Combating Cultural Degeneration

Combating Cultural Degeneration

The revolution is an upside down, moreover, the act of destroying the old and building the new is in essence; It will lead and direct the working class and the oppressed masses, which are the only forces capable of carrying out this action; in short, the only force leading it is the Proletarian Party. Centuries of experience, culture, hegemonic power in all areas of military-economic-political life, etc. In addition to its ideological, political and organizational strength, and in parallel with these, it is indispensable for an organization that is locked with the great goal of destroying the old (bourgeois-feudal order), and that it represents the new culturally, that is, it carries a socialist culture.

If a party belongs to the old, makes the body inaccessible, prevents the unity of will and action from coming to life, etc. If illness and weakness exist, the determined policies (no matter how appropriate and correct) cannot be put into practice and cannot play the role they should play in the class struggle. This issue, which we define as party culture and what we call today as one of our worn-out parts, is one of the fundamental issues of today and ultimately of the revolution - even after the revolution. That is why one of the four main points of the orientation has been determined as the elimination of the degeneration in party culture. If we are talking about an erosion and degeneration in the party culture today and identify this as one of the obstacles to the development of the class struggle, first of all, the collective will should focus on the reasons for this, based on the necessity of collective intervention. It is impossible to resolve the contradiction without applying the method of going to the source of the contradiction as a general truth and finding the solution way / method of the contradiction there.

If we make an introduction about the problem we are experiencing; First, let's briefly explain what we are talking about when we say party culture: culture; It is the set of all material and spiritual values ​​created in the historical, social development process of a society / community. Party culture - specifically for our subject - is all the material and spiritual values ​​that the Proletariat Party has accumulated and created during the 36-year struggle process, it is a common form of will and action. Indeed, these values ​​are the projection of the party ideology. In other words, it is the reflection of the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism on the formation of the organization and the life within the party.

Undoubtedly, the issue for the Proletarian Party is not limited to these 36 years. All the values ​​that have been and have been created since the emergence of the international proletariat and the science of Marxism have been / should be written in the cultural treasury of the Proletarian Party. In this context, it is not possible to separate the Party culture from the proletarian culture, on the other hand, the Proletariat Party, which is the representative of our country's branch of the international proletariat, has / will undoubtedly have certain characteristics, prominent values ​​and contributions.

Latter; When talking about the degeneration of the party culture or the party culture, it is necessary to put the individual aside (for a moment) without denying that the organization is also made up of individual individuals (organizations such as committees formed by these individuals, etc.). Because the quality of the whole must represent more qualitatively than the parts that make up the whole (it should bear a more advanced quality) dialectically. In other words, the whole is always more than the sum of its parts (simple-arithmetic). And if it is determined that there is a problem in the whole, the role of individual individuals in this is not denied again and it requires the intervention and effort of the whole - from top to bottom - although it is not independent of the problems of individual individuals. Each individual turns towards himself in line with this intervention and effort. Otherwise, we are confronted with a community of people (cik) who are dealing with their own "weaknesses", "mistakes", "problems", etc., independent of each other, and everyone tries to create their own picture on the puzzle. That is to say, first of all we will identify the cultural degeneration within the body and the prominent elements of this degeneration, we will focus on its causes, and then we will take steps to solve it in the practice of the class struggle before individuals, committees and the masses.

The emphasis on "in the practice of the class struggle" is important here. Because, after the determination of "Party culture is worn out, worn", the Party closes itself in itself and initiates the renewal movement within itself for a "sufficient" period of time, it starts from itself, and so on. propositions can come. (Specifically, we are talking about Party culture, otherwise the solution of all the problems encountered in the class struggle should be considered as a general determination within the practice of class struggle.) However, the problems that prevent the concentration on the class struggle and the deficiencies in intervening in them cannot be considered as a part of the struggle, they can be addressed as special issues. If searched, this would complicate the problems.

If the issue of culture is related to the question of culture as a precondition for waging a class struggle, rather than as a part of the class struggle, and the solution is shown as "introversion", the result will not be in favor of the class struggle. Ultimately, an organization detached from the class struggle remains. This is the case for a party and an individual. "Let me stand aside for a while, listen to my head, settle accounts with myself, overcome my private problems, etc." Which / how many individuals who “took a break” in struggling with approaches, solved these problems (elsewhere, in their head) and gave an example of a more persistent stance in struggle? Both the party and the individual can solve their problems in the healthiest way only by raising the class struggle. If the tasks within the class struggle are fulfilled at the highest level, if the struggle for power is centered, and together with them (neither priority nor later discussions) the Party culture is reproduced and reproduced, the distances are made on the road to power. In other words, the main issue reproduces itself within the class struggle. Because the "thing" that is not reproduced wears out, wears out, becomes mossy. Just like our culture… Moreover, one of the underlying reasons of today's cultural degeneration is the place we do not deserve in the class struggle. From this point on, we can enter some of our values ​​that are worn out, affected by the bourgeois feudal order, and which we express as if they were just phenomena in the lives of the martyrs.

Party and individual: Undoubtedly, the 1980 AFC was not just a military coup. Perhaps we can see more clearly today (when we look at the social culture created with the coup) that this is not the case. Many points, which were discussed a lot at that time and where danger signals were detected, have become reality and form today. What was the main argument of the liberal intellectuals who succumb to the weight of the junta and try to take their place in the system? Organization / being organized prevents the individual, being an individual, prevents personal development like a cendere, etc. These discussions were not only happening in our country; The international bourgeoisie, trying to put neo-liberal economic policies into practice all over the world, wanted / wanted to remove the idea of ​​organization from the minds, beyond breaking the organized power, in order to create a rose garden without thorns. For this reason, people, movements, "intellectuals" etc. they organize all over the world. With the endless contribution of the old revolutionaries, approaches that brought the organization and the individual against each other, portrayed one as the poison of the other, were popular. Everything from art to literature, from books to films shot, dealt with themes that bless the individual. This was the starting point of the post-modern movement that spread to all areas of life.

Can we talk about the bourgeois feudal system or, to put it in general terms, capitalism liberates the individual? Or, in reverse, where do we get the idea that the organization set out with the aim of overthrowing the bourgeois feudal order that enslaves human beings enslaves the individual? First of all, as Lenin strikingly stated, "There can be no real and complete 'freedom' in a society founded on the power of money, in a society where the toiling masses suffer in misery while a handful of wealthy and parasitic lives live." (Proletarian Culture, Inter Publications, p.11)

The bourgeoisie undoubtedly has an understanding of "freedom". This freedom of trade, freedom to exploit the working class to the last bite, freedom to occupy land, etc. etc. Other than that, the only place where it gives "freedom" is disorganization. In other words, you can ask for good things as an individual, you can say that everyone will get their labor, but you have to know that you will be opposed with all kinds of weapons as long as you come together, organize and go to the basis of the system in line with these and similar demands and demands. The sovereigns know that there is a limit to fighting against him without an organization / party, and that this limit cannot eliminate him. For this reason, what he attacked in the first place is the organization that will eliminate this border, even at the establishment stage, organized life. Therefore, it nourishes and supports disorganization. Disorganization is not a simple matter. Because “To have the idea of ​​being a party is to remain indifferent to the struggle of parties. However, this indifference is not the same as neutrality, abstention, because in society, the exchange of products and labor cannot be "abstained". This exchange creates an absolute economic struggle and, consequently, political struggle. So indifference to the struggle is neither abandonment, abstention, nor neutrality. Indifference is to spontaneously support the stronger, the dominant. " (Lenin, abs)

Capitalism also seeks social support - either spontaneously or as a conscious element. That is why the capitalist-imperialist system not only liberates the individual, but also uniformizes it, makes it unable to come together around common problems, make decisions for itself, and act in line with its own decisions. It creates individuals who escape from taking responsibility and cannot take responsibility for their actions or their will. In short, it turns it into robots that generate surplus value for capital. It destroys the individual ...

The organization, on the other hand, explains the freedom with the “realization of the necessities” and says that in order for the individual to be emancipated, the dominant class (s) that enslaves him / her must first struggle to break / break their chains. In other words, it re-defines freedom and, unlike the bourgeoisie, accepts the free individual not as a phenomenon that is abstracted from all social responsibilities and denies his responsibilities towards others, on the contrary, as a social entity, he is conscious of his responsibilities towards society and struggles for it. As a result, he says that just as there can be no society without an individual, there cannot be an individual without a society. For this, it is necessary to create / create the necessary mechanisms to create the basis for the individual's self-expression within the organization. This prepares the development of the conscious, socialist individual responsible to society as much as to himself. It is interesting that those who claim to be "socialists" are the ones where the attacks against organization are most intense. So on the one hand you will be "socialist", but on the other hand you will see social responsibilities as a chain-shackle and reject the organization fighting for this (socialism). In the periods when revolutionary struggle and socialism were in demand, this trend with anarchism style could not exist, but continued its existence by getting stronger especially with the temporary defeat of socialism. What do we understand from the frequently mentioned "freedom of the individual within the organization" besides this argument that capitalism uses consciously? Is this freedom unlimited?

An organization claiming revolution must certainly create a "tight" organization within itself. This is not a choice, but an absolute necessity for the revolution. Therefore, freedoms should not be expected to be unlimited. In an organization where everyone can do whatever they want, live as they wish and behave without rules, it is not possible to form a strict organization that we have mentioned. Therefore, of course, the strict discipline principles of the organization, hierarchy, internal life, rules of operation, etc. etc. will be. These are regulations that do not prevent the emancipation of the individual, but also develop individual creativity and freedom together with party organization. However, if the old (but presented as innovative) mentality, ideological stance in the individual referred to as "freedom". of course, borders come into play. These are the limits that petty-bourgeois liberal intellectuals are talking about. In this case, the Party will use its freedom to fight against "free individuals" who insist on these "freedoms" and, in the last analysis, to exclude it from its own body. ) tanks do not go around much, military anthems are not played everywhere, but the system does this with the statues created in the individual's brain, pop-arabesque-Turkish style etc. music, "art" works that have been worked hard so that what they are telling cannot be understood. is doing now. The phenomenon of "liberation of the self", of which millions of words have been spilled and hundreds of books have been written about what it means, today functions as a virus in the structure of society. What does this reality mean to us? First one; the masses of the people are being removed from their own culture, the difficulties of uniting and organizing them even within the framework of their own problems, etc. But secondly, it is necessary to see that this culture has an important place in the organization that claims to be revolutionary.

Although this does not seem to consecrate disorganization, as it is the case in society, as it is included in the organization, although the rhetoric is more "organizational", the examples show that individualism is a virus that must be taken seriously within the collective. There are examples starting with "my labor", continuing with "I slept in prison for this party, I paid a price", and finally "the liberation of my labor", and if these examples increase, the effects of the liquidationism, which is the target of the attacks of imperialist-capitalism on the ideological plan, are We can say that it has a significant presence in it. We see the issue of confronting the society and the individual mentioned above in the relationship between the organization and the individual.

Let's ask a few questions: What kind of problem is seen in the writing of the individual's labor in the party's house? What / for whom do we afford to pay / are we paying? Is our labor captive in the organization? What does it mean to liberate our labor? The common point in the answers to these questions is that we stand in one place and the party in another (basically, in front of us). The party consists of individuals, the organizations formed by these individuals. Someone who stands somewhat close to the activity can also tell this. If we are individuals who make up the party - and this is our starting point - we must have forgotten some things to use these discourses. In other words, when we became the first party member, it means that we forgot our reasons when we first organized to make these sentences. Organized struggle (regardless of its necessity) is completely voluntary. Whoever thinks he can do what and how much is organized "at that rate". But before how much we can do; Considering that this order of the rulers, who foreseen unlimited exploitation and plunder, should be overthrown, we have been in the ranks of the organization that is closest to our thoughts, or has somehow connected with us. Everyone knows / should know that saying to do something for the party means doing something for the revolution.

Could there be such an agreement between the party and the individual? "You bomb here for me, organize this many people, pay the price, and I will do it (whatever is desired) in return (!)" If we have worked for the revolution within the party, we know that the liberation of the oppressed peoples, especially the proletariat, is in the revolution We have given this effort because we realize that it is necessary to be organized. It is not for the demands of the "party except me" outside of us. These reasons, our concepts, which we "forget" or are worn out, appear before us as the confrontation of the party and the individual. Although the examples we have given above seem to be the extreme points of this situation, we can find dozens of similar practices and discourses on the way to this extreme in our daily and organizational lives. Do not look at the problems of the party from outside, do not see yourself as a subject, do not "develop" a method to "correct" and say "let's do it", exclude ourselves and see all the causes of the problems outside of us, etc. we are not so strangers to approaches. In an organization where everyone (or the majority) excludes themselves, will the remaining three or five have problems? These approaches, which do not establish the correct dialectical bond between ourselves as individuals and the party, are the approaches that cause the party to suffer the heaviest wounds from the liquidation virus.

Sacrifice: Another element of the liquidationist attacks on the oppressed masses is the erosion of the feelings of sacrifice. Sacrifice; relinquishment of one's own interests for a purpose or for anything desired to be accomplished; To achieve that goal is to endure distress, sadness and difficulty. Our aim is a classless, exploitative, limitless world. The revolutionary is the person who gives up his own personal interests for the sake of winning this world, pays the price or risks to pay to create this world. A culture to be proud of has been created with countless examples of sacrifice in the international proletariat and the revolutionary and communist struggle in our country. Our comrades, who invited the bullet to his body by covering himself in front of his comrades, the heroic communes who competed to get ahead in the commune barricades, those who sacrificed their lives for this cause by erasing the bourgeois life they came from, etc. When it was their turn for the revolution, they were able to walk selflessly on death.

While our martyred comrades and revolutionary friends show how to give up their own lives with their deaths, sacrifice is not just about the "moment of death" and a "virtue" that should be shown in all pores of life, from the organization of the most "ordinary" business to the most advanced tasks while living and struggling. Let's underline that it is. A revolutionary has to be revolutionary in his daily life as much as the tasks he undertakes in an organized struggle. Every choice is also an act of renunciation. Every individual who chooses to be organized by realizing the necessity of fighting for the liberation of the people and doing this in an organized way, also has taken the risk of giving up something (that is to sacrifice) from the very beginning. Preference and non-renunciation are concepts that cannot come to life at the same time. Let us keep this act of renunciation from our life, from an olive grain for our comrade, our time, our old (bourgeois-feudal) habits, our comfort, our pleasure, etc. etc. It covers a wide area. Trying to keep these two concepts alive in itself is to carry two personalities; No "revolutionary" can sustain a two-person life for a long time, it gets stuck in one place. Eventually he has to leave one of these two personalities. While the revolutionary struggle is "in", revolutionaries who do not organize themselves every minute with their bourgeois sides can very quickly take part in the old life when they leave the struggle. For "old revolutionaries" of this type, the main issue lies in the period when he was involved in the revolutionary struggle. A revolutionary who has absorbed the partisan personality is the first person to be thrown on the tasks. It is the person who competes with his comrade to be the first to take the responsibility to carry the heaviest burden, not the one who says I am tired less. It is the person who spends himself, his labor, life, time and energy for the Party, without making a distinction between the big and the small. This is also the case in terms of altruism. Those who take great costs, it turns out that in the smallest practice of daily life, they engage in selfish attitudes that do not worry about doing something more, and do nothing but "duties".

It is possible to see the degeneration of this direction in our culture in many examples. Our "non-us" sides in comradeship relations, avoiding the "drudgery" required by collective life, "why me?" Asking the question and so on. There are various images of this side that does not belong to us. The "why me" question is the main point for our comrades who "carefully" avoid sacrifice. Because "why not you?" or "why another comrade?" There is no answer to the question in this manner. It is not difficult to know that whatever I do not do, another comrade will do. It is not possible to step into a long-term revolutionism without thinking that another comrade will, and will have to fill, fill every gap I open. After all these practices, one should not get the idea that there is no sincerity in some claims, from being captured to being a martyr. Lives are presented sincerely, but in the smallest detail of daily life, not even a thousandth of this cost is bypassed with a practical convenience. But the facts are in the details. The simple details of life give us real clues about party culture. For “The place where dissolution is best observed is again daily practice. The other self in the everyday practical revolutionary; reveals the oppressor within the oppressed. Because in daily life, man has adopted the image of the oppressor and internalized his principles. " (Kutiye Bozoklar-Which Culture?)

Part of the degeneration of our culture of altruism is the practice of expecting everything from the Party. The whining state that occurs when not all conditions are prepared by the Party for "struggle" is a data showing how we are in terms of sacrifice. What will our function be if it is already prepared by "someone" instead of all conditions? An attitude that cannot afford all the difficult conditions and expects the party to correct these conditions is not revolutionary. Even the enemy admits how revolutionaries are creative people, how they created out of nothing, what they can endure. Our comrades, who escaped from the prisons to which the enemy is strongest and to which our arms are tied, have done things at the height of their revolutionary creativity. The point is to make ourselves resistant to difficult conditions, but more importantly, to know that it is ourselves who will bring these conditions to a better point.

The honor of revolutionaries: The concept of honor has been identified with male-female relationships since the emergence of private property, but it is a concept specifically dedicated to women. The rulers, who have a hypocritical culture in this regard, as in every other issue, blessed this concept most of all while making the greatest dishonesty. The approach of the revolutionaries to the issue of honor expressed as it is understood today must of course be radically different. The criterion of being honest for a revolutionary is essentially in the unity and consistency of his words and actions, not in male-female relations. In other words, it is necessary to look at the issue of honor on the basis of being and not being the word. Unity of word and action is a very important criterion in defining a person in terms of folk culture. Revolutionists have earned an important respectability in the eyes of the people, from past to present, for their courage, coherence and honesty as well as their ideals. However, when they saw that the lives of the revolutionaries they encountered were far from the ideals they spoke about; That's when the foundations of mistrust were laid in the eyes of the people. When going to the people, we should not forget that while trying to organize them for their own liberation causes, our actions are taken into account rather than our words, and our actions and actions leave the main impression.

It is very clear that it is also the measure of our sincerity. We will first implement our promises, adapt them to our lives so that we can be credible and organize the masses. A practice whose daily life is in one place and a "revolutionary" life in one place is one of the most prominent examples of inconsistency. On the one hand you will defend the collective, but on the other hand you will not live collectively; On the one hand you will talk about being a Party member, but on the other hand you will not be affected by the slightest damage to the Party; you will say everything about the woman question, but you will not treat your women comrades equally; You will never hold a mirror to yourself, but you will present to your comrade, the heaviest "criticisms" of the Party… It is not possible to be a good revolutionary without resolving these contradictions without taking into account the primary aspect.

Otherwise, we should mention that we are organized intellectually, but this is not reflected in concrete life and organizational life. Isn't that what lies behind all the weaknesses and diseases that come after this? We feel the pain of the oppressed in our hearts, we know that the antidote to these pains is revolution, we also believe that organized struggle is essential for the revolution; For these reasons we organize together. However, when the issue remains to practice, then there are a lot of obstacles, footsteps, our relations in order, etc. it is entering. If we are not organized both theoretically and practically, it is not even a matter of course that the problems we will experience and cause the party to grow gradually. When it comes to practical issues, a Party member who shows himself differently with his discourse while in struggle will definitely experience a deadlock. This is in his attitude of not doing the assigned duties, his approach to his daily life, etc. it will surely arise. An approach that is most advanced in theory but far behind in practice is a poison to a long-term revolutionary life. Unless this gap is eliminated or clearly expressed, our sincerity will have to be questioned in every practice.

One of the current and very popular examples today emerges in the attitude we hold when leaving the struggle. Let's repeat, organized struggle is carried out on a voluntary basis. Therefore, it can be abandoned voluntarily. No one can be forced into struggle. However, it is essential to be honest even when leaving. Organized life has come to a point where it cannot afford, it is feared, beliefs have been lost etc. etc. It is the "right" of all individuals to leave organized struggle for these and similar reasons. Some negativities within the structure may have been a factor in our reasons for leaving. The Party must discuss the reasons for not keeping the individual within the organization. However, from the point of view of the individual, discussing honor in the place where the party is experienced by gossiping about the Party, deciphering Party information (regardless of being told right or wrong), spreading the factors that caused him to leave, and trying to justify his departure by not mentioning himself at all comes to the fore. It makes no sense to seek a feudal approach here. Because we revolutionaries do not reject honor, we reject the bourgeois feudal approach to honor and define it as revolutionary. To repeat once more; The honor of revolutionaries lies in the integrity of the theory and practice, being the person of his word and in his honesty. Narrow practicalism, weakening of the revolutionary claim: Today, there is a common determination that there is a general decline in level and quality in terms of revolutionary struggle. If we take it in our specificity, we can mention that there is a serious difference between the Party personality of 15 years ago and today. Objective reasons for this are undoubtedly very important. The importance of imperialism's ideological, political and organizational liquidationism attacks cannot be denied. However, the issue is related to how we stand against these attacks, whether we can protect the organized individual and therefore the organization against these attacks.

This is exactly the essence of the matter. The system has been carrying out its attacks in the same essence in the past (without denying that it has developed further with the experience it has gained today). Today, despite our painful experiences, we need to be in a more advanced state, and we must uncover the reasons for this backwardness. One of the most important differences between yesterday and today lies in the strength of our claim. We know there will be no revolution tomorrow. The revolutionary process will take place with a long struggle. But when the revolution will take place depends on our work. Our every practice, as small parts of a grand plan, is the steps that determine the fate of the revolution. “If you're not clear that you are fulfilling part of a giant program, a giant plan, then your work will be small for you. But if you are aware that whatever work you are doing in line with the tasks assigned by the Party, you are fulfilling part of the giant plan of socialist restructuring of society, then your small business will make sense to you in terms of the mission of the big goal, the victory of communism. " (On the Question of Staff in the Communist International)

We should discuss the weakening of our claim where creativity does not take place with memorized practices, the forms of struggle are not diversified, and it is understood from going to the masses to go to familiar people. A practical line that forgets / does not observe what the ultimate goal is, drowns in endless deeds and exhausts itself. This practice, which we cannot deal with by repeating the revolutionary oath every morning, can only be eliminated by the revival of political life. The political backwardness and the impediment to policy making, which are at the root of many of our ideological weaknesses, are also valid for this weakness. Yet revolution, and of course war, is a political act. A war without politics can only be an act of destruction under the shadow of narrow practice or weapons and under its command. However, as we said at the beginning, revolution is not only a movement of destruction, but also a movement to dominate the new, to build the new. Without the two together, no revolution can succeed. Politics is fundamental to both destroying and doing, and without its direction and without commanding it, no war will be victorious. So how can the revolutionaries' indifference to politics, which is such a fundamental issue, be explained? For a revolutionary who, despite having "read" or following the newspaper for years, finds the newspaper's articles heavy, does not read even a book a month, does not follow the developments, does not discuss them, does not make a policy because they discuss them, the struggle is really difficult. This is more than an objective challenge, it is a challenge that devours us and eliminates our claim. Because the issues dealt with in a "political struggle" where there is no politics are on the problems that go around the "me" and are personalized. Everything is now viewed not through the Party's window, but through the I's. Whether something is good or bad By whether it comes to our business, not the Party; whether a person is a good revolutionary or not becomes measured by his relationship with the me. The search for "solutions" is made by moving more and more away from the class ground to problems. Under conditions where the starting point we take as basis is not class struggle, the ground under our feet also slips. We are faced with the liquidation of not only ourselves but the Party. At this point, questioning, as one of the indispensable qualities for a revolutionary, comes to life on a personal basis and in personalized ways, away from political issues, as we often experience.

In the name of questioning, duties are not fulfilled, the Party is prevented from acting like a single person in the name of questioning… Such an important revolutionary personality trait can only be castrated and made the cause of impracticality. Those who want to prevent such attitudes by putting the principles into practice are also condemned with the attitude of “I close my eyes, I do my duty”. However, those who "open their eyes" for some reason (!) Do not work. The interrogators move away from the struggle, but the "mechanics" who do not question remain in the struggle. This is called the removal of the questioners from the Party. In this way, almost leaving the struggle is blessed, legitimized. No one asks why these "political" people just question when they go. It is not understood how suddenly the decisions signed under gold until yesterday are "questioned". (In a parenthesis, it is one thing to think that it is wrong after signing a decision, and not to account for their own signatures for the decisions they questioned.) It is possible to develop without scientific questioning and discussions in the organizational framework of the Party in a manner that does not eliminate the mechanisms. It should be noted that it is not. However, the way these concepts are described in the ways we have exemplified above are the approaches that liquidated the Party.

Indifference to politics is the highest dimension of alienation for a revolutionary. The alienation to the “work” he does, the reasons that created him, is the point where the degeneration begins. It is clear that if we do not struggle against alienation, which is a phenomenon created by capitalism, within ourselves, we cannot achieve the abolition of order in order to end the alienation in society. The fact that we have described above in quotation marks as forgetting is actually nothing more than alienation. It depends on our reasons for fighting, what kind of struggle we wage, what the struggle requires, that we are revolutionary in daily life, etc. Our "forgetful" states towards us are the emergence of alienation on different levels.

Communist, Issue: 61, July 2008