Δευτέρα 13 Απριλίου 2015

The last spiritual will and testament of St. Luke of Crimea


SAINT LUKE ARCHBISHOP OF SYMFEROUPOL AND THE CRIMEA, A PROFESSOR OF SURGERY

THE VARIOUS STAGES OF HIS LIFE
A PUBLICATION OF THE HOLY MONASTERY OF SAGMATA

1877.  He was born in Kerts, in the Crimea.  He grew up in Kiev where in addition to his studies; he studied also art in the School of Fine Arts.

1898-1903. He studies medicine and majors in surgery.

1904-1905. He was a volunteer military doctor in the Russian-Japanese War. He was married to Anna Vasilievna and they were blessed with four children.

1905-1917. He worked in various district hospitals. He prepares his dissertation on the importance of scientific studies.

1917.  He moves to Tashkent. He is appointed as a university professor in the field of topographical anatomy and surgery.

1919.  His first arrest took place.  His wife Anna dies.

1921.  He is ordained a priest

1923-1926. He is ordained a bishop. He is arrested a second time and exiled to Siberia.

1924. He attempts his first kidney transplant from an animal to a human.

1930-1933. He is arrested for a third time and exiled to northern Russia.

1934-1937. His famous study is circulated on “A Study on Festering Sicknesses.” He works intently on scientific discoveries.  His investigations bring him very close to discovering penicillin.

1937. He is arrested for a fourth time.  He suffers two years of difficult interrogation in Tashkent.

1939. He is exiled to Siberia.

1941. He is assigned to be the first surgeon at the military hospital in Krasnogiarsk.

1943. He is elected Archbishop of Krasnogiorask.

1944. He is transferred to Tambof as the chief medical doctor and Archbishop.

1946. He is decorated with the first prize of Stalin.  He is assigned as Archbishop of Symferoupoleos and in the Crimea. He slowly loses his eyesight.

1961. He fell asleep in the Lord on June 11 in Symferoupolis having served the people of God as Chief Shepherd and doctor in sacrificial love and self-denial.  His memory is commemorated on June 11.

 

THE SPIRITUAL LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF SAINT LUKE

It is with a great deal of joy that we publish “The Spiritual Will “ of Saint Luke, which up until recently was unknown and unpublished.  It had been kept by the niece of St. Luke, Maria Dimitrievna, who lives in Symferoupolis and  she had the special blessing to have lived with the Saint for the last fifteen years of his life.

When in 1946 when Saint Luke undertook the shepherding of the Archbishopric of Symferoupoleos in the Crimea, he took up residence in a small residence on Gospitalnagia Street opposite the Church of the Holy Trinity.  The small apartment had many rooms.  It was a time immediately following the war and a fearful majority of the people in all of the Soviet Union lived in horrible conditions.  There was poverty, want, and starvation that plagued the people.  Saint Luke made great efforts to alleviate the pain of the people.  But in doing this he did not forget his family.  He invited some of them to Symferoupolis to take up residence in his apartment house and the neighboring houses.  His relatives and their children helped the Saint and stood by his side in this effort.  The experiences of interacting with the Saint are many and the memories are vivid.  The person who specifically helped the Saint in his philanthropic outreach was his niece Vera Prozorovavkagia, the daughter of Vladimir and the mother of Maria.  Many personal items of Saint Luke were preserved by the family of Vera and when the museum of the Saint was established in the Holy Monastery of the Holy Trinity, the family gave these to the museum.  A very few items remained with his niece.  One of these things that was left with her was the Spiritual Will of the Saint which was left in the care of Maria Dimitrievna.  The Spiritual Will is directed to his children, to his nieces and nephews, and the grandchildren of the Saint.  We must note here that along with their father, the four children suffered also.  They endured being orphaned by both of their parents (the mother died and the father was in jail or exile) and then they were persecuted.  They were considered the children of the enemy of the people and they encountered many difficulties.  It is understandable that they would consider inconceivable the decision of their father to seek holy orders.  Through all the terrible things that the family suffered, they blamed the Church.  And the question that always burdened their souls, as well as many people who knew him was; why would a famous and successful professor of surgery make such a difficult decision to be ordained a priest and especially during the persecution of the Church?  How could such a successful scientist dedicate himself to the service of an idea of the past, the Church that belongs to the past?  What did this immensely brilliant surgeon have to gain from the priesthood?

In many of his letters the Saint tries to defend himself and explain to his children the reason he decided to take that road of martyrdom.  The children indicate that they do not understand him.  And this was also another cross that Saint Luke had to carry.   Right up to the moment of his death, he did not stop admonishing and praying for his children who along with that whole generation  had been so influenced by antireligious propaganda.

His letter to his oldest son Michael is very emotional written during the mid 40’s.  “Remember Michael that my monastic life and the oath that I gave; my position in the Church, my decision to serve the Lord constitute for me the greatest, holiest and foremost responsibility.  Sincerely and from the depths of my heart I abandoned the world and my career, which certainly, could have been very successful, but now does not have any meaning for me.  All my joy and all my life is to serve the Lord, in Whom I believe.”

In the summer of 1956 the Saint is in the city of Alousta in the Crimea.  He had lost his eyesight.  He was almost at the end of his 84th year of life and he felt that his strength was failing him.  He therefore decided to write his Spiritual Will  for his children, his grandchildren and his great grandchildren. It is his one last effort to help his children abandon the trap of atheism. He wanted them to stand against the antichristian movement of the time. He wanted them to discover that the greatest truth is Jesus Christ and the best way to live is by observing His commandments and serving the needs of the least of all Christ’s children, their suffering fellow humans beings.   We have the feeling that the Spiritual Will of the Saint is even today extremely timely.  It is directed to all of us, the spiritual children of Saint Luke who we honor and love.

May we also imitate his example.  And according to his promise, his intercessions and prayers will protect us now that he stands before the throne of our God and Creator.

Archimandrite Nektarios, Holy Pascha, 2009

***

TO MY THREE SONS, MY DAUGHTER, MY GRANDCHILDDREN AND MY GREAT GRANDCHILDREN
MY SPIRITUAL WILL

I am now 79 years old. My heart is weak and my strength is failing me and it is evident that my time of departure from this world is near.  St. Paul left a will to all the Christians. “Become followers of me, as I am of Christ.”  I certainly do not dare to say this to all the Christians but to you, my children; I can say follow my example just as I have followed the example of the Apostle Paul.  My life has been tough and difficult but never did I pray to God to make it easy.  Because “narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” MT.7:14.

For more than twenty five years my life was identified with the work of a rural surgeon and professor of surgery. And for eleven years I suffered persecution for the name of Christ by being jailed and exiled.  From 1944 I combined the toilsome ministry of being a Bishop along with the healing the wounded at Tambor and only in 1946 did I stop being a surgeon and I continued as a Bishop.

Amongst most of the people it was inconceivable to understand how a great surgeon, who was honored with the First Prize of Stalin, could abandon a profession in surgery and become a Bishop.  Yet there was nothing unusual about that because from my youthful years, the Lord destined me to the high position of service to Him and to the people.

When I finished high school I received from the dean of the school my high school diploma. I placed this in the Book of the New Testament.  I had read the New Testament before but now, when I read it again, I heard the words of Christ that were directed to the Apostles say: “The harvest is truly plentiful, but the laborers are few, therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.” (MT 9:37-38) My heart responded and I cried out in silence: “Oh Lord! Are you lacking workers?”

Many years went by.  I became a doctor of medicine and I thought that I would write the book “A Treatise on surgery in treating festering wounds.” When I made that decision, the following strange thought came to mind:  “When that book is finished, it will be signed by a Bishop.”  I could not understand from where that thought came. But a few years later, I understood that it was a thought that was sent to me by God because after my first arrest, in the office of the head jailer, the first edition of my book was published and on the facing page I wrote: “Bishop Luke, “A Treatise on surgically treating festering wounds.” 

Two more years went by.  I was in my first exile to Siberia, in the city of Geniseisk.  A monk suddenly came to meet me from Krasnogiarsk.  In this city, all the priests had compromised the faith and the faithful of the canonical Church had sent the monk to be ordained a priest but not to me at Geniseik but to Minousinsk, to a non-canonical orthodox bishop.  But there was an unexplainable force which directed him to me at Geniseisk.  When this monk saw me, he was startled and froze. He could not speak. He revealed to me, that when he saw me, he knew clearly that I was the same hierarch that he saw in an unforgettable dream ten years ago. That Bishop ordained him to the priesthood. At that time I was just a country doctor in the city of Perezlavl, Zaleski.

The Lord God has blessed me with different talents.  In high school, I finished my studies in the School of Fine Arts in Kiev.  I was very talented in artist and I decided to enter the Academy of Fine Arts in Leningrad.  But in the middle of exams I abandoned this effort because I thought that I should serve God and His people, in work that is more beneficial than art.  Even though at that time it was clear to me the direction my art would take if I didn’t abandon it; it would  purely be a religious direction or I would follow in the footsteps of V. Vasnetsof and Nesterof.

From that time theological issues concerned me very much.  The driving force in my character was a strong desire to serve God and His people, only because of that. But in spite of my opposition toward the physical sciences, I took exams for medical school at the University of Kiev and I graduated with honors.

My talent was revealed at the university in anatomy and surgery and my fellow students didn’t want to hear that I desired to become a rural doctor.  They had decided unanimously that I would become a professor of anatomy or a surgeon.  From what you now know, they had prophesied my future correctly.

As a rural doctor, I worked for thirteen years twelve to fourteen hours a day.  I was thinking seriously of abandoning the rural hospital in order travel to distant villages where the people were poor and dying because of the lack of medical help.  But the Lord had decided differently for me.  He sent me to Tashkent where I was one of the organizers of the University of Middle Asia and became a professor of topographical anatomy and the chief surgeon.  This was at the beginning of the decade of the 1920s.

During the years of the antireligious demonstrations during which they derided the Lord Jesus Christ, my heart was saying: “I cannot keep silent.”At that time there was a clergy-laity congress taking place in Tashkent.  I was present and during the discussions on some important issues I made an impassioned speech.  That speech made a great impression on Bishop Innocent of Tashkent and at the end of the congress he said to me; “Doctor, you must become a priest.”  That was something that was completely unexpected by me but the words of the Hierarch brought forth a calling through his lips and I did not hesitate one second in answering him: “Of course, Your Eminence, if that is the will of God, I will become a priest.” And the following Sunday, I, the professor of medicine, with a borrowed robe, appeared before the Bishop who was standing on his throne and I was ordained a sub-deacon and then during the course of the Divine Liturgy I was then ordained a deacon.  Within two weeks I became a priest and the pastor of the Cathedral Church.

One and a half years before that great event in my life, my wife and your mother died.  The smallest of you, Valentine, was then six years old and the oldest was fourteen.

Two years and four months later, the Lord made me worthy of being elevated to the rank of Bishop.  It was divine providence for me and for you, my children that was revealed to us at that time when the Lord called your mother to eternal life by allowing her to get sick with tuberculosis. By this happening to her the road was opened for me to enter monastic life and the hierarchical ministry.  All the responsibility for you, my children, I gave over to the care of the Lord and truly, I was not made a liar by believing in Him.  Your care and upbringing was provided for by sending me an unknown woman, Sofia Sergakevna Veletskagia, who during the times I was jailed and the three times I was sent into exile she provided for your care. With a great deal of self-sacrifice and love she lifted the heavy cross for your care during those years of the plague. She raised you successfully and gave you a good education.

Later on all three of you and my daughter, with the protection and the help of your guardian angels, completed your advanced studies.  Michael for some time now has become a professor, while Aliosa and Valia are teachers in the medical and biological sciences and in a little while they will become professors.

The Lord accepted all the sacrifices which I have offered Him and not only did He accept them but He changed and corrected many of them.  I abandoned doing any more surgeries so that I could spend more time preaching about Jesus Christ.  I was not concerned with the fame of a surgeon which certainly I deserve.  While this glory is important and belongs to God, the new freedom I had increased the power and content of my sermons. My well-known and famous book “The Treatise on surgery for festering wounds” was completed while I was in exile and when I was Archbishop.  My determination to sacrifice everything for the glory of Him, the Lord gave me another talent, that of preaching.  The nine volumes of my sermons have been recognized by the Spiritual Academy of Moscow as unique in contemporary ecclesiastical theology and a treasure of commentary on the Holy Bible.  And I, a self-taught theologian was chosen to be a member of the Spiritual Academy of Moscow.  For the Church, my sermons will have greater meaning than my “Treatise on the surgery for festering wounds.”

In addition to this, the miraculous events which I spoke about earlier which were directed by the Lord without my realizing it led me mystically to the Hierarchical ministry.   I often physically felt the presence of God in my communion with Him, in my spiritual life and in my prayers.      

But if I have not said enough for any of you to convince you of these things  then I think his (Michael’s) involvement with the physical sciences have bewitched him so much that he does not want to hear those things that I have lived; the things I have undeniably felt many times.

In other words, I will tell you just the way it is, how astonishing and clearly the Lord God reveals His desire for those who fear Him and love Him.  When I was in Leningrad for an operation, during the time of a memorial service, the Lord in a miraculous and shocking way caused me to tremble with fright when He gave me this command: “Shepherd my sheep, feed my lambs.”  The years have since gone by and I, under the spell of a cunning diabolical spell, forgot that command of God and Satan again placed in my soul that great urge to return to surgery.  And this is why the Lord punished me by allowing the retina in my eye to tear.  My eye was operated on twice unsuccessfully by professor Ontintsof because God’s punishment had to remain with me. 

The day after the second operation, when I was laying flat with my eyes bandaged, the strong urge to do surgery again overwhelmed me when the Lord sent me a shocking dream: I was in a Church without lights.  The only lit up place was the altar.  A little beyond the altar was a casket of a saint.  They had placed on the altar a wooden board and on this was a naked human body.  In the back and next to the altar I saw students and doctors smoking cigarettes and I was teaching them anatomy of the human body.

I was then startled by a noise and when I turned my head, I saw that the covering of the saint’s casket fell off.  The saint sat up in the casket, he turned and looked at me with a look of pain and shock.  I finally realized the great burden of my sin, of my disobedience to the command of the Lord Jesus Christ to “shepherd my sheep and feed my lambs.”  For the last fourteen years I begged the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive me remembering clearly my dramatic dream with the body and the dead person lying on the Holy Altar.  Lately I have been informed by God that my sin has been forgiven. Day after day, I see the body less and less on the Holy Altar where it finally disappeared completely. 

And now, my children let me offer to you my last will and testament.  I believe deeply in God and I have built my whole life upon His commandments.  And I bequeath to you that you offer your lives to God and build all things upon the commandments of Christ.

For a long time and with great determination I sailed through life against the current of the world and to you my children I bequeath that you sail against the current, as difficult at that may be.  Turn your attention and your heart away from the great majority of human beings who pursue not the higher goals but those which are easy to acquire.  Do not accede to the great majority of people who live according to their own thinking and with the mind of their leaders.  They anchor their lives not with the commandments of Christ but on the directives of people who have the power to lead them not to the Kingdom of Heaven but to the riches of the earthly kingdom. The purpose of life is to seek after the highest truth and to never divert from that road even when they force you to serve the purposes of the lowest form of  truth by trampling upon the truth of Christ. You should be ready even to be martyred since you are sailing against the current.  Keep your faith firmly in your thoughts, in your husbands and in your wives just the way I kept it. In your scientific endeavors and in your efforts to study the mysteries of nature, you should not look for your own glory but only to lessen the pain of your sick and helpless fellow human beings.

Remember that I, your father, sacrificed all my life in doing these things.  Imitate me just the way I imitated the Apostle Paul and do not work for your stomach but to help those who without your help cannot free themselves from the tortures of poverty and lies.

If you fulfill all these things that I bequeath to you, the blessing of God will come upon you in harmony with the  words of David the prophet. “But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children’s children, to such as keep His covenant, And to those who remember his commandments to do them.” (Psalm 103: 17-18.)                     

I have always prayed for that blessing and grace of God in my life for you my children, my grandchildren and my great grandchildren and surely I will always pray for your eternal life when I will stand before the throne of my God and your God, my Creator and your Creator.  That time is most likely near because my heart and my strength have been weakened.

Your father

Alousta, July 22, 1956

Translation
Fr. Constantine J. Simones, Waterford, CT USA.

Πέμπτη 9 Απριλίου 2015

Louis Althusser 1978: “Letter to Merab Mamardachvili”



Merab Mamardachvili, who died in 1990, was a Georgian philosopher with whom Althusser maintained an epistolary relationship that began in 1968

January 16, 1978

Dear Merab,

Your note and the marvelous little coin necklace today in the mail. Very touched. There was your appeal, and news transmitted by this one and that one, among them Annie, seen for the first time in I don’t know how long (she’s always galloping about in other lands) and in general I was told that you were doing “fine.” I take it or leave it when it comes from a third person, but I know you’re quite strong and I said to myself that it’s perhaps true even though everything points to the opposite and I imagine that all the friends are leaving. This time, in your own hand, I arrive at the truth. Of course I’d like to see and hear you, but I imagine quite well, according to what I glimpsed una volta, how things must be around you and you know, as in the past, “the elephants are contagious.” Today everything is communicated, curtains do nothing, only the forms change, which might be important since they allow things either to flow relatively or they pitilessly block. I can’t say how many times I’ve thought of your remark, “ I stay because it is here that we see the heart of things, nakedly.” A duty of the intellect, but which costs dearly. Not to remain costs just as dearly if I can judge by those who left and who I’ve seen. Quite dearly. And few defend themselves against the general assault on them to exhibit them like wolf children who know how to talk about the forests. You perhaps heard about a colloquium in Venice organized by Il Manifesto on the situation in “post-revolutionary” countries; they really had to work at it to come up with this term! I went there “to discuss,” and since there was nothing but a series of speeches, begun by emigres followed by unionists and politicians, at a certain moment I had to speak since I was there and the fact was known (the pains in the ass of “notoriety”; you know the line from Heine about one of his enemies: “X is known for his notoriety.”), so I more or less pronounced the little exhortation attached to this note. It could cynically be called: “The morality of history or the moral of history.” You will judge between the moral and morality. Of course there are effects of conjuncture and fashion (for and by those who exploit it), and we know that conjunctures are like storks, they pass even when they fly low (unlike storks), but there’s a little bit more than this; it’s the moment to pay the bill. It doesn’t matter who makes it out, it could even be no one, but the day comes when the little accountings we avoided doing are presented in a long list, and in general it’s not the free-spenders who are called on the pay the bill, but poor buggers like you and me (and how many others who are even more lost). Since all bills are either false or falsified they have to be re-done, but at first they must be accepted, all of this in a political and theoretical shit without precedent (unless the worst occurs) which has as its only advantage in not being able to be eluded. And in any event you have to pay both for yourself (which is understandable) but for the others. And what others!

 

This is some of what I tried to say between the lines of that “masked” talk in Venice, improvised and so lacking in rigor between the reasons, but in an attempt to dam up the waters. The dams which Machiavelli speaks of, but he had rivers at hand and as for us, go know if they are rivers or whatever. I have the impression that it’s as if we never knew this. Yes, this isn’t the first variation in conjuncture, where the accumulation of difficulties goes so far as to change the aspect of the day, you don’t feel it coming, a long time in deciding and then as if suddenly we’re no longer in the same air. But this time, if reality abounds and even repeats itself, it’s the signposts that are lacking. Another impression: that of having fought for so long on a front only to find it fade away, that there’s no longer a front , and that the battle (or what takes its place) is everywhere, and in the first instance right at your back. You have to be a Koutousov and know how to sleep on your horse for the great retreat in the cold. But there are no more horses (at least with us, and without a horse how can you sleep on it?).

It is here that we can see, not in the consciousness which has always been haunted by their existence but, with hindsight, its limits or insanities. I see as clear as day that what I did fifteen years ago was to fabricate a tiny, very French, justification, in a good little rationalism nourished with a few references (Cavailles, Bachelard, Canguilhem, and behind them a bit of the Spinoza-Hegel tradition) with pretensions to Marxism (historical materialism) which presented itself as a science. Which in the end serves (served, for I’ve changed some since) in the good old tradition of every philosophical enterprise as a guarantee and a down payment. I also see that, things being what they were at the time, the pretensions and counter-pretensions being what they were, and I being what I was things could not have been different, and the lines I spoke were almost natural, as natural as the storms and hail of Spinoza. I half-believed this, like any “good” spirit, but in order to write that half of mistrust was necessary for the other half.. This scaffolding doubtless rendered people the service of being able to climb onto the roof of the house, and go know what they did with the roof and the house and the view of the landscape they got from their climb! Even so, things are a little complicated and, in addition, I’ve acquired another certainty, to wit: that the writings follow each other with a logic which as little as you recognize in general its necessity in order to be at all a philosopher, doesn’t allow itself to be “rectified” as easily as all that. Rectify, rectify, something will always remain behind... The character’s prison remains, even if the “character” who had the imprudence to reveal itself in a text decides to announce that it has changed. I go back to the famous precept: never write the works of your youth! Never write your first book!

Not everything was vain or worthless in this adventure, for the logic of the play of assertions is not that of the assertions themselves. But the question is to know how to “manage” this presumed or presumptive past in a situation like the one we are subjected to. The only answer I find for the moment is silence. And despite all the differences, I understand yours, which has quite other reasons. In the same way as I understand the temptation and the option of a retreat into “the metaphysical depths” which have the advantage of combating solitude. A silence that can be definitive, and why not?. Or a retreat to publish a few little things despite it all on Machiavelli, Gramsci and consorts, or a few impertinences on philosophy, an old idea that I have been dragging around, you remember, but which with the aid of experience I must seriously rectify since the time of our promenades in the pasture, or maybe even about the Epicurean tradition? Nothing of importance in a time when one must be armed with enough concrete knowledge in order to be able to speak of things like the state, the economic crisis, organizations, the “socialist” countries, etc. I don’t have this knowledge and I have to, like Marx in 1852, “begin again at the beginning,” but it’s late for this, given my age, fatigue, lassitude, and also solitude.

Of course there is the possibility of returning to “Capital,” now that we more or else see what doesn’t work in its reasoning, which doesn’t touch on the idea of the factory, but on its arguments. But here too in all logic it wouldn’t suffice to take it apart, but one must put the mechanism back together, which supposes other pieces and something more than the little philosophical culture I dispose of.

You speak of “disgust”; I hear this word around me from among the best of them. And yet here it’s not as it is in your country, but it’s the same word. It’s the word that openly says that we can no longer find our place in all this shit and that it’s vain to look for it, for all places are carried along by the insane course of things. We can no longer bathe at all in a river. Unless you’re a picket planted in the current that silently holds on. To a bit of terra firma. The important thing is to find this bit of earth beneath the waters. After all, it’s the “shaking-up of the world” of Montaigne who, when it comes to conjunctures, saw quite a few of all kinds. But the book is already written; you have to find something else. If you can write me I am a taker for your “metaphysical depths;” by curiosity and so as to know how you do it and in order to guess from the answers you seek the questions that are troubling you.  

I passed a very difficult summer, but I’ve now found a certain equilibrium. I can read a bit and am capable of waiting. The incredible way the problems of the world tie themselves around personal fantasies is incredible and pitiless. I’ve lived this. But I also lived the first denouement of the thing, and this gave me some courage and a kind of “learned” courage. This changes nothing in the mess that is the world, but in the obsessions of the soul... it’s a beginning that is, let us say, encouraging. And so, change the order of one’s thoughts rather than the order of the world...

Forgive this long confidence, dear Merab. Here I keep everything to myself; with you things are different.

I embrace and care about you.

Louis

Τετάρτη 8 Απριλίου 2015

Zygmunt Bauman, Πώς επιβιώνει ο καπιταλισμός


Zygmunt Bauman, «Πώς επιβιώνει ο καπιταλισμός», Ελευθεροτυπία, 21/02/2010

 

Οπως το πρόσφατο χρηματοπιστωτικό τσουνάμι κατέδειξε πέρα από κάθε εύλογη αμφιβολία σε εκατομμύρια πρόσωπα, τα οποία οδηγήθηκαν να πιστέψουν στις χρηματοπιστωτικές αγορές και στις τραπεζικές πρακτικές ως έγκυρες μεθόδους για να επιλύουν με επιτυχία τα προβλήματά τους, ο καπιταλισμός στην καλύτερη των υποθέσεων δημιουργεί προβλήματα, δεν τα επιλύει. Και αυτό για έναν απλό λόγο: ο καπιταλισμός, όπως και το θεώρημα της μη πληρότητας των συστημάτων των φυσικών αριθμών του Κουρτ Γκέντελ, δεν μπορεί να είναι ταυτόχρονα συνεπής και πλήρης. Αν είναι συνεπής με τις ίδιες του τις αρχές, εμφανίζονται προβλήματα με τα οποία αυτός δεν μπορεί να ασχοληθεί. Αρκεί να σκεφτούμε ότι τα στεγαστικά δάνεια, που διαφημίστηκαν σαν ένα εργαλείο για να αντιμετωπιστούν οι δυσκολίες όσων δεν είχαν κατοικία, στην πραγματικότητα πολλαπλασίασαν τον αριθμό εκείνων που ξαναβρέθηκαν χωρίς κατοικία. Πολύ πριν ο Γκέντελ διατυπώσει το θεώρημά του, η Ρόζα Λούξεμπουργκ είχε γράψει τη μελέτη της για τη συσσώρευση του κεφαλαίου, στην οποία υποστήριζε ότι ο καπιταλισμός δεν είναι σε θέση να επιβιώσει χωρίς μη καπιταλιστικές οικονομίες. Ο καπιταλισμός μπορεί να αναπτύσσεται μόνον όσο θα υπάρχουν «παρθένες περιοχές», έλεγε, ανοιχτές στην επέκταση και στην εκμετάλλευση. Σκεφτόταν τις χώρες που έγιναν αποικίες εκείνη την εποχή. Το πρόβλημα είναι ότι, αφότου κατακτηθούν αυτές οι περιοχές, στερούνται την «παρθενικότητά» τους και έτσι εξαντλείται η πηγή από την οποία τρέφεται ο ίδιος ο καπιταλισμός. Ο καπιταλισμός, για να το πούμε ειλικρινά, είναι ουσιαστικά ένα παρασιτικό σύστημα. Μπορεί να ευημερεί μόνον όταν βρίσκει έναν οργανισμό, τον οποίο δεν έχει ακόμη εκμεταλλευτεί, και από τον οποίο τροφοδοτείται, αλλά (ιδού το παράδοξο) δεν μπορεί να το κάνει χωρίς με αυτόν τον τρόπο να βλάψει τον οργανισμό που τον φιλοξενεί και, αργά ή γρήγορα, να υπονομεύσει τις ίδιες τις προϋποθέσεις της ευημερίας του ή ακόμη και της επιβίωσής του.

Ευρηματικότητα: Σήμερα, έναν αιώνα μετά από αυτή τη διάγνωση, γνωρίζουμε με ακόμη μεγαλύτερη βεβαιότητα ότι η δύναμη του καπιταλισμού έγκειται στη σαγηνευτική ευρηματικότητα με την οποία αναζητάει και βρίσκει νέα είδη ξενιστών, κάθε φορά που τα προηγούμενα εκμεταλλευόμενα είδη γίνονται πιο σπάνια ή χάνονται εντελώς. Τώρα γνωρίζουμε και την ταχύτητα με την οποία αναπροσαρμόζεται στις ιδιαιτερότητες των νέων εδαφών στα οποία βόσκει. Στο τεύχος Νοεμβρίου του 2008 της περιοδικής επιθεώρησης New York Review of Books ο Τζορτζ Σόρος, με το άρθρο του «The crisis and what to do about it», εξήγησε τη σειρά των καπιταλιστικών πρωτοβουλιών ως μια διαδοχή από φούσκες που μεγαλώνουν κατά κανόνα πολύ πέρα από τις δυνατότητές τους και που σκάνε αμέσως μόλις φτάνουν το σημείο της μέγιστης αντίστασης. Η τωρινή πιστωτική στενότητα δεν αναγγέλλει επομένως το τέλος του καπιταλισμού, αλλά μόνον την εξάντληση ενός από τα εδάφη στα οποία αυτός έβοσκε. Η αναζήτηση του προσεχούς βοσκοτοπιού άρχισε αμέσως. Και ακριβώς όπως στο παρελθόν το καπιταλιστικό κράτος διαλαλούσε τα κατορθώματά του μέσα από την υποχρεωτική κινητοποίηση δημόσιων πόρων, θα αναζητηθούν νέες παρθένες περιοχές και θα γίνουν προσπάθειες να τις ανοίξουν με το καλό ή με το ζόρι, μέχρις ότου και οι δικές τους δυνατότητες, με τη σειρά τους, θα εξαντληθούν.

Καταστροφή: Οπως πάντα, και όπως μάθαμε στον εικοστό αιώνα από μια μακρά σειρά μαθηματικών ανακαλύψεων, από τον Ανρί Πουανκαρέ ώς τον Εντουαρντ Λόρεντς, η πιο μικρή απόκλιση μπορεί να μας ρίξει στην άβυσσο και να μας οδηγήσει στην καταστροφή, έτσι όπως και το πιο μικρό βήμα προς τα μπρος μπορεί να εξαπολύσει μια καταιγίδα και να καταλήξει να προκαλέσει έναν κατακλυσμό. Και αυτό γιατί οι αναγγελίες της ανακάλυψης νησιών που δεν καταγράφονται ούτε στους γεωγραφικούς χάρτες, προσελκύουν συνήθως πλήθη τυχοδιωκτών μεγαλύτερα και από τις ίδιες τις διαστάσεις των παρθένων περιοχών - πλήθη που μέσα σε μια στιγμή θα χρειαστεί να μπορέσουν να τρέξουν γρήγορα στις βάρκες τους, για να απομακρυνθούν από μιαν επικείμενη καταστροφή, με την ελπίδα ότι αυτές οι βάρκες θα είναι ακόμη άθικτες και ασφαλείς. Το ερώτημα που τίθεται είναι επομένως σε ποιο σημείο θα εξαντληθεί ο κατάλογος των περιοχών που μπορούν να αναγορευτούν, με μια δεύτερη διαδικασία, παρθένες και πότε οι (φρενιτιώδεις και επινοητικές) εξερευνήσεις θα πάψουν να προσφέρουν κάποια προσωρινή ανακωχή. Η εισαγωγή των πιστωτικών καρτών και του εύκολου δανεισμού για την απόκτηση κατοικίας είχαν προαναγγείλει αυτό που θα συνέβαινε. Το συμβόλαιο του δανείου έπρεπε να μετατραπεί σε ένα παράγωγο, που επέτρεπε σε αυτόν που δάνειζε να αντλεί διαρκώς κέρδος. Δεν μπορείτε να πληρώσετε τις δόσεις του δανείου σας; Μην ανησυχείτε. Διαφορετικά από εκείνα τα λίγο κακά παλιομοδίτικα άτομα, που ανυπομονούσαν να εισπράξουν τις δόσεις μέσα σε προκαθορισμένες προθεσμίες, εμείς οι μοντέρνοι δανειστές δεν θέλουμε πίσω τα λεφτά μας. Αντίθετα μάλιστα προσφερόμαστε να σας δανείσουμε και άλλα λεφτά, για να πληρώσετε τα χρέη σας και όχι μόνον, αλλά ακόμη και για να έχετε περισσότερα μετρητά. Πράγματι, αυτό που κανείς δεν δήλωνε, αφήνοντας στις βαθιές και σκοτεινές προαισθήσεις των οφειλετών το καθήκον να αντιληφθούν την αλήθεια, είναι το ότι οι τράπεζες που δανείζουν στην πραγματικότητα δεν θέλουν οι οφειλέτες τους να εξοφλούν τις υποχρεώσεις τους. Αν οι οφειλέτες πλήρωναν όσα δανείστηκαν δεν θα υπήρχε πλέον χρέος, ενώ είναι ακριβώς τα χρέη τους (τον τόκο που πληρώνεται μηνιαία) εκείνα που οι δανειστές αποφάσισαν να μετατρέψουν σε κύρια πληγή του διαρκούς τους κέρδους. Οι πελάτες που επιστρέφουν με επιμέλεια τα χρήματα που έχουν δανειστεί είναι ο εφιάλτης αυτών που χορηγούν δάνεια. Και αυτό γιατί τα κέρδη των μετόχων των τραπεζών βασίζονται κυρίως στη συνεχή «εξυπηρέτηση» των χρεών παρά στην έγκαιρη εξόφλησή τους. Σε ό,τι αφορά αυτούς τους μετόχους, ο ιδεώδης υποψήφιος για δανεισμό είναι εκείνος που δεν θα εξοφλήσει ποτέ το ποσό που δανείστηκε. Τα πρόσωπα που έχουν λογαριασμούς με αποταμιεύσεις, αλλά δεν έχουν χρέη, είναι επομένως οι «παρθένες περιοχές» του σήμερα (του χθες), που επιτρέπουν μιαν εκμετάλλευση. Από τη στιγμή που θα οδηγηθούν να αρχίσουν να καλλιεργούνται, δεν θα ’πρεπε ποτέ να τους παραχωρηθεί η δυνατότητα να αρνηθούν και να ξαναγίνουν ακαλλιέργητα εδάφη. Ετσι μια από τις πιο σημαντικές βρετανικές εταιρείες που δίνουν πιστωτικές κάρτες προκάλεσε πρόσφατα την αγανάκτηση της κοινής γνώμης, όταν αρνήθηκε να παραχωρήσει ξανά πιστωτικές κάρτες στους πελάτες που κάθε μήνα εξοφλούσαν τα χρέη τους.

Εκμετάλλευση: Ιδού όμως κάποιο παράδειγμα της καταστροφικής επίπτωσης αυτής της στρατηγικής: σε μια βρετανική εφημερίδα δημοσιεύτηκε η ιστορία ενός πενηντάχρονου, ο οποίος είχε χρεωθεί 58 χιλιάδες λίρες από 14 τράπεζες. Αυτός ο κύριος δεν κατόρθωνε να πληρώνει τους τόκους του χρέους του. Λυπούμενος εκ των υστέρων για τη βλακεία που τον έσπρωξε σε αυτή την απαράδεκτη κατάσταση, αυτός στράφηκε εναντίον εκείνων που του είχαν χορηγήσει τα δάνεια. Σύμφωνα με όσα είπε, όποιος χορηγεί δάνεια είναι «εν μέρει» υπεύθυνος και κατακριτέος, επειδή επιτρέπει στους ανθρώπους να χρεώνονται με απίστευτη ευκολία. Σε μιαν άλλη μακρινή χώρα, στο Κουίνσλαντ της Αυστραλίας, μια νέα που είναι σήμερα 23 ετών και ονομάζεται Σιόμπχαν Χίλεϊ, πριν από μερικά χρόνια απέκτησε την πρώτη πιστωτική της κάρτα. Τελικά -έτσι δήλωσε- ήταν ελεύθερη να διαχειρίζεται μόνη της τα οικονομικά της. Λίγο καιρό μετά, η νεαρή ζήτησε και απέκτησε μια δεύτερη πιστωτική κάρτα, για να αντιμετωπίσει τους τόκους και τα χρέη που είχαν συσσωρευτεί από την πρώτη. Αφού πέρασε λίγος ακόμη χρόνος, ανακάλυψε ότι η δεύτερη πιστωτική κάρτα δεν αρκούσε για να καλύπτει τους τόκους από τα χρέη της πρώτης. Απευθύνθηκε επομένως σε μια τράπεζα, για να αποκτήσει ένα δάνειο αναγκαίο για να εξοφλήσει τα ανοίγματα και από τις δύο κάρτες. Με δυο λόγια, οι τράπεζες κατόρθωσαν να αποκτήσουν αυτό που ήθελαν: μια παρθένα γη, που την κατέκτησαν και την εκμεταλλεύονται.

Στεγαστικά: Οπως και σε όλες τις προηγούμενες μεταβολές του καπιταλισμού, έτσι και αυτή τη φορά το κράτος βοήθησε στη δημιουργία αυτών των νέων εδαφών. Με βάση μια πρωτοβουλία του προέδρου Κλίντον, έγινε η εισαγωγή στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες των στεγαστικών δανείων, που προωθούσε η κυβέρνηση για να προσφέρει εύκολες πιστώσεις για την απόκτηση κατοικίας σε πρόσωπα που δεν είχαν τα μέσα για να εξοφλούν τα δάνειά τους και συνεπώς για να μετατρέψει σε οφειλέτες εκείνα τα τμήματα του πληθυσμού που μέχρι εκείνη τη στιγμή δεν είχαν ενταχθεί στο κύκλωμα της εκμετάλλευσης μέσω του πιστωτικού συστήματος. Ακριβώς όμως όπως η εξαφάνιση ανθρώπων που περιφέρονται ξυπόλητοι προκαλεί ανησυχία στην υποδηματοβιομηχανία, έτσι και η εξαφάνιση προσώπων που δεν είναι χρεωμένα επιτρέπει να προβλέψουμε την καταστροφή για τη βιομηχανία των δανείων. Για άλλη μια φορά ο καπιταλισμός πλησιάζει σε μια μη ηθελημένη αυτοκτονία, δρώντας έτσι ώστε να εξαντλεί τους πόρους των νέων παρθένων περιοχών που εκμεταλλεύεται. Με δυο λόγια, ο καπιταλισμός τέλειωσε; Δεν τον νομίζω. Η είδηση του θανάτου του καπιταλισμού, όπως θα έλεγε ο Μαρκ Τουέιν, είναι τρομερά υπερβολική. Το κράτος έσπευσε να βοηθήσει. Αρκεί να σκεφτούμε τα γιγάντια σχέδια σωτηρίας των τραπεζών που κατάρτισαν οι κυβερνήσεις όλου του κόσμου. Αλλά έχει εισαχθεί και ένα είδος κράτους πρόνοιας για τους πλουσιότερους. Για να αναφέρουμε ένα μόνο παράδειγμα από την πρόσφατη ειδησεογραφία: τη στιγμή που σταμάτησε ακριβώς στο χείλος της καταστροφής, χάρη στην άφθονη ροή του χρήματος των φορολογουμένων, η τράπεζα TSB Lloyds άρχισε να ασκεί πιέσεις στο δημόσιο ταμείο, για να κατευθύνει μέρος του πακέτου σωτηρίας στους λογαριασμούς των μερισμάτων των μετόχων της. Και παρά την επίσημη αγανάκτηση των εκπροσώπων του κράτους, προχώρησε ατάραχη στην καταβολή μπόνους, εκδηλώνοντας μια τέτοια πλεονεξία και απληστία σαν αυτές που οδήγησαν τις τράπεζες και τους πελάτες τους στην απόλυτη καταστροφή. Δεν είναι η πρώτη φορά που συμβαίνει αυτό. Σύμφωνα με τον Στίβεν Σλιβίνσκι του Ινστιτούτου Cato, ήδη το 2006 η αμερικανική κυβέρνηση ξόδεψε 92 δισ. δολάρια για να στηρίξει με οικονομική βοήθεια κολοσσούς της βιομηχανίας όπως η Boeing, η Ibm και η General Motors.

Συναλλαγή: Πριν από χρόνια, ο Γιούργκεν Χάμπερμας υποστήριζε ότι το κράτος είναι καπιταλιστικό και υπενθύμιζε ότι η ουσία του καπιταλισμού είναι η ένωση κεφαλαίου και εργατικής δύναμης. Σκοπός αυτής της ένωσης είναι να πραγματοποιεί μιαν εμπορική συναλλαγή: το κράτος αγοράζει την εργατική δύναμη. Για να γίνει ωστόσο η συναλλαγή πρέπει να ικανοποιούνται δύο προϋποθέσεις: το κεφάλαιο πρέπει να είναι σε θέση να αγοράζει και η εργατική δύναμη πρέπει να μπορεί να αγοραστεί, δηλαδή να γίνεται αρκετά ενδιαφέρουσα και δελεαστική για να αγοραστεί από το κεφάλαιο. Κύριο καθήκον του κράτους είναι επομένως να δράσει έτσι ώστε και οι δυο αυτές προϋποθέσεις να υλοποιηθούν. Γι’ αυτόν τον λόγο το κράτος πρέπει να κάνει δύο πράγματα: πρώτον, να χρηματοδοτήσει το κεφάλαιο στην περίπτωση που δεν διαθέτει την αναγκαία ρευστότητα για την αγορά μιας παραγωγικής και επικερδούς εργατικής δύναμης. Δεύτερον, να βεβαιωθεί ότι η εργατική δύναμη αξίζει πραγματικά να αγοραστεί, δηλαδή ότι είναι σε θέση να αντέξει τον κόπο της βιομηχανικής παραγωγής, ότι είναι δυνατή και υγιής και ότι είναι κατάλληλα προετοιμασμένη και διαθέτει εκείνες τις εργασιακές γνώσεις και ιδιότητες που είναι αναγκαίες ώστε να απασχοληθεί στον βιομηχανικό τομέα. Ο Χάμπερμας έγραφε αυτά τα πράγματα στον καιρό της μοντέρνας «στέρεης» κοινωνίας των παραγωγών. Σήμερα, στη «ρευστή» κοινωνία, το κράτος είναι καπιταλιστικό στο μέτρο που εγγυάται μια συνεχή πιστωτική διαθεσιμότητα. Εξάλλου, η συνεργασία κράτους και αγοράς είναι κανόνας στον καπιταλισμό. Η σύγκρουση μεταξύ τους, αν ποτέ παρουσιαστεί, είναι αντίθετα η εξαίρεση. Απομένει να δούμε το μέλλον, δηλαδή τις μελλοντικές παρθένες περιοχές.

 

ΖΙΓΚΜΟΥΝΤ ΜΠΑΟΥΜΑΝ: Ενας από τους κορυφαίους σύγχρονους κοινωνιολόγους Ο 85χρονος σήμερα Ζίγκμουντ Μπάουμαν είναι ένας από τους κορυφαίους σύγχρονους κοινωνιολόγους και έχει γράψει πολλά και σημαντικά έργα, μερικά από τα οποία μεταφράστηκαν τα τελευταία χρόνια και στη γλώσσα μας. Μέχρι το 1968, ο Πολωνός Μπάουμαν δίδασκε στο Πανεπιστήμιο της Βαρσοβίας. Επειτα υποχρεώθηκε να μεταναστεύσει και συνέχισε τη διδακτική του δραστηριότητα στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Λιντς στη Μεγάλη Βρετανία. Το κείμενό του αυτό είναι η εισήγησή του σε θεωρητικό συμπόσιο με θέμα «Ανησυχίες στη νεωτερικότητα», που έγινε με πρωτοβουλία της οργάνωσης Arci στη Φλωρεντία, τον Δεκέμβριο του 2008.

 

ΕΠΙΜΕΛΕΙΑ - ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ: ΘΑΝΑΣΗΣ ΓΙΑΛΚΕΤΣΗΣ

 

Κυριακή 5 Απριλίου 2015

Fatos Lubonja: Rezistenca e kujtesës

Fatos Lubonja: Rezistenca e kujtesës
 

Duke lexuar mbi regjimet autoritarë dhe ata totalitarë më ka mbetur në mendje ideja e një sociopsikologu të njohur, sipas të cilit diferenca midis tyre qëndron në atë se regjimi autoritar nuk do t’ia dijë edhe aq nëse njerëzit besojnë vërtet në ato që thotë pushteti, mjafton që këta t’i binden, kurse regjimi totalitar kërkon që njerëzit jo vetëm t’i binden, por edhe t’i besojnë ato që thotë ai; pra kërkon edhe nënshtrimin në mendje dhe në shpirt të njeriut. Kush nuk e bën këtë konsiderohet armik po aq sa ai që nuk bindet.

Nëse do t’i referohemi historisë sonë si ilustrim mund të sillja dallimin midis kohës së Mbretit Zog dhe kohës së komunizmit. Nëse mbreti i kërkonte asokohe shkrimtarit Petro Marko thjesht një deklaratë se nuk ishte komunist që të mund të botonte bashkë me Branko Merxhanin revistën “Përpjekja Shqiptare” – e ky nuk e bëri, pa mundur të jetë bashkëbotues, por pa pësuar gjë, – në kohën e Enver Hoxhës një deklaratë e tillë as imagjinohej se mund të kërkohej pasi presupozohej automatikisht se shkrimtari kishte përqafuar ideologjinë e pushtetit dhe konsiderohej armik dhe dënohej minimumi me burg, nëse refuzonte të deklarohej i tillë.

Më kaloi nëpër mend kjo ide duke lexuar librin e Fabian Katit “Formësimi i kujtesës kolektive” mbi ngjarjet tragjike në Dukagjin, Malësinë e Madhe dhe Postribë në vitet 1945 – 1946. Po pse ky asosacion idesh? Sepse një nga gjërat që ma nxit pareshtur kuriozitetin teksa rrekem të kuptoj njeriun e rritur në komunizëm, (vetveten më së pari), është zhbirilimi i atij procesi që synon ta manipulojë njeriun deri në thellat e shpirtit, aq sa të komandojë jo vetëm veprimet, por edhe ndjenjat e mendimet e tij. “Nuk ka asgjë më të tmerrshme dhe më të mistershme sesa mnemoteknika” – thotë Niçja për teknikën e incizimit, sipas tij “me flakë”, në kujtesën e njeriut të narrativës që dikton pushteti. Çfarë teknikash të kombinuara përdoren gjatë këtij procesi? Çfarë ndodh tek njeriu? A mund t’i rezistohet? Si mund t’i rezistohet? Sa mund t’i rezistohet?

[…]

Narrativa e regjimit totalitar komunist fillon me historinë e Luftës Nacionalçlirimtare. Sipas saj heronjtë komunistë çliruan vendin nga pushtuesit nazifashistë dhe bashkëpunëtorët e tyre, por ky ishte vetëm fillimi i një misioni shumë më të madh. Metaforikisht ata kishin për detyrë të udhëhiqnin karvanin e popullit shqiptar, bashkë me malet e tyre, drejt tokës së premtuar të komunizmit, që do të thoshte të transformonin tokën ku jetonin shqiptarët, sipas tyre nga një ferr në një parajsë. Ishte rruga që ata e kishin gjetur dhe që ata e dinin se nëpër cilat shtigje do të kalonte. Si një pjesë e kësaj lufte janë paraqitur edhe ngjarjet e përmendura në këtë libër, si një eliminim i mbeturinave të armiqve që kërkonin të pengonin ecjen drejt kësaj rruge. Në narrativën komuniste heronjtë nuk kishin fytyrë njerëzore. Ata të së mirës merrnin shpesh pamjen e dëshmorëve të kësaj lufte dhe paraqiteshin me tipare mbinjerëzore që duheshin adhuruar. Kurse heronjtë e së keqes futeshin të gjithë në disa fjalë të tmerrshme, të zeza, ndër të cilat më të përdorurat kanë qenë “bashkëpunëtor me armikun”, “reaksionar”, “armik i klasës”. Ata nuk kishin as jetë të veçantë përveç armiqësisë, as etër, as nëna, as vëllezër e motra, as fëmijë. Në botën manikeiste të narrativës ata ishin përfaqësuesit e së keqes dhe mendimi për ta duhet të shoqërohej me ndjenja negative, si frika, urrejtja, përçmimi. Sikur të ndodhte që ata të ngriheshin nga varri ata duheshin rivrarë dhe rivarrosur përsëri.

“Klasën që u përmbys nën këmbë e mbaj/ Nëse s’do që nesër skuadër e pushkatimit/

Të të vejë në mur/ tek Bulevardi i Madh”, – shkruanin poetët e narrativës asokohe.

Sepse narrativa nuk ndërtohej vetëm me rrëfenjat entuziazmuese e mbresëlënëse të bëmave të heronjve. Ajo kishte nevojë edhe për “flakë”, siç thotë Niçja. Pse flakë? Sepse, që të incizohej pazhdukshmërisht, narrativa kishte nevojë edhe të shkatërronte përfundimisht. E për këtë ajo kishte nevojë edhe për një instrument tjetër të tmerrshëm: frikën se, nëse dilje jashtë saj e besoje apo tregoje ndonjë narrativë tjetër, do të ndëshkoheshe si armik dhe të priste burgu, ose edhe vdekja. Frika e terrori ishin flaka që digjte çdo qelizë nga ato që mund të kultivonin në mendjen dhe shpirtin e njeriut mundësinë e një besimi tjetër, qelizat e dyshimit apo të mendimit kritik e të pavarur.

***

Duke lexuar këtë libër nuk mund të mos shtrosh pyetjen: Sa dhe si i kanë rezistuar këtij procesi kujtimet “e ndaluara” me të cilat takohemi këtu? Sepse në ato kujtime gjejmë pikërisht narrativën e atyre që kanë qenë në krahun e humbësve, jo të fitimtarëve. Por personat që tregojnë nuk janë ata vetë. Personazhet që tregojnë kanë qenë fëmijë në kohën e ngjarjeve. Janë kryesisht bij ose familjarë të protagonistëve të atyre ngjarjeve, personazhet e shumë prej të cilave kanë përfunduar të pushkatuar nëpër brigje lumenjsh, me gjyq dhe pa gjyq e nuk u dihen as varret, ose kanë vdekur gjatë dekadave në vazhdim, një pjesë pa dalë dot nga burgjet. Këta fëmijë e kanë kaluar jetën e tyre nën flakën e narrativës komuniste, terrorin verbal dhe fizik të saj për dekada deri në vitin 1991. Duke pasur parasysh këtë nuk mund të mos imagjinosh se ruajtja e këtyre kujtimeve është një rezistencë e kujtesës. Edhe rrugët e kësaj rezistence duhen studiuar. Ndërkohë që narrativa komuniste prodhonte me zhurmë çdo vit tonelata me letërsi të shkruar, filma, muzikë, emisione radiofonike, festa përkujtimore, përvjetorë çlirimi, përvjetorë të rënësh, konferenca studimore, narrativa e të humburve mezi mbijetonte nëpër dhoma të varfra familjesh të persekutuara, shpesh të internuara, apo nëpër qeli burgjesh. Ajo qarkullonte fshehurazi dhe në heshtje nën kërcënimin e nenit të agjitacionit e të propagandës që parashikonte deri në 10 vjet me burg për ata që tregonin rrëfenja apo copëza rrëfenjash si këto që lexojmë në këtë libër.

***

Duke lexuar dhe dëgjuar dëshmitë e mbledhura nga Fabian Kati të duket sikur autori ka shkuar në Veri dhe ka mundur të gjejë vetëm ca fragmente mbetjesh arkeologjike të një ngrehine së cilës i janë shembur e rrënuar shumë pjesë. Na shfaqen ca copëra muresh këtej e ca gurë e tulla andej, por shumica ka humbur, ose e ka mbuluar bari e dheu. Mosha e rrëfimtarëve që ai ka gjetur është ajo e pleqërisë. Ndonjëri është edhe mbi të 90-at. Shumë nga qelizat e trurit të tyre, ku ruhet kujtesa, me moshën ndoshta edhe kanë vdekur dhe çdo qelizë e vdekur mund ta imagjinosh si një tullë të kësaj ndërtese që është rrëzuar dhe thërrmuar. Vdekja e çdonjërës prej tyre ka qenë si shembja e një ndërtese të tërë. Synimi i regjimit ky ka qenë, në fakt: që kjo kujtesë të zhdukej përfundimisht. Dhe, sikur të kishte zgjatur edhe disa dekada, ndoshta kjo do të ndodhte. Por edhe kështu duket sikur jemi duke ecur nëpër rrënoja që, së bashku me legjendën që bartin, të ngjallin edhe një ndjenjë të thellë padrejtësie dhe trishtimi. Trishtimin e së pariparueshmes.

Edhe me të padurueshme e bëjnë këtë ndjenjë trishtimi mendimi se janë dashur të kalojnë njëzet e kusur vjet nga rënia e komunizmit që dikush të kujtohej të mblidhte kujtimet orale të këtyre njerëzve. Nuk dua të zgjatem këtu me një temë që e kam trajtuar tjetërkund: faktorët se pse nuk ka ndodhur kjo ndërkohë që këta njëzet vjet duhet të ishin vitet e rishkrimit të historiografisë dhe memuaristikës së shkruar nga komunizmi. Kujtoj me këtë rast se jemi ndoshta i vetmi vend në botën ish-komuniste që nuk ka ende një libër të vetëm të historianëve shqiptarë që të trajtojë historinë e komunizmit. Shkurt do të thosha se një nga faktorët kryesorë është fakti se elitat që morën, ose më saktë trashëguan pushtetin pas rënies së komunizmit, duke përfshirë edhe historianët, jo vetëm janë rritur me narrativën komuniste, por janë më të shumtët edhe krijuesit e saj. Dhe duke qenë se legjitimimi i pushteti u ka ardhur nga emri që kanë bërë nëpërmjet punës për atë narrativë, nuk u ka interesuar ta hedhin atë poshtë, por vetëm ta korrektojnë aty-këtu, duke e trajtuar terrorin e ushtruar nga ai regjim thjesht si një apendiks të asaj historie dhe jo si shtyllë qendrore të atij pushteti. Duke lexuar këtë libër për shembull del se Veriu më shumë sesa u çlirua nga pushtuesi, – siç trumbetonte narrativa e fitimtarit, u pushtua nga komunistët me një operacion dhune dhe gjaku, shumë gjaku, por që ka hasur edhe rezistencë. Për këtë të vërtetë nuk duhej folur gjatë komunizmit, aq më pak për rezistencën e njerëzve në Veri, madje edhe rezistenca e kujtimit të rezistencës së tyre duhej zhdukur. Kjo përmbysje e historisë dhe identifikimi i përgjegjësve të atyre krimeve dhe pastaj i shkruesve të narrativës së gënjeshtërt nuk i ka interesuar kësaj elite. Po ashtu, pjesa e kësaj elite që rrëmbeu flamurin e antikomunizmit, duke qenë e edukuar me metodat e atij pushteti, e manipuloi për interesa politike me të njëjtat metoda të narrativës komuniste persekutimin e popullit shqiptar duke tjetërsuar, kësisoj, thelbin e tij. Hallet e pafundme që u krijuan nga politikat e mbrapshta gjatë këtyre njëzet vjetëve, si dhe triumfi i kulturës konsumiste që e ka reduktuar njeriun thjesht në shijues të së sotmes pa një kujtesë të së shkuarës dhe pa një projekt të së ardhmes, kanë plotësuar procesin e harrimit të këtyre ngjarjeve kaq tragjike.

Megjithatë duke lexuar librin“Formësimi i kujtesës kolektive” të vjen ndërmend edhe një fjalë e urtë që thotë: “E vërteta mund të hollohet, por nuk këputet.” Këto dëshmi hedhin dritë mbi një të vërtetë që është harruar deri atje ku s’mban më, por që nuk ka humbur krejtësisht. Sigurisht, nëpërmjet njohjes së këtyre historive ne nuk e zhbëjmë dot padrejtësinë ndaj viktimave. Por njohja e këtyre të vërtetave është e rëndësishme për të vendosur drejtësi në kujtesën tonë të deformuar nga narrativa komuniste, sepse janë të shumtë ata që nuk u japin të drejtë atyre viktimave edhe sot në kujtesën e tyre e që këtë padrejtësi ua transmetojnë edhe trashëgimtarëve të tyre. E kjo është e rëndësishme, shumë e rëndësishme si për të vdekurit, të cilëve u japim drejtësinë e mohuar për gjysmë shekulli, edhe për të gjallët.

Po ende, njohja e këtyre të vërtetave është, ndoshta, edhe më e rëndësishme për ata, veçanërisht të rinj, që janë indiferentë ndaj tyre, madje që nuk kanë asnjë kujtesë. Sepse është e njohur thënia se “një histori që harrohet është e destinuar të përsëritet”. Duke lexuar librin ne kemi një ndjenjë të thellë empatie për ata njerëz që janë marrë dhe pushkatuar pa gjyq, për të terrorizuar të tjerët. Na vjen vetvetiu thirrja e brendshme se kjo nuk duhej të ndodhte. Se kjo është një padrejtësi. Është një imunitet i rëndësishëm ky që fitojmë ndaj të keqes. Çdo padrejtësi që zbulojmë dhe denoncojmë na mbron edhe ne vetë nga padrejtësitë që mund të bëjmë në jetë, sepse vazhdojmë të jetojmë në një botë ku shohim përditë se sa lehtë njeriu i paditur mund të kthehet në xhelat ndaj tjetrit.

 

*Parathënia e librit të Fabian Katit “Formësimi i kujtesës kolektive” mbi ngjarjet tragjike në Dukagjin, Malësinë e Madhe dhe Postribë në vitet 1945 – 1946. (Gazeta Mapo, 21 shkurt 2015)

Τετάρτη 1 Απριλίου 2015

Gëzim Çela: Μόνος (Vetëm)

  
                         Μόνος (Vetëm)

Στο κελί, μόνος. Πάλι με πιάνει
αυτή η επιθυμία να πετάξω.
Μα δεν έχω φτερωτό θώρακα
να ’ρθω ως εκεί
να συγκρατήσω την ηχώ της απεραντοσύνης σου.
Σφαλιστά θέλω τα παντζούρια των παραθύρων σου να κρατήσεις,
έτσι ματωμένο μη με δεις.
Όχι! Στο τερέν της άσωτης νύχτας
δε θέλω ξανά να μου πεις
πως εγώ σ’ έχω πληγώσει. 

Gëzim Çela, Κελί απομόνωσης στρατοπέδου Rubik, 1963, μετφρ. Αχιλλέας Σύρμος