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:
" 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.

Published 29.3.2017 at Marxist Internet Archive Discussion Group

Monday, November 21, 2016


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"


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

Saturday, September 24, 2016


Miroslav Samardžić and Dimitar Anakiev during forum in Zrenjanin, March, 2016


Dimitar Anakiev, speech made on March, 3, 2016, at the forum in Zrenjanin

         Good evening! I have been travelling from Ljubljana to Belgrade by an international train whose composition consisted of two wagons, one of the first class, the other of the second. The first class wagon was locked up while in the second class one there were some ten to fifteen passengers. This image of the main railway line of former Yugoslavia is a good metaphor for the state we have found ourselves in after the breakup of the SFRY. This is an image of our disappearance and this disappearance was brought to us by capitalism and its exponents.
          The train travel from Ljubljana to Belgrade lasted for 8 hours, the time I spent reading the book by Harold R. Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution. The first part of the book describes the conditions that led to the revolution in China in 1925-1927. The analysis of the social circumstances in China given by Isaacs is good so that I am going to use it as a cue; the image of the humiliated China can be compared to our social circumstances; first of all, it is interesting to see the share of foreign capital. On page 23 of this book we find the following formulation and data, namely, that the foreign capital „occupied dominant positions in all the basic economic sectors, sucking the country leech-like of its resources. It owned nearly half the cotton industry, China's largest. It owned a third of the railways outright and held a paralyzing mortgage on the rest. It owned and operated more than half the shipping in Chinese waters and carried in its own bottoms nearly 80 percent of China's foreign and coastal trade...“. This is, therefore, a true face of the Chinese economy at the time when China reached the lowest point in its history and this state would, in its turn, lead to a series of insurrections and two revolutions.
             Let's have a look now at the image of Slovenia in the European Union. Slovenia entered the EU in 2004 and in only 12 years it has managed to completely destroy and sell out its economy. Its trade network is 100% in foreign hands; that is, today Slovenia has no trade network on its own. An exception is Tuš but is under mortgage. Beer industry, one of the key industrial branches in Slovenia, with a large market in the Balkans, is for 100% in foreign hands (Union and Laško). The same happens to the home appliance industry otherwise well known in the region; 100% is foreign hands (Gorenje is bought off by Swedish capital). The same is with steel industry (Russian capital) and industry of ski and sports equipment – all this is sold to foreign capital. A somewhat better situation is in the pharmaceutical industry which is only for 70% in foreign hands (Krka is still in Slovenian hands and it subsists probably thanks to the Russian market; however, this market is today in a serious crisis). Tourism is only partially sold but that's where sale is about to begin. We can see that all the profitable industries are sold. What does not bring any profit or disturbs someone's monopoly is destroyed. For instance, Slovenia has no longer an industry of fertilizers; neither does it have construction industry able to undertake more serious building projects. It makes sense to pose a question concerning what in Slovenia has not been sold or ruined yet? Answer is: energetics and infrastructure. They are waiting for the third wave of privatization and so are major banks. As we know, the role of banks in „transition“ is specific since the banks are the main instruments of social robbery by their system of giving loans to the chosen individuals, those loans that are to be paid off by citizens through budget „recapitalization“ of banks. Two fresh examples: the NLB or New Ljubljanska Bank has recently been recapitalized with 1, 5 billion of budget money and so has the NKBM or New Credit Bank Maribor with 900 millions. After its recapitalization, the NKBM was sold to an American fund for 200 million Euros. The Slovenian governments are without monetary and fiscal freedom. Neither have they enough money to function. Several times a year they take loans from various foreign creditors in order to pay their employees. It means that, in essence, it does not matter what color is the government since any government that has come to power will have to be obedient to its creditors. That is why a reasonable proposal has been put forward recently to, instead of electing a government, choose it by drawing lots every four years (elections are expensive and have no real purpose). Due to the fiscal rules set up in Brussels, the government of Slovenia cannot build a strategically important second track of the Koper-Ljubljana railway line that would strengthen its sea port in Kopar. It means that it cannot take a credit on its own since this credit would be too big for its fiscal frame. That is why this railway line could be only built by large foreign capital which means that foreign capital will draw profit from this important communication; however, we have seen that the majority of profit realized by Slovenian economy is squeezed by foreign capital. That is why the state is impoverished, and even its health care budget is lowered for 20% by “austerity” measures. That is why medical workers are leaving the country; at present there is a considerable shortage of doctors (the worst is in general medicine and anesthesiology) while nurses are not being paid for extra work). In such circumstances it is no wonder that 4 -5 000 young people, educated personnel, are leaving Slovenia every year while the number of children starting their primary schooling is reduced for 1/3. This is an image of genocide...
         Before we start our discussion, let me list item by item the most important political parameters that characterize the EU. If I should, on the basis of Slovenian and its congenial Balkan experience, present you with some of the features that politically characterize the European Union, I would opt for the following ones: Policy of “austerity”, privatization (destruction of social property and public sector), the Left as befits capital (class cooperation instead of class struggle), denial of the right to strike (ILO Convention 87 is denied directly or indirectly), scorn of democracy (Greece is the most telling example; denied in Greece is the will of 2/3 of people expressed at the referendum against “austerity”; a similar experience is also that of Slovenia in adopting so-called “fiscal rules” etc.), destruction of national culture, fiscal and monetary slavery and total imperial war against all the nations (EU is the key factor of world imperialism that we see at work these days in the problem of refugees). Capital has enslaved us due to its established cooperation of the Left. All over the Balkans and beyond there is no single party of the Left protecting the interests of the working class. All the Left parties serve capital and propagate class cooperation instead of class struggle (class cooperation is best expressed by the strategy of “social agreement” which is in fact the policy of “workers’ submission”). Such pro-capital Left is also recognized by its allegiance to some “democratic socialism” which actually means “bourgeois socialism”. This phrase denies the dictatorship of proletariat while it promotes the dictatorship of capital. Therefore, the “European leftists” deny the democratic nature of socialism (that is, deny the democratic character of proletarian socialism) and equate (proletarian) socialism with Stalinism. We are now in the position described by Engels in 1849 in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung2  in which he described us as “non-historic peoples”, that is, those peoples that cannot take their own destiny into their own hands. The Balkan peoples today have their own states but they are, each on its own, too weak to resist neocolonialism of corporative capital that finds no obstacle in the state. Rather, the state could be regarded as service for better exploitation of small peoples with the help of comprador governments which is exactly like the situation in the 19th century China. The difference is only in the fact that China is an enormous state, of inexhaustive human and natural resources, while we have split into pieces that nothing can come out of unless they are again assembled into a whole able to lead a struggle against foreign overpower. It is in this fight that we must ask for the help of the international labor movement – a class conscious part of the workers’ movement standing up for class struggle – that we should even now set up connections and build up relationships.

1 The day after this speech is made, we heard on the radio that the annual brain drain in Serbia is 15000 people, including many doctors and medical workers

2 Engels, „Democratic Pan-Slavism“, February, 1849, Neue Rheinische Zeitung

Friday, September 16, 2016

MARXISM AND DEMOCRACY (Novi Borac International)


MARXISM AND DEMOCRACY (Novi Borac International)

            Recently a heated debate stirred up the ranks of the French section of the Fourth International concerning democratic relations within the Marxist movement as something which was also reflected on the Independent Workers’ Party (POI). The key question was the right to a different opinion and to the creation of an inner tendency based on the different political view. Both the section and the Party were divided into greater and smaller parts, into a current and a tendency which later took to calling itself „democratic“ and that is how the Independent Democratic Workers' Party (POID) came into being. However, the issue of democracy within the Marxist movement does not exhaust itself in local rivalry among French comrades. It becomes evident right away in the relationship between activists of bigger and smaller nations, of the „center“ and the „periphery.“ In fact, this problem lingers on for quite some time but only recently has it escalated; it can be conditionally called a „personnel issue.“ Can the French comrades lead a personnel policy in the Balkans? They have given us considerable help in our constitution and yet their help must not compromise democracy of our relations...
           The dispute started concerning our assessment of a certain „comrade“ of ours, otherwise very respected in Paris, while we, in the Balkans – from the very start and with good reasons – have disputed the opinions of the French comrades today belonging to the „democratic“ tendency. For two years this issue has been a source a certain tension. While collecting signatures for the Palestine petition one member of our Editorial Board left us since the French comrades, by-passing our office, used certain “strong connections” of their favorite...The dispersal of the editorship of the New Militant seems to be something irrelevant for Paris... The arguments supporting our opinion have accumulated in time and, yet, Paris has shown no interest in them.
          More recently this very comrade - “very much respected” by Parisians - has openly taken part in the election campaign in Serbia on the side of the pro-nationalist “Left” closely connected both with the present government and the reactionary circles. For this he was awarded a position of the clerk and though we presented all this – clearly and with evidence – to the comrades in Paris, no reaction followed. We first got the answer, “we shall ask him about this...”, and later “no reply from him yet...” and that’s where it all ended. This situation might be analogous to the one in which we, from the Balkans, would keep up our relations with Cambadélis (1) and use the same ways of „argumentation“ as our Parisian comrades and say that there is nothing wrong in it since he is, first of all, a „good guy“ and, besides, we can still use his political connections... and to objections and proofs, we would give replies such as, „all right, we shall ask him...“ or „no reply from him yet...“.
           Have our Parisian comrades made any sign of recognizing their responsibility with respective consequences? Has anyone at least made an excuse?... Of course not... That is how democracy is taken care of by those who parade as democrats. Perhaps the "democracy" is the name for the exercise of bureaucratic formalism?

  1. Jean-Christopher Cambadélis, former Trotskyist, today a high executive of the ruling socialists.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016


         Dimitar Anakiev


         (Confrontation with Scholastic Marxism)

           My humble opinion is that Brexit and Grexit are not exactly the same phenomena. Grexit was mainly an expression of people’s will (and that is why bourgeoisie did not allow it) while Brexit mostly expresses the unwillingness of the British (and partly American) bourgeoisie to subject itself to the German interests in the EU. That is why for me Brexit is, to a great extent, a bourgeois phenomenon and I do not agree with the celebration of “a win of people’s will” that is on a large scale trumpeted, as befits their wishes, by immature leftists... At the same time I understand the disappointment of many Britons, especially young ones, who do not want to live in a prison house of national conceptions. Brexit is an expression of the Anglo-Saxon bourgeois bloc distrust of the German-French EU.

           Dimitar Anakiev, Facebook & Izbris-blog, June, 26, 2016

         A recent victory of xenophobic policy on the referendum for exit from the EU has been declared, in almost all of today’s Marxist journals, as a “victory of the working class” since the EU is classified exclusively as an instrument of the global capital super-government over the European nations.(1) These media, however, pass over in silence an evident role that is played, in the campaign for Britain leaving the EU, by global capital itself and in which it is impossible to overlook the mega-capitalist Rupert Murdoch whose media empire served as one of the major means of the campaign. Likewise, Brexit enjoyed undisguised sympathies of the British crown (see the accompanying picture). Though the reason for engagement of the most reactionary forces of the British society in favor of Brexit could be rather searched for in a bourgeois game of power – namely, in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist lobbies opposing an increasing power of Germany headed by Angela Merkel that has successfully met its demand for cheap working force by “importing” more than a million refugees from the devastated and plundered Near and Far East – today’s Marxist regard the victory of the reaction as that of the working class although no notable mobilization of the working class in Britain ever took place, especially for the sake of the class struggle; and for this reason Brexit greatly differs from the unsuccessful Grexit that was dominated by extensive mobilization of people and of the idea of class struggle. Today’s Marxists, tired of a series of historical defeats and constant defensive and stagnation, seem to be leaning, in their conclusions, more on their wishes rather than facts. Instead of argument-supported discussions they offer scholastic schemes and cheap demagogy, including, among them, those “democratic” parts of the Trotskyist movement who have recently resigned from their “undemocratic” curent since, allegedly, they could not voice their opinions in it. Let’s just have a look now at the “argumentation” of the scholastic Marxists:
           Editorial of 45th issue of La Tribune de Travailleurs published on June, 29, signed by the Editor-In-Chief in person who is also the leader of the “democratic” Internationalist Communist Tendency (TCI) Daniel Gluckstein, is entitled “Two of Three Workers” (“Deux ouvriers sur trois”).(2) The title implies that two of three workers voted for Brexit, that is, if we add to this information the dominant dogma about progressivity of the working class, then the assumed meaning is that Brexit is the result of a proletarian action (instead of a bourgeois complot) and that, as such, it is the first step of the impending revolution. Gluckstein further states that the next step would be annulment of all the actions of privatization. Yes, this might have been the next step if the Brexit had been a result of the proletarian action. But it was not. In Britain no mobilization of the working class, such as we have seen in Greece, took place. Nor many years of street fighting, either. Nor hand to hand fighting. Nor dead. Then what was there, after all? Gluckstein does not mention any bourgeois precursor of Brexit: the conservative government which itself has announced the referendum (and which has wrestled with the EU to obtain xenophobic concessions that are part of the same political package as Brexit) does not mention Murdoch's media which were the main lever of the Brexit campaign; neither does it mention the Crown, the main symbol of Brexit. It is unusual for such high-ranking communist to overlook, in his considerations, major actors of political developments and then to proceed to elaborate at length the dogmatic theses which, as a form of idealist thinking, do not belong to Marxism. Obviously the text has an agitating character and is intended for cheering up its membership; yet it has no analytical value and neither can it be even a signpost that it obviously tries to be. Statistics is an important method in estimating social events but quantity does not always indicate quality. Dealings with statistics are often manipulative; in this case we do not know the motives of these „two of three workers“; yet, we claim, dogmatically, that these are class-conscious workers setting out on the road to revolution. What if, however, these are the workers who read Murdoch's Sun and worship the Crown? By passing over Murdoch they have shown that they consciously manipulate members and readers. Isn't it true that Hitler was voted to power by workers? Isn't it true that Milošević and his fascist program was supported, for the whole decade, and on several elections voted to power by Serbian workers? Of course, they were all media-manipulated but that is exactly what we are speaking about here. Facts are stubborn (“Les faits sont têtus”), says Lenin.
            In the same issue of La Tribune de Travailleurs we come across the article entitled, “June, 23, Vote of the Class” (“23 juin: un vote de classe”) by a big agitator (though a poorer analyst and polemist) Dominique Ferré. This author also calls upon the dogmas to assist in explaining the statistics distributed to all sides of the world with a special emphasis on Northwest and Northeast. His agitating talent is, however, even more evident in his other text published in the same issue of La Tribune de Travailleurs. The article in question is “The European Union favors workers’ immigration? What is being mocked here?” (“'Union européenne en faveur des travailleurs immigrés? De que se moque-t-on?”). Though the author claims that the xenophobic reasons are not a true political actor on the scene but that xenophobia is a mask covering up the class character of Brexit, the facts speak otherwise. This article wants to conceal and reduce the political significance of the German import of more than a million refugees. The economic importance of this event is first-rate whereas its negation and concealment can be only amateurish dilettantism which serves its own purposes (while wishes are that the dogmas are efficient even when they are not) instead of serving the facts. But, as we know and like to quote, following Lenin, facts are stubborn (Les faits sont têtus). What is in question is not just a light, non-invasive kind of import of cheap work force which is expected to build up even more the powerful German economy – which is in itself dramatic enough – but also the fact that Germany, due to refugees, will stop paying in its economic surplus to the common EU funds so that its position will be even more or almost absolutely strengthened at the expense of its competitive Anglo-Saxon capital. Of course, neither does this article mention Murdoch nor its media empire that has led the Brexit campaign; instead, as carriers of the Anglo-Saxon nationalism are mentioned marginal figures such as Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. The simplified ideological manipulation which completely denies the reality of capital and its power is intended for uneducated readership. A typical cheerleading gesture! That is why in the texts by Dominique Ferré we often find metaphorical expressions (“The right cherishes its ugly head...”) whereas Daniel Gluckstein’s texts also start with poetic phrases (“The wind of panic blows through the leading circles of the capitalist class...”). Metaphors are usually used in political discourse to induce emotional reactions and reduce analytical demands of readers. Metaphors blur facts, conceal them. That is why they are, in political discourse, typical means of demagogy and populist approach.
             The text by the American Trotskyist Alan Benjamin entitled “Brexit Vote in Britain and Its Lesson for US Workers” with the subtitle “The Meaning of the June 23 Vote in Britain to Leave the European Union” published on August, 15, on the web site of the Socialist Organizer, in essence, sums up the texts from the French La Tribune de Travailleurs, issue 45. Though somewhat more serious and analytical in its tone than his French colleagues, the author, stylistically, remains at the same level of scholastic presentation besides using the same emphases. At one point he says that the EU is a framework imposed by imperialists for lowering wages, democratic and workers’ rights while making working conditions more difficult (and destroying union independence) as well as democracy itself, all over Europe. It has to be attacked with even more Brexits, Frexits or Grexits, all over Europe. Still, such a claim does not explain why the Swiss have similar problems though Switzerland is not a member of the EU. Should Switzerland be destroyed, too? And what about the USA? This kind of rhetoric does not explain why Slovenia, though a EU member, has managed, to a great extent, to preserve its public health care system inherited from socialism while Serbia, though not a EU member, has completely destroyed the same, from socialism inherited, system of public health care. Obviously the explanations propounded by scholastic Marxism are too simplified and schematized up to the point where they cease to be Marxism. They are much more in need of followers than people whose thinking about reality is far more penetrating. And this is a characteristic of Stalinism rather than Trotskyism.
             Alan Benjamin does not tell us what kind of Frexit he wants: is it of the kind that has just been announced today by Marine le Pen? Is it going to be another “win of the working class” smiling at us even if financed by Putin? Tragic is not to see any difference between Brexit and Grexit since it means, in essence, to deny five and more years of street fighting in Greek cities in which millions of Greeks took part with many dead young people killed in a direct clash with the regime. What kind of mockery is being put up by scholastic Marxism? By those very Trotskyists who claim to be Trotskyists longer than Trotsky himself? Instead of schematic, dogmatic babbling, it would be better for them to engage themselves in analytical issues. First and foremost, I would be interested in the answers to the questions of relevance for estimating the political events they describe:

  • Has the working class of Britain become stronger or weaker by exit from the EU?
  • Has the British capital weakened or strengthened once it broke free from Germany’s hug?
  • Is a crack in the bourgeois formation (of the EU) the reason for workers’ celebration if it is not a result of the class struggle and increased power of proletariat?
  • Is the EU to be understood as Zubatovshchina and its legal frame used for mobilization of workers? Or should it be destroyed by nationalism?
  • Can balkanization of the EU be a goal of workers’ struggle?

September 4, 2016, Radovljica

(1)-European Union is called “prison of nations” - what was the nick name of Austro-Hungary; today Spain is called like that. It is overlooked that the EU is an alliance of sovereign nations. Despite the obvious democratic deficit of the EU, the referendums to join the EU should be mentioned. In Slovenia almost 90% of citizens voted for the entry into the EU and in Croatia, more than 2/3 of the voters. The phrase "prison of nations" is clearly not effective and inaccurate; it sounds more like a parade cliché in expressing, targeting (again) emotions of readers; the phrase is not really dedicated to the factual accuracy.
(2)-It would be interesting if the method of counting workers and differentiation of workers from the bourgeoisie in elections/referendums could be presented to wider audience, to know how it works and that we can assure the credibility of these claims.

Sunday, September 4, 2016



Dimitar Anakiev
(Obračun sa skolastičnim marksizmom)

Moje skromno mišljenje je da Brexit i Grexit nisu potpuno isti fenomeni. Grexit je bio uglavnom izraz narodne volje (zato ga buržoazija nije dozvolila) dok je Brexit uglavnom izraz nejevoljnosti britanske (i delimično američke) buržoazije da se podredi nemačkim interesima u EU. Zato je Brexit za mene u velikoj meri buržoaski fenomen i neslažem se sa proslavom "pobede narodne volje" koju uveliko razglašavaju, u skladu sa svojim željama, nedoklepani levičari... Istovremeno razumem razočarenje mnogih Britanaca, naročito mladih, koji ne žele da žive u zatvoru nacionalnih koncepcija. Brexit je izraz nepoverenja anglo-saksonskog buržoaskog bloka nemačko-francuskoj EU.

Dimitar Anakiev, Facebook & Izbris-blog, 26.jun, 2016

Nedavna pobeda ksenofobične politike na referendumu za izlazak iz EU je u skoro svim današnjim marksističkim časopisima proglašena za “pobedu radničke klase” iz razloga što se EU kvalifikuje isključivo kao instrument nadvlade globalnog kapitala nad evropskim narodima.(1) Ovi mediji međutim prećutkuju vidnu ulogu u kampanji za izlazak Britanije iz EU upravo globalnog kapitala, u kojoj se nije mogao prevideti mega-kapitalista Rupert Murdoch čiji medijski imperij je poslužio kao jedno od glavnih sredstava kampanje a Brexit je uživao takođe neskrivene simpatije britanske krune (videti sliku uz ovaj tekst). Iako bi se razlog za angažovanje najreakcionarnijih snaga britanskog društva na stranu Brexita pre mogao tražiti u buržoaskoj igri moći – u suprotstavljanju anglosaksonskih kapitalastičnih lobija narastajućoj moći Nemačke koju vodi Angela Merker i koja je potrebu za jeftinom radnom snagom uspešno rešila “uvozom” više od miliona izbeglica sa razorenog i opljačkanog Bliskog i Dalekog Istoka – današnji marksisti pobedu reakcije smatraju pobedom radničke klase iako do izrazite mobilizacije radničke klase u Britaniji nije došlo – pogotovo ne zbog klasne borbe – i po tome se Brexit veoma razlikuje od neuspelog Grexita kojim je dominirala široka mobilizacija naroda i ideje klasne borbe. Čini se da se današnji marksisti, umorni od serije istorijskih poraza i stalne defanzive i stagnacije, u svojim zaključcima više oslanjaju na želje nego na činjenice. Umesto argumentovane diskusije nude skolastične sheme i jeftinu demagogiju čak i oni -”demokratski” - delovi trocističkog pokreta koji su nedovno izstupili iz svoje “nedemokratične” matice jer unutar nje navodno nisu mogli diskutovati. Pogledajmo kakva je “argumentacija” skolastičkih marksista:
Uvodnik 45. broja Tribine Trudbenika (La Tribune de Travailleurs) koji je izašao 29 juna i potpisan je lično od glavnog urednika i ujedno vođe “demokratske” tendencije interrnacionalnih komunista (TCI) Daniela Glukštejna (Daniel Gluckstein) nosi naslov Dva od tri radnika (Deux ouvriers sur trois).(2) Ovaj naslov hoće da kaže da su 2/3 radnika glasala za Brexit tj. ako uz ovu informaciju pripišemo i važeću dogmu o naprednosti radničke klase, onda je podrazumevajuće značenje da je Brexit rezultat proleterske akcije (a ne buržoaska spletka) i da je kao takav prvi korak u revoluciji koja sledi. Glukstain dalje kaže da bi sledeći korak morao biti poništenje svih mera privatizacije. Da, možda bi to bio sledeći korak kada bi Brexit bio rezultat proleterske akcije. Međutim nije. U Britaniji nije došlo do mobilizacije radničke klase kakvu smo videli u Grčkoj. Nije bilo ni višegodišnje borbe na ulicama. Ni borbe prsa u prsa. Ni mrtvih. Čega je onda bilo? Glukstain ne pominje buržoasku prethodnicu Brexita: konzervativnu vladu koja je i raspisala referendum (i koja je od EU izborila ksenofobične ustupke koji su deo istog političkog paketa u kojem je Brexit), ne pominje Murdochove medije koji su bili glavna poluge kampanje za Brexit i ne pominje krunu, glavni simbol Brexita. Neobično je da komunista tako visokog ranga u svojem razmatranju previdi krupne aktere političkog događanja a zatim razglaba dogmatske teze koje kao oblik idealističkog mišljenja ne spadaju u marksizam. Očigledno ovaj tekst ima agitacioni karakter i namenjen je bodrenju svojeg članstva, nema međutim veliku analitičku vrednost, i ne može biti čak ni putokaz što očigledno pokušava. Statistika je važan metod u merenju društvenih događaja ali kvantitet ne pokazuje uvek na kvalitet. Baratanje statistikama je često manipulativno; u ovom slučaju mi ne poznajemo motive tih 2/3 radnika a tvrdimo, dogmatski, da su to klasno svesni radnici koji polaze na put revolucije. A šta ako su to radnici koji čitaju Murdochov “Sun” i poštuju krunu? Time što smo prećutali Murdocha pokazali smo da svesno manipulišemo svoje članstvo i čitaoce. Zar nije istina da je i Hitlera izglasalo radništvo? Zar nije istina da je Miloševića i njegov fašistički program celu deceniju, na nekoliko izbora, podržavalo i izglasavalo srpsko radništvo? Naravno, bili su medijski manipulisani ali o tome govorimo. “Les faits sont têtus” (Fakti govore za sebe), veli Lenjin.
U istom broju Tribine trudbenika nalazimo tekst: “23 jun: glas klase” (23 juin: un vote de classe) velikog agitatora (a slabijeg analitičara i polemičara) Dominika Ferea (Dominique Ferré). Ovaj autor takođe priziva u pomoć dogme da rastumače statistiku koju je rasporedio po stranama sveta, sa akcentom na Severerozapad i Severoistok. Njegov agitacijski talent je međutim još bolje vidljiv u njegovom drugom tekstu koji se pojavljuje u istom broju Tribine trudbenika. Reč je o tekstu “Evropska unija koristi imigraciji radnika? Ko se tu sprda? (L'Union européenne en faveur des travailleurs immigrés? De que se moque-t-on?) Iako autor tvrdi da ksenofobični razlozi nisu stvarni politički akter na sceni već da je ksenofobija maska kojom se prikriva klasni karakter Brexita, činjenice govore drugačije. Ovaj tekst želi da prikrije i smanji politički značaj nemačkog uvoza više od jednog miliona izbeglica. Ekonomski značaj ovog događaja je prvoklasan i njegova negacija i prikrivanje može biti samo amaterski dilentatizam koji služi svojim željama (a želje su da su dogme delotvorne i kad nisu) umesto da služi činjenicama. Ali, kao što znamo i kao što volimo da citiramo, po Lenjinu: Les faits sont têtus. Nije u pitanju samo laki, neinvazivni, uvoz jeftine radne snage koji će još više ojačati moćnu nemačku ekonomiju, što je po sebi dovoljno dramatično, već i to da će Nemačka zbog izbeglica svoje ekonomske viškove prestati da uplaćuje u zajedničke EU fondove tako da će njen položaj još više, gotovo absolutno, ojačati na račun konkurentskog anglosaksonskog kapitala. Naravno, ni u ovom tekstu se ne pominje Murdoch i njegov medijski imperij koji je vodio kampanju Brexita već se kao nosioci anglosaksonskog nacionalizma ovde pominju marginalci: Nigel Farange i Boris Johanson. Pojednostavljena ideološka manipulacija koja u potpunosti negira stvarnost kapitala i njegove moći, namenjena needukovanom čitaocu. Tipičan navijački tekst. Zato u tekstovima Dominika Ferea često nalazimo metaforične izraze (“Desnica neguje svoju ružnu glavu...”) a i tekst Daniela Glukstaina počinje pesničkim frazom: “Vetar panike duva kroz vodeće krugove klase kapitalista...” Metafore se u političnom diskursu uglavnom upotrebljavaju da bi izazvale emocionalno reagovanje i umanjile analitične zahteve čitaoca. Metafore zamagljuju, skrivaju činjenice. Zato su u političnom diskursu tipično sredstvo demagogije i populističnog pristupa.
Tekst američkog trockiste Alena Bendžamina (Alan Benjamin) Glas za Brexit i njegova lekcija za Američke radnike (Brexit Vote in Britain and Its Lesson for US Workers) i u podnaslovu Značaj britanskog glasa za Brexit od 23 juna (The Meaning of the June 23 Vote in Britain to leave the European Union) publikovan 15. avgusta na web stranici organizacije Socialistični Organizator (Socialit Organizer) u suštini sažima tekstove iz francuske Tribine trudbenika br.45. Iako malo ozbiljniji i analitičniji u tonu nego francuski kolege, stilski ostaje na istom nivou skolastičke prezentacije i upotrebljava jednake akcente. Na jednom mestu on kaže: “EU je okvir koga su nametnuli imperialisti zato da bi spuštali nadnice, demokratska i radnička prava a uslove rada činili težim (uključno sa uništenjem nezavisnosti sindikata) a tako i same demokratije, po celoj Evropi. Ona mora da se napada- sa još Brexita, Frexita ili Grexita – po celoj Evropi”. Ipak ova tvrdnja ne objašnjava zašto Švajcarci imaju slične probleme iako Švajcarska nije članica EU? Trebamo li uništiti i Švajcarsku? A šta je sa USA? Ova retorika ne objašnjava ni kako je to Slovenija, iako članica EU, uspela da u velikoj meri sačuva sistem javnog zdravstva nasleđen od socijalizma, dok je Srbija, iako nije članica EU, taj isti, od socijalizma nasleđeni sistem javnog zdravstva, potpuno uništila. Očito su objašnjenja skolastičkog marksizma previše pojednostavljena i shematizovana do granice gde prestaju biti marksizam. Njima više trebaju sledbenici nego ljudi koji prodorno misle o stvarnosti. A to je pre osobina staljinizma nego trockizma.
Alen Bendžamin ne kaže kakav Frexit hoće: je li to onaj koga je upravo danas najavila Marina Lepen (Marine le Pen)? Da li će to biti još jedna “pobeda radničke klase” koja nam se smeši makar i da je finansira Putin? Upravo tragično je ne videti razliku između Brexita i Grexita jer to u suštini znači negirati pet i više godina uličnih borbi po grčkim gradovima u kojima su učestvovali milioni Grka sa više mrtvih mladih ljudi poginulih u direktnoj borbi sa režimom. Kakva je to sprdačina od strane skolastičkog marksizma? I to onih trockista koji kažu da su duže trockisti od samog Trockog. Umesto shematičnih, dogmatskih laprdanja bilo bi bolje da se upuste u analitička pitanja. Za početak, mene bi interesovali odgovori na pitanja relevantna za ocenu političkih događaja koje opisuju:
  1. Da li je radnička klasa Britanije izlaskom iz EU ojačala ili je oslabljena?
  2. Da li je britanski kapital oslabljen ili ojačan oslobođen zagrljaja Nemačke?
  3. Da li je pukotina u buržoaskoj formaciji (EU) razlog za radničko slavlje ako nije rezultat klasne borbe i narasle snage proletarijata?
  4. Da li EU treba shvatiti kao Zubatovštinu i koristiti njen legalni okvir za mobilizaciju radnika ili je treba putem nacionalizma rušiti?
  5. Može li balkanizacija EU biti cilj radničke borbe?
Septembar 4, 2016, Radovljica

(1)Evropska unija se naziva “tamnica naroda” kao što se nekad govorilo za Austrougarski i danas za Španiju. Previđa se da je EU savez suverenih država. I pored očiglednih demokratskih deficita EU treba pomenuti referendume za ulazak u EU. U Sloveniji je skoro 90% građana dalo glas za ulazak u EU a Hrvatskoj više od 2/3 glasača. Fraza “tamnica naroda” je očigledno nedelotvorna i netačna, više je to jedan pardni kliše u izražavanju koji cilja (opet) na emocije čitaoca a menje je posvećen činjeničnoj tačnosti.
(2) Bilo bi zanimljivo da se metoda prebrojavanja radnika i razlikovanje radnika od buržuja na izbirima predstavi široj publici, da znamo kako se to radi i da se možemo uveriti u kredibilitet tih tvrdnji.

Sunday, June 26, 2016


REGARDING BREXIT: My humble opinion is that Brexit and Grexit are not exactly the same phenomena. Grexit was mainly an expression of the popular will (therefore it was not allowed by the European bourgeoisie), while Brexit mainly express the will of British (and partly American) bourgeoisie not to submit themselves to German interests in the EU. Therefore, for me, Brexit is largely bourgeois phenomenon... On going celebration of "win of the people's will in Britain" - that was expressed in accordance with the wishes of unripe leftists - is not totally true ... At the same time I understand the disappointment of many British, especially young people, who do not want to live in a prison of national concepts. Brexit is an expression of distrust of Anglo-Saxon bourgeois block to the German-French EU.

Dimitar Anakiev