Neither idealizations nor fables are appropriate. Such things, hurried and sketchy as they are, can only distort what is really happening for days now in squares across Greece, novel, dynamic, pluralistic, with inner contradictions and conflicts, in constant fluidity depending on the people that come each day giving it new meaning.

Interpretation needs to take its time before it can settle on conclusions. There are, of course, “interpretors” with deductions prepared beforehand who won't accept having to ask the facts whether they agree with their prefabricated findings. Procrustes never established a party, he was a loner, his mythological figure or his bed however could easily be adopted as a symbol by many partisan formations, and yet other “opinion makers” who suddenly witness their authority questioned; if not by sincerity, as there rarely is a surplus of it, at least by self-deprecation.

It would be shortsighted to use the traditional “tell me who your friends are and I tell you who you are” as an interpretation line. Obviously, a movement of the masses, that demonstrated quickly it is something substantial rather than being something politically harmless and an easily assimilated event, as some might have wished, won't be left to find its way on its own, through assemblies and juxtaposition between the “up” and the “down”, the “argumentatives” and the “thymics”, the exceedingly anti-parliamentary with their demolishing slogans and those remaining intra-systemic, in that they [the masses] are fighting for a democracy that won't be constantly depressed by external supervision, encroached by internal force centers and attacked [offended] by the activity of those professional politicians who follow the tradition of corruption. Our market has always had an unlimited supply of wise leaders (partisans, unionists, media figures, even clergymen), unduly daydreaming about being ethnarchs or fiery inspiration for the people. All these are confident that they have the exclusive possession of “maturine”, a sip of which enables the masterless and “immature” masses progress from spontaneity to awareness. Simultaneously and parallel to them are the flatterers, the elite known as “suits”, all those afraid, probably with good reason, that the flow might sweep them away, especially if it rises any more; this is why they engage in paternalistic cajolery, in the hope they might manage to channel it between banks chosen by their own ideas and, above all, their own interests.

For those openly hostile to the movement of the squares (like Mr Pagalos who, oddly enough, did not implicate SYRIZA this time, but contented himself talking about “technology fads” and “movements without ideology” that might “pave the way for the seizure of power with undemocratic methods”), but also for those that feign friendship and alliance (motivated by various kinds of populism), things would be much simpler if what's going on was exclusively an offspring of the internet. But no social networking tool would suffice, either as genitor or as forceps, if it wasn't for a great social desirability. The radical reversal of the daily life for hundreds of thousands of citizens could only lead them to reconsider their lives. One year of the Memorandum has left no room for illusions, neither for the intentions of our lenders nor for the administrative capability and political unilateralism of our governors and those aspiring to replace them tomorrow or the next day, nor for the pure sentiments of the noblemen preaching “new patriotism” while securing their wealth by exporting it to Switzerland. The sacrifices failed to deliver, and not only because “it was the wrong mix of measures”. The result is seen, heard and suffered: those who swore to their adorable god of TV that they would immediately submit their resignation if new, more formidable measures were to be taken (like the honorable Mr Papakonstantinou of Finace and the Ungainly and melodramatic statements), reaffirm that whilst it is necessary to take new, heavier measures, this time however will be the last - until the next.

To remain inert in the face of such an assault would be to watch yourself being crushed, to observe your degradation into something much less than an atom: an amoeba. To expect, confined again in domestic inertia, that somebody else will take up defending you, some Party, or the Media, or Unions, or “your own MP” in case you've been so far comfortably exploiting the clientθle system, is not only an option you have taken before, it is a resource that has now dried up. Ruminating on your indignation alone at home or perhaps with some friends, you know it, can offer not much any more beyond the toxic feeling of being wronged, a hollow self-assurance. Placing everything on a bet that salvation can come from the systematically advertised “government of personalities”, “technocrats” or “experts”, is accepting that your vote, your say, your Constitution don't amount to much. And, damn it, exactly because you live in Greece and you have a very bitter experience with sergeants and colonels, you can not allow yourself (unless you are a fan of blackshirts or perhaps a deeply confused platonist) to expect the messiah, “anticipation” for whom has already started being manufactured by certain opinion polls, with exceedingly anti-parliamentary questions such as “Do you agree or not, that governance should be taken over by a prestigious leader with authorities, so that he could take prompt decisions without being hindered by the Parliament and the elections “...

And you go out. Towards the rest of the world. Towards others that resemble you but are still different, because the seed of rage in each one of us is different, because the different material conditions of life give birth to different ideas. As you follow the rough line of the metro, as it revived with the appearance of banners above Syntagma Square(“Apathy”- “Complicity”- “Fear”- “Search”- “Indignation”- “Collectivity” - “Solidarity” - “Struggle”- “Syntagma [Constitution]” ), either you sympathize or not with the promise for the last post-Syntagma, post-constitutional destination (“Overthrow”). You go out with indignation to reclaim the right to say that Aristotle wasn't talking drivel when he insisted in “Politics” that “man is by nature a political animal”. Do you need to have another, more direct “political proposal”, as required by the concerned professionals?