Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:brochures:unclassified:kipros_ethniko_ethnikismos [2025/01/05 15:33] – no_name12
+++ en:brochures:unclassified:kipros_ethniko_ethnikismos [2025/04/20 19:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
-====== Cyprus, the National Issue and Nationalism - A Libertarian Analysis (Pamphlet) ======
+====== Cyprus, the National Issue and Nationalism - A Libertarian Analysis (Unsigned) (Pamphlet) ======
 <WRAP center round noprint important 80%>
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 The bomb that is Graikos' "History" explodes in 1980. Mr. Graikos, an AKEL supporter and one of the intellectual fathers of the Neo-Cypriot consciousness, by collecting various information and making a "Marxist" critical analysis of the classical nationalist texts, proposes a historical foundation-justification of the Neo-Cypriot consciousness and the Cypriot state. The positive thing about Graikos and those who followed him is that he brings together various elements and builds another pole vis-à-vis the Greek-Christian one, which can also lead to the birth of a discussion-study on Cypriot history. Apart from this, the history of Graikos needs its own critical interpretation, since here the goal (ideological-historical support of the Cypriot state and of AKEL) determines the analysis and presentation of events.
-This text is an attempt to intervene beyond the two poles (Greek Christian - Neo-Cypriot). The elements, which support my historical analysis, come partly from a critical analysis of what the above ideologists or historians cite. And I mention all this in case anyone is willing to look at the sources, but also so as not to create any illusion that the following analysis is based on a history that has been fully written. Cypriot history as facts, documents and evidence is only now being discovered and written. We note this, so that anyone reading this text or anything else on Cyprus may retain their doubts and reservations.
+This text is an attempt to intervene beyond the two poles (Greek-Christian - Neo-Cypriot). The elements, which support my historical analysis, come partly from a critical analysis of what the above ideologists or historians cite. And I mention all this in case anyone is willing to look at the sources, but also so as not to create any illusion that the following analysis is based on a history that has been fully written. Cypriot history as facts, documents and evidence is only now being discovered and written. We note this, so that anyone reading this text or anything else on Cyprus may retain their doubts and reservations.
 And one last note: various topics (e.g. education, state, etc.) appear in various analyses - this is not a repetition. Rather, it is an attempt to bring out the dimensions of a phenomenon in its totality and to look at the interactions of various structures.
@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 Methodologically, one might get the impression from reading this text that I am proposing a critical analysis, based on the structural dynamics of power relations, with minimal influence from those in power either as groups or as individuals. And this is possible, by the very nature of the text-critique of the ideological hegemony of nationalism and the processes it promotes. In this context, the emphasis falls asymmetrically on structural changes. My understanding, which is evident in various parts of the text, is that structural changes are results of the dialectic between the autonomous dynamics of power structures and of those subordinated to them. In other words, the present evolution is the result of the prevalence of power, insofar as this evolution was determined by the need to eliminate or assimilate social conflict. The dynamics of structures are altered by the intervention of people, and an analysis of today's reality as a whole (and not only of nationalism) must look at the hidden contradictions in structures as a result of previous social conflicts that were defeated. Another point to emphasize in this context is that the defeat or assimilation of social conflict in different historical periods is not inevitable. That is, the historical course could have been different if the subordinated won in the social conflict. This is why I call structural changes the "defeat of social conflict" - unlike Marxists, I don't think capitalist or state-socialist modernization is the inevitable path of social evolution.
-A special note is also needed on the role of the individual in these processes - if nothing else, because the tendency to avoid responsibility of the individual is predominant in Cyprus. The victimization and simultaneous exoneration of the Greek Cypriot community after '74 is typical of this funny, as well as sappy, tendency to avoid responsibility. Blame the imperialists, the Turks, EOKA B, the whole world except the "poor", "as it should be" Cypriot house-keeper. In fact, alongside all of them, a large part of the responsibility lies with the Greek Cypriots as individuals. For 14 years they sat on their eggs or ran like sheep to the rallies, and in the coup most of them went home even though they 'knew what would happen next'. The responsibility is immediate and the only way to avoid it is to blame it on others or "divine fate".
+A special note is also needed on the role of the individual in these processes - if nothing else, because the tendency to avoid responsibility of the individual is predominant in Cyprus. The victimization and simultaneous exoneration of the Greek Cypriot community after '74 is typical of this funny, as well as sappy, tendency to avoid responsibility. Blame the imperialists, the Turks, EOKA B, the whole world except the "poor", "as it should be" Cypriot normie. In fact, alongside all of them, a large part of the responsibility lies with the Greek Cypriots as individuals. For 14 years they sat on their eggs or ran like sheep to the rallies, and in the coup most of them went home even though they 'knew what would happen next'. The responsibility is immediate and the only way to avoid it is to blame it on others or "divine fate".
 And some preliminary clarifications on terminology and dealing with various issues:
@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 . Although there are sporadic references to Turkish Cypriots and Turks, when the text deals with nationalism, it basically refers to the Greek Cypriot variant. Apart from the outward hysterics of Turko-centric nationalism, very little is known about the processes it has promoted within the Turkish Cypriot community, in Turkey and the power groups that have promoted and are promoting it.
-. There are certain topics, which, although extremely important (e.g. the divide and rule policy of the British in the 1950s, the American interference and the financing of the CIA, etc.) are not much mentioned. And the reason is simple. These topics have been so much analysed (every year there is a book or a bunch of articles on them) that it would be pointless to repeat them. I repeat, however, that these are given in this analysis.
+. There are certain topics, which, although extremely important (e.g. the divide and rule policy of the English in the 1950s, the American interference and the financing of the CIA, etc.) are not much mentioned. And the reason is simple. These topics have been so much analysed (every year there is a book or a bunch of articles on them) that it would be pointless to repeat them. I repeat, however, that these are given in this analysis.
 . Various topics (e.g. education, state, etc.) appear in various analyses, this is not a repetition. Rather, it is an attempt to bring out the dimensions of a phenomenon in their entirety and to look at the interactions of various structures.
@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 **//1926//** Crushing defeat of the intransigent nationalists in the elections. Formation of the [[en:groups:cpc|CPC (Communist Party)]] by intellectuals and workers. Though fiercely persecuted, the party gains some influence in some areas.
-**//1931//** Oktovriana [October Incidents]. Popular uprising against the new taxes. The uprising quickly takes on an Enosis character. The British respond with repression.
+**//1931//** Oktovriana [October Incidents]. Popular uprising against the new taxes. The uprising quickly takes on an Enosis character. The English respond with repression.
-**//1931-1940//** The British impose a dictatorship and proceed with the effective establishment of the receptive Cypriot state. It is within the framework of the bureaucracy, which is created during this period, that the interests of various elites (bourgeois, gentry, etc.) converge. The oppression of Greek-Enosis nationalism makes it an anti-colonial symbol.
+**//1931-1940//** The English impose a dictatorship and proceed with the effective establishment of the receptive Cypriot state. It is within the framework of the bureaucracy, which is created during this period, that the interests of various elites (bourgeois, gentry, etc.) converge. The oppression of Greek-Enosis nationalism makes it an anti-colonial symbol.
-**//1941//** The British relax the dictatorship. AKEL is founded by illegal cells of the CPC, liberal politicians and popular strata. AKEL appears as an inter-communal party (although it too has Enosis as its goal). At first it looks like a broad popular movement against colonialism, the old bureaucracy (the "appointed ones") and social inequality. The degeneration is gradual but rapid in the years to come.
+**//1941//** The English relax the dictatorship. AKEL is founded by illegal cells of the CPC, liberal politicians and popular strata. AKEL appears as an inter-communal party (although it too has Enosis as its goal). At first it looks like a broad popular movement against colonialism, the old bureaucracy (the "appointed ones") and social inequality. The degeneration is gradual but rapid in the years to come.
 **//1943-1947//** Period of intense mobilisation of AKEL and of its spectacular rise. It crushes the right in the municipal elections and elects Leontios as archbishop, with a large majority.
-**//1947//** Leontios dies soon after his election. The new AKEL candidate loses the election in a climate of increasing polarisation and mass fraud. The British propose a constitution of self-government. AKEL tries to achieve abstention and calls on right-wing leaders to resign from government posts. The right of course refuses and AKEL takes part in the talks which fail. Thus, AKEL already has a double defeat. It fails to gain access to both centres of power in Cyprus (the church and the state). Although AKEL followed a tactic of national "popular-front unity" even then, since '47 it puts this line above all else and follows the choices of the power centres, looking for the right opportunity to establish itself in their eyes and gain access to them.
+**//1947//** Leontios dies soon after his election. The new AKEL candidate loses the election in a climate of increasing polarisation and mass fraud. The English propose a constitution of self-government. AKEL tries to achieve abstention and calls on right-wing leaders to resign from government posts. The right of course refuses and AKEL takes part in the talks which fail. Thus, AKEL already has a double defeat. It fails to gain access to both centres of power in Cyprus (the church and the state). Although AKEL followed a tactic of national "popular-front unity" even then, since '47 it puts this line above all else and follows the choices of the power centres, looking for the right opportunity to establish itself in their eyes and gain access to them.
 **//1948//** Period of intense strikes. The English, the church and the right mobilize against the last mass movement of class conflict. Many strikes are intercommunal. Despite small material gains, the defeat is decisive. The defeat in the factory and on the street ensures the imposition of the AKEL leadership on large layers of the popular strata. The party's political choices become the only hope for these strata who want to get out of misery and defeat. In the same year and under the influence of the civil war in Greece, a frightening polarisation of left and right is created in Cyprus, the effects of which are still evident. Different football clubs etc. are formed. While the Greek Cypriot-Turkish Cypriot rift is barely discernible, the left-right rift erupts sharply and breaks the Greek Cypriot community in two. The hatred between left and right has for many years been much more intense than that between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 **//1950//** Referendum on Enosis. 97% of Greek Cypriots voted for Enosis. While the signatures were being made public, 15,000 Turkish Cypriots demonstrated against Enosis in Nicosia.
-**//1955//** The EOKA struggle begins. The struggle goes through several phases. Makarios is exiled to the town of Mahé in the Seychelles Islands, which were under British colonial rule. There are repeated truces. Some of the most liberal members of the EOKA are heroically killed (and under strange circumstances of betrayal). Afxentiou, Matsis etc.
+**//1955//** The EOKA struggle begins. The struggle goes through several phases. Makarios is exiled to the town of Mahé in the Seychelles Islands, which were under English colonial rule. There are repeated truces. Some of the most liberal members of the EOKA are heroically killed (and under strange circumstances of betrayal). Afxentiou, Matsis etc.
-**//1958//** Grivas and the Terrorist Turkish Cypriot Nationalist Organization start assassinating leftists and afterwards there are widespread intercommunal riots with unprecedented, for the relations between the two communities, massacres. The British are fostering division in the usual divide and rule manner.
+**//1958//** Grivas and the Terrorist Turkish Cypriot Nationalist Organization start assassinating leftists and afterwards there are widespread intercommunal riots with unprecedented, for the relations between the two communities, massacres. The English are fostering division in the usual divide and rule manner.
-**//1959-1960//** The Zurich-London agreements are signed and the Cypriot state is declared. During the signing, the British, in order to put pressure on Makarios, revealed to him that they knew where Grivas was hiding in Cyprus.
+**//1959-1960//** The Zurich-London agreements are signed and the Cypriot state is declared. During the signing, the English, in order to put pressure on Makarios, revealed to him that they knew where Grivas was hiding in Cyprus.
 **//1963-1964//** The Constitution does not function smoothly, while nationalists from both communities form task forces. Makarios tries to revise the Constitution. The Turkish Cypriots refuse. In late '63, clashes break out in Nicosia. There are widespread massacres of civilians. Sampson, the post-coup president, leads the massacres of Turkish Cypriots in Omorfita. Turkish intervention is threatened and clashes break out from time to time. (August '64, clashes in Tillyria). The end of '64 finds the Turkish Cypriots confined to ghettos, while their elite leave the government.
@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 ----
-=====1. The "national issue", the far left and "milieu" =====
+=====1. The "national issue", the far left and the "milieu" =====
 The "national issue" (which in this case expresses the occupation of Northern Cyprus by the army of the Turkish state and the "plots of the imperialists" against us) has been a key pole of reference of the Cypriot far left, which has timidly emerged after '74 and which for some parts of it is still of course the PROBLEM.
-In a first phase, immediately after '74 and in a situation that smelled of general upheaval, the slogan of "conscription" of society, for a "popular defence" etc. was raised. Talking about a far left movement at this time is a bit of a stretch, of course. But the first processes had begun among various individuals and groups, [[en:groups:aristeripteriga|both within EDEK]], which strongly expressed these currents at that time, and among AKEL members and unionists. It is also the period of efforts to [[en:groups:anasistasi|constitute the CPC]].
+In a first phase, immediately after '74 and in a situation that smelled of general upheaval, the slogan of "conscription" of society, for a "popular defence" etc. was raised. Talking about a far left movement at this time is a bit of a stretch, of course. But the first processes had begun among various individuals and groups, [[en:groups:aristeripteriga|both within EDEK]], which strongly expressed these currents at that time, and among AKEL members and unionists. It is also the period of efforts to [[en:groups:anasistasi|reconstitute the CPC]].
 EDEK, which also had the tradition of "resistance" to the coup, expressed for a time this willingness to reject any compromise with timid proposals for state socialist measures, in the face of the policy of social peace and appeasement adopted by AKEL and the state.
@@ Line 203: / Line 203: @@
 In the end, the argument of the promotion of entertainment and social peace was identical to that adopted by the "subversives". Yes, we need "conscription", but conscription without "national unity" is not possible, and of course "national unity" and "social conflict" are mutually exclusive.
-The contradictions of the EDEK(1) as soon as it was forced to take a "responsible" position were indicative of the situation. In this context (and with the simultaneous decline of some of the "militant" mood that existed among the youth), frustration, and the realization that much of that whole ideology of "conscription" was determined by the ruling ideology, led several individuals to reject the whole issue. In particular, the realization of our personal misery (sexual, psychological, etc.) led to a rejection that carried with it a demand for a life that seemed completely unrelated to the political schizophrenia of the politicians. Of course this development was not general. Within EDEN a "rearguard battle" continued for a time, until the party left all pretext behind and threw out the Trotskyists, "entryists" and other leftists en masse.
+The contradictions of EDEK(1) as soon as it was forced to take a "responsible" position were indicative of the situation. In this context (and with the simultaneous decline of some of the "militant" mood that existed among the youth), frustration, and the realization that much of that whole ideology of "conscription" was determined by the ruling ideology, led several individuals to reject the whole issue. In particular, the realization of our personal misery (sexual, psychological, etc.) led to a rejection that carried with it a demand for a life that seemed completely unrelated to the political schizophrenia of the politicians. Of course this development was not general. Within EDEN a "rearguard battle" continued for a time, until the party left all pretext behind and threw out the Trotskyists, "entryists" and other leftists en masse.
 [[en:groups:aristeripteriga|"Aristeri Pteriga [The Left Wing]"]] followed its own disintegrating course afterwards, to finally leave the "pure-bloods" to publish [[en:magazines:sosialekfrasi|"Sosialistiki Ekfrasi [Socialist Expression]]]". "Conscription" still plays a key role in this group, only now charged with a more explicit "class" and at the same time "internationalist" component. The issue for them is to unite with the Turkish Cypriot workers and to take on the bourgeoisie and the occupiers all together in unity.
@@ Line 209: / Line 209: @@
 In the spectacular "left-right" polarisation, the Trotskyist spokesmen have aligned themselves with the so-called left (AKEL - EDEK) and have tried to "re-revolutionise" it with their entryism and party units(2).
-From another point of view, various individuals passing from the effort for the [[en:groups:anasistasi|reconstitution of the CPC]] or other Marxist-Leninist groups or carrying an Enosis tradition or discovering the light of truth in Psyroukis [Νίκος Ψυρούκης], jumped to the other extreme, and started looking for the revolutionary subject among the far right unionists(3). This milieu presented at one stage an interesting intervention, as it brought together people from the left (but not from AKEL) and from the former far right, thus presenting itself as an attempt to break the whole spectacular left-right polarisation. However, it was a game played on the ideological sophistry of the AKEL-Enosis polarisation. AKEL once supported Enosis, e.g. which means that Enosis is a demand of the popular movement (hence revolutionary) and that the popular movement was revolutionary at the time. In these contexts the national issue held the key status, but at the same time it had new dimensions. These Marxists put the problem of Enosis as a national problem and made various attempts to tie it to the occupation and the "imperialists". In a first step they argued, for example, that the coup and the invasion would not have taken place if the Union had taken place. In a newer step, the view of "what's done is done" was thrown out, but because the "Turkish bourgeoisie" is aggressive, the only way to save ourselves is Enosis (even if it is a double one).
+From another point of view, various individuals passing from the effort for the [[en:groups:anasistasi|reconstitution of the CPC]] or other Marxist-Leninist groups or carrying an Enosis tradition or discovering the light of truth in Psyroukis, jumped to the other extreme, and started looking for the revolutionary subject among the far right unionists(3). This milieu presented at one stage an interesting intervention, as it brought together people from the left (but not from AKEL) and from the former far right, thus presenting itself as an attempt to break the whole spectacular left-right polarisation. However, it was a game played on the ideological sophistry of the AKEL-Enosis polarisation. AKEL once supported Enosis, e.g. which means that Enosis is a demand of the popular movement (hence revolutionary) and that the popular movement was revolutionary at the time. In these contexts the national issue held the key status, but at the same time it had new dimensions. These Marxists put the problem of Enosis as a national problem and made various attempts to tie it to the occupation and the "imperialists". In a first step they argued, for example, that the coup and the invasion would not have taken place if the Union had taken place. In a newer step, the view of "what's done is done" was thrown out, but because the "Turkish bourgeoisie" is aggressive, the only way to save ourselves is Enosis (even if it is a double one).
 What is amazing about this situation is the impression that something terribly new has been discovered. In fact, apart from the Marxist sauce that adorns the arguments, the substance is essentially the same as what we have all heard thousands of times in the schools of Greek-Christian education. As for dual Enosis, which is going to become a revolutionary solution for some, it was proposed by the Turkish state since the 1950s and by the Americans since '63.
@@ Line 254: / Line 254: @@
 **1. the strategic space (Middle East), the interventions and peace**
-This seems an issue solved and overblown before we even start. Cyprus in the Middle East, oil, the Arab-Israeli conflict, American machinations and so on. Although this analysis has enough truths, it nevertheless has a deliberately limited field of vision (which is basically reinforced by our tearful solidarity with the Arab states and their chauvinism and in the absolution of Russian imperialism for what is going on in the region). The aim of course for the Russians and the Americans is oil and political control of the region. In this context, the role of Cyprus remains what it has been since the British took over the island, an extreme "gendarmerie station", helping whoever owns it to police their dependencies and prevent opponents from entering the region. The crucial role that this geographical location has played in the modern history of the island (in terms of foreign interventions, direct or indirect) is quite obvious. The British bases and the American radars are typical of these developments. Cyprus for the moment is a gendarmerie station of Western imperialism.
+This seems an issue solved and overblown before we even start. Cyprus in the Middle East, oil, the Arab-Israeli conflict, American machinations and so on. Although this analysis has enough truths, it nevertheless has a deliberately limited field of vision (which is basically reinforced by our tearful solidarity with the Arab states and their chauvinism and in the absolution of Russian imperialism for what is going on in the region). The aim of course for the Russians and the Americans is oil and political control of the region. In this context, the role of Cyprus remains what it has been since the English took over the island, an extreme "gendarmerie station", helping whoever owns it to police their dependencies and prevent opponents from entering the region. The crucial role that this geographical location has played in the modern history of the island (in terms of foreign interventions, direct or indirect) is quite obvious. The English bases and the American radars are typical of these developments. Cyprus for the moment is a gendarmerie station of Western imperialism.
 However, this is where we need to start to clarify things, because this is where the similarity of analysis with that problematic (so dear to our leftist "anti-imperialists") ends, which, seeing the above, draws its line of confrontation with "American and Zionist imperialism" and places us on the side of "Arab anti-imperialism" etc.
@@ Line 322: / Line 322: @@
 The "Greek-Christian History", which has been served to us for years by the intellectuals of the state and of "social peace", has been based on two main axes.
-α) The existence and uniqueness of this phenomenon called "hellenism".
+a) The existence and uniqueness of this phenomenon called "hellenism".
 b) In a conception of history as a straight line, extending from antiquity to the present, and whose unchanging essence was the phenomenon of "hellenism". In this context, the relationship between the people who were supposed to embody this phenomenon (hellenism) and other peoples and cultural groups was a surprisingly asymmetrical one. The Greeks were "civilizing" or "liberating", while the rest of the world was corrupting or "barbarically conquering" this now metaphysical phenomenon.
@@ Line 347: / Line 347: @@
 "...the Cyprus problem is the condensation of all the contradictions of Greek society and the regime of subordination and decadence..."(12).
-According to this position, the struggle of the Cypriots against colonialism and imperialism (embodied by England) becomes the struggle of the Greek people for independence. The bourgeoisie, which is selling out Greece to foreigners, is betraying the struggle of the Greek Cypriots. (Typical cases for Psyroukis are the refusal of the British offer in '14, the condemnation of the Oktovriana by Venizelos and the non-inclusion of Cyprus in the "national processes" in '45.)
+According to this position, the struggle of the Cypriots against colonialism and imperialism (embodied by England) becomes the struggle of the Greek people for independence. The bourgeoisie, which is selling out Greece to foreigners, is betraying the struggle of the Greek Cypriots. (Typical cases for Psyroukis are the refusal of the English offer in '14, the condemnation of the Oktovriana by Venizelos and the non-inclusion of Cyprus in the "national processes" in '45.)
-Thus, the bourgeoisie loses the leadership in the struggle for ethnogenesis and it must be taken over by the working class. In this context, Enosis could not be achieved simply by ceding the island to Greece. On the contrary, the demand of Enosis (a demand that expresses the dynamic of Greek ethnogenesis and the anti-imperialist struggle of the nation) has an explosive dynamic that overturns the balance and challenges imperialist-capitalist dependence.
+Thus, the bourgeoisie loses the leadership in the struggle for ethnogenesis and it must be taken over by the working class. In this context, Enosis could not be achieved simply by ceding the island to Greece(13). On the contrary, the demand of Enosis (a demand that expresses the dynamic of Greek ethnogenesis and the anti-imperialist struggle of the nation) has an explosive dynamic that overturns the balance and challenges imperialist-capitalist dependence.
 And Psyroukis observes that in the 1950s the Cyprus problem was the issue that challenged the nationalist right and gave a new impetus to the movement of the Greek left. And in Cyprus, in the 1940s, AKEL was at the forefront of the struggle for Enosis. Here then, always according to Psyroukis, is the working class slowly taking the lead in the struggle for ethnogenesis.
@@ Line 411: / Line 411: @@
 It is a fact, however, that the communal strife and the real mass appeal of nationalism as a prospect of liberation come much later. The roots of the conflict, however - the power relations within and between the two communities - existed before.
-The arrival of the British, the institutionalization of the economic and political rise of the Orthodox community, the development of Megali Idea in Greece and its introduction into Cypriot society through the schools and the reconstruction of various power structures, gradually lead to the 30 years of nationalism (1930-60).
+The arrival of the English, the institutionalization of the economic and political rise of the Orthodox community, the development of Megali Idea in Greece and its introduction into Cypriot society through the schools and the reconstruction of various power structures, gradually lead to the 30 years of nationalism (1930-60).
 **4. processes of power reconstruction and nationalism**
@@ Line 434: / Line 434: @@
 In this context, at that time, there was a need to split the unity at the grassroots and reconstruct imaginary divisions and unities in order to exorcise the growing social conflict. The Muslim administration tried to revive communal antagonism and conflict in times of crises (1341, 1853, 1862, 1871, etc.), however the success of this method was minimal and common local uprisings were still observed.
-The Orthodox hierarchy follows a different path. An attempt to reconstruct the ideology of hegemony in order to shift the contradictions to the religious-communal level. In this it has two allies. The newly established Greek state with its expansionist tendencies and the bourgeoisie, formed in the cities, is experiencing a gradual rise in the 19th century. Of course, the bourgeoisie and the church (together with the ciflik owners) have to some extent competing economic and political interests. However, the desire of the bourgeoisie to get rid of rotten Ottoman feudalism (and later colonialism) and their fear of popular uprisings push them into a not-so-comfortable alliance with the church and the clerics against the Muslim elite and the danger of growing social conflict. The main contribution of the Greek state and the bourgeoisie lies in the gradual construction of the new ideology of nationalism. Particularly, after the arrival of the British and the certain removal of the administration from the religious hierarchy and the development of the schools, the bourgeois began to play an increasingly central role in the Greek Cypriot community. Competition with other elites of course continues until 1930 when the development of the bureaucracy by the English creates the basis for a new relationship.
+The Orthodox hierarchy follows a different path. An attempt to reconstruct the ideology of hegemony in order to shift the contradictions to the religious-communal level. In this it has two allies. The newly established Greek state with its expansionist tendencies and the bourgeoisie, formed in the cities, is experiencing a gradual rise in the 19th century. Of course, the bourgeoisie and the church (together with the ciflik owners) have to some extent competing economic and political interests. However, the desire of the bourgeoisie to get rid of rotten Ottoman feudalism (and later colonialism) and their fear of popular uprisings push them into a not-so-comfortable alliance with the church and the clerics against the Muslim elite and the danger of growing social conflict. The main contribution of the Greek state and the bourgeoisie lies in the gradual construction of the new ideology of nationalism. Particularly, after the arrival of the English and the certain removal of the administration from the religious hierarchy and the development of the schools, the bourgeois began to play an increasingly central role in the Greek Cypriot community. Competition with other elites of course continues until 1930 when the development of the bureaucracy by the English creates the basis for a new relationship.
 School education (strongly promoted by the bourgeoisie and, to a certain extent, by the church) played a decisive role in the constitution of the imaginary unity of the Greek nation and the repulsion of the prospect of social conflict. Communal schools (which experienced a tremendous rise in the English administration), taking their curriculum and teachers from the metropolis of Greek-centric intellectualism and chauvinism, encouraged intercommunal antagonism and the creation of national stereotypes (see Geest and Murvin's studies)(21). Education was perhaps the key element in the creation of ethnic division. In essence, the Cypriot population had to be taught new identities as Greeks and Turks, new forms of language and changed customs(22). Apart from splitting the class unity in the two communities, school education institutionalized on a new level both class and ideological contradictions. The teacher and the priest, the bourgeoisie and the ciflik owners got a new level of hierarchical justification. To the extent that the Greek Cypriot community set Enosis and nationalism as the ideological background, the ruling classes immediately joined the imaginatively structured community that excluded the Turkish Cypriot neighbour and saw a "national" relationship with every orthodox Greek-speaking moneylender. This in the context of a new separation: those who had the power now also possessed the "knowledge". The Cypriot language was banished as "barbaric" in the face of the culture of the constructions of the metropolis (Athens), demotic and katharevousa.
@@ Line 456: / Line 456: @@
 EOKA(24) was of course the culmination of this model. A small elite of men-heroes(25) under the guidance of "strategists" and "ethnarchs" undertook to "liberate" the island.
-Patriarchy of course pre-exists nationalism. But at least as we know it in the European sphere, patriarchy has changed significantly in recent centuries. Whereas before it was founded on the personal power of the man-patriarch-father in the family context (we will call this relationship communal patriarchy), it has now spread and diffused, in 'modern society' with the infusion of modern, mass institutions and power ties (e.g. state-patriarchy, pornography) with its own characteristics (social patriarchy) (26).
+Patriarchy of course pre-exists nationalism. But at least as we know it in the European region, patriarchy has changed significantly in recent centuries. Whereas before it was founded on the personal power of the man-patriarch-father in the family context (we will call this relationship communal patriarchy), it has now spread and diffused, in 'modern society' with the infusion of modern, mass institutions and power ties (e.g. state-patriarchy, pornography) with its own characteristics (social patriarchy) (26).
-This differentiation, between communal and social patriarchy, is not something static or divisive like capitalism-feudalism.(27). Although it has some things in common with the above distinction (based on class relations), it is nevertheless much more complex. Patriarchy in any society (whether modern or older) is the main lever of social consensus and perhaps the archetypal power relationship. And the family is one of the key institutions of this power structure (a structure that extends from culture to economics and politics). In this sense both the family and the social diffusion of patriarchy are historical phenomena. However, in modern society, with urbanization, the gathering of thousands of people in cities, the spread of mass media, the breaking of blood ties, the 'extended family', etc., are leading to a crisis of traditional patriarchy, the family, traditional morality, etc.(28).
+This differentiation, between communal and social patriarchy, is not something static or divisive like capitalism-feudalism(27). Although it has some things in common with the above distinction (based on class relations), it is nevertheless much more complex. Patriarchy in any society (whether modern or older) is the main lever of social consensus and perhaps the archetypal power relationship. And the family is one of the key institutions of this power structure (a structure that extends from culture to economics and politics). In this sense both the family and the social diffusion of patriarchy are historical phenomena. However, in modern society, with urbanization, the gathering of thousands of people in cities, the spread of mass media, the breaking of blood ties, the 'extended family', etc., are leading to a crisis of traditional patriarchy, the family, traditional morality, etc.(28).
 Nationalism appears in Europe (and later on globally) at about the same time that communal patriarchy seems to be disintegrating under multiple pressures (patriarchy itself seems to be in crisis in some cases).(29) In this crisis of patriarchy, which is also a crisis of the ideological imaginaries of society, nationalism does not appear as an irrelevant parallel phenomenon. It is essentially the ideology that helps to reconstruct and consolidate patriarchy at new levels. In any of its forms, whether as warlike masculinism or as a cultural turn to the roots of patriarchal culture, nationalism reestablishes social consensus on imaginaries directly identified with patriarchal configuration.
@@ Line 482: / Line 482: @@
 Nationalism promotes this process in two ways. On the one hand, it tries to re-establish the family as a stable molecule of power reproduction and 'racial community' and on the other hand, it promotes a supra-individual institution, which undertakes to re-establish social consensus.
+In this context, the rise of nationalism (in the 19th and 20th centuries) intensified the "pseudomoral" sermons (30) of the church, the bourgeois intellectuals and the poets, who wanted to pose as moral cops. In the middle of the 19th century the first reform school was built for the 'little tramps' who were on the streets, while at the beginning of the 20th century the 'charitable activity' of the bourgeoisie for the 'moral education' of the poor began. (It is ironic that this "philanthropy", which appears at the European level and is a key lever for the manipulation and reconsolidation of the family, is carried out through bourgeois women, perhaps looking for a way out of their own misery, see "POLICING OF THE FAMILIES".) Thus, at the same time as the need to exorcise social conflict, the need to strengthen the family, to reassert the authority of the church, and to build social institutions that limit deviation from morality, enter the picture.
-Σ’ αυτά τα πλαίσια εντείνονται με την άνοδο του εθνικισμού (το 19ο και 20ο αιώνα) τα “ηθικοπλαστικά” κηρύγματα(30) της εκκλησίας, των αστών διανοουμένων και των ποιηταράδων, που ήθελαν να παραστήσουν τους ηθικούς μπάτσους. Στα μέσα του 19ου αιώνα φτιάχνεται το πρώτο σχολείο-αναμορφωτήριο για τα “αλητάκια” που γύριζαν στους δρόμους, ενώ στις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα αρχίζει η “φιλανθρωπική δράση” των αστών για την “ηθική διαπαιδαγώγηση” των φτωχών. (Είναι ειρωνικό ότι αυτή η “φιλανθρωπία”, που εμφανίζεται σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο και είναι βασικός μοχλός χειραγώγησης και ξαναστεριώματος της οικογένειας, γίνεται μέσω των αστών γυναικών, που ψάχνουν ίσως για μια διέξοδο από τη δική τους μιζέρια, βλ. στο “POLICING OF THE FAMILIES”.) Έτσι, την ίδια εποχή με την ανάγκη εξορκισμού της κοινωνικής σύγκρουσης, μπαίνει η ανάγκη να ενισχυθεί η οικογένεια, να ξαναποκτήσει κύρος η εκκλησία και να φτιαχτούν κοινωνικοί θεσμοί που να περιορίζουν την εκτροπή από τα ήθη.
+Nationalism appears in this context not just as a reinforcement, but as an ideological direction, and the arguments are formulated: 'We must create Greek Orthodox Christians -a racially pure race- and get rid of ignorance, corruption, alienation from the church, from those who live with or marry Turks or Turkish women, from street tramps, etc.'. The nationalists put a lot of emphasis on education and schools. The modern state is beginning to be embryonically built. The church and the English are slowly building the institutions of a structure that re-educates Cypriots. A state on which they will learn to depend upon, to expect orders from, to love. (The modern statism of the Cypriots has deep roots.) The results of this process began to be clearly visible from the 1950s onwards.
+In '55 the preparations for the beginning of the "dynamic struggle" culminated, a struggle that aspired to liberate Cyprus (and there is no doubt that many Cypriot people believed seriously in the issue of liberation and gave their lives for it).
+I quote below some extracts, which speak for themselves, from a now historical document of e EMAK (the name of the "revolutionary organisation" before it was renamed EOKA).
+"What attitude should the people take? The people should not be carried away by their patriotism and enthusiasm aroused by the struggle and successes of EMAK and rise up in open revolutionary struggle against the conqueror... Only the organized fighters of EMAK will act and always at the command of EMAK. The people should only observe the struggles of EMAK with lively interest and help in every way if necessary, have full confidence, have full faith in the liberation that is soon to come..."
+So much for the roots of modern statism and conformity. But there are other interesting things in the document, beyond the generalities about the people, it specifically calls on "Turks and communists" not to take part in the struggle. And for those who wonder what role the people will play anyway, apart from "observing", "not taking part" and having "full faith" it has something for them:
+"Those who are not organised and want to cooperate in the struggle, let them write the word EMAK on the streets and walls. This is also a serious contribution".
+In this context EOKA constitues a point of reference. It is the ideological apogee of the nationalist imaginary based on the roots of the patriarchal culture and at the same time the prelude to a state that you have to "love", "obey" and "have absolute trust in", like in EOKA (and it is no coincidence, from another point of view, that the Cypriot state that was created in the 1960s was a pawn of EOKA and right-wing militants). The collective father was created and the Cypriots were ready to accept it. The replacement of Grivas by Makarios in the patriarchal stratum was quite natural. The former probably never understood the modernizing potential of nationalism. Makarios understood it and played on the contradiction between modernization and the traditional ideological charge to create the patriarchal state and at the same time represent it personally.
+He managed to a certain extent to offer Cypriots both: a personal father and an organised bureaucratic complex - the state.
+The fact is that Cyprus was orphaned by the death of Makarios, it lost its personal patriarch. But there remained his state, which, despite the efforts of Kyprianos, no longer seems to need its personal patriarch so much. Perhaps, finally, the death of Makarios will unleash the dynamics of the contradiction.
+**//b)//** The ideology of racial purity, the perception that there is a pure race-nation (the Greek one in this case) that is in danger of degeneration, corruption, pollution, is a basic characteristic of nationalism, not only of the far right but also of leftist nationalism (the latter of course being more sophisticated). As various scholars of the Nazi phenomenon have observed, this tendency to "purity" has deep roots, reaching back to repressed sexuality in the context of the patriarchal family. At the same time, the ideology of racial purity is based on an archetypal relationship within the patriarchy.
+On the tendency to objectify an Other as something hostile and subversive that must be subjugated. The woman, as Simone de Beauvoir observes, is the typical case of the Other in patriarchal culture. John Chrysostom, from our own Greek-Christian culture, says it quite clearly: "Woman is a necessary evil, a natural temptation, the danger of the home, a deadly charm."
+This objectification of woman as Other at the interpersonal level acquires with the socialization-reconstruction of patriarchy, corresponding macrosocial foundations founded on the internalized archetypal relationship with woman. While in communal patriarchy the "purity" of the village family etc. is guarded, in social patriarchy "racial purity" appears as a collective concept in the context of the nation. The race-nation somehow becomes a closed circuit, an imaginary extended family. Its chastity, its purity, must be guarded against contamination.
+This theory of racial purity promoted by nationalism in the context of the reconstruction of patriarchy not only promotes a new conservatism but also has direct political implications based on psychological submission.
+The pressure on the Linobambaki to conform to the Greek-Christian nation (discussed below) is a typical case in point. With the emergence of the communists the infection is threatened from elsewhere:
+"Communists, artisans and workers should not be employed by individuals and associations. Parents should denounce communist teachers... ...young people from the villages who come to the cities to learn their art should be prevented from coming into contact with people infected with the communist germ." Announcement of a meeting in the archbishopric in 1930.
+This need to invent threatening "Others" continues and intensifies as the nationalist fever rises. In 1958 the "fighters" of EOKA started killing poor workers, because they were leftists.The first victim, Menikos from Lefkoniko, was tied to a tree and after the nationalists came by and spat on him, he was subsequently stoned to death. And the hatred for the "objectified Other" is slowly turning towards the Other community as well. This projection of threatening "others" has favoured nationalism, decisively breaking the coexistence of the two communities. The Turkish Cypriot may have been the friend, neighbour or co-villager of the Greek Cypriot, for example, but the fact that he was a Turk created the conditions of tolerating that his fate was in the hands of the nationalists (the same logic worked in reverse for Turkish Cypriots vis-à-vis Greek Cypriots, of course).
+It is in the context of the extension of patriarchal objectification to macrosocial levels that it can be inferred that while even at the beginning of the 1960s the fanatical nationalists were a very small minority, they nevertheless managed to create a reality of intercommunal conflict.
+Even today, many people wonder how things got this far. The average Cypriot's tolerance of things he disagreed with was instrumental in getting to '74. Many Cypriots (Greeks and Turks, left and right), though they disagreed with the chauvinist extremities, tolerated them, because disagreement would have cost them the stigma of anti-Greekness or anti-Turkishness (depending on the community).
+Entering the imaginary unity of the nation, they tolerated hatred towards the "objectified Other", the "barbarians" of the Other community.
+Alongside tolerance, the need for "objectified other" enemies, ready to tear Cypriot society apart, took on new dimensions after '74 with the blossoming of the neo-Cypriot consciousness. For a time it turned against the former EOKA B members and discovered conspiracies every now and then. Slowly, however, it got over that and new targets began to be found: 'corruption' and drugs have been a hit lately and from time to time, the 'anarchists'. (The label fits anything that doesn't fit in the mind of the Cypriot normie). We have here an extension of the archetypal relationship. The woman-object is the foundation of man's power and the collectivity of the nation. She is an Other, who, if given or taken (willingly or unwillingly) by others, undermines patriarchal authority.
+And in order to "defend" itself the patriarchal imaginary creates a series of objectified Others who "may" undermine it by taking the woman-object.
+In this context, rape becomes the symbol of male-national domination, as well as of defeat-disgrace. Although the true extent of the phenomenon of rape during the inter-communal clashes and the invasion has not yet been ascertained (both sides accuse each other of widespread rape), it is nevertheless a theme that constantly hovers (overtly or implicitly) in discussions of the 'national struggle'. Comments along the lines of "they'll fuck your mother or sister" as the extreme argument of intimidation if you say you don't care about the national issue, or the open tantrums of some nationalists who confuse "national military victory" with the rape of Turkish women (and Greek women on the other side of the green line, of course). The sense of defeat of the Greek Cypriots after '74 is expressed in the context of this wound. If you look at the posters and literature surrounding the "tragedy", the classic themes are the raped woman, the woman who was left alone (lost her husband), the woman-Cyprus raped by Attila. Taking these phenomena as a whole, we observe a gradual reconstruction of patriarchy. The woman becomes the property of the nation, the woman identical with the body of the homeland - the one that men struggle to keep as their own and "pure", the foreigner they want to possess and rape.
+//**c)**// Another basic characteristic of patriarchal culture is the tendency towards immortality.(31) This tendency is expressed in various ways, for the purposes of this text it is useful to mention History, the appropriation of the body of women and (especially) children. Male immortality in communal patriarchy is founded on the appropriation of the body of the woman (as a reproductive machine, while denying sexual pleasure) and children, and the creation of a family history that goes from patriarch to patriarch. The female body in these contexts is the colony where the patriarch builds his immortality and establishes his central authority.
+With the gradual "socialisation" of patriarchy through nationalism, a new situation is created. The tendency of men-individuals to immortality is transformed, with the social reconstruction of patriarchy, into a tendency to immortality of the collectivity of the male sex - patriarchs, heroes, etc. - within the framework of the imaginary unity of the nation. History commemorates the "immortal" men-heroes who not only preserved the female body that belonged to them as their own, but who also preserved the body of the homeland as their own. Nationalism dreams of wars of "immortality" in which women are doubly lost. They lose their children for the patriarchal imaginary, while at the same time everyone knows that the female body is the most precious spoil (even if it is repulsive in the modern language of nationalism) of the victor-rapist. With nationalism and social patriarchy, women are transformed, in moments of feverish nationalist imaginary, into the common property of the nation of men, which requires the production and breeding of national heroes, who look to the old patriarchs for inspiration, not to be "sissies". At the same time, the female body and its imagined extension into the concept of the homeland is the affirmation of power and the mechanism of immortality for the collectivity of the male gender. At the end of the EOKA struggle, for example, a list of the names of the "heroes" was published: there are 66 dead men, 9 hanged (men, of course) and a footnote for 9 accidentally killed by the English and 64 by the Turks. It is not difficult to see where the already few women who were killed for EOKA - "accidentally killed" - fall. The 'men' are the 'heroes' who write history. The creation of the patriarchal history of the male heroes of EOKA is one phase in a long process of reconstruction that begins in schools.
+It is the school that erases the family patriarchal history of the grandfather and great-grandfather (of the "generation") and educates the "children" of the nation in the collectivities of the fathers of the nation. Children and especially sons become carriers of the transmission of immortality as a core value of patriarchal culture. In social patriarchy, the upbringing of children passes from the family and the community to centralized institutions (schools - state - bureaucracy), which mark the prelude to the rise of the state as the direct agent and arbiter of patriarchal relations.
+As Aries (Centuries of Childhood) points out, the recognition of childhood in a first phase has the characteristics of the perception that the child is more or less a pure empty existence, which, if only filled with the right material, will bring forth a law-abiding class of citizens. This tactic, despite its developments, is a direct objectification of the child (the result of both patriarchal tendencies - objectification/externalization and the appropriation of women's birth). The school will largely make up for the family in ideological formation. New patriarchal relations, new models of mutilation will slowly pass under the pressure of both power and structural changes for modernization. Immortality as a movement of collectivity (the nation) finds in the state the expressor of the new social need. The child-object is the battlefield chosen by nationalism (and those who promote it) to crush social conflict and reconstruct the ideological hegemony of power. The children are the nation's children - its living expression and future hope of immortality - and they must be educated in the new ideology like empty boxes waiting to be filled. The rise of education in the period of English rule reflects a similar tendency on the part of the colonisers, namely to form a law-abiding population. It is in these contexts that the controversy between the English and the Church over education is expressed. This conflict, expressed around the slogan 'whoever controls education, controls the minds of the people', was an ideological conflict in which the English lost the ideological hegemony of Cypriot society (despite their administrative victory in 1930). The school would promote the ideological hegemony of nationalism, promoting new mechanisms of immortality - history, status quo, etc. - and power within the framework of a reconstructed patriarchy.
+**iii. centralisation and cultural leveling**
+The rise of nationalism as an ideology is historically accompanied by the parallel rise of the concept and structure of the modern nation-state. This characteristic of nationalism and the movements that adopted it created quite early on a strong mistrust among the libertarian world towards such movements. Bakunin's embrace of Garibaldi and his support of self-determination for the Slavic peoples had no continuity in libertarian thought.(32) For, to the extent that various nationalist movements had a liberatory edge of self-determination, etc., their support was self-evident. At the same time, however, the ideological function of nationalism, and especially its extension to the nation-state, not only created scepticism, but with the institutionalisation of the new state power, it actually denied its own liberating edge, the demand for self-determination. This course of nationalism is not accidental. As mentioned above, the liberatory edge was undermined in advance, through the power relations that constituted the ideological basis of nationalism. But the parallel course of nationalism and the nation-state deserves to be seen more closely, because it reveals some of the main features of this ideology - and in particular its central role in the process of centralising social power in the state, the bureaucracy and the intellectuals. There is a double aspect to this process: cultural leveling and the centralization of power structures. The leveling that operates at the cultural level tends to deny the specificities of different social groups and communities. There is a process of creating a "national culture" (which usually functions as the new ideological hegemony) that in the process crushes the autonomous regional or local cultures of various communities, presenting them as degenerate or "lacking culture". In this context, it expresses the rise of metropolitan intellectuals (usually of the capital city or of the big urban centres), who often define, in a piecemeal way, the "national culture", choosing what suits them from folk culture and rejecting the rest. This rise of intellectuals expresses on another level the principle of modern homogenization of the population and the definition of its culture or subculture through hierarchical channels. Conformity and consumerism have a direct relationship with these developments. In the face of a culture cooked up within corporations and circuits, the position of the passive spectator and consumer is a position reserved for the layperson within the context of this production.
+Returning to Greek-Christian nationalism, it is necessary to look at the experience of the Greek state to understand its impact in the Cypriot region. Because ultimately, if there was one dimension where we have had a more or less common experience with people living on the geographical borders of the Greek state over the last 100-150 years, it is the experience of cultural leveling. And this is largely because we have been subjected to it by the same centre of power, Athens and its nationalist intelligentsia. The Greek state and the intelligentsia that formed its ideology always seem to have suffered from a double problem. A passionate need to prove that the modern Greek state was a descendant of ancient 'Greek' civilization and at the same time a strong antipathy to the Eastern influence that characterized folk cultures. These two constituted to some extent a problem of identity. On the one hand, the Greek state wanted to "belong" to Europe (and antiquity was the ideological proof of its status). But at the same time, the people who stuck the label 'Greeks' on them had very little to do with the ancients. After so many centuries they had created their own autonomous cultures, expressing their own needs and desires - and at the same time were heavily influenced by contact with Eastern civilization. The opposition to the eastern element and the leveling of regional autonomous cultures are the two elements that strongly characterize the process of building and centralizing social power in the Greek region(33).
+With the expansion of the Greek state, various communities (Turks, Macedonians, etc.) "disappeared", while others, under the pressure of the Athenian state, "adapted". Even the Orthodox Christian communities (which seem to have formed the basis of the new state) were gradually forced to abandon their autonomous regional development and become appendages of the metropolitan centre of Athens.
+If there seems to be something positive achieved by greater communication between communities, this is completely lost, as the "new national culture" slowly ceases to be created by the community. The Cypriot experience had several parallels with other regional-autonomous cultures in the Greek region. Not because there was a Cypriot culture in Cyprus - as some Neo-Cypriots say. Rather, the Cypriot population was made up of various communities, as I mentioned above. The main effect of this leveling was to destroy the possibility of autonomous development of each community within a framework of reciprocal interactions. And this perspective seems to have existed in the 19th century.
+This can be seen not only in the common uprisings, but also in the possibility of overcoming religious fanaticism within the framework of popular religion. And this is evident both in inter-communal marriages (which according to some observers were once a common phenomenon) and in the tendency to make joint pilgrimages to mosques and churches.
+Of course, the most striking example of these reciprocal interactions is the community of the Linobambaki. And the fate of this community is typical of the crushing of the prospect of autonomous community development in the context of reciprocal interaction. With the rise of Greek-Christian nationalism, the church decided to stop sacraments to the Linobambaki, hoping to force them to choose Orthodoxy. Despite all the pressure, however, eventually the community gradually joined the Muslim community. The segregation worked perfectly (albeit against the church's hopes), destroying a space of interaction. Polarisation through spectacular segregation was a major element of cultural leveling. (The same polarization reappeared after the civil war in Greece, this time among the Greek Cypriot community). At the same time, leveling, by gradually moving the centre of culture creation to Athens, gradually began to promote the cultural decline of this land - culture was coming from Athens - and to lay the foundations of modern consumerism. The divergence in the period 1878-1930 between intellectual and popular poetry (intellectuals - traditional poets) is an expression of a growing gap, but not by mutual reinforcement. (And of course it is no coincidence that the great majority of nationalist poems come from intellectuals). Traditional poetry will become more and more underground and repressed (now it seems that the experts have decided that it is dead for good so they have started to build "museums" for it).
+The strengthening of the intellectual "culture" will seal the death of "folk" culture and will promote the separation of art/layperson. Alongside the process of cultural leveling and ideological centralization, there is a parallel centralization in structures. The rise of nationalist consciousness among the bourgeois, intellectuals and church hierarchs at the beginning takes, alongside everything else, the form of an attempt to rationalise and centralise the church structure. (The church functioned as a political organization for the elite of the Orthodox community during Turkish rule). The conflicts that erupted because of this role, but also the gradual autonomy of the poor strata together with the corruption that had always characterized the Cypriot church had essentially formed various centers of power within the hierarchy and at the same time a tendency of the parishes to more autonomy. The centralisation of both the administrative structure and the ideological influence of the church was necessary to promote both communal divisions and the reconstruction of ideological hegemony. However, the efforts did not seem to have had significant results until the arrival of the English. The British colonial power set out from the beginning to build a more rationalized centralized political structure.(34) Within the framework gradually built by the English, the internal processes in the church intensified. On the one hand, the church seems for a moment to be in danger of losing community leadership as the English build political structures of representation. At the same time, pressures on the church structure to take a leading role in the formation of an ideological hegemony centred on nationalism are intensifying. This naturally sharpens and gives new dimensions to the internal crises between the various centres of power (bishoprics - archbishopric).
+These conflicts were expressed at a first open level in the attempt to break down the administrative control of schools by local authorities and the relative autonomy of church parishes (this was of course also a blow to the tendency of various ordinary priests to identify with the community in various disputes with the power of the elite).
+The ecclesiastical crisis of 1900-10, apart from its class edge (bourgeois, conservative wing of the church, the church's chiropolitans), was also at another level a conflict through which the church structure began to rationalise and centralise.
+The English are promoting this process, as they are laying the foundations for a centralised society through the gradual building of the infrastructure of a Cypriot state. The conflicts of the elite naturally intensify in this context, because alongside their old antagonisms, a central contradiction is beginning to emerge and take on increasingly explosive dimensions: The English administration, with the 'modernism' it promotes - the development of political structures, a centralised school system, the institutionalisation of inter-community divisions through administrative structures, etc. - is the decisive factor in the gradual reconstruction of the ideological hegemony of the elite and at the same time paves the way for the social and economic rise of the bourgeoisie. From this point of view, the English administration not only helps the elites in exorcising social conflict, but also paves the way for a painless reconstruction of power structures (and after all, the colonial army was a surer guarantee of security than that the Ottoman one). On the other hand, however, ideological hegemony, built on the Greek-Christian nonsense and nationalism of Enosis, was inherently opposed to English rule.
+Ultimately, ideological hegemony, the reconstruction of power and the exorcism of social conflict were institutionalised and developed intensely within the framework of colonial modernisation, but at the same time the turning of reality into a spectacle within the nationalist imaginary required opposition (however mild) to the English and insistence on Enosis in order to maintain its coherence. The segregated spectacle and its imagined unity in the out-of-life image began to set the stage for the political absurdity that would follow in our modern history (from EOKA to '74).
+The above contradiction had another important effect. It creates the opportunity for the church and the conservative wing of the elite to remain in the limelight and even slowly emerge as a leading mechanism in Cypriot society. Of course, the conflicts between different groups of the elite continue to rage below the surface. The important result of all this, however, is that English modernization is left somewhere in the middle, especially as far as social life is concerned (as we shall see below, the neo-Cypriot consciousness is precisely the attempt to complete this modernization). The history of Cyprus after 1930 is particularly charged by these contradictions, as the spectacle takes on an autonomous dynamic. The Palmerocracy (1930-40) is the decisive step of the English to push the process of modernization to its realization - the birth of the bureaucracy.
+The bureaucracy appears as a meeting place of the conflicting elites and, at the same time, as the emergence of a new group of elites that sets the basis of the Cypriot state. As this bureaucracy grows stronger and feels its dynamics (whose logical perspective was the Cypriot state), the contradiction between ideology (Enosis) and reality (the bureaucracy as the basis of the future Cypriot state) is only maintained in the self-contained perspective of the spectacle. For some strata of the bureaucracy this will continue until '74. The rise of AKEL in '41-'46 is the first (and last so far) popular reaction to the growing power of the bureaucracy. Significantly, in '43 AKEL ran for the first time in the municipal elections with the main slogan "down with the appointed", while its later propaganda (e.g. for the Constitutional Assembly in '47) centred on the hypocrisy of the right wing manning the state apparatus while presenting itself as intransigent towards the British. In its early years, AKEL looks like a continuation of the popular movements of the 19th century, as it tries to overcome divisions and express an anti-colonial, class and social discourse (its rise at the time was astonishing, 4 years after its creation it won the 4 largest of the 6 municipalities of the island and several Turkish Cypriot municipalities). Degeneration however comes very quickly. The growth of internal bureaucracy (to some extent an inevitable result of the Marxism-Leninism of the leadership group that prevailed), as well as the attempt to woo the parallel bureaucratic apparatus of the church (with the election of Leontios), quickly lead it into the ideological framework of hegemony and spectacle. Nationalism is the rope with which AKEL is slowly tying itself to then crawl at the feet of its opponents, demanding certificates of patriotism. AKEL's stance from '47 to '60 is one of those unique moments of political schizophrenia (at least for the people who follow AKEL) and political hypocrisy (for the leaders) that characterise the Cypriot political scene. While in Greece thousands pass through Makronisos suspected of being leftists, and while thousands are slaughtered, tortured, etc., AKEL crawls through the spectacle and its contradictions. On the one hand, it bashes the government of Athens as monarcho-fascist, sold out and so on and on the other hand it strives to compete with the extreme right in nationalism-fanaticism with the slogan: "Enosis and only Enosis with any Greek government". (It is worth noting that 5-6 months before the "popular mobilizations" for this line, the party had held similar celebrations with the slogan "Self-Government - Enosis".) The bureaucracy as a social force (inside and outside AKEL), not only wins the game by integrating its opponents, but also makes its first impressive entry into politics, reproducing imaginary divisions, and effectively abolishing politics. The foundations of the Cypriot state were ready. If there is anything significant in the fifteen years of '45-'60, it is the gradual rise of the church and the seduction of the state bureaucracy by it. The election and unchallenged authority of Makarios is the linking of the 2 centralizing mechanisms (church-state) and their temporary alliance under the patriarchal gaze of Makarios.
+=====4. the neo-cypriot consciousness and modernism=====
+In recent years there has been an effort, which (at least superficially) seems to come into conflict with Greek Christianity (not just the term but the ideology), what the far right, the church and, among the far left, the pro-Enosis Marxists so passionately call "neo-Cypriot consciousness". Apart from the fantasies projected by the above, the "neo-Cypriots" (theoretical or not) are essentially pre-oriented to the notion that we must overcome also ideologically the insecurity of hellenism as a dependency on the national centre and begin to identify with the Cypriot state. Thus, a bastardization of history begins (however, for the moment it has not reached the frenzy that Greek Christianity has reached), to prove that we are and are not Greeks, that the struggle for Enosis was good and was not, etc.
+Eventually, of course, it is not difficult to see the extension of this reasoning: somewhere, a Cypriot nation will slowly emerge, of which the Cypriot state will be the main axis.(35) However, although the centre of gravity is different (the Cypriot rather than the Greek state), the roots of this phenomenon go back a long way and come directly from the Greek-Christian imaginary and the reconstruction of power that was promoted by the Greek-Enosis nationalism. As we have seen above, the processes and structures of power and ideology promoted by Greek-Christian nationalism essentially built the foundations of the modern Cypriot state. And if the "intra-Cypriot" problematic has something certain where its problematic begins, it is this state. Neo-Cyprianism is a nationalism that takes its ideological hegemony and practices from Greek-Christian nationalism. Leveling through national unity, exorcism of social conflict, need for an Other to project the scarecrow of danger, reproduction of power within the family and institutionalization of the objectification of the Other, rise of the state as the regulator of social patriarchy, etc. The segregated spectacle, the predisposition of people, a fitting modernization. It is for this reason that in the previous pieces and from now on I will use the term neo-(Greek)-Cypriot consciousness - precisely as an opinion that this is a new face of the old fairy tale - of Greek-Christian nationalism and its functioning in this region. In this context, the relevance of what was mentioned in the previous piece is, I think, obvious and needless to repeat. Apart from the ideological continuity, however, the neo-(Greek)-Cypriot consciousness is also a significant development-shift perhaps in the Cypriot history of the last 50 years. In a first phase it comes to seal a period and to say openly what Greek Christianity has been chewing on us for years, that ultimately the extension of nationalism is that state with which the social imaginary must finally be reconciled. On another, not so obvious, level, the neo-Greek Cypriot consciousness is perhaps the portent of 2 important processes, the completion of modernization (and at the same time the settling of old scores between the elites) and the creation of an ideological hegemony (and the reconstruction of the segregated spectacle), so as to put an end to its reactions. Modernism, whose completion was blocked by nationalism (whose development framework it had built), seems to be the central theme again. With the death of Makarios, the antagonisms between the state (with its bureaucracy and its politicians) and the church began to express themselves transiently (for the time being), but quite strongly. The antagonism is, to a certain extent, a settling of scores between two centres of ideological, political and economic power. At the same time, however, it expresses (and will express more strongly in the future) a conflict between modernists and conservatives.
+The state, and to a certain extent and the power mechanisms that anchor it, seems determined (as shown by the education reform and labour legislation) to rationalise society completely and to take over the central role of social power. Pressured both by the needs of economic dependency (whether in the form of tourism or as an 'offshore business station') for a modern, modernised society, but also by the internal needs of a suffocating society, the promoters of modernism hope for a painless reconstruction of power structures (as their peers succeeded in doing in the days of Greek-Enosis nationalism). The conflict is expressed between 2 trends, the modernists and the conservatives. The terms are to some extent misleading, because apart from the church and a part of DISY, the others are both - their position is determined more by who holds state power than by their "ideology". To some extent, it can be said that the most consistent moderniser is the very state structure that needs this process and which to some extent imposes it on those who govern it. At another level, the Neo-Cypriot consciousness is an ideological attempt to close the internal reactions of ideological hegemony that led to the absurdities of the last 30 years. We have already mentioned the political masochism of AKEL with the Enosis and only Enosis. A few years later, the EOKA struggle brings out the contradictions in a more explosive way and leads to the Zurich patchwork of a state. However, the decisive time of developments was in '58, when the segregated spectacle had its first violent contact with reality.
+Intercommunal clashes begin with mass massacres, while Grivas and his counterparts in the Turkish Cypriot community push the logic of separation and objectification of the Other to the extreme with a series of murders of leftists. The state of Zurich under the patriarchal rule of Makarios is an attempt to reconstruct the spectacle after its overwhelming contact with reality. And what comes out of Zurich is striking, not only for the funny belief (?) of its makers that it would last, but also because it is perhaps a global phenomenon, where after a "national-liberation" struggle, a people gets a constitution worse than what the colonialists proposed before. It is time this fairy tale of the EOKA struggle was put back where it belongs, in the autonomous dynamic of an ideology that has lost all contact with reality. '63 is a repetition of '58, the roots of Greek Cyprianism begin from then, in Makarios' attempt to disengage from the ideological extension (Enosis) and accept the practical result of the ideology of nationalism (the Cypriot state). Thus, the theory of the possible appears. The intervention of the population (the "people") in these situations hovered between submitting to and supporting the modernist efforts of Makarios and confronting ghosts of the past. The emergence of EOKA B simply pushed the contradictions to extremes again, but this time among the Greek Cypriot community. The march to the coup and invasion was at one point as predictable as the absurdity of the whole affair. The collision of spectacle with reality and the explosion of contradictions in ideology in '74 was disastrous. The emergence of the neo-(Greek)-Cypriot consciousness in this context was an extension of the 'possible', but an extension determined to reconstruct the ideological hegemony coherently on the basis of a nationalism that sees more clearly where it is, where it is going and what it is building. Now, whether or not it succeeds is their problem. What do we do?
+----
+=====notes=====
+. In 1976-77 when Makarios and AKEL begin to accept bi-zonal bi-communal federation. EDEK, despite theoretically crying out against this course of action, practically went along with it as it ran on a joint ticket with AKEL and all it did against the Makarios-Denktaş agreements (which bound the Greek Cypriot state to the bi-zonal one) was to "express reservations".
+. The official line of "Socialist Expression" was the need for a left-wing government (AKEL - EDEK).
+. There was a perception that this stratum (unionists), which opposed the Cypriot state (on the basis that its existence excluded Enosis), was revolutionary - somewhere some people were calling these strata unconscious anti-statists!!! (see Pentadaktylos No.4 "The State in Cypriot society").
+. This is the group that the magazine [[en:magazines:mavrespinelies|"Mavres Pinelies"]] put out and for which this text was originally written and discussed.
+. For more analysis of this issue and its function within the patriarchal family see the piece on patriarchal reconstruction.
+. It would be nice if pro-Enosis Marxists would take a look at socialist Zionism. Perhaps they might see some correlations with their own case and the implications of such "marriages" - where socialism is sacrificed to the need for the "national interest", or how many people with such views were used to make the state of Israel what it is today.
+. DISY and AKEL got about as much in the '81 elections.
+. The last thing I heard in the various tragic-comedic "whining" threads is that the government maintains 1-2 camps with shacks (and pays refugees to stay there) for official visitors.
+. The Cypriot economy has been "on its feet" since '74, largely due to foreign aid. In this context, we should also mention the huge financial aid from Greece, which was among the highest. The continuation of this aid is funny and to some extent scandalous. The standard of living in Cyprus is higher than in Greece - the money that people in Greece are deprived of in a time of economic crisis is largely given to sustain nationalist illusions.
+. Despite Makarios' maneuvers and theories of feasibility, the ideological charge was so great that no one dared to openly take on the "national centre". Makarios was a typical case, he tolerated for years conspiracies in the army and propaganda against him in schools, in the hope of avoiding conflict with the "national centre" (even when it was the Junta). When he decided that he was going no further it was already too late.
+. The pro-Enosis Marxist perspective, which dates back to the 1960s and the first appearance of Greek Maoism, has found its spiritual father in the historian Nikos Psyroukis. The emphasis in the analysis, which follows Psyroukis and RIXI (rather than the Cypriot pro-Enosis Marxists), is because they seem to have largely determined the ideology of the Cypriot comrades. Also, it should be stressed that pro-Enosis Marxists do not necessarily have a single view on all issues or even a single ideology. I use the term pro-Enosis Marxist as a term generally accepted by them (see also RIXI No.14). As for the analysis, I rely on their theoretical and views expressed without encountering a contradiction among them (e.g. dual Enosis).
+. R. Olympios, Tetradia no.1. "The influence of the Cyprus problem on the thought of the left-wing militants."
+. Here, Psyroukis is taking things too far and completely disregarding historical reality. For the mentioned refusals of Greece were made at times of particular historical circumstances and in no case was Enosis erased. It is simply that the politicians in Athens postponed the issue for a better opportunity. Let us not forget, it was the "communist-eater" Papagos who began to somewhat move the diplomatic nets for Enosis. And in Cyprus, the Enosis struggle in the 1950s was clearly led by the ruling classes. It is a stretch to interpret diplomatic circumstances and political contradictions as social or historical contradictions.
+. P. Prodromou "Our reaction to Turkey's expansionist plans", Apopsi no. 8-9. page 4.
+. It should be noted in this context, that the theory of "national integration" and ethnogenesis goes out of the window with regard to the Northern Epirus. But this is a matter of "right-wing nationalism". And then Albania is "socialist" and for years was Maoist.
+. During this period (as well as others) it is debatable whether the Orthodox (the ancestors of the Greek Cypriots) were the majority. Mr. Graikos notes that in a population of about 180,000, there were 70-80,000 Armenians and Maronites - alongside them must be added the Latins and Syrians. Also in the 17th century, in an official census, the Mohammedans were the majority. Although this majority included the Linobambaki who were an independent community, it nevertheless highlights the point that the Orthodox, even if they were the largest religious community, were not the majority.
+. Neo-Cypriots like an idyllic picture of cohabitation until the evil nationalists came along and lured the "uneducated people" etc.
+. These "leaders" appeared after the popular mobilisations to "lead" the military struggle. And it is no coincidence that the Neo-Cypriot and Greek-Christian historians, each trying to justify their state, argue over the moods of the 3 leaders instead of the popular tendencies that were admittedly common (Christian-Muslim) and with obvious implications of a final conflict (and the elites of course responded in unison. Archbishop Panaretos blessed and justified the massacres of Christians and Muslims in Paphos after the suppression of the movement). Anyway, anyone who wants to justify modern institutions of power will look no further than the embryonic power mechanisms (leaderships) that were created in the movements.
+. The uprisings, beyond the class edge, also had the prospect of more rapprochement between the two communities after political equality regardless of religion. Hill, for example, observes that Gavür Imam was perhaps named so because he promised Christian-Muslim equality.
+. The claims of the Greek-Christians that the movements were of an Enosis nature are far-fetched to say the least. The rebellion of the more "Enosis" leader (Nicholas Theseus) was quickly dispersed and it is unlikely that the insurgents (including many Turks) had any idea of the ideas of the self-proclaimed "military leader". The same applies to Ioannikios, who even collaborated with Gavür Imam, and whose (Ioannikios') last comrades were 40 Albanians. As for the other "self-proclaimed" leader, Gavür Imam, his intentions are not yet clear. The Neo-Cypriots want him to be the most genuine popular leader, while L. Piggouras, in a study-distraction for the Neo-Cypriots, suggests that he had links with Egypt and that he was a 'Cypriot Ali Pasha'. Although from a historical point of view all this is interesting, we hope that in the future our historians will solve the problem of "good" and "bad" leaders (theirs and others) and also deal a little with the class movement (as many of them claim to be Marxists anyway).
+. Studies by two American psychologists among Cypriot youth in the 1960s. Among other things, they found a more pronounced nationalism among high school youth than among older people or private school students. Also, in a thematic analysis of school textbooks, nationalism and anti-Turkism were among the most projected values.
+. Cyprus: A case study
+. Not to imply that this is only the practice of right-wing nationalist movements, anyone who is interested should look at Stina's book "EAM, ELAS, OPLA" to see the practices of a left-wing nationalist movement against ideological opponents, marginalised people, prostitutes, etc.
+. The reference to EOKA and the criticism of this organisation is not made at the level of the A or B fighter. It is a criticism of the ideological climate that gave birth to and tolerated EOKA - and on an individual level to its initiators and organizers - Makarios and, more importantly, Grivas. Beyond that, there is no doubt that beyond the interest-seekers who sought a position in the Cypriot state (Giorkatzis) or the ideological fascists (Grivas), there were also people who believed and fought for freedom and the anti-colonial struggle. If more people thought like the quote from Matsis below, things might have been different: "That's why I don't care if this land is lived on by Turks or Greeks. What has value is that it is lived by those who water it with their sweat, standing on it free..."
+. The description of EOKA as an "elite of male heroes" does not mean that EOKA had no female followers or even members. Grivas in '56 ordered the creation of women's groups - which, despite their training, of course always remained as reserves. It is also worth reading the book by Eleni Seraphim Loizou (the only woman who was allowed to turn "wanted in case of need" (i.e. a partisan) and one of the few (were there any others?) female section leaders of EOKA. The way she talks about the " leader", phrases like "the earth opened up to swallow me" when she was congratulated by the " leader" in front of the male section commanders, the fact that in order to convince the men to take on a mission, she threatened them that if they didn't, she would "send girls", etc. say a lot about the mentality in EOKA, especially when said by a woman who had risen on its ranks somewhat. It is in these contexts that the elite man-hero critique is made. Like the mentality, ideology and power structure of the organization - which were clearly male issues - women, like the people, were at best the reserves.
+. Both communal and social patriarchy have their own distinctions.
+. For those who like sociological definitions, the classical distinction between Gemeinschuft and Gessellschaft (for all its drawbacks) is closer to the distinction of patriarchy proposed here.
+. For a first reflection on the issue of changing morals, crisis of the family, etc. in the period of change, see Edward Shorter's classic study 'History of the modern Family'. Shorter observes that the first sexual revolution that took place in this period was made by the lower classes (the proletarians).
+. It enters a crisis in the sense that the pressure and struggle of women goes beyond the interpersonal level, it is brought into the political problem. It is no coincidence in this context that modern feminism appears from the French Revolution onwards and goes hand in hand with other social movements (e.g. worker's movement). As pointed out in the study "Fire in the minds of Men", between the two major revolutionary currents of the 19th century (socialist - nationalist), women revolutionaries had more fields of expression and a preference for the former.
+. It is not clear whether the intensification of the "pseudomoral" campaign coincided with an intensification of the crisis of communal patriarchy and the dimensions of this crisis. The lack of a lot of data and of a socio-historical analysis creates problems of identifying the historical phases of the reconstruction. Perhaps the most serious shortcoming is the near absence of studies and analysis of the position of Cypriot women in various historical phases. The little evidence that does exist, such as the large number of dialogues in the archbishopric codes (see Kirris), the existence of " children of the street", etc., points to a model with many similarities to the European ones that have been analysed in depth. Certainly, however, much more is needed in this area. - One of the few studies of women in the 18th and 19th centuries presented in the "popular university" is a collection of extracts (mostly from foreign observers) without a theoretical-analytical framework.
+. This trend has been observed by several scholars. Al Habri, for example, attributes it to man's attempt to make up for the fact that he cannot give life like the woman in childbirth. When this effort is placed in the context of a power relationship (such as patriarchy), it turns into perpetuation and immortality on the basis of domination.
+. Libertarian anarchist movements developed in the 20th century in intense competition with nationalist movements. Suffice it to mention two classic anarchist movements, the Makhnovist movement in Ukraine in 1918-21 and the revolution in Catalonia (and other Spanish regions of course) in 1936. In both cases, both the Makhno movement and the CNT had to confront the nationalists, who ultimately played a role in the defeat of the revolution. It is necessary to stress that in both regions there was a "national" problem (of autonomy from the Russian or Spanish state). The anarchists and the nationalists offered completely different solutions to the problem (the former decentralized-separate federation of regions, the latter the creation of a nation-state). Without responding to the national issue, at the level it was presented, the anarchists formed an autonomous 'discourse and sphere', insofar as their counter-power could be counterposed against the state and the nationalists, and opened up new solutions.
+. See the persecution of Rebetiko when it was a live singing practise or the modern persecution of "Turkish gypsy" music, "gypsy" music etc.
+. The impression is often cultivated that the English did everything to de-hellenise the Greek Cypriots. This is a far-fetched fairy tale from the nationalist period. Without caring much for the Cypriots, the English nevertheless increased the power of the Greeks and for various reasons encouraged the Greek-Christian movement in its early days (see Churchill's statements in '12, Governor Storrs' writings, etc.). In the first period (up to '14 when the annexation took place and some up to '30) several Englishmen through a Eurocentric racism (against the eastern Turks) or for reasons of political expediency (since until '14 England was just a placeholder in Cyprus belonging to the Ottoman Empire) emphasized quite clearly the Greekness of Cyprus.
+. Although the Greek Christians live with this nightmare, the Neo-Cypriots have not yet proposed it. Their two demands, which aroused the holy wrath of our Greeks (and the pro-Enosis Marxists, of course), were the proposal to officially establish only the Cypriot flag as the state flag (i.e. to do away with the Greek flag) and to create a Cypriot national anthem. Yearnings that these people have.
+{{tag>
+Condition:"Needs Translation":"Needs Turkish Translation"
+Condition:"Unclear Archiving"
+"Pamphlets"
+Groups:Undefined
+"Decade:Decade 1980-1989"
+"Year:1984"
+Areas:Athens
+Subject:"Cyprus Problem" Subject:"Nationalism"}}