B) THE MACEDONIAN NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE STAGNATION OF THE GREEK WORKING MO

B) THE MACEDONIAN NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE STAGNATION OF THE GREEK WORKING MOVEMENT IN THE PERIOD FROM 1923 TO 1931

By the very nature of its establishment during the 1924 CPG Third Congress, the Macedonian National question certainly contributed to the stagnation of the Greek workers’ and communist movements. But was the policy of a united and independent Macedonia the main reason for this stagnation?

In the period after the Greco-Turkish war ended with Greece’s defeat at Sakaria, when Greece was in a deep political, economic and psychological crisis, left political orientation intensified within the CPG and, immediately after 1923, political radicalism began to surface. This political radicalism which was “not unique to Greece”, in its programs, did not take into account and did not implement policies that were consistent with the Greek reality on the ground. (I. Kordatos, Iperano olon to Koma…, “Rizospastis”, 20. II 1927.) This “discrepancy” between the CPG’s political programs and the Greek reality, definitely contributed to the problems in the country, during a time when the Party was preparing to take power… to be “terra incognita”. (Pantelis Puliopulos, Merika apo ta “paradoksa tu kinimatos mas”. “Rizospastis”, 1. II 1927, r. 3.) This was especially reflected in the views of the CPG in relation to the essential political issues, such as government problems, state regulations, the agrarian question, the Macedonian National Question, and so on.

Government problems

Government problems were the main political problem in which all layers of Greek society were interested. This was one of the issues reviewed at the CPG Founding Congress in November 1918. According to the party program, adopted at the Socialist Workers’ Party of Greece’s Founding Congress, the Party pledged to fight for the removal of the monarchist institution, for the democratization of legislation, for reforming the executive and judicial system and for the establishment of a people’s democracy in preparation for the creation of a socialist society. (Programa simeron apetision, apetisis politika, to KKE, episima…, tomos protos…, p. 7.) But this clever little stance on the creation of a people’s democracy, as a transitional step to a socialist society, which could have been acceptable to a small property-owning Greek society, was quickly abandoned. In 1920, at its Second CPG Congress, the Party essentially changed its policy on this important issue. The idea of forming a so-called People’s Democracy was rejected during the CPG Second Congress. The Party concluded that a transition from bourgeois to a socialist society did not necessarily require a transition through a so-called “people’s democracy”. A transition could be made directly with the introduction of a proletariat dictatorship and a gradual liquidation of the classes. (Apofasi gia to programa tu SEKE, To KKE Episima… tomos protos…, p. 64.) This new Party position was clearly stated in the 1929 Second Congress final documents. According to the concluding statements made at the CPG Second Congress, the Party vowed to fight with all its might to take over the government and to nationalize all means of production and to create a socialist society through the establishment of a proletariat dictatorship. (Katastatikon tu SEKE, To KKE, episima… tomos protos…, p. 68.) In 1924, at its Third CPG Congress, the Party took a step forward in its political unrealism. In its Manifesto directed at the working people, adopted at the CPG Third Congress, the CPG vowed that it would fight against fascism

and take control of the government, even though there was no fascist movement in Greece at that time. “We will not achieve anything lasting for our working people,” said the Manifesto to the working people, “if we don’t take power into our own hands and if we don’t create our workers’ and agricultural government.” (Manifesto pros ton ergazomeno lao, op. cit., p. 530.) But were the conditions in Greece mature enough for an immediate Soviet type government?

Capitalism certainly took a couple of steps forward in Greece in the early 20th century, but was still in its primary stages. In time it inevitably affected the working class numbers, structure and political ideas in the country. Despite its rise, the Greek proletariat was still not a serious enough force capable of contributing to radical social and political change. The Greek proletariat was not really an industrial proletariat and was not concentrated in the great industrial centres, like that of Russia before 1918. According to a 1917 Greek state economic report, there were 2,213 different enterprises in Greece with 36,117 employees. (Apostolos Vacalopulos, op. cit., p. 226.) Of the 36,117 workers who worked in the industrial sector, 10,680 worked in the textile industry, 10,136 in the food industry, and only 252 people worked in the metallurgical industry where the real class consciousness was created in the workers. (Ibid.) Worker awareness and class consciousness had not yet crystallized in the majority of the Greek proletariat. It was a miracle that in the beginning of the 20th century the Greek proletariat even had professional worker awareness, given the fact that the majority of the Greek proletarians were “more or less” owners of their own enterprises and, in a genuine Marxist sense, “the majority were not even proletarians”. (I. Kordatos, Iperano olon to Koma..., “Rizospastis” 19. II 1927.) According to I. Kordatos: “Almost all Greek workers had a cottage or a small field, some property in the village, a vineyard or even a garden…” (From Alkidamos’s letter published by Kordatos in “Revolution proletarienne”.) Dualism in property (working in a city while owning land and property in the village) did, however, influence the level of consciousness, especially political consciousness. Property dualism gave rise to political dualism and the vast majority of Greek workers still expressed and nurtured sensitive “minority” views. (Ibid.) This was due to the fact that the majority of Greek workers originated from villages or small property families, and that is why “the working

class expressed ‘minority’ views, especially bourgeois democratic views...” (X. Vatis, I krisi tu Komatos, ta etia ke ta simperazmata, “Rizospastis” 12. III 1927.) Of the total of 150,000 workers existing in Greece after the First World War Greek territorial expansion, only 10,000 were real proletarians (in property and consciousness) and had cherished the “tradition of a class struggle”. (“Rizospastis” 25. II 1927.) This number represented only 1.6% of the entire Greek population and these people were not able to carry out any proletarian revolution in Greece under peaceful economic and political conditions. On the other hand, the Party’s political program, which envisioned nationalization and direct establishment of a proletariat dictatorship, frightened the petty bourgeoisie who viewed the CPG’s radical, political and social programs with great distrust.

The Agrarian Question

Another crucial issue to deal with was the solution of the agrarian question, especially when the majority of the people living in Greece worked in the field of agriculture. In 1907, for example, 76% of the working population was engaged in agriculture, and only 24% in other various professions. After 1924, after the large population of colonists was brought to Greece, it too became engaged in agriculture, mainly due to the fact that the majority of colonists were settled in the villages. In Greek occupied Macedonia alone there were 112,111 agricultural families with 427,297 people dependent on agriculture to make a living. The way in which this issue was handled and solved depended on who was going to be supported by almost 65% of the total population living in Greece after the “Great War”. At this point the CPG saw an opportunity that, with a realistic policy, it could get support from the agrarian class despite the fact that “there was no class consciousness” at the time. The desire of the so-called “Greek” peasant, shown for his own piece of land, has been expressed many times over the centuries. The so-called “Greek” peasant saw his personal freedom, as well as his economic security and economic prosperity, only in the land. And any political solution, which questioned the ownership of his land, was unacceptable and alien to him. That is why the CPG could not afford to give this subject too much attention. In its adopted resolution during its 1918 Founding Congress, the CPG demanded that Chiflik

(feudal estates) and monastery properties be nationalized and the land be given to the municipalities responsible for land redistribution. (Apofasi dia ton agrotikon, To KKE, Episima Kimena… tomos protos…, p. 59.) This approach would naturally benefit the so-called Greek peasant. By doing this the CPG, on one hand, attracted the naïve Greek peasant and, on the other, did not distract and scare the so-called Greek peasant who owned a piece of land. Unfortunately the CPG changed its mind regarding its approach and decided to alter its policy on the agrarian question. In its 1920 CPG Second Congress Resolution, the CPG said that the only possible and acceptable solution to the agrarian question was through the nationalization of lands and production of agricultural products. This was to take place as soon as the Party’s political program “foresaw the takeover of government by the workers from the cities and by the peasants.” (Ibid.) Unfortunately, this CPG approach and treatment of the agrarian question was in contradiction with the personal convictions of the so-called Greek peasant, who could not imagine his existence without his own piece of land. With this policy the CPG alienated many people and moved them from its side to the side of the bourgeois parties, which were willing to give the so-called Greek peasant his piece of land and recognize the right to his property. This, of course, created a political vacuum for the Agricultural Party to step in and fight against the economic exploitation of the so-called Greek peasant without questioning the ownership of his land.

The Macedonian National Question

CPG dogmatism not only manifested itself on the political field with the slogans for a direct Soviet style government, the nationalization of lands and a general armed strike. CPG political dogmatism also took unfathomable measures in relation to the Macedonian National Question.

The internal Party struggles that took place in the period from 1924 to 1927 confirmed that the Macedonian National Question was a terra incognita for the CPG.

The dogmatic setting of the Macedonian National Question within the framework of the general CPG dogmatic policy, in the period

from 1924 to 1931, greatly contributed to the Macedonian National Question seriously affecting the stagnation of the Greek workers’ and revolutionary movements. This stagnation was also due to the fact that the Macedonian National Question was not looked at in response to the interests of the Macedonian nation, but in response to other interests. In other words, with the policy for a united and independent Macedonia, the Macedonian National Question was put in place and treated as a Macedonian people issue and not as a Macedonian National Question. The Macedonian Question was not of national but of political concern placed there in the interest of the Comintern. This policy (a united and independent Macedonia) was in fact not a natural reflection of the historical reality; of the existence of the Macedonian nation. In essence it was in deep contradiction to the reality on the ground.

Existence of the Macedonian nation

With Macedonia’s invasion, occupation, division and illegal annexation in 1913 by Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania, everything possible was done to extinguish the existence of the Macedonian nation. The Macedonian people, however, did not cease to exist or stop to express their national identity in its various forms in the four parts of occupied Macedonia. “Don’t expect me, an ordinary Macedonian, to answer the question of what I am and to say that I feel Serbian. For a number of years the Bulgarians tried to brainwash me into thinking that I am Bulgarian. But all I can say is that I am a Macedonian!” (Yugoslav Archives, Kingdom of Serbia Ministry of Internal Affairs SHS, doc. 4,485, 17. XII 1923.) According to another Kingdom of Serbia Ministry of Internal Affairs confidential report, the Macedonian people “saw themselves as special and entitled to be autonomous”. The Macedonian people felt and expected to be free and independent after the many centuries of slavery they had endured. (Ibid., doc. 5,546, 18. XII 1923.)

The Macedonian people in Greek occupied Macedonia also thought that they “are a special people because behind them they have a great history, full of struggles for their liberation and for Macedonia’s independence.” (Information taken from a letter sent to the newspaper “Rizospastis” by the Macedonian people from the village Ekshi-Su, published on October 1, 1934.) Similar national

feelings were also expressed and cherished by the Macedonian people from the villages German, Medovo, Shtrkovo, Vineni and Orovnik, who protested in front of N. Kiriakopoulos, saying that they are Macedonians and, as Macedonians, felt offended when they were called by different names. “We are nothing but Macedonians!” shouted the villagers! (“Rizospastis”, 25. I 1927.) The same was confirmed by the people of Voden, who felt insulted when the Greek authorities called them “Bulgarians”, “rebels” and other slanderous names. (Ibid., 10. VI 1934.) The Macedonian national consciousness was not only present in Greek occupied Macedonia but it was also fiercely defended, even in the courts, along with their Macedonian national identity. (Ibid., 14. VI 1934.) The same was confirmed by Macedonian soldiers who served in the Greek military and who were accused by their superiors of being Bulgarian and for speaking a Bulgarian language. According to a letter published in the newspaper “Neos Rizospastis” the Macedonian soldiers insisted that they were “Macedonians only” and spoke the Macedonian language. “The language we speak is Macedonian, not Bulgarian...” (Information taken from a letter written by a Macedonian soldier from the 28th regiment stationed in Lerin, sent to the newspaper “Neos Rizospastis” and published on December 31, 1933.) It is well known that Macedonian solders refused to reject their Macedonian national identity even under the most extreme conditions; even when facing a Greek firing squad. The same was true for civilians like Paraskevov, an ordinary Macedonian villager who was accused of cooperating with the rebels. He not only rejected the accusation of being a traitor, but also the accusation that he was referred to as a Greek. A few minutes before his execution, Paraskevov said: “No, even though I was born in Sofia, I am not a Bulgarian, nor a Greek. I am a Macedonian!” (“Neos Rizospastis”, 5 VIII 1932.) According to the CPG representative in Greek occupied Macedonia, the Macedonian national consciousness was present in all the Macedonian people who wanted their own Macedonian state, not a state “subordinated to Bulgaria or to Greece.” (“Rizospastis”, 3, II 1934.) This Macedonian reality was also observed by M. Grae, the French Consul in Solun. In a confidential letter sent to S. Pizhon, the French Foreign Minister, Grae reported that a “Macedonian may obey under duress, like everyone else, but in his soul always remains a Macedonian”. (Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, Archive diplomatique, Gréce 1918-1929, Paris, dosie 52, p. 110.)

But how was this “Macedonian reality” reflected in the CPG’s political program in relation to the Macedonian National Question? The CPG, in its 1924 Third Congress Resolution, referred to the Macedonian population as being of a variety of different people, and that is why the CPG undertook to support “all the national and political demands (national schools, local national autonomy, church freedom, and respect for national feelings) of the enslaved peoples living in Macedonia”. (To KKE Episima… tomos protos…, p. 517.) A similar spirit, which did not correspond to the historical and ethnographic reality in Macedonia, was also noted in an article written by P. Puliopoulos, published in “Risospastis” in December 1924 under the title “Macedonian Volcano” in which Puliopoulos wrote: “All Macedonians from Turkish, Bulgarian, Albanian, Romanian and Greek descent in Serbian Macedonia should have been Serbs. Also, all Macedonians of Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc., descent should have been Greeks or Bulgarians in Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia.” (Pantelis Puliopulos, op. cit., “Rizospastis”, 11-14. XII 1924.) This spirit of a political and ethnographic compromise, made at the Balkan Communist Federation Conference, the CPG supported until 1931-1932. (“Rizospastis”, 21 III 1931.) This unprincipled positioning of the Macedonian National Question under conditions when there was only one nation in Macedonia - the Macedonian nation - and several national minorities - Vlachs, Jews, Roma, etc., - had heavy political consequences. Despite that, the CPG “minority” group still concluded that: “If there were different nations (Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, etc.), in Macedonia it would be normal then that they would have different national feelings and different national interests, i.e. Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, which would be manifested through the Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian national consciousness. These “different” national interests, highlighted by the “minority” group, were viewed as deep contradictions to Comintern policies for a united and independent Macedonia. Therefore, the “minority” demanded that the policy for a united and independent Macedonia be immediately removed and replaced with the slogan calling for free self-determination of the Macedonian people (Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Vlachs) and the unification of Greeks with Greece, Bulgarians with Bulgaria and Serbs with Serbia. (X. Vatis, To ethniko zitima ke to Koma mas, “Rizospastis”, 26. III 1927.) The same idea was

expressed by Puliopoulos after 1926, who also claimed the right to self-determination of the “enslaved nations” in Macedonia and, of course, the unification of Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs with their home countries. (Pantelis Puliopulos, op. cit., “Rizospastis”, 5. II 1927.)

This “unprincipled positioning” of the Macedonian National Question gave the “minority” group the opportunity it needed to attack the policy for a united and independent Macedonia even more profoundly. The various political problems highlighted by the “minority” group as issues requiring adjustments between Marxist theory and Greek reality did not include the Macedonian National Question. According to I. Kordatos, for example, there was no Macedonian National Question, because the Greek bourgeoisie with their policy of “voluntary” and compulsory exchange of populations between Bulgaria and Greece and between Turkey and Greece had already resolved that problem. This was said despite the fact that 240,000 Macedonians, of Macedonian origin, language and national consciousness, still lived in Greek occupied Macedonia. H. Vatis, however, believed that there existed a “mass of peasants... who spoke a language similar to the Bulgarian language... and who did not succeed in creating their own Macedonian national tradition…” Vatis did not know any of the Balkan Slavic language and his views of the Macedonian language, as well as the Macedonian National Question, were created from what he learned from Greek bourgeois literature.

The CPG’s position on the Macedonian National Question as a formal, rather than an absolute, Macedonian issue disillusioned the Macedonian population and basically stunted the emergence of a Macedonian movement which, according to the CPG, should be in favour of a single Macedonian state with Greeks, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Roma, but no Macedonians living in Macedonia. This is not, however, what the Macedonian people wanted. For them a United and independent Macedonia meant a Macedonian state with a Macedonian national character. This has always been the Macedonian people’s deep desire and historical aspiration. The inaction of the Macedonian population in Greek occupied Macedonia attracted P. Puliopoulos’s attention who thought he could get closer to the Macedonian people if he promoted the idea

that he believed the people in Macedonia are Macedonians (i.e. Greeks, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Roma, etc., but not ethnic Macedonians, who wanted their own state). He spoke of the people in Macedonia, particularly the Macedonian villagers, and promoted the idea that they did not nurture or manifest any Greek, Serbian or Bulgarian national consciousness, but only Macedonian. That is why the CPG’s basic assumption, in relation to the Macedonian National Question between 1924 and 1931 was in error, wrote Puliopoulos at the camp in Akronavlia. We positioned the Macedonian National Question “as a geographical question” rather than a “national question”, he added. (Pantelis Puliopulis, Gia to Makedoniko, Arthra, thesis ke polemikes, Athina, 1976, p. 76.) Our approach should have been to express the Macedonian National Question as “a principle issue”, he added. (Ibid.) Instead, the CPG put forth a policy for an independent Macedonian state to benefit a nation which in essence did not exist, he concluded. The political, ideological and dogmatic approach used to solve essential problems such as the issue of governing, the agrarian question and the convoluted Macedonian National Question, all set up and treated as a “Macedonian Question”, literally paralyzed the Party’s activities. Because of this, the Party experienced modest growth in its activities. Despite its great efforts, especially in relation to the Macedonian National Question and the village issue, the Party did not achieve much success. In the period from 1923 to 1931, its political dogmatism was essentially a major obstacle in its effort to develop the Greek workers’ and communist movements. Within the framework of this general dogmatic policy, and in the way it was treated, the Macedonian National Question greatly contributed to the stagnation of the Greek workers’ movement. Unfortunately the aspirants of the “majority” were unable to see the basic underlying and unique obstacles that got in their way as they moved along.

Despite the strong internal and political clashes that took place inside the Party in relation to the substantive political issues experienced, as well as in relation to the Macedonian National Question, the CPG did not introduce anything new in relation to the “national question” during its Third Regular Congress held in Athens in 1927. According to the Party’s adopted resolution, the Congress rejected the views of the “comrades who proposed eliminating the policy for a united and independent Macedonia”.

The Congress also rejected their “idea that this policy was based on less important facts, and on speculation of whether there is or not a Macedonian and a Thracian nation.” (To KKE, Episima Kimena, tomos defteros, 1925-1928, p. 209.) The Congress also confirmed the Party’s policy on the Macedonian National Question adopted during the CPG Third Extraordinary Congress held in 1924 and requested that it remain unchanged. As a result of this and of the Party’s general political platform, in terms of handling essential political issues, the stagnation in the Greek labour movement continued to exist. All these deficiencies experienced by the CPG, especially the inaction towards realistically tackling the Macedonian National Question, were observed by the Comintern. Then, in 1931, the Comintern sent an open letter, addressed to members of the CPG, accusing them of falling behind in the “revolutionary struggle of the nations enslaved by the Greeks” and that the Party did not make any appropriate effort to use “the enormous sympathy the oppressed peoples have for the CPG in relation to the communist movement…” (Ekliksi tis ektelestikis epitropis komunistikis diethnus, To KKE apto 1931 os to 1952, p. 19-20, s.l.)