Thursday, September 21, 2017

IMPERIALIST FINALE, MARXIST WITHOUT BASE AND ENTRYSM, Editorial #7

IMPERIALIST FINALE, MARXISTS WITHOUT BASE AND ENTRYISM, Editorial #7

It is in the finale of a great imperialist match that Venezuela and North Korea have found themselves. These are two states that are still resisting, at a high price, the world capitalist order. Even the driving force, soul and head of the capitalist imperialism today – the United States – have also found themselves under attack by their own policy of global imperialism: the state is devastated for a great number of jobs that are, in the master's greed for infinite profit, transferred to the cheap labor force markets. That is why many companies in America are closed down, including even the whole industrial branches (coal mines, for instance). Capitalism, in its gluttony, eats its own body besides gulping down the small and the powerless. The Republican Party has won the election under the slogan „America First“ which means it would withdraw from its imperialist adventures and take up the renewal of its ruined nation. That is why the conservatives' program was greeted by many notable communists all over the world. Still, all this is, as proverbially said, making a bill without the bartender. As early as 1961 American President Eisenhower warned that the state was led by the “military-industrial complex (MIC)”. However, the guys from the MIC, those that the Democratic Party has quite a fair understanding with, have nothing to do in America. They need new markets and new wars. Here one should remember Chomsky’s words about the MIC being not “specifically military”; it is simply the very heart of American industry. As well as the heart of capitalism, we’d like to add. This refers to the companies such as Boeing and Hewlett-Packard. After having recently devastated the Balkans, North Africa, Near East and Afghanistan and after having overmastered Eastern Europe, they turned to the finalists, Venezuela and North Korea.
Introducing capitalist order in Venezuela and North Korea is not only a matter of prestige. Venezuela is one of the biggest world producers of oil as well as the state possessing the greatest reserves of oil in the world. After the collapse of the USSR in the nineties, exactly when imperialism and its collaborators began their bloody predatory campaign east, in Venezuela appeared Hugo Chavez who was to take it out from the American backyard towards socialism. Today this is a possessed country of marauding gangs of mercenaries that Tramp has recently imposed new sanctions on. The state faces the shortage of food and drugs; the price of oil it exports is record low. The propaganda war against Venezuela is led most intensively from Australia; yet all the states subordinated to the USA have to spit on it. North Korea, in order to defend itself from the predators, had to produce an atom bomb. Maybe it is the very bomb that would destroy the empire and half of mankind with it.
On the other hand, the organized workers have been, all over the world and after the collapse of the USSR, decimated. The major part of its leadership has crossed over to the capitalist side, to opportunists, while some groups of Marxists have remained without base which means they have been pushed astray to the extreme Left (Left that needs no class). It often happens that class actions are replaced by Internet ones (“Web Marxism”) and involvement in social networks – especially popular is Facebook thanks to its enabling painless ranting of revolutionary fantasies: everyone can put a couple of red flags on his FB page and thus proclaim himself a revolutionary. The more flags and five-pointed stars, the greater revolutionary. Another phenomenon to observe is the making of obscure political marriages with politically suspicious elements (recently, in America, Antifa’s activists, certain people from the Serbian Left and Lukashenko’s pawns as well as magazines such as Jacobin, financed by the Democratic Party of the USA). All of them are manifestations of the lack of base. The editorial board of the Novi Borac (New Militant) is of the opinion that the revolutionary work is possible only from the clear class position and that the union is the basic cell of organized workers without which we cannot talk about representativeness. Even when the unions are few in number, they, in their companies, in their production activities and thus in the state, have a great power. In the eighties in Britain 180,000 miners led a struggle against the state for two full years. Today we see the power of 1,500 cabin crew of the British Airways that they have accrued during – for them quite a long – 85-day strike. The first task of every revolutionary Marxist is to set up contact with the class and join it, to become its part (even if it means employment at a lower level than one’s qualifications). Since it is only within the class that one can practice Marxism. This is the essence of “entryism” that Trotsky, in other circumstances, spoke about. This is the very essence of revolutionary activity.
(Editorial Board)

Sunday, June 25, 2017

MARKSIZEM, KI GRE V KORAK Z ČASOM, kratka Facebook polemika z Galom Kirnom

MARKSIZEM, KI GRE V KORAK Z ČASOM
Kratka Facebook polemika z Galom Kirnom


Gal Kirn: Evo, malo mojega pisanja o koncu zgodovine v danasnji Mladini: kratek zapis, ki motri padec berlinskega zidu, ki prica o zmagi neoliberalizma, do padca WTC, ki potrdi ponovni premik k avtoritarnemu (neo)liberalizmu (in njegovim pravim zacetkom). Ta konec zgodovine se ustavi ob "padcu" Grenfell Tower", ki lahko za levo sceno postane nas padec neoliberalnega-konzervativnega zidu, premik od obrambnih k napadalnim pozicijam? Ostane naj kot spomenik neoliberalizmu.
Na neki tocki bodo verjetno clanek odklenili, za tiste, ki imate dostop, pa tukaj link:


Dimitar Anakiev: Avtoritarni liberalizem? Ta sintagma ima težave z logiko.


GK: Sploh ne, lahko mu reces tudi nacionalni neoliberalizem, ki je pravzaprav vladajoca politika zadnjih 20, ponekod 40 let, v EU pa recimo zadnjih 10 let po krizi. Trump, Orban, ipd so zgolj morbidni simptomi razkroja-dekadence neoliberalizma, njegova radikalizacija, vsekakor pa ne izjema. Liberalizem ima dolgo zgodovino sistemskega nasilja, rasizem, kolonializem so vpisane v njegov modus vivendi, da ne govorimo o zgodovini kapitalizma, s katero liberalizem ima veliko sticnih tock. In tu je ocitna tudi razlika z 20-30.leti, ce takrat pride do nacional-socializma kot odgovora na kapitalisticno krizo, ki jo fasizem - nacizem "resita", pa pride danes do sinteze nacional-liberalizma. Govori o tem, kako sibka je danes (se) levica, ceprav bi jo ti zadnji dogodki, v drzavah, kjer smo najmanj pricakovali (Zda, Vb), lahko presentljivo vzdignili.


DA: No, ja, nacionalni liberalizem ima manj težav z logiko čeprav tudi ni ravno logičen medtem ko je fraza “avtoritarni liberalizem” na logične nivoju enaka frazi "suha voda" ali podobno. Mislim, da je potrebno iznajti boljšo terminologijo, ali pa morda že obstaja?


GK: ja liberalci in ekstremni center (se ena na prvi pogled nelogicna skovanka) bi radi te tendence preimovali zgolj kot (desni, ali pac levi) populizem, ali pa kot "illiberalism". Kot da imajo ekstremni centristi (konzerve in socialdem) pa res neko demokraticno platformo, kot da oni sami niso podpirali pogojev za nastanek tega nacional-liberalizma, sedaj si pa perejo roke...tisti avtoritarci pa pravzaprav delajo za njih dirty job. Sicer glede EU res postaja ociten nek razkol znotraj sirse politekonomske elite, a to je za kak drug post. Nadalje, liberalizem kot ideologija res predpostavlja recimo temu prosti trg in zdravo konkurenco, a kot se je ponovilo nic kolikokrat v zgodovini, je bil to le ideoloski slogan - v praksi je razbijal nacionalno protekcijo manjsih drzav (recimo zgodovinsko je angeska krona okupirala Indijo in deindustrializira njihovo proizvodnjo, s tem so angleske manufakture-tekstil lahko prodajali dalje, tudi v Indijo seveda), s strani vecjih drzav pa uveljalvlja sirjenje njihovih trgov, lahko preko vojn, lahko preko raznik memorandumov trojke; seveda modus je predatorstvo in kupovanje - beri dokapitalizacije - manjsih dobro stojecih firm in resurosv s strani multinacionalnih korporacij. To, kar se dogaja zadnjih 10 let v Slo, v zadnjih 20 letih na bivsem Vzhodu je dosti zgovorno, kar se tice ekonomskega neokolonializma, ki pac pritice vsakemu liberalno-kapitalisticnemu projektu. Da dobi ta projekt svoj militarni, bolj radikalno avtoritaren, naj bo nacionalisticen ali imperialisticen obraz, pa ne rabi dosti: ali naleti na delovne mozice, vstaje (npr slo, grcija pred leti), ali naleti na regionalne hegomene (npr rusija, ali na bliznjem-srednjem vzhodu sirija, iran). Ce pogledas Trumpizem, ali desne sile v Evropi zagovarjajo mescanico med nacionalno protekcijo, da bodo zavarovali vsaj deloma del domace proizvodnje, in pomagali demontirati socialno drzavo, deloma pa gre za neofasizem- rasizem do drugacnih, do beguncev, Islama,,.... to jih seveda v nicemer ne zaustavlja manjsati davke za bogate in financne fimre, seveda pa skusajo cim vec postoriti za sirjenje poslovnih-trgovinskih interesov. Tu se vidi npr koliko je ZDA kot hegemon izgubila... Tako da v realnosti pride do mesanice, ne pa neke ciste politike, zato so vsi tisti slogani neoliberalizma v veliki krizi: sam je svoje srece kovac (po koncu socialne drzave, seveda cisti darwinizem), lahko se samouresnicimo, in podobna jajca; trg ni le tam kot edini, ki lahko naredi balans med povprasevanjem in pondubo, kot korektor in nevidna roka, pac pa kot sokreator kriz; pod neoliberalizmom prevlada celo slogan-teza, da naj bi prinasal tudi demokracijo. Odprta druzba? Kar je pac nelogicno, posebej ko pogledamo njegovo prakticno uvajanje. A eno je ideoloski projekt, PR, drugo je politekonomija. Zacne se z vojasko dikatuturo v Cilu, nadaljuje po J-Ameriki, Jugoslaviji v 80etih, na Vzhodu v 90ih, nato spet zaostri po 2001.

DA: Hvala za razlago. Iz nje izhaja, da je liberalizem „liberalen“ le v pogojih dominacije, brez ovir. Če naleti na oviro postane militanten in ga lahko imenujemo imperijalizem, to pa je termin, ki ga uporablja marksizem, ko govori o „liberalizmu“. A ni potem boljše uporabljati marksistično terminologijo, ki bolj natančno in jasno opredeli problem, kot da se slepomišimo z različnimi nelogičnimi iznajdbami buržoaznih teoretikov (ko smo že pri marksizmu) nastalih verjetno samo zaradi prikrivanja prave narave „liberalizma“. Na primer, fraza "oportunistična levica" se mi zdi veliko boljša kot "ekstremni centrizem"...

GK: vsekakor, saj gre za marskizem, ampak taksen, ki gre v korak s casom, se pravi - zadeve so leta 2017 slabse kot leta 1917 - ostaja nekaj podobnih iztocnih in zahtev konkretna analiza konkretne situacije, a sovraznik je vendarle bolj kompleksen, kapitalisticna formacija pa bolj nepremagljiva kot takrat, ko se je zdeja zgodovinska nujnost, narediti revolucijo, in odpreti komunisticni horizont. Predvsem cesar manjka danes je organizacije, in bolj ambiciozne vere v spremembo. To danes najdemo recimo pri tistih, ki se borijo za islamski kalifat. Danes se zdi, da je teorija dalec napredovala, dalec pred prakso, in da tisti, ki vstopajo na politicni prostor, to delajo iz bolj individualisticnih vzgibov, manj pa zaradi idej in globokega prepricanja....


DA: Na teoretičnem nivoju (buržoazne teorije) zadeve so res bolj kompleksne, v praksi je pa revolucionarna obrt enako enostavna in premočrtna. Na primer, v Tuzli 2014 so delavci 5 tovarn in študenti zlahka zrušili kantonalno in občinsko oblast, ter dvignili celo Bosno na noge. To, da v Tuzli ni formirana narodna vlada, temveč "ekspertska" je zasluga oportunistične levice (Lijevi), ki so v biti izigrali delavce za račun svojih plačnikov (Die Linke & Co). Nič tu ni drugače, kot je bilo 1917. Revolucionarna naloga nikoli ni zruši vso moč kapitalizma, kot to predstavlja oportunistična levica, temveč le tisto, ki je nad teboj. To pa seveda gre tudi danes na isti način kot nekoč...

23.6.2017

Saturday, June 17, 2017

SEĆANJA NA TUZLANSKU REVOLUCIJU 2014




Dimitar Anakiev
SEĆANJA NA TUZLANSKU REVOLUCIJU 2014


       Stogodišnjica je velike Oktobarske revolucije a istovremeno predvečerje petogodišnjice revolucije u Tuzli (februara 2014) , kada su radnici i studenti srušili vladu kantona Tuzla i izrekli istorijsko „ne“ privatizaciji, etničkoj podeli BIH i raspadu Jugoslavije... Ja sam u Tuzlu prispeo, kao delegat Izbrisanih radnika Slovenije, dan nakon što je vlada pala (8 ili 9 februara, ako me sećanje ne vara) i na ulicama Tuzle se je osećala jaka revolucionarna emocija. Bili so to dani bezvlašća, zgrada vlade bila je uništena, popaljena, organizovane grupe radnika i naroda noseći transparente i zastave marširalo je Tuzlom a u hladnom vazduhu, uprkos haosu, titrala je nada. Svuda su bila očekivanja o formiranju narodne vlade, što je bio radnički zahtev.
         Odseo sam u tuzlanskom Domu penzionera i tamo, na trećem spratu, odmah primio druga iz partije Lijevi koji me je opširno infirmisao o stanju. On je pričao, ja sam pisao, puna dva i po sata (1). Iako sam od drugova iz francuske Partije nezavisnih radnika (POI), pred sam put za Tuzlu, bio upozoren da su u Bosni i Tuzli, baš kao i u Sloveniji, veoma aktivni Pabloiti (oportunisti) ja tada nisam znao šta bi to tačno značilo, primenjeno na situaciju bezvlašća u Tuzli. Onda, kada me je drug iz Lijevih počeo informisati o pripremi za organizovanjem „plenuma“, shvatio sam. Isto veče sam u telefonskom razgovoru sa Pavluškom Imširovićem izneo svoje mišljenje da su „plenumi“ početak kontrarevolucije. To mi je govorilo iskustvo iz Slovenije gde je vlast putem sličnih kvazi-anarhističnih formacija uspostavila sistem kontrole marginalnih grupa (izbrisani!) i pobunjenog naroda. Sve to su vodili, naravno, profesionalci, politikolozi sa državnih univerziteta, što je skladno sa Badjuevom tvrdnjom iz knjige „Ime čega je Sarkozi“ da su univerziteti na Zapadu posle 1968 strogo kontrolisani od strane tajnih službi i pretvoreni iz revolucionarnih bastiona u instrumente kontrarevolucije. Pavluško nije bio siguran šta se tačno događa ali je shvatio šta mu govorim, ipak, savetovao me je da sačekam sa zaključkom dok se ne pokažu rezultati. Čini se da je verovao da su radnici dorasli problemu... A rezultati su se brzo pokazali. „Plenumi“ su poslužili kao sredstvo razvodnjavanja revolucionarne energije pomoću kojeg je klasni karakter revolucije pretvoren u obično građansko nezadovoljstvo – kao da se narod pobunio zbog nerešenih komunalnih problema. Sprečeno je stvaranje narodne vlade a uskoro su plenumi izglasali vladu „eksperata“ koje su im podmetnuli politički kumovi iz senke služeći se aparatom oportunističke levice. „Eksperti“ su naravno brzo pokazali svoje lice i Tuzlaci su već aprila shvatili prevaru ali bilo je kasno - „sami su ih izabrali“, demokratski, najdemokratskije – „direktnom demokratijom“. Oportunistička levica (Lijevi, Dosta! Demokratski socijalizam, Nova levica, Marks22 itd.) pokazala se glavnim saveznikom mafijskog kapitalizma protiv radnika i naroda na Balkanu a finansirana je uglavnom iz centara oportunističke levice u Nemačkoj (Die Linke i njena fondacija Roze Luksenburg).

(1) Otvorenost i opširnost informisanja, kasnije sam shvatio, rezultat je nesporazuma. Ja sam kod predstavljanja pozdravio tuzlanske drugove od strane slovenačkih izbrisanih radnika a onda i od strane drugova iz Pariza (Misleći na POI a ne na NACP). Pošto su tuzlanski Pabloiti očekivali dolazak predstavnika francuskih Pabloita (o čemu ja tada nisam imao saznanja, ali se je kasnije čulo da ih je marta meseca posetio predsednik francuske Nove-antikapitalističke partije (NACP), Olivier Besancenot, glavom i bradom). Verovatno je, kada sam pomenuo pozdrave drugova iz Pariza, tuzlanski drug, Pabloit, pomislio da dolazim kao prethodnica francuskih Pabloita. Tako sam, slučajno, tokom opširnog informisanja, verovatno čuo i ponešto što možda nisam smeo čuti.

z


Monday, May 22, 2017

ZAŠTO KLIFISTI ŽELE DA BUDU TROCKISTI?


(Iz diskusije sa port-parolom Marks22 sajta, na kome slave stogodišnjicu nekog Tonija Klifa koji je izumio "kontra-revolucionarni Trockizam")

Pročitao sam tekst o Deflekciji stalne revolicije. Tekst je akademski zanimljiv ali zaključci nisu potresni. Pre svega dovoditi u pitanje revolucionarni karakter radničke klase (tačka 2, u analizi razmišljanja Trockog) znači dovesti u pitanje Marksizam. To se teško vidi i kod (pravih) anarhista, jer koren te tvrdnje nalazimo još kod Dejvida Hjuma i potpuno prevazilazi "Trockizam" kao takav a verovatno i Marksizam. To je jednostavno osnovni aksiom čovekove slobode... U tom smislu niti koncept Stalne revolucije ne treba banalizovati na nekakav automatični "perpetum mobile"... Još i to: ideja da je SSSR kapitalistička država pripada međuratnom trockisti Brunu Rizziju. On je to diskutovao sa Trockim i posle neslaganja odstupio od trockizma. U pozadini te ideje je negacija revolucije. Cliff je očito preuzeo koncept od Rizzija, nije originalno njegov ali jeste kontra - revolucionaran po značenju, odnosno "demokratski"... Još jednom hvala za upućivanje u delo Tony Cliffa. Meni je uvek zanimljivo čitati društveni kriticizam, ako je pravi, čak i kada se neslažem sa nekim premisama

Rizzi i Cliff tvrde isto: da do revolucije nije došlo, dakle revolucija u SSSR se negira! Samim tim i revolucija kao takva. Hvala i Vama Dragane na diskusiji!

Ja mislim da niko nikad nije tvrdio da je radnička klasa UVEK I DEFAKTO revolucionarna, to bi bilo neozbiljno tvrditi, naprotiv, postoje razdoblja ova i ona. Međutim, u načelu, ona je UVEK revolucionarna, dakle, radnička klasa i ona koja glasa za Miloševića, i koja daje glas Hitleru i Musoliniju, je u načelu revolucionarna, ima potencijal samooslobođenja, revolucionarnosti. Da li će ga ispoljiti, to je drugo pitanje, to zavisi od puno drugih stvari a ne samo od karaktera radničke klase. Zato je diskusija karaktera radničke klase voda na buržujski mlin, dovođenje u pitanje, sumnjanje. To se zove "malograđanaka malodušnost"... :-) Pozdrav još jednom

PPS. Što bi se reklo: već izbor teme ukazuje na domet diskusije. Bojim se da taj domet kod Cliffa nije najveći tj. ne dobacuje do revolucije

Zašto bi neko nazvao sebe Trockistom, makar i "novog kova", a pritom bio protiv revolucije? Jer Trocki je bio revolucionar ne samo u tadašnjoj Rusiji već i u Meksiku, SAD... i svakom deliću sveta u koji je kročio, a revoluciji je žrtvovao i svoju decu pored svog života... A onda se pojavi neki Cliff i kaže ja sam "anti-revolucionarni Trockista". To znači pljunuti na Trockog. Takav paradoks, da ne kažem iživljavanje mogao je smisliti samo Staljin jer to znači posthumno ubijanje Trockog - ubijanje ideje o Trockom, nakon što je fizički likvidirano sve što je na bilo kakav način imalo veze sa Trockim. Tako danas umesto da imamo "Cliffiste", što bi bilo jedino logično, imamo "kontra-revolucionarne Trockiste" koje vodi neki Cliff, pozamljujući ime Trockog. Ludilo.

/E tu me je moj ljubazni domaćin Klifista izbisao i rekao baj-baj. Jedino argumentovano rešenje!/
21.5.2017

Monday, May 8, 2017

MACRON HAS NO LETIMACY WHATSOEVER!



MACRON HAS NO LEGITIMACY WHATSOEVER! And yet the institutions of the Fifth Republic give him full powers to destroy the Social Security system and what is left of the Labour Code. How can this be prevented? Through workers’ unity!

On 7 May 2017, Macron was elected President. But the facts show that he has the smallest minority positon.
The proof: - 26 per cent of registered voters abstained; - 9 per cent of registered voters cast a blank or spoiled ballot;  - The ballots cast therefore represent fewer than two out of three voters, a record low, and in some working-class districts fewer than half the voters; - With a 65 per cent share of the votes cast, Macron was therefore the electoral choice of just 42 per cent of registered voters; - And everyone knows that more than half of the votes he received were from voters who disagree with his programme but wante
Thus, four out of five voters refused to support Macron’s programme. This ultra-minority President has no legitimacy whatsoever. 

 And yet, the institutions of the Fifth Republic are such that a President who represents 20 per cent of the electorate holds 100 per cent of the powers of his office.

This is the logic of the anti-democratic institutions of the Fifth Republic 
Under the Fifth Republic, political elections do not aim to allow voters to choose between different programmes. The decisive election is the plebiscite held every five years to elect a king without a crown, to choose someone whom voters prefer – or rather, someone they detest the least. Once elected, even by default, the President then has full powers to attack the working class and democracy.

This is why the election of the President of the Republic by universal suffrage must be abolished. This is why the institutions of the Fifth Republic must be abrogated.

Yesterday, today, tomorrow: in all circumstances, the Democratic Independent Workers Party (POID) acts for working-class unity and democracy 
As a supporter of a workers’ government, the POID declares itself in favour of a Constituent Assembly in order to have done with the European Union and the Fifth Republic. 
As a supporter of the workers’ unity together with their organisations in the class struggle, yesterday against the passing of the El Khomri law, today for its repeal, the POID intends to use all its strength in taking political action to help achieve the most solid possible common front, a united bloc of workers and organisations to put a stop to the murderous plans of the illegitimate “20 per cent President”.
The POID considers it urgent to build a genuine workers’ party on a class basis. It is with these aims in mind that it is standing candidates in the legislative elections to help achieve unity, for the repeal of the El Khomri law, against the attacks that threaten the Social Security system and the Labour Code, and for a Constituent Assembly to put an end to the Fifth Republic. To debate these questions, we invite the workers, activists and youth to take part in the meetings we are organising throughout the country in the coming days.

National Bureau of the POID, Paris,  May 7th, 10:30 PM

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

MARXIST JUDGE OF ART by Dimitar Anakiev


Recently I discussed on the FB with a group of young Serbian Marxist aesthetics of the famous film (banned by Tito regime) Plastic Jesus by Lazar Stojanovic, one of the1968 rebels. Young Serbian Marxist tried direct ideological reading (and judging) of the film what for my opinion was wrong approach. It took time until I found L.D.Trotsky comment on the same topic (judge of art)-it is very telling and useful:
"...one cannot always go by the principles of Marxism in deciding whether to reject or to accept a work of art. A work of art should, in the first place, by judged by its own law, that is by the law of art. But Marxism alone can explain why and how a given tendency in art has originated in a given period of history; in other words, who it was who made a demand for such an artistic form and not for another, and why."

L.D. Trotsky "Literature and Revolution", 1925, New York

It is also famous Trotsky refusal to judge Military Strategy and Tactics by Marxism in discussion with Red Army generals. From that discussion are known his conclusions:

1.Marxism is a tool for judging political economy and history
2.Trying to judge everything by Marxism is a side-road created by bourgeois "extreme left".

Similarly W. Reich use of Marxism into psychology is similar bourgeois concept, unacceptable for orthodox Marxists.
(D.A.)

Published 29.3.2017 at Marxist Internet Archive Discussion Group

Monday, November 21, 2016

FROM POLEMIC WITH "TROTSKYIST" (Last part)

To Dominique

One of the best proofs of your ("democratic" -sic!) "Trotskyism" are your protégés: Yuri Glushakov ("indipendent candidat"!!!) and Ivica Mladenović (just a shit), both the same creatures of political underground so typical for Stalinism.

Shame of you all "Trotskysts"

Dimitar

PS. I am so glad that you invented "Democratic Trotskyism!" 😁