That's rather irrelevant to a situational alliance.
Results 61 to 65 of 65
Have you not heard the term "asfalitis" again?The cops or gders provocators.Maybe he is posing as anarchist?Do you think the anarchist let him come with them intentionally?To say that anarchists ally with fascists is ridiculous because anarchists are the ones who are stabbed by fascists most of the time.
I hope for nothing,I fear nothing,I am free-Nikos Kazantzakis
That's rather irrelevant to a situational alliance.
Anyway. There was an interesting conversation goin on about actual politics and I stupidly enough derailed it. I hope that didnt mess up the conversation people had before it. Plus I got enough revleft in my system for the next couple of weeks. No more. Thanks.
Most anarchists have the political education of a toddler because books are oppressive I guess. The best depiction of anarchists is made by Ernest Hemingway in "For whom the bell tolls". It was amazing to read a book about the spanish civil war and be able to recognize modern characters in it.
Now anarchists have no problem voting for Tsipras or any other center-left Messiah. Similarly they had no problem joining the flag-wavers in the squares (albeit at a distance) and praising the indignant movement for its spontaneity and its democratic principles. This is how anarchists started to hang out with fascists. Now of course everyone should understand that we're talking about 2011, before golden dawn's support increased.
This was just your garden-variety fascist hating immigrants, communists, unions and, as of 2010, Germans, for attempting to take away his tax evasion.
Anarchists and leftists like the ones you find in Syriza had no second thoughts about allying themselves to those people, claiming it was revolutionary to have as broad a front as possible.
And this broad front is what attacked PAME (and not the parliament of course).
...We shall never recognise equality with the peasant profiteer, just as we do not recognise “equality” between the exploiter and the exploited, between the sated and the hungry, nor the “freedom” for the former to rob the latter. And those educated people who refuse to recognise this difference we shall treat as whiteguards, even though they may call themselves democrats, socialists, internationalists, Kautskys, Chernovs, or Martovs.
V.I. Lenin
Although you have made it clear as to why you have responded in the way you did - and for which, I am deeply appreciative of the honesty, you have still failed to properly understand just what I was trying to say. And equally clear, is that this perhaps may be my fault, as other users have come across a similar problem.
However, firstly, I did not mean to say they are not empirically verifiable. What I said, was that they are not empirically verifiable like a mathematic equation. Of course perhaps without explanation these seems absurd, but I (perhaps wrongfully) assume users are capable of getting the gist of what I'm saying as a whole. Context is everything, links. I was trying to say, that any attempt to provide you with proof as to what I was saying, would be incredibly difficult because my statement was something I deduced based on a collection of experiences I have had with regard to reading, listening, hearing about, etc. Syriza. Meaning there most likely isn't any solid data that exists, or data that would confirm what I said precisely because what I said didn't require proof as such. But you didn't ask for proof, you asked for examples, or for me to elaborate as to why I think so. So looking back, I can take responsibility for over looking this.
Anyway, to be clear, what I should have said is that the potential for Syriza to become a legitimate party of the bourgeoisie or a proletarian party rests on a variety of different factors, among them, whether there are elements in the party with more of a radical ends than Tsipras, or whether it is possible for these elements to develop. Links, it would be foolish to disagree with the fact that Syriza can be distinguished from other left parties in their overall successful political strategies and tactics, for reasons I have already mentioned. And it would seem that you are overall in concurrence with this fact, and logically, that they are undeniably correlated with their overwhelming success in gaining support. What seems to be the disagreement here is whether the party is "a reserve force for capital" or not. All I had been trying to say, is that left to it's own devices, yes, it clearly would attempt to save capitalism from ruin in Europe. Things to keep in mind, however:
The collapse of capitalism through it's internal market contradictions in Europe benefits absolutely no one, would logically lead to barbarism, some kind of reactionary nightmare. Syriza most likely identifies itself as a party attempting to steer the future of Europe's direction away from the technocracy Merkel would establish, that is being established, and the neo-populist far right. Quite simply, this isn't a game of what new society (as in, what new mode of production) what party has to offer, and quite frankly it would be awfully dishonest of Syriza to have adopted the platform of attempting to bring about Communism or whatever, as the KKE has done. Marxism is not vulgarism, and in understanding these different political agents, we must bear in mind their own immediate prerogatives, that is, the actual goals espoused by them and what precisely they mean.
In a way, I doubt that Syriza's leadership pretends it is not a bourgeois party, but interestingly enough they don't identify as social democrats as they recognize what social democracy in Europe has become. I think it is not so strange to say that a revolutionary party that cannot address the immediate problems Europe is facing, would never amount to anything at all. That is, a party that does not take into account the political context of Europe that they are entering. However, with parties like Syriza opening new questions and perhaps potentially broadening the scope for more radical politics, this might very well be possible. Historically, when the proletariat is in a position of strategic advantage, when the proletariat is ceded it's immediate economic demands, through unionizing or something else (i.e. Syriza), the development of proletarian consciousness is a logical result. Syriza is thus not an ends, but a means, and has the potential to become something much bigger.
Well, links, what I was talking about was empiricism, or Anglo-Saxon empiricism as opposed to the continental school. What I had been trying to say is that anglo-saxon empiricism is not simply the verification of ideas, indeed, nothing alone can do this. Ideology is a necessary component in conceptualizing the way in which ideas are verified, thus philosophy is necessary in understanding these (verified) ideas in relation to other things, rather than just casually or passively accepting ruling class ideology. And, it's important not to take this in a superficial way, ideology encompasses all areas of life, not just politics. Then again, you should already know that.
It's not as though I'm posturing or withholding information, but that I'm attempting to allow users to see Syriza in a different light. I find it relatively unnecessary too, since we both agree that they are not a revolutionary party. Just to be clear - do we disagree that as a party it is distinguishable, in their strategies and so on, from other Leftist parties in Europe?
Okay, well let me rephrase myself, then: Don't argue so aggressively when you yourself have admitted that you are unsure as to what exactly I am trying to say. While I can recognize this and work on making my posts more clear when they need to be, it comes off as incredibly foolish to argue with fire when there is no flammability.
First, there is no prose being used here.
Secondly, while I can agree in a relative sense, I think that this kind of recognition is predisposed to obfuscate and dismiss the role Syriza is playing here, in broadening the scope for politics, and what it means for the European working class. I can confidently say that at this moment there is no room for a revolutionary party to just spontaneously gain legitimacy in the field of European politics. What I am concerned with is not so much Syriza itself, but the strategies being utilized - which are not necessarily bourgeois. It's quite difficult for Communists today to establish a political program that encompasses all areas of the political, but Syriza is doing precisely that. It might be at the moment a party that is left-wing of capital, but surely it doesn't have to remain that way.
The organizational foundations, as further recognized by DNZ. That's what I mean.
There's no need to apologize, as I am equally at faults here. Just to be clear, I don't wish to, despite our very defined disagreements, speak with such hostility.
This relies on what exactly a left reserve force for capital means, in a sense, there are elements within New Labor (as insignificant as they are) as well as Hollande's party which attempt to masquerade as being opposed to the current state of things, most especially in the former's case. But you're right, in action, they have proven themselves to be nothing more than neoliberal parties. I claim, however, that in the building of a new revolutionary political strategy, Syriza might be a stepping stone as the European working class is currently under constant attack and siege by the immediate forces of capital, or the forces of capital as they exist today (as opposed to what is alternatively possible for capitalism), and the slaying of this beast is a crucial step.
Users who are incredibly confused by my posts - as although ideological in nature, rely on Communist ideological presumptions, rather than defensive, elaborated and complex positions adopted within a world of bourgeois ideology, essentially, affirmative ideology (see Badiou's affirmative dialectics).
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
