Suchergebnisse

Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof. ; Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof.

Michalis P. Liberatos, Historical Time and the interpretations of the history of the Greek Civil War: the methodological problemsThe idea of historical time is crucial from a methodological point of view as far as the study of political and social history are concerned. Especially about the history of the Greek Civil War, a period that convulsed public opinion and caused scientific interpretations overwhelmed by ideological and epistemological «burdens». The most important of them is the idea of a time constant, continual, without turnovers and breaks, that is time in the «common sense». This «time», according to its origins, self-determines its evolution, its «determination» explains all of the aspects and the historical stages and facts. This is the traditional assumption that change has always to be explained in terms of something fixed and unchangeable. As for the policy of the Greek Communist Party this notion of time provokes some historians to an explanation that associates this policy with the origins of its philosophical program and not with the «real history». This approach avoids to enquiry into the adaptation of this program to the demands of political relations in time, to counter policies and as a specification of social representations. It is mainly an unaltered policy that arises as the outcome of an assemblage of antecedent events that compose a passage of identities. Because of this domination of this notion of the «continuity» of time, the study of Greek Civil War reproduced the ideological configurations of the past. Therefore it has degraded very important aspects of historical reality, without giving adequate answers about them. These are the question of the deepest tasks of KKE and its strategy, the causes of the unscheduled creation of Democratic Army (ΔΣΕ) in the mountains, the role of the rival political powers, the extent of the possibilities of a negotiation, the relation between Greeks and the Great Powers. As the recent historical enquiries has showed —the edition of a book of Ph. Iliou signalled a new era in the interpretation of this period— a different methodological attitude is perhaps primarily useful on account of the errors it enables one to avoid, in particular in constructing the historical object. This article presents the implication between the dominant notion of «time», the difficulties in explanations and with the ability to overcome the epistemological «burdens» if is to be called into question the idea of historical time. This is important in order to break away from some presuppositions that are tacitly accepted by some historians. This new notion of time sweeps away the naively idealistic view of continuity, that traditional approaches have raised. Because it is history and the internal dynamic which carries evolution and not the historical unchanged «purposes». ; Michalis P. Liberatos, Historical Time and the interpretations of the history of the Greek Civil War: the methodological problemsThe idea of historical time is crucial from a methodological point of view as far as the study of political and social history are concerned. Especially about the history of the Greek Civil War, a period that convulsed public opinion and caused scientific interpretations overwhelmed by ideological and epistemological «burdens». The most important of them is the idea of a time constant, continual, without turnovers and breaks, that is time in the «common sense». This «time», according to its origins, self-determines its evolution, its «determination» explains all of the aspects and the historical stages and facts. This is the traditional assumption that change has always to be explained in terms of something fixed and unchangeable. As for the policy of the Greek Communist Party this notion of time provokes some historians to an explanation that associates this policy with the origins of its philosophical program and not with the «real history». This approach avoids to enquiry into the adaptation of this program to the demands of political relations in time, to counter policies and as a specification of social representations. It is mainly an unaltered policy that arises as the outcome of an assemblage of antecedent events that compose a passage of identities. Because of this domination of this notion of the «continuity» of time, the study of Greek Civil War reproduced the ideological configurations of the past. Therefore it has degraded very important aspects of historical reality, without giving adequate answers about them. These are the question of the deepest tasks of KKE and its strategy, the causes of the unscheduled creation of Democratic Army (ΔΣΕ) in the mountains, the role of the rival political powers, the extent of the possibilities of a negotiation, the relation between Greeks and the Great Powers. As the recent historical enquiries has showed —the edition of a book of Ph. Iliou signalled a new era in the interpretation of this period— a different methodological attitude is perhaps primarily useful on account of the errors it enables one to avoid, in particular in constructing the historical object. This article presents the implication between the dominant notion of «time», the difficulties in explanations and with the ability to overcome the epistemological «burdens» if is to be called into question the idea of historical time. This is important in order to break away from some presuppositions that are tacitly accepted by some historians. This new notion of time sweeps away the naively idealistic view of continuity, that traditional approaches have raised. Because it is history and the internal dynamic which carries evolution and not the historical unchanged «purposes».