Differences

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

--- en:brochures:unclassified:kipros_ethniko_ethnikismos [2025/01/06 10:35] – 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 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 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 349: / Line 349: @@
 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 458: / Line 458: @@
 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 502: / Line 502: @@
 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.
+**//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."
@@ Line 556: / Line 556: @@
 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.
-Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
+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"}}