analysis indicates that 1 in every 2 athens stationed cops voted for nazi party

[Sasha]

1 in 2 police members voted Nazi in last week’s elections
Friday, May 11, 2012

Original source (Greek mainstream media)

In Greece, serving police force members vote in specially assigned polling stations (regardless of their area of residence), together with the local population of those stations. Last Sunday in Athens, 5.000 serving police voted in 11 such specially assigned polling stations. In these precise stations, the Nazis of the Golden Dawn received between 19% and 24% of the total vote. The police who voted there serve in all agencies including DIAS, the undercover police force and others. Only a few meters down the road, in neighbouring stations, the percentage of Golden Dawn dropped to approximately 12-14%. Given that there are approximately 550-700 people voting at each of these stations, and also given that 20-30% of them are police, it can be calculate, with considerable certainty, that the percentage of police who voted for Golden Dawn ranges between 45% and 59%.


Source: http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/2012/05/11/1-in-2-police-members-voted-nazi-in-last-weeks-elections/

Batsoi, Gourounia, Dolofonoi!

[ВАЛТЕР]

Surprise surprise...

So this goes to further prove that "the people" aren't the ones wanting radical right-wing change, but rather the ruling class and their servants. I'm sure that a large portion of the military also voted for GD, or another right-wing party at least. Never bite the hand that feeds you. The cops and soldiers have nothing to lose from a right-wing government, and a lot to gain.

[Left Leanings]

Nazis and police - a marriage made in Hell :D :star:

[cynicles]

I guess piggies always end up returning to their pen to roll around with the filth!

[Sasha]

They co-operate now even more openly than ever before:
http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/2012/05/11/may-9-police-and-nazis-in-joint-operation-against-migrant-traders-and-anarchists-in-central-athens-in-broad-daylight/

[Vninect]

Source: http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/2012/05/11/1-in-2-police-members-voted-nazi-in-last-weeks-elections/

Batsoi, Gourounia, Dolofonoi!

Woah, woah. That looks like some bullshit probability maths... And, in fact, the normal maths seem to be off as well...

Especially:
- 5.000 serving police
- 11 polling stations (so that would be approx. 450 officers per station?)
- 550-700 people voting at each of these stations (maybe a source..?)
- given 20-30% of them are police (orly?)
- percentage of police who voted for Golden Dawn ranges between 45% and 59%. (let's see how this is calculated for chance? only a 10% margin for 5000 people in 11 stations in Athens?? hmmmmm.)

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Thank you for posting this, psycho 'cause I forgot to. :D It does not surprise me at all, as cops and GD were always a lovely couple of breaking demonstrations and stuff. Not to seperate the fact that all Golden Dawn members are dreaming to become cops.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yes, thanks for the post. Cops and fascists? Go figure. They go together like Hope and Crosby.

[Ocean Seal]

Know your enemy, know yourself.

[Art Vandelay]

Fascism welcome to Greece in 3...2...1....

[Luís Henrique]

Woah, woah. That looks like some bullshit probability maths... And, in fact, the normal maths seem to be off as well...

Especially:
- 5.000 serving police
- 11 polling stations (so that would be approx. 450 officers per station?)
- 550-700 people voting at each of these stations (maybe a source..?)
- given 20-30% of them are police (orly?)
- percentage of police who voted for Golden Dawn ranges between 45% and 59%. (let's see how this is calculated for chance? only a 10% margin for 5000 people in 11 stations in Athens?? hmmmmm.)

Supposing that all their information is correct (their original source is in Greek, so I am unhappily unable to read it), and supposing that the demographics of these polling stations are exactly similar to the neighbouring stations (but perhaps they aren't), then it can be concluded that between 30% and 75% of the policemen voting in such polling stations voted for Golden Dawn. If so, it is a huge percentage, and quite worrying.

But the vote in the neighbouring polling stations (at 12% for Golden Dawn) is already abnormal; Golden Dawn made (slightly less than) 7% of the vote nationally. So Athens disproportionately voted for these fashos. Plus, only three years ago, Golden Dawn got a miserable 0.29% of the vote; that change cannot be explained by the police votes (how much of the police vote did they get in 2009? An abnormally high 2%, 5%?).

I think it is obvious, not from the vote, but from street action, that there is an increasing collusion between Golden Dawn and the Greek police (at least, Athens police; at the very least, Athens' anti-riot police), and that is extremely serious and worrisome.

Two traditional temptations, that leftists love falling into, should be avoided: 1) the thought that police voting fascist is "normal"; it isn't, and when the police actually goes fascist, the prospects for avoiding a fascist dictatorship are dim; and 2) the idea that everything is doomed if the police is voting fascist; it certainly isn't a good sign, but resistance is still possible, as long as we manage to understand what is happening, and why.

According to the Greek public polling company Public Issue, Golden Dawn got 22% of first time voters (most police officers, I suppose, aren't first time voters), and 14% of voters between 18 and 24 years old (again, I doubt Greek police force is particularly young). They got 12% of votes among students (!), and while I certainly believe there is some police infiltration in Greek colleges and schools, I doubt it can account for such a showing.

The problem is that Greece's political scene is in a trend of fast radicalisation, that Golden Dawn provided an option for those who oppose the bailout but don't like the left, and that it was able to aptly conceal its own collusion with austerity forces (darnit, they glue pro-April 21st posters to the walls, and the April 21st coup was responsible for a very much pro-foreign capital dictatorship; they cooperate with the police in the repression of anti-austerity demonstrations... and they get anti-austerity votes).

Luís Henrique

[sphlanx]

Supposing that all their information is correct (their original source is in Greek, so I am unhappily unable to read it), and supposing that the demographics of these polling stations are exactly similar to the neighbouring stations (but perhaps they aren't), then it can be concluded that between 30% and 75% of the policemen voting in such polling stations voted for Golden Dawn. If so, it is a huge percentage, and quite worrying.

But the vote in the neighbouring polling stations (at 12% for Golden Dawn) is already abnormal; Golden Dawn made (slightly less than) 7% of the vote nationally. So Athens disproportionately voted for these fashos. Plus, only three years ago, Golden Dawn got a miserable 0.29% of the vote; that change cannot be explained by the police votes (how much of the police vote did they get in 2009? An abnormally high 2%, 5%?).

I think it is obvious, not from the vote, but from street action, that there is an increasing collusion between Golden Dawn and the Greek police (at least, Athens police; at the very least, Athens' anti-riot police), and that is extremely serious and worrisome.

Two traditional temptations, that leftists love falling into, should be avoided: 1) the thought that police voting fascist is "normal"; it isn't, and when the police actually goes fascist, the prospects for avoiding a fascist dictatorship are dim; and 2) the idea that everything is doomed if the police is voting fascist; it certainly isn't a good sign, but resistance is still possible, as long as we manage to understand what is happening, and why.

According to the Greek public polling company Public Issue, Golden Dawn got 22% of first time voters (most police officers, I suppose, aren't first time voters), and 14% of voters between 18 and 24 years old (again, I doubt Greek police force is particularly young). They got 12% of votes among students (!), and while I certainly believe there is some police infiltration in Greek colleges and schools, I doubt it can account for such a showing.

The problem is that Greece's political scene is in a trend of fast radicalisation, that Golden Dawn provided an option for those who oppose the bailout but don't like the left, and that it was able to aptly conceal its own collusion with austerity forces (darnit, they glue pro-April 21st posters to the walls, and the April 21st coup was responsible for a very much pro-foreign capital dictatorship; they cooperate with the police in the repression of anti-austerity demonstrations... and they get anti-austerity votes).

Luís Henrique

Luis your observations are remarkably correct. Only one correction:

Most cops in Greece are quite young, especially riot police and motorized patrols ("special guards" low ranking police ). In the last 3 years more than 15.000 young cops with only high-school degree were employed.

[A Marxist Historian]

...
Two traditional temptations, that leftists love falling into, should be avoided: 1) the thought that police voting fascist is "normal"; it isn't, and when the police actually goes fascist, the prospects for avoiding a fascist dictatorship are dim; and 2) the idea that everything is doomed if the police is voting fascist; it certainly isn't a good sign, but resistance is still possible, as long as we manage to understand what is happening, and why...

Luís Henrique

Police sympathy for fascism is normal, ubiquitous and universal. Usually this doesn't take the form of cops voting for fascist parties, but that is only because usually fascist parties are insignificant, and cops don't want to throw their votes away on parties that can't get elected any more than anyone else does.

Certainly in the USA is is notorious that virtually all police departments, especially but far from only in the South, are infested with fascist sympathizers. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan in the south was pretty much always local police departments after dark, and I don't think that has really changed that much lately, judging by the performance of the New Orleans police during Katrina.

Thinking that police support for fascism means fascism is here is absolutely false. The police are not all powerful, never have been and never will be. In fact, that is exactly why capitalists back fascism in moments of social crisis. No police force can truly contain an angry, rebellious working class, they are simply vastly outnumbered.

To impose fascism, a reactionary mass movement is required. Such as Golden Dawn.

-M.H.-

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Funny. I stumbled upon this thread shortly after I finished explaining to a friend why cops should be kept out of the worker's movement. At the time, I had used the German state as an example. Now I can refer to Greece.

[Vninect]

The problem is that Greece's political scene is in a trend of fast radicalisation, that Golden Dawn provided an option for those who oppose the bailout but don't like the left, and that it was able to aptly conceal its own collusion with austerity forces
Your estimates are looking better, though I hope someone can provide some mathematical basis to the numbers. Like a p<0.05 type thing... Anyway, it's not that important: we can look at the videos, and see that the police doesn't mind the GD violence. We can look at trends in history, and predict that an increased number of police will side with fascists. We can make of that what we will... And I agree with what you are saying for the most part.

There is certainly radicalisation. I think Greece is really in a desperate mess; masses of people struggling; unemployment through the roof; all that depressing stuff. Suicides have gone up by 40%. So people are looking for answers. But I don't think that GD is simply the alternative for "the left". There is a very long list of candidates to choose from. With plenty shades of left, I think. Antarsya certainly should score high for parties against bailout, yet not the usual "left". I don't think extremist right is the only alternative when you feel pasok (posing as "left") let you down. In fact, there is no such polarity, not really. The right is neoliberals sometimes; nationalist fascists other times; and libertarians for the next person. The left also has plenty (and sometimes overlapping with rightist) shades. The question is: why do they pick GD out of all options? What is specific about their nationalist-fascist programme that apparently clicks with voters?

I think it is the simplicity of their message: mainly the scapegoating that we saw in the previous big crisis. I also think it is their presence: these food baskets they are handing out and the intimidations, which are apparently appreciated. And perhaps, with Greece's complex history, they awake some fascist sympathies/nostalgia from the past. But it is not the logical alternative to a failed left: that is a problem unto its own.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not surprised that the pigs are voting for the GD in Greece's increasingly polarizing and radicalizing times.

Although I'll remain neutral on the issue of the Greek military. Perhaps the long-term careerists, but if Greece has conscription than I don't believe every/many conscripts (and even some of the enlistees, in the US many people enlist for the short-term primarily for economic benefits) are fascist sympathizers (unless you show evidence).'

What interests me though is, has collusion between GD and the police been a frequent thing?

[Sasha]

What interests me though is, has collusion between GD and the police been a frequent thing?


very frequent: http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/?s=golden+dawn&searchsubmit=Find

[Luís Henrique]

But I don't think that GD is simply the alternative for "the left". There is a very long list of candidates to choose from. With plenty shades of left, I think. Antarsya certainly should score high for parties against bailout, yet not the usual "left". I don't think extremist right is the only alternative when you feel pasok (posing as "left") let you down.

No, when I say people who don't like the left I don't mean people who dislike PASOK. I mean people who dislike equality, who dislike freedom, who would have more censorship, who think immigrants are a problem, who think the poor deserve their lot, etc. I mean people who would ordinarily vote for New Democracy in Greece, Sarkozy in France, etc. And I mean people like that who are also deep in trouble with the suffocation of Greek economy by IMF/EU impositions, and need to vote against the bailout but would never vote KKE or SYRIZA, or DIMAR. True, those people could have voted for ANEL, but then ANEL was recently (perhaps too much recently) part of ND, so perhaps it doesn't look too credible (10% of people who voted ND in 2009, according to Public Issue, now voted for GD). And I also mean people who used to vote for the semi-fasho populists of LAOS, but now can no longer do that, as LAOS has supported the bailout (according to the same source, 18% of people who voted LAOS in 2009 voted GD in May 2012).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What interests me though is, has collusion between GD and the police been a frequent thing?

More than frequent, it actually seems to be systematic.

Luís Henrique

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Source: http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/2012/05/11/1-in-2-police-members-voted-nazi-in-last-weeks-elections/

Batsoi, Gourounia, Dolofonoi!

I wouldn't really say the Golden Dawn are exactly like Nazis, they are more closely related to the Italian school of Fascism as far as I know. Also the political situation in Greece is dire, with the failure of capitalism being evermore prevelant. In these kind of situations ideolgies with their core being radicalism (including leftists) will rise given that the people are going to want answers to their problems. This situation may also unfortunatley erupt in even more civil unrest, just like the years following World War II if Greece leaves the Euro and everything hits the fan.

[MarxSchmarx]

Your estimates are looking better, though I hope someone can provide some mathematical basis to the numbers. Like a p<0.05 type thing...


Here's something of a mathematical basis.

First, it seems this is based on a census of athens polling stations where a cop-non-cop comparison is possible (that seems to control for geography, e.g.), so as to the p < 0.05, if the percentage of golden dawn votes in neighboring places did not exceed 14% and the percentage where cops voted didn't go below 19%, then p=0 which is much lower than 0.05. If there were a handful of athens polling stations where it exceeded 19% but where cops weren't involved we can quantify that, but it seems the article didn't look at that. So, all else being equal, the only difference between these polling stations was the presence/absence of cops. Hence, with the data provided, p = 0.

But here's how your original argument breaks down looking at it just in terms of numbers. Let's just work with medians (so assume everything averages out, that the data aren't skewed):

Let's say golden dawn receives 13% of the vote from non-cops, and that 75% of voters in these special polling stations are non-cops (this much follows from the article). Then, in a typical special polling station, there are about 469 non-cops to 156 cops. Assuming 13% of the 469 non-cops vote for Golden Dawn, golden dawn gets about 61 votes from the non-cops. Now, in order for golden dawn to get about 21,5 % of the vote in these polling stations, it would have to get 134 votes, of which 61 are from non cops. That leaves 73 votes, presumably from cops. Cops make up 25% of the voters in these polling stations (156 cops), so 73/156 = 0,47 or 47%. Now that's still insanely high, yeah, about 1 in 2 absolutely, but the corresponding statistic in the article is 52%. So while it's indicative that the 45-59% of argument must be based on something we don't know (namely, the relative distribution of cops to everyone else within those polling stations and the relative distribution of voters among polling stations), the figure is about right even if one just looks at it crudely as you were originally suggesting.

So I agree there must be some skew in the data that isn't accounted for here, because one would expect 52% based on the article's conclusion but arrives at 47%. But still, it's within the 45-59% range even if the calculations are done as crudely as I've done them here.






Anyway, it's not that important: we can look at the videos, and see that the police doesn't mind the GD violence. We can look at trends in history, and predict that an increased number of police will side with fascists.
I agree. It's like saying precipitation during the rainy season was statistically greater than precipitation during the dry season.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Like clockwork, the petite-bourgeois repeatedly turn to Fascism when they see their privilege is threatened by class conflict (which they misunderstand as simple national instability). We were told again and again in school that the western world would never again see Fascism, and that it was a dead idea. Funny how that worked out. Gold Dawn and the French National Front are rising.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Also, I'm pretty sure Golden Dawn do not identify as Nazis, although there are no meaningful differences between the two sorts' political philosophies.

[Vninect]

Here's something of a mathematical basis.

First, it seems this is based on a census of athens polling stations where a cop-non-cop comparison is possible (that seems to control for geography, e.g.), so as to the p < 0.05, if the percentage of golden dawn votes in neighboring places did not exceed 14% and the percentage where cops voted didn't go below 19%, then p=0 which is much lower than 0.05. If there were a handful of athens polling stations where it exceeded 19% but where cops weren't involved we can quantify that, but it seems the article didn't look at that. So, all else being equal, the only difference between these polling stations was the presence/absence of cops. Hence, with the data provided, p = 0.

[...]

So I agree there must be some skew in the data that isn't accounted for here, because one would expect 52% based on the article's conclusion but arrives at 47%. But still, it's within the 45-59% range even if the calculations are done as crudely as I've done them here.

I appreciate the calculation, but the exact problem is that we don't know if this is an abnormality that cannot be attributed to chance: we don't have the statistics from the other polling stations. It may be a spike caused largely by chance, with just a slight bump of police officers (there will definitely be a bump, but not a 1 in 2 bump). p does not equal 0. That's the problem.That's why I think their range is too small and probably too high. But I guess we can't reproduce it based on the statistics given.

By the way: did you notice another thing: There are 5000 police for 11 stations; and at each station a maximum of 700 people vote: If police officers vote with the same frequency of the rest of the people (i.e. 65%), we'd expect to see an average of about 300 officers per booth, which is 42% at the busiest station (and even higher for the smaller ones), rather than anywhere near the 20-30% range. These convenient statistical errors make me unhappy. More so because the conclusion it leads to suggests that we must regard police officers as deeply, deeply disturbed and fundamentally intolerable human beings, just because they have a certain job. I've never seen people be defined by their job to such an extent in any other area. That's some scary poop. And I'm not willing to adjust my views based on such flimsy statistical evidence.

ETA: Just cos maths are fun, let's go back to assuming p = 0 (which is nonsense). Then at the busiest station, there are probably no fewer than 300 cops against 400 non-cops. The non-cops contribute (400*0.12=) 48 votes to GD, if they vote on the low end (12%: and again, this is a question of probability). GD needs (700*0.2367=) 165.69 votes to get to 23.67% (which was the highest result, though not necessarily at the largest station, so again I'm bending over backwards): This means of the 300 cops, 117.69 must vote GD, which is 39.23%. And this is in the busiest station, where cops are the smallest group. The only things I may have wrongly assumed is that 65% of cops vote, just like the rest of Greece, and that they do actually vote at these designated stations.

[MarxSchmarx]

I appreciate the calculation, but the exact problem is that we don't know if this is an abnormality that cannot be attributed to chance: we don't have the statistics from the other polling stations. It may be a spike caused largely by chance, with just a slight bump of police officers (there will definitely be a bump, but not a 1 in 2 bump). p does not equal 0. That's the problem.That's why I think their range is too small and probably too high. But I guess we can't reproduce it based on the statistics given.

By the way: did you notice another thing: There are 5000 police for 11 stations; and at each station a maximum of 700 people vote: If police officers vote with the same frequency of the rest of the people (i.e. 65%), we'd expect to see an average of about 300 officers per booth, which is 42% at the busiest station (and even higher for the smaller ones), rather than anywhere near the 20-30% range. These convenient statistical errors make me unhappy. More so because the conclusion it leads to suggests that we must regard police officers as deeply, deeply disturbed and fundamentally intolerable human beings, just because they have a certain job. I've never seen people be defined by their job to such an extent in any other area. That's some scary poop. And I'm not willing to adjust my views based on such flimsy statistical evidence.

ETA: Just cos maths are fun, let's go back to assuming p = 0 (which is nonsense). Then at the busiest station, there are probably no fewer than 300 cops against 400 non-cops. The non-cops contribute (400*0.12=) 48 votes to GD, if they vote on the low end (12%: and again, this is a question of probability). GD needs (700*0.2367=) 165.69 votes to get to 23.67% (which was the highest result, though not necessarily at the largest station, so again I'm bending over backwards): This means of the 300 cops, 117.69 must vote GD, which is 39.23%. And this is in the busiest station, where cops are the smallest group. The only things I may have wrongly assumed is that 65% of cops vote, just like the rest of Greece, and that they do actually vote at these designated stations.

First off, your 300:400 ratio can't be right. If the percentage of cops is no higher than 30% at these stations, at most there are 210 cops in a station of 700 voters.Second, where is the 24% from? Why would the votes for golden dawn are above the mean ((19+24)*0.5 = 21.5), so I'm not sure where the .2367, which is closer to the maximum golden dawn range comes from; just because it is the largest polling station doesn't mean the vote would be skewed toward the largest share of golden dawn. Assuming that the golden dawn got the average number of votes in such polling stations of the 700 (21,5%), which is about 150 votes, so if 12% of non-cops vote for golden dawn, since there are (.7*700*.12)=59 and so that means 91 cops voted for golden dawn and 91/210 is about 43% which is still higher than 39%. If golden dawn got the mean number of non-cop votes instead of it being on the low end, then this ratio is down to 41%.

But, without more, I wouldn't be surprised if this is where using averages gets one in trouble when thinking about the extreme case (i.e., the polling place with 700 voters). There are several other combinations of figures that get you above 45% quite readily in this example (e.g., .7*700*.12=votes from noncops and 700*.24 = votes total, meaning 110 votes came from cops and 110/210 = 52%, OR if there were only 20% cops then .8*700*.12 come from non-cops, so out of 150 votes for golden dawn cops contribute 83, and .2*700=140 so 83/140 is greater than 50% too, etc...). That's why I think it's important to stick to the overall averages, because at the margins who knows whats going on, and without being privy to the greater details it isn't very useful to speculate. All we can do meaningfully with the admittedly limited info provided is run the numbers for the averages and come to our own conclusion that the answer (about one in two cops voted for golden dawn) seems about right. It could be that the statistics they provide are insufficient to measure the ranges, or that the range of the percentage of cops voting for golden dawn is much wider than the calculations in the article - which I agree seems to be the case. But since the averages appear to work out in drawing their conclusion, I'm not particularly devastated if they miscalculated the extremes, or are just not providing the pertinent information that allow one to calculate their 45-59% range.

Also, why is it nonesense that p=0? Perhaps we are thinking of two different things here - you might thinking of p as measuring the likelihood that we are wrong about the claim that "average % cops voting for golden dawn = average % non-cops voting for golden dawn." I was referring to p as measuring the likelihood that we are wrong about the hypothesis "average golden dawns %age of votes in cop stations = average golden dawns percentage of votes in regular stations". For the former, short of surveying individual voters we don't know so you'e right one can't claim p=0 or all that much else, but for the latter, because the range of % of votes across the two polling sites don't overlap at all, any calculation you do would give you a p=0 no matter what the distribution of % votes for golden dawn within the ranges provided. Now sure it could just be coincidence, the difference in polling sites could be due to some unseen/unmeasured factor (e.g., maybe it just so happened these polling places were painted pink while others were painted blue so they were less likely to get voters to vote for golden dawn), it doesn't mean cops caused the difference, but I would be surprised.

[Vninect]

First off, your 300:400 ratio can't be right. If the percentage of cops is no higher than 30% at these stations,
How did they get to that number? They seem to have pulled that out of thin air, unless they did a survey at the exit... Otherwise, it seems equally fair to assume as I did: that those 5000 police officers used the 11 stations to cast their votes. And then you do get the 300:400 ratio.


at most there are 210 cops in a station of 700 voters.Second, where is the 24% from? Why would the votes for golden dawn are above the mean ((19+24)*0.5 = 21.5), so I'm not sure where the .2367, which is closer to the maximum golden dawn range comes from;
I took the highest outcome from the original report to show that the cop percentage doesn't come over 40% if the 20-30% number is false.


just because it is the largest polling station doesn't mean the vote would be skewed toward the largest share of golden dawn.
Indeed, but the largest station (where cops are represented least if they spread uniformly across the 11 stations) combined with the highest GD vote should give the most hideous outcome for the cops. And it didn't come to 40%


Assuming that the golden dawn got the average number of votes in such polling stations of the 700 (21,5%), which is about 150 votes, so if 12% of non-cops vote for golden dawn, since there are (.7*700*.12)=59 and so that means 91 cops voted for golden dawn and 91/210 is about 43% which is still higher than 39%.
And lower than the numbers given by the original article.


If golden dawn got the mean number of non-cop votes instead of it being on the low end, then this ratio is down to 41%.
How did they get to 12-14% anyway??? Athens A got only 8.8 percent GD. And in Athens B, the percentage was even lower, with only one municipality getting a better GD vote at 9,4%. Accepting these lower numbers in the calculations wouldn't help my case, but I think it is indicative of tampering with the numbers in order to get a spectacular statistic.


[...] All we can do meaningfully with the admittedly limited info provided is run the numbers for the averages and come to our own conclusion that the answer (about one in two cops voted for golden dawn) seems about right. It could be that the statistics they provide are insufficient to measure the ranges, or that the range of the percentage of cops voting for golden dawn is much wider than the calculations in the article - which I agree seems to be the case. But since the averages appear to work out in drawing their conclusion, I'm not particularly devastated if they miscalculated the extremes, or are just not providing the pertinent information that allow one to calculate their 45-59% range.

Also, why is it nonesense that p=0? [...]
I agree that if we take their numbers, and we do some basic math on it, we get to the kind of numbers they conclude - and to somewhat the same range of uncertainty. The first problem I have is that I don't trust these averages. Where are they sourced? How did they get to 20-30% cops per voting station, when you should be expecting about 42-54%, based on their own numbers? (i.e. (5000*0.65/11)/700 to (5000*0.65/11)/550)

The second problem is that you have to take account of random distribution effects. That is, we have to take account of outliers and standard deviation and such. We can't do that because we don't have the data from the other stations. But I think if you would take that into account, the 45-59 range is too close to the standard maths, which we are doing, taking only averages. I think it should become much more fuzzy. If we demand a reasonable (95%?) probability that the actual percentage of cops voting for GD is within a certain range, I think you will get a much lower bound that is actually a lot closer to the countrywide average. That's quite technical, and unfortunately, I'm no mathematician, so I'm willing to accept I am completely wrong on this. But I feel in the article, I am looking at numbers that I could have produced with basic non-probability maths - which I strongly suspect is a problem.

[MarxSchmarx]

If we demand a reasonable (95%?) probability that the actual percentage of cops voting for GD is within a certain range, I think you will get a much lower bound that is actually a lot closer to the countrywide average. That's quite technical, and unfortunately, I'm no mathematician, so I'm willing to accept I am completely wrong on this. But I feel in the article, I am looking at numbers that I could have produced with basic non-probability maths - which I strongly suspect is a problem.

the point's well taken. I think you're right the article is likely an extrapolation that yields conclusions that seem pretty reasonable, but it's far from a rigorous study of police voting patterns. That doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong; moreover, as a first approximation, the article seems to be somewhere "in the ballpark". And, in fairness, neither you nor I are privy to the data sources this article used. but their conclusions do seem more suggestive of a trend than demonstrative, and absent any strong evidence to the contrary, I'm not really sure extreme skepticism is warranted. There are some things that seem incongruous (e.g., the lower vote of golden dawn in athens v. the rest of the country), sure, but we don't have any real basis except speculation that they didn't properly mind their ps and qs viz their data.

[A Marxist Historian]

Your estimates are looking better, though I hope someone can provide some mathematical basis to the numbers. Like a p<0.05 type thing... Anyway, it's not that important: we can look at the videos, and see that the police doesn't mind the GD violence. We can look at trends in history, and predict that an increased number of police will side with fascists. We can make of that what we will... And I agree with what you are saying for the most part.

There is certainly radicalisation. I think Greece is really in a desperate mess; masses of people struggling; unemployment through the roof; all that depressing stuff. Suicides have gone up by 40%. So people are looking for answers. But I don't think that GD is simply the alternative for "the left". There is a very long list of candidates to choose from. With plenty shades of left, I think. Antarsya certainly should score high for parties against bailout, yet not the usual "left". I don't think extremist right is the only alternative when you feel pasok (posing as "left") let you down. In fact, there is no such polarity, not really. The right is neoliberals sometimes; nationalist fascists other times; and libertarians for the next person. The left also has plenty (and sometimes overlapping with rightist) shades. The question is: why do they pick GD out of all options? What is specific about their nationalist-fascist programme that apparently clicks with voters?

I think it is the simplicity of their message: mainly the scapegoating that we saw in the previous big crisis. I also think it is their presence: these food baskets they are handing out and the intimidations, which are apparently appreciated. And perhaps, with Greece's complex history, they awake some fascist sympathies/nostalgia from the past. But it is not the logical alternative to a failed left: that is a problem unto its own.

What left alternative? Syriza calls for no austerity while staying in the EU, obviously impossible. KKE believes that Greece can make it on its own Keynesian style as a capitalist country outside the EU, equally impossible really. And Antarsya is a coalition of 5-6-7 different groups each of which has a different program, not to be taken seriously if you are looking for serious answers to a serious situation. If they found themselves in power somehow, they would instantly collapse into multi-sided factional warfare.

Golden Dawn has a simple desperate alternative--revive the Greek economy by killing all the immigrants and destroying all the unions. If you are a small businessman, this can sound plausible, and Greece is a land of small businesses.

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

Fascism, fascist, fasho, national socialism, Nazi, nazism, nazist, Golden Dawn

Golden Dawn seems more obviously (and superficially) fascist than, for instance, the French National Front. Their symbolism is quite obvious, they use fascist-style salute, their discourse is obviously racist, and they are street rioters like the original Fasci or the SA.

But is it fascist?

First, I think it is obvious that they are an instance of right-wing populism - and that fascism is, or fascisms are, always instances of right-wing populism. But Newt Ginrich or Ron Paul are right-wing populist, and they are not - at this moment, anyway - fascists in any really meaningful way (I would have no problems with insulting them as "fashos", but political analysis is a different issue).

Second, I think it is also obvious that Golden Dawn is way more dangerous than Ron Paul or Pat Robertson are, or could ever be within a "normal situation" (if the US was facing atm a similar situation to Greece, I wouldn't be so sure).

But then, as the people in Narchotics Anonyms say, "the worst drug is the one you are using" - and the worst political danger is the one we are facing, not an exact reenacting of Hitlerism, which is, for the moment, quite unlikely to make a reentry in the political scene. Of course, the worst political danger now, at an international level, is exactly Golden Dawn. We will have to understand it more in depth, for the better we understand it, the better we will be able to fight it back.

The first thing is, of course, that Golden Dawn's fascism, whether real or metaphoric, is not and can not be of the exact same nature as Italian or German (Nazi) fascisms: Italy and Germany in the 1920's and 30's were downtrodden imperialist powers; Greece in 2012 is nothing of the sort. Germany was militarily defeated by other imperialist powers in an outright war, and had humiliating peace conditions imposed onto it; Italy was part of the victorious imperialist coallition but was obviously dumped by its partners when it came to sharing the spoils. Greece in its turn is being destroyed by its very allies, not by war, but by a curious (or capitalist) kind of "peace".

Of course, Greece can be a small country with big delusions (which perhaps could be said of 1920's Italy, but not of 1930's Germany). But even if so, it cannot pose a similar threat to international affairs as Germany or even Italy did. What are they going to do, invade Makedonia, engage in border skirmishes against Bulgaria or Turkey? Not for too long, and certainly not at the same time; their military isn't match for the Turkish alone, and certainly not for Bulgaria or Makedonia backed by their traditional allies. They can't hope getting even to Russia's borders, much less to Leningrad or Volgagrad.

And so their fascism has to be an accordingly modest fascism, which brings the question - can fascism be modest, at all?

So they are probably more dangerous if they are the first symptom of what is going to happen in the rest of Europe in the near future, than they are in and of themselves. A Greek fascism is operetta; a French fascism can be an actual travel to hell. A Pan-European fascism, then...

This is one side of the equation. The other is implied here:


But won't happen at all without a revolutionary party explaining this to the working class while it is happening. Playing the role of the vanguard.

While I don't see anything similar to a Leninist party showing up in Greece in time to make any actual difference in the situation, it seems clear that the right has its own vanguard party in the form of Golden Dawn. What this means is the following. A revolutionary situation, which is increasingly likely in Greece, shows up by a crisis of the State - a situation like Russia in 1917, Germany in 1918, Argentina in 2001, Albania 1997, marked by the collapse of State services and structures, resulting in a power vacuum. We see what happens when the working class is not up to the tasks imposed by such situation in the examples of Germany, Argentina, and Albania: after a period of complete disorder, the bourgeosie redresses and rebuilds the State. The precise shape the rebuilding of the State takes depends on what form of political action the bourgeoisie chooses in facing the situation.

But all the crisis listed above took the bourgeoisie in surprise, divided, and with no immediate instrument for the reconstruction of the State. Greece would be a completely different issue: the bourgeoisie already has, even before the State collapses, a political party ready to galvanise the forces of reaction and impose a political solution to the collapse: Golden Dawn.

This is highlighted by the collusion between Golden Dawn and police. In fascistisation processes, the police is the first part of the State apparatus to go fascist, and a practice of collaboration between police and the fascist party in the suppression of leftist/popular/democratic demonstrations and organisations quickly emerges, making the bourgeois governments increasingly hostages of fascism (if fascists can decide whether police will repress class struggle, and when and how, or actually make police unable to perform such repression, then the State has to increasingly rely on the fascist party to function).

To such extent, Golden Dawn seems to function quite exactly like a fascist party, to the point that the process almost looks like a sinister (and speedy) parody of German's fascistisation. But they face many problems, which are likely to make the fascistisation of Greece stillborn, especially if the left, or less likely the center, can understand what is happening and actually play on Golden Dawn's weaknesses.

Above all, there is exactly what was discussed above regarding the possibility of an actual fascism in a small, non-imperialist country. Golden Dawn has no actual entitlement to a nationalist ideology; their adherence to right-wing topoi in Greek politics - necessary in order to galvanise their immediate social base of policemen and military officers - is necessarily an adherence to non-nationalist or even anti-nationalist positions. Remarkable is their use of April 21st as a symbolic date: the 1967 coup was staunchly pro-American, and while it certainly used nationalist rhetorics, its economic policies were systematically favourable to foreign, especially American, capital. So their mythology is deeply flawed, which can be explored by the left, as long as it doesn't try to compete against them on who is more nationalist.

It follows from that that their political action has to be accordingly contradictory: their electoral and parliamentary strenght derives from anti-austerity votes, votes that stem from despair in face of Greece's economic collapse, but their street fighting strenght, that is essential to their ability to play the role of an actual fascist party, stems from their role in helping the police to suppress anti-austerity demonstrations. This can also be exploited by the left, perhaps even more easily, as long as their actions aren't legitimised by left-wing misguided legalism.

Their "nationalism" is also contradictory in a deeper level. Mussolini could refer to the Roman Empire, and Hitler to a mythic Germanic golden age, as models for their political dreams, because the Roman Empire was in fact a quite authoritarian and powerful political structure, and the German golden age, even better, was only a fantasy, into which any desirable political content could be projected. But Greece's claims to immortal glory can only stem from the politically divided and internally democratic city-States of antiquity, or from the Byzantine Empire, which most people outside Greece would see as clearly decadent in comparison to Classic Greece, and, worse, whose capital is nowadays in foreign territory - and territory that can by no means returned to Greece by no conceivable military or diplomatic manoever.

This means that they have to supplement their nationalism with appeals to religion in order to conceal those contradictions. But this would make them hostages of the Orthodox clergy, who at this moment seem far less enthussed by them (or by political action in general) than the police - and who besides are the legitimate formulators of religious ideology in Greece.

Plus fascism in Germany and Italy could benefit from traditional political actors that had real influence, were not bound by democratic considerations, and were actually willing to allow the fascists into power: the monarchy in Italy (the Re was notoriously eager to let Mussolini ease his troubles with an increasingly demanding society), the military both in German and Italy (the German army was still an independent political actor, Marshall Hindenburg being actually the president of the republic at the time of Hitler's ascension). I doubt the Greek military, demoralised by their fiasco in attempting to rule the country under Papadopoulos/Ioannidis, or the Orthodox clergy, much less whatever remains of the royals, can play such a role at this moment in Greece (and if they could, that they would be easily outmanoevered by Golden Dawn. Say what you say, there is a difference between Hitler or Mussolini and their imitators in what comes to political skill; history is full of examples of wannabe fascist dictators who thought they could use the local conservatives for their ends and ended up being used and discarded. Brazilian fasho Plínio Salgado, for instance, or Romania's Corneliu Codreanu). Fascism has always aceeded to power by invitation; Golden Dawn doesn't have, at this moment, anyone in the proper position willing to invite them.

Luís Henrique

[A Marxist Historian]

...More so because the conclusion it leads to suggests that we must regard police officers as deeply, deeply disturbed and fundamentally intolerable human beings, just because they have a certain job. I've never seen people be defined by their job to such an extent in any other area. That's some scary poop.,,

Being a cop is not just "a certain job." Cops are the people who are authorized by the ruling class to use violence to enforce the rule of the ruling class over society. Therefore, in every class society, they are human concentrations and embodiments of everything wrong with that society, on steroids. So for police to support Golden Dawn is simply normal police behavior, nothing to be surprised about.

Probably one of the best works on the nature of the police, though unintentionally so, is Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men," on the atrocities committed by a reserve police battalion during the Holocaust, which were more gruesome than what you would expect from the SS.

Browning, a liberal, was puzzled as to how the "ordinary men" in a police reserve battalion could commit such hideous atrocities, and engaged in much wasted sociological theoreticization as to how "ordinary men" in extraordinary situations could turn into monsters.

Being a liberal, he overlooked the obvious point that police just ain't "ordinary people," even if they seemed like typical folk before they put on their badges. The social reality of being human tools for class rule tends to turn police into monsters, whether in Athens or Los Angeles or Berlin. Being determines consciousness.

How rapidly it does so depends on the intensity of class and social conflict in society. And things have been real intense in Greece lately.

In some peaceful prosperous all-white middle class burb where nothing ever happens, your average cop may be a decent sort who helps little old ladies cross the street and gets cats down from trees. But where class struggle breaks out, a policeman either throws his badge away or becomes the sort of guy who would vote for the Golden Dawn.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Golden Dawn seems more obviously (and superficially) fascist than, for instance, the French National Front. Their symbolism is quite obvious, they use fascist-style salute, their discourse is obviously racist, and they are street rioters like the original Fasci or the SA.

But is it fascist?


I would say yes, as being "street rioters," wanting to use physical violence vs. the working class and its organizations (and immigrants of course, though that is not the truly definitive test), is the true definition of a fascist organization. It's a bit hard to tell whether the National Front in France is truly a fascist organization, as I'm not sure if the NF has a paramilitary brownshirt wing, or is at this point simply trying to get elected like that rather pathetic ex-fascist in Austria who was chancellor for a while a decade ago.

"Eurofascism" isn't fascism, any more than Eurocommunism was communism.

But Golden Dawn is in the classic fascist mold, and how they feel about Hitler is actually besides the point. Mussolini had tiffs with Hitler from time to time after all.




First, I think it is obvious that they are an instance of right-wing populism - and that fascism is, or fascisms are, always instances of right-wing populism. But Newt Ginrich or Ron Paul are right-wing populist, and they are not - at this moment, anyway - fascists in any really meaningful way (I would have no problems with insulting them as "fashos", but political analysis is a different issue).

Second, I think it is also obvious that Golden Dawn is way more dangerous than Ron Paul or Pat Robertson are, or could ever be within a "normal situation" (if the US was facing atm a similar situation to Greece, I wouldn't be so sure).

But then, as the people in Narchotics Anonyms say, "the worst drug is the one you are using" - and the worst political danger is the one we are facing, not an exact reenacting of Hitlerism, which is, for the moment, quite unlikely to make a reentry in the political scene. Of course, the worst political danger now, at an international level, is exactly Golden Dawn. We will have to understand it more in depth, for the better we understand it, the better we will be able to fight it back.

The first thing is, of course, that Golden Dawn's fascism, whether real or metaphoric, is not and can not be of the exact same nature as Italian or German (Nazi) fascisms: Italy and Germany in the 1920's and 30's were downtrodden imperialist powers; Greece in 2012 is nothing of the sort. Germany was militarily defeated by other imperialist powers in an outright war, and had humiliating peace conditions imposed onto it; Italy was part of the victorious imperialist coallition but was obviously dumped by its partners when it came to sharing the spoils. Greece in its turn is being destroyed by its very allies, not by war, but by a curious (or capitalist) kind of "peace".

Of course, Greece can be a small country with big delusions (which perhaps could be said of 1920's Italy, but not of 1930's Germany). But even if so, it cannot pose a similar threat to international affairs as Germany or even Italy did. What are they going to do, invade Makedonia, engage in border skirmishes against Bulgaria or Turkey? Not for too long, and certainly not at the same time; their military isn't match for the Turkish alone, and certainly not for Bulgaria or Makedonia backed by their traditional allies. They can't hope getting even to Russia's borders, much less to Leningrad or Volgagrad.


Yes, but that doesn't tell you if GD is fascist or not. You had fascist movements all over Europe during WWII, in countries of all sizes. And some of them seized power. The Iron Guard in Rumania and the Arrow Cross in Hungary were every bit as fascist as the Nazis, but they could only invade the USSR in alliance with the Nazis, otherwise they would have had their asses kicked six ways from Sunday.

But from the standpoint of the Rumanian and Hungarian working classes and Jews and so forth they were every bit as bad as the Nazis. Not "modest" at all. The Iron Guard were arguably worse than the Nazis in domestic affairs. And then you have the Croatian Ustasha, whose brutalities were so extreme that the Nazi ambassador to Croatia, an SS officer, resigned in protest.



And so their fascism has to be an accordingly modest fascism, which brings the question - can fascism be modest, at all?

So they are probably more dangerous if they are the first symptom of what is going to happen in the rest of Europe in the near future, than they are in and of themselves. A Greek fascism is operetta; a French fascism can be an actual travel to hell. A Pan-European fascism, then...

This is one side of the equation. The other is implied here:



While I don't see anything similar to a Leninist party showing up in Greece in time to make any actual difference in the situation, it seems clear that the right has its own vanguard party in the form of Golden Dawn. What this means is the following. A revolutionary situation, which is increasingly likely in Greece, shows up by a crisis of the State - a situation like Russia in 1917, Germany in 1918, Argentina in 2001, Albania 1997, marked by the collapse of State services and structures, resulting in a power vacuum. We see what happens when the working class is not up to the tasks imposed by such situation in the examples of Germany, Argentina, and Albania: after a period of complete disorder, the bourgeosie redresses and rebuilds the State. The precise shape the rebuilding of the State takes depends on what form of political action the bourgeoisie chooses in facing the situation.

But all the crisis listed above took the bourgeoisie in surprise, divided, and with no immediate instrument for the reconstruction of the State. Greece would be a completely different issue: the bourgeoisie already has, even before the State collapses, a political party ready to galvanise the forces of reaction and impose a political solution to the collapse: Golden Dawn.

This is highlighted by the collusion between Golden Dawn and police. In fascistisation processes, the police is the first part of the State apparatus to go fascist, and a practice of collaboration between police and the fascist party in the suppression of leftist/popular/democratic demonstrations and organisations quickly emerges, making the bourgeois governments increasingly hostages of fascism (if fascists can decide whether police will repress class struggle, and when and how, or actually make police unable to perform such repression, then the State has to increasingly rely on the fascist party to function).

To such extent, Golden Dawn seems to function quite exactly like a fascist party, to the point that the process almost looks like a sinister (and speedy) parody of German's fascistisation. But they face many problems, which are likely to make the fascistisation of Greece stillborn, especially if the left, or less likely the center, can understand what is happening and actually play on Golden Dawn's weaknesses.

Above all, there is exactly what was discussed above regarding the possibility of an actual fascism in a small, non-imperialist country. Golden Dawn has no actual entitlement to a nationalist ideology; their adherence to right-wing topoi in Greek politics - necessary in order to galvanise their immediate social base of policemen and military officers - is necessarily an adherence to non-nationalist or even anti-nationalist positions. Remarkable is their use of April 21st as a symbolic date: the 1967 coup was staunchly pro-American, and while it certainly used nationalist rhetorics, its economic policies were systematically favourable to foreign, especially American, capital. So their mythology is deeply flawed, which can be explored by the left, as long as it doesn't try to compete against them on who is more nationalist.

It follows from that that their political action has to be accordingly contradictory: their electoral and parliamentary strenght derives from anti-austerity votes, votes that stem from despair in face of Greece's economic collapse, but their street fighting strenght, that is essential to their ability to play the role of an actual fascist party, stems from their role in helping the police to suppress anti-austerity demonstrations. This can also be exploited by the left, perhaps even more easily, as long as their actions aren't legitimised by left-wing misguided legalism.

Their "nationalism" is also contradictory in a deeper level. Mussolini could refer to the Roman Empire, and Hitler to a mythic Germanic golden age, as models for their political dreams, because the Roman Empire was in fact a quite authoritarian and powerful political structure, and the German golden age, even better, was only a fantasy, into which any desirable political content could be projected. But Greece's claims to immortal glory can only stem from the politically divided and internally democratic city-States of antiquity, or from the Byzantine Empire, which most people outside Greece would see as clearly decadent in comparison to Classic Greece, and, worse, whose capital is nowadays in foreign territory - and territory that can by no means returned to Greece by no conceivable military or diplomatic manoever.

This means that they have to supplement their nationalism with appeals to religion in order to conceal those contradictions. But this would make them hostages of the Orthodox clergy, who at this moment seem far less enthussed by them (or by political action in general) than the police - and who besides are the legitimate formulators of religious ideology in Greece.

Plus fascism in Germany and Italy could benefit from traditional political actors that had real influence, were not bound by democratic considerations, and were actually willing to allow the fascists into power: the monarchy in Italy (the Re was notoriously eager to let Mussolini ease his troubles with an increasingly demanding society), the military both in German and Italy (the German army was still an independent political actor, Marshall Hindenburg being actually the president of the republic at the time of Hitler's ascension). I doubt the Greek military, demoralised by their fiasco in attempting to rule the country under Papadopoulos/Ioannidis, or the Orthodox clergy, much less whatever remains of the royals, can play such a role at this moment in Greece (and if they could, that they would be easily outmanoevered by Golden Dawn. Say what you say, there is a difference between Hitler or Mussolini and their imitators in what comes to political skill; history is full of examples of wannabe fascist dictators who thought they could use the local conservatives for their ends and ended up being used and discarded. Brazilian fasho Plínio Salgado, for instance, or Romania's Corneliu Codreanu). Fascism has always aceeded to power by invitation; Golden Dawn doesn't have, at this moment, anyone in the proper position willing to invite them.

Luís Henrique

I more or less agree with much of what you have to say. I see the Golden Dawn as a remarkably smashable fascist movement, due to Greek history.

If there is any working class in the world that still has personal memories of how to deal successfully with fascists and military dictators, it's the Greek. It does not however have the experience of taking power, and its concentrated memory, which is what a political party is among other things, is the KKE if it is anybody. Which, given the nature of the KKE, is not a good thing.

-M.H.-

[Vninect]

But is it fascist?

I always really like this list: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

The point is: it is fascist depending on the criteria you use. In the rest of your post, you mainly try to compare it to Italian and German fascism. I think that is helpful, and it is a good post, but it also leaves out some important parts of the horizon. (... As does my analysis, I'm sure.)


The first thing is, of course, that Golden Dawn's fascism, whether real or metaphoric, is not and can not be of the exact same nature as Italian or German (Nazi) fascisms: Italy and Germany in the 1920's and 30's were downtrodden imperialist powers; Greece in 2012 is nothing of the sort. Germany was militarily defeated by other imperialist powers in an outright war, and had humiliating peace conditions imposed onto it; Italy was part of the victorious imperialist coallition but was obviously dumped by its partners when it came to sharing the spoils. Greece in its turn is being destroyed by its very allies, not by war, but by a curious (or capitalist) kind of "peace".
This is an important and interesting development. The Greeks are under exogenous pressure to wreck their own country. The Troika is their fifth column. If they get "kicked out" of the EU, with their problems and debts intact - exacerbated even -, the idea that the EU were allies is of course unsustainable. You may yet see a type of animosity that is quite similar to Germany.

I think this confusion over the relationship between Greece and the EU is a big reason why other parties (Syriza mainly) desire to remain in the EU: Unyielding optimism about the European project in the face of all evidence to the contrary. To Greece, Europe was an ally. To Europe, as it now turns out, Greece was a client. Europe, however, is a different thing than the European Union. And perhaps Syriza sees in the EU a body that could protect Greece against Europe: against the IMF, Deutsche Bank, national governments with their growing short-sighted national populist interests.

So I think a break with the EU may be a swing to the right; to petty nationalism, and animosity and distrust between nations. This fuels aggression (against working class, of course, in the name of (cold) war) and facilitates nationalistic mythology, in which the Left has perhaps no place or foothold.


Of course, Greece can be a small country with big delusions (which perhaps could be said of 1920's Italy, but not of 1930's Germany). But even if so, it cannot pose a similar threat to international affairs as Germany or even Italy did. What are they going to do, invade Makedonia, engage in border skirmishes against Bulgaria or Turkey? Not for too long, and certainly not at the same time; their military isn't match for the Turkish alone, and certainly not for Bulgaria or Makedonia backed by their traditional allies. They can't hope getting even to Russia's borders, much less to Leningrad or Volgagrad. As Marxist Historian said, they may find a bigger bully to ally with at some point to achieve imperialist dreams. Also, the Greeks have a recent history of underdog pride. They are still celebrating "Ochi day": a day remembering dictator Metaxas saying no to partial Italian assimilation, and defeating their invasion.

You bring up Macedonia. The existence and especially the name of that country is an issue of national embarrassment, as I understand it. Some parties still have it on their political programs to change this. For example, these bunch of nuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L40kQfnFuikk . They are Golden Dawn. Quelle surprise.

They may pick up this strand again, though it would only make them more like the imperialist fascists: and I think they can be fascist without that.


And so their fascism has to be an accordingly modest fascism, which brings the question - can fascism be modest, at all?
I don't think not being capable of conquering Russia or any other nation makes one a modest fascist at all. I think it has nothing to do with it. I suspect you come to that idea because you're comparing it to Germany and Italy.


To such extent, Golden Dawn seems to function quite exactly like a fascist party, to the point that the process almost looks like a sinister (and speedy) parody of German's fascistisation. But they face many problems, which are likely to make the fascistisation of Greece stillborn, especially if the left, or less likely the center, can understand what is happening and actually play on Golden Dawn's weaknesses.
I agree that it would be a parody of Nazism, if they were going for that, though the Greek fascists have their own history of fascist dictators to emulate, as well. What we should be looking at are of course the parameters of their contemporary fascism. Calling it a parody I think dismisses too much of that.


Golden Dawn has no actual entitlement to a nationalist ideology; their adherence to right-wing topoi in Greek politics - necessary in order to galvanise their immediate social base of policemen and military officers - is necessarily an adherence to non-nationalist or even anti-nationalist positions.
I don't see that is necessary. As I said above, if they get kicked from the EU (which is probable), they are halfway to having only a nationalist view left, I think. (Though in another post on this board, I tried to sketch some new somewhat likely international alliances that do not include a treasonous (Western-)Europe.)

Their nationalist history has many loose ends: Macedonia; Cyprus; some Aegean islands... And of course solving the "immigration problem" is battling the enemy within. It is no conquest on a Roman or Germanic scale, but you can make threats seem as big as you want. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan and the rhetoric of the US President before going to war with them. Totally insignificant forces that were "threats to global peace". The threat is all a fascist needs to enforce Martial Law(lessness).

I think any deals with (foreign) capital are secondary to the psychology of fascist struggle, which is nationalist. Don't forget: IBM, Krupps, IG Farben, Kodak, Coca Cola, Ford, Standard Oil, Chase Bank, Random House Publishing, are just a few of the prominent and surviving collaborator corporations the Nazis had good deals with.

In conclusion, I think Golden Dawn can be nationalist without being completely independent. And they can fight for fantasized glory without conquering (many) other nations. What you showed is that they are no direct threat to other nations. They are definitely full on fascists, though, with plenty of room for continuing their line.

Furthermore, I am pessimistic about the lessons of Greece's history being some kind of buffer against their surge. I think clever rhetorical devices and retorts are no match against the belly-feel sentimentality that GD fences with: they are on a different platform. You can point out that it makes no sense to battle anti-austerity rioters when you are pro-austerity. I don't think it matters one bit. It's preaching to the choir.

You can't defeat them with rationality (alone). They just don't speak that language. Nor do most of us (even if we like to think so).

[A Marxist Historian]

I always really like this list: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

...
You bring up Macedonia. The existence and especially the name of that country is an issue of national embarrassment, as I understand it. Some parties still have it on their political programs to change this. For example, these bunch of nuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L40kQfnFuikk . They are Golden Dawn. Quelle surprise.

I don't see that is necessary. As I said above, if they get kicked from the EU (which is probable), they are halfway to having only a nationalist view left, I think. (Though in another post on this board, I tried to sketch some new somewhat likely international alliances that do not include a treasonous (Western-)Europe.)

Their nationalist history has many loose ends: Macedonia; Cyprus; some Aegean islands... And of course solving the "immigration problem" is battling the enemy within. It is no conquest on a Roman or Germanic scale, but you can make threats seem as big as you want. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan and the rhetoric of the US President before going to war with them. Totally insignificant forces that were "threats to global peace". The threat is all a fascist needs to enforce Martial Law(lessness).

Yes, the wave of Greek chauvinism over Macedonia in the 90s had a lot to do with the birth of Golden Dawn-as is discussed in the Spartacist link I posted. But it wasn't exclusive to Golden Dawn, far from it. The KKE too objected to Macedonia's name on a Greek nationalist basis.

If I remember right, the national question was what gave birth to the Greek Spartacists as a split from the Morenoites or something, as they call for self-determination including the right of secession if they want it for *all* the various national minorities in northern Greece. Most certainly including the Macedonians, whose right of national self-determination the KKE supported basically until the split between Stalin and Tito, with Macedonians playing a big role in the Greek Resistance and often wanting independence and annexation of part of Northern Greece to Yugoslav Macedonia.

However, the whole issue has a comic opera feel to it, not something a serious mass Greek fascist movement could form around. Cyprus, on the other hand, is something else, as Turkey is the Greek national enemy, and Greeks, and even more Greek Cypriots, definitely want to reconquer Turkish Cyprus. Really quite like the anti-Versailles German nationalism Hitler got his main base of support from. However, the problem is that Turkey could kick Greece's ass very easily.

Which explains why Golden Dawn doesn't want to leave the EU, as the only practical way to fight the Turks is in alliance with NATO and/or the EU.

So that's why just kicking out or killing the foreigners, especially the numerous Albanians, who would probably be secessionist in the border areas with Albania except that Albania is such a godawful mess, is Golden Dawn's main rallying cry.

They are kind of like the Greek equivalent of Mexican-Americans, who might be secessionist in parts of Texas or Arizona or New Mexico except who in their right mind would want to live in Mexico these days? Certainly not most poor Mexicans.




I think any deals with (foreign) capital are secondary to the psychology of fascist struggle, which is nationalist. Don't forget: IBM, Krupps, IG Farben, Kodak, Coca Cola, Ford, Standard Oil, Chase Bank, Random House Publishing, are just a few of the prominent and surviving collaborator corporations the Nazis had good deals with.

In conclusion, I think Golden Dawn can be nationalist without being completely independent. And they can fight for fantasized glory without conquering (many) other nations. What you showed is that they are no direct threat to other nations. They are definitely full on fascists, though, with plenty of room for continuing their line.

Furthermore, I am pessimistic about the lessons of Greece's history being some kind of buffer against their surge. I think clever rhetorical devices and retorts are no match against the belly-feel sentimentality that GD fences with: they are on a different platform. You can point out that it makes no sense to battle anti-austerity rioters when you are pro-austerity. I don't think it matters one bit. It's preaching to the choir.

You can't defeat them with rationality (alone). They just don't speak that language. Nor do most of us (even if we like to think so).

Not just the lessons. Too many Greek people have grandparents and even parents who lived through Nazism in Greece, lived through military dictatorship in the '60s and '70s--and more important, participated in mass movements chasing the Nazis out of Greece and overthrowing the Greek military dictatorship in the '70s. So it's not just "lessons of history" in some abstract scholarly sense.

But it's absolutely true that you can't defeat them by arguing with them. You can only defeat them by physical force--something Greeks know how to do.

-M.H.-