Differences

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

--- en:digital:1917:book_review1 [2024/12/03 12:00] – created no_name12
+++ en:digital:1917:book_review1 [2025/04/20 19:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <WRAP center round info 80%>
-This translation was created for the purposes of archiving and does not originate from the original creators of the text.
+This translation was created for the purposes of archiving and does not originate from the original creator of the text.
-</WRAP>
-====== Terrorist violence is not a one-way street: on the Left's stance on Operation Al-Aqsa Flood (Online Article)======
-===== Historical Note =====
-<WRAP right noprint round download 30%>
-  * **Article in Greek.**
-  * [[https://web.archive.org/web/20231014220906/https://1917.com.cy/2023/10/14/%ce%b7-%cf%84%cf%81%ce%bf%ce%bc%ce%bf%ce%ba%cf%81%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%ae-%ce%b2%ce%af%ce%b1-%ce%b4%ce%b5%ce%bd-%ce%b5%ce%af%ce%bd%ce%b1%ce%b9-%ce%bc%ce%bf%ce%bd%cf%8c%ce%b4%cf%81%ce%bf%ce%bc/|Archived Page on Wayback Machine]]
-  *  For archived material of type (PDF, ODF), and for the creation of collections of texts (book creator), use the corresponding choices provided on the right of the page of each article.
-</WRAP>
-This online article was published on the [[en:groups:1917|group 1917]] website on 14/10/23.
-===== Content =====<WRAP center round info 80%>
-This translation was created for the purposes of archiving and does not originate from the original creators of the text.
 </WRAP>
@@ Line 45: / Line 27: @@
 Trimikliniotis also rightly says that "The real question is what criteria one uses to arrive at a position evaluation". (361)[1] I would also add the question, referring to the title of the book: by class or by national/nationalist criteria?
-And we come to the second problem of the book, which is this: the book evaluates history on essentially national criteria. Looking at the title, one would assume that the book would be about whether the leftists in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey at the time should have prioritised the issue of national liberation/integration or the class struggle to overcome capitalism. One would assume that it would be concerned with the significance and relationship of the categories of nation and class for the left, with whether or not anti-colonial national movements could have a progressive bias in the 20th century. But the book does not do that. It doesn't deal with the class category at all, it takes for granted that national struggles are of paramount importance, and it deals with whether the left in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey should have supported independence or enosis. A better title for the book would therefore be "Between Independence and Enosis".
+And we come to the second problem of the book, which is this: the book evaluates history on essentially national criteria. Looking at the title, one would assume that the book would be about whether the leftists in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey at the time should have prioritised the issue of national liberation/integration or the class struggle to overcome capitalism. One would assume that it would be concerned with the significance and relationship of the categories of nation and class for the left, with whether or not anti-colonial national movements could have a progressive bias in the 20th century. But the book does not do that. It doesn't deal with the class category at all, it takes for granted that national struggles are of paramount importance, and it deals with whether the left in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey should have supported independence or enosis [union with Greece]. A better title for the book would therefore be "Between Independence and Enosis".
 Trimikliniotis points out something similar in his criticism of Antoniou and Sakellaropoulos. For example, he rather correctly accuses Sakellaropoulos of "seeming to accept the position that if the CPC (Communist Party of Cyprus) was more 'united' and if it applied the appropriate tactics, it would have better results in achieving the strategic goal which was 'self-evidently' 'Enosis', and secondarily only the socialist transformation." (358-9) But Trimikliniotis himself does not escape from a national perspective. Although he endorses the CPC's original position of a workers' and peasants' socialist federation in the Balkans and Turkey, he does not seriously consider this position and it becomes clear that what he is interested in is the rejection of Enosis for the sake of independence. He invokes Lenin and the right to self-determination, but criticises others, e.g. Antoniou, for taking a negative view of the Zurich-London agreements. Lenin, however, would be totally against the agreements, as they were imposed on the Cypriot people against their will, violating the right to self-determination. What the socialist revolution that Lenin wanted had to do with the Zurich-London agreements, only the AKELites know.