Archive for the ‘Κοινωνιολογία και Ιστορία-Socioloji ve Tarih’ Category


του Γιώργου Ρούση

(αναδημοσίευση από enet )

Είναι εντυπωσιακό το γεγονός ότι ο διάλογος που γίνεται στις πλατείες και γενικότερα, με επίκεντρο την αμφισβήτηση της αντιπροσωπευτικής αστικής δημοκρατίας και την αναζήτηση μορφών πραγματικής έκφρασης της λαϊκής κυριαρχίας, βρίσκει σε μεγάλο βαθμό τις ρίζες του στην αντιπαράθεση του Μαρξ με τον Μπακούνιν γύρω από την οργάνωση της μετακαπιταλιστικής κοινωνίας. (more…)


Αναδημοσίευση από Athens Indymedia

* Το κείμενο αυτό δημοσιεύτηκε αρχικά στα ισπανικά στο αναρχικό κομμουνιστικό περιοδικό «Hombre y Sociedad» της Χιλής, τεύχος 18-19, δεύτερο τέταρτο του 2004. Αναδημοσιεύτηκε στα ισπανικά, αγγλικά, ιταλικά και άλλες γλώσσες στο http://www.anarkismo.net τον Απρίλη του 2008. Ελληνική μετάφραση «ούτε θεός-ούτε αφέντης», μέσα Απρίλη 2008. Δημοσιευμένο επίσης στο http://ngnm.vrahokipos.net

(more…)


Alıntı: Anatoli
Yazar: Sait Çetinoğlu


izmirizmir.net sitesinde bulduk

(more…)


(Το είδαμε στο Tvxs , το αναδημοσιεύουμε από τα Ενθέματα )

του Έρικ Χομπσμπάουμ

μετάφραση: Νίκος Κούρκουλος

Η μελέτη Bandits του  Έρικ Χομπσμπάουμ, που εκδόθηκε το 1969, αποτέλεσε ένα βιβλίο-σταθμό. Μέσα από τις σελίδες τους μια μεγάλη γκάμα κοινωνικών ληστών και των εξεγερμένων παράνομων προβάλλει ορμητικά στο προσκήνιο της ιστορικής μελέτης (από τους βαλκάνιους χαϊδούκους και τους ινδούς δακοΐτες μέχρι τους μπαντίτι του ιταλικού Νότου, τους μπαντολέρος της Ανδαλουσίας, τους ρώσους ρασμπόινικι, τους συμμορίτες της Κίνας, τους μεξικανούς και τους περουβιανούς παράνομους, τους ληστές των ταξιδιωτών στην Ευρώπη και τους ντεσπεράντος της Άγριας Δύσης, τους αυστραλούς μπουσρέιντζερς, τους βραζιλιάνους κανγκασέιρος και τους απαλλοτριωτές τραπεζών), εγκαινιάζοντας ένα νέο ρεύμα στις ιστορικές σπουδές. Το 2000 κυκλοφορεί η τέταρτη, αναθεωρημένη και επαυξημένη έκδοση του έργου, όπου ο συγγραφέας έχει λάβει υπόψη του τις νεότερες έρευνες αλλά και τις κριτικές που δέχτηκε.

(more…)


ΝΤΟΚΟΥΜΕΝΤΟ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ «ΠΑΝΣΠΟΥΔΑΣΤΙΚΗ φ. 8»

Η προβοκάτσια ζει!


ΠΡΩΤΟ ΜΕΡΟΣ

Μεθεόρτια Πολυτεχνείου και αναστήθηκε η θεωρία των προβοκατόρων που δήθεν το οργάνωσαν στις πλάτες των αθώων φοιτητών και η ΚΝΕ ξαναθυμάται την αμαρτωλή “Πανσπουδαστική φ. 8”. Την καλύτερη απάντηση δίνει ένα αδημοσίευτο εσωτερικό ντοκουμέντο του ΚΚΕ.

 

Ο φετινός 31ος εορτασμός του «Πολυτεχνείου» σημαδεύτηκε από δυο σημαντικά πολιτικά εγχειρήματα. Στο πρώτο δόθηκε μεγάλη δημοσιότητα, εφόσον αφορούσε προσωπικότητες με εξέχουσα θέση στην πολιτική σκηνή. Μιλάμε για τις γνωστές αναφορές στο σκασιαρχείο του Κώστα Καραμανλή τις μέρες του Νοέμβρη του 1973 από τον κ. Τζουμάκα και την επίσημη εκδήλωση της ΟΝΝΕΔ, με την οποία επιχειρήθηκε -κάπως άγαρμπα- η μετατόπιση της εξέγερσης στο «μεσαίο χώρο».

Το δεύτερο, όμως, εγχείρημα παρέμεινε ασχολίαστο, αν και δεν έχει λιγότερο ενδιαφέρον και οπωσδήποτε είναι ενδεικτικό του πνεύματος των καιρών. Αναφερόμαστε στην πρωτοφανή πρωτοβουλία της ΚΝΕ να προβάλει στο κεντρικό της ταμπλό για το Πολυτεχνείο το πασίγνωστο φύλλο 8 της παράνομης «Πανσπουδαστικής» (Γενάρης 1974), στο οποίο δημοσιεύεται πλαστό κείμενο δήθεν της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής, όπου καταγγέλλεται η εξέγερση ως έργο 350 προβοκατόρων του Ρουφογάλλη, δηλαδή της χουντικής ΚΥΠ, και συκοφαντείται ως χαφιές ο φοιτητής Διονύσης Μαυρογένης (στέλεχος του ΕΚΚΕ και μέλος της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής της κατάληψης).

Η υπόθεση είναι γνωστή, και έχει αποτελέσει επί τρεις δεκαετίες προπαγανδιστικό χαρτί στα χέρια όσων ήθελαν να επικρίνουν το ΚΚΕ για την επιφυλακτική στάση του απέναντι στο αυθόρμητο ξέσπασμα εκείνων των ημερών. Μέχρι σήμερα, όμως, το ΚΚΕ και η ΚΝΕ έχουν κάνει σαφές ότι δεν θεωρούν έγκυρη αυτή την ανάλυση, χωρίς βέβαια να αποκηρύξουν ανοιχτά το δελτίο αυτό της παράνομης «ΑντιΕΦΕΕ». Η επίσημη κομματική ιστορία -χωρίς να ξεχνά τους προβοκάτορες- δεν τους δίνει το πάνω χέρι στην εξέλιξη των γεγονότων. Αλλά έρχεται σήμερα η νεολαία του κόμματος να κάνει σημαία της αυτή την παραχάραξη των πραγματικών γεγονότων. Και αν τότε, σε συνθήκες βαθιάς παρανομίας, μπορεί κανείς να βρει ελαφρυντικά γι’ αυτή τη συκοφαντία, η επάνοδος σήμερα στην ίδια επιχειρηματολογία, μετά από τόσες αναλύσεις, καταγραφές και ιστορικές αναμνήσεις, είναι τουλάχιστον ακατανόητη.

Οι ερμηνείες που μπορεί να δοθούν σ’ αυτή την πολιτική παλινδρόμηση είναι πολλές. Ισως είναι προάγγελος κάποιων μεταβολών στο εσωτερικό του κόμματος. Ισως απλώς η πίεση τόσων χρόνων -με την προπαγανδιστική χρήση αυτού του κειμένου από τους πολιτικούς αντιπάλους του ΚΚΕ- να οδήγησε κάποια στελέχη της σημερινής νεολαίας του κόμματος να «αντεπιτεθεί» στους αριστεριστές, υιοθετώντας εκ των υστέρων το σκληρό κομματικό κείμενο.

Ο,τι και να συμβαίνει, το μόνο σίγουρο είναι ότι δεν πρόκειται για τυχαίο γεγονός, διότι η προβολή της «Πανσπουδαστικής φ.8» παρέμεινε μέχρι τέλους του εορτασμού στο ταμπλό της ΚΝΕ, παρά τις διαμαρτυρίες κάποιων περαστικών που κατάγγειλαν το γεγονός στους παρευρισκόμενους εκπροσώπους της οργάνωσης. Οπως, μάλιστα, προκύπτει και από άλλα δημοσιεύματα, το κείμενο αυτό διαβάστηκε και ως «ντοκουμέντο» σε φοιτητικoύς χώρους από εκπροσώπους της ΚΝΕ (βλ. πχ «Απογευματινή», 17.11.04).

Η αναβίωση αυτού του πλαστού κειμένου ολοκληρώνεται με την κυκλοφορία από το περιοδικό «Μετρό» της ταινίας «Εδώ Πολυτεχνείο!» του Δημήτρη Μακρή, όπου περιλαμβάνονται τέσσερα κομμάτια από τη δήθεν «ανακοίνωση της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής». Ενα από τα κομμάτια αυτά είναι το γνωστό περί «προβοκατόρων της ΚΥΠ», το οποίο εμφανίζεται να το απαγγέλλει μέλος της Συντονιστικής. Και ο μεν δημιουργός της ταινίας δεν μπορεί να έχει καμιά ευθύνη, διότι την σκηνοθέτησε στην Ιταλία πριν πέσει η χούντα και είναι φυσικό να παρασυρθεί από την «Πανσπουδαστική φ. 8» και να μην φανταστεί ότι έγινε νόθευση τέτοιας μορφής σε επίσημο έντυπο της Αντίστασης.

Επειδή, όμως, η ταινία κυκλοφόρησε μαζί με το περιοδικό και έγινε ανάρπαστη, ίσως θα ήταν χρήσιμο να περιληφθεί στο προσεχές τεύχος του «Μετρό» κάποια σχετική αναφορά, για να μην παραπλανηθούν οι καλόπιστοι θεατές της.

Το κείμενο-ντοκουμέντο

Δεν υπάρχει λόγος να ανασκευάσουμε εμείς για πολλοστή φορά το πλαστό κείμενο. Φιλοξενούμε όμως σήμερα ένα πολύ σημαντικό ντοκουμέντο γι’ αυτή την υπόθεση. Πρόκειται για την έκθεση που συνέταξε προς την καθοδήγηση του ΚΚΕ το Νοέμβριο του 1975 ο Γιάννης Γρηγορόπουλος, φοιτητής τότε στη Σχολή Πολιτικών Μηχανικών, μέλος της ΑντιΕΦΕΕ, με σημαντική συμβολή στο αντιδικτατορικό κίνημα και την κατάληψη του Πολυτεχνείου. Ο κ. Γρηγορόπουλος ήταν εκπρόσωπος της σχολής του στην πρώτη Συντονιστική Επιτροπή και στη συνέχεια ήταν στη θέση του συντονιστή, έως το μεσημέρι της Παρασκευής, με ιδιαίτερη ευθύνη στο χώρο του ραδιοφωνικού πομπού, την εκπόνηση των κειμένων και των συνθημάτων. Με δική του επιλογή αποφεύγει τη συμμετοχή στις κατ’ έτος παρουσιάσεις των «πρωταγωνιστών της εξέγερσης» από τον Τύπο και την τηλεόραση.

Η σημασία του κειμένου που δημοσιεύουμε έγκειται καταρχήν στο γεγονός ότι, αντίθετα από τις μαρτυρίες που έχουν δημοσιευτεί μέχρι σήμερα, το κείμενο αυτό έχει γραφτεί πολύ κοντά στα γεγονότα (άρχισε να συντάσσεται τον Αύγουστο του 1974). Τα άλλα κείμενα που έχουν γραφεί την πρώτη περίοδο (1974-1976) είχαν έστω και έμμεσα προπαγανδιστικό χαρακτήρα ή τουλάχιστον επιχειρούσαν να τεκμηριώσουν τις ιδιαίτερες πολιτικές απόψεις οργανώσεων και προσώπων. Ομως αυτό ήταν εσωτερικό κείμενο του ΚΚΕ και γι’ αυτό διακρίνεται από την ευθύτητα της επικοινωνίας μεταξύ μελών του ίδιου πολιτικού φορέα.

Η σοβαρότητα του κειμένου αποδεικνύεται από το γεγονός ότι αυτούσια αποσπάσματά του περιλήφθηκαν στην επίσημη «Εκθεση για τα γεγονότα του Νοέμβρη 1973» που εγκρίθηκαν στην 4η Ολομέλεια της ΚΕ του ΚΚΕ (Ιούλιος 1976). Βέβαια δεν περιλήφθηκαν αυτά που δημοσιεύουμε στη συνέχεια.

Στην υπόθεση της «Πανσπουδαστικής φ. 8» αναφέρεται το κεφάλαιο με τον τίτλο «Ορισμένα σοβαρά θέματα – εκτιμήσεις» και τον υπότιτλο «Το ζήτημα της ύπαρξης ή όχι οργανωμένου σχεδίου. Εκτίμηση των θέσεων και του ρόλου των προοδευτικών και των αντιδραστικών δυνάμεων. Ύπαρξη προβοκατόρων και ρόλος τους».

Αντιγράφουμε το σχετικό απόσπασμα:

«Καταρχήν είναι δυνατόν να εκτιμηθεί με σιγουριά ότι τα γεγονότα σε καμιά περίπτωση δεν ήταν οργανωμένα – οργανωμένα με την έννοια ότι η κατάληψη και η εξέλιξή της έγινε με βάση κάποιο σχέδιο, που είχε κάποιος επεξεργαστεί από τα πριν. Από την πλευρά των προοδευτικών δυνάμεων αυτό είναι καθαρό. Καμιά πολιτική δύναμη δεν πήρε την ευθύνη ότι είχε ‘σχεδιάσει’ το Πολυτεχνείο. Άλλωστε αυτό έγινε φανερό και από τη συγκεκριμένη παρουσία και δράση όλων των οργανωμένων δυνάμεων στη διάρκεια της κατάληψης. Το ίδιο ισχύει και για τις διάφορες άλλες μορφές οργάνωσης των φοιτητών (Επιτροπές Αγώνα, ΦΕΑ, Τοπικοί Σύλλογοι, κλπ). Από την πλευρά των αντιδραστικών δυνάμεων θα μπορούσε να πει κανείς -εξετάζοντας μόνο τα φαινόμενα- και με βάση τη μετέπειτα εξέλιξη της 25ης Νοεμβρίου, ότι πιθανόν το Πολυτεχνείο να ‘δημιουργήθηκε’ σκόπιμα για την ανατροπή του Παπαδόπουλου, από εχθρικές γι’ αυτόν και την πολιτική του δυνάμεις της χούντας. Σε αυτή την ανάλυση συνηγορεί και η ύπαρξη -πραγματικά- πολλών προβοκατόρων σε όλη τη διάρκεια των γεγονότων. Μια τέτοια άποψη βλέπουμε να υποστηρίζεται από την Α.Ο. (σ.σ. «αναθεωρητική ομάδα», δηλαδή το ΚΚΕ εσωτερικού, κατά την τότε ορολογία του ΚΚΕ) με τη δήλωση του Χ. Δρακόπουλου για την κατάληψη αργά την Τετάρτη το βράδυ: ‘Η εξέλιξη στον τόπο μας έχει περιέλθει σε λεπτό σημείο. Παράλληλα στο ευρύτατο δημοκρατικό ενωτικό κίνημα που αξιώνει την είσοδο στη δημοκρατική ομαλότητα, σκοτεινές δυνάμεις εργάζονται για να φράξουν το δρόμο προς την κατεύθυνση αυτή και οργανώνουν προκλήσεις για να δικαιολογήσουν την επιβολή στρατοκρατικών μέτρων…’ Η ίδια όμως η άποψη υποστηρίζεται και στην ‘ανακοίνωση της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής του Πολυτεχνείου’ που δημοσιεύει η παράνομη ‘Πανσπουδαστική’ φύλλο 8. Η ανακοίνωση αυτή ουσιαστικά εκφράζει τις δικές μας απόψεις γιατί δεν έχει ρωτηθεί για τη σύνταξή της κανένα μέλος της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής (ούτε καν τα μέλη της ΑντιΕΦΕΕ): ‘Καταγγέλλουμε την προσχεδιασμένη εισβολή στο χώρο του Πολυτεχνείου την Τετάρτη, 14 του Νοέμβρη, 350 περίπου οργανωμένων πρακτόρων της ΚΥΠ, σύμφωνα με το προβοκατόρικο σχεδίου των Ρουφογάλλη – Καραγιαννόπουλου, με βάση τις εντολές του παραμερισμένου τώρα τέως πρωτοδικτάτορα Παπαδόπουλου και της αμερικανικής CIA, με σκοπό να προβάλλουν με κάθε μέσο τραμπουκισμού και προβοκάτσιας, γελοία και αναρχικά συνθήματα και συνθήματα που δεν εκφράσαμε τη στιγμή και τις συγκεκριμένες δυνάμεις. Για να μπορέσουν έτσι να απομονώσουν το κίνημά μας και την εκδήλωσή μας του Πολυτεχνείου από το σύνολο του λαού και της νεολαίας. Για να μπορέσουν παραπέρα, κατασκευάζοντας (και με τη βοήθεια των χουντικών μέσων ενημέρωσης) την εικόνα μιας μεμονωμένης εξτρεμιστικής επαναστατικοαναρχικής εξέγερσης που δεν έχει τη συμπαράσταση του λαού, να χρησιμοποιήσουν το χιλιοτριμμένο πρόσχημα του ‘επαπειλούμενου κοινωνικού καθεστώτος’ για να δικαιολογήσουν την επαναφορά του στρατιωτικού νόμου και το δυνάμωμα της αιματηρής τρομοκρατίας. Ενέργειες που οι Αμερικανοί, η CIA και η χούντα είχαν από καιρό πάρει την απόφαση να επιβάλουν ύστερα από την παταγώδη αποτυχία της χουντομαρκεζίνικης προσπάθειας καθήλωσης και εκτόνωσης της λαϊκής πάλης…’

Η παραπάνω όμως άποψη δεν μπορεί να αντέξει σε σοβαρή κριτική αν ληφθούν υπόψη οι συγκεκριμένες συνθήκες της εποχής εκείνης, η εξάρτηση της χούντας από τους Αμερικανούς, οι κίνδυνοι που εγκυμονούσε μια τέτοια αντιμετώπιση για το ίδιο το καθεστώς της υποτέλειας στη χώρα μας, πράγμα που το ήξεραν και το έτρεμαν περισσότερο απ’ όλα όλοι οι κύκλοι της αντίδρασης. Μ’ αυτό το πρίσμα βλέποντας τα πράγματα, θα ήταν παράλογο να προσπαθήσουν να χρησιμοποιήσουν μια φοιτητική εξέγερση -που η πιο πιθανή της εξέλιξη στις τότε συνθήκες ήταν να πάρει μεγαλύτερη έκταση και να γίνει υπόθεση όλου του λαού- για να επιφέρουν ορισμένες αλλαγές στην ηγεσία και την πολιτική της χούντας. Η αντίδραση έχει βαθιά συναίσθηση της δύναμης του λαϊκού κινήματος από τους μακροχρόνιους αγώνες του λαού μας και ξέρει ότι ένα τέτοιο σχέδιο θα ήταν παιχνίδι με τη φωτιά. Και παλιότερα είχαν γίνει προσπάθειες προβοκάτσιας με σκοπό την καλλιέργεια του αντικομμουνισμού και την απομόνωση της Αριστεράς (1963-1965). Προβοκάτσια όμως στο επίπεδο οργανωμένου σχεδίου σε τέτοια έκταση όπως τα γεγονότα του Πολυτεχνείου θα πρέπει να συμφωνήσουμε ότι η αντίδραση δεν ήταν ούτε σε θέση, αλλά ούτε θα αποτολμούσε, να οργανώσει.

Βέβαια από τη στιγμή που η κατάληψη ήταν γεγονός, η αντίδραση χρησιμοποιώντας όλα τα μέσα που είχε (ΚΥΠ, χαφιέδες, Αστυνομία, κλπ), προσπάθησε να διαστρεβλώσει το χαρακτήρα της εξέγερσης, να χρησιμοποιήσει τα γεγονότα για να χτυπήσει το προοδευτικό κίνημα. Αυτό άλλωστε είχε γίνει και στην κατάληψη της Νομικής το Φλεβάρη του ’73, όπου προβοκάτορες προκάλεσαν πανικό, με αποτέλεσμα να γίνει υποχώρηση από τη μεριά μας και να εγκαταλείψουμε, αναγκαστικά, το κτίριο. Η τέτοια όμως συμπεριφορά της αντίδρασης δεν είναι και απόδειξη της ύπαρξης σχεδίου, αλλά αποτελεί μόνιμο στοιχείο, που περισσότερο έχει χαρακτήρα ‘άμυνας’ του αστικού κράτους οποιαδήποτε μορφή κι αν έχει στις αντίστοιχες περιόδους της ιστορίας.

Η τέτοια τοποθέτηση και ερμηνεία του θέματος επιβεβαιώνεται από την εξέλιξη των γεγονότων, που ανάγκασαν την αντίδραση να δείξει τη δύναμή της χρησιμοποιώντας το στρατό, την τελευταία της ελπίδα για να μην ξεφύγουν τα πράγματα τελείως από τον έλεγχο της. Αυτό ήταν μια σημαντική υποχώρησή της και έδειχνε το αδιέξοδο στο οποίο είχε φτάσει καθώς και το βαθμό απόγνωσης της. Στο τελευταίο αυτό, όπως φαίνεται και από τη δίκη του Πολυτεχνείου, ήταν σύμφωνοι όλοι οι παράγοντες της χούντας καθώς και η CIA που βοήθησε άμεσα στην εφαρμογή του σχεδίου ‘Kεραυνός’. (Tο σχέδιο αυτό χρησιμοποιείται σαν διέξοδος τη στιγμή που τα πολιτικά όπλα για την αναχαίτιση του λαϊκού κινήματος χρεοκοπούν)».

Κριτικές παρατηρήσεις

Ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον έχει και το κεφάλαιο για την πολιτική και οργανωτική προετοιμασία της εξέγερσης και τις ευθύνες της ίδιας της ΑντιΕΦΕΕ και του ΚΚΕ.

«Δεν πρέπει απλά να εντοπίζουμε το πρόβλημα και την ερμηνεία του στο ότι το επίπεδο οργάνωσης δεν ανταποκρινόταν στην αγωνιστική διάθεση του λαού και σε μια ανώτερη μορφή πάλης σαν την κατάληψη είτε να ξεπερνάμε τελείως το θέμα χαρακτηρίζοντας τη λαϊκή εξέγερση ‘οργανωμένο σχέδιο προβοκατόρων’. Η τέτοια αντιμετώπιση παραβλέπει την κύρια αιτία, που η κατάληψη του Πολυτεχνείου δεν εξελίχτηκε διαφορετικά, προς μια άμεσα θετική εξέλιξη για το κίνημα, δηλαδή την έλλειψη πολιτικής προετοιμασίας» (σ. 27).

«Στο ερώτημα να γίνει κατάληψη ή όχι δεν μπορέσαμε -σαν οργάνωση- ν’ απαντήσουμε θετικά ακριβώς επειδή δε βλέπαμε, για διάφορους λόγους, μια τέτοια μορφή πάλης να εντάσσεται στην πολιτική που ακολουθούσαμε τότε μέσα στο φοιτητικό κίνημα. Αλλά ούτε καθαρά αρνητική θέση πήραμε γιατί βλέπαμε -σα συνδικαλιστές της ΑντιΕΦΕΕ- να μας ξεπερνούν τα γεγονότα, να παίρνουν άλλοι την πρωτοβουλία των κινήσεων, να μην μπορούμε να επιδράσουμε ανασταλτικά πάνω στην εξέλιξη της κατάστασης. Πέρ’ απ’ αυτό, σ’ ορισμένα μέλη της ΑντιΕΦΕΕ υπήρχε διαμορφωμένη η αντίληψη ότι ήταν ώριμες οι συνθήκες για να χρησιμοποιήσουμε σα μορφή πάλης την κατάληψη, περισσότερο βέβαια σα μέσο πίεσης προς τη χούντα παρά σα μέσο για την άμεση ανατροπή της. Πάντως θα έπρεπε, όταν η κατάληψη ήταν πλέον γεγονός, να προσπαθήσουμε σαν οργάνωση να ελέγξουμε την κατάσταση μέχρι να επεξεργαστούμε την από κει και πέρα τακτική μας, άσχετα με το πώς βλέπαμε τη συγκεκριμένη μορφή πάλης να εξυπηρετεί τον αγώνα μας. Αλλά η οργάνωση αντιμετώπισε το γεγονός της κατάληψης με μια ανεξήγητη απάθεια, με πλήρη αδιαφορία. Αυτή ήταν η πρώτη ένδειξη της έλλειψης πολιτικής ετοιμότητας». (σ. 28)

«Οργανωμένες δυνάμεις της Αντί-ΕΦΕΕ υπήρχαν αρκετές. Ετσι σ’ αυτό το σημείο οποιαδήποτε ερμηνεία για τη στάση μας στη βάση οργανωτικών αδυναμιών δε στέκει. Υπήρχαν έμπειροι συνδικαλιστές, μέλη των εκλεγμένων επιτροπών των σχολών, γνωστοί σ’ όλο το φοιτητικό κόσμο, που θα μπορούσαν να επιβάλλουν τις απόψεις τους εύκολα και θα έπρεπε να καθοδηγούν προς την κατεύθυνση του ελέγχου της κατάληψης τουλάχιστον. Τελικά, αυτό που έγινε ήταν να ελεγχθεί ο χώρος του Πολυτεχνείου με την πρωτοβουλία των συνδικαλιστών μελών της ΑντιΕΦΕΕ, που αποτέλεσαν και την πλειοψηφία στην πρώτη Συντονιστική Επιτροπή. Δεν υπήρξε, όμως, καθοδήγηση, στη βάση της μόνιμης επαφής, σε κανένα ζήτημα σχεδόν και έτσι αναγκαστικά τα παραπάνω άτομα έδρασαν πρωτοβουλιακά σ’ όλη τη διάρκεια της κατάληψης. Δηλαδή τελικά δεν χρησιμοποιήθηκαν σχεδόν καθόλου οι οργανωμένες δυνάμεις που υπήρχαν μέσα στο Πολυτεχνείο, ούτε καν οι συνδικαλιστές μας που ήταν μέλη της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής» (σ.28).

«Ερμηνεύοντας αυτή τη διστακτική μας στάση απέναντι στην κατάληψη, αλλά και στην εξέλιξή της σε αντιφασιστική-αντιιμπεριαλιστική εκδήλωση, μπορούμε να διαπιστώσουμε ένα φόβο μπροστά σε ταχύρρυθμες εξελίξεις που θα ξέφευγαν -πιθανώς- από τον έλεγχό μας και παραπέρα έναν περίεργο ‘ρεαλισμό’ στην τακτική μας, που φανέρωσε ότι δε βλέπαμε καθόλου στη μελλοντική μας προοπτική την ανατροπή της δικτατορίας μέσα από μορφές πάλης δυναμικής αναμέτρησης του λαού είτε αγωνιστικής του αντιπαράθεσης με ανώτερες μορφές πάλης ενάντια στη δικτατορία. (…) Αυτός ο ‘ρεαλισμός’ που ήταν μόνιμο στοιχείο των αναθεωρητών και της τακτικής τους σ’ ένα βαθμό υπήρχε και σε μας, όπως έδειξε η στάση μας στο Πολυτεχνείο, που δε μας άφηνε να μπούμε ενεργά στην καθοδήγηση των αγώνων που ωρίμαζαν ή τουλάχιστον να έχουμε επαναστατική επαγρύπνηση και ετοιμότητα ν’ ανταποκρινόμαστε στις απαιτήσεις του αγώνα» (σ. 31).

Από τα μικρά αυτά αποσπάσματα, που δεν καταλαμβάνουν ούτε το ένα δέκατο από τις 40 πυκνογραμμένες σελίδες της Εκθεσης του Γιάννη Γρηγορόπουλου, διαφαίνεται ο προβληματισμός των στελεχών της ΑντιΕΦΕΕ και της ΚΝΕ μετά το Πολυτεχνείο. Η θεωρία των «προβοκατόρων» και η προβολή της ως επίσημης θέσης της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής από την ‘Πανσπουδαστική φ.8’ δεν είχε βέβαια καμιά σοβαρότητα για όσους έζησαν από κοντά τα γεγονότα. Η ανάσυρση του πλαστού κειμένου μετά από 30 χρόνια το μόνο που δείχνει είναι η απόσταση (χρονική αλλά και πολιτική) που έχουμε διανύσει από εκείνες τις μέρες της εξέγερσης.

(Ελευθεροτυπία, 28/11/2004)

 

ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟ ΜΕΡΟΣ

Η κρυφή γοητεία της προβοκάτσιας

Κακά τα ψέματα. Η εξέγερση του Πολυτεχνείου δεν χωράει σε κανένα από τα λογικά σχήματα της σημερινής εποχής. Αυτό που κάποτε ήταν αυτονόητο, τώρα πια γεννάει ερωτήματα και απαιτεί πολύπλοκες «υποθέσεις εργασίας». Συνηθισμένοι να παρατηρούμε μια πολιτική σκακιέρα, από την οποία απουσιάζει η λαϊκή δυναμική, αδυνατούμε να κατανοήσουμε μια ιστορική περίοδο που σημαδεύτηκε από τη μαζική κινητοποίηση και τη διάθεση εξέγερσης μιας μερίδας της νεολαίας. Στην αγωνία μας να ερμηνεύσουμε τα γεγονότα εκείνα με τα εργαλεία που μας παρέχει η τρέχουσα πολιτική φιλολογία καταλήγουμε στην αναζήτηση κάποιων πανίσχυρων υποκειμένων, τα οποία υποτίθεται ότι χειραγώγησαν (θετικά ή αρνητικά) τα γεγονότα του Νοεμβρίου του 1973. Στη λογική αυτή βοήθησε και η επί χρόνια ηρωοποίηση ή και αυτοηρωοποίηση ορισμένων ατόμων, τα οποία ανέλαβαν να εκπροσωπήσουν την περίφημη «γενιά».

Οταν εξαντλήθηκε αυτή η ετήσια αναφορά στα γνωστά πρόσωπα, όταν η παλιά τους αίγλη τσαλακώθηκε από την μετέπειτα εξέλιξή τους, ήρθε η ώρα να ανακαλύψουμε και να προβάλουμε τους «προβοκάτορες». Εδώ και δυο-τρία χρόνια μαθαίνουμε ότι το Πολυτεχνείο ξεκίνησε από ένα ψέμα που ειπώθηκε στη Νομική.

Κοινός παρονομαστής των παλιότερων και των σημερινών περιγραφών είναι η ανάδειξη κάποιων πρωταγωνιστών και η ανάθεση του ρόλου του κομπάρσου στον «αγνό» και «πάντα προδομένο» λαό, που απλώς ακολούθησε, χωρίς να έχει πολιτικές απόψεις. Η φετινή έμπνευση να αποδοθεί μερίδιο της εξέγερσης ακόμα και στο «μεσαίο χώρο» ήταν απλώς η κατάληξη αυτού του λογικού σχήματος.

Οσο όμως περνούν τα χρόνια, τόσο ενισχύεται ο μύθος ότι κάποιοι εκμεταλλεύτηκαν την «αφέλεια» των φοιτητών για να επιβάλουν μια σκληρότερη δικτατορία. Ως επιχειρήματα των καλόπιστων ή κακόπιστων υποστηρικτών της θεωρίας ότι το Πολυτεχνείο υπήρξε δημιούργημα προβοκατόρων του Ιωαννίδη για να προκαλέσει την πτώση του Παπαδόπουλου αναφέρονται δύο κυρίως επιχειρήματα.

Το πρώτο επιχείρημα είναι «τεχνικό». Υπενθυμίζεται, δηλαδή, από τους συνωμοσιολόγους όλων των πολιτικών πτερύγων η αντιμετώπιση των εγκλείστων του Πολυτεχνείου στην πρώτη προσπάθεια να παραμείνουν οι φοιτητές στο χώρο, στις 14 Φεβρουαρίου του 1973. Τότε είχε εισβάλει η αστυνομία και είχε διώξει τους φοιτητές, χρησιμοποιώντας βία, ξύλο και συλλήψεις. Αντιπαραβάλουν σ’ αυτή τη σκληρή αστυνομική επιχείρηση την απόσυρση της αστυνομίας από το χώρο του Πολυτεχνείου την πρώτη μέρα της κατάληψης (14/11/73). Πρόκειται για αφελή κουτοπονηριά. Διότι τον Φεβρουάριο δεν είχε ακόμα να εφαρμόζεται η «φιλελευθεροποίηση» του καθεστώτος. Την επομένη της εισβολής του Φεβρουαρίου άρχισαν να ανακοινώνονται τα ονόματα των φοιτητών που τιμωρούσε η χούντα με διακοπή της αναβολής στράτευσης. Αντιθέτως το Νοέμβριο είχε αρθεί ο στρατιωτικός νόμος, το καθεστώς είχε υποσχεθεί ελεύθερες φοιτητικές εκλογές και είχε δώσει πίσω τις αναβολές στους στρατευμένους. Το πολιτικό κλίμα επέβαλε τη διαφορετική στάση της αστυνομίας. Θεωρώντας ότι η κατάληψη θα ξεφουσκώσει μόνη της, η μαρκεζινική παραλλαγή του καθεστώτος προτίμησε να δείξει ανοχή. Η αυθόρμητη έκρηξη δεν αιφνιδίασε μόνο τις οργανώσεις της Αριστεράς και τον παραδοσιακό πολιτικό κόσμο, αλλά και την ίδια τη χούντα.

Οσο για το δεύτερο επιχείρημα των πιο ψαγμένων, ότι δηλαδή οι Αμερικάνοι προκάλεσαν το Πολυτεχνείο για να διώξουν τον Παπαδόπουλο μετά από την άρνησή του να κάνουν χρήση της Σούδας στον αραβοϊσραηλινό πόλεμο εκείνων των ημερών, πρόκειται για απλό μύθο. Οχι μόνο χρησιμοποιήθηκε η βάση της Σούδας, αλλά ο Αμερικανός διοικητής δεν παρέλειψε να ευχαριστήσει προσωπικά τον Μαρκεζίνη για τη βοήθεια (βλ. Πέτρου Αραπάκη «Το τέλος της σιωπής», εκδ. Λιβάνη, Αθήνα 2000, σ. 93 κ.ε.).


ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ

Δημήτρη Χατζησωκράτη
«Πολυτεχνείο 73»

(εκδ. Πόλις, Αθήνα 2004)
Προσωπική μαρτυρία αλλά και πολιτική κατάθεση ενός στελέχους του Ρήγα Φεραίου και μέλους της πραγματικής Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής. Πλούσιο υλικό και ενδιαφέρουσα απόπειρα να δικαιωθεί η πολιτική γραμμή της ηγεσίας του ΚΚΕ εσωτερικού.

Δημήτρη Παπαχρήστου
«Το Πολυτεχνείο ζει;»

(εκδ. Λιβάνη, Αθήνα 2004)
Η πιο πρόσφατη εκδοτική δουλειά του ανθρώπου που έμεινε στη σύγχρονη ιστορία ως ο «εκφωνητής του Πολυτεχνείου» και που καταφέρνει να διατηρεί την αυθεντικότητα και την ιδιαιτερότητά του, παρότι έχει υποστεί υπερεκμετάλλευση από τα μέσα ενημέρωσης επί τρεις δεκαετίες.

Γιώργου Γάτου
«Ρεπορτάζ με την ιστορία»

(β’ τόμος, εκδ. Φιλιππότη, Αθήνα 2004)
Δημοσιογραφική καταγραφή (και άλλων) ντοκουμέντων και μαρτυριών από την κατάληψη. Ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον έχει η ιστορική σύνοψη των πολιτικών φοιτητικών οργανώσεων της εποχής.


ΔΕΙΤΕ

«Εδώ Πολυτεχνείο», του Δημήτρη Μακρή (1974)
Γυρισμένη στην Ιταλία, πριν την πτώση της χούντας, η ταινία αυτή περιλαμβάνει ορισμένα πολύτιμα ντοκουμέντα από την εξέγερση. Μοιράστηκε στη φετινή επέτειο με το τεύχος 109 (Δεκέμβριος 2004) του περιοδικού «Μετρό». Παρά την εμφανή αδυναμία που επέβαλε η δυσκολία επικοινωνίας με το εσωτερικό και τον ερασιτεχνισμό των ηθοποιών (πολιτικοί εξόριστοι Ελληνες και δημοκράτες Ιταλοί) αποτελεί μια αξιοπρόσεχτη πολιτική κατάθεση και συνοψίζει με αρκετή πιστότητα τα γεγονότα. Ομως σε τέσσερα διαφορετικά σημεία του δραματοποιημένου αυτού ντοκιμαντέρ περιλαμβάνονται αποσπάσματα από την περιβόητη δήθεν ανακοίνωση της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής. Σημάδι ότι η «Πανσπουδαστική ν. 8» είχε κάνει τη δουλειά της.

 

αναδημοσίευση

efes_dark


 


 


(από tvxs)

Το μπαράζ βομβιστικών επιθέσεων δι’ αλληλογραφίας που έχει σημειωθεί τις τελευταίες μέρες, μπορεί να αποτελεί μια ακόμα ένδειξη του εκρηκτικού κλίματος και του νέου κύματος «αυτοσχέδιας» τρομοκρατίας που επικρατεί στη χώρα μας, αλλά σε καμία περίπτωση δεν πρόκειται για κάποια πρωτότυπη επαναστατική μέθοδο. Εκατοντάδες παραλήπτες σε όλο τον κόσμο έχουν βρεθεί κατά καιρούς προ της -όχι και τόσο ευχάριστης- έκπληξης να ανοίξουν κάποιο παγιδευμένο δέμα που τους εστάλη για λόγους πολιτικούς, θρησκευτικούς, επαναστατικούς, αντιεπαναστατικούς, προσωπικούς ή απλά παράλογους (sic).

Το πρώτο θύμα «ταχυδρομικής τρομοκρατίας» στην ιστορία φέρεται να είναι ο Bolle Willum Luxdorph, ένας Δανός ιστορικός και μέλος του Συμβουλίου του Στέμματος της Δανίας, ο οποίος στις 19 Ιανουαρίου του 1764 παρέλαβε ένα δέμα που περιείχε πυρίτιδα και κάποιο μηχανισμό ανάφλεξης, αλλά δεν εξερράγη με επιτυχία. Ο Luxdorph ανέφερε σε επιστολή του πως παρόμοιος μηχανισμός είχε βρεθεί και στην πόλη Savona της Ιταλίας την ίδια χρονιά.

Τον Ιούνιο του 1889 ο Edward Richard White, πρώην σχεδιαστής κέρινων ομοιωμάτων του μουσείου της Madame Tussaud, στέλνει παγιδευμένο δέμα στο γιο της διάσημης «μαντάμ», John Theodore Tussaud, διαμαρτυρόμενος για την απόλυσή του (!), ενώ για τον ίδιο λόγο, το 1904, και πάλι στη Σκανδιναβία, ο Karl Fredrik Lundin δέχεται ένα πακέτο γεμάτο σφαίρες και εκρηκτικά από τον πρώην εργαζόμενό του, Martin Ekenberg.

Πιο σημαντικοί φαίνεται να είναι οι λόγοι που το 1915 οδήγησαν τον Erich Muenter, αναρχικό και καθηγητή Γερμανικών του πανεπιστημίου του Harvard, να αποστείλει βόμβα στο γραφείο του αντιπροέδρου της αμερικανικής κυβέρνησης Wilson, Thomas Riley Marshall, ζητώντας τη διακοπή της πώλησης όπλων από τους Αμερικανούς προς στους Συμμάχους.

Ένα μάτι και τα δάχτυλα του αριστερού του χεριού έχει χάσει ο Alois Brunner, από δύο εκρηκτικές επιστολές που δέχτηκε το 1961 και το 1980, με αποστολέα την ισραηλινή Mossad. Ο Αυστριακός εγκληματίας πολέμου με τους Ναζί, θεωρούνταν το δεξί χέρι του «αρχιτέκτονα του Ολοκαυτώματος», Adolf Eichmann, ενώ υπολογίζεται πως έστειλε στους θαλάμους αερίων περισσότερους από 140 χιλιάδες Εβραίους, μεταξύ τους και 46.000 από τη Θεσσαλονίκη. Μετά τον πόλεμο διέφυγε των συμμαχικών δυνάμεων, με πιο πιθανό προορισμό τη Συρία, και καταζητείται μέχρι και σήμερα.

Γράμματα-βόμβες έχουν βρεθεί κατά καιρούς στα οπλοστάσια αρκετών επαναστατικών ομάδων που επιδίδονται στον «ένοπλο αγώνα». Χαρακτηριστικά είναι τα παραδείγματα των Montoneros και του ERP που έδρασαν στην Αργεντινή τις δεκαετίες του ’60, ’70 και ’80, του IRA, καθώς και της Ιταλικής οργάνωσης FAI (διεθνής αναρχική ομοσπονδία) που θεωρείται ο κύριος διακινητής της μεθόδου και της τεχνογνωσίας αυτής στην Ευρώπη.

Την αντίθετη κατεύθυνση φαίνεται πως ακολουθούν τα εκρηκτικά δέματα στη Μαύρη Ήπειρο, όπως στην περίπτωση της Ruth First, της Νοτιοαφρικανής κομουνίστριας και ακτιβίστριας κατά του απαρτχάιντ, που δολοφονήθηκε τον Αύγουστο του 1982 στη Μοζαμβίκη όπου είχε διαφύγει, από πακέτο που της έστειλε η Αστυνομική Διεύθυνση της Νοτίου Αφρικής. Παρομοίως, ο Νιγηριανός δημοσιογράφος Dele Giwa δέχτηκε το μοιραίο πακέτο τον Οκτώβριο του ’86, προσπαθώντας να διαφύγει από τις αρχές της χώρας του, που τον κατηγορούσε για την οργάνωση κοινωνικής εξέγερσης. Ο αποστολέας δεν έχει βρεθεί μέχρι σήμερα, παρόλο που δε θεώρησε τότε σημαντικό να κρύψει το κυβερνητικό έμβλημα πάνω στο δέμα!

Ο πιο σημαντικός ταχυδρομικός τρομοκράτης της ιστορίας πάντως, μπορεί να θεωρηθεί ο Ted Kaczynski, γνωστός και ως «Unabomber». Είναι ο Αμερικανός επιστήμονας που ξεκίνησε ως μαθηματική μεγαλοφυϊα, έγινε καθηγητής στο πανεπιστήμιο του Berkley σε ηλικία μόλις 25 ετών αλλά παραιτήθηκε δύο χρόνια μετά αηδιασμένος από την υποκρισία της αμερικανικής διανόησης. Στη συνέχεια κατέφυγε σε μια απομονωμένη καλύβα απ’ όπου, για σχεδόν 20 χρόνια, έστελνε επαναστατικά μανιφέστα με θέμα την αλόγιστη εκμετάλλευση της τεχνολογικής προόδου εις βάρος της φύσης, καθώς και πολλές «εκρηκτικές» επιστολές που βρήκαν το στόχο τους συνολικά 26 φορές (3 θάνατοι). Το 1995 θα συλληφθεί τελικά από το FBI, θα ανακηρυχθεί σχιζοφρενής και θα καταδικαστεί σε τετράκις ισόβια κάθειρξη.

Στην Ελλάδα, η πρακτική των εκρηκτικών μέσα σε δέματα εμφανίστηκε για πρώτη φορά τα Χριστούγεννα του 1976 και συνεχίστηκε τακτικά για τον επόμενο χρόνο. Τα δέκα πακέτα που εστάλησαν τότε είχαν ως παραλήπτες μεταξύ άλλων το ΚΚΕ, τη ΛΑΡΚΟ, την «Αυγή,» τα «Νέα», την αμερικανική πρεσβεία, την ισραηλινή κοινότητα και τον ΣΕΒ, ενώ για πολλά από αυτά ανέλαβε την ευθύνη η ακροδεξιά Εθνική Σοσιαλιστική Οργάνωση Πανελλήνων. Τα δέματα-βόμβες επανέφερε ο ΕΛΑ τον Ιούνιο του 1989 με δύο επιθέσεις στον «Ελεύθερο Τύπο» και την «Αυριανή» και από τότε εμφανίστηκαν και πάλι μόλις πρόσφατα, με τη δολοφονία του Γιώργου Βασιλάκη, υπασπιστή του πρώην υπουργού ΠΡΟ.ΠΟ.

 

Link: http://tvxs.gr/news/%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BE%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%87%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%BF/%CE%B7-%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%C2%AB%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%87%CF%85%CE%B4%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE%CF%82-%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82%C2%BB?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TvxsStoriesRssFeed+(TVXS+Stories+RSS+Feed)&utm_content=Twitter

 

αναδημοσίευση

efes_dark

 


The 7th Conference on Freedom of Expression Istanbul 2010

The title of one of our earlier sessions was Cogito, “I think.” That may serve as a useful reminder that even more fundamental than the right of free expression is the right to think. And that has not gone unchallenged. Right here for example. I suppose the most famous case is that of Ismail Besikci, who has endured many years in prison on the charge of having committed “thought crimes.” And even worse, for having dared to put his thoughts into words, in his documentation of crimes against the Kurds in Syria, Iran, Iraq — and finally Turkey, the unpardonable offense.

 

I am sure you know the facts better than I do, so I will not review them. If this brave and honorable man had been suffering this ordeal in Russia, or Iran after the overthrow of the Shah, or some other enemy state, he would be internationally known and honored, and outrage about the savagery of his tormentors would know no bounds. But not in this case. One reason is that among his crimes is to have refused a $10,000 prize by the U.S. Fund for Free Expression in protest against Washington’s support for Turkish repression. Respectable people understand that this is a topic that “it wouldn’t do” to mention, to borrow from Orwell’s unpublished introduction to Animal Farm, which I mentioned yesterday. It certainly wouldn’t do to mention the fact that Clinton was supplying 80% of the arms as Turkish state terror in the southeast reached shocking levels through the 1990s, the flow increasing as the atrocities increased, peaking in 1997 when the US sent more arms to Turkey than throughout the entire Cold War period combined up to the onset of the insurgency. It particularly wouldn’t do to mention that in the same year, 1997, Clinton’s foreign policy entered a “noble phase” with a “saintly glow” according to a distinguished correspondent in the New York Times, his contribution to a chorus of self-glorification on the part of Western intellectuals that may well have no parallel in history. This disgraceful episode was a post-cold war contribution by the intellectual classes of the West to provide justification for expansion of NATO, and to provide some new pretext for intervention with the collapse of the traditional claim that the Russians are coming. Under the newly declared mandate, the self-designated “enlightened states,” directed by their noble leaders in Washington, must now discard the misguided “old anti-interventionist structure” instituted after World War II. They must be ready to act when they believe the cause to be just, and should not be “daunted by fears of destroying some lofty, imagined temple of law enshrined in the U.N. Charter’s anti-interventionist proscriptions.”

 

I am quoting a distinguished liberal professor of international law at the prestigious Fletcher School of Diplomacy, but he was only one of a grand chorus, including many of the most famous and revered figures in the western Pantheon. Clearly, such a mission could not be tainted by mere facts, of which Clinton’s massive support for terrible Turkish atrocities was not even close to the most horrendous.

 

But even unacceptable thought without the added crime of expression has not gone unchallenged. The tortures of the Inquisition of the Catholic Church, the ordeals of English common law, and similar devices of medieval and early modern Europe were designed to unearth and punish unexpressed thoughts, hidden heresies. And in some respects that remains true of contemporary torture, including the practices of the enlightened states: the torture that has been taking place in Guantanamo, Bagram, and other US bases, and in the countries selected by Bush and Obama for rendition — meaning torture — to be sure, with the soothing words that the torture states to which they are being sent have given assurances that the prisoners will be treated with the utmost humanity. The official claim is that the harsh interrogation procedures — torture, to be honest — are an effort to elicit information, that is, thoughts that are in people’s minds, even if unexpressed. It may be worth nothing that the most respected and successful interrogators, like Matthew Alexander, view these procedures with contempt, charging that they elicit no useful information and in fact create terrorists, and recommending that the US adopt the much more successful practices of more civilized societies like Indonesia.

 

But the leadership of the enlightened states prefers torture to expose thought crimes. In Guantanamo, so we have learned, the worst torture was demanded by the highest level of the government, by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, in their fanatic pursuit of evidence that would link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and thus provide some shred of justification for their criminal invasion of Iraq.

 

The same is true of less brutal state actions, such as the significant increase in wiretapping in much of the world. That includes an intensive campaign in the past several years in the Eastern provinces of Turkey, particularly targeting the Democratic Society Party (DTP), the party that is “considered the legal representation of the Kurds in the process for the solution of the Kurdish question,” in the words of Emin Aktar, the head of the Diyarbakir Bar Association. The information collected was the basis for the wave of arrests and severe charges against non-violent activists of the Party shortly after it won a stunning victory in the municipal elections of March 2009. These actions have “destroyed hopes of a peaceful solution” to this long and bitter conflict, Aktar commented.

 

One outcome is the trial scheduled for next week of 151 of the activists who have been detained, some for long periods. Among them is Muharrem Erbey, vice-chairperson of the Human Rights Association of Turkey, who has been in prison on accusations of “membership of a terrorist organisation” for almost a year, charged with such crimes as speaking on the US government channel Voice of America about abuses against the Kurdish population. In the words of the official indictment, by describing these well-documented abuses he aimed “to put our country in a difficult position in international platforms by asserting that the state ignores the supposed maltreatment of Kurdish people carried out by police and soldiers in eastern provinces” — hardly a well-guarded secret. The charges include as well work that Mr. Erbey has carried out with the Dutch embassy and the Olof Palme International Centre in Sweden. He is also charged with seeking to find doctors to treat people who were wounded during demonstrations. Also coming up for trial is Osman Baydemir, re-elected by a large majority as mayor of Diyarbakir in the elections which seem to have triggered the current wave of repression, which some analysts see as revenge for the DKP electoral victory, a conclusion that seems all too plausible. Baydemir faces 33 years in prison for speech and symbolic actions. The sentence might be considered rather light in comparison, say, to that of Vedat Kursun, the former editor of Turkey’s only Kurdish-language daily newspaper, sentenced to 166 years in prison for “doing propaganda for a terrorist organization.” Even that could be taken as a sign of the leniency of the courts; a Prosecutor of the High Criminal Court in Diyarbakir had demanded a 525 year prison sentence, on the charge of “aiding and abetting” an illegal organization and “glorifying crimes and criminals.” His successor as editor has been sentenced to 21 years for similar crimes (Kurdish HR Report Legal Review, KHRP 2010 17 KHRP LR). Of special significance to me personally, and to my MIT colleague John Tirman, director of the Center for International Studies at MIT, are the many trials of the owner of Aram publishing House Fatih Tas for “insulting Turkish identity” by publishing translations of our documentation of the massive US support for Turkish crimes against the Kurds, crimes that I am sure I need not review here — 21 court cases as of July 2006, the latest information I have.

 

Wiretapping and other forms of surveillance are of course not limited to Turkey. They are prevalent in the enlightened West. Many of the constraints imposed in the US years ago have been lifted by presidents Bush and Obama, though the courts have struck down some of their efforts, most recently the attempt of the Obama Justice Department to justify illegal wiretapping by appeal to the need to protect “state secrets” — in this case to protect crimes of the Bush administration from exposure. In this and in other cases Obama is going even beyond Bush in violation of civil rights by illegal means, as several civil libertarians have rightly charged.

 

In my opening remarks, and again in the Quo Vadis session, I mentioned that rights are won by struggle, not as gifts from above, and must be defended the same way. As the framer of the US Constitution, James Madison, warned, a parchment barrier offers no protection against tyranny. Words on paper are not enough, as history most eloquently informs us. I also suggested that the US and Turkey serve as good illustrations. Perhaps it may be useful to expand on these comments.

 

The observation that words do not suffice, and that even when rights are won on paper they must be vigilantly defended, applies not only to freedom of speech, but much more generally. One might think, for example, that the basic rights of Americans are guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, passed in 1868 with the primary goal of granting rights to freed slaves, though virtually never used for that purpose. Its wording is quite straightforward. It declares that no state action may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Clear and unambiguous, but unacceptable. The powerful and privileged at once considered its scope to be both too narrow and too broad. The problem was that the phrase “any person” might be understood to refer to any person, and that is unacceptable. The issues remain very much alive today.

 

The Courts decided long ago to extend the concept “person” to include collective legal fictions created and supported by state power: corporations, which now dominate the economy and the society, and increasingly the political system. Last January the Bush Supreme Court appointees overturned a century of precedents and sharply extended the right of corporations to buy elections. The grounds for the verdict are that money is speech, and corporations are persons, so to deprive them of the right to buy elections would deprive these fictional persons of their constitutional rights of freedom of speech. These expanded rights of unaccountable state-backed private tyrannies are being quite effectively exercised in the congressional campaigns that are underway right now, in a concerted effort to ensure that Congress is taken over by an extreme wing of business representatives.

 

The phrase “any person” in the Constitution is considered to be not only too narrow, but also too broad. Taken literally, it includes undocumented aliens, clearly persons, the naive might think. To remedy this defect of the Constitution, the courts have been restricting the notion of person to safeguard the domain of rights from these creatures of human shape and form. Not being persons, thanks to the wisdom of the law, they are not persons, hence do not enjoy the rights of persons. All of this is having much more severe effects today with the anti-immigrant hysteria that is sweeping the Western world, a very ominous development with painful consequences for those excluded from the category of persons by judicial decision.

 

The same principles apply to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which on superficial reading seems to protect freedom of speech. Until the 20th century, protection of freedom of speech rarely received authorization from the courts. After the first World War, there were some famous expressions of support for freedom of speech by Supreme Court justices, but these were in dissents to Court rulings, and the dissents were quite weak. Severe violations persisted, backed by the courts, among them the notorious Smith Act, which banned teaching, advocacy, or association that might encourage overthrow of the government, in the judgment of the courts — not unlike the reasoning that the Turkish government is employing today in its repressive actions.

 

It was only 50 years ago that the Supreme Court began to reach decisions that carried the US over the threshold of serious protection of freedom of speech, in fact to a level beyond anywhere else in the world to my knowledge. From 1959 to 1974 the Supreme Court dealt with more freedom of speech cases than in its entire previous history, a reflection of this new concern for essential human rights. The context was the rising civil rights movement. The first major victory for free speech was in 1964, when the Court struck down the law passed in 1798 that ruled that criticism of the government is a crime, the doctrine of seditious libel. It should be noted that the doctrine remains in force in other Western countries, including Britain and Canada, where it has recently been invoked. The 1964 US Supreme Court decision set a very high standard for the charge of libel. It overturned a libel suit that charged the New York Times with defaming the State of Alabama by publishing an advertisement by Martin Luther King and civil rights leaders that protested the brutality of racist law officers. Again, that should be familiar here.

 

Under the impact of the activism of the 1960s, the Court later reached an even higher standard, one that I believe is unique in the world. This 1969 decision bars only speech that incites imminent criminal action. So if you and I intend to rob a store, you are carrying a gun, and I say “shoot,” that is not protected speech. But short of that circumstance, speech is protected. The doctrine is controversial, but at least in my opinion, it sets a proper standard. Adopting that standard would be one mark of true enlightenment.

 

In a review of “the history and reality of free speech in the United States,” legal historian David Kairys points out that “no right of free speech, either in law or practice, existed until the transformations of law” between the two great 20th century wars. “Before that time, one spoke publicly only at the discretion of local, and sometimes federal, authorities, who often prohibited what they, the local business establishment, or other powerful segments of the community did not want to hear.” He stresses the important point that “the periods of stringent protection and enlargement of civil rights and civil liberties correspond to the periods in which mass movements posing a credible challenge to the existing order have demanded such rights,” including the right of free expression. The major agents of defense of civil rights have been the left, labor, and other popular movements, forcefully in the 1960s.

 

More generally, to quote the anarchist writer Rudolf Rocker in a classic study 80 years ago, “Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace.” A stronger and sharper version of Madison’s principle.

 

In conformity with these principles, the highest level of protection for freedom of speech in the US was achieved at the peak of activism, 40 years ago. As activism declined, the courts began to chip away at these protections. The most extreme attack on freedom of speech was just this year, under Obama, the case that Judith Chomsky discussed yesterday: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. Supporting the Obama administration, the far-right Court justices granted the government rights of repression that carry us back many decades. The decisions criminalize speech, or any other action, which the government claims may lend support and encouragement to organizations on the government’s terrorist list, a legal doctrine quite familiar here. By the lax standards on which Obama insisted, even former president Jimmy Carter could be charged. Certainly Judith and I could be, along with many others. I was rather surprised that the defense did not even ask the Court to consider the strong rulings of the 1960s, which are apparently taken to be too extreme by now. The case passed with little notice, apart from a few civil libertarians who condemned it.

 

But even their criticisms were for the most part too narrow. They rarely addressed the validity of the terrorist list itself. The list is proclaimed by the government, virtually without independent review or any need for supporting argument. As should be expected under such circumstances, the list is quite arbitrary, reflecting current political demands. Just to take one illustration, in 1982 the Reagan administration decided to provide direct support for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran. In order to do so, they had to remove Iraq from the list of states supporting terror. Then followed Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad to arrange badly needed aid to the murderous tyrant, who, as you know, went on to use WMD, slaughtering 100s of thousands of Iranians, then turning the weapons against Iraqi Kurds with lethal effect, always with the support of Washington; the Reagan administration barred protests, and even sought to blame the crimes on Iran. The US finally entered the war directly, compelling Iran to capitulate. That did not end the love affair with Saddam. In 1989, President George Bush #1 not only expanded the aid, but also invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the US for advanced training in nuclear weapons development. In April 1990, Bush sent a high-level senatorial delegation to Iraq, headed by Senator Robert Dole, Republican candidate for president six years later. Their mission was to convey the President’s warm regards to his good friend Saddam, and to assure him that he should disregard critical comments by some US journalists, who cannot be silenced because of the annoying protections for freedom of speech. A few months later, Saddam made his first mistake, disobeying orders, or perhaps misunderstanding them, and invaded Kuwait. Instantly he made the sharp transition from favored friend and ally to the new Hitler. There is no need to carry the story forward from there.

 

When Saddam was tried and convicted under US military occupation, his major crimes were completely ignored, perhaps because too many doors would have opened. He was charged with indirect involvement in killings that were quite minor by his standards, in 1982, the year in which Washington adopted him as a favored friend, removing him from the terrorist list.

 

When Saddam was removed from the list in 1982, there was a gap to be filled. The Reagan administration added Cuba to the list, perhaps in recognition of the fact that the large-scale state terrorist operations that the Kennedy administration had launched against Cuba were again peaking, including the shooting down of a Cuban airliner, killing 76 people. The perpetrator is now living happily in Florida, along with other leading terrorists.

 

All of this is politely suppressed in the media and commentary, in the West generally as far as I can determine, confirming Orwell’s judgment about the suppression of unpopular ideas in free societies, by voluntary subordination to power.

 

Such “intentional ignorance,” as it is sometimes called, is routine, a matter that bears quite directly on the practical meaning of freedom of speech. Crimes of one’s own state are typically suppressed or ignored, while those of enemies arouse a great show of anguish, and wonder that humans can be so evil. This appears to be close to a universal principle of intellectual history, though there are some exceptions. Turkey is perhaps the most striking recent exception, as I mentioned yesterday. The pathology is rampant in the free democratic western societies, as has been documented to the skies. And the moral burden is clearly far higher when there is virtually no punishment for telling the truth, certainly nothing like what is faced by honest people in much more repressive societies.

 

It is misleading to give illustrations, because the pattern is so close to uniform. But I will mention just one to illustrate standard practice. For many years, economist and media critic Edward Herman has been investigating media coverage of what he calls “worthy” and “unworthy” victims, the former those abused by enemies, the latter our victims, therefore unworthy of concern. As he and others have demonstrated to a level of confidence rarely found outside the hard sciences, the worthy victims elicit enormous coverage and a great show of anguish, and their suffering is used as justification for increasing our own resort to violence. The unworthy ones, in contrast, are unnoticed and quietly forgotten. Ismail Besikci is one of innumerable examples of an unworthy victim. The Czech dissident Vaclav Havel is a worthy victim, famous almost to the level of reverence because of his courageous defense of freedom of expression under Communist rule, for which he suffered several years of imprisonment. Among the many unworthy victims at the same time are six leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, whose heads were blown off by a elite battalion in El Salvador, fresh from renewed training at the John F. Kennedy special warfare school. The assassinations were authorized by the high command, which was in very close contact with the US Embassy. The facts were at first denied by the Embassy, then quickly forgotten. With some justice, one might say, because this was only one short chapter in Reagan’s murderous terrorist wars in the 1980s.

 

In a forthcoming study, Herman continues this work, providing such examples as the following recent pair: Neda Agha-Soltan, aged 27, shot dead while participating in a peaceful street demonstration in Tehran last June; and Isis Obed Murillo, aged 19, shot dead while participating in a peaceful demonstration in Honduras shortly after. Agha-Soltan was the victim of an enemy state. She merited 736 newspaper articles and 231 reports on TV, radio, and other sources. Murrillo was the victim of a government installed by a military coup and recognized by the Obama administration, though few others. She merited 8 newspaper articles and one other report. The 100-1 ratio is not in the least unusual.

 

In further support of the distinction between worthy and unworthy victims, exposure of standard practice, however massive, however grotesque, has almost no impact. It is consigned to that category of things that “it wouldn’t do to say” — or even to think. Such measures of voluntary suppression operate with quite impressive effectiveness. They cast a bright light on how far we have to go in the self-declared enlightened states for true realization of the right of freedom of thought and of speech. Even in these states, which have indeed registered considerable progress over the past centuries, much more is needed than formal laws and court decisions. What is needed is a culture of freedom and intellectual independence, a culture of functioning democracy.

 

One might think that this should not be a problem in Western countries, notably the United States, where political leaders and commentators passionately proclaim Washington’s dedication to extending the blessings of democracy worldwide. So the official story holds. But again, it useful to remember Orwell’s warnings. Does the story have any validity? Has US policy really been guided by the dedication to advance a democratic culture in which freedom of speech and other rights can thrive?

 

There has been serious scholarly study of the matter. The most extensive scholarly work is by Thomas Carothers, former head of the Law and Democracy Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Carothers describes himself as a neo-Reaganite and is a very strong advocate of democracy promotion. He served in the Reagan State Department, working on democracy promotion. He regards these programs as “sincere,” though a “failure,” and a systematic failure. He explains that where US influence was least, in the southern cone of Latin America, progress towards democracy was greatest, despite Reagan’s attempts to impede it by embracing right-wing dictators. Where US influence was strongest, in the regions nearby, progress was least. The reason, Carothers explains, is that Washington sought to maintain “the basic order of what, historically at least, are quite undemocratic societies” and to avoid “populist-based change in Latin America — with all its implications for upsetting economic and political orders and heading off in a leftist direction.” Therefore the US would tolerate only “limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied.”

 

In broader studies, Carothers shows that the conclusions generalize. The US consistently supports democracy when doing so conforms to strategic and economic objectives, typically in enemy domains; and the US consistently opposes democracy when it would conflict with such overriding interests, typically within its own domains, where the opposition can be extremely brutal. Carothers regards this as a kind of strange pathology: leaders are “schizophrenic.” Other commentators take this to show that leaders are acting inconsistently, observing a double standard. Another way to describe the facts is that they are acting quite consistently, observing the single standard of protecting power and privilege. But that conclusion passes beyond legitimate bounds.

 

All of this should be quite familiar in Turkey. You will recall, no doubt, that when the US was planning to invade Iraq, it sought to mobilize support among its allies. Some agreed, some refused. That led Donald Rumsfeld to enunciate his famous distinction between “old Europe,” the bad guys, and “New Europe,” the hope for democracy. Old Europe included Germany and France, where the governments demonstrated their contempt for democracy by adopting the position of the large majority of the population. Washington was so incensed that in the Senate Cafeteria, fried potatoes were no longer called “French fries”; rather “freedom fries.” The most stellar representatives of New Europe were Italy’s Berlusconi and Spain’s Aznar, who demonstrated their love for democracy by overruling an even larger majority of the population. Berlusconi was invited to the White House and Aznar was invited to join the summit where Bush and Blair declared war. At the time he enjoyed the support of 2% of the population.

 

The most dramatic example was Turkey, where the government adopted the position of 95% of the population and rejected Washington’s demands. Turkey was bitterly condemned in the national press for lacking “democratic credentials.” Colin Powell, the official moderate of the Bush administration, announced harsh punishment for this act of disobedience. Paul Wolfowitz took the most extreme position. He denounced the Turkish military for not compelling the government to follow Washington’s orders, and demanded that military leaders apologize, and say “We made a mistake” by overruling virtually unanimous public opinion. “Let’s figure out how we can be as helpful as possible to the Americans,” they should say, thus demonstrating their understanding of democracy. The most prominent leading liberal commentator for the Washington Post, former editor of the International Herald Tribune, declared Wolfowitz to be the “idealist in chief” of the Bush administration, whose sole flaw might be that he is “too idealistic — that his passion for the noble goals of the Iraq war might overwhelm the prudence and pragmatism that normally guide war planners.” The rest of the elite press in the US and Britain chimed in as well, declaring that his “passion is the advance of democracy,” that “promotion of democracy has been one of the most consistent themes of his career.” They scrupulously avoided reviewing his career, which is one of brutal contempt for democracy, much as he revealed in the case of Turkey’s democratic deviation.

 

Bush and Blair went to war because Saddam had not ended his non-existent programs of developing WMD. That was the “single question,” both leaders forcefully reiterated. When the “single question” was answered the wrong way, the state propaganda systems instantly devised a new reason: the goal was to promote democracy. With very rare exceptions, the media and scholarship instantly adopted the new Party Line, hailing Bush for his Reaganite dedication to democracy. Enthusiasm was not entirely uniform, however. In Iraq, 1% of the population accepted the claim, 5% felt that the US intended to help Iraqis, and most of the rest believed the unspeakable obvious: that the US invaded for economic and strategic reasons, as was finally conceded, quietly but clearly, after years of violence and destruction.

 

From such events as these, we learn again that the task of achieving authentic freedom of expression remains a very difficult one, despite many achievements. I have spoken of the US and Turkey, but to keep to them is misleading. In free and democratic Europe there are many serious barriers to freedom of speech. To illustrate with a recent example, I had an interview a few months ago with the New Statesman in England, an old and respected journal of the left. I was asked what I thought about Obama’s winning the Nobel Prize for peace. I responded that it was not the worst choice: the prize had been given to outright war criminals, like Henry Kissinger. The editors informed me that the reference to Kissinger must be deleted, in fear of England’s onerous libel laws, which are an international scandal. In the US, if you accuse me of libeling you, you have to demonstrate my malicious intent. In Britain the burden is reversed: I have to prove that I had no malicious intent, an almost impossible burden. I refused to withdraw the statement and instead suggested that they include some of the obvious evidence, for example, Kissinger’s orders to the US military calling for “a massive bombing of Cambodia; anything that flies on anything that moves.” It would be hard to find a comparable call for genocide in the archival record. The orders were carried out. Rural Cambodia was subjected to more bombing than the entire Pacific theater during World War II, with consequences that we do not know, because we do not investigate our own crimes, though one consequence is known: the bombing changed the Khmer Rouge from a marginal force to a huge army of enraged peasants, bent on taking revenge. Adding that evidence was not enough to satisfy the editors, and on the advice of their lawyer, the statements were eliminated. That is far from the worst case. Britain’s disgraceful laws have even been used to put a small newspaper out of business for daring to challenge the claims of major media. Lacking the resources to confront the power of a great corporation, the small journal capitulated. All of this proceeded with to the applause of the left-liberal press.

 

France is much worse. It has laws on the books that effectively grant the state the right to determine Historical Truth and to punish deviation from it, laws that Stalin and Goebbels would have admired. These laws are used regularly though selectively. Primarily they are used, with much cynical posturing, to punish questioning of the Nazi Holocaust. The term “cynical” is entirely appropriate. Right at the same time the intellectual classes remain silent about France’s own participation in monstrous slaughters, which we would certainly call genocide if perpetrated by enemies. We are, in fact, witnessing the cynicism right at this moment. Far worse than denying the Holocaust would be punishing the victims, exactly what France is now doing, by illegally expelling Roma — Gypsies — to misery in Romania. They too were victims of the Holocaust, much in the manner of Jews. This too passes without comment.

 

I have only skimmed the surface. It is unfortunately all too easy to continue. The lesson is stark and clear. Everywhere in the world there are serious impediments to freedom of expression, and they often lead to severe punishment. And even where substantial victories have been won by popular struggle, constant vigilance and dedication is needed to defend them. Beyond that, we are very far from having reached the stage of a genuine democratic culture in which thought and expression are truly free. That remains a major task for the future, one with tremendous implications.

by kafrodo


[Azınlıkça – Sayı: 59 – Ağustos 2010]

İbram Onsunoğlu

1975 yılından beri ömür boyu hapis cezasını çekmekte olduğu cezaevinde rahatsızlanan “görünmez diktatör” Dimitrios İoannidis, kaldırıldığı hastanede 16 Ağustos günü öldü. 87 yaşındaydı, yaşlılık yüzünden birçok sağlık sorunları vardı, ölüm nedeni sıcak çarpması olarak açıklandı.

1974’te cuntanın yıkılışı ve demokratik yönetimin yeniden kuruluşundan sonra yargılanıp hüküm giyen ve 35 yıldır hapiste yatmakta olan iki cuntacı subay kalmıştı. Diğerleri ya hapisteyken öldüler, cuntanın başı Georgios Papadopulos gibi, ya da birçoğu yaşlılık ve hastalık nedeniyle özel aftan yararlanıp salıverildi, hâlâ yaşamakta olan Stilyanos Pattakos gibi. Şimdi cezasını çeken bir tek Nikolaos Dertilis var. İoannidis, kendisi için özel af talebinde bulunmayı reddetmişti. İki yıl önce sağlık nedenleri ileri sürerek salıverilmesini istedi, ama yetkili kurul bu talebini geri çevirdi.

Albay Dimitrios İoannidis, daha sonra tümgeneralliğe terfi etti, 21 Nisan 1967 askerî darbesini yapan cuntanın önde gelen isimlerindendi. Ama hep arka planda kalmayı tercih etti, cunta hükümetlerinde görev almadı, ordudan ayrılmayarak EAT-ΕΣΑ’nın (Yunan Ordusu İnzibatı-Özel Soruşturma Birliği’nin) başına geçti.
Megali-ideacıydı ve tam bir faşist. Kendini orduya adamış, siyasetçilere güvenmeyen, ülkenin ordu vesayetinde yönetilmesi gerektiğine inanan biriydi. Amansız bir antikomünist, gaddar ve işkenceci. Sinsi, komplocu ve darbeci. Hiçbir zaman izin kullanmadığı söylenir ve bekâr kalmıştır. (Bundan birkaç yıl önce, 80 yaşını aşmışken ve hapisteyken, bir subay arkadaşının dul karısıyla evlenmesi, herkesi şaşırtmıştı.) Keşiş yaşamı sürdüren, öne çıkmaktan ve gösterişten hoşlanmayan İoannidis, 25 Kasım 1973 karşı darbesiyle Papadopulos’u devirdikten sonra artık ülkeyi tek başına yönetmeye başladığında bile hiçbir zaman halk önüne çıkmadı, ortalıkta görünmedi, konuşmadı. Onun için adı “görünmez diktatöre” çıktı. General Gizikis’i cumhurbaşkanı, Andruçopulos’u başbakan tayin etti, kendisi perde arkasında kaldı, ülkeyi oradan yönetti. Veya öyle yönetebileceğine inanacak kadar safdildi, ama tehlikeli bir safdil.

CIA ile öteden beri yakın ilişkileri olduğu söylenir. Ender demeçlerinin birinde, 15 Temmuz 1974 tarihinde Kıbrıs’ta oradaki Yunan ordusunu ve aşırı sağcı ve enosisçi yerel güçleri kullanarak Makarios’a karşı düzenlediği darbeyle ilgili olarak, “Türkiye’nin adaya müdahale etmeyeceğini söyleyen Amerikalılar tarafından aldatıldığını” iddia etmişti. Adaya Türk çıkarması başladığında, genel seferberlik ilan edip, Türkiye’ye karşı savaş emri vermiş, ancak bu kez kendi tayin ettiği kuvvet komutanları, “bu savaşın kazanılamayacağını söyleyip, ihanet etmişlerdi”. Oysa o, “Türklerden çok daha kaliteli silahlara sahip Yunan ordusunun bu savaştan muzaffer çıkacağına inanıyordu”. Böylesine safdil ve tehlikeli.

EAT-ΕΣΑ’nın komutanı olarak ΕΣΑ’yı yeniden örgütledi, güçlendirdi, misyonu cunta rejimini korumak olan kendi kişisel ordusu haline dönüştürdü, bir çeşit ordu içinde ordu. İoannidis’in, ayrıca, ordudaki ateşli genç subaylar üzerinde büyük etkisi olduğu söylenirdi. Papadopulos’a karşı darbeyi bu subaylar ve ΕΣΑ birlikleri ile gerçekleştirdi. ΕΣΑ, yalnız cunta aleyhtarı sivillerin değil, ordu içindeki demokratik veya kralcı subayların da kâbusu oldu. Cunta aleyhinde faaliyet gösteren vatandaşları ve subayları, her çeşit işkenceyi de uygulayarak sorgulamayı ΕΣΑ yürütüyordu. Cunta devrildikten sonra düzenlenen mitinglerde söylenen sloganlar arasında şu ikisi uzun süre yankılandı: «ΕΣΑ, SS, βασανιστές!», «Φόλα στον σκύλο της ΕΣΑ!». Burada “ΕΣΑ’nın iti” benzetmesi yapılan, İoannidis idi. Daha sonra hükümet, ΕΣΑ’yı kaldırıp, inzibat birliklerinin adını “Στρατονομία” olarak değiştirmek zorunda kaldı.

İoannidis, 1963-64 yılları arasında iki yıla yakın bir süre Kıbrıs’taki Yunan ordusunda görevlidir. On yıl sonra, İoannidis’in düzenlediği darbede yaşamını şans eseri kurtarıp Kıbrıs’tan kaçan cumhurbaşkanı Makarios, şu öyküyü anlatıyordu, 1964’lerde bir gün onu makamında İoannidis ziyaret eder, beraberinde Nikos Sampson vardır: “Kıbrıs sorununu kökten halledecek bir plan hazırlamışlar, bana bunu anlatmaya gelmiş. ‘Tüm adadaki Kıbrıslı Türklere aniden saldırıp, onların işini kökten bitireceğiz. Ve kurtulmuş olacağız.’ Şaşırıp kaldım. Kendisiyle hemfikir olamayacağımı, bu kadar masum insanın öldürülmesi olayını tahayyül edemediğimi söyledim… Caninin tekidir diyorum size.”

İoannidis, Kıbrıs’ta, Kıbrıslı Türklere karşı saldırılar düzenleyen Polikarpos Yorgacis ve Nikos Sampson liderliğindeki paramiliter grupların örgütlenmesine ve faaliyetlerine katkıda bulundu. İki toplum arasındaki çatışmaların şiddetlenmesinde onun parmağı vardır. Daha sonra, Yorgacis’le araları bozuldu, ve Makarios’un içişleri bakanı Yorgacis bir faili meçhule kurban gitti, bu suikastın perde arkasında İannidis’in olduğu söylenir. Ama öte yandan keşiş yaşamlı İoannidis, Yorgacis’in Fransız kökenli karısına olan hayranlığını gizlemiyordu. Yorgacis’in dul karısıyla daha sonra cumhurbaşkanlığı koltuğuna oturacak Tassos Papadopulos evlenecekti. İoannidis, Makarios’u devirdikten sonra, yerine eski dostu “Türk kasapı” Sampson’u tayin etti. Yalnızca bu olay, Türkiye’yi çileden çıkarmaya yeterdi.

Makarios’un deyimiyle “caninin teki” olan İoannidis’in nefret ettiği ve bu yüzden hedef seçtiği bazı kişiler vardı, en başta Makarios, Yorgacis, ve cuntanın lideri Georgios Papadopulos gibi.

Makarios, ona göre, Enosis söylemlerine rağmen adanın Yunanistan’la birleşmesini engelliyordu ve komünistlerin etkisi altındaydı. İoannidis, 15 Temmuz 1974 tarihinde Makarios aleyhinde darbe düzenledi, amacı onu öldürmek ve Enosis’i ilan etmekti. Darbe başarılı oldu, ama Makarios kurtuldu. Türkiye’nin Kıbrıs harekâtıyla Enosis planı da altüst oldu.

Her çeşit karanlık işin içinde olan, başına buyruk ve denetlenmeyen Polikarpos Yorgacis, İoannidis’e göre adadaki en tehlikeli kişiydi. Cuntanın lideri Papadopulos’a karşı suikast girişiminde Yorgacis’in parmağı olduğuna inanıyordu. Ve bir faili meçhule kurban gitti. İoannidis, Yorgacis cinayetiyle ilgili çok şeyler bildiğini dolaylı olarak doğrulamıştır, bu suikastta doğrudan ilişkisi olduğu izlenimini vererek.

İoannidis, 21 Nisan darbesini birlikte gerçekleştirdikleri silah arkadaşı Georgios Papadopulos’un kısa süre içinde yıldızının parlamasından ve cuntanın tartışılmaz lideri konumuna girmesinden rahatsızdı ve onu devirmek için tetikte bekliyordu. Papadopulos’a ilgili istihbarat ulaştığında inanmadı, “Dimitri hanım evlâdıdır, darbe yapamaz” diye geçiştirdi. Onu her ihtimale karşı Atina’dan uzaklaştırmak istedi, ama başaramadı, zira İoannidis’in 20 bin kişilik sadık bir ΕΣΑ ordusu vardı. Papadopulos, kendini cumhurbaşkanı tayin ettikten sonra cunta rejimini özgürleştirmeyi ve sivilleştirmeyi düşünmeye başladı. Askerî cunta yönetiminden sivil yönetime yumuşak ve denetimli bir geçiş yapmak üzere eski siyasetçi Spiros Markezinis’in başbakanlığı altında bir “sivil” hükümet kurdurdu. Birkaç ay sonra 17 Kasım Teknik Üniversite öğrenci ayaklanması patlak verdi ve bu ayaklanma hemen yaygın bir hal aldı. Papadopulos, ayaklanmanın bastırılmasını emretti ve sıkıyönetim ilan etti. Atina’da kaos ortamı oluşmasında İoannidis emrindeki kuvvetlerin katkısı olduğu söylenir. Bu kargaşadan yararlanan İoannidis, bir hafta sonra tereyağdan kıl çeker gibi darbe yapıp, Papadopulos’u devirdi ve onu villasına hapsetti. Papadopulos, “21 Nisan İhtilali ilkelerine ihanet etmişti.”, darbeyi böyle gerekçeliyordu.

İoannidis, 8 ay sonra bu kez Kıbrıs’ta Makarios’a karşı yeni bir darbe düzenledi. Bu hareket, İoannidis’in de, Yunanistan’daki cuntanın da sonu oldu.

Görünmez diktatör İoannidis’in hedef seçtiği kişilere neler yaptığını birkaç örnekle anlatmaya çalıştım. Hedef seçtikleri arasında Kıbrıslı Türkler de vardı. On yıl öncesinden onları ani bir saldırıyla toptan kıyımdan geçirip yok etmek konusunda bir plan hazırlamıştı. Makarios onay vermediği için bu planı uygulamaya koyamamıştı. Şimdi uygulayabilirdi, ama hemen ardından devrildi.

Kurban olmaya çok daha elverişli Batıtrakyalı Türklerle ilgili İoannidis’in acaba nasıl planları vardı? Olmaması mümkün değil. Ama bu konuda elimizde hiçbir belge yok. Veya küçük bir belge, bir işaret var. Zira İoannidis, komplo kurallarına tam uyan profesyonel bir komplocu olarak peşinden hiçbir iz bırakmamaya özen gösteriyordu.

İoannidis’in 8 ay süren diktatörlüğü döneminde, zaten daha önce en ağır baskı ve ayrımlar altında ezilen Azınlık, bunların daha bir şiddetlenmeye başladığını pek hissetmedi, daha doğrusu bunu yeni diktatörlükle pek ilişkilendirmedi. Ama merciler arasında Batı Trakya’da Azınlık aleyhtarı daha sert bir İoannidisçi örgütlenme ve daha sert uygulamalar başlamıştı, ne var ki azınlık yaşamında bu yeni olumsuzlukları anlayıp dinleyinceye dek İoannidis devrildi.

İoannidis ve cunta devrildikten ve demokratik yönetim yeniden tesis edildikten sonra, Kıbrıs yüzünden Türkiye ile savaş tehlikesine rağmen, aylar boyunca ülke çapında özgürlüğe kavuşmanın verdiği bir coşku ve rahatlık, hoş bir düzensizlik, bir “anarşi” yaşandı, devlet sanki ortalıkta yoktu. Trakya hariç. Batı Trakya’da Azınlık bir yıl boyunca ırkçı saldırılar ve terör koşulları altında yaşadı. Bu hal, kısmen “malum” etkenlerin bir sonucuydu, Türkiye’nin Kıbrıs’a çıkışının faturasını azınlık Türklerine ödetmeden olmazdı. Ama büyük ölçüde Trakya’da Azınlık aleyhinde oluşmaya başlayan İoannidisçi yapılanmanın bir ürünüydü bunlar. Cunta Trakya’da daha dimdik ayaktaydı.
İoannidis diktatörlüğü bereket ki çok uzun sürmedi, eğer sürseydi, göreceğimiz çok şeyler vardı. Tabiî tarih “eğerler” ile yazılmaz. Ama “eğerler” olmayınca da tam anlaşılamaz ve yorumlanamaz.

Şimdi yukarıda sözünü ettiğim “küçük belge” şu:

İoannidis, diğer cuntacılarla birlikte iki kez yargı önüne çıkarıldı, 21 Nisan darbesine katıldığı için ve Teknik Üniversite ayaklanmasının kanlı bastırılışı için. Kıbrıs’taki darbe için yargılanmadı. Bu olayla ilgili Meclis araştırması yapıldı, ancak İoannidis Meclisin ilgili komisyonu önünde ifade vermeyi reddetti. “Kıbrıs’taki askerî harekâtın tüm sorumluluğunu üstleniyorum.” demekle yetindi. Kıbrıs’taki darbe olayının yargıya taşınmamasının ve Meclis araştırması sonucunda oluşturulan Kıbrıs Dosyasının hâlâ yayımlanmamış olmasının nedeni, ifşa edilecek millî sırların Türk tezlerine yarayacağı korkusudur.

İoannidis, 21 Nisan darbesi için çıkarıldığı mahkemede de ifade vermedi ve kendini savunmadı. Teknik Üniversite davasında ise, her nedense sessizliğini bozdu ve uzun bir ifade verdi. Mahkeme önünde bir ara konuyu değiştirdi ve, ne yapsa beğenirsiniz, hiç alakası olmadığı halde bizim Azınlığa değindi. İoannidis, 2. Dünya Savaşında Batı Trakya’daki Alman ve Bulgar işgali sırasında ve onu izleyen andart savaşında 40 bin Batıtrakyalı Türkün Türkiye’ye göç ettiğini söylüyordu. “Büyük bir hata işleyerek o 40 bin kişinin daha sonra Trakya’ya geri dönmesine müsaade ettik. Onların geri dönüşünü engellemiş olsaydık, şimdi azınlık sorunu diye bir sorun kalmayacaktı.” dedi.

Görünmeyen diktatör, Azınlıkla ilgili düşüncelerini ve dolayısıyla kafasındaki planı da ifşa etmişti. Azınlığı hedef olarak seçtiği belliydi, ama kısa süren diktatörlüğü döneminde ve daha önemli işlerle uğraşırken besbelli Azınlığa yeterli zaman ayıramamıştı. Kararlılığı ve gaddarlığı göz önüne alınırsa, Azınlığın nasıl bir beladan kurtulduğu konusunda tahmin yürütebiliriz.

Link: http://www.azinlikca.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1487:olen-diktator-oannidis-ve-azinlik-ibram-onsunoglu&catid=42:bram-onsunolu&Itemid=61

efes_dark tarafından

yeniden yayınlandı


Röportaja ekonomik kriz ve işçilerin yüzleştiği sorunlarla nasıl başa çıkabileceklerini tartışarak başlamak istiyorum. Yakın zamanda Boston Review’de yayınlanmış olan “Kriz ve Umut: Onların ve Bizim” başlıklı yazınızda demiştiniz ki “ekonomik kriz muhtemelen bir şekilde geçiştirilecektir, ama onu yaratan odaklara dokunmadan”. Bundan yola çıkarak, öncelikle Avrupa genelinde ve Kuzey Amerika’da fabrika ve iş yerlerindeki militan işçi eylemlerinde bir artış yaşandı. Bildiğiniz gibi, Şikago’daki “Republic Windows and Doors” fabrikası 1930’lardan bu yana ABD’deki ilk fabrika işgaliydi.

Hayır, tam olarak sayılmaz, çünkü Ohio’daki Youngstown bölgesinde “U.S Steel”(Çelik Fabrikası-çn)de yapılan 1979 grevi bir işgaldi––ve aslında, bu şimdi de uygulanması gereken bir örnek. İşçiler grevle başlayıp “U.S Steel”in boşalttığı fabrikaları ele geçirerek işgücü ve mülkiyete sahip olmaya çalıştılar. İzlenen yasal sürece radikal işçi avukatı Staughton Lynd önderlik etti. Mahkemede kazanmadılar, ama kazanabilirlerdi, ve yeterli desteğe sahip olabilirlerdi. Bu çok şey anlamına gelebilirdi.

Bu beni işçilerin toplu işten çıkarılmalara nasıl tepki verdikleri sorusuna getiriyor. Amaçladıklarının, daha uzun vadeli düşünerek işçilerin öz yönetimine doğru gitmekten ziyade daha dar kapsamlı kazançlar olduğunu düşünüyorum.

IWW’nin (ABD’li Sanayi İşçileri Sendikası-çn) yapması gereken şey şuydu: kıvılcımı çakmak. Haklısınız, tepkisel. Ama aynısı 1930’larda fabrikalardaki oturma eylemlerinin de gerçeğiydi. Demek istediğim, oturma eylemlerinin yöneticilerin kalplerinde böyle bir korku oluşturmasındaki sebep, bir oturma eyleminin fabrikayı ele geçirmeden bir adım öncesi olduğunu bilmeleriydi.

Şu anda sayıca arttığımızı ve güç ve kuvvet kazandığımızı hissediyorum, ama Amerikan işçi hareketinin geri kalanı bizim ciddiyetimizi algılayamıyor. Şu an yaptığımızı ABD’de daha geniş bir işçi hareketinin bir parçası haline getirmek gerçekten oldukça büyük bir marifet. Önemli olan bu kıvılcımı sağlayabilmemiz.

ABD, bu bakımdan, Avrupa’dan ve diğer sanayi ülkelerinden farklı. ABD, alışık olmadık bir derecede iş dünyası tarafından yönetilen bir toplum. Bunun için her türden sebepler var––feodal bir geçmişi yok, bu yüzden Avrupa’da sürdürülen kurumlar burada varlığını koruyamadı. Ama önemli olan gerçek, ABD’nin alışık olmadık biçimde sınıf bilinci olan, kendisini işine adamış, Avrupa’dan çok daha şiddetli bir işçi sınıfı geçmişi olan, bir idari sınıf tarafından yürütülüyor olması.

Sendika karşıtı propaganda Avrupa’da olduğundan daha sert ve başarılı oldu, hatta sendikalardan yararlanacak işçiler arasında bile. Ayrıca, şirket propagandası burada çok daha fazla başarılı oldu. Aslında, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ndeki iş dünyası propagandasının daha çarpıcı yönü, İkinci Dünya Savaşı’ndan sonra hükümetin şeytanileştirilmeye başlanması.

İkinci Dünya Savaşı, ABD’de ve diğer yerlerde nüfusun radikalleşmesi ile bitti ve yaygın kamulaştırmaları, hükümet müdahalelerini ve fabrikaların işçiler tarafından işgal edilmesini getirdi. İş dünyası muazzam bir propaganda saldırısı başlattı. Bu konuda karşılaştığım boyut beni şaşırttı––çok büyük ve çok etkili olmuş. İki ana hedef vardı: biri sendikalar, diğeri demokrasi. (Onlara göre) demokrasi demek halkın, hükümeti kendi hükümetleri olarak değil, onları soyan ve ezen yabancı bir güç olarak kabul ettirmek. Bir demokraside,hükümet sizin hükümetiniz olur. Örneğin, bir demokraside vergilerinizi ödediğiniz gün, 15 Nisan, bir bayram günü olur, çünkü karar verdiğiniz programlar için kaynak sağlamak amacıyla bir araya gelirsiniz. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde, bu bir yas günü çünkü bu yabancı güç ––hükümet–– sizin zorla kazandığınız parayı soymaya geliyor. Bu genel bir tavır ve demokrasi düşmanları için çok büyük bir başarı ve tabii ki, herhangi ayrıcalıklı bir sektör demokrasiden nefret edecektir. Bunu sağlık hizmetleri tartışmasında görebilirsiniz.

Nüfusun çoğunluğu eğer hükümet sağlık hizmetlerini yürütürse, özgürlüklerinin alınacağını düşünüyor. Aynı zamanda, halk ulusal bir sağlık hizmeti programını destekliyor. Bu çelişki bir türlü çözülemiyor. İş dünyası propagandası bakımından, bu durum özellikle ironik çünkü iş dünyası halkın hükümetten nefret etmesini isterken, onlar halkın hükümeti sevmesini istiyor. Şöyle ki, onların çıkarına çalışan çok güçlü bir devletten yanalar. Yani o hükümeti sevmelisin, ama senin çıkarına çalışabilecek ve senin kontrol edebileceğin hükümetten nefret etmelisin. Bu ilginç bir propaganda görevi, ama gayet iyi bir şekilde gerçekleştirildi. Bunu, kendisini bizi hükümetten kurtaran kişi olarak resmeden Reagan’a tapılmasında görebilirsiniz. Aslında o büyük hükümetin bir havarisiydi. Hükümet Reagan’ın yönetimi altında büyüdü. Savaş sonrası zamanlarda diğer başkanlar arasında serbest piyasanın en güçlü karşıtıydı. Ama gerçek değişmez; tapacağınız bir imaj tasarladılar. Bunu başarmak, özellikle de özgür bir toplumda, zordur, ama yapıldı. Ve IWW’deki eylemciler yerlerinde bu tip bir şeye karşı mücadele etmek durumundalar.

İş dünyasının sınıf bilincinin çok yüksek olduğundan bahsettiniz. Bu sözünüzü açıklar mısınız?

Tek yapmanız gereken iş dünyası yazınını okumanız. 1930’larda çok korkmuşlardı ve kitlelerin yükselen gücünün sanayicilere zararın dokunacağından dolayı endişelenmişlerdi. Sadece değerlerini değiştirmek suretiyle doğrudan Marksist retorik kullanmışlardı. Yazınlarda devamlı olarak kitleler, onların yarattığı tehlike ve onların nasıl kontrol edileceği hakkında konuşuyorlardı. Ne yaptıklarını biliyorlar ve sınıf bilinçleri oldukça yüksek. Kendi çıkarlarına yarayacak politikalar dayatıyorlar. Mesela, sigorta tekelleri ve büyük bankalar şimdi mutluluktan uçuyor––iş sayfalarında bunu saklamıyorlar bile––çünkü krizden daha önce olduklarından, hatta daha güçlü bir biçimde çıkmayı başardılar ve bir sonraki krizin temelini atmak için daha iyi bir konumdalar. Ama umurlarında değil, çünkü yine paçayı kurtaracaklar. Bu bir intikam duygusuna bürünmüş bir sınıf bilinci.

İş dünyasının nasıl propaganda kullandığı konusunda, bence şimdi sendikaları yenilgiye uğratmak için şiddetli taktiklerdense propagandayı kullanıyorlar. Buna katılıyor musunuz?

İkinci Dünya Savaşı’ndan sonra, bir süreliğine işçi sınıfına güçlü bir destek varken bu gizlice yapıldı. Ama Reagan’dan itibaren açıkça yapılıyor. Demek istediğim, Reagan sendikalardan kesin bir biçimde nefret etti ve onları yok etmek istedi. Bu hava kontrolörlerinin greviyle başladı ve oradan devam etti. Reagan yönetimi iş dünyasına çalışma yasalarını zorlamayacağını söyledi. Reagan yıllarında yasa dışı işten çıkarmaların sayısı üçe katlandı. Şirketlerin sendikaları yok etmekte uzmanlaşması bu döneme denk gelir. Bunu bir sır şeklinde yapmıyorlar ve sendikaları yok etmek için her çeşit yönetim tekniklerine sahipler. Clinton geldiğinde, bu biraz yumuşadı, ama Clinton sendikaları kırmak için NAFTA(Kuzey Amerika Ülkeleri Serbest Ticaret Anlaşması) diye bilinen farklı bir araç getirdi. Hükümet tamamen kanunsuz olduğu için, işverenler NAFTA’yı sendika idarecilerini başka yerlere sürmekle tehdit etmek için kullanabilirdi. Bu uygulama yasadışı, ama kanunsuz bir hükümetiniz olduğunda, yasadışı olup olmadığı fark etmez. Sanıyorum engellenen sendika hareketlerinin sayısı yaklaşık yüzde elli arttı. NAFTA yönetmeliği işgücü uygulamaları hakkında çalışmalar gerektiriyordu ve bir işçi sınıfı tarihçisi tarafından NAFTA’nın sendikaların kuyusunu kazması için çok iyi bir çalışma yapıldı. Bu Clinton yılları boyunca oldu, sonra, tabii ki Bush… hiç bahsetmemize bile gerek yok. Ama Reagan ile birlikte artık sendikalara yapılan saldırılar gizli olmaktan çıktı. Artık Pinkertonlar değillerdi, ama sadece yasaların uygulanmamasıydı.

Bunu IWW’de bariz bir şekilde görüyoruz, özellikle Starbucks İşçileri Sendikasında, Starbucks’ın her türlü anti-sendika propagandasını hem dahili, şirket içinde, hem de şirket dışında yapmasıyla gördük. Çoğunlukla yaptıkları, işçilere bir sendikaya ihtiyaçları olmadığını söylemektir.

Onsuz daha iyiler, bu Whole Foods yöntemi

Doğru, Şirket içi Sosyal Sorumluluk yöntemini kullanıyorlar ve oldukça etkililer.

Evet, öyle.

Peki, küçük ve bağımsız bir işçi sendikası olarak biz bu tür bir propagandaya karşı nasıl savaşabiliriz?

Sadece insanları örgütlemeli ve onlara doğruyu anlatmalısınız. Sihirbazlık numaralarına gerek yok. Bildiğiniz gibi, bazen bu epey şaşırtıcı olabiliyor. Aslında, “Kriz ve Umut”ta bunun oldukça çarpıcı bir örneği olan 1990ların başındaki Caterpillar meselesinden bahsettim. Caterpillar oldukça önemlidir çünkü Reagancı grev kırma tekniklerini kullanan ilk imalat sanayisidir. Grev kırıcıları yasadışı bir şekilde büyük bir grevi baltalamak için çağırdılar. Bu Chicago Tribune’nde (Gazetesi-çn) oldukça güzel bir şekilde aktarılmıştı. Grev kırıcılar yasadışı bir biçimde grevi kırdığında, işçilerin Peoria’da çok az destek aldıklarını söylemişlerdi ve desteğin az olması oldukça çarpıcıydı çünkü bütün o topluluk sendika tarafından örgütlenmişti. Ama çatırdamaya başlayınca, topluluğun kendisi de sendikayı desteklemedi. Şimdi bu Obama hakkında ilginç bir şey. Çünkü Obama Chicago’da o sıralar toplum düzenleyicisiydi. Şimdi eminim ki Chicago Tribune okuyordur, yani ne olduğunu biliyordur, ama işçi sınıfı ile dayanışmasını göstermeye gittiğinde, ilk gittiği yer Caterpillar olmuştu. Unuttuğunu sanmıyorum ve işçi hareketi tepki vermedi. Radikal işçi tarihçileri bile hatırlamadı. Alt tarafı sadece 15 yıl önceydi, ama bu yıllarda yapılan propagandanın gerçek bir zaferiydi işte.

Güçlü bir işçi hareketini yeniden inşa etmek çok zordur, ama daha önce yapıldı. Demek istediğim 1920lerde işçi hareketi neredeyse tamamen öldürülmüştü. 1930larda gerçekten ayağa kalktı ve oldukça radikal bir hal aldı. Olaylar gerçekleşebilir, ama kendi başlarına değil. Yani, sonra insan hakları hareketinin ve işçi eylemlerinin tam kalbinde olan Komünist Parti vardı, ama başka bir şey onu sağlamalı. Onların Rusya hayranlığına sahip olmak istemezsiniz, ama yurt içinde oldukça iyi bir kayıtları var. Çocukluğumdan oldukça iyi hatırlıyorum, çünkü ailemin çoğu sendikadaydı.

Bu noktada, ben ayrıca işçi hareketinin ve IWW’nin geleceğinin nasıl olduğunu düşünmeye çalışıyorum. Daha genel olarak, eğer IWW’in gelecek nesillerine sunacak ufak bir parça öneriniz olsaydı––özellikle de geçtiğimiz ve muhtemelen Batı dünyasını uzun bir süre daha etkileyecek bu zorlu ekonomik dönemlerin ışığında––ne olurdu?

İnsanlardan pek çok mektup alıyorum. Bu akşam eve gittiğimde çoğunlukla olan bitenden memnun olmayan ve bir şeyler yapmak isteyen genç çocukların gönderdiği 15 mektubum olacak. Bana neler yapmaları gerektiğini, ya da neler okumaları gerektiğini soruyorlar. Bu işler böyle yürümüyor. Demek istediğim, her şey sizin kim olduğunuza, değerlerinizin, sorumluluklarınızın ve koşullarınızın neler olduğuna ve hangi seçenekleri üstlenmeye gönüllü olduğunuza bakıyor. İnsanların akıllarında tutabileceği bazı genel fikirler var; gerçeklikleri apaçık ortada. Onlar her zaman inkâr edildiği için onlara sadece değinmeye değer.

Öncelikle, güç odaklarından duyduğunuz hiçbir şeye inanmayın. Yani eğer Obama,patronlar veya gazeteler veya başka birisi size şunu, bunu, ya da diğerini yaptıklarını söylüyorlarsa, onu duymazdan gelin ya da tam tersini farz edin, ki genellikle tam tersidir doğrusu. Kendinize ve arkadaşlarınıza güvenmeniz gerekir. Ödüller yukarıdan gelmez; onları kazanmanız gerekir, yoksa elde edemezsiniz. Mücadeleyle kazanırsınız ve bu seçenekleri ve koşulları anlamayı ve ciddi analizlerini gerektirir. İşte o zaman çok şey yapabilirsiniz. Mesela, şimdi populist sağ yükselişte. Solda da dahil genelde onlarla dalga geçiliyor fakat bu doğru tepki değil. Bu insanlara bakarsanız, radyoda dinlerseniz onların gerçekten mağduriyetleri olduğunu görürsünüz. Ben radyoda dinliyorum ve gerçekten ilginç. Kendi dünyanızın bilgilerini askıya alıp bu insanların dünyasına girerseniz onları anlayabilirsiniz. Böyle bir çalışma görmedim hiç ama bu insanların mağdur olduğu kanaatindeyim. Bu insanlar “Hayatımda doğru olan herşeyi yaptım, Tanrı korkusu olan bir hristiyanım, beyazım, erkeğim, çok çalıştım ve bir silahım var. Yapmam gereken herşeyi yaptım. Ve haksızlığa uğruyorum” Evet gerçekte haksızlığa uğruyorlar. 30 yıldır maaşları donduruldu veya azaltıldı, sosyal koşullar kötüleşti, çocuklar deliriyor, okul yok, hiç Bir şey yok, öyleyse birisi onlara Bir şey yapmalı ve onlar bunu yapacakların kim olduğunu bilmek istiyorlar. Rush Limbaugh cevaplıyor bunu-bankalara sahip olan ve hükümeti, tabi medyayı yürütenler zengin liberaller ve sizinle ilgilenmiyorlar- onlar sadece her şeyi göçmenlerden, gaylerden, komünistlerden vs. uzak tutmak istiyorlar.

Vermemiz gereken tepki onlarla dalga geçmek değil öz eleştiri vermek. Neden onları örgütlemiyoruz? Demek istiyorum ki, onları örgütlemesi gereken biziz, Rush Limbaugh değil. Tamamen doğru olmasa da yeterince can sıkıcı olan tarihi analoglar var. Bu Nazi Almanya’sından bir esinti. Hitler mağduriyeti olan benzer grupları kendisine çekiyordu ve onlara aptalca cevaplar veriyordu ama en azından cevap veriyordu; bu kesimler kendilerini başka bir yere taşımıyorlardı. Problem olanlar Yahudiler ve Bolşeviklerdi.

Demek istediğim liberal demokratlar ortalama bir Amerikalıya “Evet, siz yıllardır kurup bugün işlettiğimiz politikalar yüzünden haksızlığa uğruyorsunuz” demeyecektir. Bu bir cevap olmayacaktır. Ve cevaplarını soldan da alamıyorlar. Öyleyse Limbaugh, Glenn Beck(ABD’li sağcı politika yorumcuları-çn.) ve diğerlerinden aldıklarında bir iç tutarlılık ve mantık bulunuyor. Çok ikna edici görünüyorlar, kendilerine güveniyorlar ve her şeye bir yanıtları var-aptalca bir yanıt, ama bir yanıt. Ve devam ederse bu bizim hatamızdır. Yani yapılacak bir diğer şey de bu insanlarla dalga geçmek değil, onlarla bir araya gelip gerçek mağduriyetleri hakkında konuşmak ve onlara mantıklı bir yanıt vermek: “Fabrikalarınıza el koyun”.

Link: http://www.atilim.org/haberler/2010/01/04/Fabrika_isgalleri_ve_radikal_isci_hareketinin_gelecegi___strong_Noam_Chomsky__strong.html

efes_dark tarafından

yeniden yayınlandı