I recently read a fascinating and disturbing article in The New Yorker, by Jon Lee Anderson, on the rise and defeat of Islamists in Mali. I was struck by two particular descriptions of the Islamists’ behavior:

“In the central square, Idrissa had witnessed the beating of one of the jihadis’ own men, who had been accused by his comrades of raping a young girl. The spectators loudly criticized the jihadis for a double standard. “Everyone was angry because they didn’t kill him,” Idrissa said. Afterward, the jihadis had gone on the local radio station and warned that anyone who spoke badly about their men would be killed.”

The other:

“Then, on day two, the Islamists came,” he recalled. He had asked the leader what he wanted. Naming the northern towns of Mali, he had said, “Timbuktu, Gao, and Kidal are Muslim towns, and we want to make Sharia in them. We are not asking. We are saying what we are doing, and we’re here to make Sharia.”

What I found so troubling was not only “the usual” Al Qaeda-related atrocities, but even more so the Islamist’s clearly voiced goal of destroying an existing social system through violence, devastation of cultural heritage (vandalizing local temples and libraries). This was tied together with the idea of creating a different social order based on sexual control, and the replacement of any traces of modern knowledge by radical interpretations of old religious texts. The irony is that these readings are just as contemporary as the lifestyle the Islamists try to erase.

In my opinion, these two quotes illustrate the power of violence combined with unquestionable certainty, able to undermine an entire civilization—its customs, morals, social order, and authorities. They fall apart in the presence of arrogant brutality. The people are too “civilized,” too cultured to defend themselves. The Islamists reject a civilization they claim is morally corrupt, and instead attempt to replace it with a modern essentialist take on an imagined Golden Age of religious purity.

The case of Islamists in Mali is an extremely vivid example of a contemporary violent essentialism we can witness in many different places and with changing force. There are the extreme right-wing nationalists and Christian religious fundamentalists in Europe and the US, the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn activists in Greece, the Le Pen nationalists in France, the Tea Party in the US, as well as the Polish nationalist youth, with neo-Nazi and pagan ties, who recently tried to interrupt Zygmunt Bauman’s lecture at the University of Wrocław.

All these groups seem to play on a fantasy of a bygone era of a harmonious society formed solely by “us,” without outsiders or deviations from the unanimously accepted norms, “inventing” their traditions, as Eric Hobsbawm would have named it. The past is idealized into the present in a form deeply conservative but also modernly total, one in which men rule and women obey; the “we” are the masters, the “others” are the slaves. There is no space for sexual freedom or mental sickness. Foucault’s descriptions of these freedoms in the Middle Ages seem, on the contrary, extremely modern.

In this sense, the current fundamentalist movements are essentialized ideas of a glorious past, devoid of any ambiguity. They are definite, brutal and all-encompassing in a way only an extreme mixture of Enlightenment and Totalitarianism could lead to. They are belief systems based on a logic of the elimination of “otherness.”

The past to which they refer, never was. The refusal to acknowledge the ambiguous, heterogeneous, histories of cultures, religions, ethnicities, and civilizations, makes these movements arrogantly, violently contemporary.

The economic and political crisis in Greece has escalated, with the rise of the neo Nazi Golden Dawn party and the development of a political movement seeking alternatives to austerity on the radical left, SYRIZA. In the following interview excerpt conducted by Doug Enna Greene of the Boston Occupier, Lalaki offers her understanding of the current situation. -Jeff

DEG: Why do you think Golden Dawn has gained so much support? What measures do you think are necessary to stop them?

DL: Historically when democracies fail, which is followed by disenchantment, political cynicism and disillusionment, a vacuum in created that is often filled by extremist ideologies like that offered by groups such as the Golden Dawn, the Neo-Nazi party that is now member of the Greek Parliament. The GD proclaims an anti-systemic position, provided that they have never been part of what they condemn as the corrupt political system and they pose as defenders of principles such as that of national sovereignty, which has come under assault by the governing bodies of the EU. Suffice it to say that they have no alternative program in place other than expelling all immigrants from the country, the people that they systematically target and accuse for the rising unemployment in Greece while they often unleash assault squads in the streets of Athens, as well as other cities, in order to attack and terrorize individuals or whole immigrant communities.

One cannot hope for any measures to be taken by the Greek government or the police, which most often directly collaborates with the GD. The Nazification of the police at this stage is notorious. Racism is rampant, especially among its lower ranks. We have many examples of cases when they strongly discourage people who have been subjected to attacks from bringing charges against their perpetrators. During antifascist protests, they openly protect the DG and they arrest and prosecute the protesters. In October, fifteen anti-fascist protesters were arrested in Athens during a clash with GD supporters. Following their arrest, they were tortured at the Attica General Police Directorate (GEDA). The incident was extensively documented and the news reached through Guardian, which published an article on the subject on October 9, and other media an international audience.

Any resistance against GD has to come directly from the people. Direct mobilization on community level has in many cases obstructed their plans to open offices in various locations or to further terrorize local communities. Greek workers’ organizations increasingly work in collaboration with immigrant groups publicly protesting the presence of GD in neighborhoods and exposing them for their crimes. In the past couple of years, at least 800 cases of attacks by GD have been documented. However, nobody has been prosecuted or brought to justice. The political system and the governing parties are directly responsible for the rise of the GD. It is our responsibility, therefore, not to tolerate GD’s attempts to make racism, religious fundamentalism, and homophobia into a rule of life

DEG: What are your impressions of SYRIZA? Where is it likely to go in the next elections? What obstacles do you believe a potential SYRIZA government would face?

DL: The Coalition of the Radical Left, SYRIZA, has risen out of the economic crisis, the disintegration of the old political system and new forms of popular organization. In the most recent elections in June 2012 SYRIZA polled just under 27%, and became the main opposition party facing a governing collation of ND, which had received merely 2.8% more, Pasok and the Democratic Left. Within the period of a month and despite the heinous propaganda which was unleashed by the mainstream media in Greece and abroad, SYRIZA had managed to increase its share of votes more than 10 points. In the May elections of the same year, it had polled over 16%, while in the previous elections of 2009 it had received only 4.6% of the vote. There is a direct co-relation therefore between the unraveling of the economic, social and political crisis in Greece and the rise of SYRIZA.

I would characterize SYRIZA as a “party in progress.” It is a coalition party that plays host to various left-wing organizations, ranging from revolutionary socialist to the radical reform-oriented and to many unaffiliated individuals still in need of a more clear agenda and political program. While moving towards becoming a more unified political group, SYRIZA held its first national conference at the end of November 2012. The fact that two different streams of views emerged from the conference, the one grouped under the so-called “United Platform” and the other the “Left Platform” is rather telling. SYRIZA does not adhere to traditional party politics, at least not yet. The draft proposals that were voted, with the “United Platform” having received the majority of the vote, are rather abstract, however, some very important points of difference were put in place.

The following constitute only the main points of contention between the two streams of thought. The “United Platform” wishes to break with the Europe of neoliberalism and authoritarianism, while it sees the fate of Greece as concomitant with the fate of Europe, and it calls for a renegotiation of the debt at a European level with the objective to discard a great part of it as illegal. The “United Platform’s” proposal further promises to cancel the memorandum, place the banks under public control, reinforce the welfare state and gradually place the strategic sectors of the economy under public control. It also suggests that its goal is to form a government with the Left at its center, leaving this way the window open to a possible collaborating with the conservative political forces.

The “Left Platform,” on the other side, adopts a more critical view toward the European Union, and while it does not advocate a direct confrontation with a return to the national currency of drachma, it maintains that it is imperative for SYRIZA to develop a so-called Plan B and be prepared for a possible exit from the EU. The cancellation of the debt, the immediate stop of payments toward the debt and the establishment of a united left front in close collaboration with KKE and Antarsya, the other left parties, trade unions and community-based movements, a front which will lead to a left government are central points for the “Left Platform.”

SYRIZA has an appointment with the history of the Left in Europe. It has an opportunity to become the leader of the various movements and radical political formations currently taking place in the whole continent by identifying with the Europe of radicalism, as the “United Platform’s” proposal suggested. SYRIZA needs to build direct relations with these movements and trade unions that already put up a fight against the austerity and social degradation imposed by the governing bodies of Europe, instead of cozying up with those directly responsible for the economic crisis. It is argued that SYRIZA is increasingly succumbing to pressures to adjust its rhetoric to a more “realistic” direction, because otherwise the forces directly related to the interests of capital will stand on SYRIZA’s way to electoral victory. However, this is precisely the fight that SYRIZA is called to give before or after an electoral victory. If the most recent rhetoric of “realpolitik” is merely a strategic move then I believe it is a wrong one because as the cases of Bolivia, Equador, Venezuela and Argentina suggest, the implementation of more radical policies will not go unchallenged, to say the least, after SYRIZA receives a popular mandate to govern.

The kind of pressures that a SYRIZA government will face is directly related to the kind of party SYRIZA will end up being. If SYRIZA develops a policy of collaboration with the governing European elites, which are deeply invested in neoliberalism and financial capitalism, then SYRIZA will be subjected to great pressures from the bottom and its electoral victory will only be short lived.

DEG: Greece has seen many general strikes in the past several years, yet they have not been able to stop austerity. Do you think that other measures aside from general strikes are needed?

DL: General strikes and popular mobilizations have destabilized and eventually brought down two different governments since 2009. By November 14, 2012, when a general strike was called across Europe, Greece would go to a national stoppage for the 21^st time in the last two years. In general, workers and trade unions are caught up in a fragmented labor market characterized by what is called “flexible” employment conditions and are faced with an unequal struggle against employers who have been greatly invigorated by recent legislation. It is clear from cases like that of the nine-month general strike of the steel workers of Hellenic Halyvourgia plant that Greek as well as European capitalists will make no concessions and that unless a continuous general strike is called by the largest and most powerful unions of the country little progress can be made toward stopping the government’s austerity polities. Yet, other forms of resistance greatly hamper the government’s austerity plans.

Financial resistance has been elevated almost into supreme civil duty. Small business owners collectively resist paying the new increased taxes and fees. Some city councils have encouraged their citizens not to pay the taxes imposed by the government through the electricity bill, always under the threat of electricity cuts, while providing the necessary legal coverage. As a result thousands of households resist these practices of rampant taxations imposed on the lower and middle strata of the Greek society. Movements such as the “Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay” mobilize precisely around these kinds of efforts. Also, in many parts of the country, people try to circumvent the austerity by adopting a barter system. These may be tactics of survival under the extreme conditions of the economic crisis, but they also constitute revolutionary practices which challenge not merely the government’s policies but the system of capitalism at its roots.

DEG: What future austerity measures are expected in Greece either from the government and/or the Troika? How do you expect this to affect your organizing in New York?

DL: Greece is undergoing the fifth year of recession. The most recent austerity measures, worth of 13.5 billion euros over the next two years, were voted just this past November. The new bill raises the retirement age from 65 to 67 and cuts pensions on average between 5% and 15%. Salaries in the public sector will be reduced by about a third, minimum wages will be further slashed to below €400 net. Maximum number of workday per week will be increased to six days, and work schedules will be increasingly “flexible.” Collective bargaining agreements will not be legally enforceable. Along with a series of other labor changes, working classes’ status and rights basically regress to what they used to be back in the Interwar period.

In Greece strong resistance is already building against the implementation of these new austerity measures. Increasingly massive protests take place in Europe almost on a regular basis. In NYC we will also continue organizing and mobilizing against the economic and social degradation that is brought upon our societies. This is clearly a class struggle and it has to be fought as such!

Click here for the full interview.

The economic crisis in Greece is heading towards yet another showdown today. The Greek electorate threatens to strike a serious blow against neoliberalism and its European offshoot. At the same time, these elections promise to unravel the Greek state’s monopoly on the structures of violence and fear.

Sociologist Charles Tilly drew a compelling analogy between the state as the place of organized means of violence, and racketeering. He defined the racketeer “as someone who creates a threat and then charges for its reduction,” in order to gain control and consolidate power. In this regard, a state and its government differ little from racketeering, to the extent that the threats against which they protect their citizens are imaginary or are consequences of their own activities.

Considering the pain, the humiliation, and the social degradation that the economic and political policies of the Greek government have inflicted upon the country the past four years, Tilly’s analogy may offer us a useful tool to both describe and evaluate the current crisis and the regime of fear that the state has unleashed on the Greek public.

The Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), which is now a democratic socialist party in name only, governed Greece for almost 30 years, moving steadily from Keynesian economic policies in the 1980s to rampant neoliberalism in the 1990s. New Democracy (ND), which had dominated the political scene until PASOK’s first electoral victory in 1981 and alternated in power with it ever since, professed its ideology to be “radical liberalism.” Today, after three decades of cronyism, unbridled corruption and economic scandals, the ideological convergence of the two parties is complete.

Despite its initial apprehension towards the European Union, membership in the organzation enabled PASOK to implement its policies and boost the Greek economy. With the help of substantial financial inflows from the European Economic Community, PASOK was able to redistribute wealth.

Despite the growing government deficits, the emphasis remained on sustaining employment and modernizing the welfare system. In the meantime, democratic socialism – enveloped in patronage and nepotism – evolved into a process for democratizing corruption. Deputy Prime Minister Theodoros Pangalos’s infamously vulgar statement in 2010 – “We [the government and citizens] fooled away the money together” – alluded to government-bred tactics which for years secured positions for its electorate in an ever-expanding bureaucratic machine.

Under the weight of economic scandals, pressure from PASOK’s “modernizing wing”, and the Maastricht Treaty’s aim to bring about monetary convergence by 1998, the Greek government launched an extensive program liberalizing the financial and banking sector, slashing government subsidies and pensions, deregulating the labor market and privatizing more than 100 companies from 1994 to 1999.

Some of the most prominent of these businesses included: AGET-Hercules, the cement company that literally built Greece after World War II, the Hellenic shipyards, Piraiki-Patraiki, a textile industry that in the 1980s was the second-largest employer after the Greek public sector, and ETVA, the Hellenic Industrial Development Bank. New Democracy, which governed briefly between 1990 and 1993, effectively championed the same policies.

The implementation of neoliberal policies, increasingly executed by an emerging new breed of technocrat politicians, was often met with strong resistance by labor unions and powerful interest groups which for years had enjoyed the state’s protection. Economic scandals underscored the “restructuring” process. When AGET-Hercules was sold for a fraction of its value to a nearly bankrupt Italian industrial group, extreme violence erupted. The assassination of Michael Vranopoulos, a former chief of State Bank who had handled the sale, by the terrorist group November 17, highlighted the public’s discontent.

The largely tolerant attitudes of the Greek public towards November 17, which operated from 1975 until 2002 with an anti-American, anti-capitalist agenda – it was viewed almost as a modern Robin Hood – reflected Greeks’ increasing frustration with the political establishment. Most importantly, this predisposition reflected people’s inability to effectively react.

The Greek state has always had a tight grip on society, and Greek society has always had a love-hate relationship with the state. Strongly dependent on the state for employment in an ever-expanding public sector, which was tied up with unions that over the years had come under the control of the government, the Greek public often vented its dissatisfaction with riots, protests and strikes, largely orchestrated by the parties of the Left. But it was unable to fundamentally challenge a system that was excluding them from decision-making processes.

But Greece’s booming economy at the time – fuelled by the adoption of the euro, easy credit conditions, and substantial transfers from the EU – painted the picture of a seemingly prosperous society. In reality, a small elite was reaping vast profits from the government’s neoliberal policies, while the lower and middle classes paid the hefty price, as the massive Greek stock exchange scandal of 1999-2000 highlights.

A central role of the state is that of offering protection to its citizens. “Protection,” however, as Tilly suggests, echoes two contrasting tones: a comforting and an ominous one. It calls forth images of shelter against danger provided by a powerful friend, an insurance policy or a sturdy roof. It also evokes, however, the racket in which a local strong man, for instance, forces merchants to pay tribute in order to avoid damage – damage he himself threatens to deliver – or a neighborhood mobster who claims to be a brothel’s best guarantee of operation free of police interference.

The death spiral that the Greek economy entered in 2008 called for all the government protection that the public could use. Instead, the government signed up for the financial bailout packages imposed by the so-called “troika,” the European Committee, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund. The packages included a series of unprecedented austerity measures which brought the lower and middle classes to their knees, while leaving intact the privileges of the financial elites and their political aides.

As a result of the tremendous economic pressure, the government had started losing its tight grip on Greek society as far back as 2008. Massive protests triggered by the police killing of Alexandros Grigoropoulos, a 15-year-old student, expressed young people’s increasing frustration with the prospect of a bleak future.

By the spring of 2011, a whole new movement had been galvanised. The “Indignant Citizens Movement,” an offshoot of the Spanish Indignados, occupied central Athens’ Syntagma Square for four months. Organized collectively and independent from any party or trade union affiliation, the movement was another indication that the government was governing without the consent of the people. Civil disobedience and organizations dedicated to collective action sprung up to deal with the pauperization unleashed by austerity.

The backlash has been a campaign of fear, which on occasion escalates into outright terror. Instilling fear in its clientele is the primary mechanism employed by any racketeer. The violent suppression of mass protests, the detention of undocumented immigrants, and the arrest and public display on the Greek police’s website of 12 prostitutes infected with HIV have had a single goal: to terrorize the Greek public and ultimately offer “protection” against the dissidents, anarchists, protesters, and immigrants. The rise of Golden Dawn, the neo-Nazi party, which won about seven per cent of the vote in parliamentary elections in May, was the direct result of these practices.

Fear is the sovereign’s predicament, as 17th-century political philosopher Hobbes has shown – not a natural emotion, but one cultivated through a system of moral education conducted by state institutions and their affiliates, most prominently, in our days, by the media. When these institutions lose legitimacy, their tactics may ultimately backfire, as the May elections showed. The rise of Syriza, a coalition of anti-austerity leftist parties ahead of today’s elections has triggered a new round of propaganda alluding to a communist takeover, loss of private property, alienation from the markets and the international community, and most importantly, to a financial Armageddon.

In defiance of this fear, an awakening of political consciousness is taking place in Greece’s squares, streets, and online social networks, not merely condemning the policies of austerity and social degradation but collectively working towards new types of political resistance. It is becoming clear that only the people of Greece can deliver and ultimately save themselves from the racketeering, criminal practices of their “protectors”.

This article was first published by Al Jazeera English network on June 15, 2012.

In this post, Minas Samatas, Professor of Political Sociology, University of Crete, reports that while the Greeks said no to draconian austerity, no to the two ruling parties, and no to European threats of Greece’s exit from euro zone, “Grexit,” they suggested a new path for a democratically legitimate European Union. -Jeff

Μay 6^th elections in Greece have sent a loud and clear message: the Greek people said no to the draconian austerity measures that have devastated the country in exchange for dead-end bailouts from the troika of European Union (EU), European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Designed by IMF and Eurocrats, the bailout “memorandum” does not guarantee a safe path to move Greece away from disaster, even if implemented in full. The austerity policy gives absolute priority for paying creditors at the expense of citizens’ incomes, without any future prospect of development and growth. It promotes sharp reductions in public spending, shattering the healthcare and educational system, and the “Balkanization” of Greece with salaries under 200 Euros comparable to Bulgaria. The Greek electorate rejected this in no uncertain terms.

They also, and very importantly, said no to the two ruling parties, punishing the socialist PASOK and conservative New Democracy (ND). They are responsible for the dramatic economic crisis and signed the disastrous austerity program (memorandum) to protect the foreign creditors and the banks at the expense of the most vulnerable. The outcome of the ballot expressed anger against the corrupted political elite and its policies. It expressed dismay at the lack of punishment of those responsible for the crisis. It was a call for social justice for those who suffer from the crisis. The election results express the fear and despair of the Greek people affected by the memorandum’s inhumane policy, lurching deeper into poverty and despair by sharp salary and pensions cuts, unfair tax increases, 22% unemployment (with 922 people losing their job per day over the past year), leaving no future for the young people but immigration, leading to over 3,000 persons to suicide.

The results:

The conservative New Democracy (ND) came in first place with only 18.9% of the vote, followed by the leftist SYRIZA (16.8%) and by the socialist PASOK (13.2%) in third, followed by the Independent Greeks (10.6%) a splinter party from ND in fourth, and in fifth the Greek Communist party KKE (8.5%), which refuses to cooperate with anyone in government, followed by Golden Dawn, the  extreme right-wing party, 7% (the big shock) in sixth, and the moderate “Democratic Left,” a party which gathered splinter deputies from SYRIZA and PASOK with 6.11 % of the vote in seventh. The Ecologist Greens with 2.93 % and Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) (2.9%) failed to enter the parlament, given the 3% minimum entry. Also a group of small, neo-liberal, pro-business parties “the Democratic Alliance” “Drasi,” and “Creativity Again” failed to enter parliament. A record 34.9% of voters abstained.

These results are a clear defeat of the pro-memorandum forces (PASOK and ND), which want to keep Greece in the euro zone (EZ) at any cost and signed the latest loan agreement. They gathered a combined record low of 32 %. This is a rejection of the governing parties since 1974. The political patron client system collapsed because the two parties can no longer accommodate their clients due to the state bankruptcy.

The elections were won by those who are against the memorandum, but want to stay in euro zone, though not on “Merkozy” and IMF austerity terms. Only the Greek Communist Party (KKE) unambiguously calls for Greece’s exit from both EU and EZ.

There are dangers revealed in the results. Austerity and national humiliation by the crude scapegoating of Greeks abroad has caused anger, racism, xenophobia and ultra nationalism. Hence the ballot brought the neo-Nazi “Golden Dawn” in parliament, with 21 out of 300 seats. The first neo-Nazi party to enter a European parliament since WWII won votes throughout the country, even in places devastated by the Nazis. Along with the “Golden Dawn,” the hard-right nationalists “Independent Greeks” entered the parliament, using rabid nationalism and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

The results also suggest new promise. The surprise winner in May 6^th election was SYRIZA, the Coalition of the Radical Left, which easily beat PASOK, sweeping all of the greater Athens region and Thessaloniki. Led by 38 years old Alexis Tsipras, the party is in favor of remaining in the euro zone and the European Union, unlike the Communist Party, but has opposed the loan agreement. SYRIZA’ s charismatic leader succeeded in integrating a broad spectrum of anti-memorandum forces: disillusioned PASOK voters, the indignant protesters in the squares, the young occupiers of schools and government buildings, the organizers of solidarity networks and barter alternative exchange systems. Based on his party’s remarkable surge to 16.78 %, Tsipras has written to EU officials to declare the memorandum deal null and void because a total of 68 % of voters rejected the terms of the EU-IMF bailout.

With seven parties in Parliament and none gaining more than 20%, the elections destroyed the post-dictatorial political system of the past 38 years and opened the way for new political forces, which however are not eager for cooperation, both before the elections and after. Yet, the ballot does not give enough parliamentary seats for a majority government. Therefore, it seems that the deadlock will be resolved by new elections in June 17, which are considered anathema for the established parties and creditors. It seems that democracy is not really welcome in the euro zone, which prefers appointed technocrats, like ex-bankers Monti in Italy and Papademos in pre-election Greece. But the new election suggests the possibility of a new beginning, despite the concerns of the European establishment.

Has Germany and its northern European partners got the loud message of the Greek elections into easing their fiscal demands on Greece or make them push Greece out of the euro zone? Can Greece negotiate the memorandum terms with its creditors without risking its place in EZ? The Troika and especially Chancellor Merkel have blatantly threatened a Greek euro zone exit, “Grexit,” if Greeks don’t accept and implement the painful memorandum.

Although they want the euro, the Greeks voted in defiance of IMF and EZ threats. And I think it is important to recognize that despite scaremongering by the pro–memorandum forces and media, Greece still has negotiating power, because the Greek crisis is a European one. In my judgment, sooner rather than later, foreign lenders will realize they have imposed an unsound policy, transforming Greece into a Weimar type of republic, providing a foretaste of what will happen to Portugal, Spain, Italy, or even France.

Grexit should not be the cost Greeks have to pay to get rid of a rotten political system and get back their dignity and autonomy. The potential new Greek, European and global catastrophe can be averted if the Greek defiance is backed by other “revolting Europeans.” The practical reasonableness of this approach has been underscored by Paul Krugman. Opposition to market dictatorship and the euro zone unilateral austerity in Southern Europe is the way to restore the “European project” with a policy of growth, promoting closer integration through democratic mandate. The Greek election has presented an important new beginning.