Electors in France and Greece strike a blow against austerity [Archive]

View Full Version : Electors in France and Greece strike a blow against austerity

Die Neue Zeit

10th May 2012, 15:13

Electors in France and Greece strike a blow against austerity (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004829)

But, writes Eddie Ford, the call must be to resist the temptation of office. The working class ought to constitute itself as a party of extreme opposition until it is ready to carry out its full programme

It is no exaggeration to say that May 6 turned out to be Black Sunday for the architects of austerity. Parliamentary and presidential elections in Greece and France - even to some extent the local elections in Italy - saw a decisive rejection of deficit reduction, ‘fiscal consolidation’, ‘book-balancing’ and all the rest of the crap we have endlessly heard from the capitalist automatons. Any idea of a popular consensus or mandate for the cuts assault has been blown away and now the bourgeoisie will find it a lot harder to rule over us in the old way.

Critically, the election results represented a collective - and contemptuous - repudiation of the European Union fiscal pact so ardently championed by the Angela Merkel administration, the former French president, Nicolas Sarkozy (albeit an initially reluctant convert), and the fiscal ‘hawks’ within the European Union bureaucracy. A compact that, in theory, institutionalises austerity economics in perpetuity: you can vote for who you like, but you will always get the same polices.

But that was challenged in France, when François Hollande (supposedly Mr Normal) became the first Socialist Party president in 20 years after winning the run-off with 51.63% of the vote. Legislative elections, which are expected to produce an SP-led government, will take place in June. Hollande, of course, has promised to “rewrite” or “renegotiate” the fiscal pact - his central campaign pledge. A call to arms against the Fiskalpakt and the ‘Merkozy’ alliance. “Austerity is no longer inevitable,” he declared, and his “mission” is to “give to European construction the dream of growth”. Merkel congratulated Hollande on his victory and said she looked forward to doing business with him - no doubt. But she has also adamantly insisted that the fiscal pact is “not negotiable” - whether in Greece, France or any of the other euro zone countries. The pact has been signed by the 25 governmental leaders and that is that. Just obey.

Mr Normal, needless to say, will discover all manner of virtues in the German government’s approach to Europe once he is comfortably bedded down in the Élysée - it must be those goose-feathered pillows or something. But that does not mean that there will be a smooth and easy transition from Merkozy to ‘Merkollande’ and it will soon be business as usual. An Hollande aide told the BBC that “we have 45 days to succeed”, meaning the new French president only has a limited amount of time to come up with some sort of amended European deal over the fiscal pact - anything - that he can then sell to those who supported him on May 6 as proof that their vote has not been wasted. If not, the SP could pay the price in the June elections and one major benefactor could well be Marine Le-Pen’s Front National, which won 17.9% of the vote in the first round of the presidentials.

Cracks

However, encouragingly for Hollande - and also the working class, to the extent that it might signify a partial retreat from the austerity regime - cracks appear to be opening up in the EU bureaucracy. Maybe a dawning realisation that unless there is a change in direction, or at the very least a radical change in presentation, then the whole euro project itself could disappear down the plug-hole - not just the fiscal pact. Thus on May 8 Herman Van Rompuy, the (unelected) president of the European Council - which under the Lisbon treaty is charged with outlining the “general political directions and priorities” of the EU - announced that a “special summit” will be held in two weeks time.

At this “special summit”, Hollande will apparently unveil his proposals for “tackling” the euro crisis - which will involve demands for “pan-European investment” to generate growth and create jobs. A stimulus package, in other words. Similarly, Olli Rehn, the EU commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, in a speech on May 6 talked about “seizing the moment to advance our proposals in the new political climate” - with austerity being increasingly rejected by European workers and voters. What is to be done?

Yes, Rehn continued, fiscal consolidation and structural reforms are “unavoidable” - no turning back. Having said that though, he claimed that such ‘reforms’ (ie, cuts and attacks) could be implemented in a “growth-friendly” way. Very sensible. “Active public policies to promote sustainable growth” are, he stated, “equally as important” as deficit reduction. He also claimed that the fiscal pact is “not stupid” - absolutely not - but entails “considerable scope for judgement when it comes to its application”.

Additionally, he mapped out the EU’s plans to boost growth by using public spending to foster private investment and reiterated proposals to increase the capital base of the European Investment Bank by about €10 billion - which could be used as collateral to inaugurate large infrastructure “pilot projects” on a pan-European scale this year. There is also €82 billion, we hear, in “unused” structural funds from the EU’s medium-term budget which could be tapped to promote growth and jobs, amounting to a quarter of the total EU budget. Furthermore, Rehn envisaged the creation of “project bonds” (not Eurobonds, of course) for infrastructure, suggesting the EU bosses could be ready to start funding this project within months.

All these wondrous “growth-boosting initiatives”, Rehn informed his Brussels audience, could be “combined to create a European investment pact”. This must be music to Hollande’s ears, given that he deployed very similar arguments - and language - during his presidential campaign. More importantly still, if “growth-friendly” projects do emerge from the “special summit” then Hollande might be able to return triumphant. The man of the people who gets things done.

Perhaps in another sign of the times, the president of the EU commission, José Manuel Barroso, strongly hinted that there could be a “relaxation” of the binding budget targets as laid out in the Fiskalpakt. Not that this signals a retreat from ‘fiscal consolidation’, perish the idea. However, he hastily added - did we briefly see panic in his eyes? - any such fiscal/budgetary loosening would not apply to Greece, which still has to obey every imperious demand of the EU commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund troika.

In fact, Jörg Asmussen - a member of both the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the ECB executive - told the Handelsblatt business newspaper on May 9 that there was “no alternative” to the troika programme and Greece could be kicked out of the euro forthwith if it reneged on the bailout conditions. Sentiments endorsed by Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, who days before the Greek parliamentary elections warned - or threatened - that if Greek voters were to foolishly vote for parties that will “not honour those agreements” then they “will have to bear the consequences”.

Greek warning

However, the Greek masses ignored Schäuble’s warnings - big time. The two establishment parties that have ruled the country since the military rule came to an end in 1974, New Democracy and Pasok, were humiliated. Punished for their role in inflicting austerity and misery upon the masses. On a 65.1% turn-out - the lowest ever in modern times - two-thirds of the electorate voted for anti-austerity parties, whether from the left or right. ND received just 18.9% of the vote, representing a 14.6% drop from the last parliamentary elections, but managed to secure an artificially high number of seats (108) due to the anti-democratic rule in the constitution which rewards the party that secures the highest number of votes with a 50-seat ‘bonus’ (so-called ‘reinforced proportionality’). Naturally, this law was introduced in order to enhance ‘governmental stability’ - the rule of the bourgeoisie, in other words.

So ND with less than 20% of the vote gets almost two seats for every one allocated to other parties in proportion to their vote - despite the fact that more people actually declined to vote than voted for ND. Very fair and democratic. Ironically enough - and quote gloriously - this rule designed to promote ‘stability’ is if anything now having the very opposite effect, as it was obviously predicated on the happy notion that the extra 50 seats would always ensure that the leading party would to form the government. Now there is the possibility that ND will not be part of a new government, but will still retain its extra 50 seats as part of an obstructive bloc - thus throwing the whole Greek constitution into disrepute. An excellent development, as far as communists are concerned - being that we are extreme democrats.

Meanwhile, Pasok, quite inevitably, was decimated, getting a mere 13.2 % of the vote (41 seats) and coming third to Syriza - the Coalition of the Radical Left - which got 16.8% and hence bagged 52 seats. Then we had the Independent Greeks, a rightwing organisation formed only in February this year by a disgruntled former ND MP, on 10.6% (33 seats). Next was the ‘official’ Communist Party, KKE, on 8.5% (26 seats) and the far-right Golden Dawn making a significant breakthrough on 7.0% (21 seats). The Democratic Left, a semi-rightist split from Syriza - though still considerably to the left of Pasok - got 6.1% (19 seats).

Overall, the combined vote for the parties to the left of Pasok represented in parliament came to 32.3% (or 97 seats). It is worth noting that those parties that did not reach the threshold obtained 19.03% of the vote between them, hardly an insignificant figure. That included other groups to the left of Pasok, including the Ecologist Greens (2.9%) and the Anti-capitalist Left (1.2%).

Amidst the carnage, ND’s Antonis Samaras tried to form a government of “national salvation” - having three days to pull off the trick before the Greek president handed over the ‘mandate’ to the leader of the party with the second biggest share of the vote. But Samaras threw in the towel within 24 hours, describing his task as “impossible”. Even if he could get Pasok on board for another coalition government, they still would only be able to muster 149 seats between them - two short of the 151 needed to form a parliamentary majority. Unsurprisingly, nobody else was remotely interested in linking up with ND - who would want to be associated with one of the former governmental parties that brought such misery to the Greek people?

Therefore, the baton was handed on to Alexis Tsipras - head of Syriza and also president of Synaspismós, the Coalition of Left Movements and Ecology, the largest component within Syriza. He was faced with a similarly impossible task, given the parliamentary arithmetic, and quickly gave up trying - no doubt Evangelos Venizelos, Pasok’s president, or anyone else asked by the Greek president to form a government, will fail dismally. As the Weekly Worker goes to press though, it is being widely reported Venizelos will not even bother taking up the ‘mandate’, which - if it turns out to be true - almost certainly means (barring a military or constitutional coup) that fresh elections will be called for June. Such an announcement might possibly be imminent.

But only someone from Mars could believe that angry Greek voters will suddenly flock back to the mainstream/establishment parties: the centre cannot hold. Indeed, there is a reasonable probability that Syriza could come first next time, when you consider the very large number of uncast votes up for grabs - such votes would surely go overwhelmingly to anti-austerity parties, mainly ones on the left (ie, Syriza). A near perfect recipe for electoral stalemate, which in turn means Greece is heading for more political instability - not less. Not the bourgeois game plan, you can bet.

Faced with fears that the country might crash out of the euro relatively soon - hardly a fanciful speculation - the markets across Europe fell markedly, with investors turning to the safe havens of US treasuries, German bonds and UK gilts. Greek stocks fell to a 20-year low, whilst the euro slipped 0.3% against the dollar to $1.3022.

Lash-up?

We are obliged to ask - does Alex Tsipras and Syriza offer a viable working class alternative to the rule of the bourgeoisie in Greece? He has shocked establishment Greece - and Europe as a whole - with his militant declaration that the “popular verdict” had rendered the troika’s bailout package “null and void” and that therefore there should be a moratorium on Greek debt payments. He is totally correct, of course, though we communists would prefer an even more militant and direct stance that calls for the immediate cancellation of the “barbaric” debt - as he calls it, quite rightly again. Tsipras says that he is not against the euro as such, but “opposed to the policies being pursued in the name of the euro”, which we take to mean that he - like the majority of Greeks - has no nationalist desire to pull out of the euro/EU.

Then we have to examine Tsipras’s five conditions for entering into new coalition government: the immediate cancellation of all “impending measures” that will “impoverish Greeks further”, such as cuts to pensions and salaries; and those that “undermine” fundamental workers’ rights, such as the abolition of collective labour agreements; the “immediate abolition” of a law granting MPs immunity from prosecution, “reform” of the electoral law and a general “overhaul” of the political system (which include the abolition of the 50-seat ‘bonus’); an “investigation” into the practices of Greek banks and the “immediate publication” of the audit performed on the Greek banking sector by BlackRock in January, and the setting up of an “international auditing committee” to investigate the causes of Greece’s public deficit, with a moratorium on all debt servicing until the findings of the audit are published.

Tsipras’s demands are quite supportable in and of themselves - and it is a perfectly legitimate tactic, depending upon the concrete conditions, to put forward all manner of demands/conditions in order to expose a political party, or even individual, before the masses. However, communists would be utterly opposed to the formation of a left reformist coalition, which would be committed to administering capitalism. That would be a disaster. Instead, we are for a working class government committed to carrying out the full minimum programme of Marxism.

But there is no Marxist party in Greece capable of forming such a government as of today. Communists in Greece should therefore demand that Syriza, and the Greek left as a whole, reject all invitations to form or join a government. Till we have a clear majority committed to a transition to socialism it is far better to be parties of extreme opposition which intransigently fight not only against the cuts but for a new, much more democratic, constitution. Alongside that, of course, we need to build a state within the state, eg, co-ops, workers’ control over production, a workers’ militia, a united trade union movement. Crucially what the crisis in the EU cries out for is a Communist Party of the European Union because only on a pan-European basis can we realistically expect to implement the full minimum programme and begin to look to the tasks of the maximum programme (ie, communism).

Agathor

10th May 2012, 15:32

Brosip Tito

10th May 2012, 16:33

SYRIZA has 17% of the vote. They do not have a mandate nor the ability to abolish capitalism. If Greek socialists refuse to enter a coalition until there is a clear consensus for socialism -- which hasn't happened in any country since the thirties -- voters will loose patience and vote for someone who will.

In before people jump on me for being a petit-bourgeois chauvinist liberal reformist and so on.
Are you suggesting that socialism can arise through parliamentary means, and coalitions with bourgeois parties?

10th May 2012, 16:36

Eddie Ford writes about the recent election results of France and Greece. I thought that the part about Greece was especially interesting as it touches upon the question of when we should take power, if at all.

Delenda Carthago

10th May 2012, 17:04

A brand new era for humanity has begun. Rivers will be flowing milk and honey and clouds will be made of pink sugar. Viva Revolucion, Viva SYRIZA!

Delenda Carthago

11th May 2012, 00:17

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47371418?__source=ft&par=ft

Tsipras said he is willing to negotiate with the so-called troika — the International Monetary Fund http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_CNBC_EXPLAINS/_IMAGES/CNBC_explains_icon1.gif (http://www.cnbc.com/id/43047739) , the European Union, and the European Central Bank http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_CNBC_EXPLAINS/_IMAGES/CNBC_explains_icon1.gif (http://www.cnbc.com/id/44536753) — to keep Greece in the euro zone.

Revolucion!

Agathor

11th May 2012, 01:11

Are you suggesting that socialism can arise through parliamentary means, and coalitions with bourgeois parties?

I don't buy into the idiotic concept of 'bourgeois democracy'. I think it's an excuse leftists use for their abysmal performance in elections. In the UK statute law is the highest form of law. If a communist party wins a comfortable majority in the British legislature they are completely in charge of the country and they can do whatever they like as long as they get it confirmed in the Commons. There are no bourgeois checks and balances which prevent left-wingers from taking office. If they win the vote, they run the country.

Anyway, on Greece. What I said, (in very clear terms but with no apparent benefit) is that because capitalist parties have a large majority in the Greek parliament, socialism is off the table for the moment. If SYRIZA is returned with a majority, let's talk about it.

11th May 2012, 02:51

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47371418?__source=ft&par=ft

Revolucion!

Not sure how that points to a revolution. If anything those "negotiations" would be totally in the advantage of the troika, given the balance of forces at play here. There is nothing to negotiate that Syriza could claim to be positive to its voters.

Grenzer

11th May 2012, 02:55

A brand new era for humanity has begun. Rivers will be flowing milk and honey and clouds will be made of pink sugar. Viva Revolucion, Viva SYRIZA!

lol, isn't this a bit dramatic?

The only thing I see in store for Greece's foreseeable future is nationalism and pseudo-left populism.

Crux

11th May 2012, 02:58

Delenda is just bitter because the KKE will probably drop down from their cherished 8% in the new election.

Blanquist

11th May 2012, 03:08

lol, isn't this a bit dramatic?

The only thing I see in store for Greece's foreseeable future is nationalism and pseudo-left populism.

I think that's a bit optimistic, I see something like a military dictatorship in the foreseeable future.

Die Neue Zeit

11th May 2012, 04:43

SYRIZA has 17% of the vote. They do not have a mandate nor the ability to abolish capitalism. If Greek socialists refuse to enter a coalition until there is a clear consensus for socialism -- which hasn't happened in any country since the thirties -- voters will loose patience and vote for someone who will.

In before people jump on me for being a petit-bourgeois chauvinist liberal reformist and so on.

Reform coalitions only work for sections of the working class (as opposed to the class as a whole). The article is suggesting opposition, shifting public policy discourse leftwards through opposition like earlier attempts from the right for their policies.

Grenzer

11th May 2012, 05:15

Are you suggesting that socialism can arise through parliamentary means, and coalitions with bourgeois parties?

To be fair, Parliament can and should be used as an avenue of struggle, depending on the circumstances. However, if by "parliamentary means" you mean that the actual transfer of political power to the working class can happen entirely through parliament, then I would agree entirely. Coalitionism is always a big no, since the worker's party as a class for itself has no allies.

Agathor is one of those liberal "rule of law" types, which is of course, reformist. The bourgeois control the media, they control the state, they effectively control the whole of society. If there is a serious chance that a revolutionary worker's party could come to power legally, then I have a very hard time believing that the bourgeois wouldn't simply sabotage it.

Contrary to Agathor's claim, I don't think that any serious person has ever claimed that this is why revolutionary parties do poorly at the polls. It's just a lame straw man. A party has a mandate for revolution if it has the support of a majority of the workers, a distinction that is conspicuously absent in Agathor's post..

Just another common liberal idealist here, move along folks.

Delenda Carthago

11th May 2012, 10:36

Not sure how that points to a revolution. If anything those "negotiations" would be totally in the advantage of the troika, given the balance of forces at play here. There is nothing to negotiate that Syriza could claim to be positive to its voters.
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i206/badwolf6556/SarcasmSign.jpg

Delenda Carthago

11th May 2012, 10:39

Delenda is just bitter because the KKE will probably drop down from their cherished 8% in the new election.
You.are.pathetic.

Thirsty Crow

11th May 2012, 10:55

If a communist party wins a comfortable majority in the British legislature they are completely in charge of the country and they can do whatever they like as long as they get it confirmed in the Commons. There are no bourgeois checks and balances which prevent left-wingers from taking office. If they win the vote, they run the country.

It must be really pleasant to live in a fantasy land.
As far as checks and balances go, there are some of those, namely military, para-military formations and fascist militias. Or then again, you can learn something about the example of Allende in Chile which would also shatter your illusion that international political and economic relations are hardly relevant as a "checks and balances".
It's entirely naive to conceive of the electoral process, and the state it is based on, as a neutral institution presiding over society. But that's something you seem to be ignoring as you point out that the notion of bourgeois democracy (what other political rul can there be if we agree on the simple fact that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class; or do you think that in this enlightened age the ruling class doesn't bother with securing its hegemony?) is idiotic and fail to even argue why this is so. And no, reference to the way you perceive this notion is used doesn't constitute an argument in favour of your idea.

Brosip Tito

11th May 2012, 11:27

To be fair, Parliament can and should be used as an avenue of struggle, depending on the circumstances. However, if by "parliamentary means" you mean that the actual transfer of political power to the working class can happen entirely through parliament, then I would agree entirely. Coalitionism is always a big no, since the worker's party as a class for itself has no allies.

Agathor is one of those liberal "rule of law" types, which is of course, reformist. The bourgeois control the media, they control the state, they effectively control the whole of society. If there is a serious chance that a revolutionary worker's party could come to power legally, then I have a very hard time believing that the bourgeois wouldn't simply sabotage it.

Contrary to Agathor's claim, I don't think that any serious person has ever claimed that this is why revolutionary parties do poorly at the polls. It's just a lame straw man. A party has a mandate for revolution if it has the support of a majority of the workers, a distinction that is conspicuously absent in Agathor's post..

Just another common liberal idealist here, move along folks.
Of course I'm not opposed to parliamentary struggle. I'm supportive of the idea of a revolutionary oppositionist party.

Brosip Tito

11th May 2012, 11:33

ed miliband

11th May 2012, 11:48

I don't buy into the idiotic concept of 'bourgeois democracy'. I think it's an excuse leftists use for their abysmal performance in elections. In the UK statute law is the highest form of law. If a communist party wins a comfortable majority in the British legislature they are completely in charge of the country and they can do whatever they like as long as they get it confirmed in the Commons. There are no bourgeois checks and balances which prevent left-wingers from taking office. If they win the vote, they run the country.

Anyway, on Greece. What I said, (in very clear terms but with no apparent benefit) is that because capitalist parties have a large majority in the Greek parliament, socialism is off the table for the moment. If SYRIZA is returned with a majority, let's talk about it.

menocchio has nicely addressed this laughable shit, apart from your claim that bourgeois democracy is an "excuse leftists use for their abysmal performance in elections" -- as if anti-parliamentarianism doesn't have a history on the left going back to the first international!

It must be really pleasant to live in a fantasy land.
As far as checks and balances go, there are some of those, namely military, para-military formations and fascist militias. Or then again, you can learn something about the example of Allende in Chile which would also shatter your illusion that international political and economic relations are hardly relevant as a "checks and balances".
It's entirely naive to conceive of the electoral process, and the state it is based on, as a neutral institution presiding over society. But that's something you seem to be ignoring as you point out that the notion of bourgeois democracy (what other political rul can there be if we agree on the simple fact that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class; or do you think that in this enlightened age the ruling class doesn't bother with securing its hegemony?) is idiotic and fail to even argue why this is so. And no, reference to the way you perceive this notion is used doesn't constitute an argument in favour of your idea.

or, closer to home, just look at the suspicion surrounding plots against the harold wilson (moderate labour) government(s) in 60s/70s britain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm

11th May 2012, 12:08

I don't buy into the idiotic concept of 'bourgeois democracy'. I think it's an excuse leftists use for their abysmal performance in elections. In the UK statute law is the highest form of law. If a communist party wins a comfortable majority in the British legislature they are completely in charge of the country and they can do whatever they like as long as they get it confirmed in the Commons. There are no bourgeois checks and balances which prevent left-wingers from taking office. If they win the vote, they run the country.

Anyway, on Greece. What I said, (in very clear terms but with no apparent benefit) is that because capitalist parties have a large majority in the Greek parliament, socialism is off the table for the moment. If SYRIZA is returned with a majority, let's talk about it.

So you keep exact notion that proved fatal to the Second International.

There are many checks and balances that favor minority rule: The state bureaucracy (including the military), the (in many countries) second chamber/senate that "oversees" parliament, the "rule of law" that favors capitalist relations, mass media and, perhaps most importantly, the international financial markets. If you simply adopt the notion that we should get a majority in parliament and ignore these very real checks and balances, you will run into a dead end.

Also, regarding the 17% Syriza got, this is indeed true. However, New Democracy also got a mere 19%. The reason why they got so many seats is because of the Greek electoral law (yet another check and balance) that gives 50 extra seats to the biggest party. It could well be that Syriza will get those 50 extra seats next time.

Crux

11th May 2012, 13:32

You.are.pathetic.
If you're planning writing any new articles in your paper, well I can't help with the political content of course I'll leave the secterianism to you, but if you need to try and avoid further embarrassing incidents like that denmark article (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=171234) I am all yours for factchecking puproses.

Delenda Carthago

12th May 2012, 02:19

If you're planning writing any new articles in your paper, well I can't help with the political content of course I'll leave the secterianism to you, but if you need to try and avoid further embarrassing incidents like that denmark article (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=171234) I am all yours for factchecking puproses.
No. I m just gonna mention how right winger you are when you attack KKE for its percentage of vote in the ballot and call it "sectarian" just cause you would like it to collaborate with SYRIZA and PASOK to make you happy. Or then again, you would say about how "sold out" it is, wouldnt you? KKE knows very well that its % will be dropped in the next elections and it stays true to its revolutionary line, while if it would just settle now it could be on the goverment. But KKE has made a very clear choise, to be a revolutionary party, not a goverment one. If this is something to mock for you, fine. Greek CWI was in PASOK anyway, we know your kind very well.

Crux

12th May 2012, 06:40

Delenda Carthago

12th May 2012, 08:46

Misrepresentations and outright lies from a KKE member? Why I'd never. A government with PASOK? Did you read that in your paper? it's seems you've made another embaressing blunder.Oh and you will hold your line very well, it is called the side line. But my my how good you are with the radical phrase.
Yes goverment with PASOK you fuckin idiot. KKE+SYRIZA+Democratic Left did not make enough seats to make a goverment. You needed some PASOK MPs at least(those that "disagree with mnemonioum").And thats why Tsipras said he'd accept any help the far right party of Kammenos would possibly give. Didnt your friends in Xeftilisma told you that? And btw, why you attack PASOK. I say it again, you where in it back in the days.

Delenda Carthago

12th May 2012, 08:50

http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/2012/04/11/resized/MHTROPOYLOS_489_355.jpg

Υou see him? Find the differences.

http://images.newsnow.gr/5/53346/ypopsifios-me-ton-syriza-o-alexis-mitropoulos-1-315x236.jpg

Delenda Carthago

12th May 2012, 08:52

http://www.avgi.gr/images/photoarchive/2011/12/14/Clipboard01_high.jpg?w=458

http://www.agrinioculture.gr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/%CE%9A%CE%9F%CE%A5%CE%A1%CE%9F%CE%A5%CE%9C%CE%A0%C E%9B%CE%97%CE%A3.jpeg

Guess from what party they just left.

Brosip Tito

12th May 2012, 13:44

Parliamentary coalitions with bourgeois parties is anti-marxist.

Crux

12th May 2012, 15:04

Yes goverment with PASOK you fuckin idiot. KKE+SYRIZA+Democratic Left did not make enough seats to make a goverment. You needed some PASOK MPs at least(those that "disagree with mnemonioum").And thats why Tsipras said he'd accept any help the far right party of Kammenos would possibly give. Didnt your friends in Xeftilisma told you that? And btw, why you attack PASOK. I say it again, you where in it back in the days.
are you trying to tell me you have not even realized there will be new elections? Shit your leadership must really keep you uninformed. I am not tsipras and we are not tsipras. You must be desperate. Yes "back in the day" quite different times. If I was like you and just out take cheap swipes i'd remind you KKE has been in government with ND.

Delenda Carthago

12th May 2012, 15:19

are you trying to tell me you have not even realized there will be new elections? Shit your leadership must really keep you uninformed. I am not tsipras and we are not tsipras. You must be desperate. Yes "back in the day" quite different times. If I was like you and just out take cheap swipes i'd remind you KKE has been in government with ND.
Its so easy when you morons try to look like you know better about the situation in Greece when you lack so big amount of info.

The thing goes like this.

Elections come, SYRIZA gets a 17% , KKE a 8,5%, DIMAR 6% and PASOK 13%. SYRIZA calls for a "Goverment of the Left" to exit the mnemonioum. DIMAR after a while says yes. KKE says no. SYRIZA still needs some MPs to get the 151 to form a goverment. For that it needs the whole KKE+DIMAR+ someone. That would either be Kammenos or PASOK. After some bureocratic bs they didnt came to a conclusion so they go for elections again. In between all this, Tsipras said that if KKE said yes, Papariga would become the Prime Minister. And we still denied.

In the next elections KKE knows very well that its gonna lose a lot. Because many people want a solution right now, and SYRIZA seems like a hope, so they gonna vote for it. But it insists that it does not have anything to do with it, because its not an opportunist party.

You, mock KKE for the loss its gonna have, because it denied the entrance in a capitalist goverment. And you try to act funny when you come to admit it. You prefer a weak KKE and a strong "Goverment of the Left" ie SYRIZA and DIMAR and some PASOK members. Or you would like for it to join the party huh?

Ok, your problem.

And as far as the goverment with ND. That was a so-called "special cause" goverment, so that the ex-Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou would get trialed for a scandal and it lasted 6 months. Ow, what a terrible betrayal for the working class. On the other hand Xekinima was in PASOK for more than a decade. "Different times".

Agathor

12th May 2012, 15:59

It must be really pleasant to live in a fantasy land.
As far as checks and balances go, there are some of those, namely military, para-military formations and fascist militias. Or then again, you can learn something about the example of Allende in Chile which would also shatter your illusion that international political and economic relations are hardly relevant as a "checks and balances".

Is this English?
You appear to be living somewhere between 1920 and 1970. There aren't many fascist militias around these days. And the military will be a threat regardless of how left wingers take power. More-so if it's done through a revolution, as that will require direct conflict which the military, who will almost certainly win. The coup against Allende was not the result of an inherent bias hiding somewhere in the parliamentary system. The US simply organized a coup and overthrew him.

It's entirely naive to conceive of the electoral process, and the state it is based on, as a neutral institution presiding over society.

Then explain the bias. Show me the check within the electoral system that stops leftists taking power.

But that's something you seem to be ignoring as you point out that the notion of bourgeois democracy (what other political rul can there be if we agree on the simple fact that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class; or do you think that in this enlightened age the ruling class doesn't bother with securing its hegemony?) is idiotic and fail to even argue why this is so. And no, reference to the way you perceive this notion is used doesn't constitute an argument in favour of your idea.
The bourgeoisie rule because people keep electing their parties. There is no other reason.

Agathor

12th May 2012, 16:16

You're seriously suggesting that "socialist" parties want to, and have tried to, institute workers' control over the means of production and handing political power over to the working class?

What's your excuse for Greece? What's your excuse for France, and what will be your excuse when Hollande doesn't do what you think? What is your excuse for Northern Europe? What's your excuse for Iraq? What's your excuse for all the other places which have had "socialist" leaders and parties in power?

None of those countries have had socialist leaders in power. They have all been social democrats, for the simple reason that that's all people wanted. There has never been a nationwide desire in any country for common ownership, soviet management, production for need rather than profit etc etc. Even in Spain and Germany (1936, 1918) it was a minority of the population within certain regions, as we can see from looking at the subsequent election results.

I don't know why you're talking about Hollande, as he has never claimed to be a socialist in the classical sense.

TL;DR, politicians don't institute socialism because most people aren't interested in it.

Agathor

12th May 2012, 16:26

So you keep exact notion that proved fatal to the Second International.

There are many checks and balances that favor minority rule: The state bureaucracy (including the military), the (in many countries) second chamber/senate that "oversees" parliament, the "rule of law" that favors capitalist relations, mass media and, perhaps most importantly, the international financial markets. If you simply adopt the notion that we should get a majority in parliament and ignore these very real checks and balances, you will run into a dead end.

Again, almost everything you mentioned-- finance markets, media, military -- would hinder any movement, revolutionary or parliamentary. The second chamber is elected in every democratic country in which it's effective, and if a socialist party has the most of the working class on their side it will be easy to fill.

Also, regarding the 17% Syriza got, this is indeed true. However, New Democracy also got a mere 19%. The reason why they got so many seats is because of the Greek electoral law (yet another check and balance) that gives 50 extra seats to the biggest party. It could well be that Syriza will get those 50 extra seats next time.

The extra 50 seats is meant to ensure stable governance, and, as you confusingly admitted, will probably favour SYRIZA after the next election. Therefore, it's not a bourgeois check.

ed miliband

12th May 2012, 16:55

The bourgeoisie rule because people keep electing their parties. There is no other reason.

lol this is the best thing you've said in this thread. so they don't rule because they own and control the means of production and distribution, then? the history of "proletarian" parties that have participated in bourgeois elections and found some success (the pci being the best example) mirrors the performance of bourgeois parties quite stunningly, funnily enough.

Crux

12th May 2012, 19:56

Its so easy when you morons try to look like you know better about the situation in Greece when you lack so big amount of info.

The thing goes like this.

Elections come, SYRIZA gets a 17% , KKE a 8,5%, DIMAR 6% and PASOK 13%. SYRIZA calls for a "Goverment of the Left" to exit the mnemonioum. DIMAR after a while says yes. KKE says no. SYRIZA still needs some MPs to get the 151 to form a goverment. For that it needs the whole KKE+DIMAR+ someone. That would either be Kammenos or PASOK. After some bureocratic bs they didnt came to a conclusion so they go for elections again. In between all this, Tsipras said that if KKE said yes, Papariga would become the Prime Minister. And we still denied.

In the next elections KKE knows very well that its gonna lose a lot. Because many people want a solution right now, and SYRIZA seems like a hope, so they gonna vote for it. But it insists that it does not have anything to do with it, because its not an opportunist party.

You, mock KKE for the loss its gonna have, because it denied the entrance in a capitalist goverment. And you try to act funny when you come to admit it. You prefer a weak KKE and a strong "Goverment of the Left" ie SYRIZA and DIMAR and some PASOK members. Or you would like for it to join the party huh?

Ok, your problem.

And as far as the goverment with ND. That was a so-called "special cause" goverment, so that the ex-Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou would get trialed for a scandal and it lasted 6 months. Ow, what a terrible betrayal for the working class. On the other hand Xekinima was in PASOK for more than a decade. "Different times".
oh please I know what the election results were. Barring, perhaps, a PASOK, ND, DIMAR austerity government there is not going to be any new government with these results. So there will be new elections, I know this. SYRIZA knows this when calling for a left government. Indeed most people, except for you, knows this.
Do you want me to give you a rundown of the 1970's and our rationale for entryism, i e building a marxist tendency in the worker's movement?

Agathor

12th May 2012, 20:30

lol this is the best thing you've said in this thread. so they don't rule because they own and control the means of production and distribution, then? the history of "proletarian" parties that have participated in bourgeois elections and found some success (the pci being the best example) mirrors the performance of bourgeois parties quite stunningly, funnily enough.

They own and control the means of production because people keep electing their parties.

And learn to act with some sort of basic social hygiene or don't expect many more responses.

13th May 2012, 01:37

Again, almost everything you mentioned-- finance markets, media, military -- would hinder any movement, revolutionary or parliamentary. The second chamber is elected in every democratic country in which it's effective, and if a socialist party has the most of the working class on their side it will be easy to fill.
The second chamber is indeed elected in many countris, but on a much more indirect basis. In the Netherlands for example the senate is elected by the provincial parliaments, not directly by the population. Famously in the UK they are appointed of course, although some very minor democratic changes seem to be forthcoming.

And yes, all those checks and balances keep any movement under control. That is their purpose. The main point is that under capitalism the parliament isn't primary, the actual center of power. It is just one part of it and not even a very important one. Hence the call for staying in "extreme opposition" as was mentioned in the article of the OP.

The reason for this is that on a national basis it would be utterly impossible to transcend capital. So you end up with some sort of Keynesianism at best and this too is too much asked as the capitalist class is bend against it. But even if it didn't and promoted this policy, as it did in the 1950's to 1970's, it would lead to binding the working class movement to the state, thus giving up its political independence and, therefore, let it give up the socialist project.

What we need therefore are transnational solutions to unite our class and overcome the power of the international financial system. In Europe this would, at the very least, mean uniting Europe into a single republic. And besides that we'd still need to overcome the other institutions of capitalist control: the military by a working class militia and universal education in arms; the state bureaucracy with working class self-organisation; the abolition of the second chamber; our own independent mass media; and certainly the goal of the constitutional overthrow of the state that embalms the "rule of law" so deeply and as to make socialised property possible.

This all implies a party-movement that spans Europe.

The extra 50 seats is meant to ensure stable governance, and, as you confusingly admitted, will probably favour SYRIZA after the next election. Therefore, it's not a bourgeois check.
Normally this is very much a check and balance and most certainly an undemocratic measure. We are however living in exceptional times and it is indeed possible this measure doesn't work as was intended. However, this doesn't undermine the point that our party shouldn't enter government until it can carry out its full programme. In the case of Syriza this programme is not based on gaining the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it would still have to conform to capitalist rule if it is to govern or face complete isolation and social disintegration. And what would be the point of "run the country" if was on the same level of pariah state as, say, North-Korea?

A Marxist Historian

13th May 2012, 02:00

Delenda Carthago

13th May 2012, 08:18

oh please I know what the election results were. Barring, perhaps, a PASOK, ND, DIMAR austerity government there is not going to be any new government with these results. So there will be new elections, I know this. SYRIZA knows this when calling for a left government. Indeed most people, except for you, knows this.
Do you want me to give you a rundown of the 1970's and our rationale for entryism, i e building a marxist tendency in the worker's movement?
How does this answer to anything I said...:confused:

Crux

13th May 2012, 12:01

Okay let me put it in even more simple terms, calling for a left government, no matter what you read in your party paper, is not calling for a government with PASOK.

Delenda Carthago

13th May 2012, 12:17

Okay let me put it in even more simple terms, calling for a left government, no matter what you read in your party paper, is not calling for a government with PASOK.
No, its not. Its a goverment with less than 151 MPs.

Sten

13th May 2012, 12:59

Agathor

13th May 2012, 17:02

Hilarious. If a truly communist party managed to win control of parliament, the Queen would give the army the order to put an end to the parliamentary farce forthwith, and establish a firm military dictatorship.
No, that's hilarious. Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to back up these fantasies?

The communist legislators would be lucky to escape with their lives.
Remember what Henry Kissinger said when Allende was elected? Which he then implemented?

-M.H.-

You people keep bringing up the Allende coup as an example of what happens when radicals take power. Problem: Allende was about as radical as Attlee. So why was Allende overthrown and not Attlee? Simply because in the 1970s America had the same attitude to South America as The Soviet Union had to Eastern Europe: they crushed all independent development, be it leftist, like Allende, or Liberal, like Arbenz. (and it helped that South America has a coup culture) It is not evidence of the parliamentary system rejecting leftists, it was simply an American takeover with a proxy army. Old fashioned imperialism. Chavez and Morales are far more radical than Allende and one of them hasn't been troubled by the military in about a decade, and the other has never been the victim of a coup.

Agathor

13th May 2012, 17:39

The second chamber is indeed elected in many countris, but on a much more indirect basis. In the Netherlands for example the senate is elected by the provincial parliaments, not directly by the population. Famously in the UK they are appointed of course, although some very minor democratic changes seem to be forthcoming.

And yes, all those checks and balances keep any movement under control. That is their purpose. The main point is that under capitalism the parliament isn't primary, the actual center of power. It is just one part of it and not even a very important one. Hence the call for staying in "extreme opposition" as was mentioned in the article of the OP.

I don't know much about the senate in the Netherlands but dis-proportionality isn't a bourgeois bias. It works both ways. If the British parliament was proportional Labour would have been a minority government in 1945 and probably wouldn't have created such an thorough welfare state.
The Lords is unelected (the "minor democratic changes" are to make it 90% elected) but it is also impotent. The British parliament has been effectively unicameral since 1911. The Lords can only hold legislation up for a year, and as there's no constitution, could be abolished with simple statute law.

I don't see how any of this necessarily helps right wing parties. And even if it did, it would be far easier to organize into a pressure group and force reforms to the higher chamber than it would to organize a revolutionary army and defeat NATO in open combat.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

15th May 2012, 21:08

Greece

New elections due as pro-austerity coalition talks fail
www.socialistworld.net, 15/05/2012
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI

For a Left government! For anti-austerity, pro-worker, socialist policies!

Nikos Anastasiades, Xekinima (CWI in Greece ) and Niall Mulholland, CWI

Following the 6 May election earthquake in Greece, which saw a hammering of the pro-austerity parties and a huge rejection of the ‘Troika’ (IMF, ECB and EU), the main parties failed to form a coalition government. Attempts by the Greek president to oversee a ‘national unity’ government or to form a “government of technocrats” also failed. Crucial new elections will be held no later than 17 June.

The supporters of Xekinima (CWI in Greece) strongly supported the decision by the left-wing party Syriza to refuse to join any government with pro-austerity parties, such as Pasok, the traditional social democratic party, and the right wing New Democracy.

Syriza
Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left) leapt from 4.6% to 16.78% (52 seats), to become the second largest party in the last elections, largely on the basis of its anti-cuts policies and call for a united left government.

Over the last week, the main political parties desperately tried to find a way to avoid new elections. The Greek ruling class is disorientated. Their traditional political tools of support, New Democracy and Pasok, saw their vote dramatically fall.

This was the result of years of their austerity measures that led to mass poverty and homelessness, a steep fall in living standards and rising suicides. By the end of 2012, GDP (total output) is predicted to contract by 20% (since 2008) and unemployment to rise by 25%.

Leaders of New Democracy and Pasok, and most of the media, hypocritically blame Syriza for making the country return to elections. But Syriza’s leader, Alexis Tsipras, correctly rejected their arguments, saying the political establishment wanted Syriza to become their “partner in crime” in making new cuts.

The aversion of the main party leaders to democratic elections is mainly because Syriza is tipped to become the largest party, according to opinion polls, winning anywhere between 20.5% to 28%. Syriza is the only party growing in the polls, while others are falling. New Democracy is projected to win 18.1% of a new vote and Pasok 12.2%, their lowest ratings in nearly 40 years. This reflects the huge popularity of Syriza’s public opposition to yet more austerity cuts.

Far-right threat
The neo-fascist Golden Dawn scored big successes in last week’s elections and entered parliament for the first time. But many of those who voted for Golden Dawn to “punish the politicians” now see the real far right, anti-working class character of the party. Golden Dawn has subsequently dropped in polls, to just above 3% in some cases, which would see the party fail to win any MPs in new elections.

Nevertheless, the working class cannot be complacent about the threat of the far right and reaction. Since winning parliamentary seats, Golden Dawn supporters have viciously attacked immigrants.

Xekhinima calls for the creation of local anti-fascist committees to include democratically-organised defence, and extended to communities, schools, universities and workplaces. If the left fails to offer a viable socialist alternative, the far right can make new gains and the Greek ruling class, which previously resorted to military rule, will also seek to deploy more authoritarian measures against the workers’ movement.

Eurozone exit?
The bosses’ parties threaten that Greece will be forced to leave the eurozone if new elections are called and Syriza comes to power with its anti-austerity policies. Syriza leaders say they want to take measures to end cuts and to improve living standards and that Greece should stay in the eurozone.

While the vast majority of Greeks vociferously oppose the austerity programme they also want to remain in the eurozone. They understandably fear the aftermath of exiting the common currency.

There are endless warnings from the media and cuts-making politicians about what leaving would entail: a dramatic fall in living standards, financial bankruptcy and hyperinflation. Not surprisingly, one recent opinion poll recorded 78% of respondents said they wanted a new government to do whatever it took to keep the euro. At the same time, however, to stay in the euro straitjacket promises only endless austerity for Greeks and an increasing number of them are demanding to leave.

Notwithstanding the aim of Syriza leaders to stay in the eurozone, even if they follow their current policies in a new government, limited as they are to a ‘radical’ renegotiation of the bail-out terms, they will face stiff opposition from the EU and Greek capitalists, most likely leading to Greece’s exit from the euro. The Troika has indicated that it is prepared to reconsider aspects of the bail-out terms but not the ‘core’ issues, which means new assaults on the living conditions of Greek people.

Yet Syriza is not preparing its own supporters and the working class generally for the consequences of confrontation with the Troika, the markets and the Greek ruling class or taking account of a likely ferocious media and bosses’ parties scare campaign that will be unleashed against Syriza during the new election campaign.

Some Syriza leaders argue that when they form a new government, the Troika’s bluff will be called and they forced to back down and make big concessions. They point out that the EU leaders are terrified of a Greek default and exit from the euro. This would cause a new financial crisis and deep recession throughout the EU, with countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland also possibly forced out of the euro.

While this is true, events have their own momentum. Some EU leaders and markets fear Greece is on an irresistible slide towards exit from the euro and financial markets are making preparations for this eventuality.

Angela Merkel and EU president Jose Manuel Barroso openly stated that if Athens cannot abide by the bailout rules, Greece will have to leave. This may partly be a threat to force Greece to form a coalition government to continue with cuts, as well as an attempt to show what will happen to any eurozone country that dares to stand up to the Troika.

Left government
In this situation, what should the Greek Left do? Xekinima welcomes Syriza’s public call for left unity. Syriza should open up and develop its structures as a broad left alliance, so that fresh layers of workers and youth can join and decide party policy democratically. Xekinima supports united action of the left parties ahead of the next elections and for working people to vote for Syriza.

Syriza should make a call for a resurgence of mass action in the workplaces, colleges and communities and for combative, democratic union organisation. This should be done concretely, with the convening of mass assemblies at local, regional and national levels to discuss and agree programme, demands and electoral tactics, to campaign for a left government and to strive to ensure that such a government pursues anti-austerity and pro-worker policies.

The communist party (KKE) and Antarsya (the Anti-capitalist Left Cooperation) both took a sectarian attitude before the last elections and rejected Syriza’s ‘left unity’ proposal, with the result that their votes remain stagnant. To the amazement of many millions of workers, the KKE leadership still continues to refuse to form a block with Syriza.

But under growing pressure from their rank and file, and the working class, in general, a section of Antarsya has indicated that it is prepared to have joint collaboration with Syriza.

Many KKE members also speak of the need to “make unity with Syriza”. Xekinima urges Syriza to make a bold call to the rank and file of the KKE and other left forces to join in an electoral bloc on an anti-austerity platform and to fight for a majority left government with a socialist programme.

Xekinima will campaign for a government of the Left and call for it to carry out anti-austerity, pro-worker policies and to adopt a socialist programme to transform society.

A programme for united action by Syriza and the KKE around opposition to all austerity measures, for cancellation of the debt, public ownership of the main banks and industries and for socialist change, would win widespread support from the working class, youth and middle class.

Pro-worker policies would predictably cause screams of outrage from the bosses in Greece and the EU. They would probably quickly kick Greece out of the eurozone.

Ejected from the euro, a workers’ government would need to carry out an emergency programme, including state control over imports and exports and capital controls to stop the “flight of capital” by profit-hungry property-holders and multinationals. Democratic committees should oversee the supply of foodstuffs, medicine, oil and other vital goods to working people.

A workers’ government in Greece would link up with the workers’ movement in other crisis ridden euro-zone countries, like Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, to break the diktat of the Troika, the bosses’ EU and capitalism.

These countries could form a confederation on a socialist basis and begin the international democratic planning and co-ordination of the economy, as part of a fight for a full socialist confederation of Europe, on a free and equal basis. This would win massive support quickly across the working class of Europe.

Committee for a Workers' International
PO Box 3688, London E11 1YE, Britain, Tel: ++ 44 20 8988 8760, Fax: ++ 44 20 8988 8793, [email protected] ([email protected])

Delenda Carthago

15th May 2012, 21:14

It only took 5 days for SYRIZA to take his pants off. Before the elections they were attacking the mnemonioum and austerity with such a fierce. Then they started sending mixed signals, as some of the party leaders started to "water their wine" as we say. Now they dont want to denounce mnemonioum and the debt, they want to renegotiate it, because of the fear EU might kick us out.:laugh:

A Marxist Historian

16th May 2012, 06:02

No, that's hilarious. Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to back up these fantasies?

Only the last thousand years of English and world history.

Want an example? In Australia, when the Gough Whitlam regime got very slightly out of line with capitalist policies, making threats to close the US spy base at Pine Gap, the Queen fired him and dissolved the Australian government.

Why would she act any differently in England? That would of course be glaringly "unconstitutional," but a constitution is only a worthless scrap of paper when the feces hits the fan and property is in danger.

According to Gore Vidal, a black sheep member of one of the American ruling families in a perfect position to know, back in the '60s when he was hobnobbing with other big wheels in America, the favorite source of idle chit chat among American generals was just how easy it would be for them to knock over the US government and seize power if they ever really felt like it.

And in Latin America and Africa and Asia and various European countries, military coups happen all the time.

Why not in England or America? Because they don't need them, as the voters vote in Tories and Liberals and Labour and Democrats and Republicans and other safe, harmless parties, so why would they want to bother?

You people keep bringing up the Allende coup as an example of what happens when radicals take power. Problem: Allende was about as radical as Attlee. So why was Allende overthrown and not Attlee? Simply because in the 1970s America had the same attitude to South America as The Soviet Union had to Eastern Europe: they crushed all independent development, be it leftist, like Allende, or Liberal, like Arbenz. (and it helped that South America has a coup culture) It is not evidence of the parliamentary system rejecting leftists, it was simply an American takeover with a proxy army. Old fashioned imperialism. Chavez and Morales are far more radical than Allende and one of them hasn't been troubled by the military in about a decade, and the other has never been the victim of a coup.

Why was Allende overthrown and not Attlee? For the obvious reason. Allende included the Communist Party in his coalition, and was very friendly with Castro. Attlee was a firm anti-communist and a defender of England's colonial empire to boot.

If Attlee had wanted England to side with the USSR vs. the USA, there would have been a military coup so fast everyone's head would have spun.

As for Chavez, he came in through a military coup himself, so a military coup against him would be tough, as the generals are all friends of his. The CIA did try to overthrow him, and failed. But they didn't try very hard. Why? Because Venezuela is supplying lots of oil to the US government, which means Chavez is hardly a menace to US interests. Instead he is basically an asset, a reliable oil source while the Mideast is in upheaval.

As for Morales, Bolivia has been in continual upheaval and chaos and class struggle for years now. The feeble local bourgeoisie would in fact love to overthrow him, but if they tried, and they have made some moves in that direction, the Bolivian peasants and indigenous people would kick their asses.

And, given how desperately poor and basically unimportant economically the country is, the US has no reason to want to intervene. The Bolivian model is hardly anything that any other country would want to imitate, so Morales is no threat. It's hardly a socialist regime, indeed there is no way it could be, since the country at this point has hardly any working class.

Nor is Bolivia not being socialist or a workers government any surprise to anybody who has ever read any of Morales's speeches. He does have the virtue of honesty. He knows better than anyone else just how utterly impractical a socialist regime in a country as economically devastated as Bolivia is. And is not afraid to say so.

-M.H.-

El Oso Rojo

16th May 2012, 08:11

As for Chavez, he came in through a military coup himself,
-M.H.-

He did not came in through a military coup because it had failed in 1992. He was jail for a short bit because of that. I think somewhere in the late 20th century he was elected president for the first time and was a Blair like social democrat (according to him) then he realized that wasn't going to help venezuela to be a social democrats. Marxist socialism is the best way.

shaneo

16th May 2012, 21:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Marxist Historian
Hilarious. If a truly communist party managed to win control of parliament, the Queen would give the army the order to put an end to the parliamentary farce forthwith, and establish a firm military dictatorship.

MH, you've got to be kidding....
How can you state this and still verbally abuse people who question this fraudulent voting system?

Did you have an epiphany in the last week or something?

A Marxist Historian

17th May 2012, 04:42

MH, you've got to be kidding....
How can you state this and still verbally abuse people who question this fraudulent voting system?

Did you have an epiphany in the last week or something?

shaneo, my problem with you is hardly that you question parliamentary democracy. That is one of your few political virtues.

I have very big problems indeed with folk who are against trade unions. And what's more, who say things like if the workers vote for capitalist parties, they have no right to complain.

Oh, by the way, that you get election fraud from time to time is really the least important problem with bourgeois democracy. The problem is that money rules.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

17th May 2012, 04:44

He did not came in through a military coup because it had failed in 1992. He was jail for a short bit because of that. I think somewhere in the late 20th century he was elected president for the first time and was a Blair like social democrat (according to him) then he realized that wasn't going to help venezuela to be a social democrats. Marxist socialism is the best way.

Ah, right, I forgot. But not that much of a difference really. He's still a military figure, just one who got to power by the election route rather than by a coup.

Just like, for example, Louis Bonaparte in France in the 19th century, whom Marx wrote a book about as the absolute classic "Bonapartist" bourgeois military dictator.

-M.H.-

shaneo

17th May 2012, 07:35

shaneo, my problem with you is hardly that you question parliamentary democracy. That is one of your few political virtues.

Thanks.

I have very big problems indeed with folk who are against trade unions.

You have this problem for no particular reason though? After all, You refuse to return to our previous discussion and answer my simple questions about the bourgeois unions, so my position against the unions is entirely justified.

And what's more, who say things like if the workers vote for capitalist parties, they have no right to complain.

Of course. That's just common sense.

Oh, by the way, that you get election fraud from time to time is really the least important problem with bourgeois democracy. The problem is that money rules.

Money rules thanks to its levers of control, including bourgeois democracy and trade unions.

If you don't like it, do something about it. Don't vote, and stop supporting the unions crimes against workers. At least then you would have a right to complain about it.

Die Neue Zeit

17th May 2012, 14:47

Masses refuse to be ruled in old way (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004838)

As support for left anti-austerity parties grows in Greece, writes Eddie Ford, the temptation of office must be avoided

Before our very eyes, we are seeing the collapse of the institutionally corrupt Tweedledum-Tweedledee two-party system that has operated in Greece since the fall of the military junta in 1974. This ‘post-fascist’ regime was perfectly symbolised by the 50-seat ‘bonus’ awarded to the winning party in the parliamentary elections - designed, of course, to keep the revolving door of New Democracy and Pasok spinning round forever.

But no more. The May election delivered a profound shock to the moribund system, with two-thirds of the electorate rejecting the mainstream parties in favour of those - whether on the left or right - that have come out in open opposition to the vicious programme of cuts and austerity demanded by the EU Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund troika as part of the bailout deal.

Blinking before the oncoming headlights, on May 15 Pasok leader Evangelos Venizelos - one of the key collaborators with the hated troika - finally admitted defeat in his attempts to cobble together a government of ‘national salvation’, following the failure of both ND and Syriza, the Coalition of the Radical Left, before him. Venizelos hypocritically attributed the breakdown in negotiations to “petty party interests” - not something Pasok has ever been guilty of itself, naturally. To achieve a majority of MPs ND and Pasok needed the support of one of the smaller parties, but both the Democratic Left and the stridently rightwing Independent Greeks refused to play ball. Doubtlessly, their calculation was extremely simple - why risk committing electoral and political suicide by becoming associated in any way whatsoever with such detested figures?

The next day it was declared that the new elections would be held on June 17 and that the supreme court judge, Panagiotis Pikramenos, would be in charge of the caretaker administration. A disastrous outcome for the Greek establishment and its supporters abroad in the Euro-establishment and elsewhere, given the near certain fact that the June election will produce even worse results - much worse in all likelihood. ND and Pasok can expect to see their combined vote reduced even further and in turn the anti-austerity parties will come out stronger. Having said that, this ‘bloc’ of votes will be highly fragmentary - going to all manner of organisations, including some that previously failed to reach the 3% threshold necessary to enter parliament but this time round might be more lucky. It is very hard to see a stable coalition government emerging. Then what? History repeats itself and there is another military coup?

In this way, the crisis in Greece is beginning to resemble Lenin’s famous dictum about a revolutionary situation - whereby the masses refuse to be ruled in the old way and the ruling class is unable to rule in the old way.

Nightmare

Admittedly, the establishment certainly did try to stitch things up at the 11th hour. Hence the supposedly ‘non-political’ president, Karolos Papoulias - who just so happens to be a Pasok founder member - bust a gut trying to form a “government of personalities”. This “non-political” government - please do not laugh too loudly - would be composed of “distinguished” and “respectable” figures that could embody the best qualities of the motherland. A technocratic government writ large, in other words.

In reality, obviously, Papoulias, Venizelos and Antonis Samaras (who will probably not be ND leader for much longer) were engaged in an almost comic effort to tempt Syriza into government - and by extension all those who voted for it and other anti-austerity/bailout parties of the left. Obviously a doomed venture.

Sounding like the patriarch he is, Venizelos rebuked the majority of Greeks who had ‘incorrectly’ voted for anti-austerity parties on May 6 by imploring them to make a “mature decision” next time round and “go towards the better” and “not go to the worse” - ie, return to the centre/mainstream on June 17. Some chance. More luridly, Michael Chrysohoidis, the rather ironically named (outgoing) minister for citizen protection, prophesied that unless the Greek voters relegitimise Pasok/ND the country will “end up in civil war” - plagued by “armed gangs with Kalashnikovs”.

However, their hopes look set to be cruelly dashed. Civil war or not, the latest opinion polls show that Syriza will significantly increase its percentage of the vote. For example, an extensive poll conducted by Marc/Alpha has Syriza on 27.7%. It also seems unlikely that the vote for the far-right Golden Dawn will go down in the next election, however.

When you then factor in the large number of uncast votes in the last election - 34.8% of the registered electorate - and also the 19.03% who voted for parties that did not make the 3% threshold, such as the Ecologist Greens (2.9%) or the Anti-capitalist Left (1.2%), then the prospects look bleak indeed for the establishment politicians, as communists are delighted to report. Indeed, it is far from psephological science fiction to envisage the left parties gaining a majority in parliament if Syriza were indeed to come first in the next election, as widely predicted, and thus - by a wonderful historical and constitutional irony - qualify for the 50-seat ‘top-up’ originally reserved purely for ND or Pasok. Seeing that Syriza, DL and the KKE got enough votes between them to gain 97 seats in the last election, an increased share of the vote come June plus the 50-seat bonus would see them securing parliamentary predominance.

The nightmare scenario looms for the establishment. However, we are now hearing noises that Syriza might not be eligible for the 50-seat reward on the grounds that it is a coalition as opposed to a single party. What a surprise! Such legalistic manoeuvres just show how desperate the ruling class are, their political legitimacy draining away with almost each day that passes. But if even if they did manage to deny Syriza its ‘rightful’ parliamentary bonus, assuming that the worst - or best - happens on June 17, that would only act to further discredit them in the eyes of the masses.

The escalating turmoil in Greece sharpened fears in the financial markets over May 15-16, especially after the comments by Christine Lagarde - the IMF’s director general - that the ‘international community’ had to be “technically prepared” for everything, including a “messy” Greek exit from the euro. On the stock markets, the Eurostoxx 600 fell 0.7% to a one-year low, Germany’s Dax dropped to 1.4% and the French CAC went down 1.1%, Meanwhile, Spain’s Ibex was down 1.6% and shares in Athens tumbled by 5.2% - 10% in the case of banks.

As for the FTSE 100, it was down to its lowest level since December 20, having lost 10% of its value in the last two months alone. Most critically of all, the interest rates paid by the Italian and Spanish governments for their 10-year borrowing were both above the key 6% level. Spanish bond yields climbed to 6.52%, very close to the 7% ‘danger zone’ at which a country’s debts start to become unsustainable. Significantly, the ‘spread’ between French and German bond yields hit its widest level since early January. a sign that traders are treating France’s debt as increasingly risky compared to Germany’s (the benchmark). A fear of contagion. The yield on government bonds issued by Greece, needless to say, was above 30% at one point - suggesting, to put it mildly, a high risk of default. Whatever the exact political composition of any future government, Greece seems to be heading for the euro exit door.

Accomplice

Alex Tsipras, Syriza’s leader, stated that during coalition negotiations his presence was sought by the establishment, pro-bailout parties so as to make him into a “leftwing accomplice” to austerity and “barbaric” measures that nearly 70% of Greeks had quite explicitly voted against. Tsipras, though, would not countenance being part of any such anti-working class government and to use earthy Anglo-Saxon language, told them to fuck off. A stance to be applauded. Syriza wants to withdraw from Nato and close its bases, “halt” debt repayment, “reverse” privatisations, “seize” banks, impose a 75% top rate of tax on the rich, etc. All well and good, but to get an idea of what sort of political formation we are dealing with it is worth noting Tsipras’s professed admiration for “heroes” like Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, the respective presidents of capitalist Venezuela and capitalist Bolivia.

We in the CPGB counsel in the strongest possible terms that Syriza - and the Greek left as a whole - should stay clear of all coalition governments with bourgeois parties, whatever the result of the elections in June. Eg, to enter into a coalition with Pasok would represent a disastrous setback for the movement. Under no circumstances should left parties take any responsibility for capitalism or austerity, whether in Greece or anywhere else. No “renegotiation” or “rewriting” of the memorandum (the austerity bill passed by the Greek parliament) or, for that matter, the European Union fiscal pact that seeks to institutionalise the “barbaric” austerity economics. Nor should the left fall for the temptation of forming a workers’ government which sets its sights on managing capitalism. The only government we should counternance is one that represented the coming to power of the working class under circumstances where there is a realistic prospect of carrying out the full minimum programme of Marxism. In other words the smashing of the old bureaucratic bourgeois state and replacing it with a semi-state, and the beginning of the transition to genuine human freedom. By definition, that means transcending wage-slavery, commodity production and all rest of the old exploitative crap.

It would be impossible to carry out such a programme in Greece alone. Capitalism cannot be overcome in one country acting on its own: the doctrine of socialism is one country, and all its variants, was always a monstrous Stalinist negation of the Marxist programme. A workers’ government in Greece would mean some form of coalition government between Syriza, DL and possibly the KKE - and/or other much smaller parties that might emerge from future elections. None of these parties are unambiguously committed to the rule of the working class and the destruction of the old bureaucratic state apparatus. The KKE envisages a Greek Stalinism, while Syriza dreams of a left nationalism and the DL would settle for a reformed capitalism.

Yet the problem does not end there. Let us not mince our words. Were such a workers’ government ever formed, then Greece would be immediately kicked out of euro/EU - assuming it had not been already. Without a shadow of doubt, the ‘new’ drachma would be massively devalued, there would a catastrophic economic slump and more likely than not hyperinflation - and that is before things got really bad.

What then? Such a government would have absolutely no choice but to preside over its own austerity regime. To keep itself in power and the workers in line, our ‘workers’ government’ would have to resort to authoritarian rule or a military socialism if it wanted to stave off counterrevolution and external intervention/invasion. And in this way they would turn into their opposite. Marxist revolutionaries in Greece must build up the organisational and political strength of the working class, fight to massively extend democracy, including into the army, and take the lead in constructing an all-European working class movement.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

21st May 2012, 16:50

Greece

Euro crisis deepens

www.socialistworld.net, 21/05/2012
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI

Revolution and counter-revolution

By Tony Saunois (CWI) with Andros Payiatos, Xekinima (CWI Greece)

Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras: it’s “a war between people and capitalism”
The Greek elections called on May 6 resulted in a political earthquake. Powerful after-shocks are still hitting the global economy, the EU, and Greece itself. These are now set to be the precursor to even stronger political and social upheavals in Greece and throughout the EU.

The workers’ organisations and youth in Britain and throughout the EU need to extend their solidarity to the Greek workers. The workers’ movement throughout the EU needs to oppose the demands that the “Troika” and others are making for the Greek workers to accept more austerity. Such solidarity is a part of the struggle of workers in all countries against the attacks made on them by their own ruling class and governments.

The elections shattered the old established political allegiances but left no coalition of parties from either the left or the right able to form a parliamentary majority. The government has been left paralysed, and new elections have been called for June 17.

This paralysis in parliament is a reflection of a Greek society convulsed in turmoil. There are powerful features of both revolution and counter-revolution. As the Financial Times has warned: “Looting and rioting could occur. A coup or civil war would be conceivable” (18/5/12).

Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left), whose share of the vote leapt from 4.6 percent to 16.78 percent, emerged as the second most successful group in the elections. This tremendously positive development, which has given hope to many workers and socialists internationally that something similar could take place in their own countries, has terrified the ruling class in Greece along with Merkel, Cameron, Rajoy and the other political leaders of capitalism. It has thrown down a potential challenge to the “Troika” and the austerity programme dictated by it.

The crucial question now is: can this left advance be pushed further and channelled into a bigger victory in the second election? Will the Greek working class and its organisations embrace a rounded out revolutionary socialist programme? Without this it will not be possible to resolve the crisis in Greece or begin to solve the devastating social consequences of the austerity packages thus far introduced.

As the elections on May 6 also demonstrated, if the left fails to meet this political challenge with the correct programme, slogans, intensity of struggle, and methods of organisation, then the extreme far right will certainly be willing to step into the void. The growth of the fascist Golden Dawn, which emerged from the election with 6.97 percent of the vote and 21 MPs, is a serious warning to the Greek and European working class. It illustrates the threat which will emerge as the crisis deepens in the next weeks and months if the left fails to offer a real alternative to capitalism.

The collapse of the established political parties, especially New Democracy (ND) and PASOK, was the clearest manifestation of the overwhelming rejection of those parties which have enacted the austerity programmes, slavishly following the demands of the “Troika”. Under both New Democracy and PASOK governments, and the outgoing coalition led by them, Greece has been under effective occupation from international bankers, the ECB, IMF, and EU. The European capitalist classes have adopted a modern version of colonial rule, appointing EU commissioners as overseers in each government Ministry.

The stooge parties of the EU have been vomited out by the Greek people. In the last three decades ND and PASOK garnished between 75 percent and 85 percent of the votes in each election. The combined vote of both these parties this time was a mere 32.02 percent - 18.85 percent for ND and 13.18 percent for PASOK.

Brutal attack on living standards
The Greek working and middle classes have suffered a brutal attack on living standards and working conditions for years. As a result of the economic crisis and austerity packages, Greece’s GDP (total output) will have fallen 20 percent from its 2008 level by the end of 2012. This is one of the largest ever falls in GDP suffered by any capitalist country since the depression of the 1930s.

These are not cold statistics. The lives of millions of working- and middle-class people have been shattered. The social consequences have been devastating. Public sector workers have seen wages slashed by 40 percent. A cup of coffee costs the same in London or Athens. Yet in Greece many workers are paid only €400 per month – a pittance. These are literally starvation wages for many. The church estimates it now feeds 250,000 people at soup kitchens every day. Healthcare patients are now expected to pay in advance for treatment, and the number of hospital beds is being slashed by 50 percent. One hospital refused to release a newborn infant until the mother paid the bill. Thousands of schools have been closed down. Many tens of thousands have fled the cities and gone back to the countryside where they can live with families and at least get access to food.

The middle class is being destroyed, with many becoming homeless, left to queue alongside the most downtrodden immigrant workers at food and homeless refuge camps. These camps appear like a southern European version of the “favela” shanty towns of Brazil. Unemployment has soared to over 21 percent – and an astonishing 51 percent amongst the youth.

The right wing and the fascist Golden Dawn have tried to whip up nationalism and racism by targeting illegal immigrants, whose numbers are estimated in hundreds of thousands. This is a major challenge for the workers and left organisations. Emergency measures to house and feed these people through the introduction of a special public works programme should be demanded by the left. A programme not at the expense of the Greek workers, but funded by the EU.

Workers fight back
The Greek working class has tenaciously fought against these attacks and each government which has enacted them. PASOK replaced New Democracy in the autumn of 2009, only to cave to the diktats of the “Troika” by applying the most vicious attacks against the Greek workers since the end of the civil war in 1949, ignoring its own promises to the contrary. PASOK’s support then collapsed as workers rejected its policies. The trade union leaders have been compelled since the beginning of 2010 to call sixteen general strikes – three of them for forty-eight hours – by the pressure of the workers. Still, the attacks have continued to rain down on the Greek population. The failure of the trade union leaders to take the struggle forward led to exhaustion among workers as one general strike followed another, appearing to lead nowhere. Now in the elections they have vented their rage against the pro-austerity parties.

Tens of thousands, out of desperation, have emigrated. Many more are on the waiting lists. Some have sought a way out by moving to Australia, Britain, and Canada. It has been estimated by the Greek press that in Australia alone there are currently 30,000 illegal Greek immigrants. Some, incredibly, have even gone to Nigeria and Kazakhstan, so desperate has life become in Greece.

Others, driven by desperation and the humiliation of the plight they find themselves in, have taken a more tragic exit. The international press featured the suicide of 77-year-old retired pharmacist, Dimitris Christoulas, who shot himself in front of Greek parliament because of debt. The trigger was effectively pulled by the “Troika” and its policies.

Having increased 22 percent, the suicide rate in Greece is now the highest in Europe. One radical journalist who recently returned from Greece witnessed a Mercedes car driven into the sea by a small businessman who killed himself. Under Greek law debts cannot be passed onto the family. These are conditions reminiscent of those described in John Steinbeck’s epic novel about the U.S. depression – The Grapes of Wrath.

There is bitterness, hatred, and anger directed toward the Greek rich elite and their politicians who cannot safely walk the streets or enter public restaurants. The rich are transferring their money to Switzerland and other European countries while the mass of the population is left to suffer the consequences of the crisis.

In the May 6 elections, the Greek people punished all those politicians and parties which had implemented the austerity policies.

Syriza oppose coalition with PASOK and ND
The leadership of Syriza, particularly its top figure, Alexis Tsipras, correctly took a bold stand by refusing to join a coalition with either PASOK or ND given their support for the terms of the bail out and their continuing acceptance of austerity. He offered to instead form a left block with the Greek Communist Party, KKE, and tried to include the split from Syriza – Democratic Left – in order to fight for a left government.

Although limited, he proposed such a left front be based on a programme of freezing any further austerity measures; cancelling the law which abolishes collective bargaining and slashes the minimum wage to 490 euros per month; and launching a public investigation of the Greek debt, during which period there would be a moratorium on debt repayments. This programme, although inadequate to deal with the depth of the crisis in Greece, would have served as a starting point for developing the struggle against austerity and as a basis for a programme necessary to break with capitalism.

Scandalously, the leadership of the KKE refused to even meet with Tsipras, which was a continuation of its previous sectarian approach towards Syriza, the rest of the left, and the trade union movement. Syriza had correctly proposed a left front together with the KKE and ANTARSYA – the anti-capitalist left alliance in the elections. This was refused. The idea of a left front of Syriza and the KKE was something initially campaigned for by the Greek CWI section, Xekinima, in the period 2008-2010. Though viciously attacked initially, this idea gradually developed support and was eventually taken up by Tsipras and the Syriza leadership.

Had such a joint election list been formed it would have emerged as the largest force and got the 50-seat bonus in parliament which the Greek election system gives to the largest party. Even if this was not enough to form a parliamentary majority, it would have put the combined left forces in a commanding position to enter second elections and to offer the realistic prospect of a left government.

While the KKE refused to even consider joining a coalition left government, historically they were prepared to join a capitalist coalition. The KKE entered a coalition with ND in 1989. The KKE General Secretary, Aleka Papriga, has argued that they have learnt from this experience and use this to justify not joining forces with Syriza. However, a united left front, on the basis of fighting against austerity, is entirely different from joining a pro-capitalist government with ND.

A working-class left front led by workers’ parties could have served to unite in action the fragmented left forces in Greece. It could have led to the building of a powerful, organised movement outside parliament as a basis to challenge capitalism. Unfortunately, other left forces like ANTARSYA (Anti-capitalist Left Coalition) also adopted a similar attitude during the first election. However, they now face huge pressure from below, and there are sections of their ranks demanding a united front of some kind with Syriza in the June 17 elections. The issue is still being debated in their ranks, with the majority in the leadership wanting to stand against Syriza. If this line is the one adopted in the end by ANTARSYA, they will pay a heavy price with a serious fall in their support (ANTARSYA won 2 percent in the local elections of 2010 which fell to 1.2 percent in the May 6 election).

The sectarianism of the KKE leadership has provoked opposition within their own ranks as well. Some party members said in the election they would vote for the KKE but urged others to vote for Syriza. A continuation of this policy is certain to provoke further opposition in the ranks of the KKE and the possibility of a split within it.

The KKE has paid a price for this sectarian policy. Its vote only increased by 19,000 – 1 percentage point – to 8.48 percent in the May election. A recent poll for the election in June gave it 4.4 percent.

Despite the inadequacy of Syriza’s programme, its clear stand against austerity and refusal to enter coalition with any pro-austerity parties means it is strengthening its position. It is likely to emerge even stronger in the June elections. Recent opinion polls have put it on between 20 and 26 percent, which would mean it could be the largest party.

Tsipras has threatened not to pay the whole of the national debt, cut defence spending, and crack down on waste, corruption, and tax evasion by the rich. He has also supported public control of the banking system, at times implying nationalisation. He has also spoken favourably of Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. It is a radical reform programme but does not break with capitalism. However, it is a starting point for an emergency public works programme linked to the need for the nationalisation of the banks and key sectors of the economy and the introduction of a democratic socialist plan.

The rapid electoral growth of Syriza has important lessons for other left forces in other countries including TUSC in Britain. Such organisations can experience a rapid electoral growth from a low base when objective conditions are ripe for this. They need to establish a firm and clear profile to fight for workers’ interests to capitalise on the situation when other political parties have been tried and rejected. The electoral success achieved by the ULA in Ireland, especially the Socialist Party, illustrates this.

Syriza’s refusal to join a pro-cuts coalition with PASOK and ND, even on the basis of their promise to renegotiate the Memorandum with the “Troika”, is in marked contrast to other left forces and parties at this stage. In Italy, the PRC entered such coalitions at the local level and consequently destroyed its support. The IU in Spain, whose support grew in the recent election, has also now wrongly joined a coalition with PSOE in Andalucia. A continuation of this policy could erode the growth and development of the IU.

The pro-cuts parties, led by ND and PASOK, along with the “Troika”, are desperately trying to turn the second election into a referendum on membership in the euro zone and the EU rather than on their austerity policies. They, along with the EU establishment, are launching a clear campaign arguing that to oppose the austerity package will mean Greece being ejected from the euro and probably the EU.

The EU and the euro
This is a central issue in the Greek crisis and it is crucial for the left to have a clear policy and programme to face up to this question.

Unfortunately, despite taking a bold stand against austerity and against coalition with ND and PASOK, Tsipras and the Syriza leadership are not arguing for a clear alternative. In part, this reflects the pressure of a majority of Greeks – 79 percent according to one recent poll – who, while rejecting austerity, want to remain in the euro.

This reflects an understandable fear of what would follow Greece being ejected from the euro, including the potential isolation of Greece’s relatively small economy. The Greek masses are terrified of Greece being thrown back to the social conditions of the 1950s and ‘60s or the high inflation of the 1970s and 1980s. Syriza and the left need to answer these fears and explain what the alternative is. It is also clear that Tsipras is gambling that the EU would not throw Greece out of the euro zone because of the consequences it would have for the rest of the EU. Yet this is not at all certain.

The KKE, on the other hand, opposes the euro and the EU and attacks Syriza for its attitude toward the EU and the euro. Politically, this is one of the justifications they use for not joining a left front with Syriza. While the KKE formally speaks in very radical rhetoric about a “people’s revolt” or an “uprising”, they adopt a propagandistic, abstract approach in practice which is totally unfitted to the class polarisation and willingness to struggle which currently exists in Greece. They even justified not joining a left governmental front because “what would then be the character of the opposition?” Opposition to the EU and the euro on a nationalist basis means they are trapped in a capitalist framework. What is necessary is an internationalist socialist approach that links together the struggle of the Greek workers with the working class in other EU countries.

It is true that a section of the European ruling classes are terrified of the consequences of throwing Greece out of the euro zone. The Centre for Economic and Business Research estimates that a “disorderly” collapse of the euro caused by Greece leaving could cost up to US$1 trillion. An “orderly” collapse would cost 2 percent of EU GDP –US$300 billion. Undoubtedly such a development would have massive consequences for the whole of the EU and could result in the break up of the euro zone with possibly Spain and/or other countries breaking from it.

However, the over-riding fear of the German ruling class and others is that if substantial concessions are made to Greece then Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Ireland would clamour for even more. This they cannot risk. Thus the same Centre for Economic and Business Research concludes: “The end of the euro in its current form is a certainty”.

Tsipras and Syriza mistakenly believe that it is possible to remain in the euro zone and at the same time not introduce austerity policies against the working class. Yet the euro itself is an economic corset which allows the larger capitalist powers and companies to impose their austerity programme throughout the euro zone.

Syriza is correct to say it will refuse to introduce austerity. But how would it then face up to the threat of Greece’s ejection from the euro? This is the inevitable course events are now taking. It is not credible simply to respond by saying Greece will remain in the euro and oppose austerity. If they did this, and a left government on that basis were thrown out of the euro, Syriza would not be prepared to answer being blamed by the right wing for this.

While most Greeks fear being ejected from the euro at this stage, that does not mean that the euro can or will be accepted at any price indefinitely. Syriza needs to respond to this attack by clearly explaining that if we reject austerity they will eject us from the euro zone. Even without a government opposing austerity Greece could be ejected from the euro.

Faced with such a situation, a left government should immediately introduce capital and credit controls to prevent a flight of capital from the country, nationalise all banks, finance institutions, and major companies. It should cancel all debt repayment to the banks and financial institutions. The books should be opened to inspect all of the agreements made with international banks and markets. The assets of the rich should be seized and safe guards given to small savers and investors. It should introduce an emergency reconstruction programme drawn up democratically as part of a socialist plan which would include a plan to assist small businesses.

Need for socialist internationalism
At the same time, Syriza and a democratic government of workers and all those exploited by capitalism should appeal to the working people of Europe – especially those facing a similar situation in Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy – to join them in solidarity and begin building a new alternative to the capitalist EU and euro. The massive crisis erupting in Spain and elsewhere would mean the working people would rally to such a call. This could be the first step to the formation of a voluntary democratic socialist confederation involving these countries as a step towards a socialist confederation of Europe. Such a process should be begun now with direct links being built with the left and workers organisations in these countries.

Unfortunately, a failure to boldly answer the threat of being ejected from the euro will only serve to partly disarm the movement of struggle against austerity. It may prevent Syriza from emerging as the largest party. The Greek ruling class and the “Troika” are campaigning to make the election about membership in the euro, not about austerity. They are attempting to terrify people out of voting for Syriza and to rally fragmented right-wing voters - including from right-wing parties that failed to enter parliament - around New Democracy. However, after years of austerity measures and brutal attacks it is not certain this strategy will succeed.

Despite Syriza’s weakness on the EU and euro, at the time of writing Syriza seems certain to increase its support and has a serious possibility of becoming the largest party in close competition to ND. Recent polls have put both parties at between 20 and 23 percent of the vote.

New phase of the struggle
Should Syriza emerge in the lead or at the head of a government this would not signal the end of the crisis, but it would begin a new phase that the workers organisations need to urgently prepare for if they are to take the struggle forward. Syriza itself needs to be strengthened by workers, youth, the poor, and all those opposed to austerity joining its ranks and getting organised. Syriza, as a coalition, is now attempting to broaden out to begin including social movements and organisations.

Tsipras has rightly called for the left to come together in a united front. This needs to be given a concrete organised expression through the convening of a national assembly of rank-and-file delegates from the left parties, trade unions, workplaces, universities, neighbourhoods, and community organisations.

Local assemblies of elected delegates from these same spheres should be urgently formed under the initiative of SYRIZA to prepare for the coming struggles and to ensure that a future left government carries out policies in the interests of working people.

The ruling class is beginning to feel threatened by the emerging challenge of Syriza and the left. There is the threat of a collapse in society if the left does not seize the moment. Government funds may even run out before the election on June 17.

Lessons from Chile
Although in a different era, there are some parallels between the situation in Greece today and the situation which developed in Chile between 1970 and 1973. There are also many parallels with developments taking place in Latin America today in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina.

In Chile in the period 1970-73 a massive polarisation developed in society. The right and the ruling class prepared their forces - they could not allow the impasse to continue. The fascist organisation Patria y Liberdad marched, bombed, and attacked local activists and acted as a fascist auxiliary to the military which struck in a deadly coup on 11 September, 1973.

Golden Dawn, which praises the former Greek military dictatorship and Hitler, can act as a fascist auxiliary should the ruling class, or sections of them, conclude they have no alternative but to “restore order” from the chaos and social collapse which threatens Greek society through a military intervention. Although this is unlikely to be the first recourse of the ruling class, they could eventually move in this direction. If Golden Dawn’s support declines - as the polls indicate it will in this election - it would be positive, but it would not be the end of the threat posed by this fascist organisation.

The fascist leader of Golden Dawn, Nikolaos Michalokiakos, threatened those who have “betrayed their homeland”, saying: “[T]he time has come to fear. We are coming”. They cannot become a mass force in their own right, but like Patria y Liberdad they can become (and already are) a vicious organisation that can act as an auxiliary to attack minorities and the working class.

Golden Dawn is sending its “black shirt” thugs to attack immigrants who suffer daily beatings and threats from them. According to press reports in Gazi, Athens, they left leaflets outside gay bars warning they would be the next target and attacked gay people leaving the bars. This poses the urgent necessity of forming local anti-fascist assemblies that should establish groups to defend all those threatened by fascist attack.

In the June 17 election, should Syriza emerge together with other left forces and win a parliamentary majority, a left government headed by Syriza and Alex Tsipas could rapidly be pushed towards the left under the pressure of the mass movement and depth of the crisis. This is also a fear of the ruling class. Such a development in Greece would also set an example in other countries, such as Spain and Portugal.

A government of this character could at some stage even include some features of the Allende government in Chile 1970-73 and also some features of the Chavez, Morales, and Kirchner governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina. This could include taking measures that attack capitalist interests, including widespread nationalisations. While at this stage Syriza and Tsipras are not speaking of socialism as an alternative, this could change. In an interview published in the British daily paper The Guardian, he argued that it is “war between peoples and capitalism” (19/5/12). This represents a significant step forward but illustrates how he and the Syriza leadership could be pressured by the situation to go even further to the left. When first elected to power, Chávez in Venezuela did not make reference to socialism. Such a scenario in Greece is not at all certain but such developments could not be excluded at a certain stage. Particularly under the impact of the deepening crisis and class struggle, demands like nationalisation, workers’ control and management can be embraced by wide sections of the working class. This can push “left” governments to adopt such measures, at least partially. This was the experience of the first period of the PASOK government in 1981.

Should the pro-cuts parties be able to cobble together a coalition, on the basis of ND becoming the largest party and gaining the 50-seat bonus, then it would lack any credibility, authority, or stability. All such parties with such a low level of support forming such a government would effectively constitute a coup against the majority of the Greek people by minority pro-austerity parties. They would face intense anger and bitter struggles by the Greek working class. Such a government would face the huge anger of society and a ferocious struggle of the Greek workers to get rid of it, particularly as they will see the powerful possibility of a left government around Syriza, who would, under these conditions, be the main opposition force, deepening its presence and roots in society.

In this situation, Syriza should prepare a struggle against the government and the capitalist system. Xekinima, the Greek section of the CWI, would propose that under these conditions the central slogan should be for a struggle to bring these institutions down through strikes, occupations, and mass protests.

The rapid growth of Syriza is an extremely positive development. However, the depth of the social and political crisis unfolding in Greece will put it to the test along with all political forces. If it does not develop a fully rounded-out programme, set of methods, and approach of struggle that can offer a way forward to the masses, then it can decline as rapidly as it has arisen. To assist those forces in and around Syriza in drawing the necessary political conclusions as to the tasks needed to take the struggle forward, the strengthening of the Marxist collaborators of Syriza in Xekinima is also an urgent necessity.

Committee for a Workers' International
PO Box 3688, London E11 1YE, Britain, Tel: ++ 44 20 8988 8760, Fax: ++ 44 20 8988 8793, [email protected] ([email protected])

Grenzer

21st May 2012, 16:58

Hilarious. If a truly communist party managed to win control of parliament, the Queen would give the army the order to put an end to the parliamentary farce forthwith, and establish a firm military dictatorship.

The communist legislators would be lucky to escape with their lives.

This is one of the few occasions where I can fully agree with MH.

Once again, Agathor is just proving himself to be a common liberal and a follower of parliamentary cretinism. This is exactly the attitude that, in part, led to the Second International's turn towards reformism. Legalistic fetishism is a dead end, I suggest you reevaluate your position, Agathor. The bourgeoisie have never allowed themselves to be confined solely by legal structures, as others in this thread have pointed out.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd June 2012, 00:56

One perhaps overlooked part of that article that really needs to be discussed is the "workers government" phrase.