'Greek Tragedy'

three generations of the Papandreou Family

I remember when I was a child, I could tell when spring was coming by the smell of the nerantzies (bitter orange trees). I didn't know this back then; I only realised it a couple of years ago, I was in Athens in late April or early May. I suddenly understood what it was I missed all those years in London - the passage from winter to spring - that smell of the flowers of nerantzies. And I also understood how I experienced home; that is, Athens. Home for me is past. Athens reads in my personal narrative in the past tense. An idealised, romanticised childhood memory governs my relationship to this rapidly changing city and this rapidly changing country. A place that becomes increasingly unrecognisable the more I understand it.

What my romanticised narrative of Athenian streets abundant with nostalgic smells, failed to acknowledge was the strange function of politics in this country, always rooted on the past. My own thinking about it has been in past terms. My absolute and absolutely affective response to the place that hosted the first part of my life, in its childish naivety, does not see the complexity of the weird late 1980s - the national victory of 1987 in the European Championship in basketball seems overwrite the significance of what came after: the instability of 1989. Until Andreas Papandreou (and his 'socialist party')was in power again in 1993. The father of the present (and soon to be former) prime minister, a central figure in the scandals surrounding the general election of 1989, was put on trial and cleared. But in the four years between 1989 and 1993, the ghosts of the past resurfaced - polarisation grew once again out of proportion, populist rhetorics undermined political debate. Democratic politics was reduced to party tactics. Andreas Papandreou's governments in the 1980s had, especially after 1985, taken the path of populism; they had created (or, in fact expanded) a monstrous service state by encouraging the citizens to become clients, consumers of its services rather than sovereign subjects of its power (a fundamental principle of democracy). The Greek clientele fully drawn in this hyper-reality, fell into the abyss of what is known as the 'dirty 1989'. Papandreou threw the country into that crisis and the others navigated through it in what can only be seen one of the most politically unstable periods in the post-1974 era. Until now.

What followed Papandreou's resignation was a couple of coalition governments and then the first neo-liberal incarnation of the conservative party (Konstantinos Mitsotakis' Nea Dimokratia) that formed a government (supported by a narrow majority in the parliament) and instituted the first attempt for a neo-liberal transformation of Greek society. This aggressive attempt caused upheavals, particularly in the youth millieu (the death of a teacher in Patras in 1991 is a clear example of this unrest). Then came the FYROM affair and everything was forgotten. We felt proud as a nation that we could dictate our own terms on this issue, that we could veto any decision on the claims of the neighbouring state to the name of Macedonia and the national imaginings it implied. We were on the side of the powerful. We were part of the EEC soon to become the EU. And the government fell apart into Papandreou's hands.

In the 1993 incarnation of PaSoK, Papandreou is slowly fading away. He is ill and by 1996 he lives in an emergency room. In January 1996 he resigns and the new prime minister is Simitis, a technocrat who continues with the neo-liberal project as part of the EU perspective. Everyone is optimistic. At the end of this, we are promised is the common market, common currency - almost a miracle, a dream come true. They never said anything about common democratic structures or common ways for the peoples of Europe to voice their opinions. The already optimistic atmosphere is enhanced by the other dream come true: Athens will host the Olympics of 2004. The period between 2000 and 2004 seems to be the climax of this megali idea (grand idea). The Euro, the urban transformation of Athens (the new airport, the metro, the new highways, junctions, bridges etc.), and a jolly looking government led by one of the most uncharismatic but seemingly effective and hard-working prime ministers in recent history, makes everything about the past crises and past polarisations redundant. As if they never existed. The future begins here!

Let us now return to the 1989-1993 crisis: after the first general elections in 1989, a coalition government was formed between Mitsotakis' Nea Dimokratia and the united left forces, Synaspismos, which saw the left wing parties in a coalition. This government was short-lived and was followed by another short-lived government, supported by all parties, that would take the country into elections. 1989 for Synaspismos and for the left political forces was something like an original sin. Similar to Brecht's Galileo the coalition governments in 1989 were the choices that once again divided the two main sections of the old communist party as they were formed in the 1960s: the Soviet and the European. After the 1989 political developments in Greece and the parallel collapse of the Soviet block 'orthodox' and 'euro' communists drifted apart and it doesn't seem possible that they can find any way of negotiating in the future.

The political class at the time sensed the ghost of the 1965 apostasia, when a group of MPs from Georgios Papandreou's party Enosi Kentrou (Centre Union) that had the majority in the parliament, supported the illegitimately appointed by king governments led by the opposition. Their way to prevent this from happening again, they formed the second government of 1989, led by economist and banker Xenofon Zolotas, which signalled the way things would unfold. Mitsotakis' government was its logical extension. And, like Blair's New Labour, Simitis 'modernising' and 'modernised' PaSoK was a lighter incarnation of the agressive neo-liberal reforms designed and carried out by Stefanos Manos, Mitsotakis' finance minister.

In 2004, during the electoral campaign that saw Simitis stepping down from the party's leadership and George Papandreou's rise to the throne, Manos joined forces with PaSoK. At the same time, Nea Dimokratia's leader Kostas Karamanlis has brought in his LSE boy Alogoskoufis. He was the architect of the post-Olympics depression - what by now has become the great depression of the Greek state. Its government's neo-liberal aggressive strategies and the politicans' high level of corruption exposed the political system (new scandals springing up on a daily basis, exposing all political parties). The people's reaction was not immediate, but when it came it was angry, violent, menacing. After 2008 and the riots of December, several movements are in the making, waiting for a favourable moment to explode in one mass movement, whose traces can be found in the demonstrations and protests witnessed by the house of parliament; sadly, the parliamentarians fail to notice the turbulence in society. Or they pretend not to see them, under immense pressure by their European counterparts.

Antonis Samaras is now the leader of the opposition. He was in Mitsotakis' cabinet - minister of foreign affairs. He was the one handling the Macedonian affair; he was the one who left the party and created his own and, subsequently, brought the country to elections in 1993. Karamanlis, was the nephew of the old Karamanlis, a central figure in Greek politics in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and the 1980s. He was the Greek president when Andreas Papandreou came to power in 1981; he was the rival of Georgios Papandreou in 1963. He was the man who 'created' contemporary Greece - his policies of development in the 1950s and his choice for Greece to enter the EEC shaped the country. Mitsotakis, finally, was an apostatis in 1965, one of the MPs that left Enosi Kentrou and the country was led into chaos, out of which grew the colonels dictatorship.

Recent history of Greek politics is a tight knot always tied to people and debates of yesterday. We never seem to be up to date. And we never seem to see what's coming. In the exact same way that Greek politicians failed to see the colonels coming in 1967, they now fail to see the impact of this 'crisis induced restructuring' on democratic politics. Or, perhaps, this is a conscious strategy of the political class in its struggle to (re)establish its domination. And they, the politicians, are simply the local agents of this class, therefore, their class allegiance lies with the European and global economic elites not the people. And we, the citizens of Europe, pretend that this 'Greek tragedy' is a surprise - but deep inside we knew it all along. But always hoped that we were wrong. And we succumbed to the nostalgic smell of bitter orange flowers...

Sunday, 6 November 2011

I'm sitting under one one of St. Paul's pillars three weeks after the occupation started. After a few days of absence, I returned to find the camp different yet the same. As I write these lines I'm waiting for the general assembly. Tonight the discussion, I hope, will revolve around Ed Miliband's article about the Occupy London Stock Exchange camp. While he extends his hand in friendship and seemingly invites the occupation to legitimacy, Miliband poses crucial questions: how much do we want to engage with the political class? Do we still think of them as relevant? If the Occupy London Stock Exchange accepts this act of friendship, it will show faith not to Miliband or his party, but to the political system as a whole. It is important, therefore, to think and debate whether they are relevant in our understanding of democratic politics.

It has been three weeks and I haven't written anything on St. Paul's. I would have liked to respond to the questions and discussions that have been taking place outside the old cathedral. I would have liked to have written something about the very important work that is undertaken on this patch of surprise in the austere structures of the City of London; about the fact that until last week this project was under threat of eviction; that after St. Paul's dropped legal action, so did the City of London Corporation; and, finally, that 'red Ed' has had a fit of love on the pages of the Observer.

The campers and those around them have claimed that the current system of governance 'is undemocratic' and demand (with a banner that replaced the older 'Capitalism IS Crisis' banner) 'Real Democracy Now'.

The general assemblies and the practices of self-organisation have, in practice, demonstrated 'What Democracy Looks Like'.

We (and I wish to include myself in this) try to educate ourselves and share the knowledge each one of us holds in the working groups, the small group discussions, the cinema and the Tent City University, where 'anyone can teach, everyone can learn'.

This protest has gone a long way down the path of democratic politics (that is, in trying to understand anew what democracy is, how it works and what it means to be a citizen). The initial anti-capitalist attitude has been replaced by a clear call for democracy. The non-capitalist community that squats a concrete square at the heart of capitalism defines itself as democratic. And a series of questions present themselves: what kind of 'different' is it? What is the source of the crisis after all? And who are its agents? Is the current crisis a systemic shortfall of capitalism or is it an abnormality that should be corrected? In other words, can we understand this crisis detached from the internal contradictions of capitalism? Is it capitalism of corporate greed that's created all this mess? And, finally, can (or should) we distinguish between capitalism and greed?

'I'm not here because I know what the alternative to capitalism is, but I know that hare we can ponder on what lies beyond capitalism' said a speaker, bringing me back to the present, where the assembly was run by the Youth Movement that has grown within the camp. There was no discussion on Miliband's article, probably they did that earlier, when I wasn't there. If we want a different kind of politics, a different kind of democracy and citizenship, can we have it within the neoliberal economy and its state? Can we negotiate with its agents and still 'Grow our own Future'?

direct action

Casting out the money changers by Giotto di Bondone, 14th century.

Debt.

from The Student Handjob

I answered my door a couple of weeks ago. It was a guy in a black motorcycle helmet with his visor still down. I thought he was there to shoot me. I started thinking about all the stuff I did that week that could get me killed. By the time I got to the letter C on m list he handed me a letter. Made me sign for it. He left without a word and I opened it. It was a notice about a court case, all the way from Middlesex Country Court in Boston, Massachusetts. J. Lebowski vs. Harvard University. Fuck, I didn't like my chances. For twenty years they've been asking for their loan back. 10 grand. Now they want 25 for their troubles. Jesus, that was twenty years ago. You'd think they would lose the paperwork by now or something. I've lived all over the goddamned world. How did these bastards find me. Do they really expect their money back after all these years?

After all, there's a lot of stuff people lent to me twenty years ago and I don't have it anymore. Bubba Contreras lent me his Husker Du album. Martha lent me her portable Edgar Allan Poe. Fred lent me is hat. I don't see any of them taking me to court.

I know what you're saying. He should set an example for the students and pay his debts. After all he's a professor. He teaches ethics for Christ's sake. He's bringing the University of London into disrepute. Well, it's not that don't want to pay them back. It's just that if it were important, they would not be asking for it back. If it were important, I could not pay it back, and they would not take it back, and anyway no one could calculate it. No one could say how much I owe them and how much the owe me, if it were important. If it were important, this debt would be bad.

Because everything that's worth anything to me, anything important, I got from bad debt. I got and gave, but I never gave back. I never gave back to the creditor. I never gave back to the community. I never gave back what I took, and I never got back what others took from me. They never asked.

And I never would.

Fred taught me why I should give a shit about Shakespeare. Bubba taught me about music. I never gave them anything of this. I don't know what it's worth. It's incalculable. They would never accept anything in exchange. And I went into bad debt with those I loved, a kiss that I could not take back, a look that was never returned.

And out of all this bad debt came connections, not the kind of connection that says oh shit we are all in debt because of capitalism and this should bring us all together. Fuck that. My bad debt, our bad debt already lives beyond capitalism. It doesn't bring us together. It makes us different, again and again. Because nothing equals anything else, and the debt just grows, the connections to all these different bad debts get deeper and deeper, more and more complicit. And when you enter this world of bad debt, this subprime undercommons, you are accepted without question, without price, without credit. You enter the house, the family of bad debt, the house that has to keep moving, the fugitive family.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. Sometimes we need money, we need credit, we want credits, we want to graduate. Bt sometimes we need to study instead, to study together, never graduate, never get credit, never give credit where credit is due, just study together, and get in bad debt to each other, and figure out what's important, figure out what's always different, what's always something else. Just study together til they kick us out, speculate together until they move us along. Kids broke windows and took stuff this summer. They don't plan to give it back. They took what they needed and they took what they wanted and they didn't leave their credit card details. They say these kids were thugs, that they were criminals. Maybe they were, but if being criminal means knowing it's good credit and not bad debt that makes us slaves, then maybe they know something we need to learn. Maybe being in the black means being in the red, and maybe being in the red means being in the black.

Either that or don't open your door.

The Student Handjob: so radical… it's fucking bodacious p.54-5

debt robbery

I was reading a short crime story by Greek author Costas Mouzourakis; it's set in post-crisis (or perpetual-crisis) Athens and I thought the following was really apt.

A successful lawyer explains to our ex bank robber, middle aged hero how the system works:

"...despite common belief, state intervention is crucial in the jungle of the neoliberal market economy. For example, the so called "state injections", are often selective: The government sells out to [private businessmen] underpriced public property, buys expensive money from abroad, and in order to stimulate the economy "injects" it into the banking system, where the [private businessmen] borrow from in order to buy public property, which the government sells out cheap in order to pay back for the expensive money it borrowed, and so on and so on. And everyone is happy - excluding the moron, i.e. the owner of the public property. But that's how it goes; going after the highest possible profit by any means is capitalism's foundational principle. Andrew Young, once a US ambassador to the UN, has said nothing is illegal if a hundred businessmen decide to do it."

Costas Mouzourakis, Oplismeno Skyrodema, p.267

How do they manage? Well, nobody could do it without help from their international cronies. IMF/EU/ECB are against any Greek default. On the contrary, they wish to be able to govern whole economies through the managing of their debt. It's time to start a conversation of what debt is; I just got a hold of David Graeber's book on debt, who poses all relevant questions. One of the main arguments relates debt with violence. I'm still at the beginning, but I couldn't resist posting another quote, of an old vaudeville gag, quoted by Graeber:

"I was walking down the street with a friend the other day and a guy with a gun jumps out of an alley and says "stick 'em up."

As I pull out my wallet, I figure, "shouldn't be a total loss." So I pull out some money, turn to my friend and say, "Hey, Fred, here's that fifty bucks I owe you."

The robber was so offended he took out a thousand dollars of his own money, forced Fred to lend it to me at gunpoint, and then took it back again."

David Graeber, Debt: The first five thousand years, p.7

messy business

A Guardian article from yesterday presented an analysis of the "Greek debt crisis" by four experts from the financial system. It seems that they all agree that things are not looking good. That is, not looking good for the whole of Europe. It makes one wonder why do we keep referring to the Greek crisis and not the "Euro crisis", especially when it is clear that what is being bailed out is the central European banking system (via Greece).

One analyst says:

"For most market participants, it is not a question of if Greece will default but rather when and how. An orderly and managed default would have a less damaging impact than a messy one"

Managed by whom? Damaging impact for whom?

It's clear that the following analyst is worried about European banks.

"...which clearly has the potential to send shockwaves throughout Europe's banking system."

And rightly so. For some time now, Lapavitsas has been warning for a new imminent banking crisis. Like Greece's default and exit of the Eurozone, the question for him is how and when this is going to happen. The two are of course connected. Once again, we know that the bail-out is concerned with saving the banks: instead of pouring money directly to the banks, the Eurocrats lend the money to Greece (or Ireland, or Prortugal) with a clearly written mandate that the borrower uses this money to pay back the banks. The latter are in deep shit lately, after they messed up with lending and speculative profiting during the last decade. They knew they were "too big to fail" and nobody bothered back then. They had to be bailed out once and now they have to be saved again, because the first time round it simply didn't work. In a sarcastic tone, the bankers are telling us: "try again, fail again, fail better".

Schäuble has officially said that Germany benefits from the Euro more than any other country. In the case that Greece defaults and exits the Euro (and cancels a large part of its debt), we will be talking of the hardest blow on neoliberalism in recent times. We might be even talking about the end of the Euro, or Europe as we know it. A very likely result is that the common currency will crash due to all the structural insufficiencies associated with it (so far obvious in the inequality between North and South).

But still, the analysts from the heart of the banking system consider default a certainty. Why did not the first "Greek" bail out work? Why default? Why now? Who is going to manage it? Who are going to be hit hardest from a default? This is a political question: it can only be either the banking system or the people, because of the imposed austerity, which, as the wise analysts are telling us now, is not sufficient. Did they not know that the first bail out was not enough? Of course they did. According to Lapavitsas, the whole project was aimed at stabilising the situation by rolling the private debt to the hands of the European states. So far roughly one third of the Greek debt has been transfered to the IMF, the ECB and the European states. Simply put, around €110bn has left the hands of the IMF/ECB/EU and ended up in the banks. This, and not austerity, was the point.

Austerity is simply not a solution. If I owe you €100 and I make €5000 a month, then I don't owe you much, do I? But if I earn €500 per month, then you might start thinking I won't be able to pay you back that easily. What austerity does then, is making me work less and earn less (soaring unemployment is the main result of austerity): instead of helping me make more money in order to pay you back, you're reducing the chances for you. The very definition of shortsightedness. The real reason behind austerity is simply the same old story of IMF and Latin America or South-East Asia: impose neoliberalism through the managing of debt. Especially when neoliberal theory is such a poor utopianism that nobody can really believe in. Since 2003 IMF had been the most scorned and bankrupt global institution and it was only the new crisis that resurrected it. But the Argentinean spectre will always be haunting it...

The whole thing makes one wonder, how come so much people (in Greece, in Germany and elsewhere) were actually so stupid to believe that the whole problem was caused by the lazy Greeks, and that all it took to fix it was to make them work harder for longer. Oh, sorry, that was last year. Now nobody seems to hold this argument (or at least I hope they don't). Now the argument goes like this: the problem was not that the banks were too lax, but that the were not lax enough. In other words, after Greece, like all governments, poured huge amounts of money to bail out the banks (€108bn so far), now they have to make way for the markets to do the trick. Of course, a major market player will take the place of the previously state-controlled structural sectors, like energy etc., but the money will have to be collected in the right amount, in the right time and in the right place. This of course will be provided by the banks - and that's why "we" need them so badly.

As one of the wise analysts points out (I'm being ironic not because what they're saying is not true, but because they're simply stating the obvious), the Eurocrats are faced with the horrible situation of having to decide when to pull the plug. Brrr! Do you trust them? I certainly don't. Merkel, especially after the ongoing electoral defeats, is in deep trouble trying to persuade her voters that "saving Greece" is to their long-term benefit; she can't really ask them to bail out the banks once again, can she?

You bet it's going to be messy!

What happened on September 11?

Most people would answer: the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York. And they would be right. But, as it usually happens, the dark anniversaries go in pairs and we seem to remember the more recent or the one that is somehow closer to us. Or we seem to forget the one that is not commemorated enough...

On September 11 1973, general Augusto Pinochet overturned the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende the people's President. The dictator was backed by the US president Richard Nixon - a corporate president who instructed his intelligence services that 'an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States' and that they should 'prevent Allende from coming to power or unseat him' and who let the Chicago boys loose in what became one of the first neoliberal labs.

RONG, EROR or MEESTAKE?

Why is it wrong (and not a right) to write on a wall?

What is a properly spelled error (if not a right)?

How do we tell a mistake?

Returning as Shadows*

by Kostas Svolis

*book title by Paco Ignacio Taibo II

Greece’s Parliament may have ratified the mid-term austerity plan, but just a few days later, the Greek government still faces the same dead-ends. Its fiscal programme is collapsing and its sole anxiety is to continue to serve its borrowers and to improve profitability terms for capitalists, by continuously decreasing labour costs, dissolving small property, selling out public wealth and ravaging nature and the environment. Any kind of measures taken by the Greek government seem ineffective in relation to the structural crisis characterizing not only Euro, but Capitalism itself. Greece in not alone in this downfall; the company keeps growing. Debt, inflation, recession, stock market indices, are just a reflection of the true causes of crisis…

The Greek Government succeeded to ratify the mid-term austerity plan in Parliament, through the cloud created by 2500 teargas and stun grenades thrown by riot police forces to tens of thousands enraged citizens trying to dissuade the voting procedure of measures that continuously tighten the noose around the neck of workers, farmers, self-employed people and mostly, unemployed youth. Hundreds of citizens were injured by riot police batons in a battle that lasted 48 hours and during which, in spite of the terror and violence exercised by praetorians, they were not able, not even for a moment, to evacuate Syntagma Square and disperse people who since May 25th have turned it to the center of their struggle as well as a symbol of resistance.

This time the case was not about the clashing of Anti-authoritarians/Anarchists with the riot police, but about a broad popular movement of resistance. Photos and videos on the Internet are most characteristic, showing senior citizens who were trying to stop fully armed riot policemen or young girls standing up against the barbarity of state violence with their unprotected bodies as their sole weapon. Those of us who were there during this time have lived and felt the dignity of resistance and “ya basta”. Because we were returning as shadows in the square after each and every attack of the uniformed murderers, through teargas clouds, shouting “the Junta did not end in ‘73”…

Through the 48hour strike and the attempt to blockade the Greek Parliament, a circle of struggle was escalated. A struggle that started on May 25th, after the alarm clock that was set by our companions in Puerta del Sol in Madrid rang –and we thank them for it. Because that alarm clock rang at the moment when, while the uninterrupted assault by the capital, the government, the IMF, bankers and the EU leaders continued, the deadlock of the previous circle of struggle was a given. Because it rang at the precise moment when, through the outspread attacks of fascist gangs against immigrants, social cannibalism was transforming to a strategic tool for handling the popular classes’ pauperization and despair by power centers and the media.

The coincidence of the call for uprising at Syntagma Square with the disclosure of the austerity measures included in the mid-term plan, was the main reason for the mass participation of people in demonstrations. It is notable that neither trade union bureaucracy, nor primary-level trade unions, Left-wing parties or even the anti-systemic political movements were able to take that sort of an initiative. The call by the Real Democracy initiative succeeded, in spite of any contradictions, contrasts and problems, to unite people who wanted to protest, whereas all initiatives taken in the same direction until that moment had only succeeded to separate them. This was due to the fact that unification took place on common ground: the people’s opposition to the memorandum and its consequences, in combination with an open procedure of exploring what the content of the people’s reaction would be. In contrast, separations characterizing previous forms of popular reaction that were expressed mainly through general strikes, took place on the basis of ideological-political symbols and parties, as well as closed and predefined political content. The continuity promised by the Real Democracy call at Syntagma Square was giving an answer to the problem that most people had realized, that one-day general strikes were fragmentary and were not creating a prospect for long-term resistance.

Nevertheless, the 48hour strike and the blockage highlighted in the most distinctive way a threshold which, even today, the majority of the Greek society have not yet passed; the threshold that separates indignation and protesting from resisting and claiming. At the exact moment when the struggle reached its climax, it became obvious in the clearest way that there are two Syntagma Squares. The one where people are able to express their indignation and protest, fling abuse at the Parliament and shout “thieves, thieves”, blow off steam for free and return back to their daily lives, having the inmost hope that new leaders will emerge who, through “purification” and the punishment of scapegoats will reconstruct consensus and by engaging in national regeneration will succeed in preserving even a small part of the seeming consumerist affluence characterizing the previous decade. These are the same people that went to the square each weekend and afternoon and although they took part in the striking gathering of Sunday, June 5th when the number of people surpassed 300 thousand, not only did they not participate in June 28th and 29th demonstrations, but they didn’t even go on strike as it is notable that in the public sector the percentage of strikers did not surpass 20%, a percentage notably smaller than the same one during other general strikes that took place in previous months.

On the other hand, there is also the “other square”, the “square” of resistance, claiming and creation. The “square” where a great effort takes place, an effort to discover and construct structures and content that will reflect the possibilities and necessity for the establishment of a new field for exercising the political power of the people, totally different to parliamentary democracy, as the only way out from various alternatives that are being elaborated by capitalist power centers.

It is this “square” that looks into the future, wanting to build up a new tomorrow that will be based on a new perspective of how society should be and not just to return to the “happiness” of consumerism and spectacle. Nevertheless, this new tomorrow is not a prefab political outline with existing ideological symbols and predefined forms of struggle, but an open procedure of redefining not only the struggle’s nature and the content of claims involved, but social needs and values as well:

Direct democracy, autonomous self-organization, denial of mass media mediation, the open content that is reshaped through continuous dialogue, egalitarianism in terms of assembly procedures (time limit, speakers’ draw, speeches) that works in an anti-hierarchical way and in juxtaposition with “political speech specialists”, are only some of the ideological stances and practices that appear as a given for a significant number of people participating in the procedures of the Syntagma Square assembly.

Furthermore, other ideas are fermented such as squatting the means of production, changing the model of production and consumption, the necessity for redefining social relationships and the relation between society and nature, free access to common wealth, the necessity for a new statehood of direct democracy that will surpass the representative nature of parliamentary democracy, redefining the notions of politics and citizenship.

Nevertheless, all of the above do not mean that there are no views and concepts that although they should, they are not yet included in the fermentation agenda, such as: abolition of ownership of means of production, current commercial nature of both production and consumption, paid work relationships and other numerous issues. It is also a fact that there are equally problematic issues and characteristics that are being fermented in the wrong direction: a nation-centered perspective of growth, the essential absence of immigrants as a critical part of society, lack of criticism about the role of commercial economy, non-class oriented perception regarding who is responsible for the debt and the fiscal crisis (politicians and bankers are being accused as responsible, but this is not the case with capitalists and bosses), the concept that economic and not productive capital is responsible for world crisis and much more…

But it must be taken in mind that this is a procedure that started a little more than fifty days before and it is only natural that in its current form it will not be able to provide answers, but it will bring forward these issues and start a public debate around them.

It is the people that have already passed the threshold between indignation and resistance that constitute this square which is trying to find other squares in order to provide them with the ground for locality in terms of resistance, claiming and creation, it is this square that brought together tens of thousands of people, it is this square that fought a tenacious battle in the center of Athens on June 28th and 29th. It is this square that by passing the threshold etches a new path and keeps the door of future and hope open for others, it is the social pioneer of the Greek society, it is the rival to the one-way course imposed by capitalism, it is the shadows that will always return through the teargas clouds…

What’s the time?

It is time to take our lives in our hands.

Kostas Svolis, from Autonomo Steki, Athens

quick scratch #2

Germany's constitutional court will have to decide whether bailing out Greece is against the German constitution's protection of property. Last Tuesday (5 July) Wolfgang Schäuble appeared in court himself and argued that the government's decisions guarantee the stability of the euro. He also added:

"we Germans benefit even more than other Europeans from the currency union".

Who or what is been bailed out exactly?

athens 28-29 june 2011 - addendum

29/6/11, 8pm: cops hit protester when he's down


29/6/11, 8pm: cops his protester when he's down: another view


29/6/11: cops attack in the metro station
(at 1:32 a cop is throwing tear gas inside the station)


pigs throwing stones at protesters

athens 28-29 june 2011

syntagma square 29 june


cops attack the red cross makeshift medical centre on syntagma square

Επίθεση με χημικά στο Ιατρείο της Πλατείας (ΕΞΑΝΤΑΣ) from Yorgos Avgeropoulos on Vimeo.

cops attack protesters inside syntagma metro station


cops attack protesters near hilton

selected sovereign defaults since 1999

from: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/sovereign-defaults-and-gdp

LE THEATRE DU SOLEIL - SYNTAGMA 18 / 06 / 11

scratch in the naïve mode #3 (...or "how privatisation costs even more")

Yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee warned the government about a spending black hole, caused by high fees at English universities. They are concerned that if universities charge too high, the government will be unable to back up the bulk of student loans. The Ministry of Education (or the Treasury) will have to cover a projected student debt of £70bn by the next 4 years (now at £24bn). And today, Oxford lectures voted for a motion of no confidence to David Willetts, not necessarily because they disagree with high fees, but because the guy seems to not know what he's doing.

The coalition gevernment told the academic community they won't fund teaching anymore and then "liberated" the student market: you can charge up to £9000. But they made sure to say that they think fees should be £6000 instead. The poor things, they did really expect that universities would be willing to charge less, when they can charge more. Honestly, they thought the average fees would be £7500 (you guessed it: halfway between the highest and the highestest cap), but found out it is £8,765.

Oh dear, oh dear.

It is a bit like the publicly-funded railway network: after the privatisation of the sector, no-one was willing to take on the maintenance cost. But after a few derailed trains the government had to start subsidising a railway network that is used by private companies to profit - companies who are unwilling to pay the maintenance cost. Only, this time it is a black hole: the less the funding you provide, the more the student debt you have to back up, essentially by transferring it to the government's accounts - ouch!

I don't really know what's the worst case scenario here. It's another puzzle for the big society. The bigger your society the better. But the big society is a free society and can decide to become smaller, e.g. by reducing student numbers, and ha! the big society becomes a small society. But big enough to study at their own privatised University of London; just for £18,000 a year.

scratching the urban surface

Trafalgar Square is the centre of contemporary London. The point from which distances are calculated in England. Tourists tend to gather there, outside the National Gallery on the top side, under Nelson's Column in the centre of the square, around the lions surrounding the column, on the lower side, towards Whitehall. At the far end, the Big Ben – yet another iconic landmark of London. Many have taken the postcard picture from the stairs at the front entrance of the National Gallery that depicts Trafalgar Square, Nelson in his mid-air solitude, and Big Ben standing in the distance counting (British) time. The reference to Trafalgar and the victory of the British Navy over the Spanish that opened the way for sea domination and, eventually, the British Empire, can only partly explain the centrality of that place in the geography of London. It is a memorial to a 'great past', which would only be a distant memory if there was no link with the present. The link is the proximity of Buckingham Palace – the link is the royal family itself: an institution that provides the sense of continuity between the present and a victorious past, whose swan song was the 20^th century, during which time the Empire was dismantled. What remains of this past is the royal family. And the the Houses of Parliament – another institutional relic of the past. The proximity of Trafalgar Square to Buckingham Palace and Westminster confirms this notion of historical continuity, upon which national identities tend to be constructed, through the 'invention of tradition' and the writing of national histories. This proximity also presents a triangle of power: political authorities (parliament and Downing Street), symbolic authorities (palace) and cultural authorities (National Gallery). The empty spaces between the three edges of the triangle are filled with hegemonic notions of ideology, history and culture. And lots of tourists that consume, after having purchased in a variety of prices, fragments of the seductive image of London's spectacle.

The spectacle of power that is the centre of London is the spectacle of the market-place – the neoliberal ethics and/of politics. There, all participants perform their particular tasks with varying degrees of sincerity – depending on each one's position in social hierarchies. These are the paradigmatic public spaces that encapsulate a paradigmatic image of the current capitalist organisation of society. Such spaces flooding with spectacular seduction mask the fact that the actual centre of London is the City of London, one of the key centres of contemporary capitalism. The financial system is running the show; they direct the spectacle of democracy that has overtaken our public spaces, substituting participation with consumption and politics with finance.

The spectacle of Trafalgar Square is similar to the spectacle of Piccadilly Circus, the West End, the South and North Banks of river Thames. The Skyline of London that is printed on t-shirts, underwear, bathing suits etc. seems to perform in itself a particular part in the overall spectacle of the city; a master-narrative that fails to acknowledge pockets of tension and, in the name of transparency, homogenises public space through processes of gentrification, as it currently does in the east part of the city; that is, the Olympic gentrification of east London. Urban space is, in the case of London, under a serious process of transformation – implying a parallel transformation of the organisation of everyday life in urban centres. Urbanists in the service of the dominant classes provide the material manifestation of this transformation. In other words, the reorganisation of public space is ideological and reflects the attempted reorganisation of society as a whole. Our every day dwellings are being reconfigured according to the imperatives of the 'brave new world' that is upon us.

Lefebvre's hypothesis that if there is going to be a revolution, surely it will be an urban revolution, seems pertinent here. Our globalised world (what a waste of wor[l]ds) is organised in the grand scale of the whole, and the whole is the urban. The world is a city; that is, each city is a synecdoche for all cities; the megacity is the dominant paradigm for the current capitalist organisation of (quotidian) space. In the last few years, urban public spaces have been reclaimed in different ways and with different objectives. Lately, attempts to occupy such spaces have increased in both volume and clarity of objective. The last decade has seen many near revolutions or near-movements that were mostly characterised by fragmentation, short duration, and the increasing volume of anger and violence. France in 2005, Greece in 2008, Britain in 2010 are only some examples of the riots that broke out in various places in Europe. Of course the British case is considerably more peaceful than the other two examples, but its impact on British society was similar to the impact of events such as the riots in Athens in December 2008. The media representations of the student demonstrations -the most militant in a long period in Britain- attempted to delegitimise the practices of the student demonstrators. Nevertheless, the movement grew after the Millbank occupation, which was a spontaneous expression of anger. This movement was created upon the agreement that we are against any cuts in education; after the government passed the higher education bill in December, the student movement seemed to lose its force. The main objective, the basis of our agreement, ceased to exist. Police repression and the inefficacy of the movement seem to have brought this movement to a closure.

This does not mean that the struggle is over. No. We simply need to find more effective ways to occupy public spaces, and open up our discussions to society at large. And another thing that, I believe most of us would agree to, is that we need to rid the movement of any tendencies towards violent practices. All movements need to be inclusive, not exclusive. Public spaces are places where we meet and interact; spaces that we must all agree to use with respect – respect to each other. In other words, yes, democracy is inclusive, but only for those who accept that there must be a common public space – the symbolic space of democratic politics and the concrete urban space. Violence negates this symbolic space and, therefore, cannot be part of any democratic movement. And this is the realisation that we must come to here in this country. Political action seems to be restricted in fragmented pockets of autonomous organisation. On the grand scale, the spectacle of London still overshadows any kind of alternative visions of urban space. However, there are certain practices that are important and should be continued; UK Uncut, the University for Strategic Optimism, Arts against Cuts and the Really Free School are only a few examples of such political activists. They stage a critique of the capitalist organisation of society by claiming public spaces (ranging from squares and streets to banks and department stores). They aim at renegotiating the use of public spaces in our everyday life.

A similar example, which gathers momentum over continental Europe is the movement of the 'indignados' that started in Spain. After two weeks people still return to the public spaces in many Spanish cities discussing and organising in the squares. They call this real democracy. The movement spread to Greece, where tens of thousands of people have taken over the public spaces in many cities. There is something very important in this form of direct action that separates it from the fragmented pockets of resistance here in this country. It has moved on from challenging the current organisation to actually proposing an alternative function of democratic politics. This is an important step. This is, perhaps, an urban revolution that makes use of public space in different ways than the ones that were prescribed by the spectacular organisation of space. Or, perhaps, it is a new direct democratic process in the making. This process spreads from city to city, crossing borders rapidly. Last week a rumour spread in Greece: that protesters in Spain were shouting 'silence, the Greeks are sleeping'. When Athenians occupied Syntagma Square, in front of the house of parliament, a banner was held up writing: 'we woke up. What time is it? Time [for the political system/government] to go'. Another banner read in French: 'silence! the French are sleeping'. I hope there will be one in Bastille saying: 'silence! the British are sleeping'.

On 29 May, the day of European solidarity to the Greek and Spanish 'indignados', a similar event was staged in Trafalgar Square. Around 200-300 people occupied the centre of the square, just under Nelson's watchful eye. We sat there and discussed. We had a small taste of what is happening in the cities of the south. One speaker (English himself) asked how many Greeks were in the crowd, almost half of the people raised their hands; then he asked how many Spaniards were there, almost half of people again raised their hands; then he asked how many were English. Only a few hands were raised. This simple show of hands is characteristic of the event in Trafalgar Square: it was not an event in solidarity with the Greeks and Spaniards, but an event staged and performed by Greeks and Spaniards in London. It was simply a glimpse into what is happening elsewhere. It is a start. But unless more people who live and work in this country take to the squares, this will remain a distant echo of a movement that is rising elsewhere. We have to start from raising awareness, and this is why the practices such as UK Uncuct's Fortnum & Mason occupation are important: because they disrupt the spectacular vision that veils the democratic deficits of British society and they advocate an alternative (to consumerism) understanding of participation. Then we may see the triangle of power overtaken by citizens willing to participate in the reshaping of their everyday lives, through the reclamation of the public sphere from the ruling oligarchy and the renegotiation of the democratic process; only then would we be in solidarity with the movement of the 'indignados'. And, only then, perhaps, would we see enraged citizens on Parliament Square shouting 'What time is Cameron? Time to go!' (like a ten-year-old girl in front of me was shouting on the March 26 march in London) letting those inside Westminster Palace that we are awake and that we're organising.

Greece in the Tomb, by Petros Papakonstantinou

[This scratch is a translation of Petros Papakonstantinou's response to recent events in Athens and developments in the EU. This analysis concerns us all Europeans – whatever that means.]

The ECOFIN meeting on Monday 16 May was, for [Greek finance minister] George Papakonstantinou, a nightmare. His European colleagues spoke in the language of the German populist newspaper Bild, which a year ago was calling on us [Greeks] to sell the Acropolis and the islands to come even for the debt. “It's measures, measures, measures, and then maybe there can be re-profiling”, cynically demanded Jean-Claude Juncker, the mighty prime minister of Luxembourg. “Greece had so far failed to act on its original promise to raise €17 billion”, which should be rapidly accelerated in order to reach the “satisfactory volume” of €50 billion, said the French finance minister Christine Lagarde. “You can't promise privatisations and then do otherwise. If you deceived us to enter the Eurozone, now you have to go faster in order to catch up with us”, said her Austrian counterpart, Maria Fekter with less Gaulish politeness.

A day later, seeing that his insolent statement did not generate any kind of response from the Mediterranean Banana Republic, Juncker came back harsher: “Greece must realise huge reforms. Greece needs to speed up its process of privatization. If Greece makes all these efforts, we will have to see if we can go for a soft restructuring (that is, some kind of prolongation) of Greek debt”. As for the possibility of a “major” restructuring, in which case foreign banks would be forced to erase part of the debt and the interest they collect, forget it!

They would not speak with such impudence not even to an imposed NATO-planted government of Kosovo or Bosnia. They forced, with George Papandreou's complicity, an exhaustive memorandum, knowing in advance that it would completely fail in relation to its declared targets -that is, dealing with the debt and deficit problems- in order to go forward with their real aims: to turn Greece into the Guinea pig for the realisation of a counter-reform of incredible depth and barbarity in Ireland, Portugal and Spain today, on a European scale tomorrow. And now that the wholly predictable bankruptcy is upon us, they move on to “plan B”: clearance of all state enterprises of strategic importance; shrinking of the public sector , by turning [nation-wide recruitment system] ASEP into an organisation for redundancies, instead of recruitment of public sector workers; China-isation of labour conditions and labour cost.

It is time for the Greek bourgeoisie to finally see off [former Greek prime ministers] Konstantinos Karamanlis and Kostas Simitis' dreams for an equal participation in the first gear of a prosperous Europe. It is time that the modified intermediary Greek oligarchy of bankers and ship owners came to terms with the idea of a country peripheral in the imperialist chain, a “Germany's Mexico in the Mediterranean” that will attract funds (in Berlin there is already talk of a German Marshall plan) due to its destroyed salaries and trade unions, a la Turkey and Estonia. This spineless bourgeoisie that, when the crisis begun, was fast to export its capital-power, buying properties in London, before calling upon the workers to fierce sacrifices in the name of the nation's salvage, it is ready to wholly sell-out to international capital, delivering even its own banks, including the “National” bank, in order to deteriorate to the role of the sub-contractor of Europe in the Balkans; or the second in order subcontractor, below Turkey.

Greece for the second time becomes the Guinea pig, this time for the imposition of a model of a “multi-geared Europe”, which will institutionalise the hegemonic role of Germany and its Northern allies. Exemplary of this is the German-Dutch proposal, increasingly popular among EU leading circles, towards establishing an international committee that will oversee the clearance of... Greek state enterprises and the placement of EU commissioners in all Greek economy-related ministries! The son of the socialist who came to power with the slogan “Greece to the Greeks” is ready to take us lower than the bottom of shame, the bottom Greece hit when under international economic control, after Trikoupis' [December 1893] “unfortunately we are bankrupt”. For the first time after the German occupation and the National Liberation Front's epic, the labour movement's class, socialist potential is so closely related to the prevention of a macabre national collapse into the abyss.

This social medievalism and national decline cannot be imposed by the usual means of the, even restricted, bourgeois democracy. The leading players, in Greece and Europe, need some sort of counter-democratic deviation, some sort of state of emergency – which, of course, will not be Fascism in the traditional sense; and it's being prepared.

Hence the European Commission's unheard-of intervention in Greece's internal political affairs, with Olli Rehn's demand that “Memorandum 2” be endorsed, not only by the government, but also by the leading opposition party, as a prerequisite for the country to get the second instalment of the loan! The excuse: “this is not about party politics, it is a national issue”, said Mr. Rehn! In other words: the sell-off of your country is beyond party differences, it is a national necessity! And the cowardly, ever-consenting and will-lacking spokesmen, with or without a voice, such as [government's] Petalotis and [opposition's] Panagiotopoulos, fight each other on Mega [Channel] in a contest of consent and efficient implementation of the Gauleiters' directives for privatisations! This, in essence, is an attempt to dispense with politics itself; an attempt to ostracise any kind of popular, left-wing opposition to this illegitimate kind of ideology and politics.

Hence the atmosphere of gloom, violence and blood that lately spreads above Athens and the other urban centres [of Greece]. It is pretty clear that the riot police's murderous violence during the latest general strike was a consciously planned state-terrorism operation [1]. The government and its mandators want deaths by the riot police and the Nazis of “Chrissi Avgi”, who are left undisturbed to organise their pogroms against immigrants in order to terrorise society at large and to deteriorate class-struggle into a hooliganist “war of the extremes”; between fascists and anarchists. For the same reason they want one, two and more incidents such as the one in Marfin Bank [2], utilising professionals of political provocation and cretins of nihilist violence, as in the criminal assault of the police department on Kallidromiou Street [3]. This atmosphere of illegitimacy and crime, similar to that of Los Angeles, serves well the imposition of authoritarianism and the prevalence of the two-party consensus, in the name of law and order.

The conclusion is that the economic bankruptcy of Greek capitalism is transformed into a social and political crisis of historic significance. The explosion is inevitable, like the fire in a pine forest under the blazing sun and the winds of August; but the outcome is not at all given. The challenges are immense and the weight of historical responsibility before the working classes is too heavy for any one left-wing political force. The critical demand for a large-scale, militant popular front, capable of overturning the memorandum, overthrowing the government, imprisoning those guilty for the grand theft and leading the way towards an anti-capitalist perspective, emerges; and this concerns us all: if not now, when?

by Petros Papakonstantinou
published at http://aristerovima.gr/details.php?id=2315 (Aristero Vima)
on 18/05/2011


[1]
On the general strike of May 11 2011 protesters were attacked by riot police, leaving tens injured and one with severe injuries.
[2]
On May 5 2010, during one of the largest demonstrations of the last few years against government austerity, several people were trapped inside a Marfin Bank branch. Three of them died. The attackers remain unknown.
[3]
On May 14 2011, during a 'week of violence', three people were injured, one of them critically, after an attack on the police department of Exarcheia.

(translated by PH and DE)

here, there and everywhere

'The spectator feels at home nowhere, for the spectacle is everywhere' (Guy Debord)

Today, in Birmingham New Street train station, I saw a news item on the giant sky news screen: 'Greece's Economy grows faster than the UK'.

I couldn't help but think that it's Britain's turn. Murdoch's media announce that things are not looking good'. That the country that has collapsed in many different ways (Greece) may be better off than us here in Britain. Of course the five or six malls in the centre of Birmingham are still full (as they are in Athens). The image of stability and safety is still there. Soon Cameron will start denouncing all scenarios for the IMF's visit to the Albion. As did the Greek Prime Minister until a year ago, when he announced happily but with grave concern from a small island as far away from Athens as he could go that the country is saved by the IMF. This salvage has resulted in a country wretched by violence, social injustice, racism, poverty; a country that is in the verge of a serious and total breakdown - a generalised bankruptcy (which, ironically, will again exclude the bankers). Of course all these phenomena already existed in the society - the IMF simply brought them to fruition.

I couldn't help but think that the reasons that keep me away from Greece were not really related to the particularities of Greek society, but to the flaws of an economic system and its subsequent social formation that will follow me no matter how far I will go.

'The "Exit" [...], seems like a desperate fantasy, because, simply, there is nowhere to go! Wherever you go the "city (polis) will follow you"'

(Petros Papakonstantinou)

new documentary section

Debtocracy (2011)

by Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou

A documentary produced by the audience. “Debtocracy” seeks the causes of the Greek debt crisis and proposes solutions, hidden by the government and the dominant media. The documentary is distributed free, without usage rights and broadcasted and subtitled in at least three languages.

Inside Job (2010)

by Charles H. Ferguson

A comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse.

athens 11 may 11