[MGSA-L] Syriza vs. Xrisi Aygi column Του Νικου Χρυσολωρα

Christos Pallas pallaschristos at gmail.com
Fri Sep 28 04:53:36 PDT 2012

Dear all,

This is an intervention addressed to list members and a response to Dr.
Chrysoloras in particular.

If I am not mistaken this controversy broke out here when Professor
Panourgia claimed that this article has no place in the list. Her argument
was that Chrysoloras's article is a text that cannot be classified either
as journalistic - and it is true that it conveys little information - or as
scientific - also true since it resembles more a polemic. And, indeed, does
not Chrysoloras's article in the columns of *Kathimerini*, use polemical
language to advance a certain 'truth' that legitimates a particular
political position? I think it does, or Mr. Chrysoloras would be signing in
*Kathimerini* as Dr. Chrysoloras. Now, the controversy kicked off really
when a number of list members opposed Professor Panourgia's argument,
saying no more no less that her reasons for not wanting such article in the
list are ideologically imbued. And how could they not be? But, at bottom,
as the case is with all controversies, everyone takes position and everyone
attempts to present one's position as grounded, objective, true, by
appealing to facts, by making arguments, and so on. Now, if there is an
equivalence here - if all positions are ideological somehow - this is not
the end of the story. We cannot be satisfied with a formalist analysis: It
remains the case that Professor Panourgia's ideology is far from lethal as
opposed to that of Dr. Chrysoloras whose ideological blindness 'βγάζει
μάτι'. Allow me this figure of speech and let me explain myself:

Dr. Chrysoloras, your eclecticism in combining different arguments made by
disparate authorities in the field of political philosophy might be
fruitful in the context of an article in *Kathimerini*: You can implicitly
draw on Laclau to make an argument about the 'identical structure' of the
discourse of *SYRIZA* and* Xrisi Aygi*. They do both, say, appeal to 'the
people'; You are not alone in this effort: the dominant 'line' of *
Kathimerini* has been a persistent operation to discursively construct the
two opposing 'margins' which are equivalent in that they are different from
the 'rational', 'legitimate', 'sober' political 'centre' which presumably
you represent. Prior to constructing this equivalence,*
Kathimerini*earnestly - borrowing from the far-right itself -
constructed another
equivalence: that between 'SYRIZA' and 'violence': *SYRIZA* came to
represent *anomia* (*Syriza* =* koukouloforoi*) in the discourse of*Kathimerini
* before Xrisi augi enters the game. That both* Kathimerini *and *Xrisi Ayg*i
have been identifying the ills of this country with a 'Leftist ideological
hegemony', doesn't it make the two somewhat equivalent structurally and
even rhetorically? That both discourses are constructed by projecting a
looming chaos of anomie, doesn't it make them equivalent? How can we decide
whether the equivalence is between *SYRIZA* and *Xrisi Aygi* or between the
establishment (a nodal point of which is indeed *Kathimerini* and its
intellectuals) and* Xrisi Aygi*? I am making two points here really: My
first claim is that by means of formalist analysis alone, we cannot decide
who's equivalent to whom. There is a decision involved in arguing publicly
for the equivalence of *SYRIZA* and *xrisi augi*, and, equally, a decision
involved in envisioning the social frontiers a bit differently. Second,
according to the authority in populism, Ernesto Laclau, rhetoric is not
merely the characteristic of populist discourse, but characteristic
of* all*collective identities: and the identity of the political space
represent not only *uses* 'mere rhetoric' in constructing its outside as
one single threat (the threat of populism and anomia), but it is also
fundamentally rhetorical in its own constitution: it attempts, not without
coercion, to produce a governable and manageable society, that is, by
breaking down the equivalences and de-legitimating the grievances
of/between different sectors of society. This is the logic of difference,
a  political and rhetorical logic, Dr. Chrysoloras, and I am sure you are
well aware of its function.

This logic of difference, in this context, has very specific conditions of
success, and that is the creation of imminent threats or the cultivation of
a culture of fear: and I suppose this is where the authority of John Rawls
comes into your argument.You are claiming that if we don't agree on the
rules, then* democracy will collapse*. Actually, what you are promoting
here - in stark opposition to how Laclau envisions democracy  - is a
twofold vision of democracy, based around consensus and the idea of
governance. But this, unfortunately is one conception of democracy among
others: I would think that democracy will collapse once we take certain
rules as *given* and unchanging (including the constitution itself). What
you advocate is a post-political vision, one where antagonisms (even over
the meaning of democracy) are well displaced. Now, that you actually
contradict yourself by appealing to Laclau* and* Rawls at the same time is
of little importance. To persuade one needs not be consistent, but such
eclecticism it seems to me has no purchase amongst this audience here. Your
explanatory text gives us less a scientific insight than it gives us an
idea of how ideology and rhetoric operates.

One last point. As Professor Gourgouris pointed out, you can push the
formalist argument to its limits but not at the expense of history and the
empirical. What is more, you can do whatever you like with a formalist
argument but at least, you ought to acknowledge that you don't speak from
an objective standpoint, but rather from a political, if not ideological
one. The emergent ideology based on the myth that *SYRIZA* and *Xrisi
aygi*are 'equivalent' is quite dangerous, because it might be that
both do not
'respect the rules of the game', but there is a difference that makes the
neo -nazis and the Left, ultimately incommensurable: SYRIZA does not
partake in pogroms, does not form terror squads, does not kill foreigners,
and to push it a little bit, does not prepare a catastrophe for the weakest
of this society. There is plenty of visual and textual evidence to support
the claim. But this is insignificant content of discourse, from your
perspective. Because according to the mainstream discourse of the
establishment, which has become almost* identical in structure* with the
furthest-right, Greece's number one problem* is* illegal migration and its
discontents (prostitution, urban degradation, and so on). The equivalence
therefore, Dr. Chrysolora, between Syriza and Xrisi Aygi, might be formal,
but the equivalence between the establishment and Xrisi Aygi is
substantial: the society both do envision is a racist society, no matter if
the criteria are biopolitical or simply racial, no matter the means, direct
physical violence or segregation and 'camps'.

My apologies for expanding perhaps a bit too much.

Christos Pallas
PhD Candidate
University of Essex

On 27 September 2012 23:40, <mgsa-l-request at uci.edu> wrote:

> Send MGSA-L mailing list submissions to
>         mgsa-l at uci.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         mgsa-l-request at uci.edu
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         mgsa-l-owner at uci.edu
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MGSA-L digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>    1. Re: Syriza vs. Xrisi Aygi column ??? ????? ?????????
>       (Stathis Gourgouris)
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Stathis Gourgouris <ssg93 at columbia.edu>
> To: mgsa-l at uci.edu
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:57:50 -0400
> Subject: Re: [MGSA-L] Syriza vs. Xrisi Aygi column Του Νικου Χρυσολωρα
> Dear Mr. Chrysoloras,
> Since you have moved from the language of journalism to the language of
> political science and social theory (which is the impetus of this academic
> list, beyond mere sharing of information), permit me to respond to the
> points you make for the sake of a proper intellectual debate. I respond to
> your points in sequence below -- and my apologies to all for lengthening
> even further this discussion.
> On 9/27/2012 4:31 AM, Nikos Chrysoloras wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> I have been following your debate regarding my article with great
> interest. Allow me to respond to some of the points made here. Obviously,
> my article does not suggest that the content of SYRIZA's political
> discourse is in any way similar to Chrissi Avgi's discourse. *But the
> structure is identical*. They both use what Laclau and Mouffe (Laclau, E.
> & Mouffe C.,  Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, 2nd ed., (London:
> Verso Books, 2001 [1985]) call "the logic of equivalence". The logic of
> equivalence, as some of you may already know, constructs  a chain of
> equivalential identities among different elements that are seen as
> expressing a certain sameness”.
> I am very surprised to see you making here an entirely *formalist** *argument.
> There is already an assumption here that goes unquestioned: The fact that
> politics is some kind of game, where it is enough for an analyst to
> juxtapose different groups and measure their differences and similarities,
> as if they are indeed equivalent. But political constituencies are made by
> real men and women, with ideologies and beliefs, passions and experiences,
> prejudices and delusions. All of these elements carry specific histories,
> which in no way could ever be measured in any quantitative scale but
> require careful historical analysis of particulars. In real politics, there
> can never be equivalence of identities, unless human beings become machines.
> To say, moreover, that only "the structure of XA and SYRIZA are similar or
> equivalent" is quite insidious in that it automatically silences the
> difference in "content of political discourse" which you acknowledge. As a
> result, the content (and its difference) disappears from the discussion.
> This gesture is symptomatic of the entire edifice of assumptions on which
> your analysis is based, but, pardon me if I remind you, that is a *political
> decision* on your part to ignore the content.
> In the case of SYRIZA's and Chrissi Avgi's populism, the political
> spectrum is simplified by the two populist discourses, to the extent that
> is perceived as being formed by two opposing camps: the people  and its
> “enemies”. In an interview with me (
> http://www.epohi.gr/portal/theoria/8424) Ernesto Laclau , the most
> important academic author on populism, argues that no matter its content, a
> discourse is populist to the extent that it refers to the “people” as a
> unified and undivided entity. The available space does not allow me to
> elaborate further, but for those who are interested, I suggest the book "On
> Populist Reason" by Laclau.
> My point is that both parties are populist.
> Knowing your Laclau is well and good, but not very useful when you neglect
> your history. ALL Greek political parties are populist -- at least since
> 1981. The New Democracy Party specifically reached practically unfathomable
> heights of populism under both the Karamanlis and Samaras leadership in
> recent years, while nonetheless serving global neoliberal interests. That
> ALL Greek political parties are populist is the unfortunate indication of
> the degradation of Greek parliamentary politics, but it has been
> increasingly the tendency of parliamentary politics in most of the
> 'Western' world -- witness American politics since the Reagan era.
> Interestingly enough, SYRIZA is the least populist of Greek parties in
> that otherwise terrible scale that implicates all. This is because certain
> of its constituencies have very specific leftist orientations that
> emphasize all kinds of particularities of identities, particularly in terms
> of gender and sexuality politics, politics of immigration, and biopolitics
> in general.
> But similarities do not stop there. They both dispute the legitimacy of
> the Constitution, the Government, and the Democratic regime in general. I
> will not refer to specific examples from Chrissi Avgi, since we all more or
> less know what this neo-fascist party supports. But I challenge those who
> dispute my argument to visit the website of SYRIZA and do a content
> analysis on its press releases. The press releases do not just state a
> strong disagreement with the current policies followed in Greece (that
> would be completely understandable), but dispute the democratic
> legitimation of the government. Terms like "genocide", "death contracts
> against the people" are habitually used, while the underlying logic of most
> of the arguments is that there is a "chain of equivalence" (again), between
> a foreign oppressor (the EU) and its local puppets (the Greek government).
> Of course, this is a slanderous assertion that doesn't fit the context of
> a serious analysis. It's precisely what such writings like yours and Mr.
> Kasimatis have been fostering in order to fashion an ideology of extremes.
> I won't even bother with this one. I will only ask you: how do you imagine
> that 27% of Greek voters, the overwhelming majority of whom are not SYRIZA
> members, voted for SYRIZA in the recent elections (and are, by all accounts
> ready to do so again), if your characterization of SYRIZA is true? Do you
> believe that nearly one third of Greek voters woke up one day and voted for
> a party that would strip them of their constitutional rights?
> There is one thing to keep in mind that a lot of people seem to forget, or
> seem to want to forget. SYRIZA is not some fringe group. It is, at this
> point, a major political movement, with broad support in the population
> across classes, age groups, etc., and the premier party of parliamentary
> opposition. For people to denigrate it in such fashion, especially by
> calling it equivalent with a bunch of thugs, most of whom have criminal
> records or have criminal charges pending against them, is an insult not to
> SYRIZA members but to more than a million and half Greek citizens.
>  Now, we all know that all Greek governments of the past 38 years have
> been elected in office through legitimate and fair elections. We all know
> that Greek governments asked for the IMF/EU intervention. We all know that
> the Second Adjustment Program was approved last March by a 2/3 majority in
> the Greek parliament, and we all know that the tri-partite pro-European
> government in Athens enjoys the support of the majority of the parliament
> and received 48% of the vote in last June's elections. So why, oh why,
> SYRIZA doesn't just say "I strongly disagree", but argues that "you guys
> are not legitimate"? The difference is crucial!!
> The use of the word "legitimacy" is never innocent -- not only when
> politicians use it (no matter where they are in the political spectrum),
> but also when academics use it (political scientists, economists, legal
> scholars, etc.) Again, there can never be *formal* legitimacy. Legitimacy
> is always determined within a sphere of power, and even the most inclusive
> such sphere will remain structured according to some sort of constitutive
> asymmetry.
> Yes, Greek governments are legitimate insofar as they have been elected.
> But this does not mean that all their actions, indiscriminately, are
> legitimate. If that were the case, then all broken promises, all acts of
> corruption, all clientelist practices, all *partisan* actions (sometimes
> against the interests of the nation's sovereignty -- you know, I'm sure,
> how often this happens in a democracy) would also be legitimate. Are you
> ready to accept this? I can't imagine.
> The fact of the matter is that our country has mortgaged its political
> sovereignty to elite global economic interests. That's a long theoretical
> discussion as to why etc. which we can't do here. But it's certainly not
> the only country by any means. It's also a fact, corroborated by the most
> famous economists worldwide, that the Second Adjustment Program is the
> confirmation of Greece's loss of sovereignty for God knows how many years
> into the future.
>  And finally, my third point. I use the term "democracy" in my
> Kathimerini article, in line with John Rawls' theory of justice. For those
> of us who are not political scientists, let me simplify things a bit. In a
> fair democratic society, we can all fight for our political views, as long
> as we all agree on the rules of our fight. If we don't agree on the rules,
> then democracy will fall apart. It's like playing a soccer game. Both teams
> do their best to beat the opponent, but the game cannot be played if the
> teams do not agree on what is a foul, what is a corner kick, if the players
> can use their hands, etc. SYRIZA consistently supports civil disobedience
> movements. Members of the party supported the restaurant owners on the
> island of Hydra who had beaten tax inspectors, because the latter ones
> tried to check if they issue receipts. Mr. Tsipras said that school
> teachers can be excused if they deliver private courses to their students,
> without issuing receipts. And SYRIZA supported the "I am not paying"
> movement in Greece. So if we can't agree that all citizens are obliged to
> pay taxes, then how the hell will democratic politics function in Greece?
> First of all, you can use the Hydra example if you want, but do your
> homework and mention to people that one of the leading figures in SYRIZA
> and current MP, Mr. Dimitris Papdimoulis, had immediately and publicly
> stigmatized the behavior of the restauranteur and his supporters. (
> http://www.zougla.gr/politiki/article/skliri-dilosi-papadimouli-gia-tous-idreous-forofigades).
> But the essence is elsewhere.
> I agree that in democracy we have to fight by the same rules, but I remind
> you that democracy is not a game. It's intense and risky business -- it's
> agonistic business. And it is so because, though people are presumably free
> to vote with equal capacity, the asymmetries of power remain and they can
> never be bracketed from the process. And though the procedural rules are to
> be agreed upon, one's understanding of democracy will never be agreed upon
> in any democratic society. That's the case since ancient Athens. You may
> think democracy in terms of Rawls, and I may think democracy in terms of
> Rancière or Castoriadis. In my democracy, dissent is essential. Civil
> disobedience is one of the pillars of democracy. I can tell you, there can
> be democracy without consensus, but there can never be democracy without
> dissent. Not all dissent is just, of course. But neither is all consent --
> so the question is not about justice. We're not discussing ethics here;
> we're discussing politics.
>  Thank you for your patience,
> Nikos Chrysoloras, PhD (London School of Economics)
> EU Correspondent, Kathimerini daily,
> Brussels
> I extend my thanks for everybody's patience as well.
> Stathis Gourgouris
>  On 27 September 2012 06:16, <mgsa-l-request at uci.edu> wrote:
>> Send MGSA-L mailing list submissions to
>>         mgsa-l at uci.edu
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>         https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         mgsa-l-request at uci.edu
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         mgsa-l-owner at uci.edu
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of MGSA-L digest..."
>> Today's Topics:
>>    1. Re: Syriza vs. Xrisi Aygi column ??? ????? ?????????
>>       (athanasios grammenos)
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: athanasios grammenos <athanasiosgrammenos at gmail.com>
>> To: Philip Hager <philip.hager at googlemail.com>
>> Cc: MGSA List <mgsa-l at uci.edu>, pn2005 at optusnet.com.au, "Grammenos,
>> Dennis" <d-grammenos at neiu.edu>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:50:21 +0300
>> Subject: Re: [MGSA-L] Syriza vs. Xrisi Aygi column Του Νικου Χρυσολωρα
>> Dear Mr Hager,
>> Thank you for talking some time to read and think on the post I sent to
>> the list.
>> Let me first make clear that I preferred not to escort the initial
>> posting with any comment because I believe in every list member's ability
>> to make his/her own conclusions. Besides, other members occasionally post
>> only with a "fyi" or "to the members of the list" so I didn't want to be
>> out of the spirit. My initiative was oriented only to enrich the public
>> dialogue in this list on the emerging situation in Greece; not easy!
>> Then, allow me to say that your understanding of my reply is poor. First,
>> nobody accused no one for being a "murderer". This is a risky and arbitrary
>> conclusion of yours and I wish to keep distant. However, as I mentioned to
>> my previous letter, when a political leader raise objections to the very
>> application of the Constitution, or when by declaration of another party
>> leader (Mrs Papariga of KKE) he is publicly linked to the
>> "musketeers-koukouloforoi" (who are criminals whether you like it or not)
>> then there is a very serious suspicion on his polity.
>> On your second point, I am sorry but I did not use the term
>> "neoliberalism", and it is not polite trying either to interpret and
>> characterize me or to charge me words that I did not use. For your own
>> information though, let me -as a political scientist- to distinguish
>> "neo-liberals" from "neo-cons", which is a common mistake made by the Greek
>> radicals, too. Now, how you conclude from my last message, that "*freedom
>> of expression is (restricted to) the right to express the neoliberal
>> consensus*", this is your own issue.
>> In contrast, I said:
>> *"Προσωπικά, δεν υιοθετώ καμία άποψη, προσπαθώ να κατανοήσω την
>> φυσιογνωμία, την στρατηγική και το ήθος των πολιτικών κομμάτων, αποδέχομαι
>> όμως το διαφορετικό ως βασική "συνιστώσα" διαλόγου και προσπαθώ να το
>> χρησιμοποιήσω εποικοδομητικά". (=Personally, I do not adopt any of those
>> views*,* I try to understand the identity, strategy and ethos of the
>> political parties, however I accept the 'other' as a fundamental component
>> of dialogue and I try to use it constructively*").
>> On your conspiracy theory, that "*of the Greek media propaganda against
>> those who propose a different solution to the crisis*" I will make no
>> comments. Blaming someone of "witchcraft", is a step backwards. I remind
>> you though that the huge majority of the Greek media belongs traditionally
>> to the left wing and beyond "Kathimerini" and "To Vima", the rest are
>> flirting with Drachma, "*a different solution to the crisis*", as you
>> said.
>> Last, I want to thank our moderator for he allowed a fruitful
>> conversation (of some fifteen posts) to develop. It shows that debating
>> with different -even contending- views, can give us something important.
>> Well done!
>> Εν ελευθερία
>> ΑΓ
>> Στις 26 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 2:53 μ.μ., ο χρήστης Philip Hager <
>> philip.hager at googlemail.com> έγραψε:
>>> Dear fellow list members,
>>>  Although I do think that all this discussion about the Χρυσολωράς
>>> article is really out of proportion, I could not resist responding: the
>>> previous respondant (Ath. Grammenos) wrote that some of syriza's components
>>> are not much different to the golden dawn and that this is commonplace
>>> knowledge within Greek society. Without meaning to be disrespectful to a
>>> fellow MGSAer I'd like to say that none of syriza's members is a verified
>>> murderer; articles such as the one in *kathimerini* (or many in *kathimerini
>>> *and other newspapers for that matter) are responsible for equating
>>> syriza with golden dawn; an axiom that then becomes commonsensical because
>>> of the Greek media propaganda against those who propose a different
>>> solution to the crisis (the golden dawn is not included here, because they
>>> do not propose a solution, but mass extermination).
>>>  Another thing I wanted to stress here is that the academic way of
>>> talking about things, does not reproduce newspaper articles without
>>> critically interrogating them and does not use opinions expressed in a
>>> newspaper as evidence. Moreover, the use of words such as democracy,
>>> freedom (of speech or other) seem to be used in a very particular (and thus
>>> limited) way by both Χρυσολωράς and Ath. Grammenos (in his latest
>>> contribution to this thread): in their understanding democracy is
>>> (restricted to) a political system where the absolute truth of
>>> neoliberalism must be the compass of all political parties (therefore
>>> anyone who against this kind of bourgeois/ liberal/representative democracy
>>> becomes an anti-democrat) and freedom of expression is (restricted to) the
>>> right to express the neoliberal consensus (therefore anyone who presents an
>>> opinion outside the neoliberal consensus is against the freedom of
>>> expression(!).
>>>  Athanasios Grammenos wrote of a return to the middle ages. Indeed
>>> neoliberal rationality constitutes exactly this: a return to the darkest
>>> pages of our history books.
>>>  Philip Hager
>>>   On 25 Sep 2012, at 18:28, athanasios grammenos wrote:
>>>   Δεν χωρούν πολλά λόγια όταν κάποιος "στάζει" ειρωνία. Είναι προφανές
>>> ότι κεντρίζεται από τον ελεύθερο διάλογο, την άλλη άποψη. Πάντως, η
>>> επιστήμη που δεν αφουγκράζεται την κοινωνία δεν είναι επιστήμη. Μπορεί
>>> λοιπόν οι "ανθρωπολόγοι" της λίστας να "ξενίστηκαν" από την προώθηση ενός
>>> τέτοιου κειμένου (αλήθεια, "ξενίστηκαν" ή "ενοχλήθηκαν") όμως ο Πολιτικός
>>> Επιστήμονας και ο Κοινωνιολόγος του μέλλοντος θα το βρουν πολύ χρήσιμο για
>>> να αντιληφθούν τις ζυμώσεις που γίνονται στην Ελλάδα σήμερα. Κρίμα που
>>> τόσοι πολλοί μιλούν για την Ελλάδα και τόσοι λίγοι καταλαβαίνουν τι
>>> συμβαίνει σ' αυτήν.
>>> Ότι κάποιες συνιστώσες του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ λειτουργούν όπως και η Χρυσή Αυγή
>>> είναι κάτι που αποδέχεται πλέον ένα μεγάλο μέρος της ελληνικής κοινωνίας.
>>> Γιατί λοιπόν κάποιοι "σοκάρονται"; Γιατί δεν ακούν την κοινωνία! Ίσως γιατί
>>> κατοικούν πολύ μακριά, ίσως πάλι γιατί μέσα από την "επιστήμη" προσπαθούν
>>> να διαδώσουν πολιτικές θέσεις, κατά βάση κατατρεγμένες από τα ΕΑΜικά
>>> σύνδρομα. Έτσι εξηγείται ότι ανέχονται κάθε λογής άσχετη πληροφορία που
>>> κυκλοφορεί στην "λίστα" αλλά θίγονται μόνο όταν κάποιος εκφραστεί
>>> επικριτικά για την Ριζοσπαστική Αριστερά, ένα κόμμα που στις τάξεις της
>>> περιλαμβάνει αντιΕυρωπαϊστές, αντιΑμερικανούς, αντιΕβραίους (ναι, και
>>> όμως!), κομμουνιστές μέχρι αναρχικούς, που όλοι επιθυμούν την ανατροπή της
>>> αστικής δημοκρατίας. Ένα κόμμα που "χαϊδεύει τα αυτιά των κουκουλοφόρων".
>>> Ένα κόμμα που ο αρχηγός του έχει πει: "Οι νόμοι που ψηφίζονται από την
>>> Βουλή, θα ακυρώνονται από εμάς στο πεζοδρόμιο"! Τόση δημοκρατικότητα!
>>> Να λοιπόν πόσα ερεθίσματα δίνει το άρθρο, όπως και τα κείμενα του
>>> Κασιμάτη στην ίδια εφημερίδα (αρκετά από τα οποία έχω στείλει κατά καιρούς)
>>> που ορισμένοι εδώ μέσα κάνουν ότι δεν αντιλαμβάνονται. Προσωπικά, δεν
>>> υιοθετώ καμία άποψη, προσπαθώ να κατανοήσω την φυσιογνωμία, την στρατηγική
>>> και το ήθος των πολιτικών κομμάτων, αποδέχομαι όμως το διαφορετικό ως
>>> βασική "συνιστώσα" διαλόγου και προσπαθώ να το χρησιμοποιήσω
>>> εποικοδομητικά. Φαίνεται όμως ότι δεν είναι το άρθρο καθαυτό που ενοχλεί,
>>> είναι η συγκεκριμένη άποψη. Κι αν σε μια "ακαδημαϊκή" λίστα δεν γίνονται
>>> δεκτές όλες οι (δημοκρατικές)  απόψεις, αν αποκλείονται κάποιες ετσιθελικά
>>> τότε μήπως αναβιώνει ο Μεσαίωνας; Πέρασε καιρός από τότε που έκαιγαν
>>> ανθρώπους στην πυρά!
>>> Εν τέλει, κάτι μη χρήσιμο για έναν κλάδο ίσως είναι χρήσιμο για άλλες
>>> επιστήμες. Για όσους δεν μπορούν να αποδεχτούν την ελευθερία λόγου υπάρχουν
>>> δύο δρόμοι: ο πρώτος είναι να πολιτευτούν με την ΧΑ ή τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ. Ο
>>> δεύτερος να επιλέξουν μια εναλλακτική απασχόληση.
>>> Κλείνω με μια φράση του σπουδαιότερου σύγχρονου Έλληνα Πολιτικού
>>> Επιστήμονα κ. Στάθη Καλύβα (από την "Καθημερινή", για τους καχύποπτους):
>>> *"Ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ του 2012 είναι το ΠΑΣΟΚ του 1981. Το ΠΑΣΟΚ του 2012 είναι η
>>> ΕΔΗΚ του 1977. Και ο Σαμαράς του 2012 ετοιμάζεται να υποδυθεί τον ρόλο του
>>> Γεωργίου Ράλλη το 1981. Στον ρόλο της «Αυριανής», τα μπλογκ. Ο Τσίπρας
>>> αναβιώνει τον Ανδρέα, στο πιο νέο και πιο αμόρφωτο και επαρχιώτικο.
>>> Υπόσχεται την ελπίδα, την ανατροπή και την ευημερία. Μιλάει για εθνική
>>> ανεξαρτησία και λαϊκή κυριαρχία. Υπόσχεται ταυτόχρονα την ευημερία του ευρώ
>>> και την άρση της λιτότητας: λεφτά υπάρχουν. Οι αντίπαλοί του θα επισημάνουν
>>> τη δημαγωγία και τους κινδύνους, αλλά ποιος τους ακούει;*"
>>> Further reading
>>> Η μόνη απάντηση στην πολιτική βία
>>> http://www.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_kathpolitics_1_23/09/2012_462678
>>> Κάντο όπως το ΚΚΕ
>>> http://www.tovima.gr/opinions/article/?aid=474385
>>> 2012 - 1981, deja vu
>>> http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_columns_2_13/05/2012_482114
>>> Εν ελευθερία
>>> ΑΓ
>>>  2012/9/24 Grammenos, Dennis <d-grammenos at neiu.edu>
>>>>  I thought the Nikos Chrysoloras piece in question was an "op-ed."  It
>>>> sure sounds like that. I wouldn't go as far as to baptize it "journalistic
>>>> analysis" though whatever that may be in this age of blogging.  As for the
>>>> "news" and "information" it purportedly provides (valid or otherwise) I had
>>>> to re-read it to make sure that I hadn't miss anything.  I hadn't. No
>>>> "news" there, just recycled equivalencies for the least common denominator,
>>>> verging on a type of discursive mud-slinging that has always been common
>>>> fodder for Greece's embedded "journalists".
>>>> Does it have a place on MGSA-L? Thankfully it was just a link to it for
>>>> those who care to waste their time reading it.
>>>> And, I did waste my time! What a syllogistic mess:) One walks away with
>>>> the equation SYRIZA=Xrusa Auga.  Wow.
>>>> Giasas paidia,
>>>> Dennis Grammenos
>>>>  ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* mgsa-l-bounces at uci.edu [mgsa-l-bounces at uci.edu] On Behalf Of
>>>> Aristide Caratzas [acaratzas at gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2012 1:37 AM
>>>> *To:* MGSA List
>>>> *Cc:* Neni Panourgia
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [MGSA-L] Syriza vs. Xrisi Aygi column Του Νικου
>>>> Χρυσολωρα
>>>>   Actually, the posting in question has everything to do with Modern
>>>> Greek Studies, it is a journalistic analysis, and it provides [unpleasant
>>>> but valid] news and information.
>>>>  Censorship has no place on an academic list like ours.
>>>>  Aristide Caratzas
>>>>  On Sep 24, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Neni Panourgia wrote:
>>>>  This posting has no place on this list as it has nothing to do with
>>>> Modern Greek Studies, it is not an academic analysis, and is it not a
>>>> piece of news or information.
>>>> np/
>>>> On 9/23/2012 3:50 PM, Roland Moore wrote:
>>>> A subscriber to this list sent this link to a Kathimerini column.  For
>>>> those subscribers who wish to follow recent showdowns between supporters of
>>>> Syriza and Xrysi Augi...
>>>>      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>     From: athanasios grammenos <athanasiosgrammenos at gmail.com>
>>>>      Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:18:59 +0300
>>>>     Subject: Αλέξης Τσίπρας, όπως Μιτ Ρόμνεϊ
>>>>     Αλέξης Τσίπρας, όπως Μιτ Ρόμνεϊ
>>>>      Του Νικου Χρυσολωρα
>>>> http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_columns_2_22/09/2012_496385
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
>>>> --
>>>> ________________________
>>>> Professor Neni Panourgiá
>>>> 2012-2013
>>>> Visiting Associate Professor
>>>> Bard College
>>>> Anthropology Department
>>>> Hopson 301
>>>> Warden's Hall, PO Box 5000
>>>> Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504
>>>> (845) 752-7217 <%28845%29%20752-7217>
>>>> ICLS
>>>> Heyman Center for the Humanities,
>>>> Columbia University,
>>>> New York, NY 10027
>>>> Dangerous Citizens. The Greek Left and the Terror of the State
>>>> www.dangerouscitizens.columbia.edu
>>>> Ethnographica Moralia Experiments in Interpretive Anthropology
>>>> www.fordhampress.com/detail.html?id=9780823228874
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
>>>>   *
>>>> *
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
>>> --
>>> *-- --*
>>> *And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.*
>>>  *Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,*
>>>  *you will have understood by then what these Ithakas mean. *
>>>  *
>>> *
>>> *Constantine Cavafy*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *«Εσμέν Έλληνες το γένος, ως η τε φωνή και η πάτριος παιδεία μαρτυρεί»*
>>> *Πλήθων Γεμιστός*
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
>> --
>> *-- --*
>> *And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.*
>>  *Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,*
>>  *you will have understood by then what these Ithakas mean. *
>>  *
>> *
>> *Constantine Cavafy*
>> *
>> *
>> *«Εσμέν Έλληνες το γένος, ως η τε φωνή και η πάτριος παιδεία μαρτυρεί»*
>> *Πλήθων Γεμιστός*
>> _______________________________________________
>> List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
> _______________________________________________
> List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
> _______________________________________________
> List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/attachments/20120928/e7df0296/attachment.html 

More information about the MGSA-L mailing list