25/11: Stop the pandemic of violence! Fight against patriarchy and capitalism!

“Violence against women remains devastatingly pervasive and starts alarmingly young. Across their lifetime, 1 in 3 women, around 736 million, are subjected to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence from a non-partner – a number that has remained largely unchanged over the past decade. This violence starts early: 1 in […]

Squid Game: Η Βαρβαρότητα του Σήμερα

Δημοσιεύουμε άρθρο που μας έστειλε ο αναγνώστης της ΝΕΔΑ Δήμος Ιωακείμ (the review contains spoilers) Το «Παιχνίδι του Καλαμαριού» συμβολίζει, υπαινίσσεται και κρύβει πολύπλευρα νοήματα, με ασύλληπτα γλαφυρό τρόπο.  Τα έντονα χρώματα “Pop art”  των σκηνικών και ενδυματολογικών μιας πλούσιας Νότιας Κορέας που αντιτίθενται στη ωμή βία και φρικαλεότητα της ίδιας Νότιας Κορέας με υψηλότατα […]

İzcan: TL yerine Euro kullanımına geçilmelidir.

Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, yaşanan ekonomik krizin temelinin TL kullanımından doğduğunu belirterek, bir an önce Euro kullanımına geçilmesi çağrısında bulundu.
Kıbrıs’ın kuzeyinin, Ankara’nın siyasi ve ekonomik tahakkümü altında olduğunu dile getiren İzcan, “Bu boyunduruktan kurtulmadan, Kıbrıs Türk toplumunun refaha ulaşması mümkün değildir” dedi.
Birtakım çevrelerin ellerinde sihirli ekonomik formül olduğu iddiasıyla piyasaya çıktığını, bunların halkı oyalayıp, yeni hayal kırıklıkları yaşatmaktan başka bir işe yaramadığını dile getiren BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, barış, demokrasi ve özgürlük kavgasının kararlılıkla verileceğini vurguladı
Sol adına konuşanların, acilen bir araya gelerek ortak bir programla toplumun önüne çıkmasının kaçınılmaz olduğunu dile getiren İzzet İzcan, “Bunu engelleyenleri tarih affetmeyecektir” dedi.
AKP iktidarının, Türkiye’de rant ekonomisine dayalı, üretimi yok eden, devamlı karşılıksız para basan, devalüasyon gerçekleştirerek dış borca dayalı bir ekonomik model uyguladığını belirten İzzet İzcan, “Bunun acısını, onun peşinden sürüklenen Kıbrıs Türk toplumunun emekçi kesimi, her şeyini kaybederek çekmektedir” dedi.
“Artık yeter” diyen BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, özgürlük, demokrasi ve barışın tek kurtuluş yolu olduğunu vurguladı.

İzzet İzcan: KIB-TEK, kötü yönetilerek batırılmak istenmektedir.

Kubilay Özkıraç başkanlığındaki EL-SEN Sendikası, Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi’ni ziyaret ederek, Kıbrıs Türk Elektrik Kurumunda yaşanan sıkıntıları aktardı ve KIB-TEK’in sorunlarının çözümü konusunda görüş alış verişinde bulunuldu.
BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, basına yaptığı açıklamada, KIB-TEK’in ülkedeki en stratejik ve önemli kurum olduğunu, gözümüz gibi korunması gerekirken kötü yönetildiğini ve zarara sokulduğunu belirtti.
Siyasi iktidarların, kamu kuruluşlarını arpalık gibi kullanarak siyasi rant sağlamaya çalıştıklarını dile getiren İzzet İzcan, ihalelerde yolsuzluk, partizanlık ve her türlü suistimalin KIB-TEK’te olduğunu vurguladı.
“Kötü ve zehirli yakıt getirilerek, bilerek ve isteyerek KIB-TEK çalışanları ve vatandaşları zehirleyen bir UBP iktidarı ile karşı karşıyayız” diyen BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, insanlık suçu işlendiğini vurguladı.
Türkiye’deki AKP ve UBP iktidarlarının amacının, KIB-TEK’in özelleştirilerek yabancı sermayeye peşkeş çekilmesi olduğunu belirten İzcan, BKP’nin, KIB-TEK ve çalışanlarının yanında durmaya devam edeceğini belirtti.
EL-SEN Sendikası Başkanı Kubilay Özkıraç, kötü yakıt getirilerek elektrik santrallerine zarar verildiğini, sistemin zaman zaman devre dışı kaldığını, üretimin düştüğünü ve doğan ihtiyacın AKSA denilen şirketten kapatılarak, kurumun zarara sokulduğunu belirtti.
Kurumda personel sıkıntıları olduğunu dile getiren Özkıraç, EL-SEN Sendikasının, çalışanlara ve kuruma sahip çıkmaya devam edeceğini dile getirerek, içte ve dışta dönen entrikalara karşı kararlı bir duruş sergilediklerini vurguladı.
“KIB-TEK toplumun malıdır ve kimseye devredilemez” diyen EL-SEN Genel Başkanı Kubilay Özkıraç, BKP’ye, kuruma verdiği destek için teşekkür etti.

Η ΚΛΙΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΚΡΙΣΗ, ΟΙ ΥΔΡΟΓΟΝΑΝΘΡΑΚΕΣ ΤΗΣ Α. ΜΕΣΟΓΕΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ Η ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ

ΕΡΕΥΝΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΝΕΕΣ ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΕΞΟΡΥΞΗΣ ΟΡΥΚΤΩΝ ΚΑΥΣΙΜΩΝ: ΑΠΑΓΟΡΕΥΣΗ ΤΩΡΑ! editorial Ο υπαρξιακός κίνδυνος για τον ανθρώπινο πολιτισμό από την Κλιματική Κρίση επιβεβαιώθηκε φέτος με τις χειρότερες ως τώρα καταστροφές και τις πιο δραματικές προειδοποιήσεις διεθνών θεσμών και οργανισμών.  Αιτία της κρίσης η αποτυχία της παγκόσμιας καπιταλιστικής ελίτ να μειώσει τις εκπομπές αερίων θερμοκηπίου από τη … Συνεχίστε να διαβάζετε Η ΚΛΙΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΚΡΙΣΗ, ΟΙ ΥΔΡΟΓΟΝΑΝΘΡΑΚΕΣ ΤΗΣ Α. ΜΕΣΟΓΕΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ Η ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ.

ΑΠΑΓΟΡΕΥΣΗ ΔΙΑ ΝΟΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ ΓΙΑ ΥΔΡΟΓΟΝΑΝΘΡΑΚΕΣ; ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ, ΤΟ ΕΚΑΝΑΝ!

O Fatih Birol, ένας από τους σπουδαιότερους οικονομολόγους ενέργειας, και με το κύρος του εκτελεστικού διευθυντή της Παγκόσμιας Οργάνωσης Ενέργειας, δήλωσε φέτος τον Μάη στην Αγγλική Guardian: “Αν οι κυβερνήσεις παίρνουν στα σοβαρά την κλιματική κρίση, τότε από τώρα – από φέτος  δεν μπορεί να γίνονται νέες επενδύσεις στο πετρέλαιο, υγραέριο και το κάρβουνο.” Ένας … Συνεχίστε να διαβάζετε ΑΠΑΓΟΡΕΥΣΗ ΔΙΑ ΝΟΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ ΓΙΑ ΥΔΡΟΓΟΝΑΝΘΡΑΚΕΣ; ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ, ΤΟ ΕΚΑΝΑΝ!.

ExxonMobil: ΤΟ  ΠΙΟ ΣΚΑΝΔΑΛΩΔΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΣΙΩΠΗΜΕΝΟ «ΧΡΥΣΟ ΔΙΑΒΑΤΗΡΙΟ»

Της Μέλτσιας Οικονόμου Ενώ η κυβέρνηση Αναστασιάδη κατηγορείται μέσα και έξω από την Κύπρο για διαφθορά για τα «χρυσά διαβατήρια» που έχει παραχωρήσει σε απατεώνες και καταζητούμενους εκατομμυριούχους, η Υπουργός Ενέργειας Νατάσα Πηλείδου ανακοίνωσε την ανανέωση της άδειας στην ExxonMobil για να διεξάγει έρευνες για υδρογονάνθρακες στα νερά της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου.  Η αντίδραση σε αυτή … Συνεχίστε να διαβάζετε ExxonMobil: ΤΟ  ΠΙΟ ΣΚΑΝΔΑΛΩΔΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΣΙΩΠΗΜΕΝΟ «ΧΡΥΣΟ ΔΙΑΒΑΤΗΡΙΟ».

İzzet İzcan: Statükocuların attığı her adım, TC Elçiliğinin onayına tabidir.

Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, kabinenin önce TC Elçiliğine, sonra da Cumhurbaşkanı Ersin Tatar’a sunulmasının, Kuzey Kıbrıs’taki rejimin yüzünü açıkça ortaya koyduğunu vurguladı.
UBP Genel Başkanı Faiz Sucuoğlu’nun “Mali durum raporları çerçevesinde, TC Büyükelçiliğindeki uzman arkadaşlarla durum değerlendirmesi yaptık” şeklindeki açıklamalarının gerçekleri yansıtmadığını dile getiren İzzet İzcan, “Statükocuların attığı her siyasi adım, TC Elçiliğinin onayına tabidir” dedi.
“Ekonomiyi iflas ettiren de ayni siyasi anlayıştır” diyen BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, TC’deki AKP iktidarı, Kıbrıs’ın kuzeyine vilayet muamelesi yapmakta olduğunu, buradaki işbirlikçi sınıf tarafından desteklendiğini vurguladı.
Yaşananların utanç kaynağı olduğunu ve dile getiren İzzet İzcan, özgür, bağımsız ve demokratik bir ülke için kararlılıkla mücadele etmeye devam edeceklerini belirtti.

İzcan: Bu yıkımdan ancak barışla kurtulabiliriz.

Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, KKTC’nin her şeyi ile iflas ettiğini belirterek, halktan yaratılan suni gündemlere itibar etmemesini istedi. Kıbrıslı Türklerin ekonomik yıkım yaşadığını, TL’nin kullanımı yüzünden korkunç bir pahalılık yaşandığını, hastahanelerde ilaç bulunmadığını, insanların temel ihtiyaçlarını karşılayamaz duruma düştüğünü belirten İzzet İzcan, seçim hükümeti ve buna benzer çalışmalarla halkı oyalayarak, hiçbir sonuç alınamayacağını vurguladı.
“Ankara’nın boyunduruğundan kurtulmak şarttır” diyen İzcan, oluşacak ortak muhalefet cephesinin ana ilkesinin bu olması gerektiğini belirtti.
KKTC’nin kendisinin sorunların ana kaynağı olduğunu dile getiren BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, BM Güvenlik Konseyi kararlarının açık ve net biçimde KKTC’nin varlığını yasakladığını, uluslararası hukuku ret ederek hiçbir yere varılamayacağını vurguladı.
Kıbrıs’ın geleceğinin barış ve çözümde olduğunu belirten İzzet İzcan, “Bunu hayatta geçirmek, Kıbrıs Türkleri tükenişten kurtarmak için, rejim karşıtı en geniş birliği sağlamak BKP’nin öncelikli görevidir” dedi.

Κούβα – με αφορμή τις διαδηλώσεις στις 15/11: Ο Τρότσκι και η πολιτική κρίση της χώρας

Από τον Ιούλη έχουν ξεκινήσει στην Κούβα μια σειρά κινητοποιήσεις με αφορμή την εσωτερική κατάσταση και την πολιτική της κυβέρνησης. Οι κινητοποιήσεις αυτές και ο χαρακτήρας τους αποτελούν αντικείμενο συζήτησης όχι μόνο στην χώρα αλλά και στους κόλπους της Αριστεράς διεθνώς. Σε αυτά τα πλαίσια δημοσιεύουμε την μετάφραση άρθρου του Frank García Hernández από την […]

Τουρκία: προετοιμασίες για νέα εισβολή στη Ροζάβα;

Ενώ γίνεται όλο και πιο εμφανές ότι το καθεστώς Ερντογάν βρίσκεται σε πορεία κατάρρευσης, είναι εμφανής και η προσπάθειά του να βρει διάφορους τρόπους για να κρατηθεί στην εξουσία. Με το μήνυμα που έστειλε λίγο μετά τον θάνατο δύο Τούρκων στρατιωτών στη Συρία, ο Ερντογάν σηματοδότησε την έναρξη μιας νέας στρατιωτικής επιχείρησης στην περιοχή Ροζάβα […]

17 Νοέμβρη 1973: Η εξέγερση του Πολυτεχνείου

Η εξέγερση του Πολυτεχνείου στις 17 Νοέμβρη του 1973, αποτελεί μια από τις πιο σημαντικές στιγμές της σύγχρονης ελληνικής ιστορίας. Τα γεγονότα του Πολυτεχνείου μπορεί να μην έριξαν τη Χούντα των συνταγματαρχών, αλλά ήταν ένας καταλυτικός παράγοντας για να ταρακουνήσει τα θεμέλιά της δικτατορίας, που επιβλήθηκε με στρατιωτικό πραξικόπημα στις 21 Απριλίου του 1967. του […]

Άρθρο του Albert Camus Σχετικά με τη Θανατική Ποινή που Επιβλήθηκε στον Μιχαλάκη Καραολή

Άρθρο του Albert Camus στο Γαλλικό περιοδικό L' Express, 6 Δεκέμβρη 1955, σχετικά με τη θανατική ποινή που επιβλήθηκε στον Μιχαλάκη Καραολή από την αποικιακή Βρετανική διοίκηση, για την δράση του στην ΕΟΚΑ. Μετάφραση: Θανάσης Αντωνίου, περιοδικό 'η λέξη', τ.85-56, Ιούνιος-Αύγουστος 1989.

 

Το Ελληνόπουλο

Εδώ και λίγες εβδομάδες, η επαναστατημένη Κύπρος έχει αποκτήσει τον ήρωα της στο πρόσωπο του νεαρού Κύπριου σπουδαστή Μιχαλάκη Καραολή που καταδικάστηκε από τα βρετανικά δικαστήρια σε θάνατο με τη μέθοδο του απαγχονισμού. Στο ευτυχισμένο εκείνο νησί όπου γεννήθηκε η Αφροδίτη, οι άνθρωποι πεθαίνουν σήμερα - και μάλιστα με τρόπο φρικιαστικό. Για μια ακόμη φορά, η ταπεινή διεκδίκηση ενός λαού που παρέμεινε για χρόνια βουβή και αναχαιτίστηκε μόλις θέλησε να εκδηλωθεί, ξεσπά τώρα σε εξέγερση. Για μια ακόμη φορά, της εξέγερσης είχε προηγηθεί η τυφλή καταπίεση. Για μια ακόμη φορά, οι αρχές κατοχής που διατράνωναν ότι κυριαρχική τους φροντίδα ήταν η τάξη, αναγκάζονται να εγκαταστήσουν τα δικαστήρια τους και να κάνουν ακόμη μεγαλύτερη μια καταπίεση που δε θα φέρει άλλο αποτέλεσμα παρά τον πολλαπλασιασμό των εξεγέρσεων. Τώρα σήμανε η ώρα για τους μάρτυρες που, ακούραστοι όπως και οι καταπιεστές, κατορθώνουν να κάνουν γνωστή σ᾿ έναν αδιάφορο κόσμο την διεκδίκηση ενός λαού που τον ξέχασαν όλοι εκτός απ᾿ τον εαυτό του.

Αλλά στην περίπτωση που μας απασχολεί, το παλιό αυτό δράμα γίνεται ακόμη πιο οδυνηρό, αφού φέρνει αντιμέτωπους δυο λαούς που υπήρξαν σύμμαχοι και που συμβαίνει να είναι φίλοι του δικού μας λαού. Το συμφέρον αλλά και η καρδιά επιβάλλουν να αναθερμάνουν τη φιλία τους οι δύο αυτοί λαοί. Αντί να γίνει κάτι ανάλογο, βλέπουμε την κυβέρνηση του ενός, του πιο ισχυρού αλλά ταυτόχρονα και πιο θαυμαστού για τη φιλελεύθερη του παράδοση, να κρεμά τα παιδιά του άλλου.

Η Αγγλία, ωστόσο, δεν αμφισβητεί ούτε τα δίκαια που διεκδικούν οι Κύπριοι ούτε το γεγονός ότι το 80% των κατοίκων της νήσου είναι Έλληνες ούτε ακόμη ότι ένα ελεύθερο δημοψήφισμα θα έδινε μια συντριπτική πλειοψηφία υπέρ της ένωσης. Το μοναδικό της επιχείρημα, που το υποστήριξε άλλωστε πριν λίγο καιρό κι ένας Γάλλος συγγραφέας, είναι στρατηγικής σημασίας: η Κύπρος είναι το προωθημένο αεροπλανοφόρο της βρετανικής και δυτικής δύναμης.

Αλλά τι αξία μπορεί να έχει το επιχείρημα αυτό, όταν ολόκληρο το νησί έχει εξεγερθεί; Εκτός κι αν έχουν αποφασίσει να πνίξουν το κίνημα μέσα στο αίμα, πράγμα αδύνατο, γιατί τότε η Ελλάδα θα μεταβαλλόταν σε απειλή για τα οπίσθια του αεροπλανοφόρου. Δεν είναι λοιπόν πιο συνετό να γίνει δεκτή η λογική πρόταση της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης, που προσφέρεται να εγγυηθεί τις βάσεις, από τη στιγμή που θα πραγματοποιηθεί η ένωση; Ας μην ξεχνάμε ότι υπάρχουν και πιστές φιλίες, που αξίζουν περισσότερο από το χάλυβα και το τσιμέντο. Με την αξιοθαύμαστη αντίστασή της εναντίον των Γερμανών και Ιταλών επιδρομέων, αλλά και με την άρνηση της να υποταχθεί, η Ελλάδα αποκάλυψε σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο ότι η φιλία της αξίζει πολύ περισσότερο από ό,τι οι φιλίες μερικών άλλων.

Δε θα κρύψω, από πλευράς μου, τα αισθήματα τρυφερότητας και αγάπης που μου γεννά ο ελληνικός λαός, που, όπως ο ίδιος διαπίστωσα, είναι μαζί με τον ισπανικό απ’ τους λαούς εκείνους που θα χρειαστεί στο μέλλον η βάρβαρη Ευρώπη για να δημιουργήσει ξανά έναν πολιτισμό. Δεν είναι όμως μόνο τα αισθήματα που με κάνουν να πιστεύω ότι η Αγγλία, καθώς και η Δύση, έχουν πολλά να κερδίσουν με το να δώσουν στο κυπριακό πρόβλημα τη λύση της ένωσης. Αν οι Άγγλοι Συντηρητικοί είναι αντίθετοι με την ένωση, είναι γιατί εγκατέλειψαν την Αίγυπτο και δε θέλουν τώρα να χάσουν το γόητρο τους.

Θα χάσουν όμως πολύ περισσότερο σε γόητρο, αν η αναγκαστικά προσωρινή παράταση της σημερινής κατάστασης, πληρωθεί τελικά με το φόνο ενός παιδιού, του Μιχάλη Καραολή. Το τέλος των αυτοκρατοριών έρχεται και, για τη Δύση τουλάχιστον, αρχίζει η εποχή των ελεύθερων πολιτειών. Ας είμαστε σε θέση να το καταλάβουμε αντί να προσπαθούμε να το καταστρέψουμε. Η Βρετανική Κυβέρνηση έχει την ευκαιρία να εξοπλίσει με μια πιθανότητα επιτυχίας τις συζητήσεις που έχουν ήδη αρχίσει, με το να σεβαστεί τη ζωή του νέου κατάδικου.

Albert Camus,
1955.

Κοινή πάλη

Kλείνουν σήμερα 38 χρόνια από την ημέρα που ο κατοχικός ηγέτης Ραούφ Ντενκτάς με τη στήριξη της Άγκυρας προχωρούσε στην αποσχιστική ανακήρυξη του ψευδοκράτους. Μια πράξη που δημιούργησε το κατοχικό μόρφωμα στο βορρά, ένα καθεστώς υποτελές στην Τουρκία. Ένα μόρφωμα που πέραν της προώθησης των μεθοδεύσεων υπέρ της διχοτόμησης κρατά και τους ίδιους τους Τ/κ αιχμάλωτους της Άγκυρας και των εποίκων που κουβάλησε.

47 χρόνια μετά το δίδυμο ΝATOϊκό έγκλημα του 1974 και 38 χρόνια μετά την παράνομη αποσχιστική ενέργεια του κατοχικού καθεστώτος, ο αγώνας του κυπριακού λαού για τερματισμό της κατοχής και απελευθέρωση συνεχίζεται. Η αναγκαιότητα για κοινή πάλη όλων των Κυπρίων ενάντια στον ιμπεριαλισμό και στην κατοχή είναι επίκαιρη όσο ποτέ άλλοτε.

Κοινή πάλη απέναντι στους φασίστες σοβινιστές ανεξάρτητα της γλώσσας τους, αλλά και απέναντι σε όσους υποτάσσονται στους ιμπεριαλιστές και τις διευθετήσεις που προτάσσουν προς όφελος των δικών τους συμφερόντων, αντί των συμφερόντων του κυπριακού λαού.

Η εργατική τάξη στην Κύπρο, ανεξάρτητα γλώσσας, πρέπει να υπερβεί τα τεχνητά όρια αυτών των δυο αντιλήψεων και μακριά από μοιρολατρίες, ψευδαισθήσεις, εθνικισμούς και υποταγή στα ιμπεριαλιστικά κέντρα (που δημιούργησαν το Κυπριακό) να πάρει την υπόθεση του τόπου στα χέρια της. Να δώσει την κοινή πάλη ενάντια στον ιμπεριαλισμό για λύση υπέρ των λαϊκών συμφερόντων και απέναντι από τους ντόπιους κεφαλαιοκράτες και τα αφεντικά τους τους ιμπεριαλιστές.

Περισσότερα για το ιστορικό της σημερινής μαύρης επετείου σε παλαιότερο μας αφιέρωμα: Πάλη αντικατοχική κι αντι-ιμπεριαλιστική

Symposium on Translocational Belongings and Intersections in an Unequal world

  

You may watch the Symposium on Translocational Belongings and Intersections in an Unequal World, hosted by the University to present and discuss the work of eminent professor Floya Anthias, focusing on her new book Translocational Belongings, Intersectional Dilemmas and Social Inequalities (Routledge, 2020): available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-ATaOosJbE

 

 

The University of Nicosia will host a symposium to present the work of eminent professor Floya Anthias, who has published a new book Translocational Belongings, Intersectional Dilemmas and Social Inequalities (Routledge).

 

Program

·         The work of Floya Anthias - key concepts, ideas and applications in the current era

    Nicos Trimikliniotis

·         Introducing Translocational Belongings in an unequal and polarised world

      Floya Anthias

·         Discussant:   Vasilis Tsianos (Professor of sociology at the University of Kiel)

·         Roundtable discussion with academic participants who critically extend some of these ideas in the context of their own work and discuss the challenges ahead:  Mike Hadjmicheal, Pinar Zubaroğlu, Leandros Fischer, Michaengelos Anastasiou, Dimitris Trimithiotis, Christos Hadjioannou, Sofia Stavrou

·         General Discussion

·         Cocktail reception

Details and Venue

The event will tοοκ place on Wednesday 10 November 2021, at 6.30 pm Cine Studio, University of Nicosia. Followed by a reception at Gallery restaurant.

Concept note

This symposium aims to present and discuss the work and the new book by Floya Anthias.  Moreover, it is hoped that scholars will discuss some of the key conceptual tools as well as the application, connections and extensions of these in their own field of research interest and praxis.

• How do gender, class, ethnicity/race, migration and other dimensions of difference and inequality play out in the economic and political projects of neoliberal capitalist societies and as modes of dealing with their contradictions and crises? 

• How do we develop an analysis of the production and reproduction of social relations of difference and inequality which moves beyond the focus on categories of difference and their intersections, and considers the processes by which they are made and unmade within broader systems of power in modern societies? 

• How can social knowledge about difference and growing inequality inform the potential for social transformation and emancipation in contemporary capitalism? 

These are some of the challenging questions that underlie the ambitious task that Floya Anthias undertakes in her latest and long-awaited monograph. This tour de force considers some of the key debates in sociological and social theory engaging with gender, ethnicity, racialization, and class locations, borders and boundaries, difference and belongings. It transcends disciplinary boundaries speaking also to philosophy and political theory. Each of the seven chapters addresses theoretically different dimensions of “places” which unlock “translocational belongings”. 

The notion of “translocation” aims to further enhance analytically an intersectional lens, a lens that she has been instrumental in developing, particularly in the European context. Intersectionality is thus complemented by the translocational approach, promising to make the concept heuristically stronger in theorizing dynamic, relational and contradictory processes that underpin social divisions and locations in context.  

 Overall, the book is a fascinating theoretical re-reading, extending and rethinking of feminism, race/ethnicity and class theory. It provides fresh and insightful contributions on the potential and shortcomings of class and stratification theorisations since Marx’s Capital and the revived interest in class via the works of Bourdieu, Foucault, Tilly, Agamben as well as issues of identity, gender, race and struggles (Collins, Butler, Hall, Foucault), as it re-evaluates gender, ethnicity/ race, class and migration. Moreover, the book is open to new interdisciplinary conversations. It can be fruitfully used to revisit traditions in anthropology, phenomenology, affect, revisiting works on technology, such as Heidegger, where the technological essence (das Gestell) is translated as “positionality” or “the enframing” as an active way of being, various complex figurations of bordering and ordering, as well as the praxis of survival, resistance and commoning.  

 

Biographical Note

Prof. Floya Anthias, Ph.D; M.Soc.Sc.; B.Sc.Soc.; P.G.C.E. (HE), AcSS is  Professor of Sociology and Social Justice (Emeritus) University of Roehampton and Visiting Professor of Sociology, City University. . Amongst other works, she is the author of Ethnicity, Class, Gender and Migration, the co-author of Racialised Boundaries and the co-editor of Woman, Nation, State; Into the Margins: Migration and Exclusion in Southern Europe; Gender and Migration in Southern Europe: Women on the Move; Paradoxes of Integration: Female Migrants in Europe; Rethinking Anti-racisms: From Theory to Practice; Contesting Integration, Engendering Migration and Work and the Challenges of Belonging.

 

Doğa İnsansız da Yaşar Ama İnsan Doğa Olmadan Yaşayamaz – Nazen Şansal

Yaz aylarındaki yangınlardan sonra, doğanın halini en iyi anlatan ifadeler şunlardı: “Elimizde hastalıkla tükenmiş bir bedenin iskeletine benzer bir şey var; bereketli yumuşak toprak tamamen yok olmuş ve yeryüzüne yalnızca deri ve kemik kalmış. Dağlar bugün de izlerini görebileceğimiz geniş ağaçlarla doluydu. Toprak; … suyun aşağıdaki vadilere akmasını ve dört bir yanda nehirler ve kaynaklar oluşturmasını sağlayan yağışlardan nasipleniyordu.” Bu satırların yazarının günümüzde yaşayan bir çevreci olduğunu düşündüyseniz çok yanıldınız. MÖ. 400’lü yıllara ve Platon’a ait! Ekoloji sorunlarının, bugünkünden farklı içerik ve derecede olmakla birlikte binlerce yıl önce de var olduğunu anlatmak için size bu küçük şaşırtmacayı yaptım. Bir de günümüzden bir alıntı yapalım… Dünyanın en meşhur iklim bilimcisi James Hansen’e göre: “Dünya gezegeni, canlılar, uygarlığın geliştiği dünya, bildiğimiz iklim çizgilerine ve sabit kıyı şeritlerine sahip dünya, yakın tehlike altındadır... Ürkütücü sonuç, fosil yakıtların kullanılmaya devam edilmesi halinde, yalnızca gezegendeki diğer milyonlarca türün değil bizzat insanlığın da hayatının tehlikeye gireceğidir. Ve zaman çizelgesi düşündüğümüzden daha kısadır.” Peki neredeyse neolitik çağa kadar uzanan çevre sorunları, ne oldu da günümüzde insanlık için bir ölüm-kalım meselesine dönüştü? Geçmişten günümüze doğa ile ilişkimiz İnsan başlangıçta doğa karşısında güçsüzdü ve ona bağlıydı. Fakat zamanla bu ilişki, insanın çevreyi denetlemesi ve hatta çevre üzerinde egemen olması yolunda değişti. Eski çağlarda bilimin amacı doğanın düzenini anlamak ve onunla uyum içinde yaşamaktı. Dünyanın yaşayan bir organizma ve besleyen bir ana şeklinde düşünülmesi, insanların eylemleri üzerinde dizginleyici bir unsurdu. Rekabetin ortaya çıkması ve kapitalizmin gelişmesi ile doğayı koruyacak etik sınır da ortadan kalktı. Kentleşme ve teknolojideki ilerlemeler, insanın doğayı daha fazla işlemesine vesile oldu. Tek tanrılı dinler de insanın doğanın efendisi olduğu fikrini besledi. Sanayi devrimi ve kitlesel üretime geçilmesi ise dönüm noktası oldu. İnsan faaliyetleri ile çevreye verilen zararlar, doğanın kendini yenileyebilme yeteneği (taşıma kapasitesi) sayesinde başlangıçta fark edilmedi. Ancak zamanla, çevreye bırakılan kirlilik nicel ve nitel olarak arttı ve insan sağlığını tehdit eder noktaya geldi. Buna, 1952 yılında Londra’da meydana gelen ve 4000 kişinin ölümüne yol açan hava kirliliği örnek verilebilir. Çevre felaketlerinin çoğalması nedeniyle, 1960’lı yıllar, duyarlılığın başladığı ve yoğunlaştığı zaman dilimleri oldu. Çöllerin yayılması, ormanların yok olması, toprak erozyonu, asit yağmuru ve kentlerde hava kirliliği gibi kaygılar, 1970’lerden itibaren uluslararası gündeme girdi ama sorunlar bitmedi. 1980’lere gelindiğinde, insan faaliyetlerinin gezegen çapında bir bozulmaya yol açtığı açıkça görülmüştü. Üstelik öncekilere ek olarak bu sefer, ozon deliği, küresel ısınma, biyoçeşitliliğin azalması gibi tüm insanlık için hayati sorunlar da ortaya çıkmıştı. “Kriz” neden şimdi? Bazı düşünürlere göre günümüzde, gezegenimizin en büyük sorunu nüfusun çok fazla olması ve sürekli artmasıdır! Nüfusun arttığı doğru olmakla birlikte çevre-ekoloji sorunlarını açıklamak için sadece nüfusu öne sürmek yanlıştır, Malthusçuluktur. Nüfusun, halkın kullandığı geçim araçlarından daha hızlı geliştiğini ve yoksulluğunun, sömürü nedeniyle değil, nüfusun hızlı artmasından dolayı meydana geldiğini iddia eden İngiliz ekonomist Malthus’un (1766-1834) görüşleri Marksizim ve tarih tarafından yanıtlanmış, yanlışlanmıştır. Sorun, nüfus sorunu değil küresel adalet sorunudur. Bazı mistik ekolojistler ise günümüzdeki teknolojinin doğaya daha fazla ve daha hızlı zarar vermesini sebep göstermektedir. Oysa teknoloji, kimin elinde ve kimin hizmetinde olduğuna göre doğa ve insanlık için yapıcı veya yıkıcı olabilir. Bugün doğayı sömürüp “hastalıkla tükenmiş bir bedenin iskeletine” benzeten şey; büyümede sınır tanımayan, kâr odaklı bir iktisadi sistemde yaşamamızdır. Yeşil kapitalizm imkânsızdır Kapitalizm, kendi genişlemesinde hiçbir sınır tanımaz; ne bir bütün olarak ekonomide, ne zenginler tarafından istenen kârda, ne de şirketlerin daha fazla kâr elde etmesi için insanları yönlendirildiği sürekli artan tüketimde… Büyüme geçici bir süre için bile durursa sistem krize girer. Dolayısıyla kapitalizmde çevre ve doğa, insanların diğer türlerle birlikte yaşamak zorunda olduğu, belli sınırları olan bir yer değil, iktisadi genişleme sürecinde sömürülmesi gereken bir yerdir. Bu sebeptendir ki; şirketler ve onların yandaşı hükümetler, petrol, gaz ve başka madenler gibi doğal kaynaklara erişimi ve denetimi sağlamaya çalışırlar, bunun için savaşlar çıkarırlar. Ancak doğası gereği büyümek ve genişlemek zorunda olan bir sistem, sonunda kısıtlı doğal kaynaklar gerçekliğiyle yüzleşecektir. Yeryüzü, yüzlerce yıldır hayatın yeniden üretilmesi için çalışan bir ekosistemdir. Bugün ise kapitalizmin sosyo-ekonomik sistemi öyle bir boyuta ulaşmıştır ki temel gezegensel sınırları zorlamakta, karbon döngüsü, ormanlar, okyanuslar, kısacası yeryüzündeki tüm ekosistemler gözle görünür bir düşüş yaşamaktadır. Mevcut sistemin doğasında işleri yoluna koyabilecek bir nitelik yoktur, bunun için toplumun dibinden başka güçlere ihtiyaç vardır. İklimi değil sistemi değiştir! 2020’ye Avustralya’daki orman yangınları ile girmiştik, 2021’de Pandemi’nin vurduğu darbeye bir de Türkiye, Yunanistan ve Avrupa'nın bazı bölgeleri ile Kuzey Amerika'da yaşanan yangınlar eklendi. Ülkemizde de canımız, ciğerlerimiz yandı ama hâlâ daha bir yangın helikopteri alınmadı. 2021 Ağustos ayında Birleşmiş Milletlere bağlı bilim insanları “İnsanlık için kırmızı alarm” olarak nitelendirilen bir rapor yayımladı. Rapora göre, gazların atmosfere salımının devam etmesi sonucu 10 yıldan biraz fazla bir süre içinde önemli bir sıcaklık sınırı aşılabilir, ayrıca, bu yüzyıl sonunda deniz seviyeleri 2 metreye kadar yükselebilir. Bu yeni rapor aynı zamanda bugüne kadar deneyimlediğimiz ısınmanın, yüzyıllardan bin yıllara kadar sürecek bir zaman diliminde geri dönüşü olmayacak şekilde gezegenimizde değişiklikler yaptığını da ortaya koyuyor. Okyanuslar ısınmaya devam edecek ve daha asidik hale gelecek. Dağ ve kutup buzulları on yıllar veya yüzyıllar boyunca erimeye devam edecek. Dünyadaki hemen hemen her devlet, 2015 Paris İklim Anlaşması'nın hedeflerine uymayı kabul etti ancak bu gibi anlaşmalar tıpkı Kyoto Protokolü gibi işlevsiz kalıyor ve yeni karbon piyasaları yaratmaktan öteye gidemiyor. Çünkü sorunu yaratanlar, iklimi değiştirmek için ufak tefek pansumanlar yapsa da sistemi değiştirmeye yanaşmıyor. “Doğa insanın organik olmayan bedenidir” diyordu Marx. Şimdi, çolak veya kötürüm kalmamak için bedenimize sahip çıkmanın tam zamanı.   Not: Argasdi sayı 48 (ÇevrEkoloji dosyası) sayfa 6’da yer alan “Kızıl-Yeşil Bir Perspektif: Ekososyalizm” başlıklı makale, bu yazının tamamlayıcısı olarak okunabilir.  

Η Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση άνοιξε το δρόμο

Ομιλία Χρίστου Κουρτελλάρη εκ μέρους της Νέας Σκέψης στην εκδήλωση της DKB για την επέτειο της Οκτωβριανής Επανάστασης

Συντρόφισσες σύντροφοι, φίλες και φίλοι, 

 Συμπατριώτες μας Τουρκοκύπριοι, 

Κατ’ αρχή επιτρέψετε μου να συγχαρώ εκ μέρους της Μαρξιστικής – Λενινιστικής Ιστοσελίδας Νέα Σκέψη, τους διοργανωτές για τη πρωτοβουλία της διοργάνωσης αυτής της εκδήλωσης και να τους ευχαριστήσουμε που μας προσκάλεσαν να είμαστε ανάμεσα στους κύριους ομιλητές.

Μια ουγγιά δράσης αξίζει όσο ένας τόνος θεωρίας έλεγε ο Φρίντριχ Ένγκελς. Αυτό είναι που κάνουμε σήμερα, αναλαμβάνουμε δράση σαν κομμουνιστές με τη διοργάνωση και τη συμμετοχή μας σε αυτή την εκδήλωση της Επαναστατικής Κομμουνιστικής Λίγκας. Το να πραγματοποιήσεις μια τέτοια εκδήλωση κάτω από τις συνθήκες της καταπίεσης, διαίρεσης, εκβιασμών και εκφοβισμών, κάνει το αποψινό γεγονός ακόμα πιο σημαντικό και σπουδαίο. Εμείς οι κομμουνιστές, παιδιά της ίδιας από τον ιμπεριαλισμό μοιρασμένης πατρίδας, βρεθήκαμε μαζί εδώ όχι από συνήθεια ή έθιμο, αλλά από την ορμή και την ανάγκη να αναδείξουμε και να υπογραμμίσουμε τη φλόγα της Μεγάλης Οκτωβριανής Σοσιαλιστικής Επανάστασης στο σήμερα.

Μαζευτήκαμε εδώ επειδή η ιστορία μας φωνάζει να ανασυγκροτηθούμε και να σχηματίσουμε ένα δυνατό, συμπαγές, ζωντανό κομμουνιστικό κίνημα και στη δική μας βασανισμένη πατρίδα. Πρέπει να κινήσουμε την ιστορία προς τα εμπρός και να συνεχίσουμε να χαράσσουμε το δρόμο των προγόνων μας, που ίδρυσαν τους πρώτους κομμουνιστικούς πυρήνες στη Κύπρο στις αρχές του 1920 και μετά το Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Κύπρου.   

Αυτοί οι πυρήνες και έπειτα το Κόμμα της κυπριακής εργατικής τάξης, είχαν εμπνευστεί και κινητοποιηθεί από την επανάσταση στη Ρωσία το 1917. Φυσικά δεν προσεγγίζουμε την Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση σαν ένα αφηγηματικό γεγονός. Αντλούμε διδάγματα, παραδείγματα, έμπνευση και καθοδήγηση, από το κοσμογονικό γεγονός που άλλαξε τη μέχρι τότε κατεύθυνση της ιστορίας. Αντλούμε διδάγματα, εμπνεόμαστε και καθοδηγούμαστε για να αποκαταστήσουμε το κομμουνιστικό κίνημα στη χώρα μας και να ενδυναμώσουμε τη ταξική αντιιμπεριαλιστική πάλη μέχρι τη τελική νίκη.

Ποιο ήταν το κοινωνικό πλαίσιο της επανάστασης και τι μας διδάσκει η επανάσταση; Η Οκτωβριανή επανάσταση ήταν αυτή που άνοιξε το δρόμο όχι μόνο για το ρωσικό προλεταριάτο, αλλά για τη παγκόσμια εργατική τάξη. Άνοιξε το δρόμο για να τσακίσουν οι αλυσίδες της σκλαβιάς και της καταπίεσης που ο καπιταλισμός παράγει και αναπαράγει. Η επανάσταση ήταν η φυσική έκφραση της εκρηκτικής όξυνσης των κοινωνικών αντιθέσεων. Η δύναμη της επανάστασης ήταν οι εργάτες και οι άκληροι χωρικοί αγρότες, η συμμαχία αυτών των δύο. Η δύναμη της επανάστασης και η υπεράσπιση της ενισχύθηκε όμως και από την έκφραση συμπαράστασης και αλληλεγγύης των εργατών σε όλο τον κόσμο, οι οποίοι στο πρόσωπο της Οκτωβριανής επανάστασης οραματίστηκαν την υπεράσπιση της δικής τους ζωής και ύπαρξης.

Αυτό που έκανε την επανάσταση εφικτή ήταν η αποφασιστικότητα του Μπολσεβίκικου Κόμματος, η σωστή στρατηγική και τακτική. Έτσι επιβεβαιώθηκε και η λενινιστική θεωρία ότι μόνο ένα κομμουνιστικό κόμμα, που καθοδηγείται από την επιστημονική θεωρία, έχει σωστή στρατηγική και τακτική και δρα καθημερινά και ενιαία για τη προώθηση της στρατηγικής του, έχοντας ισχυρούς δεσμούς με την εργατική τάξη και άλλους εργαζόμενους του χωριού, μόνο ένα τέτοιο κόμμα μπορεί να ηγηθεί της πάλης όλων των εκμεταλλευόμενων και καταπιεσμένων κοινωνικών στρωμάτων. Μόνο το Κόμμα Νέου Τύπου που συνδυάζει αρμονικά τη δημοκρατική λειτουργία και πειθαρχία και την ενιαία θέληση στη δράση, μπορεί να διατηρήσει τον ηγετικό ρόλο της εργατικής τάξης στον αγώνα για κατάκτηση της δικής της εξουσίας. Και φυσικά η εργατική τάξη, μαζί με τα άλλα καταπιεσμένα στρώματα, θα ασκήσει εξουσία για να καταργηθούν οι μορφές κοινωνικής ιδιοκτησίας και να εγκαθιδρυθεί η κοινωνική ιδιοκτησία, ο σοσιαλισμός.

Υπάρχει κάτι ακόμα που είναι σημαντικό στο να του αποδοθεί έμφαση αναφορικά με τους λόγους που οδήγησαν στην επικράτηση της επανάστασης, ειδικά από εμάς τους κύπριους, θύματα των ιμπεριαλιστικών επεμβάσεων και σχεδίων. Εμείς οφείλουμε πιο πολύ να μελετάμε τη φύση και τη συμπεριφορά του ιμπεριαλισμού, όπως και το πώς ηττήθηκε από την Οκτωβριανή επανάσταση και στη διαδικασία υπεράσπισης της όπως έγινε με την ιμπεριαλιστική επίθεση των 14 χωρών κατά της τότε νεαρής Σοβιετικής Ρωσίας. Η φύση του ιμπεριαλισμού, οι αντιθέσεις του και οι αδυναμίες του, αποτέλεσαν προϋποθέσεις επικράτησης της Σοσιαλιστικής Επανάστασης στη Ρωσία. Στο δρόμο για το θρίαμβο του Οκτώβρη ο κύριος λόγος για την ανατροπή του Τσάρου τον Φλεβάρη του 17 ήταν η εμπλοκή της Ρωσίας στον Α Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο. Ο Τσάρος με τις ευλογίες της Ορθόδοξης εκκλησίας αιματοκύλισε τη χώρα. Δύο εκατομμύρια νεκροί, φτώχια, εξαθλίωση, μολυσματικές ασθένειες, άγρια εκμετάλλευση των εργατών, συνέθεταν το πλαίσιο του πολέμου και της τσαρικής καταδυνάστευσης την εποχή εκείνη. Αυτό οδήγησε στην εξέγερση του ρωσικού προλεταριάτου, αλλά μετά την ανατροπή του τσάρου η εξουσία δόθηκε στους αστούς. Σε κάθε περίπτωση όμως η αστικοδημοκρατική επανάσταση του Φλεβάρη του 1917 αποτέλεσε κομβικό σημείο για την επικράτηση της επανάστασης τον Οκτώβρη που όλη εξουσία δόθηκε πλέον στα Σοβιέτ των εργατών και αγροτών.

Τι απόδειξε η Μεγάλη Οκτωβριανή Σοσιαλιστική Επανάσταση; Απόδειξε ότι όταν τα λαϊκά στρώματα θέλουν μπορούν να σπάσουν τις αλυσίδες τους και να γίνουν ο οδοστρωτήρας της ολιγαρχίας και των αντιδραστικών πολιτικών εκπροσώπων της. Απέδειξε ότι όταν η εργατική τάξη αφυπνιστεί, αποκτήσει πολιτική και ταξική συνείδηση, οργανωθεί στο δικό της Κόμμα και ασκήσει τον αυτοτελή πολιτικό της ρόλο για το Σοσιαλισμό, τότε αυτή η πρωτοπόρα τάξη μπορεί να δημιουργήσει τις προϋποθέσεις για μια νέα ανώτερη κοινωνία.

Η εμπειρία της Οκτωβριανής επανάστασης επιβεβαίωσε τη στρατηγική σημασία της πολιτικής των κοινωνικοπολιτικών συμμαχιών. Απέδειξε ότι η εργατική τάξη για να νικήσει, πρέπει το κόμμα της να κερδίσει με την πολιτική του την πλειοψηφία της, να τραβήξει μαζί της στην πάλη όλα τα μεσαία και φτωχά τμήματα του πληθυσμού όπως η μικρή αγροτιά. Χωρίς να κερδηθεί η πλειοψηφία της εργατικής τάξης, χωρίς το τράβηγμα στην πάλη αυτών των τμημάτων του πληθυσμού, όχι μόνο η επανάσταση είναι αδύνατη, αλλά ακόμη και αν επικρατήσει θα είναι μια προσωρινή επικράτηση.

Γιατί η Οκτωβριανή και τα μηνύματα της είναι μια επείγουσα ανάγκη της εποχής μας; Απλά επειδή η σύγκριση μεταξύ σοσιαλισμού που οικοδομούταν τον προηγούμενο αιώνα και καπιταλισμού σήμερα είναι αναπόφευκτη. Ο καπιταλισμός απότυχε να προσφέρει και να διασφαλίσει σταθερότητα, ειρήνη, ασφάλεια, πραγματική ευημερία στους λαούς. Αντίθετα ο καπιταλισμός γεννά και αναγεννά συνεχώς ληστρικούς πολέμους, δημιουργεί και κλιμακώνει διεθνείς και εθνικές συγκρούσεις, προάγει την ανισότητα ανάμεσα στα έθνη, την αστάθεια και τις θρησκευτικές διενέξεις. Καταστρέφει πολιτισμούς, δολοφονεί δισεκατομμύρια με τις κοινωνικο-οικονομικές πολιτικές του. Πίνει το αίμα των λαών στις πλουτοπαραγωγικές χώρες της Ασίας και Αφρικής. Ο καπιταλισμός καταδικάζει δισεκατομμύρια στην αμορφωσιά για να διασφαλίσει την επικράτηση του, στερεί την πρόσβαση στην ψηλού επιπέδου ιατροφαρμακευτική περίθαλψη σε δισεκατομμύρια. Καταστρέφει το περιβάλλον θέτοντας σε άμεσο κίνδυνο την ανθρώπινη ύπαρξη. Τέλος εκκολάπτει ξανά το αυγό του φιδιού του φασισμού. Πως λοιπόν αυτό το απάνθρωπο σύστημα να αποτελεί το μέλλον εμάς και των παιδιών μας; Είναι τόσο απλό το ερώτημα. Είναι τόσο απλό λόγω της τροχιάς που πήρε η ανθρωπότητα μετά την ανατροπή και την απουσία του Σοσιαλισμού σε μια σειρά χώρες της Ευρώπης και της Κεντρικής Ασίας.

Το μέλλον της ανθρωπότητας δεν μπορεί να είναι η σημερινή τραγικότητα. Το μέλλον της Κύπρου δεν μπορεί να είναι η ζωή που ζούμε σήμερα. Δεν μπορεί το μέλλον μας να είναι η σημερινή αβεβαιότητα, η μιζέρια και η ζοφερότητα. Ζούμε σε μια διαιρεμένη και έντονα στρατιωτικοποιημένη χώρα, όπου η ασφάλεια είναι εύθραυστη, ζούμε σε μια χώρα κατεχόμενη και περικυκλωμένη από ιμπεριαλιστές που διακυβεύουν το μέλλον της ύπαρξης μας αυτής καθεαυτής. Σε αυτή την τεμαχισμένη χώρα η εργατική τάξη χάνει δικαιώματα, ελευθερίες και κατακτήσεις καθημερινά. Κατακτήσεις που κερδήθηκαν μέσα από μακροχρόνιους σκληρούς ταξικούς αγώνες και κάτω από την πίεση της επίδρασης του τι απολάμβαναν οι λαοί των πρώην σοσιαλιστικών χωρών. Όπως συνέβαινε φυσικά και σε πολλές άλλες καπιταλιστικές χώρες.

Σήμερα η εργατική τάξη όλης της Κύπρου δεν έχει καταφύγιο, δεν διαθέτει την πρωτοπόρα πολιτική καθοδήγηση, η εργατική τάξη δεν έχει αποτελεσματική προστασία, η πλειοψηφία των εργαζομένων και των ανέργων παλεύουν μόνοι τους να επιβιώσουν. Η εργατική τάξη και τα πλατιά λαϊκά στρώματα είναι παγιδευμένοι σε ένα πολιτικό σκηνικό όπου οι δεξιοί, οι νεοφιλελεύθεροι και οι σοσιαλδημοκράτες επικράτησαν. Παραδοσιακές κομμουνιστικές δυνάμεις έχουν συμβιβαστεί και μετατράπηκαν σε σοσιαλδημοκράτες, οπορτουνιστές, ρεφορμιστές. Παρόλα τα συνθήματα τους ακόμα και κάποια που μπορούν να θεωρηθούν επαναστατικά, έχουν εγκαταλείψει την εργατική τάξη και γύρισαν την πλάτη στο σοσιαλισμό και στη πάλη για ανατροπή του καπιταλισμού. Ακόμα χειρότερα δεν συγκρούονται με τον ιμπεριαλισμό, αλλά συναγελάζονται μαζί με ιμπεριαλιστές και κάνουν παζάρια μαζί τους σε δείπνα.

Οι κύπριοι κομμουνιστές πρέπει να αναλάβουν δράση. Πρώτα από όλα και άσχετα από το πόσοι θεωρούμε τους εαυτούς μας κομμουνιστές πρέπει να βρεθούμε μαζί και να αναδιοργανωθούμε. Όμως πριν ενωθούμε και για να ενωθούμε, πρώτα πρέπει να χωρίσουμε αποφασιστικά και να καθαρίσουμε τις γραμμές μας, αλλιώς η ένωση μας αυτή θα ήταν πλασματική όπως ο ίδιος ο Λένιν δήλωσε πριν σχεδόν 120 χρόνια. Την αναδιοργάνωση και την ανασυγκρότηση του κομμουνιστικού κινήματος τη χρωστάμε στην εργατική τάξη στην οποία ανήκουμε, τη χρωστάμε στα παιδιά μας, στην ιστορία, στους κομμουνιστές ήρωες της εργατικής τάξης όπως ο Παπαϊωάννου και ο Καβάζογλου. 

Αυτός ο αιώνας θα είναι αιώνας λαϊκών εξεγέρσεων και εμείς οφείλουμε να ήμαστε εκεί στον πυρήνα αυτών. Μέσα από τη πρωτοπόρα δράση των κομμουνιστών ανάμεσα στην εργατική τάξη να δημιουργήσουμε τις προϋποθέσεις για τη δημιουργία ενός λαϊκού ταξικού κινήματος που θα αντιπαλέψει τον ιμπεριαλισμό, θα παλέψει μαζί και με άλλους λαούς της περιοχής μας και του κόσμου για το σοσιαλισμό.

Αν οι εργάτες του Παρισιού το 1871 για πρώτη φορά ανέδειξαν τη δυνατότητα να γίνει η προλεταριακή επανάσταση, αν η Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση το 1917 απέδειξε πραγματικά ότι μπορεί να οικοδομηθεί ο σοσιαλισμός, αυτή τη φορά η εργατική τάξη και οι λαοί θα ανοίξουν οριστικά το δρόμο για το δικό τους μέλλον. Τη Σοσιαλιστική – Κομμουνιστική κοινωνία.

Ο πάγος έσπασε

104 χρόνια συμπληρώνονται σήμερα από την Μεγάλη Οκτωβριανή Σοσιαλιστική Επανάσταση. Από τότε που σήμανε το άνοιγμα του δρόμου για το πέρασμα της ανθρωπότητας «από το βασίλειο της ανάγκης στο βασίλειο της ελευθερίας». Το πισωγύρισμα της αντεπανάστασης και της παλινόρθωσης του καπιταλισμού δεν μπορεί να σταματήσει την προοδευτική πορεία της ανθρωπότητας για ανατροπή της καπιταλιστικής βαρβαρότητας. Η πάλη για ένα κόσμο χωρίς εκμετάλλευση ανθρώπου από άνθρωπο συνεχίζεται.

Εδώ η ομιλία του συντρόφου Χρίστου Κουρτελλάρη, εκ μέρους της ιστοσελίδας της «Νέας Σκέψης», σε ψεσινή σχετική εκδήλωση στην κατεχόμενη Λευκωσία που διοργάνωσε η «Επαναστατική Κομμουνιστική Λίγκα» (DKB).

Παλαιότερη αρθρογραφία μας για την Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση:

Γιατί είναι συνεχώς επίκαιρη η Οχτωβριανή Επανάσταση;

Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση: Ο πάγος έσπασε, ο δρόμος άνοιξε, ο δρόμος χαράχτηκε

Το μέλλον μας δεν είναι ο καπιταλισμός

Το κόκκινο δεν σβήνεται από τη μαύρη λάσπη

KIBRIS’IN KUZEYİNDE İNSAN KALABİLMEK – Mehmet Adaman

Adına kktc denilen yapının çarpıklığını vurgulamak için, şakayla karışık söylenen meşhur bir laf vardır: “kktc’de yaşamak bir sanattır.” Peki bir de şöyle düşünelim; kktc’de sanat yapmaya çalışmak nasıl bir şeydir? İnsanı diğer tüm canlı ve cansız varlıklardan ayıran çok önemli özellikler vardır. İnsan sosyal bir canlıdır. Okur, yazar, gezer, görür, konuşur, düşünür, sorgular ve en önemlisi üretir. Bunların herhangi birisinin eksikliği durumunda insan aslında insan olmaktan yavaş yavaş uzaklaşmaya başlar. Kapitalizm dediğimiz şey de aslında tam da bunu hedefler; insanı insan olmaktan uzaklaştırmak… Peki biz buna karşı ne yapmalıyız? İnsan olmakta ve insan kalmakta direnmeliyiz. Peki neyle yapabiliriz bunu? Bu noktada kültürün, sanatın ve sporun insan yaşamındaki önemi ortaya çıkıyor. Müzikle, tiyatroyla, sinemayla, dansla, resimle, edebiyatla, sporla vs. uğraşmak insanlıktan uzaklaşmamıza mani olur. Ancak eğer ki kktc’de yaşıyorsanız, bunları yapmak sizin için oldukça zor ve sıkıntılıdır. Kıbrıs’ın kuzeyinde sanat yapmaya çalışmak, sporla uğraşmak bırakın insanlığa tutunmayı, insanlığınızdan soğumanıza bile neden olabilir. Bu ülkede bir müzisyen olduğunuzu hayal edin mesela. Hayatınızı sadece müzisyenlik yaparak geçirmeniz, sadece yaptığınız sanata odaklanıp kendinizi daha da geliştirme motivasyonunu korumanız mümkün değildir. Çünkü bu ülkede müzisyenler genelde yok sayılır. Yaşadığımız Pandemi sürecinde de bunu net olarak gördük zaten. Bu ülkeyi yönetenler, açık bir şekilde müzisyenleri açlığa terk etti, bunun içini kılını bile kıpırdatmadı. Büyük festivallerde müzisyenlerimiz yıllardır Türkiyeli sanatçıların alt grubu olmaktan öteye geçemiyor. Daha doğrusu bilinçli olarak geçirtilmiyor. Nasıl ki Ankara’ya muhtaç olalım diye Sanayi Holding kapatıldı, KTHY batırıldı, Kıbrıslı Türkler üretimden koparıldı, her alanda olduğu gibi müzikte de Kıbrıslı Türklerin kendi ayakları üzerinde durabilme ihtimali onları korkutuyor.  Kısacası bu ülkede müzisyen olmayalım diye, kktc “devleti” elinden geleni yapıyor. Müzisyenler güvencesiz ve gelecek kaygılarıyla boğuşarak çalışıyor. Bu ülkede müzisyenler, bırakın evlatlarına güzel bir gelecek hazırlayabilmeyi, kendilerinin bile bir gün sonrasını göremiyor. Devletin bu alanda insan yetiştirme gibi bir kaygısı bulunmuyor. Ülkede küçük yaşta müziğe yetenekli çocukların ulaşabileceği kaliteli ve kamusal bir müzik eğitimi neredeyse yok. Sanatın bir toplum için ne kadar önemli olduğunu söyleyip de tiyatroya değinmemek olmaz. kktc devletinin tiyatroya verdiği “önemi” anlatmak için sanırım “20 küsur yıl önce yanan devlet tiyatrosu sahnesinin yerine hâlâ daha yenisi yapılmadı.” cümlesi tek başına yeterli olur. Amatör tiyatrocuların durumu ise çok daha vahimdir. Bu ülkede, kendi yağıyla kendi ciğerini kavurmaya çabalayan pek çok tiyatro ekibi bulunmaktadır. Bu ekiplerin neredeyse tümü de oyunlarını sergileyebilecekleri sahne bulabilme sıkıntısı çekmektedir. Var olan tek tük kamusal sahneler de özele peşkeş çekilmekte, zaten sıkıntılı durumda olan amatör tiyatro ekiplerinin sıkıntılarına bizzat devlet tarafından yenileri eklenmektedir. Kısacası müzikte olduğu gibi tiyatroda da, kktc devleti yeni tiyatrocular yetişmesin, var olan tiyatro ekipleri de sürüm sürüm sürünsün diye adeta elinden geleni yapmaktadır. Biraz sanatın dışına çıkıp spora baktığımızda ise yine karşımıza kocaman bir kktc gerçeği çıkıyor. Ambargolar sebebiyle hiçbir uluslararası organizasyona katılamayan sporcularımız, kendilerini alanlarında geliştirme motivasyonunu gün geçtikçe kaybediyor. Kıbrıs’ın kuzeyinde sıkışıp kalan sporcular, uluslararası müsabakalara katılabilmek adına çoğu zaman Türkiye veya başka ülkeler adına yarışmak zorunda kalıyor. Başta Türkiye olmak üzere, hiçbir ülkenin umurunda olmayan sporcularımız kocaman bir çaresizlikle baş başa bırakılıyor. Bizler bu topraklara tutunmak ve daha insanca bir yaşam için her türlü zorluğa rağmen sanat, spor ve kültür üretimlerimize devam edeceğiz. Ancak sadece üretmekle yetinmeyip, bu alanlardaki tüm olumsuzluklarla mücadele etmekten de geri durmayacağız.

Socialism as praxis versus social and political reality of parties in power claiming to be practicing socialism: A critical analysis

This is a continuation of the discussion on China today (I have commented and shared various articles since last August) and some older articles on the collapse of the USSR and eastern European regimes claiming to be socialist, led by communist parties. I will refer to this debate as a broader inquiry into ‘socialism as praxis’: it is high time that we critically examine the realities, utilizing a sociological class analysis and a Marxist critique of political economy, to examine different political, economic, and social systems. This means scrutinizing what was and what is the systems of the so-called ‘really existing socialism’ which were based on the notion of ‘socialism in one country’ in a capitalist world as well as the politics western socialist parties (ie. social democratic parties).

                                                        Erik Olin Wright

Modernity and the Idea of Progress

Modernity and the Idea of Progress

Angelos Mouzakitis*

• Sociology, University of Crete, Rethymnon, Crete, Greece

This paper aims to show the centrality the concept of progress occupies explicitly and implicitly in social theory, in relation to the theorization and understanding of modernity; it also raises the question whether in times where Eurocentrism, logocentrism, and indeed almost every claim of supremacy are rightly viewed with suspicion, it is possible to think of modernity without relying on some interpretation of the notion of progress. Arguably, the theme of progress, together with the complementary notion of decline, can be considered as a key-component of discourses concerning modernity and has played a major role in the shaping of social theory. Comte and Durkheim relied in different ways in the idea of progress and the same holds for Marxist accounts of social change. Even later, sociological theories address modernity from the perspective of progress, Parsons being exemplary in this respect. Moreover, theoretical discourses adopting a critical or even hostile attitude against the modern project often question the idea of progress and are woven around the representation of modernity in terms of decline and regression into unreason, as, e.g., Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enightment. Arguably, the imagery of progress informs the distinction between society and community, which is also hidden behind Habermas’s more recent theorization of societies in terms of systems and lifeworlds. Finally, the question regarding the possibility of partially disentangling the theorization of modernity from the idea of progress is pursued via a critical assessment of Eisenstadt’s multiple modernities and Wagner’s theorization of modernity in terms of responses given to basic problématiques.

Introduction

Peter Wagner expresses a widely shared view when he writes that modernity “has always been associated with progress” (Wagner, 2012, p. 28), since belief in endless progress is often identified as one of the main characteristics of the Enlightenment (see Wagner, 2016). Arguably, the word “association” must have been carefully employed by this author in this context with the aim to avoid any strong claims concerning the possible identity between modernity and conceptions of progress, while pointing at the same time to a certain non-accidental congruence between the two “terms.”

However, there is little doubt that the idea of “an immanent and indefinite progress” that gradually replaced the medieval belief in providence is inextricable woven with modernity, as it emerged in the midst of the querelle des anciens et des modernes in philosophy and the arts and subsequently spread out to embrace various aspects of European societies. Löwith claims that this new belief in progress, which almost became “a religion,” would be impossible without the questioning of the dogma of divine providence but ironically in gradually replacing it also had to assume its function, viz. it had to “foresee and to provide for the future” (Löwith, 1949, p. 60). Therefore, the idea of progress that—together with the concept of revolution—shaped the horizon of historical expectations in the early stages of modernity and gave birth to the genre of the philosophy of history, exemplified in its very origins an ambivalence toward the medieval conception of the world, being “Christian by derivation” and “anti-Christian by implication” as Löwith (1949) observes (p. 61). It is equally apparent that currently, grand narratives of progress seem rather unpopular and redundant, but this hardly means that all notions of progress are irrelevant to late modern societies or to our attempts to understand present forms of modernity, as Peter Wagner rightly observes in the forward to his last contribution to the problem of progress (Wagner, 2016).

Arguably, conceptions of progress can be traced in different aspects of discourses about modernity, ranging from everyday conceptions and stereotypes about the “modern condition” to slightly paraphrase Lyotard—and sociological or philosophical accounts of modernity. It is however only with the latter that I am going to deal in this short excursion on progress. In what follows I do not attempt to provide an exhaustive account of the various phases the idea of progress underwent between the eighteenth century and the present, as this would require a separate study1 (Nisbet, 1994). Instead, I focus on the transference of the notion of progress from the field of the philosophy of history to that of social theory and the impact of progress to the wider theorizing of social change. I then move on to consider the ways in which the entanglement of the imagery of progress with modernity has shaped core dichotomies in social theory, such as those between community/society and systems/lifeworlds. Finally, I turn my gaze to the ways in which the belief in progress that underlined modernization theories has been challenged by Eisenstadt’s multiple modernities approach and to the prospects opened up by Wagner’s more recent attempts to theorize the relationship between progress and current modern projects.

The Philosophy of History

On the level of theoretical discourses that explicitly or implicitly tackle the problems of modernity, an often unacknowledged commitment to some notion of progress is traceable at first sight in various accounts of social change. This is hardly surprising, given the elective affinities between the “scientific” endeavor characteristic of early sociology to discover the mechanisms underlying socio-historical change and the field of the philosophy of history, where an explicit link between progress and historical change first emerged, partly as a result of the development of the concept of “world history” as well as the conception of “humanity” as the at-once singular/collective subject of history.2 One can always distinguish of course between “weaker” conceptions of progress as in Kant’s Idea of a Universal History and more radical ones as in Hegel’s Phenomenology and Lectures on the Philosophy of History as well as in Marx and Engels and in some versions of Marxism. Indeed, a good number of Marx’s own writings seem to support the idea that Marx was himself to an extent under the spell of the widespread belief in progress. Although it is impossible to do justice here to the variety and richness of the responses from friends and foes to Marx’s works in relation to the problem of progress, it would be unwise to completely refrain from highlighting some aspects of it.

It looks like until the Second World War, quite a few Marxists felt comfortable with the notion of progress. Thus, in his attempt to define “orthodox” Marxism in his classic work History and Class Consciousness, Lucaks still saw no fault in claiming that “by adopting the progressive part of the Hegelian Method” Marx was able to reveal “the real substratum of historical evolution” (Lucaks, 1972, p. 17-emphasis added). Some decades later, Hannah Arendt arguing from a completely different intellectual perspective critically observes that in Marx’s “dream of a classless society…does a last, though utopian, trace of the eighteenth century concept [of progress] appear” (Arendt, 1973, p. 143).

However, even from the early twentieth century, Marxists of sorts have also attempted to trace in Marx’s works non-determinist elements and in general have questioned the very notion of necessary historical development. Balibar (1995) presents us with a fine example of this attitude as he argues that Marx’s works are Janus-faced. According to Balibar in texts like The Communist Manifesto, The German Ideology, the “introduction” of 1859 to The Critique of Political Economy and the first volume of The Capital Marx appears as a thinker that gave a specific interpretative twist to the theme of progress, addressing it from the perspective of the economy. This aspect of Marx’s writings is therefore for Balibar (1995) marred by—mainly economic—determinism and finalism, despite the fact that Marx envisaged a state-of-affairs that would ultimately break with the logic of historical development, i.e., the classless society that would signify the emergence of history proper, i.e., history qua freedom (p. 94).

However, Balibar thinks he can still trace a non-determinist Marx that focuses on historicity and in human practice rather than on universal historical trends, in reading between the lines of Marx’s major works cited above and in light of some remarks contained in his Critique of the Gotha Program and his correspondence with Vera Zasulich. Balibar even claims that by “an astonishing turnabout,” Marx’s “economism gave birth to its opposite: a set of anti-evolutionist hypotheses” (Balibar, 1995, p. 108). In any case, even if we accept Balibar’s argument, Marx presents us with a limit-case of a thinker who was both fascinated with the mixture of positivist and progressive accounts of his times and had an intimation of intellectual developments that were yet to emerge. Or, in yet another formulation, on the one hand, Marx appears as “the supreme rebel against bourgeois liberal thought” and on the other hand Marx “accepted universalism in so far as he accepted the idea of an inevitable historical march toward progress” (Wallerstein, 1991, p. 125).

Arguably, the development of the idea of progress in modernity was shaped to a certain extent by the combination of medieval eschatology and the emergence of expectations made possible by a host of unprecedented changes in science and political, economic and social institutions. Indeed, Koselleck claims that this combination produced a temporality, which could open up to the future without limit, thereby making possible the very idea of universal history (see Koselleck, 2004, p. 140, 232). Of great importance is Koselleck’s insight that progress was not “simply an ideological mode of viewing the future” but that it “corresponded, rather to a new everyday experience which was fed continually from a number of sources,” such as the developments of technical civilization and the rapid changes of social and political institutions (Koselleck, 2004, p. 60). Now it has to be noted that although the meaning of the concept of ideology remains largely ambivalent,3 we should certainly take care not to treat the idea of progress as epiphenomenon. In this sense, progress should be best understood as an “imaginary social signification” in the sense that Castoriadis gives to this concept, viz. as a signification that is neither limited to the perceived (real) or to the consciously thought, but stemming from the unconscious forms the unacknowledged ground of collective and individual practices and actions (see, e.g., Castoriadis, 1987, esp. chapters 3, 4, 7; for a detailed discussion of the concept, see Arnason, 2014).

Alternatively, we could treat progress as a key element of what Taylor calls “social imaginary,” viz. a pre-theoretical, relatively structured manner of understanding the world, shared by large social groups or even whole social formations, informing practices and granting legitimacy to actions and institutions4 (see, e.g., Taylor, 2007, p. 172–173).

Fukuyama traces the emergence of the specifically modern conception of progress on the writings of Machiavelli and especially in what he understands as a decoupling of politics and morality in Machiavelli’s works. The same author traces important formulations of progress in the writings of Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, the encyclopedists and Condorcet, but suggests that it is with the emergence of German Idealism that the notion was given the most thorough and “serious” treatment (Fukuyama, 1992, p. 57). Arguably, within German Idealism, progress was seen primarily in terms of the gradual attainment of truth as in Kant’s ideal of gradual Enlightenment and Hegel’s conception of (absolute) spirit.

Kant has been often considered as providing us with a moderate and yet somehow canonical conception of the Enlightenment and of the theme of progress in history. In his treatment of Kant’s writings that directly or indirectly deal with the problem of progress and history, Honneth discerns three distinct modes under which Kant tackled this issue. The first such version is arguably largely dependent on Rousseau’s view of civilization and therefore woven around the concept of “unsocial sociability” and the need for recognition from one’s social environment (Honneth, 2009, p. 12). The second version postulates that social conflict in the guise of the constant threat of war and the perpetual attempts to put an end to conflict provide the main mechanism of progress in history (Honneth, 2009, p. 13).

In Honneth’s view, both versions mentioned above rely on the assumption that a common teleology bridges the natural and the human realms and it is only with the third version that the specifically human domain is seen as relatively independent of natural teleology. As he puts it, the third version envisages nature only as the “origin of a specific human capacity…and not as the original cause of a plan that concerns us” (Honneth, 2009, p. 14). At first glance Kant’s third formulation might look less important than it really is. Honneth traces therein the insight that human intelligence and “the mechanism of learning” is established as the key-mechanism of progress both ontogenetically and phylogenetically and claims that there are similarities between Kant’s and Hegel’s treatment of progress; in his view, they both understand historical processes in terms of “directed progress,” with the crucial difference that Kant did not rely to the “anonymous process of an unfolding of spirit” (Honneth, 2009, p. 17).

In a fashion that arguably brings him quite close to Habermas’s understanding of the role of the public sphere and his theory concerning the emergence and development of communicative rationality, Honneth argues that it is only this last version of Kant’s treatment of history that is viable and “fruitful for the present,” since all those who “actively side with the moral achievements of the Enlightenment” are now to understand history as “a conflict-ridden learning process” and themselves as “heirs” of this process and therefore as responsible for the continuation of this development “in their own time” (Honneth, 2009, p. 18).

Now, I believe that we could add some elements to this insight without violating Honneth’s intentions and insights. First, it has to be noted that we could always interpret Hegel’s immanent teleology—and his treatment of absolute spirit—as relatively open. In this case, the elective affinities between Kant’s and Hegel’s versions of human freedom and historical progress become more pronounced. In this respect, it is certainly no accident that Rose who argues that in “Hegel’s thought ‘spirit’ means the structure of recognition or misrecognition in a society” and is “inseparable from absolute spirit, the meaning of history as a whole,” is able to trace parallels between Kant’s moral judgment and Hegel’s absolute ethical life (Rose, 1981, p. 41, 45).

Second, the idea of interrupted historical progress that is relatively independent of nature opens up a whole field of investigation into the ever-changing relations between the human and non-human forms of development. It should be noted in passing that in my view, of the various answers given to this problem the most promising one is Castoriadis’s. According to Castoriadis society is characterized by a twofold indeterminacy: on the one hand in leaning on the “first natural substratum” society is relatively independent from what we usually call natural laws and on the other hand in being developed around magma-like social significations, institutions resist the kind of explanation that is based on what Castoriadis calls “identitary” (formal-mathematical) logic (see Castoriadis, 1987, esp. chapter 5; Clooger, 2014 shows how Castoriadis’s critique of ensemblistic-identitary logic is in effect a focused and profound critique of reason).

A third point concerns the simple observation that any progress through learning could never be only contemplative in nature. Rather, any attained “truth” was to be embodied in institutions and thereof to promote both collective and individual autonomy, despite the all too often felt tension between the individual, the particular and the universal that Hegel sought to reconcile through his conception of the modern state. It goes without saying that this identification of truth, progress, and modernity was also met with resistance, the most acute moment of which in the nineteenth century is arguably to be found in Nietzsce’s relegation of the status of truth to that of “metaphor” and his subsequent double assault on the idea of progress in history via the metaphor of the “eternal return of the same” in Thus Spoke Zaratustra and the postulation of the existence of retrogressive forces as founding instances and pillars of the Judeo-Christian civilization and of European modernity in The Genealogy of Morals.

Social Theory and Social Change

However, to the extent that challenges to the Enlightenment-inspired dominant discourse on progress remained relatively limited and marginal, the imaginary of progress did not fail to capture sociological imagination ever since the inception of the discipline. Auguste Comte, this “partisan of order as well as progress” (Wernick, 2001, p. 10), thought that he had grasped the “law of the three stages” that the human spirit of necessity had to undergo in its development and he postulated relevant transformations in the domain of whole societies and institutions.

Nisbet has shown that in regard of his commitment to the idea that “human history has been linear, that it has progressed in stages or epochs, and that it resembles nothing so much as the intellectual development of a single individual,” Comte is in fact a typical representative of his times and the heir of a conception that emerged in Roman Antiquity and later “seized and made the key to world history by St. Augustine” (Nisbet, 1994, p. 255). As we know, Comte’s ill-fated conception (apparently an early and somehow clumsy attempt at a sociology of knowledge) was met with suspicion or even outward rejection ever since Durkheim saw as his task to purge sociology from Comte’s metaphysics.5 The same suspicion was directed against Herbert Spencer’s evolutionism, arguably yet another Darwin-inspired guise under which the “imaginary signification” of progress was addressed in the early days of sociology and which was pronounced over and done with by Talcott Parsons in his first major work The Structure of Social Action,6 although in a strike of irony Parsons himself came to adopt a quasi-evolutionary perspective of social change in his later works, expressed most notably in his 1964 article “Evolutionary Universals in Society” (Parsons, 1964).

Interestingly, Parsonian sociology was accused of promoting an a-historical view of society that allegedly hindered any substantial analysis of social change.7 In his 1968 postscript to The Civilizing Process, Elias gives an interesting interpretative twist to this criticism against structural functionalism. Indeed, he argues that with the introduction of the concept of “pattern variables” and especially with the couplet “affecivity vs affective neutrality,” Parsons re-interprets Tönnies’s distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellaschaft. In this reading of the Parsonian oeuvre, community is characterized by affectivity and society by affective neutrality. Elias argues further that by introducing highly abstract concepts like these, Parsons theorizes social change as if it was a “card game” and remains insensitive to the “distinguishing peculiarities” of historically specific societies (Elias, 2000, p. 453–454). According to Elias, Parsons uses concepts like “ego” and “system” in a reified manner that reproduces Durkheim’s allegedly erroneous assumption that the “relation between ‘individual’ and ‘society’ is an ‘interpenetration’ of the individual and the social system” (Elias, 2000, p. 456). It is this treatment of concepts that in Elias’s view leads Parsons astray and is responsible for his reducing “processes to states” (Elias, 2000, p. 456).

However, in relation to progress, there are two important elements in Elias’s criticism of Parsons. First, although Elias writes the postscript at a date when Parsons had already explicitly published works that focus on the theme of evolution there is no mentioning of this issue in the postscript. Instead, his critique is but a variation of the mainstream critique against structural-functionalism, which it accuses of holding an “Eleatic” view of society as it assumes that “societies are usually to be found in a state of equilibrium” (Elias, 2000, p. 459). Second, Elias’s critique of Parsons is followed by the quite interesting suggestion that Parsons’s alleged blindness to social change8 is a result of a total rejection of the theme of social development, a concept that Elias uses in this context as almost synonymous to progress. Indeed, Elias argues that this is part of a wider decline of the theme of development in the social sciences that in his view should be attributed to the contamination of nineteenth century accounts of social development such as those of Comte, Spencer, Marx, and Hobhouse by “political and philosophical ideals” (Elias, 2000, p. 458). Against that idealization of progress, the “nation” provided in Elias’s interpretation of twentieth century mainstream social theory the equally ideological imagery of an unalterable substance that served as a model for structuralist–functionalist accounts (Elias, 2000, p. 462–463).

It has to be noted in this context that throughout this text Elias seems to hold the view that the social sciences should not altogether refrain from using the concept of development, or the waning “belief in progress,” but that they rather have to purge it from ideological elements and ground their analysis on facts (Elias, 2000, p. 458, 461, 467). Leaving aside the epistemological difficulties this claim entails, it should be noted that it is perhaps this attitude that led some readers of his works to see Elias’s treatment of civilization as evolutionism in disguise as Van Krieken (1998) observes (p. 66). This is in my view a blatant misunderstanding of Elias intentions, since he clearly understands civilization as a precarious and unfinished process, always threatened by counter-civilizing processes,9 like the “decivizing spurt of the Hitler epoch” (Elias, 1996, p. 1) as he writes in the introduction to The Germans. At the same time though, I cannot but agree with Van Krieken (1998) that there operates in Elias’s work a conviction that modern societies have actually developed or progressed in some aspects and in a non-linear manner (like in science and in the extended application of self-control) in relation to medieval ones (p. 67). In any case, it is strange that Elias neglects altogether to comment on the clearly evolutionist character of Parsons’s later theories.

Indeed, in his later works, Parsons envisages the existence of “evolutionary universals,” i.e., elements “sufficiently important to further [socio-cultural] evolution,” while he argues that social organization through kinship, communication with language, religion, and technology form an indispensable and “integrated set of evolutionary universals at even the earliest human level” (Parsons, 339, 342). In another work of the same period, Parsons clearly addresses the problem of social change from an evolutionary perspective, arguing that sociocultural “evolution has proceeded by variation and differentiation from simple to progressively more complex forms,” although he also insists on the plural and non-linear character of this development (Parsons, 1966, p. 2). It is this assumption that both operates behind his fundamental tripartite classification of historical societies as “primitive (sic) intermediate and modern,” and informs his claim that modernity has its single historical origin in the “societies of Western Europe as they developed from the medieval base, which emerged after the decline of the Roman Empire” (Parsons, 1966, p. 3).

A response to evolutionism came in the late 1960s from Robert Nisbet (1969), who argued against evolutionary conceptions of social change that he rightly attributed to both sociological and philosophical accounts, although his argument can be extended so as to include interpretations of social change that rely heavily on the idea of progress. Put in a nutshell, Nisbet’s argument is that social theory and philosophy suffer from an unjustifiable—and ultimately ideological—conception of social change in terms of passage from allegedly lower (traditional) forms of societal life to allegedly higher ones in modernity. Importantly, he attributes the tendency of modern thought to theorize social change in this rather simplistic manner, to an interpretation that was—perhaps accidentally—given in modern times to the Greek conception of growth and decay in combination with the Aristotelian conception of entelecheia, i.e., the inner principle allegedly guiding every being toward its end or its perfection. Nisbet argues that the concept of entelecheia was reinterpreted both in the context of the Christian tradition through the writings of Saint Augustine and in the modern, secular philosophical, and sociological accounts of social change that tend to address this phenomenon as a process immanent to society and in this respect in terms of a necessary development. Nisbet also argues that the most exemplary form of this interpretation is to be found in functionalist and structuralist sociological accounts, in the context of which it also results in the hypostasization/essentialization of “society” as such.

Community/Society

As already implied in the discussion above, the idea of progress is also hidden behind the celebrated dichotomy between community and society (Gemeischaft and Gesellschaft), which was so dear to early sociologists. Far from being just an imagery informing Ferdinand Tönnies’s homonymous work, this simple opposition can arguably be discerned in various guises (or even in disguise) in a series of sociological discourses on the social, ranging from Max Weber’s ideal-typical juxtaposition between “traditional” and “modern”/“rational” forms of social (inter) action and association in his Economy and Society, to Durkheim’s postulation of two forms/modes of solidarity (mechanical and organic) corresponding to pre-modern and modern societal formations. In both cases of course, the inferences are far from direct.

Weber’s understanding of modernity in terms of rationalization and disenchantment is a far cry from a celebration of progress as his “Stahlhartes Gehäuse10” or “iron cage” thesis in the Protestant Ethic clearly shows (see Weber, 1992, p. 123). This holds insofar as this thesis expresses a great concern—if not outright distaste (see Giddens, 1992, p. xix)—for the impact of the specific forms of rationalization characteristic of European modernity in institutions and individuals alike. However, in spite of the rather unresolved tension between the unmistakable marks of Nietzsche’s influence in Weber’s interpretation of modernity and his endorsement of the methodological principle of value-neutrality as a prerequisite of the sociological enterprise, the eminence Weber attributes to rational action might not be accidental. In other words, as Weber’s methodological atomism has been attributed to an unacknowledged commitment on his part to the modern Weltanschauung concerning individuality (see Löwith, 1993, p. 61), so it is possible that his ideal-typical typology of action bears subtle imprints of a shared understanding of modernity as progressive in terms of rationality in relation to pre-modern forms of societal organization.

A similar observation can be made in relation to Durkheim’s conception of modernity and of social change. Although Durkheim intentionally reverses the meaning the terms “organic” and “mechanical” originally held in Tönnies’s work, at bottom, the conception regarding the progressive character of modern societies in comparison to pre-modern ones remains intact in his conception, if it is not even more pronounced than in Tönnies’s case. Durkheim theorizes modernity—and social change—in terms of passage(s) from states-of-affairs that fall under the category of “mechanical solidarity” to states-of-affairs that are mostly characterized by “organic solidarity,” i.e., with forms of social life that are compatible with a higher sense of individuality. Müller rightly observes that Durkheim’s use of the term solidarity should be understood as an attempt to cast a “relational” concept that would adequately grasp the nature of the social bond and give an answer to the problem of social order. Mechanical solidarity thus describes a form of direct integration of the individual in community, while organic solidarity expresses integration via increasing differentiation of both the levels of individual existence and the collective representations than become much more complex than in simple and archaic forms of societies (Müller, 1994, p. 79).

Now this could be—and has been—interpreted in different ways. Nisbet argues that Durkheim was one of the few intellectuals of his generation that resisted the idea of moral progress, but he also stresses the purposive use on Durkheim’s part of Tönnis’s distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, his adherence to the theses of “social atomization” and “secularization” (Nisbet, 1965, p. 18, 21–22). However, at the other end of the spectrum of possible interpretations, the precarious—and perhaps even deceptive—character of this distinction has been rightly highlighted by Jean-Luc Nancy in his celebrated collection of articles bearing the telling title The Innoperative Community. In this work, Nancy argues against the allegedly fictive character of the distinction as he remarks that “community has not taken place…or rather…community has never taken place along the lines of our projections of it,” and consequently no “Gesellschaft has come along to help the State, industry, and capital dissolve a prior Gemeinschaft” (Nancy, 1991, p. 11).

Moreover, the entanglement between the idea of progress and the imagery of the passage from community to society could also be discerned in the functionalist conception of social change in terms of (social) complexity and (systemic) differentiation.11 Providing at the same breath an account and a self-understanding of modernity, this fundamental differentiation between community and society essentially informs even more recent and more sophisticated approaches, such as Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, where a main differentiation is drawn between systems and communicative lifeworld(s).

The possibility of multi-dimensional lifeworlds was already acknowledged in Alfred Schutz’s classic The Phenomenology of the Social World, where it is clearly stated that the lifeworld is open to differing and perhaps conflicting interpretations, and the author offers the “examples” of the magical interpretation pertaining to simple societies, the theological interpretation of the sort propagated by a religious missionary and the scientific one corresponding to the modern scientist (Schutz, 1966, p. 270). Apart from bearing some uncanny similarities with Comte’s “law of three stages,” Schutz’s conception here seems to be premised on the belief that lifeworlds are in a process of gradual rationalization, a thesis associated with the writings of Max Weber but clearly presented and defended by Habermas in the Theory of Communicative Action (see also Wagner, 2016, p. 88).

Systems and Lifeworlds

Habermas attributes both ontological and epistemological primacy to the lifeworld, which he treats as the original locus of social interaction and as the foundation of systemic forms of social development (see Joas, 1991, p. 114). He is therefore at pains to establish beyond doubt the—allegedly historically confirmed—thesis of the gradual rationalization of the lifeworld, in an attempt to provide at the same time a comprehensive argument concerning the mechanisms of social change, a grounding of his concept of “communicative rationality” and of the autonomy of Reason over against its various distortions that in his view are the outcome of system-related interests.

It is well known that Habermas treats the lifeword as a concept that counters the notion of the “transcendental subject,” and consequently as the exemplary “transcendental” locus of communicative exchanges (and interactions) between more or less rational agents and as the place where mutual agreement is to be sought and social consensus could ideally be attained (Habermas, 1987, p. 126–127). He furthermore maintains that seen from the “inner” perspective of agents, the lifeworld is a concept that presents elective affinities with Durkheim’s concept of “collective consciousness” (Habermas, 1987, p. 133). In this sense, the lifeworld forms the meaningful horizon within which agents live and interact and on which rest both the meaningful orientation of their individual actions and the overall vestige with meaning of whole societal formations. Like an horizon proper, the lifeworld cannot itself become a theme of the subject’s consciousness (Habermas, 1987, p. 124) and consequently its various objectifications (like for example in cases of forms of culture, etc.) only reveal aspects of its overall structure. Habermas’s argument is way too complex to be dealt with in detail here, it is however important to note that despite acknowledging the impact intricate interactions between competent but possibly non-expert (or lay) agents has on the very outlook and structure of specific lifeworlds, he still believes that overall the structural and morphological transformations of lifeworlds can be interpreted as a process of gradual transformation of “the sacred into language.”

This conception, which again reproduces one of Durkheim’s most celebrated distinctions (i.e., that between the sacred and the secular), arguably identifies the “sacred” with the “ineffable” (in the sense of something quasi-mythical, imaginary but non-yet explicitly linguistically expressed) and the secular with the linguistically mediated and gradually developed rationality. In Habermas’s view, the internal differentiation of the lifeworld results in the proliferation of “regions,” where interaction takes place under conditions of a mutual orientation toward understanding and where the attainment of consensus depends on the principle of the “best argument” (Habermas, 1987, p. 145).

This formulation entails a double defense of the autonomy of reason against the criticisms of the first generation of the Frankfurt School and especially against the celebrated thesis of The Dialectic of Enlightenment (a reversal itself of the Hegelian and Marxian version of dialectics), and according to which far from reaching an Absolute self-clarity (as in Hegel) or a fully emancipated state-of affairs (as in Marx), “enlightened” reason (the Ratio) of necessity relapses to myth and unreason as it follows an inconclusive and vicious dialectic. The Dialectic of Enlightenment is a fine example of theoretical discourses criticizing the idea of modernity as progress, which—unlike other critiques of modernity as for example Spengler’s Decline of western Civilization—retains a certain commitment to the ideals of human emancipation and reason,12 while tending to interpret modernity from the perspective of regression (though not of decay).

In this respect, on the one hand, Habermas’s conception of gradually rationalized lifeworlds stands in stark contrast to Adorno and Horkheimer’s (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1986) argument13 that enlightened reason is essentially instrumental and quasi-mythical, since Habermas claims that through communicative actions myth is in the last instance gradually replaced by reason on the very soil on which myth itself first emerged, viz. in the lifeworld.

Habermas offers a telling example when he claims that we can discern symbolic elements and rituals in archaic forms of society, but although these archaic, mythical forms of understanding are crucial for the emergence and maintenance of social integration, they merely inform social behavior, not action proper. Rather, he explicitly states that only through the “transformation of primitive (sic) systems of calls into grammatically regulated, propositionally differentiated speech was the sociocultural point reached at which ritualized behavior changed into ritualized action” and that from that point on “we no longer have to be content with describing ritualized behavior [but] we can try to understand rituals” (Habermas, 1987, p. 190). In other words, this largely fictive—but perhaps heuristically fruitful—postulation of a major transformation in the midst of mythical representations of the world reproduces the widely shared conviction that reason has myth as its foundation and that human action is only conceivable as such under conditions of relative rationalization. It follows that our attempts to “understand” action in the manner of the Weberian Verstehendesoziologie are only conceivable under conditions of some emergent form of rationality—the reinterpretation on Habermas’s part of Weber’s typology of action—and especially of Weber’s conviction that “emotional” and “traditional” actions are not actions proper, being in my view more than evident here.

On the other hand, Habermas traces a direct link between the distortive elements of reason (the so-called instrumental rationality) and systemically grounded interests. In this sense, he attempts to differentiate between a non-distorted, communicative form of rationality emerging progressively out of the development of the lifeworld(s) and a potentially alienating form of rationality generated by systemic differentiation and the proliferation of systems. In other words, he claims that these ideal-typical representations of societies (i.e., system and lifeworld) undergo a series of changes that he calls the gradual “uncoupling of systems and lifeworld” (Habermas, 1987, p. 153), and which results in the perilous “colonization” of the lifeword by systemic interests under the influence of media like money and power, i.e., in the progressive technicization and instrumentalization of the lifeworld’s symbolic structures (e.g., Habermas, 1987, p. 183, 187, 196).

Habermas’s critique of systems follows his earlier attempts to come up with a critique of instrumental reason without denying altogether the emancipatory powers of reason and science, to be found most notably in his Reason and Human Interests. It can also be interpreted as a critique of the so-called “modernization theories” based on models of economic growth (rather than development), since Habermas treats economic systems largely as obstacles to the attainment of social consensus on the grounds of undistorted communication.

Progress and Plurality: Beyond Multiple Modernities?

A further critique of modernization theories was advanced by Shmuel Eisenstadt’s “multiple modernities” approach, which was based on a reinterpretation of Karl Jaspers’s “axial age” thesis. Ironically, Eisenstadt’s writings in the 1950s still presented but “an unorthodox version” of modernization theories and his most prominent work in the 1960s, his comparative study of World Empires, was conducted within the theoretical framework of Parsons’s systems theory. Arnason observes that this prevented Eisenstadt from making the most out of the diversity of his material, since the imposition of “predicated on an evolution from simple to complex societies” prevented him from completing his critique of modernization accounts (Arnason, 2015, p. 148–149).

No single work of Eisenstadt adequately develops the theoretical framework of his later work that came to be known as “multiple modernities” and which Arnason describes as a “cultural turn” in Eisensatdt’s approach to socio-historical phenomena. However, his break with the Parsonian paradigm is attributed to at least two main factors: First, Eisenstadt was increasingly convinced that the state of Israel presented the unique manifestation of the modern project. Second, this insight was further enriched by Eisenstadt’s reinterpretation of Karl Jaspers’s “axial age” thesis and the concept of “axial civilizations” (Arnason, 2015, p. 165–166).

According to the “multiple modernities” approach, the great Eurasian civilizations of the first millenium (700–400) B.C.E, i.e., of the “axial age,” shared the emergence of certain characteristics that mark the passage from pre-history to history and are still relevant today. The most important elements are the differentiation between the “sacred” and the “secular” spheres and the emergence in some cases of the first “world religions,” the emergence of reflexivity (and philosophy), a primal understanding of human historicity and the acknowledgment of human agency as a crucial historical factor, or as Wagner puts it, the acknowledgment that “a different world is possible” (Wagner, 2005, p. 93; Wittrock, 2005, p. 61 ff.). The merit of this approach is that it attempts to address modernity under a pluralistic perspective, as a history of continuous processes of formation and transformation of what Eisenstadt (2000) calls “cultural programmes,” a term coined to substitute for the notions of “civilizations” and “societies” (p. 2). Therefore, it resists both the urge to theorize modernity in one-dimensional manner (say as conditioned by developments in the economy) and to some extent the tendency to understand modernity through the over-simplistic conception of the passage14 from medieval times to modern ones.

Eisensatdt understands modernity as a “distinct civilization with distinct institutional and cultural characteristics,” as a “crystallization” of “modes of interpretation of the world,” or as forming a distinct social imaginary, as he writes following Castoriadis (Eisenstadt, 2002, p. 28).

The multiple modernities approach is explicitly directed against Fukuyama’s assumption concerning the alleged lack of alternatives to the established socio-economic and political institutions of capitalism that became popular under the rubric of the “end of history.” It was also consciously developed against the Samuel P. Huntington’s conflict-laden interpretation of western and non-western civilizations (Eisenstadt, 2002, p. 27). In this respect, it challenges to a considerable degree the assumption that social change could be theorized in general from the standpoint of progress or evolution and that this progress is represented by the specific progression of cultural, social, scientific, economic, and political institutions in the western world. However, it has been also pointed out that the idea of an almost “direct” link between the axial age and our “present era” is rather unsustainable (Wagner, 2012, p. 156), while the very emphasis of the “multiple modernities” approach to reflexivity, historicity, and agency could be seen as uncritically reproducing mainstream conceptions of modernity (Wagner, 2005, p. 104).

In response to these problems, Wagner has proposed in his Modernity as Experience and Interpretation (Wagner, 2008) and in his subsequent works to study modernity from the perspective of at least three fundamental problématiques (viz. the epistemic, the political, and the economic) without privileging a priori any of them and secondly, to substitute of the term “improvement over time” for the notion of “progress” (Wagner, 2012, p. 151). In the same vein, he proposes to avoid if possible the overburdened with meaning terms “society” and “civilization” and to replace them with more fluid and indeterminate notion of “collective self-understanding” (Wagner, 2012, p. 158). Wagner’s proposal is interesting as far as our often misleading concepts of society, civilization, and progress are concerned, but a lot of conceptual labor is required before we could feel content with the ways in which the very impasses resulting by the modern and contemporary understandings of collectivity, subjectivity, and identity could be overcome. In effect, the notion of “improvement over time” has the merit that it retains a “weak” ideal of progress while attempting to break with the commitment to the idea of immanent development and entelecheia in the sense discussed above. The same goes for Wagner’s attempt to substitute the notion of “physical human beings” for the more conventional notion of the “subject,” although it has to be noted that the proposed term is no more tangible and no less metaphysical than the alternatives, while it presupposes a great deal of groundwork on key concepts like the body, the self, being, etc. before we could possibly use it in a satisfactory manner.

However, the indisputable merit of Wagner’s aforementioned proposal is that it thematizes the problems generated by the link between conceptions of modernity and the idea of progress, it provides us with alternative ways of theorizing modernity and in so doing it also shows the possible inescapability of the question of progress. The link between modernity and progress becomes certainly less visible in discourses that extrapolate a radical discontinuity between modernity and post-modernity like in Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition15 that drew on and extended “the earlier thesis about post-industrial society” and emphasized “the impact of new information and communication technologies” (Wagner, 2015, p. 107), or with discourses that attempt to altogether deconstruct western metaphysics and consequently also the modern preoccupation with progress. However, in their origins, deconstructive discourses often fail to resist the temptation to exaggerate the aspect of decline,16 as in Nietzsche’s assumption that counter-creative forms of power were constituent of the nineteenth Century European civilization, or Heidegger’s claim that technology forms the ultimate horizon of western metaphysics, barring alternative manifestations of common and individual being.17

Since at least 2008, Wagner’s works have increasingly penetrated the thorny question of progress and his last published book on the issue (2016) is such a response, an attempt to inhabit the space opened up between the extreme faith in progress of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the disillusionment with progress that characterizes much of the twentieth century and the present. Wagner acknowledges the different dimensions of progress and the variety of interpretations historically given to this notion, as well as what—following Gadamer18—we could call the “problem of application,” i.e., the fact that there is always a dynamic between interpretation and putting a “concept into practice” (Wagner, 2016, p. 10). Indeed, in order to do justice to this complex constellation of meanings, practices, institutions, societal and political formations and individuals, he examines his material in accordance with the three problématiques mentioned above (Wagner, 2016, p. 13–14).

Wagner argues that a common “mechanism” operates behind conceptions, imageries, practices, and institutional advancements in relation to progress in the fields of science/knowledge and the economy, where the imaginary signification of “mastery” seems to accompany that of progress (Wagner, 2016, p. 38). In this respect, Wagner’s reconstructive project is quite influenced by Castoriadis’s well-known thesis that modernity is grounded on two—often conflicting but also entangled—core imaginary significations, viz. the unlimited expansion of “rational mastery” and political “autonomy” (Castoriadis, 1997, p. 37).

In my understanding of Wagner’s work, this influence by Castoriadis’s interpretation of autonomy accounts for the specific emphasis placed on the political problématique19 and for his insight that “one key concern of our time should be political progress” in the sense of a “radical commitment to democratic agency” (Wagner, 2016, p. 21). Wagner casts this insight in various other ways, as for example in terms of the need to both acknowledge and actively rekindle what he calls “historical temporality.” Temporality here signifies the acknowledgment of the always dynamic and precarious of the social-historical, or a state-of-affairs characterized by a tension between “abstract and ‘presentist’ concepts of the individual and the collectivity” and the various actual experiences of “domination and injustice” (Wagner, 2016, p. 128).

Here again, Wagner uses the experiences gained by the various “protest” social movements that emerged in the 1960s and stresses the need to renegotiate social and political forms of progress, while avoiding the extremities of what he calls “hybristic projects of radical transformation” without however rejecting also any kernel of truth they might possess (Wagner, 2016, p. 103, 150–152). Indeed, if “critique and protest” fuel the search for “normatively superior solutions,” then Wagner is right in placing great emphasis in the role of protest movements, such as the anti-colonial movement, the feminist movement, and the movement against the apartheid in South Africa in the reinterpretation of the notion of progress and in the dissolution of organized modernity (Wagner, 2016, p. 108–115).

Put in a nutshell, Wagner identifies the main “mechanism” of progress from mid-eighteenth century to the last part of the twentieth century to be domination and resistance to domination, and he insists that the notion of progress should not be altogether rejected but that it should rather be replaced with a relative conception of progress through a reworking of the Enlightenment idea of collective and personal autonomy (Wagner, 2016, p. 152).

Some Concluding Remarks

“There is no want in our age of declarations by historians and other intellectuals that the idea of progress ‘died with Herbert Spencer,’ ‘ended with the nineteenth century,’ and was ‘banished forever by World War I’…But the truth lies elsewhere,” writes Nisbet in 1980 and goes on to argue that in spite of the abundance and variety of challenges to the idea of progress in the twentieth century, “the dogma of progress isn’t at death’s door” (Nisbet, 1994, p. 297). Almost 30 years later and despite the worldwide proliferation of such challenges in the present, progress and decline are arguably hardly extinguished from the imaginary of contemporary philosophy and science as this brief essay attempted to show.

Since I was primarily interested in showing the ways in which the theme of progress has shaped social theory and especially theories of social change, only indirectly—and in passing—did I address the normative aspect of the relation between the various projects that could be characterized in some way as “modern” and progress. It is, however, evident that much of the discussion concerning the inescapability of the question of progress points exactly to the need to further clarify this dimension. Admittedly, this is a quite complex issue that involves a thorough discussion of many contemporary currents of thought, while it involves important epistemological and philosophical issues to which one should dedicate a separate study. In this respect, Wagner’s approach is quite promising in directly focusing on the theme of progress and in showing from yet another perspective the need for a reinterpretation of the “project” of the Enlightenment. It was clear to Nisbet and it is perhaps even clearer today that a naïve, unqualified belief in progress is unsustainable. At the same time, we need to take heed of Wagner’s insight that a total rejection of the notion of progress might prove perilous for the social and political future of the world, or of Nisbet’s claim that “in its oldest and broadest,” the idea of progress “has been associated more often with good than with evil” (Nisbet, 1994, p. 318).

Irrespective of whether we understand the origins of progress to lie in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Nisbet, 1994, p. 11), or if we address it as a uniquely modern imagery, it is very difficult to completely dissociate the multiple forms of modernity from progress. Indeed, progress presents us with yet novel challenges both on the level of theory and on the various other dimensions of the social world(s), challenges to which we have to respond. The various critiques of reason and social developments worldwide have clearly undermined the belief in the universality of reason, making any attempt at reinterpretation of the basic tenets of the Enlightenment and of reason both precarious and necessary.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

1. ^An extended—and scholarly—presentation of this sort can be found in the second part of Nisbet’s History of the Idea of Progress, and especially in chapters six and seven (Nisbet, 1994).
2. ^Indeed, the critique of the very conception of universal history entails that the concept of humanity also became the object of critique. However, despite the fragmentation of human beings, groups, civilizations, and whole socio-historical formations, I believe the concept is still indispensable at least as a regulative principle, as Ricoeur proposed in his exchange with Castoriadis in 1985, or as an imaginary signification as Castoriadis proposed in the same context (Castoriadis and Ricoeur, 2016, p. 66–68).
3. ^The problem is quite complex to adequately discuss it here. Suffice it to say that a host of developments in epistemology and the theory of knowledge in the twentieth century render the class-laden and clear-cut conception of ideology as distorted consciousness propounded by Marxism rather untenable. Mannheim’s treatment of ideology and utopia as an inseparable couplet and the abolition of the distinction between truth and ideological distortion in favor of an understanding of knowledge as relational (with the exception of mathematics and the natural sciences) and always already linked to specific Weltanschauungen bound to social groups (see Burger and Luckmann, 1971, p. 21–22), the so-called linguistic turn, phenomenology’s insistence on the lifeworld as the ground of scientific discourses, Foucault’s treatment of the couplet episteme/science and the linking of meaning with “discursive formations” in his two major epistemological works, are but few instances of the challenges to the customary understanding of ideology. This does not make the concept of ideology redundant, for such an attitude would cancel any claims to truth and would render impossible the very foundation of reason, viz. its critical function. We are just compelled to try to establish a more subtle understanding of ideology as an inescapable element of the hermeneutic condition, or as Ricoeur puts it, once we have rejected the possibility of a total view of the social world, we have to cultivate our “practical wisdom” in the knowledge that we “cannot get out of the circle of ideology and utopia” and to use critical reason to turn this circle into a “spiral” (Ricoeur, 1986, p. 314).
4. ^At least two significant authors refer to progress in terms that seemingly contradict my attempt to address it as something much more complex than an easily refuted superstition. Arendt (1973) (p. 144) describes progress as superstition and Balibar (1995) as ideology. However, in my understanding, Arendt’s overall analysis suggests that she does not treat it like an epiphenomenon and the same holds for Balibar, who using “Canguilhem’s terminology” links evolutionism as “scientific ideology” with the emergence of a “site of exchange between scientific research programmes and the theoretical and social imaginary” (Balibar, 1995, p. 91-emphasis added).
5. ^Comte’s positivist epistemology was however also heavily reliant on the idea of progress, as the “idea of the progressive filiation of the sciences is crucial to his strategy” (Nisbet, 1994, p. 254). Although it is impossible to adequately treat the place progress holds in the history of epistemology and of science in the context of this brief discussion, some comments on the issue are still in place. Positivism in general gave progress a central position as it assumed that scientific knowledge was cumulative and progressive. However, late Wittgenstein, Kuhn, and others contributed in undermining this conception. Indeed, both Wagner (2016) (p. 27) and Feyerabend emphasize the role of Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific revolutions in disrupting the positivist understanding of knowledge, while Feyerabend focuses specifically on the importance of incommensurability, a notion employed by Kuhn and himself, for the undermining of what he calls the quantitative (or strong) conception of scientific progress (Feyerabend, 1987, p. 156). However, interpretations being often unpredictable, one should note that Kuhh’s work has been used by Campbell in the opposite direction, viz. so as to make feasible an “operational sense of progress together with an evolutionary epistemology” (Dancy and Sosa, 2000, p. 271–272).
6. ^See for example the opening statements of The Structure, where Spencer is declared “Dead by suicide at the hands of person or persons unknown,” together with the positivist–utilitarianist tradition that according to Parsons he represents. Indeed, Parsons goes as far as to suggest that the reason of Spencer’s fall from grace is none else but his adherence to the principles of evolution and progress (Parsons, 1949, p. 3–4). However, some scholars have discerned a commitment to progress even in this early work of Parsons. Indeed, they argue that Parsons ultimately holds in The Structure “a relatively unilinear notion of historical progress,” while he is blind to the contradiction between “his critique of evolutionist constructions of history à la Spencer and his own interpretation of intellectual history with its implicit belief in progress” (Hans and Knöbl, 2009, p. 48–49).
7. ^Alexander observes that the initial criticism against Parsons in relation to social change was the erroneous assumption that he lacked any theory of systemic change. However, later and “in response to the voluminous scholarly writing on differentiation,” this critique gave way to the opposite but equally unjustified critical assumption that the “functionalist approach to change is, in fact, overly systemic” (Alexander, 1978, p. 183–184).
8. ^It is possible that Parsons’s famous statement in The Social System that “a general theory of the processes of change of social systems is not possible in the present state of knowledge” (Parsons, 1991, p. 327), combined with the overall emphasis he placed on the notion of systemic equilibrium has led to this misinterpretation of his stance towards social change.
9. ^Smith observes that in contrast to Hannah Arendt who understands decivilizing processes and Nazism in particular “as involving a tightening of controls,” Elias describes National Socialism “in terms of a breakdown of controls” (Smith, 2001, p. 62), or we could add as a regression in the development of the German Habitus. In this respect, it is certainly no accident that Elias argues that it is “no figure of speech but a simple statement of fact to say that Hitler in Germany had a function and characteristics similar to those of a rainmaker, a witch doctor, a shaman in simpler tribal groupings” (Elias, 1996, p. 388).
10. ^Baehr argues that Parsons violated the meaning of this phrase when he chose to translate it as “iron cage” instead of “shell as hard as steel” as Baehr (2002) himself proposes (p. 200). In Baehr’s interpretation of the Protestant Ethic, this phrase would best capture Weber’s quasi-Nietzschean insight concerning a radical shift in the human condition, the emergence in modernity of some unprecedented mode of passivity of humans vis-à-vis their own creations. Baehr rightly observes that although Weber did not partake in the “parody” of kulrurpessimismus that was quite popular at his times, he was still troubled and “disconsolate about the human prospect” at least with regard to the Occident (Baehr, 2002, p. 197). It should be noted, however, that the concept of Stahlhartes Gehäuse does not simply signify the coercive elements of rationalization, since “its unparalleled rational and technical efficiency provided the essential services and goods of mass consumption” that few modern individuals “would willingly” dismiss (Gosh, 2014, p. 389).
11. ^Wagner points out that the notion of functional differentiation emerged as an interpretation of the ideal of progress and it helped suppress criticism on economic and epistemic practices, which under this principle appeared both necessary and justified (Wagner, 2016, p. 40). Being premised on the notions of difference and rupture, Luhmann’s version of systems theory is arguably less evidently linked with the idea of progress. However, the concept of autopoiesis goes glove in hand with the concept of higher or emergent systemic orders, while the openness of autopoietic systems entails that the formation of systems-environments is a process that in principle may take place ad infinitum. The fact that in Luhmann’s formulation there are no stable “elements” or system units and that the relation between system and environment is indeterminate (Luhmann, 1995, p. 22–23) makes the theory much more interesting than the Parsonian approach, but changes little concerning the issue discussed here.
12. ^According to Alexander, an extreme example of the critique of reason is presented in the writings of Sorel, who “faced with the disappointment of his socialist hopes for progress” came to propound the idea “that individuals are not as rational as progressive theory had thought.” Indeed, he even attempted to establish “a commonality between modern actors and the myth worshipers of traditional societies” and wavered himself “between revolutionary left and right” (Alexander, 1990, p. 22).
13. ^Habermas claims that in The Dialectic of Enlightenment Horkheimer and Adorno “play a variation on the well-known theme of Max Weber, who sees the ancient, disenchanted gods rising from their graves in the guise of depersonalized forces to resume the irreconcilable struggles between the demons” (Habermas, 1990, p. 110). Importantly, Habermas also sees the central thesis of the Dialectic as equally perilous or “no less risky than Nietzsche’s similarly posed diagnosis of nihilism” (Habermas, 1990, p. 110).
14. ^It is worth noticing that Wallerstein adds some significant remarks to this critical point, even as he writes from a quite distinct theoretical perspective to that of multiple modernities. Indeed, Wallerstein links the very notion of “transition” to the fallacious idea that “history is progressive, and inevitably so” and to the tendency of the social sciences to study what he calls “historical systems” under the theoretical pattern of “linear transformations” (Wallerstein, 1987, p. 322–323).
15. ^Lytotard argues that in postmodernity grand narratives have lost their legitimation: “The grand narrative has lost its credibility, regardless of what mode of unification it uses, regardless of whether it is a speculative narrative or a narrative of emancipation” (Lyotard, 1984, p. 37).
16. ^Expectedly, interpretations on this issue vary. Nehamas for example argues that we miss the ambivalence of Nietzsche’s attitude towards modernity if we simply see it in terms of the theme that Alan Bloom described as the decline of the West (Nehamas, 1996, p. 223, 245). In any case, even a more moderate interpretation of these philosophers’ attitudes towards modernity, could hardly miss a crucial aspect of their—otherwise divergent—philosophical projects. Indeed, it is indisputable that Nietzsche and Heidegger “distance themselves from the foundational claims of the Enlightenment” and in so doing, they also “abandon the notion of ‘critical overcoming’ so central to the Enlightenment critique of dogma” (Giddens, 1991, p. 47). This means though that their works have also contributed at least to a radicalization of the questioning of the very idea of progress.
17. ^This claim is quite clearly formulated in the following sentence: “The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. The actual threat has already afflicted man in his essence. The rule of enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primordial truth” (Heidegger, 1993, p. 333).
18. ^In his most prominent work, Truth and Method, Gadamer reinstates the moment of application as one of the constitutive moments of the event of understanding. He therefore argues that “historical hermeneutics too has the task of application to perform, because it too serves applicable meaning, in that it explicitly and consciously bridges the temporal distance that separates the interpreter from the text and overcomes the alienation of meaning that the text has undergone” (Gadamer, 1989, p. 311).
19. ^The impact of progress on the shaping of political discourses is immense and impossible to adequately discuss in the context of this brief excursus. However, it should be noted that even after the disenchantment with “progress” that gradually befell western societies during the 1980s the social imaginary is still fueled by interpretations of this concept in many respects. Right-wing and populist movements have exploited the idea of progress at least in two different ways. First, they used the widespread social dissatisfaction and fragmentation of post-industrial societies to attack basic democratic principles. Second, right-wing parties came up with their own appropriations of progress, as is evident in the case of the extreme right-wing Progress Parties in Denmark and Norway (Betz, 1994). The picture becomes much more complex if we take into account the argument that postindustrial societies have undergone a “silent” shift towards post-material values such as “cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism” and to political relevant skills, mainly endorsed by left-wing parties and leftist social movements (Inglegart and Norris, 2016, p. 3; Ingelhart, 1977, p. 3, 43–45) and that in this respect much of right-wing rhetoric revolves around the attempt to undermine these values. Of course, the disenchantment with progress was not merely reflected in right-wing political parties, as for example the Green Party in Germany built its identity in opposition to the notion of economic and technical progress that was part of the agenda of the established parties in West Germany at that time (Betz, 1991, p. 82). It goes without saying that in countries with different cultural economic and political background from Europe and the USA like South Africa, Brazil, etc. “Progress” has been also appropriated in a constructive manner to enhance democratic rights (Wagner, 2016, p. 62).

References

Adorno, T., and Horkheimer, M. (1986). The Dialectic of Enlightenment, 2nd Edn. London, New York: Verso.

Google Scholar

Alexander, J. C. (1978). Formal and substantive voluntarism in the work of Talcott Parsons: a theoretical and ideological reinterpretation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43, 177–198. doi:10.2307/2094698

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alexander, J. C. (1990). “Between progress and apocalypse: social theory and the dream of reason in the twentieth century,” in Rethinking Progress: Movements, Forces and Ideas at the End of the 20th Century, eds C. A. Jeffrey and P. Sztompka (Boston: Unwin Hyman), 15–38.

Google Scholar

Arendt, H. (1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt Brace.

Google Scholar

Arnason, J. P. (2014). “Imaginary significations,” in Cornelius Castoriadis: Key-Concepts, ed. S. Adams (London, New York: Bloomsbury), 23–42.

Google Scholar

Arnason, J. P. (2015). Elias and Eisenstadt: the multiple meanings of civilization. Soc. Imaginaries 1, 146–176. doi:10.5840/si20151221

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baehr, P. (2002). Founders, Classics, Canons. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers.

Google Scholar

Balibar, É. (1995). in The Philosophy of Marx, trans. C. Turner (London, New York: Verso).

Google Scholar

Betz, H.-G. (1991). Postmodern Politics in Germany: The Politics of Resentment. London: MacMillan.

Google Scholar

Betz, H.-G. (1994). Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. London: MacMillan.

Google Scholar

Burger, P., and Luckmann, T. (1971). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

Google Scholar

Castoriadis, C. (1987). in The Imaginary Institution of Society, trans. K. Blamey (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Google Scholar

Castoriadis, C. (1997). “The Retreat from autonomy,” in Cornelius Castoriadis: World in Fragments, ed. D. A. Curtis (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), 32–43.

Google Scholar

Castoriadis, C., and Ricoeur, P. (2016). in Dialogue sur l’ histoire et l’ imaginaire social, ed. J. Michel (Paris: EHESS).

Google Scholar

Clooger, J. (2014). “Ensemblistic-identitary logic (enseidic logic),” in Cornelius Castoriadis: Key-Concepts, ed. S. Adams (London, New York: Bloomsbury), 107–116.

Google Scholar

Dancy, J., and Sosa, E. (2000). A Companion to Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Google Scholar

Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple MODERNITIES. Daedalus 229, 1–29.

Google Scholar

Eisenstadt, S. N. (2002). “Some observations on multiple modernities,” in Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese and Other Interpretations, eds D. Sachsenmaier, J. Riedel, and S. N. Eisenstadt (Leiden: Brill).

Google Scholar

Elias, N. (1996). in The Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, trans. E. Dunning and S. Mennell (New York: Columbia University Press).

Google Scholar

Elias, N. (2000). in The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, Revised Edn, trans. E. Jephcott, E. Dunning, and S. Mennell (Oxford: Blackwell).

Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. (1987). Farewell to Reason. London, New York: Verso.

Google Scholar

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: The Free Press.

Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). in Truth and Method, 2nd Edn, trans. J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall (London: Sheed and Ward).

Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1992). “Introduction., in Max Weber,” in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, ed. T. Parsons (London, New York: Routledge), vii–xxiv.

Google Scholar

Gosh, P. (2014). Max Weber and ‘The Protestant Ethic’: Twin Histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1987). in The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2, ed. T. McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press).

Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1990). in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, ed. F. Laerence (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Google Scholar

Hans, J., and Knöbl, W. (2009). in Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures, ed. A. Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. (1993). “The question concerning technology,” in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, ed. D. F. Krell (London: Routledge), 307–341.

Google Scholar

Honneth, A. (2009). in Pathologies of Reason, trans. J. Ingram and others (New York: Columbia University Press).

Google Scholar

Ingelhart, R. F. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar

Inglegart, R. F., and Norris, P. (2016). “Trump, Brexit and the rise of populism: economic have-nots and cultural backlash,” in HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series. Available at: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/Index.aspx

Google Scholar

Joas, H. (1991). “The unhappy marriage of hermeneutics and functionalism,” in Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s the Theory of Communicative Action, trans. A. Honneth and H. Joas (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), 97–118.

Google Scholar

Koselleck, R. (2004). in Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, ed. T. Keith (New York: Columbia University Press).

Google Scholar

Löwith, K. (1949). Meaning in History. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar

Löwith, K. (1993). in Max Weber and Karl Marx, ed. B. S. Turner (London, New York: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Lucaks, G. (1972). in History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. R. Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Google Scholar

Luhmann, N. (1995). in Social Systems, trans. J. Bednarz Jr. and D. Baecker (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Google Scholar

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. G. Bennington and B. Massumi (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

Google Scholar

Müller, H.-P. (1994). Social differentiation and organic solidarity: the ‘division of labor’. Sociol Forum (Randolph N. J.) 9, 73–86. doi:10.1007/BF01507706

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nancy, J.-L. (1991). in The Inoperative Community, ed. P. Connor; trans. P. Connor, L. Garbus, M. Holland, and S. Sawhney (Minneapolis, Oxford: University of Minnesota Press).

Google Scholar

Nehamas, A. (1996). “Nietzsche, modernity, aestheticism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, eds B. Magnus and K. M. Higgins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 223–251.

Google Scholar

Nisbet, R. A. (1965). “Émil Durkheim,” in Émil Durkheim, ed. R. A. Nisbet (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall), 9–102.

Google Scholar

Nisbet, R. (1969). Social Change and History: Aspects of the Western Theory of Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Nisbet, R. (1994). History of the Idea of Progress. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers.

Google Scholar

Parsons, T. (1949). The Structure of Social Action. New York, London: Free Press.

Google Scholar

Parsons, T. (1964). Evolutionary universals in society. Am. Sociol. Rev. 29, 339–357. doi:10.2307/2091479

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Parsons, T. (1991). The Social System. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. (1986). Lectures on Ideology and Utopia. New York: Columbia University Press.

Google Scholar

Rose, G. (1981). Hegel Contra Sociology. London: Athlone Press.

Google Scholar

Schutz, A. (1966). in The Phenomenology of the Social World, trans. G. Walsh and D. Lehnert (Evanston: Northwestern University Press).

Google Scholar

Smith, D. (2001). Norbert Elias and Modern Social Theory. London: SAGE.

Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Van Krieken, R. (1998). Norbert Elias. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Wagner, P. (2005). “Palomar’s questions. the axial age hypothesis, European modernity and historical contingency,” in Axial Civilizations and World History, eds J. P. Arnason, S. Eisenstadt, and B. Wittrock (Leiden, Boston: Brill), 87–106.

Google Scholar

Wagner, P. (2008). Modernity as Experience and Interpretation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Google Scholar

Wagner, P. (2012). Modernity: Understanding the Present. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Google Scholar

Wagner, P. (2015). Interpreting the present: a research programme. Soc. Imaginaries 1, 105–129. doi:10.5840/si2015117

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wagner, P. (2016). Progress: A Reconstruction, Kindle Edn. Cambridge: Polity.

Google Scholar

Wallerstein, I. (1987). “World-systems analysis,” in Social Theory Today, eds A. Giddens and J. Turner (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), 309–324.

Google Scholar

Wallerstein, I. (1991). “Marx and history: fruitful and unfruitful emphases,” in Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities, eds É. Balibar and I. Wallerstein (London, New York: Verso), 125–134.

Google Scholar

Weber, M. (1992). in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, ed. T. Parsons (London, New York: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Wernick, A. (2001). August Comte and the Religion of Humanity: The Post-Theistic Program of French Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Wittrock, B. (2005). “The meaning of the axial age,” in Axial Civilizations and World History, eds J. P. Arnason, S. Eisenstadt, and B. Wittrock (Leiden, Boston: Brill), 51–86.

Google Scholar

Keywords: modernity, progress/decline, social change, critique of reason, community/society, system/lifeworld

Citation: Mouzakitis A (2017) Modernity and the Idea of Progress. Front. Sociol. 2:3. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2017.00003

Received: 06 September 2016; Accepted: 28 February 2017;
Published: 20 March 2017

Edited by:

Maurizio Meloni, University of Sheffield, UK

Reviewed by:

Kanakis Leledakis, Panteion University, Greece
John Cromby, University of Leicester, UK

Copyright: © 2017 Mouzakitis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Angelos Mouzakitis, amouzakid@uoc.gr

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Οι Ζαπατίστας κι εμείς: Από την ανατολική μεσόγειο στην Καραϊβική - Ζάχαρη, βαμβάκι και πρώιμος καπιταλισμός, Μια συζήτηση με τον Δρ. Αντώνη

Στις 27 Οκτωβρίου 2021 φιλοξενούμενος στην εκπομπή «Διαδράσεις» ήταν ο  Δρ. Αντώνης Χατζηκυριάκου. Ήταν μια πραγματικά μια εξαιρετική συζήτηση – κάποιος ακροατής τη χαρακτήρισε μοναδική. Κι αυτό γιατί άνοιξε τεράστια ζητήματα και έκανε τις αναγκαίες συνδέσεις που μια μεγάλη οπτική της ιστορία των τελευταίων 500 χρόνων που σπάνια γίνεται.  Αφορμή μας ήταν η παρέμβαση του Δρα Αντώνη Χατζηκυριάκου στη συνάρτηση με τους Ζαπατίστας που έγινε στη Γαλάτα.  Αντιπροσωπία των Ζαπατίστας, ερχόμενοι από την περιοχή Τσιάπας του Μεξικού, περιοδεύουν στην Ευρώπη, «Ταξίδι μέσα στη ζωή». Φιλοξενούνται από την  Αρνούνται να μιλήσουν σε ανοικτές συγκεντρώσεις αλλά μιλούν μόνο σε κλειστές. Προφανώς δε θέλουν μιντιακή εκμετάλλευση αρνούμενοι το ρόλο των celebrity επαναστατών στη στρεβλή εικονική πραγματικότητας. Είναι εδώ, όπως κι αλλού για να ακούσουν και να μάθουν. Στη Γαλάτα, όταν ο Δρ. Χατζηκυριάκου μιλούσε, έπαιρναν σημειώσεις.

Η συλλογικότητα «Ραμόνα» τους φιλοξενεί και έχουν σειρά συναντήσεων στη Κύπρο, αλλά και δημόσιες εκδηλώσεις στις οποίες παρίστανται, αλλά δε μιλούν οι Ζαπατίστας. Το πνεύμα των Ζαπατίστας λοιπόν είναι μαζί μας. Τι μπορούμε να μάθουμε από τους αγώνες αυτούς; Αυτό είναι μεγάλο ζήτημα που πριν από είκοσι χρόνια ο John Holloway με το βιβλίο του «Να Αλλάξουμε Τον Κόσμο Χωρίς Να Καταλάβουμε Την Εξουσία» (Σαββάλας, 2006) με έμπνευση τους Ζαπατίστας πρότεινε ότι παγκοσμίως τα κινήματα πρέπει να αναθεωρήσουν την στρατηγική για κατάληψη της κρατικής εξουσίας, αλλά και τις μορφές οργάνωσης. Τα ζητήματα ηγεσίας, ιεραρχίας, οργανωτικής δομής, ο ρόλος των  αυτόνομες συνελεύσεων (χωριών, γειτονιών, πόλεων κτλ.).[1] Ασφαλώς κανείς δε μπορεί να θεωρεί ότι πρέπει να αντιγραφούν οι όποιες εμπειρίες από μια μορφή οργάνωσης , στρατηγικής και τακτικής ως το πανφάρμακο ή μαγική φόρμουλα.  Ωστόσο ανοίγει τα μεγάλα ζητήματα για το πως θα προχωρήσουμε πάρα κάτω.

Ο Αντώνης Χατζηκυριάκου ως σοβαρός ιστορικός, ένας από τους σοβαρότερους Κύπριους ιστορικούς που διαθέτουμε, είναι εξαιρετικά διστακτικός στο να μιλήσει για το μέλλον: όποτε δοκίμασαν οι ιστορικοί να μιλήσουν για το μέλλον έπεσαν έξω!», τόνισε εμφατικά. Όμως μπορούν και πρέπει να μιλήσουν για το πως το παρελθόν μας έφερε ως εδώ και τις τάσεις και προϋποθέσεις δημιουργεί ως προς τις προοπτικές του μέλλοντος.

Τί σχέση έχει όμως το κίνημα των Ζαπατίστας με την Κύπρο;   Μας ανέλυσε το ζήτημα στη συζήτηση. Παραθέτω εδώ απόσπασμα από την ομιλία του στη Γαλάτα.

«Η πρώτη διακήρυξή σας από την Ζούγκλα του Λουκαντόν το 1993 ξεκινούσε δηλώνοντας «είμαστε το προϊόν ενός αγώνα 500 χρόνων». Θέμα μου είναι αυτά τα 500 χρόνια, ή καλύτερα η αρχή αυτής της μισής χιλιετίας. Σήμερα εσείς μας φέρνετε τους σπόρους της επανάστασης· κάποτε έφυγαν από την Κύπρο κάποιοι άλλοι σπόροι για να πάνε στην αμερικάνικη ήπειρο όταν ακόμα ο καπιταλισμός βρισκόταν στα πρώιμα στάδια του.

 Αυτό το άκρο της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου στο οποίο βρισκόμαστε σήμερα υπήρξε κάποτε ο μεγαλύτερος προμηθευτής ζάχαρης της Ευρώπης, όταν ακόμα η ζάχαρη ήταν τόσο ακριβή που τοποθετούνταν σε ασημένια κύπελα στη μέση του τραπεζιού για τους σκοπούς επίδειξης των ευρωπαίων αριστοκρατών και όχι για κατανάλωση. Η ιστορία της ζάχαρης έχει να διηγηθεί ένα παγκόσμιο αφήγημα βίας όχι μόνο απέναντι στους ανθρώπους, αλλά και στο περιβάλλον και την φύση – τα ζώα, την γη, το νερό, τα δέντρα. Αυτό έχει σημασία γιατί οι άνθρωποι ξεχνούν ότι είναι κομμάτι της φύσης μέσα από την αλαζονεία της δυνατότητας υπέρβασης των φυσικών ορίων που έφερε μαζί της νεωτερικότητα, η οποία δεν είναι τίποτε άλλο παρά ένας ευφημισμός για τον καπιταλισμό.

Πιο γνωστό για τον ρόλο του στη συγκρότηση του βιομηχανικού καπιταλισμού είναι το βαμβάκι, όταν κατά τα τέλη του 18ου αιώνα η κλωστοϋφαντουργία στην Αγγλία και την Σκωτία έθεσαν τις βάσεις για την βιομηχανική επανάσταση και την μετέπειτα επικυριαρχία της Δύσης στην παγκόσμια οικονομία. Στην Ευρώπη, σε αυτό βοήθησε η υποχώρηση της φεουδαρχίας και των δουλείας στις σχέσεις εργασίας και παραγωγής. Στην αμερικάνικη ήπειρο όμως η δουλεία επεκτάθηκε μέσω της βίαιης εκρίζωσης και απάνθρωπης μεταχείρισης εκατομμυρίων ανθρώπων από την Αφρική, μαζί με την γενοκτονία ιθαγενών πληθυσμών και την καταστροφή ολόκληρων πολιτισμών. Απαραίτητο στοιχείο της βιομηχανικής επανάστασης ήταν η καταναγκαστική εργασία των σκλάβων στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Αυτό έριξε κατακόρυφα την τιμή του βαμβακιού, το οποίο διέσχιζε τον Ατλαντικό για να φτάσει πρώτα στα λιμάνια και μετά στα εργοστάσια της Αγγλίας και της Σκωτίας. Το βαμβάκι δεν κατέφθανε μόνο από την αμερικάνικη ήπειρο. Η Ινδία, η Αίγυπτος και η Σμύρνη ήταν επίσης προμηθευτές ακατέργαστου βαμβακιού. Μικρότερος, αλλά όχι αμελητέος, προμηθευτής ήταν και η Κύπρος, κατά τον 18ο και 19ο αιώνα. Όχι τόσο γνωστό είναι το γεγονός ότι πρώτοι σπόροι βαμβακιού που έσπερναν οι σκλάβοι στις φυτείες των αμερικάνικων αποικιών κατά τον 17ο αιώνα προέρχονταν από την Κύπρο.

Πως σχετίζεται η ζάχαρη με τον καπιταλισμό; Το ζαχαροκάλαμο έφθασε στην Μεσόγειο από την Ασία κατά τον μεσαίωνα, αρχικά στην Ιορδανία και την Συροπαλαιστίνη. Στην Κύπρο όμως, η οποία κατά την περίοδο εκείνη ανήκε στον γαλλικό οίκο των Λουζινιανών και στη συνέχεια στην Βενετία, η καλλιέργεια ζαχαροκάλαμου είχε συστηματοποιηθεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό και η παραγωγή ζάχαρης εξελίχθηκε σε βιομηχανική κλίμακα. Ο ιστορικός Jason Moore υποστήριξε ότι μεγάλης κλίμακας παραγωγή ζάχαρης όπως στην Κύπρο ή την Μαδέιρα ήταν πρώιμα καπιταλιστικά εγχειρήματα.

Υποθέτω ότι πως από ό,τι είδατε μέχρι στιγμής από το τοπίο και το κλίμα του νησιού, ίσως να σας προκαλεί έκπληξη το ότι το ζαχαροκάλαμο ήταν μια βασική καλλιέργεια. Πώς είναι δυνατό το ξηρό και άνυδρο τοπίο που βλέπετε γύρω σας, όπου το κίτρινο χρώμα κυριαρχεί, να συντηρούσε φυτείες ζαχαροκάλαμου που είναι ιδιαίτερα απαιτητικές σε νερό; Το πράγματα γίνονται ακόμα πιο σύνθετα αν αναλογιστούμε τον τρόπο επεξεργασίας του ζαχαροκάλαμου για την εξαγωγή της ζάχαρης. Η συλλογή των ζαχαροκαλάμων γινόταν από δούλους, οι οποίοι τα έκοβαν. Στην συνέχεια, μεγάλοι μύλοι συνέθλιβαν την πρώτη ύλη πολτοποιώντας τα ζαχαροκάλαμα. Οι μεγάλοι πέτρινοι αυτοί μύλοι διαμέτρου τριών μέτρων ήταν υδροκίνητοι , οπότε η υδραυλική δύναμη που απαιτούνταν ήταν τεράστια. Με άλλα λόγια, το νερό δεν ήταν απαραίτητο μόνο για την καλλιέργεια του ζαχαροκάλαμου, αλλά και για την διαδικασία επεξεργασίας του για την εξαγωγή της ζάχαρης.

Πώς ήταν λοιπόν δυνατόν ένα άνυδρο νησί να συντηρεί μια οικονομία εντατικής άρδευσης;»

https://www.mixcloud.com/Dialogos/27-10-2021-%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B4%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82/

AHLÂKSIZLIKLAR CUMHURİYETİ= kktc!

        Geçen günlerde medyaya yansıyan bir haber üzerinden yola çıkarak, şu an okumaya başladığınız bu yazımın konusunu kafamda belirlemiştim. Haber şöyleydi: “HP’den istifa ederek siyasi hayatlarına UBP’de devam etme kararı alan Bağımsız Milletvekilleri Mesut Genç ve Hasan Büyükoğlu UBP rozetini taktı.” Bu haberi okur okumaz, başka bir partiden UBP’yi eleştirerek aday olan ve milletvekilliği kazanıp daha sonra da istifa ederek UBP’ye geçen bu iki şahsın, siyaseten ne kadar ahlâksızca davrandığını, halkta zaten maalesef var olan siyasete ve siyasilere güvenmeme algısını pekiştirdiğini falan yazacaktım. Daha sonra ortaya herkesin malumu bir video kaydı çıktı ve kendi kendime şöyle dedim: Yahu Hasan Bey ve Mesut Bey’in ne günahı var allah aşkına? kktc dediğimiz bu yapı, zaten koskocaman bir ahlâksızlıklar cumhuriyeti değil mi? kktc zaten bunun için kurulmadı mı? Yani bu ülkedeki mafya siyaset ilişkisi iyice ayyuka çıkmış, aynı parti mensubu insanlar birbirlerinin kuyusunu kazmaya çalışırken, ortada milletin cinsellik içeren videoları dolanırken, parti değiştiren milletvekillerini mi eleştireceğiz? Onlarınki diğerlerinin yanında resmen devede kulak kalır. Normal bir ülkede yaşasak bu iki milletvekili bir daha sokağa bile çıkamazdı ancak gelin görün ki normal bir ülkede yaşamıyoruz.   Türkiye’de, mafya lideri ve derin devletin en azılı elemanlarından faşist Sedat Peker’in AKP ile bazı noktalarda zıt düşmesiyle birlikte sosyal medya üzerinden yayınladığı videolarla mafya-devlet- medya ilişkilerini ortaya dökmesinin ardından, konuların Kıbrıs’a kadar uzanmaması zaten mantıksız olurdu. Zira 1974’ten bugüne kadar, Türkiye tarafından her türlü pis işin, kara para aklamanın, uyuşturucu ticaretinin döndürüldüğü; TC’nin kalın bağırsağına dönüştürülen bir yerdir Kıbrıs’ın kuzeyi. Dolayısıyla ne Peker’in ifşalarının Kıbrıs’a kadar dayanmasında ne de tüm dertlerinin arasında hâlâ daha Peker’in Kıbrıs’la bu denli ilgilenmesinde bir anormallik var. Ancak şunu da unutmamalıyız ki bu sistemin içerisinde yer alan, buradaki çarpıklıktan nemalanan birçok yerli siyasetçimiz de vardır. Mafya – siyaset ilişkisi bir ülkedeki en büyük halk düşmanlığıdır ki ülkemiz halk düşmanı siyasilerle doludur. Mafya ile ilişkileri bulunan, kendi şahsi çıkarları için halkın sırtından mafyaya her türlü imtiyazı sağlayan şahısların pek çoğu yıllarca bu ülkede milletvekilliğinden tutun da devletin en tepesine kadar her kademede görev yaptılar. Halk da bu insanları çok iyi bilmektedir. Bilmektedir ve bu sebeple ne siyasete ne de siyasetçiye güvenmemektedir. Ancak bu doğru bir düşünce değildir. Çünkü bu ülkede şerefiyle, alnının akıyla ve en önemlisi sadece halkının çıkarları için siyaset yapan temiz siyasetçiler de vardır. Herkesi aynı kefeye koymak, büyük haksızlık olur.   Gelelim Ersan Saner’le ilgili görüntülere. Bu ve bundan sonra ortaya çıkması muhtemel başka benzer skandallarda halk olarak odaklanmamız gereken nokta konunun magazinsel boyutu değil, siyasi boyutudur. Konunun magazinsel boyutuyla gereğinden fazla ilgilenmek ve sadece o boyutunu dillendirmek, adı skandala karışan şahsa “mağduriyet” kazandırır. “Mağdur” duruma düşen bir kişi de konunun gerçek boyutlarını rahatlıkla gizleyebilir. Siyasi boyutunda odaklanmamız gereken çok önemli konular vardır. Örneğin; Ersan Saner’e söz konusu görüntülerle ilgili şantaj yapılmışsa, kendisi görüntülerin uzun süre ortaya çıkmasını engellemek için kimlere ne gibi imtiyazlar tanımıştır ya da tanımış mıdır? Hangi yasadışı odaklara bulaşmıştır ki başını böyle bir “belaya” sokmuştur? Böyle bir insanın yöneticilik görevinde bulunması halkın yararına mıdır zararına mıdır? Ve bunun gibi daha birçok soru… Sorgulanması gereken ve halkı ilgilendiren boyut budur.     Tüm bu mafyatik hesaplaşmalar arasında olan yine emekçi halka oluyor. Bir elin parmaklarını geçmeyecek sayıdaki para ve mafya babalarının, siyasetçilerle olan kirli ilişkileri açığa çıktıkça nasıl bir çirkefin içinde dövündüğümüz daha net görünüyor. Ama unutulmamalıdır ki emekçiler elbet bu çirkefi temizleyip, mafyanın yönettiği bu ahlaksızlıklar cumhuriyetini yıkacak ve halkın iktidarını kuracak.  

Mehmet Adaman

Baraka Aktivisti

 

Τα «όχι» τα λένε οι λαοί

28η του Οκτώβρη σήμερα. Επέτειος του «όχι» του ελληνικού λαού κατά του φασισμού. Επέτειος της 28ης Οκτωβρίου που μαζί με την πάλη του ελληνικού λαού ενάντια στην τριπλή φασιστική κατοχή, αναδεικνύουν μηνύματα και διδάγματα για το σήμερα και το αύριο. Διδάγματα σημαντικά εν μέσω κλιμάκωσης του αντικομμουνισμού που ξαναγράφει παραχαράσσοντας την ιστορία, αφού οι αστοί φοβούνται το σοσιαλισμό – κομμουνισμό, τη μόνη πραγματική εναλλακτική στην καπιταλιστική βαρβαρότητα.

Aς θυμηθούμε παλαιότερα άρθρα για την επέτειο της 28ης του Οκτώβρη, αλλά και για την επέτειο της απελευθέρωσης της Ελλάδας από το ναζιστικό ζυγό.

Αλήθειες για την 28η Οκτωβρίου

Μύθοι και διδάγματα από την 28η του Οκτώβρη και την Αντίσταση

Όταν η λευτεριά φτερούγιζε πάνω από την Αθήνα

Πέτρος Συλλέκτης, Η Αναγκαιότης της Σοβαρότητος και άλλα τινά, Λευκωσία 2019 [απόσπασμα από την παρουσίαση του βιβλίου]

Αγκαλιά από χιόνι

Είναι ένα συγκλονιστικό έργο, μια εξαιρετική παράσταση, όπου η φρίκη του μίσους κυριαρχεί. Όταν το ομοφοβικό μίσος οδηγεί αποκρουστικές πράξεις βαρβαρότητας και έχει τη συγκατάβαση για να μη πω στήριξη της κοινωνία τότε πρέπει επιτέλους να ξυπνήσουμε. Το έργο θα ξαναπαίξει τελικά στις 6 και 7 Νοεμβρίου στο flea!

Kıbrıs Sorunundan Sonra Hayat Var Mı? – Celal Özkızan

Ölümden sonra muhtemelen hayat yok. Ölümden önce yaşadığımız şeye dahi hayat diyebilmek için sabah akşam didinip durmamız gerek zaten. Kıbrıs sorunundan sonra muhtemelen hayat var. Bir kısım insan halâ kabullenmekte zorlansa da, Kıbrıs sorunundan önce ise kesinlikle hayat var. Yaşıyoruz işte. Yok öyle “yaşamak bu yangın yerinde” diye şairane güzellemeler yapıp sonra da çakan ilk kıvılcımda “yaşanmaz artık, çözüm olmadan yaşam olmaz” diye kaçak dövüşmek… Şairane güzellik yapılacaksa illa ki “şimdiden çekilecek acısı bunun / duyulacak mahzunluğu şimdiden / yaşadım diyebilmen için”… Yok öyle gerek tuğladan gerek sosyal medyadan örülmüş duvarlara yaldızlı harflerle “düşmana inat bir gün daha yaşamak” diye yazıp, düşmanın ilk hamlesinde “çözüm yoksa yaşam yok” diye boyun bükmek, ense karartmak, umut kaçırmak, direnişi rafa kaldırmak... *** Kıbrıs sorununun gölgesinde, hele de Kıbrıs’ın kuzeyinde yaşamaya dair beylik laflar kendi kendini tüketse de, beylerin ve hanımların tüketim alışkanlıkları kolay kolay değişmiyor. Şikayet etmenin ve söylenmenin yolu bir şekilde hep bulunuyor. “Tükeniyoruz, yok oluyoruz” diye diye sivrilttiğimizi sandığımız dillerimiz, dişe bile dokunmuyor. Şairin dediği gibi yani, yaşamak değil, bizi bu telaş öldürüyor. Kıbrıs sorunundan önce yaşam; alternatifsiz itirazların ve itirazsız alternatiflerin gölgesinde sürüp giderken, bu iki başlı koro, nakaratı hep aynı olan o bildik şarkıyı mırıldanıyor: “Çözümden önce hayat yok”... *** Peki çözümden önce ne var? Çözümden önce iş kazasında ölmek ya da yaralanmak var. Ancak çözümden önce iş kazasında ölmemek ve yaralanmamak için ses çıkarmak yok. Neden? Çözümden önce hiçbir şey olmaz. Anayasamızın geçici “çözümden önce hiçbir şey olmaz” maddesini gelmiş geçmiş tüm sükûnetler kaldırmaya zaman bulamadılar ne de olsa. Peki ama… bir dakika! Çözümden önce iş kazasında ölmek olur, yaralanmak da olur… bunlara karşı mücadele etmek neden olmaz? Yine mi bir anayasa maddesi keyfi bir biçimde uygulanmakta? Yine mi yasa kimisini kollarken, kimisinin gözününün yaşına bakmamakta? "Anlamak isterim, hangi yasa Bir beşikle bir darağacını Aynı ağaçtan, ne adına var edebilir?" Çözümden önce düzensiz mesai saatleri, güvencesiz iş, belirsiz görev tanımı, işyerinde mobbing, eksik yatan ya da hiç yatmayan sigorta, yetersiz maaş ve sömürü var. Ancak çözümden önce özelde sendikalaşmak için mücadele etmek yok. Neden? Çözümden önce hiçbir şey olmaz. Cıs. Ayıp. Çözümden önce ne var? Sorun var. Bol bol var. Çözümden önce çözüm yok mu? Yok. Taze bitti. Hiç mi yok? Aslında hiç gelmedi. “Ne hasta bekler sabahı, Ne taze ölüyü mezar. Ne de şeytan, bir günahı, Seni beklediğim kadar.” Çözümden önce ne var? Dert var, tasa var, sıkıntı var… çok var. Mücadele? Yok. Direniş? Yok. Varsa da, çözümden sonrasının cennete açılan kapılarının koluna bez bağlayıp dilek tutmak için var, adak adamak için var, mum yakmak için var. Çözümden önce daha rahat nefes alalım diye mücadele yok, direniş de yok. *** Yok mu? “nerede olursan ol içerde, dışarda, derste, sırada, yürü üstüne üstüne tükür yüzüne celladın fırsatcının, fesatcının, hayinin... dayan kitap ile dayan iş ile tırnak ile, diş ile umut ile, sevda ile, düş ile. dayan rüsva etme beni” Kıbrıs sorunundan sonra muhtemelen hayat var. Nasıl bir hayat olacağını ise, Kıbrıs sorunundan önceki hayatımızı nasıl yaşadığımız belirleyecek. Çözüm ve barış, cennetin kapılarını aralayan bir anahtar değil çünkü. Barış bizlerin ellerindedir ve barışta yiyeceğimiz ekmeğin hamurunu, barıştan önce yoğurur ellerimiz, hayata tutunurcasına, hayatı pahasına. Hamur da ellerimizdir, fırın da, ateş de. Ellerimizden başka bir şey değildir barış. Yaşamazsak Kıbrıs sorunundan önce, “çözüm olmazsa hiçbir şey olmaz” diye diye çürütürsek ellerimizin tuttuğu her işi; hamur bozulur, fırın yıkılır, ateş söner. Çözümden önce alınan nefestir çözümden sonra taşıyacağımız akciğeri havayla dolduran. *** Görür müyüz o günleri? Şairane güzellik yapalım, illa ki: “Belki ben o günden çok daha evvel, köprü başında sallanarak bir sabah vakti gölgemi asfalta salacağım. Belki ben o günden çok daha sonra, matruş çenemde ak bir sakalın izi sağ kalacağım... Ve ben o günden çok daha sonra: sağ kalırsam eğer, şehrin meydan kenarlarında yaslanıp duvarlara son kavgadan benim gibi sağ kalan ihtiyarlara, bayram akşamlarında keman çalacağım... Etrafta mükemmel bir gecenin ışıklı kaldırımları Ve yeni şarkılar söyleyen yeni insanların adımları...”

Baraka’da Nazım Şiirleri Okundu

Baraka Kültür Merkezi bahçesinde gerçekleştirilen bir etkinlikte Nazım ve şiir severler buluştu. Kuvayi Milliye Destanı şiirlerinin özgün müzikler eşliğinde sunulduğu programın yönetmenliğini Gündoğdu Gencer yaparken Yusuf Nidai, Hatice Sevindi ve Gündoğdu Gencer şiirleri seslendirdi, Nuran Nidai ise teknik masada görev yaptı. Sunulan program daha önce, yine Gündoğdu Gencer yönetmenliğinde Avustralya’da geniş bir kadro ile seyirci ile buluşan Kuvayi Milliye Destanı oyunun bazı bölümlerinden oluşmaktaydı. Katılımcıların duygu dolu anlar yaşadığı gecenin sonunda seyirciler de Nazım şiirleri seslendirdi ve şiir nasıl okunmalı üzerine bir söyleşi gerçekleştirildi.  

Η ΚΛΙΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΚΡΙΣΗ, ΟΙ ΥΔΡΟΓΟΝΑΝΘΡΑΚΕΣ ΤΗΣ Α. ΜΕΣΟΓΕΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ Η ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ

ΕΡΕΥΝΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΝΕΕΣ ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΕΞΟΡΥΞΗΣ ΟΡΥΚΤΩΝ ΚΑΥΣΙΜΩΝ: ΑΠΑΓΟΡΕΥΣΗ ΤΩΡΑ! editorial Ο υπαρξιακός κίνδυνος για τον ανθρώπινο πολιτισμό από την Κλιματική Κρίση επιβεβαιώθηκε φέτος με τις χειρότερες ως τώρα καταστροφές και τις πιο δραματικές προειδοποιήσεις διεθνών θεσμών και οργανισμών.  Αιτία της κρίσης η αποτυχία της παγκόσμιας καπιταλιστικής ελίτ να μειώσει τις εκπομπές αερίων θερμοκηπίου από τη […]

ΑΠΑΓΟΡΕΥΣΗ ΔΙΑ ΝΟΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ ΓΙΑ ΥΔΡΟΓΟΝΑΝΘΡΑΚΕΣ; ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ, ΤΟ ΕΚΑΝΑΝ!

O Fatih Birol, ένας από τους σπουδαιότερους οικονομολόγους ενέργειας, και με το κύρος του εκτελεστικού διευθυντή της Παγκόσμιας Οργάνωσης Ενέργειας, δήλωσε φέτος τον Μάη στην Αγγλική Guardian: “Αν οι κυβερνήσεις παίρνουν στα σοβαρά την κλιματική κρίση, τότε από τώρα – από φέτος  δεν μπορεί να γίνονται νέες επενδύσεις στο πετρέλαιο, υγραέριο και το κάρβουνο.” Ένας […]

ExxonMobil: ΤΟ  ΠΙΟ ΣΚΑΝΔΑΛΩΔΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΣΙΩΠΗΜΕΝΟ “ΧΡΥΣΟ ΔΙΑΒΑΤΗΡΙΟ”

Της Μέλτσιας Οικονόμου Ενώ η κυβέρνηση Αναστασιάδη κατηγορείται μέσα και έξω από την Κύπρο για διαφθορά για τα “χρυσά διαβατήρια” που έχει παραχωρήσει σε απατεώνες και καταζητούμενους εκατομμυριούχους, η Υπουργός Ενέργειας Νατάσα Πηλείδου ανακοίνωσε την ανανέωση της άδειας στην ExxonMobil για να διεξάγει έρευνες για υδρογονάνθρακες στα νερά της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου.  Η αντίδραση σε αυτή […]

Change the system not the climate!

The responsible for climate crisis – Governments, oil multinationals, lobby NGOs and other industries are meeting in the UN organised Conference of the Parties – COP26 to discuss how they will protect their profits from the need to act against … Continue reading →

Federal Kıbrıs Hareketi, Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi’ni ziyaret etti.

BKP Genel Merkezi’nde gerçekleşen görüşmede, ülkenin içinde bulunduğu kriz ortamında, sol ve demokrasi güçlerinin iş ve güç birliği konuları üzerinde duruldu. Ortak basın toplantısı düzenledi.
Federal Kıbrıs Hareketi adına konuşan Ahmet Ertaç, solun birliğini sağlamak adına yürütülen çalışmaların sonuna gelindiğini, kalıcı bir barış ittifakına ihtiyaç duyulduğunu, önümüzdeki seçimlere bu ittifak çerçevesinde tek bir şemsiye altında katılmanın şart olduğunu belirtti. Yakın bir tarihte önemli adımlar atacaklarını dile getiren Ahmet Ertaç, BKP’ye, olumlu ve yapıcı katkılarından dolayı teşekkür etti.
BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, ilhakın tartışıldığı, Maraş açılımı altında tahrik ve şantajların yapıldığı, siyasilerin video kasetlerinin uçuştuğu bir ortamda, federal birleşik Kıbrıs’a inananların yan yana durmaları gerektiğini vurguladı.
“BKP, en geniş birlikteliğin oluşumuna katkı koyacaktır” diyen İzzet İzcan, “Korkunç bir ekonomik krizin yaşandığı koşullarda, parti çıkarları peşinde koşanları tarih affetmeyecektir” dedi.
Kıbrıs’ın tüm Kıbrıslıların ortak yurdu olduğunu dile getiren BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, bu çerçevede tüm yurtseverleri birlikte hareket etmeye çağırdı.

İzcan: Sine-i Millet’e dönerek, seçimin önünü açın.

Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, ülkede kaos yaşandığını belirterek “1970’lerde, Türkiye’den hatırladığımız benzin ve gaz kuyruklarını sokaklarımızda görmek, yönetenler için büyük bir utanç kaynağıdır” dedi.
Parlamento ve hükümetin işlevini yitirdiği bir ortamda, muhalefet milletvekillerine Sine-i Millet’e dönün ve seçimin önünü açın çağrısında bulunan İzcan, mafyanın birbiriyle hesaplaştığı, şantaj videolarının ortalıkta dolaştığı bir ortamda “Daha ne bekliyorsunuz?” diye sordu.
“Barış, demokrasi ve hukuk devletine inanan tüm kesimlerin, bir araya gelmesi ve barış ittifakını oluşturması öncelikli görev olmalıdır” diyen BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, “Sorunlar o kadar büyük ki, hiçbir partinin tek başına bunların altından kalkması mümkün değildir” dedi.
Önümüzdeki süreçte yapılması muhtemel seçimlerde, birlik olunmaması durumunda, her yanı kokuşmuş UBP ve yandaşlarının güçlenerek çıkması durumunda, bunun sorumluluğunun iş ve güç birliğini engelleyen kesimlerin omuzlarında olacağını dile getiren İzzet İzcan, “BKP, gelinen aşamada bu tarihi uyarıyı yapmayı görev bilmektedir” dedi.

İzcan: Sine-i Millet’e dönerek, seçimim önünü açın.

Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, ülkede kaos yaşandığını belirterek “1970’lerde, Türkiye’den hatırladığımız benzin ve gaz kuyruklarını sokaklarımızda görmek, yönetenler için büyük bir utanç kaynağıdır” dedi.
Parlamento ve hükümetin işlevini yitirdiği bir ortamda, muhalefet milletvekillerine Sine-i Millet’e dönün ve seçimin önünü açın çağrısında bulunan İzcan, mafyanın birbiriyle hesaplaştığı, şantaj videolarının ortalıkta dolaştığı bir ortamda “Daha ne bekliyorsunuz?” diye sordu.
“Barış, demokrasi ve hukuk devletine inanan tüm kesimlerin, bir araya gelmesi ve barış ittifakını oluşturması öncelikli görev olmalıdır” diyen BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, “Sorunlar o kadar büyük ki, hiçbir partinin tek başına bunların altından kalkması mümkün değildir” dedi.
Önümüzdeki süreçte yapılması muhtemel seçimlerde, birlik olunmaması durumunda, her yanı kokuşmuş UBP ve yandaşlarının güçlenerek çıkması durumunda, bunun sorumluluğunun iş ve güç birliğini engelleyen kesimlerin omuzlarında olacağını dile getiren İzzet İzcan, “BKP, gelinen aşamada bu tarihi uyarıyı yapmayı görev bilmektedir” dedi.

İzzet İzcan: UBP dibine kadar bataklığa batmıştır.

Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, Kuzey Kıbrıs’ta video rezaleti yaşandığını belirterek, “Siyaset mafya ilişkisinin sonuçlarını yaşıyoruz” dedi.
“UBP kirli bir partidir, çirkef batağına batmış, sanal bet ve mafya patronlarından para alarak, seçim kampanyası yürüten, parti içi seçimlerinde, sanal betçilerin paralarıyla kampanya yürüten bir partidir” diyen İzzet İzcan, “Vatan, millet, sakarya diyenlerin düştükleri bu trajik durum, ülkenin ne hale geldiğini gözler önüne sermiştir” dedi.
Başbakan Ersan Saner’e karşı düzenlenen etik dışı komployu desteklemediklerini belirten BKP Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, “Ayı ile yatağa girmenin sonucu budur” dedi.
Önümüzde duran öncelikli görevin, temiz topluma ulaşmak için çirkef yatağı olan işletmeleri kapatarak, demokratik hukuk devletini kurmak olduğunu dile getiren İzzet İzcan, Ersan Saner ve onun gibi etik dışı işlere karışan siyasetçilerin istifa ederek, siyasetin temizlenmesine katkı yapmalarının kaçınılmaz olduğunu vurguladı.

İzcan: 18 Ekim 2020 sandık darbesi üzerinden bir yıl geçti.

Birleşik Kıbrıs Partisi Genel Başkanı İzzet İzcan, 18 Ekim 2020 tarihinde yapılan ve Ankara’daki AKP hükümetinin müdahaleleri ile darbeye dönüşen, Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri üzerinden bir yıl geçtiğini belirterek, geçen bir yıl süresince, müdahalelerin artarak devam ettiğini belirterek, Kıbrıs’ta barış ve demokrasiye inanan tüm kesimlerin, bir araya gelmesi gerektiğini vurguladı.
Kuzey Kıbrıs’ın, Ankara’nın denetimi altında olan bir toprak parçasına dönüştüğüne işaret eden İzzet İzcan, TL kullanımından doğan enflasyonist baskı altında, Kıbrıslı Türklerin önemli bir kısmının açlık sınırının altında yaşamaya mahkum edildiğini vurguladı.
Karpaz’a kurulması planlanan yeni askeri üstle, ülkenin patlamaya hazır bir saatli bombaya dönüştürüldüğünü dile getiren İzcan, “Statükoyu yıkarak barış ve huzura ulaşmak, tek çıkış yoludur” dedi.
“Parlamentoculuk ve hükümetçilik oynayarak, halkı kandırmaya çalışanlar başarılı olamazlar” diyen İzcan, ilhak siyasetlerini ret eden ve Kıbrıs Türk toplumunun, kimlik ve varlığına saygısı olan kesimlerin birlikteliğinin kaçınılmaz olduğunu vurguladı.

COP 26 για το κλίμα: Ημίμετρα αντί για λύσεις – περιβάλλον και επιστήμη στο βωμό των συμφερόντων

Στις αρχές του Νοέμβρη θα διεξαχθεί στη Γλασκώβη η COP26, η επόμενη σύνοδος των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για την κλιματική αλλαγή και την αντιμετώπισή της. Οι Σύνοδοι του ΟΗΕ για το κλίμα έχουν πολλές φορές κατηγορηθεί –και δικαίως– ως τουλάχιστον ανεπαρκείς, καθώς στην πραγματικότητα τα μέτρα που παίρνουν δεν είναι δυνατό να αναχαιτίσουν την κλιματική κρίση.  […]

Baraka Kültür Merkezi’nden, Serdar Denktaş’a Açılan Tazminat Davalarıyla İlgili Kamuoyunu Bilgilendirme

Baraka Kültür Merkezi’nden, Serdar Denktaş’a Açılan Tazminat Davalarıyla İlgili Kamuoyunu Bilgilendirme Hatırlanacağı üzere, karanlıkta okula giderken yaşanan otobüs kazasında kaybettiğimiz iki gencimiz ve otobüs şoförü ile ilgili ülkede yaşanan infial üzerine geniş halk kitlesi tarafından eylemler yapılmıştı. Baraka Kültür Merkezi olarak bizim de katıldığımız protestolarda devletin sorumsuzluğu ve işbirlikçi hükümetin yanlış kararları yüzünden kaybedilen canların yarattığı acıların unutulmayacağını, hayatımıza mal olan bu düzenin eninde sonunda değişeceğini dile getirmiştik. Söz konusu eylemlerin ardından Serdar Denktaş, katıldığı bir televizyon programında derneğimiz ve aktivistimiz Münür Rahvancıoğlu hakkında “gençleri provoke etmek ve insanların üzerinden vandalizm yapmak” gibi çirkin iftiralarda bulunmuş, bunun yanısıra da gerek derneğimizin Avrupa Birliği’nden para alarak halkı devletten soğutmak ve olası bir planda “evet”e hazırlamak için eylemleri provoke ettiğini, gerekse de aktvistimiz Münür Rahvancıoğlu’nun iş ahlakı ve maaşı hakkında da yalan ifadelerde bulunmuştu. Serdar Denktaş’ın televizyon programında sarfettiği çirkin ve asılsız iftiralara karşı gerek aktivistimiz Münür Rahvancıoğlu gerekse de derneğimiz Baraka Kültür Merkezi dava açarak konuyu Mahkeme gündemine taşımıştık. Aktivistimiz Münür Rahvancıoğlu’nun açmış olduğu dava, yine hatırlanacağı üzere, Mahkeme tarafından haklı bulunmuş ve Serdar Denktaş davayı kaybederek aleyhine 8,000 Türk Lirası tazminat, ara karar ve dava masraflarına hükmedilmişti. Derneğimizin açmış olduğu dava ise gerek ilk davanın neticesinin beklenmesi gerekse de halen yaşanmakta olan Pandemi dolayısı ile ertelenerek nihayetinde bu adli yılda görüşülmek üzere Mahkemenin gündemindedir. İlk davada aktivistimizden özür dilemek yerine, duruşma yapmayı tercih eden Denktaş, duruşma neticesinde haksız çıkmasına rağmen, derneğimiz ile ilgili davada da özür dilememeyi tercih ediyor. “İlk davanın neticesine göre ikinci dava ile ilgili tavrımız netleşecektir” şeklindeki beyanı Mahkeme tarafından Avukatı vasıtası ile kendisine hatırlatılan Denktaş, davanın günlü olduğu 8 Ekim tarihinde ne davada hazır bulunmuş ne de herhangi bir özür teklifinde bulunmuştur. Avukatların yaptığı görüşmeler neticesinde Mahkeme davayı 25 Ekim tarihine ertelemiştir. Burada belirtmekte fayda vardır ki; Serdar Denktaş, Baraka aktivisti Münür Rahvancıoğlu’nun kazandığı davada, Mahkeme tarafından hükmedilen tazminat ve masraf miktarlarını bugüne kadar hâlâ ödememiştir. Söz konusu davaların açılmasına sebep olan asılsız iftiralar, karanlıkta okula giderken yaşanan kazada kaybettiğimiz gençler için yapılan protestolar üzerineydi; tam da bu sebeple gerek aktivistimiz gerekse de derneğimiz açısından söz konusu davalardaki tavrımızın maddi/parasal değil, politik olduğunun altını çizer, ta en başından beri söylediğimiz gibi Mahkeme tarafından hükmolunan ve hükmolunacak parasal miktarların da trafik alanında faaliyet yürütmekte olan bir kuruma bağışlayacağımzı da tekrardan hatırlatırız. Baraka Kültür Merkezi

Kiminin derdi geçim, kiminin seçim! – Zekiye Şentürkler

Toplanmak için helak olan! asgari ücreti belirleme komisyonu hepimizin bildiği üzere en nihayetinde bir karara varmış ve asgari ücreti artırmıştır. “Aferin artırdı” şeklindeki ironik hayıflanmayı buraya bırakıp hemen devam edeyim. Eskilerden gelen bir laf vardır “sıfıra sıfır elde var sıfır” diye, işte bu yapılan artışla o lafa şükreder olduk. Emekçinin elinde artık eksi var. Yine asgari ücret açlık sınırı dersinden sınıfta kaldı. Döviz karşısında eriyen türk lirası ile hem geçimini sağlamak hem de sterlin ev kirası ödemek ülkemizde yapılan en çetrefilli şeyler listesindeki yerini yani zirveyi bu artışla da kimselere bırakamadı. Başlı başına bu durum elde avuçta bırakmıyorken; tüp gaz, elektrik, kahve, gıda peşi sıra zamlar birbirini kovaladı. Et yemek zaten günden güne zorlaşıyordu da, bir fincan kahvenin kırk yıl hatrı vardı hani. Bütün hafta tabir-i caizse canı sökülene kadar çalışan insanların hafta sonu hem fiziksel hem psikolojik olarak yeniden üretime hazırlanma ihtiyacını karşılamak için en doğal hakkı olan sosyalleşmek uzun bir süredir lüks. Hade bir mekana oturamadık bari arabada bir turlayalım bile yok, çünkü benzine de zam. Ekmeğe süte zam, benzine tüpe zam, ay sonu gelmez oldu… Anlattığım tüm bu geçim dertleri karşısında bir de seçim derdi olanlara bakalım. Hükümet edenlerimizin kurultay, muhalefet edenlerimizin yerel/genel seçim dertleri büyük efendim. Döviz cinsi kiraları türk lirasına sabitlemek için çalışıp oy kaybedeceğine, vatandaşlık dağıtıp oy toplamak gibi zorlu bir süreç içerisindeler şu sıralar. Tabii ki tek dertleri bu değil! Sermayeye hibe, teşvik, yeni parselleyecekleri yerler, deniz aşırıya yaranmak için emirlerini yerine getirme çabası… zor çok zor! Ve önemli; emekçinin bir sokum yemek yemek için, başını sokacak yerin kirasını ödeyebilmek için, çoluk çocuğunun ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için, sofrasına bir sokum ekmek koyup, bir yudum kahve içebilmek için uyumadan çalışmak zorunda bırakılmasından çok daha önemli! Bir de muhalefette olanlar var ki, ne siz sorun ne de ben söyleyeyim. Hepsinin bir koltuk görmüşlüğü olduğuna göre, e şimdi saydırdıkları şeyler o zamanlar da olduğuna göre… bu şeyler nasıl halen var demekten alıkoyamıyor insan kendini vesselam. Yalnız yazımı sonlandırmadan kimsenin hakkını yemeyeyim; muhalefet hiç bir zaman “uçan araba, ayşeaba, fatma teyze” seviyelerinde saçmalamamış, yüksek makamlardayken sosyal medyadan insanlara “sen şaşırdın” şeklinde yorumlar yazmamıştır. Tüm bu yazdıklarımdan seçim karşıtı olduğum gibi bir sonuca varılmaması için derdimi anlatacak olursam; seçimlerin birilerinin çıkarları için kullanmasına değil, halkın iradesiyle, halkın menfaatine yapılması elzemdir. Eğer demokratik hak ve özgürlükler yoksa ya da engelleniyorsa, hak ve özgürlükler için mücadele şarttır! Gel gelelim iş yine başa düştü. Hal böyleyken emekçinin güçlenip direnmekten, birleşip mücadele etmekten başka çıkar yolu yok. Örgütlenin! Zekiye Şentürkler