
----
Το κίνημα τής Χάρτας είναι καλύτερο από το δεξιό κίνημα των επιφανειακα φιλοδυτικών, ακόλουθων τού επίδοξου Σάχη, όμως είναι ένα κίνημα που δεν θέτει το ζήτημα για πολυεθνική δημοκρατική αντιπροσώπευση τού πολυεθνικού ιρανικού λαού, μέσω ενός σώματος άμεσα εκλεγμένων αντιπροσώπων, ως άμεσο επαναστατικό αίτημα.
Ο Ιρανικός λαός περιμένει δημοκρατία και τι του προσφέρουν οι τής αντιπολίτευσης;
Βοναπαρτιστικο μοναρχικό ψευτο-φιλελευθερισμό οι Δεξιοί και κοινωνικό δημοκρατισμό οι αριστεροί, χωρίς κανένας από τους δύο να μιλά για ελεύθερα εκλεγμένο συντακτικό σώμα εξουσίας.
Το αδιέξοδο δικό τους, των δεξιών και των αριστερών Ιρανών.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Kind of comical.
Separate grassroots movements sometimes want a useful transient relationship with the enemy of their enemy (who, transient lover, is not the best dude), but they receive criticism from other grassroots movements who do the same thing, but with the dude who is the enemy of the other dude (the dude who is in a temporary romantic relationship with the criticized).
The criticized's answer is that everyone does the same.
However, when the criticized comes to the position of the criticize, he does not say the same thing as what he said when he was criticized! He also says what his critics used to tell him.
We are all hypocrites, that's what I have to say.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
The "Charter of Minimum Demands" presented by a multitude of trade union and social organizations in Iran, is a positive democratic step to create a broader democratic unity of leftist and progressive forces against the theocratic regime.
However, it does not suggest the question of creating a constitutive constitutional assembly of freely elected representatives.
In this sense the whole text is incomplete.
On the other hand, the most sectarian, extreme Leninists, etc., who judge this Charter negatively, don't also raise the question of a freely elected democratic governing body of Iran, building this their inability to propose the correct no on the shyness of the left-wing democrats who drafted the Charter, but on their incurable sectarianism.
The Iranian left is entrenched in an ideological system that promotes the shyness of democratic initiative or the sectarianism.
However, the source of shy action is also sectarianism. n
The authors of the text of the Charter are also influenced by a dogmatic type of neo-Marxism that may seem satisfactory to the movement in the West as a neo-leftism that coexists normally with a mature bourgeois democracy, but this dogmatism does not meet the needs of a movement that has as its historical task also modern democracy.
---------
The situation on the political stage of Iran's wider perceived opposition is further complicated by the strange reappearance of a top security guard and torturer of the Shah's old regime at a demonstration.
It is generally considered that this appearance had a symbolic character and sent messages from the monarchists and the would-be Shah himself, but to whom?
Was the would-be Shah aware of this strange reappearance?
Was it done with his approval?
Could it be that an essentially insignificant event, was exploited by the Russian Putinist and Iranian theocratic propaganda machines to create a complete alienation between the secular right/extreme right and the rest of the (left, democratic, centrist) wing of the Iranian opposition?
For 2 years, but also now, since the beginning of the new movement in Iran, I have said that there is a special propagandistic collaboration between Russian Putinists and Iranian theocrats so that, when there is appearance of far-right elements "next to" the Iranian movement, to become "useful objects" of propaganda campaign to slandering the whole movement. I can prove this that I have predicted this and I have said this. I asked the Iranian friends in Left to keep calm, but I see that if there is a theocratic and Russian trap, they are already trapped. Does what I say mean that the royalists are justified? No.
Does this mean that surely the would-be Shah has also fallen prey to a provocation trap? No. The Shah and his followers, as well as the semi-liberal circles around the Shah, have shown that they have clear Bonapartist authoritarian aspirations, since they do not openly talk about a representative parliamentary sovereign democratic system. Neither did the would-be Shah separate himself from his father's crimes, nor did he separate himself from the torturers of Savak.
---
There is no political scene as complex as the Iranian one.
Vertigo of multiple contrasts forming a maze of possibilities.
To say my stereotype, Iran is the land of multiple mirrors.
I hope the left and the centrist forces succeed, that's all I can say.
---
The revolution is in the streets, it is not "begging for something from the West" but also it does not keep equal distances between "Eurasia" and the West.
Because whoever keeps these equal "anti-imperialist" distances, ultimately does not keep real equal distances, it doing the favour of "Eurasia", i.e. Eurasianism.
Why is he doing that? because of ideological virginity?
--
I read, but I hope it is a rumour, that the European Parliament has invited as a speaker the would-be, and probably far-right, Shah.
See now what is the difference, for example, between the USA and the European Union.
The Americans (capitalist-imperialists) support whoever it is convenient for them to support, without being so strict in their bourgeois ideological preferences, and without raising their ideological stature until they become the judges of the universe, without on the other hand avoiding their own messianic or other bad moralisms.
In the Iran issue there has been support for the would-be Shah, also for the People's Mujahideen (MEK), which was founded as a left-wing Islamic anti-imperialist organization that killed American agents and ended up, after an unacceptable alliance with Saddam Hussein, having a strategic relationship of support from circles of the US Republican party (no offense to them by me).
Also the US has generally helped others, centrists, groups and personalities, and as a western country has certainly offered political asylum and a well-meaning hospitality and acceptance to many known and unknown Iranians and Kurds.
In general, the USA plays with everyone and everything, and of course as a superpower it also plays games with the theocratic elite, especially the so-called reformers.
Behind and beside everything, of course, there is a continuous economic game of capital, legal or semi-legal or illegal activities, the well-known of capitalism.
What is Europe doing? (we mean the European Union).
Similar things, almost the same, but by adding we would say that there is help from state and European institutions and civil societies not exclusively to the Iranian and Kurdish leftists, but nevertheless the Iranian and Kurdish leftists feel perhaps in the territory of the European Union somewhat like at home.
All good so far.
And so a moment comes the European Union, this undefined Thing, and after supporting the Iranian democrats, in general the anti-establishment ones, says in its broadest "wisdom" the irresistible, and finally unaccountable, "maybe we should call prince (would-be Shah), to his make a speech in the European Parliament?".
These people, if this invitation is valid and it is not a rumor, they are idiots, they are dumb, they are stupid lobbyists, scumbags, small-minded people.
They commit the politics and the name of Europe and its citizens to the promotion of a successor of a bloodthirsty regime, who indeed does not guarantee a smooth democratic transition from a theocratic regime to a parliamentary democracy, but plays with all possible bonapartist semi-dictatorial semi-fascist scenarios succession of regime from another regime.
There was a networking of the monarchists and the so-called experts of the European institutions, who fell like a ripe fruit, something like the "unfortunate" Greek MEP?
I hope the information I am conveying to you is not valid.
But when one looks at and compares European with American and British bourgeois politics, one sees the difference in the level of power, seriousness, coherence and simultaneous multiplicity in strategic thinking and action between the two main pillars of the West's international dominance.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
