Differences

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

--- en:magazines:entostonteixon:no_41:ergatiki [2025/01/17 11:45]
no_name12
+++ en:magazines:entostonteixon:no_41:ergatiki [2025/03/01 03:48] (current)
no_name12
@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 Second, what should be the attitude of revolutionaries towards the various "fait accompli" for which the working class is **not responsible?** The Marxist tradition treats the results of historical processes without moralising and independently of the aims and intentions of those who made them. What is of interest is what the new situation that has taken shape is and what it leads or can lead to.
+//"The bourgeoisie makes it its business to promote trusts, drive women and children into the factories, subject them to corruption and suffering, condemn them to extreme poverty. **We do not “demand”** such development, **we do not “support” it.** We fight it. But __how__ do we fight? We explain that trusts and the employment of women in industry are progressive. We do not want a return to the handicraft system, pre-monopoly capitalism, domestic drudgery for women. Forward through the trusts, etc., and beyond them to socialism! (Lenin, English Collected Works, vol. 23 p. 81)."//
+//"England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was **actuated only by the vilest interests,** and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution. (K. Marx "The British Rule in India" from "Marx Surveys from Exile", Pelican, p. 306)."//
+//"All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for both. **Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation?"** (K. Marx: The Future Results of the British Rule in India, Ibid, p. 323).//
+So the fact that the situation after '74 was shaped by the "force of arms", that it is a "fait accompli of the invasion", does not mean that we have any duty to support "our" bourgeoisie to return to the period of Greek Cypriot rule and racist oppression of Turkish Cypriots, to persecute settlers and the like. The fact that the current situation is the result of the "fait accompli" cannot be decisive for the revolutionaries. After all, the vast majority of the world's current borders are the result, in one way or another, of some "acts of violence", sometimes distant in time and sometimes quite recent...
+Separation is now an event which the revolutionaries and workers neither wished for nor have any responsibility for; it is a **reality**, a "fait accompli" created by capitalism by force and with terrible consequences for the workers and peasants, such as the change by British colonialism of Indian society by force and so much more. The revolutionaries, unlike the hypocritical bourgeois, "recognise the fait accompli", i.e. the present reality, and are looking for how to move forward, starting from this reality.
+The entrenchment of Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers in a separate region is by now an indisputable fact. The integration of the refugees in the South, i.e. their transformation into proletarians, petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie is also a fact; today there are no refugees as a separate social category. It would of course have been our duty, before these things happened, to fight against the war and its results, the barbaric population movements through the fault of both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot bourgeoisie from '63 to '74, although it was never our duty to fight against the migration of Turks from Turkey to Cyprus in order to preserve the "Greekness of Cyprus". But now our duty is to fight to move forward starting from what presently exists: the geographical separation, the "sympathies" and will of the Turkish Cypriots, and the settlement of poor settlers from Turkey in the North. ([[en:books:ergatikidimokratia:epanastates|"THE CYPRUS PROBLEM and the Internationalist Tasks of Greek Cypriot Revolutionaries"]] pp. 178-181.)</blockquote>
+There are, of course, the refugees, for whom Ch. Eliades and all the others are so concerned about, while their stomachs turn upside down if one shows the same sensitivity and concern for the impoverished Turkish migrant workers who make up the majority of the settlers. There is a way to address the problem here too without being either insensitive or a hypocritical nationalist. Here is what we wrote in [[en:books:ergatikidimokratia:epanastates|" The Cyprus Problem"]]:
+<blockquote>...it does not mean that the demands of the poor refugees who lost the home they worked for and were deprived of are unjust or hypocritical. So how do the revolutionaries deal with the refugee problem?
+Refugees are not a single social stratum. They range from the big bourgeois refugees like the Catsellis and the Lordos families with the hotels and businesses they lost and "miraculously" regained in the South, to the poor working class and peasant who lost everything they had and regained nothing.
+To the former, one can only say "well, deserve it and worse things may come your way, only we would prefer that next time it should be the working class and not the Turkish army that will take them from you".
+But what do we say to the poor working class refugees? First we have to explain how and why Turkish expansionism is **only half responsible** for the war. The other half is the responsibility of "our" ruling class, those who oppressed the Turkish Cypriots for so many years. The same ones who are now taking from our salaries for military spending so they can do the same thing again if they can.
+And then, we have to say that **it is not possible now** to support their right of return without inevitably supporting the aggressive plans of "our" bourgeoisie, and forgetting the rights of other workers, of Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers. Anyone who argues that in the current situation we can avoid this is politically naive to say the least.
+But we must fight against "our" bourgeoisie for their remaining rights **as workers and as refugees.** That is, the right to work, which is constantly denied them by Greek Cypriot capitalism, and the right to receive from the state housing and compensation for what they have lost. It is our duty to fight against "our" bourgeoisie and the aggression of "our" government and this cannot be done today by supporting this aggression in any way, even if it is covered behind the slogan of "defending human rights" and the return of the refugees (Ibid p.183).</blockquote>
+Our slogan should therefore be "houses for refugees" and not "all refugees in their houses".
+And the question that we asked [[en:magazines:entostonteixon:no_31:sosiolpatriotis|from our first article]] in this magazine is still unanswered. Is there any progressive and non-"barbaric" way to undo the "fait accompli" of '74, to remove the settlers and return all refugees to their homes? The only way to get the settlers out is by forcibly moving an entire population. This will be done either by a "victorious" Greek army, or even, after an agreement, by the Turkish army. If one thinks that a victorious proletariat can do the same in a progressive way, then one has a completely different conception of proletarian democracy and socialist revolution from that of the Marxist tradition.
+**A PLAIN CHAUVINIST**
+It is not surprising that the outcome of Ch. Eliades' politics is the justification of a "national liberation" war, joining his voice with other chauvinists:
+//"Workers' Democracy reduces the substance of the matter more or less to a level of discussion about the ability or not of the Greek Cypriot ruling class to achieve a ** victorious military confrontation** with the Turkish occupation army.//
+//At the outset, we should note that freedom from Turkish military occupation is the **absolute right** of the entire Cypriot people, without excluding **any means**.//
+Are we wrong when it seems to us that when Ch. Eliades "notes" that war is "the absolute right of the entire Cypriot people" inevitably includes among those who have this "right" the Greek Cypriot ruling class? Are we wrong to understand from this that if in the future the Greek Cypriot ruling class declares war, Ch. Eliades will support this war?
+This is of course his "absolute right", but he cannot call it a Marxist position.
+Lenin, in one of the most famous and intense cases of national oppression, that of Poland, which was inunder the subjugation of Tsarist Russia, made it clear whose "absolute" duty it was to fight for Poland's right to self-determination and whose it was not:
+//"In **no** nation does **hatred of Russia sit so deep** as with the Poles; no nation dislikes Russia so intensely as the Poles...The Polish Social-Democratic comrades have rendered a great historic service by advancing the slogan of internationalism and declaring that the fraternal union of the proletariat of all countries is of supreme importance to them and that they will never go to war for the liberation of Poland. This is to their credit, and this is why we have always regarded only these Polish Social-Democrats as socialists. The others are patriots...//
+//Why should we Great Russians... deny the right to secession for Poland?... But people don’t want to understand that to strengthen internationalism you do not have to repeat the same words. What you have to do is to stress, in Russia, the freedom of secession for oppressed nations and, in Poland, their freedom to unite." (Lenin, English Collected Works, Vol. 24 p.298).//
+**INTERNATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY**
+"In the age of imperialist decline...." writes Ch. Eliades "the realization of democratic national goals (self-determination, national independence) now falls on the shoulders of the working class". This is not only the position of Ch. Eliades. It is the meeting point of almost all tendencies of the Greek Cypriot far left. We must cooperate with the bourgeoisie as long as the "national question" exists, says AKEL. The bourgeoisie is "incompetent", so it is time for socialism, replies the far left, only the working class can "solve" the "national question".
+And so they think they prove that AKEL is reformist and they are revolutionaries. It seems completely self-evident to all of them, traditional leftists and far leftists, that [missing part of the text, probably was: a national liberation] struggle is needed and all the rest. They can't even get past their social patriotic thinking that it is possible to question this. That is why it seems equally self-evident to them that the only problem is..... whether or not some part of the Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie can defeat the Turkish army and neutralize the (equally "self-evident") anti-Hellenic (or "anti-Cypriot") intentions of America and Western imperialism.
+The only thing that this proves is that the former are social patriotic supporters of class cooperation .... at least until now.
+This is because in today's southern Cyprus there is no question either of "solving" any "national problem" or of conducting any "national liberation struggle", either with class cooperation or with socialist revolution.
+The aim of the revolutionaries is indeed the socialist revolution, the seizure of power by the working class both here and internationally. But not to solve with it some non-existent "national question" here in Cyprus.
+So what is the relation of the socialist revolution to the Cyprus problem, i.e. the reactionary and unjust conflict between the Greek and Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie on the one hand and the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot bourgeoisie on the other?
+There is a direct connection. A clear internationalist stance by revolutionaries will contribute to the workers on each side ceasing to see the people of the other side as their enemies and thus to see "their" bourgeoisie as allies. In other words, it is necessary both for the class unity of the Greek, Turkish, Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot workers and for breaking the class collaboration of each side with "their" bourgeoisie.
+A clear internationalist stance is still necessary to enable the workers of all sides to make a victorious socialist revolution. Something that cannot be done unless the working class is trained in democracy, not bourgeois democracy, but socialist, internationalist democracy:
+//"Capitalism and imperialism can be over thrown only by economic revolution. They cannot be over thrown by democratic transformations, even the most “ideal”. **But a proletariat not schooled in the struggle for democracy is incapable of performing an economic revolution**...//
+//...Through utilisation of bourgeois democracy to socialist and consistently democratic organisation of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and against opportunism. There __is no__ other path... We must direct free secession and free merging of nations along that path, not fight shy of them..." (Lenin, English Collected Works, Vol, 23, p, 25, 27).//
+If we see that the "emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself" (Marx), then we must also see the importance of the education of the working class in democracy. Socialism means democratic self-organisation and self-management of the masses, freedom for the workers and the oppressed. If the working class does not **learn** to be the most consistent supporter and protector of the rights of **all** the oppressed sections of society, be they women, homosexuals, whores, or even oppressed religious minorities and other marginalized social strata, then.... it will not be able to take power, nor, if it does, will it be able to build a new liberated society. And what applies to other democratic issues also applies to the attitude towards ethnic conflicts.
+How can **Greek Cypriot** workers and revolutionaries maintain a consistent (and not **hypocritical**) democratic stance on the Cyprus problem in the present period? Only by supporting the democratic right of the Turkish Cypriots to have their own state, if they want it. In the current period, socialist internationalist democracy demands from the workers of Greece, Cyprus and Turkey neutrality, abstention from the imperialist in-fighting as to whether the Greek and Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie will control the whole of Cyprus, or share this control with the Turkish gang.
+But that's not enough. In the present period, democracy always requires (and this is the most important thing) the active reaction to the OFFENSIVE ACTIONS of "our" bourgeoisie which aims to impose its own interests on the Turkish Cypriots by force. Not only at the military level but also at the economic, political and even cultural level. This means in practice, for the Greek Cypriot and Greek working class, supporting the Turkish Cypriots' right to self-determination against "our" bourgeoisie which denies it to them.
+And democracy and internationalism still demand from the working classes of Greece and southern Cyprus to **consciously** leave the task of practically confronting the Turkish army, and Turkish aggression in general, to those who have the obligation and duty to confront them. To the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot comrades and the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot working class, for whom in turn this is the only way to educate themselves in internationalist and socialist democracy.
+This is the only correct attitude towards the real danger of war. The problem for workers is **not** the risk of a Turkish attack, against which we need "defence". It is the danger of another war, for which both sides will be equally responsible, as they were in the previous ones.
+The only thing that can really reduce the risks of new wars is to re-engage and restore trust between the workers of the two hostile sides. It is the only thing that can make any bourgeoisie more reluctant to start a war in which it is not sure that it will have its working class on its side.
+Proclamations of workers' rapprochement that are not accompanied by a workers' struggle against the military armaments of "their" government cannot be considered sincere by workers on the other side. When Turkish Cypriot and Turkish workers see us supporting our government and military armaments, they are easily convinced that all Greek Cypriots are their enemies and that Denktaş and Özal are their allies. Do similar feelings not prevail among the workers on 'our' side?
+**THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE**
+The problem with Ch. Eliades, as with others like him, is not that they cannot see and understand what is really happening in southern Cyprus.
+They just **don't want** to understand and they won't understand, because it doesn't suit their nationalism.
+Today the Greek Cypriot and Greek bourgeoisie dominate, as well as their social patriotic fellow travellers of the traditional left. Alongside them, there are those who do not cooperate (in words only) with "our" bourgeoisie because they consider it "incompetent" because they want even more extreme measures than it can implement today. Those of us who see the hypocrisy of all this can and must move on to discussion and joint action. The [[en:groups:epitropi_simparastasis_parpa|committee for the defence of conscientious objector Y. Parpas]], who is being retried on 18 January, continues to provide this opportunity.
+The nationalist "self-evident" and "self-explanatory" truths of Ch. Eliades are the same as those of almost the entire Greek Cypriot society.
+They express the current dominance of bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology and nationalism. It is for this reason, and not because of their theoretical or logical strength, that they are very difficult to deal with.
+But it is not impossible. At least the lowest strata of workers and youth are not as steeped in it, as anyone who had joined us outside the factories to campaign against the re-vote on the "emergency contribution for defence" could see.
+These "self-evident truths" need to be addressed, not just in theory but in practice.
+[[en:groups:ergatikidimokratia|PUBLISHING GROUP "WORKERS' DEMOCRACY"]]
+. If anyone thinks that in order to be imperialist a country must necessarily be a great power, with heavy industry, fleets and colonies, let him look at what Lenin wrote mainly about "little" Switzerland in 1916 but even about Bulgaria of the same period in his article "Defence of Neutrality", in Greek Collected Works vol.30 pp. 336.
+⚫ p.g.w.d.
+{{tag>
+Condition:"Needs Translation":"Needs Turkish Translation"
+Magazines:"Within the Walls (Issue 41)"
+Groups:"Workers' Democracy (Group)"
+"Decade:Decade 1980-1989"
+"Year:1989"
+Areas:Nicosia:"Nicosia (south)" Areas:Nicosia
+Subject:"Cyprus Problem"
+}}

Κυπριακό Κινηματικό Αρχείο Cyprus Movements Archive Kıbrıs Sosyal Hareket Arşivi

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools

Κυπριακό Κινηματικό Αρχείο
Cyprus Movements Archive
Kıbrıs Sosyal Hareket Arşivi