The Organization Archive of Marxism (1919-1934): social struggles, political organization, ideology and cultural practices in the working classes of interwar Greece (ICPSR doi:10.17903/FK2/KZID9T)

View:

Part 1: Document Description
Part 2: Study Description
Entire Codebook

The Organization Archive of Marxism (1919-1934): social struggles, political organization, ideology and cultural practices in the working classes of interwar Greece

doi:10.17903/FK2/KZID9T

Κατάλογος Δεδομένων SoDaNet

2022-04-22

1

Paloukis, Kostas; Katsoridas, Dimitris, 2022, "The Organization Archive of Marxism (1919-1934): social struggles, political organization, ideology and cultural practices in the working classes of interwar Greece", https://doi.org/10.17903/FK2/KZID9T, Κατάλογος Δεδομένων SoDaNet, First edition

https://doi.org/10.17903/FK2/KZID9T

The Organization Archive of Marxism (1919-1934): social struggles, political organization, ideology and cultural practices in the working classes of interwar Greece

doi:10.17903/FK2/KZID9T

Paloukis, Kostas (University of Crete)

Katsoridas, Dimitris (University of Crete)

Paloukis, Kostas

2010-01-01

Κατάλογος Δεδομένων SoDaNet

2022-04-22

https://doi.org/10.17903/FK2/KZID9T

MARXISM, SOCIAL HISTORY, POLITICAL ISSUES

POLITICS, Conflict, security and peace, International politics and organisations, Political behaviour and attitudes, Political ideology

The subject of the dissertation is the investigation of the arch-Marxist communist organization. The general goal is for this research to contribute to a wider political, social and cultural history of the trade union movement and the left in Greece. At the same time, to contribute to the history of work, but also to the wider history of the Greek interwar period. The first questions arose from the widespread information about the relationship of the arch-Marxist organization with violence, education and ethics, its "special" organizational structure, international Trotskyism, the KKE and the Spartacus group, but mainly the special connection with the the working classes of the craftsmen and the special character of their trade union action, but also the anxiety to follow the Bolshevik model. In my opinion, arch-Marxism is like a crystallization full of contradictions, the product of an era that is "already gone" and another that "seems to prevail". It therefore gives us an excellent opportunity to follow the process of "modernization" of Greek society. The international and Greek literature on the history of the communist parties and the KKE, although it does not deal mostly with the history of Trotskyist organizations, can nevertheless be a trajectory for the study and research of a relatively massive Trotskyist communist organization. Part of this literature is based on the belief that communist organizations derive much of their "style" from the particular character of their activists, even though they participate in international currents. Most of the studies around the communist parties of each country moved from the beginning in a divisive dipole. On the one hand the communists and on the other the anti-communist researchers. In any case, these are stories whose common background is the study of the actions of leaders and their views, ie stories "from above". In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a shift of mainly left-leaning researchers emerged, but an "anti-Stalinist" stance that sought to transcend both approaches as equally troublesome and useless. It was the so-called turn to social and cultural history or history "from below". In Greece, the exact same trends were presented, with a time lag.At the same time, the international leftist literature was divided against Trotskyism as some passionately supported the opposition to Stalinism, while others saw Trotskyism as a current that led to anti-communism. Greek leftist historiography produced another type of "victorial historiography", as a particular conception of the history of the labor movement prevailed in Greece where the role of the KKE is unique and central, while Trotskyism and especially the arch-Marxist organization were expelled from history. frame". The present inquiry into archivists is de facto involved in the international debate over the nature of the labor movement and the work that sparked E. P. Thompson's book. The basic principle of this work is that in the case of Greece what WilliamE is happening. Sewell proposes as a universal recognition in modern historiography, that is, skilled craftsmen rather than workers in new industrial factories dominated the labor movement during the first decades of industrialization. The trade union project of the arch-Marxists is confronted by its appearance with the question "trade union or industrial trade unionism", "trade union or industrial working classes", making this question a central factor in its development. Also, in Greece, a multitude of studies have raised the issue of the history of feminism and women, but also in the final analysis the issue of gender as an analytical tool in the history of the labor movement. In the present work, then, the unknown x is not only the "women" but also the "men" archivists. The issue of morality and education is considered in the context of the wider cultural historiography, while the issue of violence is treated not only as a political, but also as a moral and cultural phenomenon of the popular classes. The primary sources of research were mainly newspapers of the period, memoirs and archives of left-wing militants and the Trotsky Archive. The first period of the arch-Marxist group (1916-1924) corresponds to the attempt of some radicalized circles of intellectuals and workers to "make" the Greek communist left based on the "successful" recipes of the European revolutionary left. The arch-Marxists, although they have some common roots with the SEKE / KKE, form another generally different historical current in Greece. The period 1924-1930 is the era of organizational enlargement, the development of moral communism, pure arch-Marxist trade unionism and the acquisition of a secret pyramidal organizational structure with the characteristics of revolutionary companies of the 19th century. At that time, the main stake in the history of arch-Marxism is raised, that is, its relationship with the KKE and therefore the need or not to "build" a second communist party. The archivists play a leading role in the formation of the war invalid movement through the dipole governmental / paternalistic or anti-governmental militant trade unionism and with the demand for the establishment of the welfare state. In this way, the organization is involved in the post-war movement of war veterans, representing a different section of the old warriors and acting competitively in the KKE. At the same time, the arch-Marxist group is linked to the radicalized tendencies of the new generation of laboratory craftsmen. Archio-Marxist trade unionism appears as the communist version of a radical trade unionist pure trade unionism presenting many analogies with similar currents abroad, but also similar currents within the Greek trade union movement, and in this respect, arch-Marxism stands out as an anti-Marxism. It is hostile to employers / state trade unionism, defends the micro-laboratory trade unionism against the KKE's modernization efforts and super-revolution, opposes government modernization legislation, claims social "moral" and "political" economy, finally fights for one-sided actions with the social democracy and the KKE. All this highlights until 1930 archival Marxism as a measurable force in the unions of Athens, Thessaloniki and various provincial cities.The educational action and moral rhetoric of arch-Marxism is presented in the dissertation as a process of workers' self-education and is part of the cultural action that has been observed in all the political endeavors of traditional craftsmen. He expressed the need for them to engage in a process of self-civilization - as defined by Norbert Elias - based on the principles of "class ethics" in order to face the danger of "lubrication". On this basis, arch-Marxism established a strict ethical regulatory framework that defined the daily life of its members. More generally, arch-Marxism contributed considerably to the genesis of a "new progressive populism" which is the people of the left who temporarily chose to give in to some of the other material pleasures in exchange for the great enjoyment of collective struggles. He offered a separate version of the communist man and communist woman, that is, the honest fighter and the honest fighter, as a copy in the representation of the popular Luben man or Luben woman, but also as a copy in the representation of the bourgeois or bourgeois woman exploiter, ». The principles of arch-Marxist feminism are distinguished from those of the KKE, since the arch-Marxists claim joint action with the socialist feminists, while there is a common ideological basis with them. In the end, arch-Marxist communist feminism will prove to be more radical and sharp than the party in the four years 1930-1934, as it refers much more clearly to women as a distinct category, but never detracts from the women's issue of emancipation from the labor issue. At the same time, the educational action is connected with the ruptures and the reactions in the student youth that caused the undertaking of the educational reform of the Venizelist governments. In this context, the text highlights aspects of the interwar student movement, but also of state repression, around demands for democratic modernization of educational institutions. The publishing project of arch-Marxism demonstrated the economic and political limits of the organization within an authoritarian political context. At the same time, the printed, as well as the daily trade union, speech of the arch-Marxist group, strengthened the image of an interwar society strongly polarized. It was also an important material tool in the transformation of the individual worker into a collective body. In other words, he contributed to the performance of the class self-consciousness of the working class by spreading this image and self-image widely, delimiting it both nationally and transnationally. The violent intra-communist division between the KKE and the arch-Marxists is interpreted as an expression of the wider social division of interwar society between the modern and anti-modern tendencies which appeared not only within the bourgeoisie but also within the communist and working classes. In this context, the issue of violence is explored and is included both in purely political contexts, such as the practices derived from the Bolshevik tradition but also as a battle of associations within the unions, as well as cultural contexts, ie with cultures of the ethics of the Greek working class. as the conflict took place many times in terms of traditional honor and preserving the prestige of the organizations. The KKE members, for their part, viewed the arch-Marxist organization as a peculiar Masonic group that seemed to develop a rhetoric similar to that of the fascists, thus justifying the brutal violence against them. The archivists, for their part, treated the party members as corrupt and immoral bureaucrats or dangerous to the trade union movement. At the same time, the state apparatus was increasingly using violence against the working class, creating a broader framework open to violence. In any case, the experiences of the war left their mark on the interwar societies and especially on the cities. The state repression against arch-Marxism presents a special version of the anti-communist discourse which presents arch-Marxism as a basically violent current incorporating many motifs from the anti-arch-Marxist rhetoric of the KKE. The trade union and political violence of the arch-Marxists against the state and the employers is part of a purely class perception of violence, but at the same time it presents many moral connotations, which are reminiscent of cultures of violence in the rural semi-mountainous area. The case of Michalis Bezentakos is presented in the dissertation as a special cut in the consolidation of an anti-communist repressive state as it legitimizes in public discourse and state practice forms of violence in a fascist direction. Also, the communist cultures are described, the "collectives" in the tribes and exiles, as a distinct moral working class cultural pole. Finally, the enormous pressure that the arch-Marxists received in prisons from the violent exclusion of party members from the collectives is highlighted.In the period 1930-1934 the arch-Marxist organization emerged as a relatively massive political, ideological and trade union current within the working class and Greek society. The structure of production, however, changes into professions in which the arch-Marxist organization maintained particular influence. In some professions the traditional guild laboratory character is preserved, in others concentration, mechanization and modernization prevail, while in others both trends coexist. The arch-Marxist organization then adopted many of the aspects of party unionism of the period 1923-1927. He gradually abandons the defense of the old world of the laboratory and claims the representation of the new industrial proletariat. This process begins with the final abandonment of the organizational structure of the type of revolutionary company of the 19th century and the adoption of the structures of a modern revolutionary organization of the Leninist new type. With this cut, the arch-Marxist current experiences its own version of "Bolshevism" following the Bolshevism of the International Opposition. The arch-Marxists are gradually moving away from the united front with the socialists and are oriented towards a united front with the KKE, but with serious losses in their trade union power. The archivists, abandoning the morally pure trade unionism, over-politicize their trade union discourse, while the KKE abandons the super-revolutionary discourse. The threatening presence and activities of the KKE during this period defined the physiognomy of the KKE as a Stalinist party, as well as its leadership, more than is generally recognized in the historiography of the KKE. The arch-Marxists are now registered by the new Zachariadis leadership in the forces of fascism not because of their organizational heterodoxy, but because of their Trotskyist physiognomy. The dissertation presents a series of tables, which present figures of the social composition and geographical distribution of the members of the arch-Marxist organization. Other tables offer a lot of quantified data on trade union organization in a number of professions in which archivists intervene. In such a table, e.g. for the trade unions of Athens, one can trace the number of unions, the date of their establishment, their evolution, the factions that intervene and control them, the appearance of the arch-Marxists, the names of the arch-Marxist trade unionists, the number of members or the usual number participation in nominations or general assemblies. Based on these data, a general picture of arch-Marxist trade unionism is formed, but also many characteristics of interwar trade unionism. In any case, the image we have from the literature of the relation of arch-Marxism with specific guilds is confirmed, as well as its relatively massive and nationwide character. It is important to try to interpret the conditions for the radicalization of these guilds. It is a combination of elements with a key factor in "modernization" (rationalization, mechanization, state legislation) in combination with the unemployment produced by the crisis. The attempt of the arch-Marxist trade unionism to turn to the industrial strata is largely connected with the changes that take place within the professions themselves, that is, to what extent the resistance to all kinds of "modernizations" is achieved or not. The relatively large organizational development of the arch-Marxist organization for the data of an AIA organization and its distinct historical course, created a de facto course towards the creation of a new communist party different from the KKE. However, the question of the AIA's relationship with the KD was faced by the entire international opposition current. International issues, especially the developments in Germany, and the danger of the rise of the Nazi party to power in the event of a possible final defeat of the German communist movement, relate to major issues by the arch-Marxists, as well as by all international Trotskyism. Hitler's rise to power, Trotsky's recognition of the bankruptcy of the KD and the call for the creation of a new international determine the decision of the archivists to declare the bankruptcy of the KKE and the KD and to claim the role of the KKE for themselves.At the same time, archivists believe that the victory of the People's Party in the elections of 1933 and its participation in the movement against the Plastira coup has elements of a left-wing perspective. I find here a historical depth in this attraction of arch-Marxism towards anti-Venezuelanism, while taking into account some positions of the KKE, I formulate the figure of two interwar poles around which a separate center develops, right and left. As the national division intensifies, the archivists are placed on the left of anti-Venezuelanism and the KKE on the left of Venezuelanism. The organization found itself in 1933-1934 in front of many swamps. The change in the tactics of the KD and the KKE does not provoke the one expected by the archivists of the KKE. On the contrary, the shift of the international opposition intensifies the confusion in its own lines. The anti-Venezuelan pole, despite its anti-plutocratic discourse and democratic rhetoric, could not give rise to anti-capitalist uprisings, as the archivists hoped. Their contradictions and failures lead to disintegration, in contrast to the KKE which significantly expands its influence. There are two tendencies to reject the arch-Marxist present, one towards an idealized good old arch-Marxism and one towards its complete rejection in favor of a pure Trotskyism. The conflict within the organization and ultimately the split is linked to Giotopoulos's conflict with Trotsky over similar issues. Until the Occupation, the arch-Marxist party will find it difficult to rediscover a special and distinct role and therefore to connect with some dynamics within the working class. However, it will always remain a potentially great danger for the KKE. In any case, the dissertation, despite its volume, left many issues open or raised questions that could be developed in the future. The most important is the course and the role of the arch-Marxists in the period from 1934 to 1950, that is, in the silk dictatorship, the resistance and the civil war. In the trade union movement, work can be a basis for greater specialization in various professions or in the war invalids movement. A significant shortcoming is a comparative study with other national parties of the international opposition or with organizations that had a common course with the archivists after 1934. Finally, the printed material itself could be an object of deeper study.

2008-01-01-2010-01-01

Greece

Athens

Individual

3

Cross-section ad-hoc follow-up

Non-probability: Availability

Face-to-face interview

Semi-structured questionnaire