Syriza ftw

+ bonus: How British universities helped mould Syriza’s political elite

spiros sofros o sirizi

timur chevket wrote:spiros sofros o sirizi

Nacionalni proruski komunisti, nešto kao u nas Filipenko. 

Ritschl: Yes, then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl refused at the time to implement changes to the London Agreement on German External Debts of 1953. Under the terms of the agreement, in the event of a reunification, the issue of German reparations payments from World War II would be newly regulated. The only demand made was that a small remaining sum be paid, but we're talking about minimal sums here. With the exception of compensation paid out to forced laborers, Germany did not pay any reparations after 1990 -- and neither did it pay off the loans and occupation costs it pressed out of the countries it had occupied during World War II. Not to the Greeks, either.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/economic-historian-germany-was-biggest-debt-transgressor-of-20th-century-a-769703.html

Nedavna pobjeda Sirize na parlamentarnim izborima u Grčkoj pokrenula je val oduševljenja “prezrenih na svijetu”, osobito onih sa Starog kontinenta iz čije se kolijevke, nakon prebrojavanja glasačkih listića, čuo drugačiji glas. Međutim, pored toga što su isti događaj uredno propratili i repovi teorija zavjere uglavnom “potvrđeni” pretoplom američkom reakcijom na Ciprasovu izbornu pobjedu, jedna notorna stvar je prošla skoro neprimjećena.
Prvi potez izbornih pobjednika, takozvanih radikalnih ljevičara, u koje su u utrnulom iščekivanju bili uprti milioni očiju, označio je dežurnu kolateralnu štetu (lijeve) real-politike - drugarice. Naime, promptno formirana “vlada socijalnog spasa” nema niti jednu ministarku. Čak ni u “mekim” ministarstvima kulture, socijale ili obrazovanja, gdje ih čak i najokoreliji konzervativci pripuste s vremena na vrijeme. Stvar se nastojala naknadno rutinski izbalansirati. Naravno, kako dolikuje, na nižem nivou - “na klupi” se našlo čak 7 zamjenica (od 40 članova kabineta), ali lice grčke vlade ostalo je nedvosmisleno muško.

Zašto insistirati na ovom aspektu? Nije li pobjeda ljevičara, protivnika brutalnog neoliberalizma i restriktivnih mjera štednje dovoljan razlog za slavlje i dovoljno opravdanje za nadu, nebrojeno puta iznevjerenu? Neki ovo pitanje pravične ili proporcionalne zastupljenosti oba pola smatraju tehničkim ili pak ustupkom frustrirajućoj političkoj korektnosti. Politička korektnost je drugo ime za pristojnost temeljenu na nekim višim ili ozbiljnijim principima i nije, niti može biti, vrijednost po sebi. Svako ko ne nalazi ništa problematično u vladi bez ministarki trebalo bi da još jednom razmisli o ideji predstavničke demokratije i o tome koga muški kabinet predstavlja. Prva poruka koju su Cipras i drugovi poslali jeste da svi glasamo, ali da samo muškarci vladaju.  I to je užasno razočaravajuće, posebno imajući u vidu važnost koju bi Sirizina pobjeda zapravo mogla da ima.
Poučene gorkim grčkim iskustvom, španske feministkinje nisu propustile da pošalju jasnu poruku svojom pandanu Sirize - Podemosu, da ne žele da se ove godine slična stvar ponovi i na predstojećim opštim izborima u Španiji, zemlji koja ima zaista impresivnu feminističku i istoriju i scenu koje decidno poručuju: “Revolucija će biti ili feministička ili je neće biti!” To zapravo znači da ukoliko stvarno želimo korijenitu promjenu postojećeg, moramo biti spremni da iskoračimo iz bezbjedne zone i konačno smognemo snage da između sigurnosti i slobode ovaj put odaberemo drugačije. I shvatimo da ne možemo  biti “slobodni” na račun drugih, odnosno da nema slobode ukoliko sloboda nekih znači potčinjenost i eksploatisanost drugih.
Feminizam izrasta iz potrebe za pravednijim društvom, društvom u kome rod nije vrijednosna kategorija, međuljudski odnosi nisu zasnovani na dominaciji, a zajedništvo na dijeljenom identitetu. Dosadašnje revolucije su nas iznevjerile ne mijenjajući prirodu moći već samo njene titulare. Žene su učestvovale u njima da bi u periodima konsolidacije (novog) poretka, uz promjenljivu sreću, bivale ponovo vraćane u patrijarhalne zabrane. Feminističke paradigme emancipacije, jednakosti i solidarnosti stoga se pokazuju sve potrebnijim i hitnijim u svijetu i vremenu u kojem živimo balansirajući na ivici globalnog sukoba. 
Vraćamo se pitanju: Da li je moguća nenasilna revolucija, ona koja, za promjenu, neće pojesti svoju djecu? U pseudo-postideološkom dobu ideologija nam ne fali, samo nam treba ona koja nas ne može pretvoriti u koljače. Mir je, na kraju krajeva, mnogo revolucionarniji koncept od rata. To je revolucija koju sanja i vodi feminizam.
Nema dakle mjesta euforiji - Sirizinom pobjedom revolucija se nije desila. Nema mjesta niti dvojbi - neće se ni desiti dok njen subjekt ne bude istinski univerzalan, a neće biti istinski univerzalan dok god se pod čovjekom bude poslovično podrazumijevao muškarac. Ma koliko gromoglasan, izgleda da glas iz kolijevke ipak nije bio tako dramatično nov.


PAULA PETRIČEVIĆ
KONTRA(PER)CEPCIJA                      

http://www.vijesti.me/forum/revolucija-bez-zena-817448

naknadno sam proverio da vlada ima 7 ministarstava, dakle zamenice su u svakom ministarstvu + predsednica skupstine. treba napomenuti i da je u grckoj prilicno zastupljeno ono "moze zenama sve isto kad nauce da piske stojecki"

Pa to treba zene sa zenama da se dogovore. Posto sam ja jedno mali milion puta iz zenskih usta cuo: "Ma gde zensko da vodi drzavu". I od neukih, i od diplomiranih. Iz muskih usta nijednom. 
Od muskaraca to jedino za vojsku redovno cujem, i tu nema spora. Zene nemaju psihofizicke predispozicije za prvu liniju borbe.


Samo ne razumem zasto jebu konzervativce za tu polnu diskriminaciju u politici. Zena politickih vodja medju konzervativcima ima koliko hoces. U Srbiji konzerve vodi zena. U Hrvatskoj zena. U Francuskoj zena.

Vertere, žene mogu itekako promovisati patrijarhat, i mnoge to neretko i čine. To što si čuo iz "ženskih usta" je zakletva na vernost i obećanje da se neće praviti problemi patrijarhalnom sistemu - ja sam dobra, nisam ja od onih ludih feministkinja.

Zauzvrat, kao i svaki konzervativni sistem, patrijarhat deli benefite poslušnima - sigurnost, status, itd.

Uporedi sa gejevima koji naglašavaju kako "nisu od onih koji bi da paradiraju", itd. To je signal - pustite me na miru, poslušan sam, prihvatam status quo, ne ugrožavam postojeću raspodelu moći.

William Murderface wrote:Vertere, žene mogu itekako promovisati patrijarhat, i mnoge to neretko i čine. To što si čuo iz "ženskih usta" je zakletva na vernost i obećanje da se neće praviti problemi patrijarhalnom sistemu - ja sam dobra, nisam ja od onih ludih feministkinja.

Zauzvrat, kao i svaki konzervativni sistem, patrijarhat deli benefite poslušnima - sigurnost, status, itd.

Uporedi sa gejevima koji naglašavaju kako "nisu od onih koji bi da paradiraju", itd. To je signal - pustite me na miru, poslušan sam, prihvatam status quo, ne ugrožavam postojeću raspodelu moći.

Dobro, ja to ipak ne bih uporedio sa gejevima, jer gejevi to cine iz straha i nesigurnosti, u zelji da se umile vecini. A zene su u ovakvim stavovima izrazito autenticne i ratoborne. Vi feministkinje bi to nazvali internalizovanom mizoginijom, ja to zovem zenska zavist.

syme feministkinja 

Ne postoji nikakva "ženska i muška zavist", ali nesumnjivo postoji zavist kojom patijarhat manipuliše u svoje svrhe. Objašnjenje koje se poziva i na zavist kao jednu od motivacija za takvo ponašanje, ne eliminiše objašnjenje koje se poziva na funkcionisanje patrijarhalnog sistema. Zavist je snažna emocija kojom sve ideologija manipulišu u sopstvenu korist. To što će, npr, neki sa platom od 25 hiljada podržati Vučića jer ga je šuknuo onim parazitima iz prosvete koji se bahate sa celih 40000, takođe proističe iz zavisti, ali ne menja ništa na činjenici da neoliberalizam, kapitalizam, ili kako se već zove ovo što živimo, manipuliše tim osećanjem da bi sprečio uspostavljanje solidarnosti i zajedničke političke akcije obespravljenih i potlačenih.

A ako misliš da se žene u patrijarhatu ne drže u strahu, razmisli ponovo o svim načinima na koji se žene kažnjavaju kad izađu iz niše koje im patrijarhat određuje - ismevanjem, pretnjama, ostrahizacijom, a neretko i nasiljem. Šta je drugo čuvena rečenica "izazivala je", "sama je kriva", itd, do zapravo ponovljena komanda - women, know your limits!

E, Vertere, o ovome ti pričam:

Gusztav Vege wrote:zene na poslu polemisu da li momci imaju pravo da udaraju svoje devojke (naravno, samo ako zasluze i ako se ponasaju nenormalno).
pascu u depresiju od rana jutra

Women, know your limits!

pratite?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/feb/05/greece-germany-debt-talks-ecb-collateral-rules-live

Jednim okom.

Varoufakis: Europe has reached a crossroads

Europe is at a crossroads, Varoufakis says -- it must find a way to maintain its rules without crushing the flower of democracy with statements like “Elections do not change anything.”

dobar je votdafakis. ukoliko je siriza ruski trojanski konj neka daju jos nekog.

imam osecaj da sada vucic negde tiho place.

Divni Štiglic, sve jasno, ko za dete u OŠ 

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/greece-eurozone-austerity-reform-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2015-02

Ovo je Vatafakisov plan, je l tako?

When companies go bankrupt, a debt-equity swap is a fair and efficient solution. The analogous approach for Greece is to convert its current bonds into GDP-linked bonds. If Greece does well, its creditors will receive more of their money; if it does not, they will get less. Both sides would then have a powerful incentive to pursue pro-growth policies.

to bi bilo to.

aj sad objasnite i meni sta bi bilo sta. Vatafakis namerno odvlaci Grcku u bankrot?

burkholderia mallei wrote:syme feministkinja 

A pazi, ja mislim da se sve ovo Sima samo zeza da bi ispao jedan dzentlmen pred forumskim curama. A privatno sam siguran da se kod njega u kuci zna red. 

Is there a danger that Greece will default? And why didn’t you come to Germany earlier, Mr Varoufakis?
Varoufakis: We shall endeavour to do everything in our power to avoid a default. I’m sure that, with our partners, we can put this D-word out of court.
Why didn’t we deliberate with our German partners? We haven’t even been sworn in yet, we haven’t put our programme before parliament.
These are early days, but I’m sure that our policies will help to solidify Europe and provide a solution.
But why weren’t you here earlier in the week?
I’m here now, Varoufakis replies, waving his hands in the air. I’m not missing anyone out.

Verterdegete wrote:

burkholderia mallei wrote:syme feministkinja 

A pazi, ja mislim da se sve ovo Sima samo zeza da bi ispao jedan dzentlmen pred forumskim curama. A privatno sam siguran da se kod njega u kuci zna red. 

Izvini, Vertere, ali glupa ti fora. I prati pregovore, bre!

William Murderface wrote:

Varoufakis: Europe has reached a crossroads

Europe is at a crossroads, Varoufakis says -- it must find a way to maintain its rules without crushing the flower of democracy with statements like “Elections do not change anything.”

haha, koga je ovde pwn-ovao bese nekog britanca ?

votafakisova saradnica, umetnica, dizajnerka dana stratu

In 2005/6, Varoufakis travelled extensively with artist Danae Stratou along seven dividing lines around the world (in Palestine, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Kosovo, Belfast, Cyprus, Kashmir and the US-Mexico border). Stratou produced the installation CUT: 7 dividing lines, while Varoufakis wrote texts that then became a political-economic account of these divisions, entitled The Globalizing Wall. In 2010 Stratou and Varoufakis founded the project Vital Space

It's Time To Open The Black Boxes - Yanis Varoufakis

http://www.danaestratou.com/references/texts/english/its-time-open-black-boxes-yanis-varoufakis

 

IT'S TIME TO OPEN THE BLACK BOXES!

Ignorance can, and often is, the price we must pay to live better. I do not need to know how my phone works to benefit from it. All I want is that when I dial Danae’s number it is Danae’s phone that rings. How the machines involved, both the individual phone and the network, achieve this is neither here nor there. Indeed, if I invested time and mental energy in understanding what exactly goes on in the various devices surrounding me, I would have to do without other types of understanding that I value a great deal more.
In engineering terms, I have just stated that, to me (as to most people), my phone is a black box: a device or system whose inner workings are opaque and whose only function I understand is how it turns inputs (e.g. my dialling a certain number) into outcomes (Danae’s phone ringing). Come to think of it, my wife’s mind is also, to my own mind, a black box: even if I were a leading neuroscientist, I would be utterly in the dark on the electro-chemical process that led her to put together this installation. Moreover, possibly because I know it to be an impossible task, I harbour no ambition to understanding truly this particular electro-chemical process. 
From this perspective, we are surrounded by black boxes. However, not all black boxes are as benign as my phone. Besides phones and humans, companies and states can also be seen as super black boxes. No CEO, let alone a more lowly manager, can ever get the full picture of how each and every decision is reached within his company. Bankers never truly understood the contents of the CDOs and the array of toxic derivatives their banks were churning out (and then hoarding to boot) as if there was no tomorrow. Taking matters onto a higher level, consider the example of the United States. More often than not the State Department, the White House, the relevant Senate Committees operate without much coordination with one another, yet manage to produce policies that the rest of the world recognises as… US ‘government’ policy.
The difference between these black boxes (CDOs, corporations, banks, government) from my humble phone is encapsulated in a single word: power. Not the type of power associated with electricity or the crushing force of the ocean but another, subtler, power: the power to write the agenda, to determine the conversation, to implant desires into our soul, to channel the flow of information along the existing grid of social power, to draw us into the network that determines how our society works and, alas, fails.
In 2008, our world descended in the cauldron of multiple, persistent, spectacular failures of the various power ‘networks’. Europe proved the weaker link and, within it, Greece the weakest. However, even before any of that transpired, our planet had entered an irreversible trajectory towards environmental degradation. With this multilayered Crisis upon us (its economic and environmental facets being the main but not only ones), and given the high concentration of power, it is almost tempting to attribute it to some sick conspiracy among the powerful. Images spring to mind of smoke filled rooms, with heavy furniture and cunning men (plus the odd woman) planning how they shall profit at the expense of the common good. These are, of course, delusions. If our sharply diminished circumstances are to be blamed on a conspiracy, then it is one whose conspirators do not even know that they are part of a conspiracy. That which feels to many like a conspiracy of the powerful is the emergent property of closed networks, of the super black boxes of social power.
Super black boxes take many different forms but, in essence, they are similar: Whenever a politician in the know gives a journalist an exclusive in exchange for a particular spin on the goings on, the said journalist is appended, subconsciously, to a network of insiders. Networks of social power thus control the flow of information in a manner that excludes, co-opts and guides its individual members. They evolve organically, as if under their own steam, and guided by a supra-intentional drive that no individuals, not even the President, the CEO, the persons manning the pivotal nodes, can control.
The key to power networks is exclusion, opacity. If some bank’s employee comes by inside information that is potentially damaging to the bank, whistle blowing, e.g. leaking it to the press, will immediately dissipate her chance at keeping some ‘power’ to herself. But, if she exchanges that ‘secret’ with private information held by some other cog in the machine of finance, then the power of this spontaneously generated pair is multiplied many-fold. This two person de facto conspiracy then forms alliances, via further information exchanges, with other such groups. The result is a network of power within other pre-existing networks involving participants who conspire de facto without being conscious, conspirators. Fascinatingly, some network members, the ones that are only loosely attached to the network, are utterly oblivious of the network that they reinforce (courtesy of having very few contacts with it).
Conceived of as ‘networks of power’, as ‘conspiracies without conspirators’, the powers-that-be with the power to control our lives (the state, corporations, the media, banks, organised pressure groups etc.) are nothing more than a pile of super black boxes: No one understands how they function, not even the individuals at their helm. Yet they are the ones that convert all of our inputs into social, economic and environmental outcomes. Crucially, unlike our phones (that we may legitimately not give a damn to understand; to open up and inspect their inner workings), opening these super-black boxes has now become a prerequisite to the survival of decency, of whole strata of our fellow humans, of our planet even. Put simply, we have run out of excuses. IT IS, therefore, TIME TO OPEN THE BLACK BOXES!
Why now? Why at all? Which boxes should we open? We need to open the black boxes now because 2008 was our generation’s 1929. Moreover, the past decade has seen the effective brewing of an environmental Armageddon. Unlike my phone that works perfectly, and which I have no cause to open up, our global social economy is broken. And so is our planet’s environment. The super black boxes that have been running the show since the 1970s are kaput. No longer able to auto-correct, powerless to reproduce conditions for decent living, these super black boxes must either be opened up or they will consume us, and the generations to come, into some dystopic black hole.
How should we do it? First, we need to acquire a readiness to recognise that we may very well, each one of us, be a node in the network; an ignorant de factoconspirator. Secondly, and this is the genius of Wikileaks, if we can get inside the network, like Theseus entering the Labyrinth, and disrupt the information flow; if we can put the fear of uncontrollable information leaking in the mind of as many of its members as possible, then the unaccountable, malfunctioning networks of power will collapse under their own weight and irrelevance. And then humanity will get another chance to organise an escape from its current cul de sac. Thirdly, by desisting any tendency to substitute old closed networks with new ones.
None of this will be easy. The networks will respond violently, as they are already doing. They will turn more authoritarian, more closed, more fragmented. But this is OK. They will, no doubt, close up and fragment in order to stop the ‘break-ins’. They will expend greater effort at hindering the opening of their black boxes. They will become increasingly preoccupied with their own ‘security’ and monopoly of information, less trusting of common people. However, the more they move in this direction the more seriously they shall deplete their capacity to attract and centralise that which makes them tick: fresh, untainted, plentiful information from people that have not yet been co-opted.
None of this is, of course, new. In his fabled The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, an early exemplar amongst the advisers to the powers-that-be, advised his Prince  never to allow the popolo a glimpse of what evils were brewing inside the black boxes of his time.[i] His was, admittedly, a more innocent time when it was still excusable to think that centralised  power and information would smoothen humanity’s passage to the good society. Tragically, the tide has gone out on such optimism. State-controlled centralisation got its comeuppance with communism’s collapse in 1991, a turn of events that saw the multiplication and reinforcement of the ‘other’ side’s black boxes, with the Crash of 2008 being the natural conclusion of such hubris. Today, amidst the pessimism of our post-2008, to quote Slavoj Zizek, “we face the shameless cynicism of a global order whose agents only imagine that they believe in their ideas of democracy, human rights and so on. Through actions like the WikiLeaks disclosures,[ii] the shame – our shame for tolerating such power over us – is made more shameful by being publicised.”
Danae Stratou’s new installation goes one step beyond shaming and exposing. It turns the black boxes into art objects that simultaneously encapsulate our angst and hopes, our helplessness and our capacities, our inhuman constraints and human capabilities. Her opened boxes act as a subversive incitement not only to counter our fears and the powers-that-be at once but, additionally, to fashion ideas of new forms of shared power and prosperity.
Yanis Varoufakis

It's Time to Open The Black Boxes! 2 in 1 from Danae Stratou on Vimeo.