Differences

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

--- en:digital:platypus:platypus_cyproblem [2024/12/03 16:56] – no_name12
+++ en:digital:platypus:platypus_cyproblem [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>
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Phedias Christodoulides
-Despite the production of several generally left-wing analyses and positions on the so-called Cyprus problem in recent years, a Marxist approach to the problem is absent. The Greek Cypriot left approaches the Cyprus problem almost entirely from either a liberal or a nationalist point of view, being at the tail end of the intra-bourgeois dispute on the issue between liberals and nationalists. The vast majority of the left is on the liberal side of the dispute, supporting a bizonal bicommunal federation (BBF) as the best possible solution to the problem. BBF is presented as a necessary condition for national peace on the island, and sometimes also as a necessary condition for future class struggle. (The latter is the attitude of some far-left groups such as [[en:groups:antifalefkosha|Anitifa Lefkoşa]], [[en:groups:sispirosiatakton|Syspirosis Atakton]] and the [[en:groups:stasis|Stasis]] group.) On the nationalist side of the dispute, we find the Greek Cypriot supporters of KKE (Communist Party of Greece), along with a few former anarchists. KKE rejects BBF, considering it a solution that originates from and serves the NATO imperialism of the US, UK and Turkey. Instead of BBF, it supports a unitary Cypriot state.
+Despite the production of several generally left-wing analyses and positions on the so-called Cyprus problem in recent years, a Marxist approach to the problem is absent. The Greek Cypriot left approaches the Cyprus problem almost entirely from either a liberal or a nationalist point of view, being at the tail end of the intra-bourgeois dispute on the issue between liberals and nationalists. The vast majority of the left is on the liberal side of the dispute, supporting a bizonal bicommunal federation (BBF) as the best possible solution to the problem. BBF is presented as a necessary condition for national peace on the island, and sometimes also as a necessary condition for future class struggle. (The latter is the attitude of some far-left groups such as [[en:groups:antifalefkosha|Anitifa Lefkoşa]], [[en:groups:sispirosiatakton|Syspirosi Atakton]] and the [[en:groups:stasis|Stasis]] group). On the nationalist side of the dispute, we find the Greek Cypriot supporters of KKE (Communist Party of Greece), along with a few former anarchists. KKE rejects BBF, considering it a solution that originates from and serves the NATO imperialism of the US, UK and Turkey. Instead of BBF, it supports a unitary Cypriot state.
-Neither side of the controversy is Marxist, despite some claims to the contrary. KKE supporters in particular claim to be orthodox Marxists who base their analysis of the Cyprus problem on Marxism, but are simply Stalinists who misrepresent Marxism to justify their unconscious Greek nationalism. Their minimization of the responsibility of Greece and the Greek Cypriot community for the problem is indicative. Since their nationalism clearly contradicts Marxist proletarian internationalism, I will not examine their approach to the Cyprus problem in this paper: their approach is clearly non-Marxist. On the liberal side of the controversy, only one organisation, Stasis, has attempted to base its support for BBF directly on Marxism. Below, I refute Stasis's analysis, and also examine some of the more important recent left and far-left analyses.
+Neither side of the controversy is Marxist, despite some claims to the contrary. KKE supporters in particular claim to be orthodox Marxists who base their analysis of the Cyprus problem on Marxism, but are simply Stalinists who misrepresent Marxism to justify their unconscious Greek nationalism. Their minimization of the responsibility of Greece and the Greek Cypriot community for the problem is indicative. Since their nationalism clearly contradicts Marxist proletarian internationalism, I will not examine their approach to the Cyprus problem in this paper: their approach is clearly non-Marxist. On the liberal side of the controversy, only one organisation, Stasis, has attempted to base [[en:brochures:stasis:stasis_kipriako|its support for BBF]] directly on Marxism. Below, I refute Stasis's analysis, and also examine some of the more important recent left and far-left analyses.
 My aim here is to identify the Marxist framework for examining national issues and to make a start in applying this framework to the so-called Cyprus problem. I first examine the Marxist approach to the national question as it was historically shaped from the young Marx and Engels to the Second International and Lenin. It is necessary to look at the Marxist approach evolutionarily and historically as there is no single Marxist position that applies to all national issues everywhere and always. Instead, there is a basic principle that determines the Marxist position on each individual national question at each individual historical juncture. This principle is the Marxist commitment to the goal of the world proletarian revolution. Essentially, on each national question, Marxists adopt the position that contributes most to the revolutionary goal. The Marxist approach to the national question is therefore primarily a strategic approach; the individual positions adopted all derive from the primary revolutionary objective.
@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 Because Lenin's ultimate goal on the national question was the unity of the proletarians of all nations in the struggle against the Tsar and for Socialism, he strongly opposed cultural-national autonomy. He argued that the defence of cultural-ethnic autonomy divided the working class and brought the working and bourgeois classes of a nation closer together.[16] He insisted that the working classes of all nations in Russia had to work together to overcome Tsarism and establish a democracy with equal rights for all nationalities, convinced that such a democratic struggle would unite the proletariat of the various nations. On the other hand, he criticized cultural-national autonomy for promoting the isolation of nations in the fields of culture and education, an isolation compatible with the preservation of national privileges.[17] Like Luxemburg, he opposed federalism and favoured only limited regional autonomy for minority nations in a unitary state: "All areas of the state that are distinguished by social peculiarities or by the national composition of the population, must enjoy wide self-government and autonomy..."[18]. Lenin was also adamant that the proletarian organisations of any country, e.g. the party, trade unions, etc., should not be segregated on the basis of nationality. He was against party forms with separate ethnic groups like the Jewish Bund.[19]
-It is important to note here that Lenin was categorically opposed to the promotion of any national culture, considering such promotion to be contrary to Marxism. He agreed with the verdict of Marx and Engels in the Manifesto that under capitalism, "all economic, political and spiritual life is becoming more and more international", making national cultures a relic of the past.[20] Capitalism inevitably leads to globalisation: "capitalism’s world-historical tendency, to break down national barriers, obliterate national distinctions, and to assimilate nations"[21]. Lenin, following Marx and Engels, considered this globalising tendency to be progressive, "one of the greatest driving forces transforming capitalism into socialism". Globalisation is one of the preconditions for socialism, after all. As Lenin underlines: "No one unobsessed by nationalist prejudices can fail to perceive that this process of assimilation of nations by capitalism means the greatest historical progress, the break down of hidebound national conservatism in the various backwoods, especially in backward countries like Russia."
+It is important to note here that Lenin was categorically opposed to the promotion of any national culture, considering such promotion to be contrary to Marxism. He agreed with the verdict of Marx and Engels in the Manifesto that under capitalism, "all economic, political and spiritual life is becoming more and more international", making national cultures a relic of the past.[20] Capitalism inevitably leads to globalisation: "capitalism’s world-historical tendency, to break down national barriers, obliterate national distinctions, and to assimilate nations"[21]. Lenin, following Marx and Engels, considered this globalising tendency to be progressive, "one of the greatest driving forces transforming capitalism into socialism". Globalisation is one of the preconditions for socialism, after all. As Lenin underlines: "No one unobsessed by nationalist prejudices can fail to perceive that this process of assimilation of nations by capitalism means the greatest historical progress, the break down of hidebound national conservatism in the various backwoods, especially in backward countries like Russia."[22]
 Socialism would complete globalisation by making life "completely international". The proletariat would create a new international culture that would accept only the democratic and socialist elements of other cultures. In other words, you cannot be a historical materialist committed to socialism and progress and at the same time advocate the preservation of national culture, as Bauer and Renner did.[23] Socialists seek the fusion of all nations into a world communist society of maximum freedom. Lenin shared this goal, but he also dialectically recognized that to achieve the transcendence of nationality there must be a transitional period in which all oppressed nations are fully free, i.e. have the possibility of self-determination: "Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all the oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede."[24]
@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 Finally, as far as the so-called federal consciousness is concerned, I disagree that this consciousness is by definition anti-national and therefore desirable. A federal consciousness that recognises Cyprus as the home of many communities will not necessarily overcome the national consciousness of each community. In fact, support for a federal consciousness is similar to support for cultural-ethnic autonomy. It is a consciousness that does not transcend nationality as such and does not promote the fusion of different nationalities. It is of importance that in a BBF the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities will have separate educational systems, which is a key feature of cultural-ethnic autonomy. In any case, a federal consciousness does not go beyond civic nationalism, i.e., political identities built around common citizenship within the state. Marxists advocate the cultivation of class consciousness and do not believe that there is a need for a transitional consciousness between the existing popular consciousness and the class consciousness. Federal consciousness will be another obstacle that Marxists will need to overcome to cultivate class consciousness and there is no need to create this obstacle. The effort spent on replacing the dominant Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot consciousnesses with a federal or so-called "Cypriot" consciousness should be spent on cultivating class consciousness. Therefore, it is absurd to argue that a BBF is the ideal solution to the Cyprus problem from a leftist point of view.
-The Stasis Stalinist group (which no longer exists) is the only one that tried to explicitly base its support for BBF on Marxism. Specifically, it based its support for a federal solution on Lenin's writings on the national question that I summarized above[27] The Stasis group reiterates and agrees with Lenin's view that Marxists need to oppose "all national oppression or inequality" and defend the equality of the nations that make up a state entity. It also reiterates and agrees with Lenin's position that only the democratic elements of each nationality need to be promoted and that the fusion of nations on the basis of democratism and proletarian internationalism should be aimed at.
+The Stasis Stalinist group (which no longer exists) is the only one that tried to explicitly base its support for BBF on Marxism. Specifically, it based its support for a federal solution on Lenin's writings on the national question that I summarized above[27]. The Stasis group reiterates and agrees with Lenin's view that Marxists need to oppose "all national oppression or inequality" and defend the equality of the nations that make up a state entity. It also reiterates and agrees with Lenin's position that only the democratic elements of each nationality need to be promoted and that the fusion of nations on the basis of democratism and proletarian internationalism should be aimed at.
 It reiterates and agrees with Lenin's position that Marxists should "identify and support the most progressive practical
@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 As far as the Stasis Group's analysis of the specifics of the Cyprus problem is concerned, its main point is that a federal Cyprus would be a bourgeois-democratic progress. The reason they give for this view is that Greece and Turkey have a conservative influence on the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot bourgeoisie respectively, exporting nationalism, militarism, fascism and NATO imperialism to the island. A federal Cyprus would mean the independence of the Cypriot ruling class from the ruling classes of the two 'mother countries' and is likely to make that class more progressive, promote the democratisation of the island and make it more likely for the working class to gain certain "basic freedoms". For my part, I really doubt that the Cypriot bourgeoisie will become more progressive in a federal Cyprus or that it will offer basic freedoms to the working class. Perhaps the assumption can be made that the Turkish Cypriot bourgeoisie will be allowed to behave more progressively, as they are indeed less reactionary than the fascistic Erdogan government. But I don't think the Greek ruling class is more reactionary than the Greek Cypriot one. It is possible that a federal Cyprus will reduce nationalism and militarism (more on this below), creating space for class struggle, but the working class will only gain freedoms through radicalisation by a strong Cypriot left. We cannot expect our bourgeoisie to become more progressive in the 21st century when the trend has been in the opposite direction for many decades. And it is certain that a federal Cyprus, like any Cyprus under capitalism, will be part of the machinations of world imperialism.
-The rest of the Stasis Group's analysis of the Cyprus problem has little contact with reality. It argues that if we do not have a bi-communal state but instead a partition, then the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot states will be occupied by the "reactionary NATOist states" of Greece and Turkey. In my opinion, there is no possibility of the Republic of Cyprus being absorbed by Greece, although it is possible for Turkey to absorb the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. But this absorption is not a fait accompli: if the TRNC is internationally recognised, its dependence on Turkey can be reduced. In any case, a federal Cyprus would be no less reactionary than Greece and would very likely become part of NATO. Joining NATO is anathema to the Stasis group, but I don't understand why they think a BBF is less likely to be a member of NATO than a divided Cyprus. NATO membership will ensure peace on the island more than anything else. In general, the distinction that the Stasis group makes between the reactionary mother countries and the progressive future federal Cyprus is just post-colonial third world delirium. It also notes that because of the violent past and the de facto hostility and lack of trust between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, the future federal state must be bi-zonal, at least for a transitional period, to allow time and space for inter-communal trust to develop. I will discuss the possible implications of a bizonal federation below, but it is notable that Lenin is absent from the justification for bizonality here. He might have accepted bizonality if it were really a necessary means for the eventual fusion of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot proletariat, but as I will go on to show, this is very doubtful.
+The rest of the Stasis Group's analysis of the Cyprus problem has little contact with reality. It argues that if we do not have a bicommunal state but instead a partition, then the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot states will be occupied by the "reactionary NATOist states" of Greece and Turkey. In my opinion, there is no possibility of the Republic of Cyprus being absorbed by Greece, although it is possible for Turkey to absorb the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. But this absorption is not a fait accompli: if the TRNC is internationally recognised, its dependence on Turkey can be reduced. In any case, a federal Cyprus would be no less reactionary than Greece and would very likely become part of NATO. Joining NATO is anathema to the Stasis group, but I don't understand why they think a BBF is less likely to be a member of NATO than a divided Cyprus. NATO membership will ensure peace on the island more than anything else. In general, the distinction that the Stasis group makes between the reactionary mother countries and the progressive future federal Cyprus is just post-colonial third world delirium. It also notes that because of the violent past and the de facto hostility and lack of trust between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, the future federal state must be bizonal, at least for a transitional period, to allow time and space for inter-communal trust to develop. I will discuss the possible implications of a bizonal federation below, but it is notable that Lenin is absent from the justification for bizonality here. He might have accepted bizonality if it were really a necessary means for the eventual fusion of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot proletariat, but as I will go on to show, this is very doubtful.
 Perhaps the most sober left-wing assessment of the possible negative consequences of a BBF was made by Dr Lambros Lambrianou in his article 'The painfulness of the Bizonal Bicommunal Federation compromise and its nationalist trap'.[28] While Lambrianou's negative assessment of the BBF is not the only negative left-wing assessment, I focus on it because of its clear anti-nationalism; as most other assessments come from a nationalist perspective. Unlike the nationalists, Lambrianou ends up supporting BBF as an inevitable compromise given the current socio-political conditions. However, he stresses that BBF should only be transitional in order to have the results we expect from it, i.e. to lead to the unification of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots into a single society and thus facilitate the bicommunal struggle of the working class.
 Lambrianou is particularly concerned about the dangers of the bizonality of the BBF. He believes that bizonality should be transitional and moderated by a central state that is institutionally stronger than the two constituent states of the federation: "It is necessary in a future constitution to lay those institutional foundations that not only allow but also promote the gradual transcendence of bizonality in the form of ethnically pure regions and fully restore human rights and the basic freedoms of movement, settlement and property without discrimination on the basis of nationality. In this case the strongest foundation is a strong common state in terms of its powers in relation to the powers of the constituent states."
@@ Line 123: / Line 122: @@
 The question for Lambrianou, as well as for the rest of the left that wants reunification, is whether a BBF can be the means to overcome the aforementioned conflict between the two communities and to unify Cypriot society. In particular, his question is whether bizonality can be such a means or whether it will maintain the division and conflict of the two communities and possibly renew the nationalist conflict in the future: "If the answer is that we want the real unification of Cyprus and its society, then we must also answer the question that goes beyond the painful question of compromise: Is the bizonality of a bicommunal federation workable and viable? Or is it possible (and to what extent) that the ethnic separation of the two communities in the long run will create the ground for new conflicts? In sum, can the BBF prevent nationalism from again becoming a tool for imposing internal and external interests?" The Cypriot bourgeoisie conducting the talks sees bizonality and the safety valves it entails as a means to control and contain the conflict between the two communities, not as a means to overcome it. The Left, however, cannot accept the mere viable management of this relationship; it can only support bizonality if it can help overcome the conflictual relationship and truly reunite the two main ethnic groups of Cyprus, facilitating the collective struggle of their respective working classes.
+Lamprianou argues that bizonality is not only insufficient to overcome nationalism and the Greek Cypriot-Turkish Cypriot conflict but may in fact allow nationalist tendencies in the two communities to dominate the new federation and lead to the final partition of Cyprus. According to Lambrianou, nationalism is indicated by the social boundaries that one group of people, a community or a society in general, places in relation to another, and is facilitated by such social boundaries. Specifically, it is facilitated when different communities have their own separate educational systems and socialization processes: "The nationalist outlook and the attitudes in which it materializes are not so much of an spiritual, intellectual nature as mainly of an emotional identification and its systematic long-term consolidation, which is of course constituted on the basis of an one-sided socialization, above all an one-dimensional education." The deep nationalism of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities cannot be overcome simply by low-policy confidence-building measures between the two communities, to which we have been limited so far. It is necessary to provide the two communities with common institutional reference points that offer the possibility of common identification. These common points of reference should include: "1. A common institutional framework for the functioning of society, i.e. a common rule of law; 2. Common economic structures that provide the opportunity for the creation of common interests that touch the daily lives of people; and 3. Common cultural institutions that preserve diversity and at the same time promote its coexistence not only as a necessary component of coexistence but above all as a constituent element of a multicultural society under construction."
+Lambrianou argues that a bizonal federation on the basis of ethnic difference would not provide these common institutional refernce points. For him, a bizonal federation does not amount to a symbiosis of the two communities, but merely to the acceptance of the separate socio-political existence of each community by the other within the loose framework of a common state. He notes that the weaker the common state is politically in relation to its constituent states, the less likely it is to be a common point of reference and determination for the two communities. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots will identify with their constituent states in which they will live their daily lives: "With which common state will the Cypriot citizen -Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot- identify himself if the latter is truncated and unable to represent him effectively? The real point of reference and identification will obviously remain the respective 'constituent state' in the respective zone, where he will live his daily life, seek solutions to his immediate problems and confront his history through a separate one-sided perspective, as it has been the case throughout the last century." If the two communities mostly live separately, have separate education systems and listen to separate media, nationalism will not be overcome. Instead, it is likely that nationalist forces will take advantage of this situation to gain the upper hand and undermine the weak common state, renewing ethnic conflict on the island and leading to separation.
+I generally agree with Lambrianou's assessment of the nationalist pitfalls of bizonality. While it is not certain that a BBF will preserve nationalism, this is a distinct possibility that the Cypriot radical left should take seriously and prepare against. The radical left cannot simply support any federal solution, but only one with a strong central state and which tends towards a future transcendence of bizonality. More specifically, separate education systems should be avoided if possible, as they will be open to the influence of nationalist institutions such as the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus. Bicommunalism, i.e. the recognition of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots as equal partners in a future state, is in line with Marxism. Bizonality, on the other hand, is reminiscent of cultural-ethnic autonomy and is questionable from a Marxist point of view.
+Unfortunately, as I have partially shown above, the majority of Cypriot far-left groups assume that a BBF will constitute bourgeois-democratic progress and will create better conditions for bi-communal coexistence, without having seriously considered the above counter-arguments in their assessments. These groups wrongly assume that a BBF will weaken nationalism simply because nationalists oppose it. This is an unacceptable error. By being marginalized by the nationalists, these groups end up tailing the liberals whom the nationalists oppose. They are ready to uncritically support any federal solution brought by the liberal bourgeoisie, the EU and big capital, as evidenced by the fact that they do not set any criteria that a federal state should meet. Such a position of course has nothing to do with Marxism.
+In a very good article in Jacobin magazine, the Greek Cypriot leftist Leandros Fischer expresses similar scepticism towards the uncritical support of the Greek Cypriot left for the reunification talks.[29] As he notes: "It is easy to point to the utterly reactionary character of the settlement’s opponents to bolster the “reunification or bust” argument. But we should view this uncritical support for the negotiations skeptically. Not only does it dramatically overestimate the Left’s current capacity to dictate the turn of events, but it is also premised on unadulterated wishful thinking. The current RoC government has made it clear that it intends to enshrine “fiscal responsibility” in the country’s future constitution. The Left could not resist the neoliberal onslaught in one part of the country; why it should be in a better position to do so in both stands as a more than valid question. Given the precedents of so-called conflict resolution in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, a quite plausible outcome would be a situation in which capitalists and the cosmopolitan elite from both sides reap the benefits of reconciliation while ordinary working people, confined in their separate constituent states, pay the bill and become even more susceptible to ethno-populist politics. This is a potentially dangerous outcome, made even more toxic by the fact that the settlement currently under discussion fails to address the privileges of the main institutions of nationalism and their influence over educational matters, like the Orthodox Church in the south...Peace, reconciliation, and mutual recognition cannot be preconditioned on deals aimed at harmonizing the region’s capitalist class interests, with faint hopes that the working class will benefit from a peace dividend." Also, contrary to Stasis, he correctly notes that a federal solution would not challenge the influence of imperialism in Cyprus at all.
+What Lambrianou omits is that the conflictual relationship between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can also be eliminated through partition, not only by living together in a common state. Partition has already significantly mitigated the conflict, so that today Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can move freely across the island in relative safety. Ending the negotiating serial surrounding the Cyprus problem will end the political domination of the problem and undermine the nationalist political forces whose raison d'être is the Cyprus problem. And of course, given that the borders between Greek and Turkish Cyprus remain open, it is possible for the left and the working class of the two communities to organise collectively despite the lack of a common state. Unfortunately, both Lambrianou and the far-left groups I mentioned before assume that partition is a disaster. This is to be expected from a liberal leftist like Lambrianou, but not from far-leftists or Marxists. It shows that despite their claims to the contrary, these groups actually see the reunification of Cyprus as an end in itself. The question for Marxism is whether a BBF will create better conditions for an intercommunal working class struggle, but this is not the question for the Greek Cypriot radical left.
+I conclude the chapter with a brief reference to the attitude of two small Trotskyist groups, [[en:groups:ergatikidimokratia|Workers' Democracy]] and the [[en:groups:neda|New Internationalist Left]] (NEDA).[30] The two groups consider the main reason for the failure to find a solution to be the conflicting interests of the ruling classes in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, as well as the imperialist great powers, and therefore naturally consider it unacceptable that the talks should continue to depend on these classes and powers without the involvement of the working class. Both understand correctly that the ruling classes of the two communities see each other as antagonistic, and therefore, that what is at stake in the talks is which side will have the upper hand in a future agreement, not the good of a reunited Cypriot people. Therefore, both Workers' Democracy and NEDA express scepticism towards the prospect of a BBF, are pessimistic about the possibility of a viable bourgeois solution and consider the uncritical support of the vast majority of the Greek Cypriot left for the reunification talks to be naïve. Their counter-proposal is to build a bicommunal working class movement to overthrow the capitalist establishment in Cyprus and build a socialist federal Cyprus.
+Unfortunately, although a bicommunal working class movement is needed in Cyprus, it is impossible to build a socialist Cyprus without a world socialist revolution, and this is not a realistic possibility in the near future. We can safely say that there will be a bourgeois solution to the Cyprus problem before there is a revolution. Therefore, Marxists cannot dismiss the bourgeois talks and developments on the Cyprus problem and put forward a socialist Cyprus as a viable alternative goal. As I have already said, they need to examine the possible contingencies of a bourgeois solution, from BBF to various partitionist settlements, and see how they can instrumentalise these contingencies for the benefit of the unity of the Cypriot proletariat and the constituting of class struggle.
+  * What the Cyprus problem is for Marxism
+Having examined some of the more indicative recent positions on the Cyprus problem by Greek Cypriot leftists, I conclude by presenting my own Marxist reading of the nature of the Cyprus problem in general terms. I should note that the Cyprus problem is not the same problem for everyone; it is a different problem for nationalists, liberals and Marxists, because nationalists, liberals and Marxists have different objectives for which the Cyprus problem is an obstacle or a problem. I will address what the nature of the Cyprus problem is for Marxism and what a possible future Cypriot Marxist left needs to do about it.
+There are many interpretations of the Cyprus problem. For right-wing nationalists, it is a problem of invasion and occupation, starting in July 1974 and resulting from Turkish expansionism. For left-wing nationalists, it is the result of an imperialist Nato conspiracy, the "treasonous" coup of the Greek Junta and the supposed British strategy of "divide and rule" during colonialism. For liberals and liberal leftists, it is a problem of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalism. It is true that all these aforementioned factors played a role in the Cyprus problem on varying degrees.
+It is also true that there is a significant conflict within the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot bourgeoisie, between the liberal and nationalist wings of both. The dispute concerns the way of institutional resolution of the Cyprus problem. The way in which the problem ends up being resolved, e.g. by the creation of a BBF or by partition, will lead to changes in the economic, political and, more generally, social situation of the island. These real changes will affect the conditions under which we Marxists are called upon to build an independent revolutionary left, with some conditions being more amenable to this task than others. Therefore, we cannot be indifferent to the outcome of the bourgeois negotiations; we must consider the possible outcomes and see which are most amenable to our aims. Changes in the socio-political status quo can benefit the Cypriot radical left, even if they are not caused by it.
+But it is one thing to say that the Cypriot radical left can benefit more from one solution than another, and it is another thing to say that the radical left cannot wage a class struggle on the island without a federal solution. Unfortunately, both the pseudo-leftist establishment AKEL party and the majority of the Greek Cypriot radical left hold the latter view. As Fischer notes, "conventional left-wing wisdom holds that nothing can happen before a solution to the Cyprus problem."[31] This is a fundamental objectivist misunderstanding of the nature of the Cyprus problem by the entire Greek Cypriot left, radical and non-radical alike. The Greek Cypriot left believes that it is objectively impossible to wage a class struggle in Cyprus as long as the Cyprus problem remains unresolved and Cyprus remains divided. This suggests that the left considers itself doomed to political helplessness as long as the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. Therefore, the fate of the Greek Cypriot left (especially the radical left) and the class struggle depends on the liberal bourgeoisie bringing in a 'progressive' federal solution. The Greek Cypriot left is convinced that such a solution will change the objective situation on the island, making the collective struggle of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot workers possible.
+The problem with this conception of the Cyprus problem is that it presents the Left as being at the mercy of the objective conditions shaped by the bourgeoisie. The Greek Cypriot left sees the federal solution as progressive in itself, that is, as objectively progressive: the federal solution will make objectively possible the collective struggle of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot workers, which is now objectively impossible. Nothing depends on the Left in this picture; everything depends on the bourgeoisie and the solution they bring. It goes without saying that such a picture is unacceptable from a Marxist point of view; a Marxist or radical left cannot leave its fate in the hands of the bourgeoisie. It is an image that ignores the subjective factor of history, a factor which must be the Left itself and the working class that the Left must lead.
+The Cyprus problem has thus led the Greek Cypriot left to paralysis, paralysis for which the left itself is responsible but which it misunderstands as an inevitable objective necessity. From a Marxist point of view, the Cyprus problem is a problem to the extent that it prevents the existence of a revolutionary left and of class struggle in Cyprus. However, while the Greek Cypriot left sees the Cyprus problem as an objective obstacle to the class struggle in the form of an inevitable source of nationalism, in reality the Cyprus problem is only a subjective obstacle to the class struggle. The Cyprus problem has never been a problem of objective conditions that inevitably prevent the existence of class consciousness and class struggle in Cyprus. It was and still is the Greek Cypriot left's eternal excuse for avoiding class struggle. The class struggle must wait until the solution of the 'national problem'. The Cypriot problem is therefore a problem of consciousness. It is the false consciousness of the Greek Cypriot left that traps it into awaiting for its right to exist politically as a left, based on the negotiations and decisions of the bourgeoisie. It is the false consciousness that prevents the formation of a real revolutionary Cypriot left that will cultivate class consciousness and lead the class struggle on the island.
+The Cyprus problem is not the cause of the Greek Cypriot left's inability to wage class struggle, but is in fact the result of that inability. It exists as a problem because of the failure of the left in Cyprus (and in Greece and Turkey) to conduct class politics. At least since the mid-1940s the Greek Cypriot left, dominated by AKEL, has not existed politically as a left, choosing to be the tail of the dominant nationalist wing of the bourgeoisie, a wing which traditionally scorns the left. AKEL has never acted independently of the nationalist right, always politically supporting the latter despite differences in rhetoric, while the radical left is equally at the tail of developments in the negotiations between the bourgeoisie, diplomats and technocrats. Since at least the mid-1940s, the Greek Cypriot left has given priority to resolving the national question at the expense of the class struggle. The Greek Cypriot left's approach to the national question is in fact the opposite of that of Marx, Engels and Lenin: instead of giving priority to the class struggle and instrumentalising the national question for the purposes of the class struggle, it gives priority to the national question and suspends the class struggle until the former is resolved. The inability of the Cypriot left to wage class struggle and to escape the limits of nationalism left the island at the mercy of the nationalist forces and led to the development of what we now call the 'Cyprus problem'. This problem in turn came to be perceived as an objective obstacle preventing class struggle, but it is only a subjective obstacle and the objective result of the lack of class struggle that preceded it: a classic case of false consciousness characterised by a cause-and-effect inversion.
+This failure of the local left is mediated by the non-existence of an international revolutionary left. It is the way in which the international defeat of Marxism and the Left's retreat to nationalism -socialism in one country, popular 'patriotic' fronts against imperialism, postcolonial theory, identity politics, etc.- were expressed in the Cypriot context. The Greek Cypriot left has traditionally approached the Cypriot problem in the light of identity politics, supporting first enosis with Greece and then Cypriot 'patriotism', while its small radical section has recently promoted the so-called 'Cypriot consciousness' or a federal consciousness. I have dealt above with the federal consciousness, but I will add a couple more words about the so-called 'Cypriot consciousness' here. There is not one but in fact two culturally distinct Cypriot identities, Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot. These cultural identities share many elements but also have divergences and cannot form the basis of Cypriot unity without modification, i.e. without the cultivation of a new Cypriot or federal consciousness that does not exist today. What already exists and unites Cypriot workers is their common material class interests and it is imperative for the radical left of the two communities to make these interests conscious in order to build unity that transcends nationality.[32] As I said before, a non-discriminatory but classless Cypriot identity can neither substitute for class consciousness nor be a bridge to it, but on the contrary it is another obstacle to class consciousness.
+Since for Marxism the Cyprus problem is a problem of false consciousness, this means that for Marxism the solution to the problem is to overcome this false consciousness. It is the realisation that whatever solution the bourgeoisie implements, i.e. with or without a bizonal bicommunal federation, the Cypriot radical left can and must wage a class struggle. Another implication of this perspective is that in itself no solution is better than another.
+With or without a solution, with or without a BBF, neither the situation of the working class nor the prospects of working class struggle will change without a radical left that aims at cultivating class consciousness. As I mentioned above, changes in the socio-political establishment can benefit the Cypriot radical left even if they are not caused by it, but now I add that they will not benefit it if it is not prepared to take advantage of them. If there is no ideologically and organisationally independent left to exploit any intra-bourgeois conflicts to promote the unity of the Cypriot proletariat and the conduct of class struggle, this unity and this struggle will not emerge. If the Left is a tail of the bourgeoisie both ideologically and politically, it disintegrates itself and there ceases to be a preferable solution to the Cyprus problem.
+Moreover, if the class struggle can be carried out even without a solution, then it can be carried out in the case of partition, and partition is not as destructive as the Greek Cypriot left thinks. Indeed, as I argued earlier, there are reasons to believe that partition may be preferable to BBF. Partition will end the political dominance of the Cyprus problem much earlier than a federal solution; a federal solution will take many years to be fully implemented and all that time political life will be dominated by the attempt to implement it. Moreover, given the mistaken belief of the Greek Cypriot left (and I assume the Turkish Cypriot left) that the Cyprus problem must be resolved before class struggle becomes possible, it is very likely that they will continue to postpone class politics throughout the period of the implementation of the federal solution and will be the tail of the liberals in their effort to make the new federation viable. On the other hand, a partition would bury the left's liberal hopes for reunification and is perhaps more likely to awaken the left from its national apathy, helping it to realize that it must try to exist politically on a divided island. But most importantly, the radical left needs to move beyond the confines of the national question and stop waiting for the bourgeoisie to bring a solution.
+**Conclusion**
+In this text I have tried to define the Marxist framework for the examination of the national question and to make a first attempt to apply this framework to the Cyprus problem. I have stressed that Marxism approaches the national question primarily strategically, taking the position it considers most favourable for unified class struggle and for the task of global socialist revolution. I argued that this is also the way in which Cypriot Marxists (and radical leftists) should approach the Cypriot problem. Cypriot Marxists must try to politicise the Cypriot problem in a way that promotes the unity of Cypriot workers and the formation of a working class struggle, and must advocate an approach or solution to the problem that favours such unity and such formation.
+I also tried to show that the current stance of the Greek Cypriot radical left on the Cyprus problem is inadequate. The Greek Cypriot radical left misinterprets the nature of the problem, seeing the de facto separation of Cyprus as an objective obstacle that excludes the possibility of class struggle, whereas it is precisely the Greek Cypriot left's long-standing misinterpretation of the problem that is the problem. From a Marxist perspective, the Cyprus problem is the priority the Cypriot left gives to the national question at the expense of its task of social transformation through class struggle. This misplaced priority, together with the self-definition of the radical left in relation to the nationalists, makes the radical left a mere tail of the bourgeoisie and leads it to place unfounded hopes in a possible federal solution and to demonise unjustifiably a possible partition.
+Both the Bizonal Bicommunal Federation and partition need to be reviewed more calmly. I have always been a supporter of BBF and I am still emotionally attached to the goal of federal reunification, but we cannot take it for granted that BBF is preferable to partition. At the very least, I hope I have shown that there are significant risks in a BBF that suggest that federation will not be automatically beneficial without a left ready to address the risks. And most importantly, I believe that the Greek Cypriot radical left must finally begin to rely on itself and not on any bourgeois solution.
+----
+[1] Indicative of this period are Engels' articles "Hungary and Pan-Slavism" and "Democratic Pan-Slavism".
+[2] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
+[3] All the following translations of passages from texts by Engels and Lenin are mine. [Translator's Note: For the purposes of this translation, I have replaced all quotes by Engels and Lenin with the same quotes as they appear on the English version of the Marxist Archive. Quotes from Leandros Fischer originate from his article, which was originally written in English].
+[4] Their most famous reference to this possibility is found in the Introductory Note of the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto in 1882.
+[5] Engels, Foreign Policy of Russian Tsardom, 1890.
+[6] Although Luxemburg's position also needs to be studied and re-evaluated today.
+[7] Otto Bauer's "The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy" is the most representative Austro-Marxist position on cultural-national autonomy.
+[8] Lenin, Theses on the National Question, 1913
+[9] Ibid, and also Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1914
+[10] Lenin, Critical Remarks on the National Question, 1913. From the same text: "To throw off the feudal yoke, all national oppression, and all privileges enjoyed by any particular nation or language, is the imperative duty of the proletariat as a democratic force, and is certainly in the interests of the proletarian class struggle, which is obscured and retarded by bickering on the national question."
+[11] Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1914
+[12] Ibid.
+[13] See for example the following extract from Theses on the National Question, 1913: "The Social-Democratic Party’s recognition of the right of all nationalities to self-determination most certainly does not mean that Social-Democrats reject an independent appraisal of the advisability of the state secession of any nation in each separate case. Social-Democracy should, on the contrary, give its independent appraisal, taking into consideration the conditions of capitalist development and the oppression of the proletarians of various nations by the united bourgeoisie of all nationalities, as well as the general tasks of democracy, first of all and most of all the interests of the proletarian class struggle for socialism."  Or this quote from The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1914: "The demand for a “yes” or “no” reply to the question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very “practical” one...With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot say in advance whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given nation seceding from another nation, or in its equality with the latter; in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development by pushing the aims of its “own” nation before those of the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation. This may not be “practical”, but it is in effect the best guarantee for the achievement of the most democratic of all possible solutions. The proletariat needs only such guarantees, whereas the bourgeoisie of every nation requires guarantees for its own interest, regardless of the position of (or the possible disadvantages to) other nations."
+[14] Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916
+[15] See for example Lenin's comments on Ukraine in his Critical Remarks on the National Question.
+[16] Lenin, Critical Remarks on the National Question, 1913
+[17] "The slogans of consistent democracy unite in a single whole the proletariat and the advanced democrats of all nations (elements that demand not isolation but the uniting of democratic elements of the nations in all matters, including educational affairs), while the slogan of cultural-national autonomy divides the proletariat of the different nations and links it up with the reactionary and bourgeois elements of the separate nations." (Theses on the National Question)
+[18] Lenin, Theses on the National Question, 1913
+[19] Ibid. See also the following extract from Critical Remarks, 1913: "Working-class democracy contraposes to the nationalist wrangling of the various bourgeois parties over questions of language, etc., the demand for the unconditional unity and complete amalgamation of workers of all nationalities in all working-class organisations—trade union, co-operative, consumers’, educational and all others—in contradistinction to any kind of bourgeois nationalism. Only this type of unity and amalgamation can uphold democracy and defend the interests of the workers against capital—which is already international and is becoming more so—and promote the development of mankind towards a new way of life that is alien to all privileges and all exploitation."
+[20] Ibid.
+[21] Lenin, Critical Remarks on the National Question, 1913
+[22] Ibid.
+[23] "It is impermissible, from the standpoint of Social-Democracy, to issue the slogan of national culture either directly or indirectly. The slogan is incorrect because already under capitalism, all economic, political and spiritual life is becoming more and more international. Socialism will make it completely international. International culture,   which is now already being systematically created by the proletariat of all countries, does not absorb “national culture” (no matter of what national group) as a whole, but accepts from each national culture exclusively those of its elements that are consistently democratic and socialist." (Theses on the National Question)
+[24] Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916
+[25] The Marxist Platypus Group panel entitled "The Decline of the Left in the 20th Century" is an excellent summary of the failure of the Left. https://platypus1917.org/2013/09/30/h-%cf%80%ce%b1%cf%81%ce%b1%ce%ba%ce%bc%ce%ae-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%82-%ce%b1%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b5%cf%81%ce%ac%cf%82-%cf%83%cf%84%ce%bf%ce%bd-20%cf%8c-%ce%b1%ce%b9%cf%8e%ce%bd%ce%b1/
+[26] An indicative text of Syspirosi Atakton for Cyprus can be read here: [[en:brochures:sispirosiatakton:omospondia_gr|https://syspirosiatakton.org/ne-re-omospondia/]]. The text of Antifa can be read here: [[en:brochures:antifalefkosha:omospondia|https://antifanicosia.espivblogs.net/files/2017/04/kypriakokeimenuiweb.pdf]].
+[27] Stasis's position on the Cyprus problem can be read here: [[en:brochures:stasis:stasis_kipriako|https://archive.org/download/stasis_kipriako_tr/stasis_kipriako_en.pdf]]
+[28] Dr Lambrianou's text can be read here: [[https://web.archive.org/web/20150718231335/http://www.typos.com.cy/cat/14/article/15992|http://www.typos.com.cy/cat/14/article/15992]]
+[29] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/cyprus-reunification-negotiations-akel-kke-greece-turkey
+[30] A typical position of the NEDA on the Cyprus problem: https://nedacy.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/dizwniki-dikoinotiki-i-eniaia-aneksartiti-antiparatheseis-stin-aristera-stin-ellada/. And here is a typical position of Worker's Democracy: https://www.wd-ist.org/content/%CF%80%CF%89%CF%82-%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%BD%CE%B1-%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B1-%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CE%BA%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%AF%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B7%CF%82-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%B8%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%BB%CE%B9%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B1
+[31] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/cyprus-reunification-negotiations-akel-kke-greece-turkey
+[32] Fischer says something similar in his article: "What already unites the workers of Cyprus is not their identity or geography, but their respective struggles against the constant deterioration of their living standards and their opposition to the island’s use as a launching pad for imperialist war. Socialists who wish to challenge the status quo in Cyprus and contribute to a viable, long-lasting peace must start from this premise."
 {{tag>