Differences

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

--- en:other:anafentos:cyprob [2025/01/13 11:40] – no_name12
+++ en:other:anafentos:cyprob [2025/04/20 19:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <WRAP center round info 80%>
-The translation below was created for the purposes of archiving and does not originate from the original creator of the text.
+The translation below was created for the purposes of archiving and does not originate from the original creators of the text.
 </WRAP>
-====== Neither Davos not non-Davos (Text) ======
+====== Neither Davos nor non-Davos (Text) ======
 <WRAP center round noprint important 80%>
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 **NEITHER DAVOS NOR NON-DAVOS**
-Or Why we are indifferent to the schemes of all kinds of clowns of power
+OR
+Why we are indifferent to the schemes of all kinds of clowns of power
 AN ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN PROPOSAL
@@ Line 127: / Line 129: @@
 Then in '67, a change of guard in Greece (military junta) is confronted by the then President Makarios and his supporters (including AKEL) who in the meantime had adopted the more realistic line of INDEPENDENCE, although the ultimate goal always remained ENOSIS ("Enosis is desirable but not possible"). This leads to the effective rupture within the ranks of the GCs - even within the ranks of the GC right - dividing them into pro-Enosis and pro-independence factions (then called Grivikoi and Makariakoi). It is precisely then that the new nationalist ideology emerges dynamically (although its roots are older): NEO-GREEK-CYPRIOT-INDEPENDENCE which is strongly opposed to the traditional GREEK-ENOSIS and constitutes the two main principles and opposing trends of the same nationalist ideology since both are Greek. There was no NEO-CYPRIOT nationalist ideology since Cyprus has never been a Nation-State. What really existed was the struggle over which nationality would dominate by stepping on the other and imposing its own nationalist ideology and from Independence onwards it was the GCs who managed to identify the state with their own nation while the TCs, located in a defensive position, began to look forward to the creation of their own state.
-The ridiculous thing about this story is that Independence was much more to the liking of the GCs and it is precisely here that ideology is differentiated from economics. However, this emasculating sentiment was to determine the attitude of the GCs towards the TCs. The latter, with the declaration of independence, are effectively second-class citizens while important articles of the constitution (so much invoked later by GC politicians) concerning the rights of the TCs as a minority were not implemented, **[missing part of text - the next 4 words are not from the text:]** [somethnig that was used by the] Turkish ruling classes and the TC elite to promote their own economic interests and expansionist plans. The sequence of events is well known: the events of 63-64, racist massacres between GCs and TCs, the threat of Turkish intervention, the action of the TC far-right nationalist armed organization TMT and finally the forced - and not voluntary as they had no choice - confinement of most TCs in real ghettos. The TCs as a whole faced an immediate and real danger of a genocide (not to speak only of 22 but also of our own 'Turkish eaters' like Sampson, Yiorkadjis, Lyssarides etc.). They finally escaped thanks to the intervention of the English -who of course had their own reasons and interests, otherwise they wouldn't have cared - who intervened between the opponents and created the famous green line.
+The ridiculous thing about this story is that Independence was much more to the liking of the GCs and it is precisely here that ideology is differentiated from economics. However, this emasculating sentiment was to determine the attitude of the GCs towards the TCs. The latter, with the declaration of independence, are effectively second-class citizens while important articles of the constitution (so much invoked later by GC politicians) concerning the rights of the TCs as a minority were not implemented, **[missing part of text - the next 4 words are not from the text:]** [something that was used by the] Turkish ruling classes and the TC elite to promote their own economic interests and expansionist plans. The sequence of events is well known: the events of 63-64, racist massacres between GCs and TCs, the threat of Turkish intervention, the action of the TC far-right nationalist armed organization TMT and finally the forced - and not voluntary as they had no choice - confinement of most TCs in real ghettos. The TCs as a whole faced an immediate and real danger of a genocide (not to speak only of 22 but also of our own 'Turkish eaters' like Sampson, Yiorkadjis, Lyssarides etc.). They finally escaped thanks to the intervention of the English -who of course had their own reasons and interests, otherwise they wouldn't have cared - who intervened between the opponents and created the famous green line.
 .
@@ Line 169: / Line 171: @@
 Perhaps the final points that we could characterize as positions of the group, without these being magic recipes, are:
+  - WAR ON THE WAR OF THE BOSSES. Against a new Greek-Turkish conflict that will definitely involve Cyprus. Against militarism in all its forms and exposing the role of all kinds of armies starting with our own.
+  - EXPOSING NATIONALIST IDEOLOGY WHEREEVER IT COMES FROM: left or right, Greek, Turkish, Enosis, Double Enosis, etc.
+  - RESTATING THE PROBLEM ON ITS CLASS BASIS. Denial of the centrality of the national issue. The only problem of liberation that the exploited classes of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, as well as the whole world, have is that of liberation from the shackles of forced labour and daily boredom. Everything else is implied or is inlcuded. But to do this requires [sentence missing]
+  - SOCIAL CRITIQUE, practical and theoretical. Alternative-antiauthoritarian discourse and practice.
+  - RAPPROCHEMENT ON A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL (and not on a leadership level) both for the two communities in Cyprus, and of the Turkish and Greek oppressed in the context of an Internationalist solidarity, exposing of course the fiasco of agreements such as Davos between the Social-Fascist Papandreou and the Ankara Militarists.
+Since there are many questions that arise from what we have said above, we will try to answer some of them:
+__1. But isn't the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is an illegal state built on violence?__
+All states are illegal and all are built on violence. We do not divide states into "good" and "bad". The issue is brought to us on the basis that all __Two__ Cypriot states are built on violence and this was the result of so many years of mistrust and suspicion between the two communities. We do not of course support the presence of the Turkish army in Cyprus any more than we support the presence of the Greek, Turkish, English or any other army on this land. We know very well what the role of each army is and how many crimes they are responsible for against humanity.
+__2. Are you against an armed national-liberation struggle?__
+These are all options that have been tried in the past and have only led to massacres. From a radical point of view, what needs to be done is to avoid a new war. After all, what did the national liberation movements of the 1960s - which also had an anti-imperialist character - leave behind them other than dictatorships and misery, and to what extent did they succeed in providing a revolutionary perspective? The national liberation struggle as a primary struggle always results in the strengthening of the state (centre of power) and the militarisation of society in exchange for the replacement of foreign oppressors with the local ones. This is precisely the very delicate point that anti-authoritarians must be both anti-imperialists and anti-militarists and it is certainly a subject that bears much discussion.
+__3. So you are against a war that would settle things?__
+Absolutely. No war has ever settled anything but the conditions for the next one.
+__4. Are you against violence?__
+Violence is the worst part of our everyday life and we will never stop fighting against it. But we accept violence as the means of of last resort of social self-defence and of waging the only war in which we will participate: the social war (and when we say violence we do not mean exclusively the extreme case of armed violence).
+__5. But in what you say you seem to put almost all the blame on the Greek and GC side?__
+We have tried to put the issue on its class-social basis. If this is being done it is because we hear what the Turks have done every day. No one dares to stick their nose into Greek shit.
+__6. **[question missing from the photocopy]**__
+We are not trying to justify any expansionism, especially Turkish expansionism. But try to justify Greek expansionism and you will see what game you are involved in (some people insist that the Greek state reaches as far as the Indies!). The point is not to argue one nationalism against another, one state against another, one army against another. The point is to expose the role they play in the oppression of humanity and to fight them, starting with what is most directly related to us: 'our' state, 'our' army, Greek nationalism, always in the hope that something similar will happen on the other side. As unrealistic as this may seem at the moment, it is the only truth for us. And after all, how much have we really tried in the direction of Internationalist solidarity?
+__7. But what about the refugees and missing persons?__
+No one can question the human (not the national) right to freedom of settlement and residence (some of us are refugees and some sentimentality about the place we grew up is inevitable). However, it would be naive to think that a solution to this particular problem could be found through clowning like the one observed at Davos, whining at the UN or a war. The refugees have simply been the new victims of this eternal game and as long as the oppressed Gcs and TCs do not take their fate into their own hands this will be their role in history. And in a new such phase it will be all of us who will be feeding with our bodies the cannons of the militarists of Athens, Ankara and Nicosia. As for the missing persons, let them look a little in the mass graves of the coup.
+__8. And if the Turkish army tries to occupy the whole of Cyprus, what will you do?__
+However serious the threat of a new war may be, let us not suffer more from the fear of it than from the war itself. Regardless of which side attacks, we categorically refuse to fight. But for this to be effective, an anti-war discourse in general and an anti-authoritarian discourse and practice in particular, both in "North" and "South" Cyprus, as well as in Greece and Turkey, must be articulated from now on, so that there can be an organised response to the difficult moment of the declaration of war. And it is in this internationalist direction that we should move, perhaps to prevent a new round of racist massacres (in the past there have been many cases of soldiers who organised themselves and effectively refused to fight, showing an unprecedented maturity). We need to finally get rid of the shit our fathers put on our backs and look for new ways of coexistence and understanding between individuals, social groups (not classes of course) and nationalities.
+If any of this does not happen, we deserve our fate:
+LET EVERY PERSON HASTEN TO SAVE THEMSELVES
+**ANARCHIST GROUP ANAFENTOS**
+{{tag>
+Condition:"Needs Translation":"Needs Turkish Translation"
+Condition:"Unlear Archiving"
+"Decade":"Decade 1980-1989" Year:1988
+"Magazines":"Train in the City (Magazine)":"Train in the City - Issue 2+3"
+Groups:"Anafentos (Group)"
+"Other Material"
+Subject:"Cyprus Problem"
+Subject: "Material of Anafentos group found in Traino magazine"
+Areas:Limassol}}