The Pros and Cons of SYRIZA

[Ilyich]

I know many comrades both in Greece and abroad support SYRIZA. I am also aware that many comrades both in Greece and abroad oppose SYRIZA. I don't know much about SYRIZA's politics but I made a pros-and-cons list anyway. It is far from incomplete so if anyone else has something to contribute, please, do so. The main point of the thread, by the way, is for me and others to get a better grasp of SYRIZA in the Greek political scene

Pros-

Appears to be a viable electoral group
More viable than, say, ANTARSYA
Some polls show it gaining plurality in June
Better politics than PASOK and KKE
Should perhaps be supported against Golden Dawn
Cons-

Some accuse it of opportunism
Somewhat reformist
Worse politics than ANTARSYA, etc.
Syn. is Eurocommunist
Syn. controls the group
Other parties have little say

[Tim Cornelis]

Somewhat reformist? If we compare the electoral promises of SYRIZA to, say, the Dutch labour party's programme prior to 2005 we see they want the same thing: nationalisation of key businesses and banks. Nothing more.

SYRIZA is Eurocommunist on paper (which is already reformist) but social-capitalist in practice. The KKE have better politics than SYRIZA. Saying that SYRIZA has a "viable electoral group" could be said about the US Democratic Party, or the UK labour party. It doesn't give them any credibility in terms of working class emancipation.

Incidentally, of SYRIZA wins the elections they will kill any revolutionary potential that exists in Greece. Unless they ruin the country first.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

SYRIZA doesn't look awful right now, but if they actually get into power, we'll see them begin a rightward shift, I'd bet. Most reformist left parties tend to do this.

[Ilyich]

For the record, I don't support SYRIZA. I don't oppose it either, yet. I'm just asking about them. Still, why does the KKE have better politics? Didn't they oppose the protests while SYRIZA supported them? I've heard the KKE being compared to the PCF in May 1968.

[Magdalen]

Better politics than PASOK and KKE

Upon what basis would you argue that SYRIZA has 'better politics' than the KKE? It seems evident that a sizeable tendency within SYRIZA (including most of its leadership, from what I can gather) is wracked by incurable reformism, an accusation which I don't think could be levied at the KKE, although there are certainly valid criticisms of some aspects of their present line.

[Ilyich]

SYRIZA doesn't look awful right now, but if they actually get into power, we'll see them begin a rightward shift, I'd bet.

See, that's what I was thinking about them. They seem to be playing the role of every European social democratic party: Campaign on the left, appeal to the workers with revolutionary rhetoric, then, once thrust into power by the workers to whom you appealed, shift rightward to maintain your position of power by appealing to the capitalists who control the state.

[Ilyich]

Upon what basis would you argue that SYRIZA has 'better politics' than the KKE? It seems evident that a sizeable tendency within SYRIZA (including most of its leadership, from what I can gather) is wracked by incurable reformism, an accusation which I don't think could be levied at the KKE, although there are certainly valid criticisms of some aspects of their present line.

From what I've heard about the KKE, they are playing the role of the PCF in May 1968. They have rejected or ignored the protests while SYRIZA has embraced and supported them. Of course, this comes from a pro-SYRIZA and incredible source.

[PhoenixAsh]

SYRIZA is at best a left wing social democratic party which aims to quell the worst excesses of capitalism. They oppose the austerity measures but support the economic/monetary union of the EU and has pledged to do anything necessary to maintain the Greek membership of the EU.

SYRIZA is a capitalist party and not opposed to the capitalist system in Greece and does not aim for a socialist revolution or any other socialist transformation of Greece. In fact it is opposed to it and want reforms within a social-capitalist framework.

[Tim Cornelis]

See, that's what I was thinking about them. They seem to be playing the role of every European social democratic party: Campaign on the left, appeal to the workers with revolutionary rhetoric, then, once thrust into power by the workers to whom you appealed, shift rightward to maintain your position of power by appealing to the capitalists who control the state.

No social-democratic party in Europe has used "revolutionary rhetoric" since, at least, the 1950s though.


For the record, I don't support SYRIZA. I don't oppose it either, yet. I'm just asking about them. Still, why does the KKE have better politics? Didn't they oppose the protests while SYRIZA supported them? I've heard the KKE being compared to the PCF in May 1968.

KKE did not oppose protests, they opposed riots. SYRIZA supported the riots. However, the KKE is at least revolutionary (on paper), whereas SYRIZA is not at all.

[Ilyich]

KKE did not oppose protests, they opposed riots. SYRIZA supported the riots. However, the KKE is at least revolutionary (on paper), whereas SYRIZA is not at all.

But if the KKE did not support the riots and SYRIZA did, doesn't that give SYRIZA some progressive credibility. I don't harbor illusions about SYRIZA. I know they're not revolutionary. I know they're center-left reformist and will move further to the right if they get a government. Still, if the KKE condemned the riots while SYRIZA supported them, doesn't that give SYRIZA better politics?

[Magdalen]

From what I've heard about the KKE, they are playing the role of the PCF in May 1968. They have rejected or ignored the protests while SYRIZA has embraced and supported them. Of course, this comes from a pro-SYRIZA and incredible source.

As I said earlier, there are valid criticisms of the KKE's party line; at present, from what I can garner, it seems to be pursuing an unproductive party line reminiscent of the Comintern third-period, and I think this was borne out during its actions in the protests last year. SYRIZA may have made a grand show of itself in demonstrations, but as Marxists and as Leninists, we should be asking a more fundamental question, 'in the interests of which class does this party stand?'. With SYRIZA, I'm reminded of Lenin's critique of the Second International, when he accused it of 'Advocacy of class collaboration; abandonment of the idea of socialist revolution and revolutionary methods of struggle; adaptation to bourgeois nationalism; losing sight of the fact that the borderlines of nationality and country are historically transient; making a fetish of bourgeois legality; renunciation of the class viewpoint and the class struggle, for fear of repelling the "broad masses of the population" (meaning the petty bourgeoisie)' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/oct/x01.htm). Few here would argue that such words could not be applied to Alexis Tsipras's recent open letter to the European Commission, for example.

[Ilyich]

As I said earlier, there are valid criticisms of the KKE's party line; at present, from what I can garner, it seems to be pursuing an unproductive party line reminiscent of the Comintern third-period, and I think this was borne out during its actions in the protests last year. SYRIZA may have made a grand show of itself in demonstrations, but as Marxists and as Leninists, we should be asking a more fundamental question, 'in the interests of which class does this party stand?'. With SYRIZA, I'm reminded of Lenin's critique of the Second International, when he accused it of 'Advocacy of class collaboration; abandonment of the idea of socialist revolution and revolutionary methods of struggle; adaptation to bourgeois nationalism; losing sight of the fact that the borderlines of nationality and country are historically transient; making a fetish of bourgeois legality; renunciation of the class viewpoint and the class struggle, for fear of repelling the "broad masses of the population" (meaning the petty bourgeoisie)' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/oct/x01.htm). Few here would argue that such words could not be applied to Alexis Tsipras's recent open letter to the European Commission, for example.

Yes, SYRIZA is class collaborationist. An electoral group doesn't get as far in a bourgeois election as SYRIZA did in May (and probably will in June) without bourgeois support. There are other examples of their collaborationism. They are, at best, a reformist party. No one is denying that. The KKE is also a reformist party. It does not serves the interests of the workers. It serves the interests of the capitalists by misdirecting the workers' struggle.

(I want to make it very clear that I do not support SYRIZA. In fact, based on what everyone is saying, I should probably oppose it. I started this thread so I could decide whether to support or oppose SYRIZA. I think I have my answer now. I thank all those who have answered my question. Throughout this thread, I have never made an argument in favor of SYRIZA. I have only argued that SYRIZA has better politics than the KKE. They are both reformist parties. So, is it irrelevant which has better politics? Yes, it is. It comes to a "lesser of two evils" question which is hardly ever productive.)

[A Marxist Historian]

But if the KKE did not support the riots and SYRIZA did, doesn't that give SYRIZA some progressive credibility. I don't harbor illusions about SYRIZA. I know they're not revolutionary. I know they're center-left reformist and will move further to the right if they get a government. Still, if the KKE condemned the riots while SYRIZA supported them, doesn't that give SYRIZA better politics?

"Progressive credibility" is not the same thing as good politics. The riots, after all, were against the current government, in which neither KKE nor SYRIZA was participating, so all that shows is that SYRIZA is smarter and more tactically flexible than the KKE, not that it has better politics.

So what are the politics of SYRIZA? They are, simply, against austerity. Tsipras didn't utter the word "socialism" once in his whole campaign. They are for capitalism without tears--a great electoral slogan, but a totally unworkable program.

In fact, they are for staying in the EU. You can't really be a socialist and support the EU, as the "free market" is fundamental to the EU constitution.

If Tsipras becomes president, it shouldn't take him more than a week to discover that anti-austerity rhetoric is all very well, but if you want to run a capitalist regime and not mess with private property in a situation like the one Greece is in, he will pretty much have to do whatever the bankers tell him to do, just like PASOK, which also used to call itself "socialist."

KKE? They are better because they are at least opposed to membership in the EU, the beginning of wisdom. But, if Tsipras has illusions in an anti-austerity policy with Greece part of the EU, the KKE, with its Stalinist "two stage revolution" methodology, has illusions in an anti-austerity policy with Greece outside the EU, as the "first stage" of the Greek Revolution in allinace with "nationally minded" Greek capitalists.

Trouble is the only really "nationally minded" Greek capitalists are those who support the Golden Dawn Nazis...

Both KKE and SYRIZA predecessor-dominating force Synaspismos have participated in coalition governments with capitalist parties in the past, and neither have repudiated that idea in principle, though that's hard to tell when looking through the cloud of radical rhetoric the KKE has been generating lately. But the KKE has a very long and ugly record.

-M.H.-

[Tim Cornelis]

"Progressive credibility" is not the same thing as good politics. The riots, after all, were against the current government, in which neither KKE nor SYRIZA was participating, so all that shows is that SYRIZA is smarter and more tactically flexible than the KKE, not that it has better politics.

So what are the politics of SYRIZA? They are, simply, against austerity. Tsipras didn't utter the word "socialism" once in his whole campaign. They are for capitalism without tears--a great electoral slogan, but a totally unworkable program.

In fact, they are for staying in the EU. You can't really be a socialist and support the EU, as the "free market" is fundamental to the EU constitution.

If Tsipras becomes president, it shouldn't take him more than a week to discover that anti-austerity rhetoric is all very well, but if you want to run a capitalist regime and not mess with private property in a situation like the one Greece is in, he will pretty much have to do whatever the bankers tell him to do, just like PASOK, which also used to call itself "socialist."

KKE? They are better because they are at least opposed to membership in the EU, the beginning of wisdom. But, if Tsipras has illusions in an anti-austerity policy with Greece part of the EU, the KKE, with its Stalinist "two stage revolution" methodology, has illusions in an anti-austerity policy with Greece outside the EU, as the "first stage" of the Greek Revolution in allinace with "nationally minded" Greek capitalists.

Trouble is the only really "nationally minded" Greek capitalists are those who support the Golden Dawn Nazis...

Both KKE and SYRIZA predecessor-dominating force Synaspismos have participated in coalition governments with capitalist parties in the past, and neither have repudiated that idea in principle, though that's hard to tell when looking through the cloud of radical rhetoric the KKE has been generating lately. But the KKE has a very long and ugly record.

-M.H.-

He did say in a recent speech that (paraphrasing) "the war is not between nations, but between the people and capitalism" which is indicative of anticapitalism. Unfortunately, like his French counterpart Melenchon, he thinks he can abolish capitalism by nationalising a few key businesses.

[Ilyich]

All right, I have come to the conclusion that I oppose SYRIZA. Still, I don't see how the KKE is any better (though with all this new information, perhaps the KKE is no worse). The fact that they are pro-EU is an interesting revelation, though. My pro-SYRIZA friend implied the opposite. Once again, however, I never said they had good politics (I said they had better politics than PASOK and the KKE, something I am now beginning to reconsider) or called them socialist.

[Tim Cornelis]

All right, I have come to the conclusion that I oppose SYRIZA. Still, I don't see how the KKE is any better (though with all this new information, perhaps the KKE is no worse). The fact that they are pro-EU is an interesting revelation, though. My pro-SYRIZA friend implied the opposite. Once again, however, I never said they had good politics (I said they had better politics than PASOK and the KKE, something I am now beginning to reconsider) or called them socialist.

Someone posted this video on revleft today (can't find the thread)

YJeaPGGcgtU

This does show that the KKE has better politics than SYRIZA. It's complicated to call SYRIZA completely capitalist given that it has Trotskyist and revolutionary factions within the party, but the main faction are the reformists and Eurocommunists. Other factions include social-democrats.

Trotskyist faction within the SYRIZA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalist_Workers'_Left_(Greece)).

[Ilyich]

Pafilis would appear to be an impassioned speaker and his words are very nice, indeed. Nice words are just words, however. What actions have the KKE taken on the behalf of the Greek working class in recent times? I don't mean this as an attack on the KKE, by the way. I actually want to know.

I apologize for my previous belief that the KKE is worse than SYRIZA. I will even admit to the fact that it might be better. I am still not totally convinced, however, that the KKE isn't a reformist party masquerading as a revolutionary socialist party. How can I be sure that it doesn't have a similar reformist line as the PCE, PCF, or CPUSA. What is your opinion of the KKE? Are they genuinely a working class revolutionary party? Are they the best immediate hope the Greek workers have (not in the long run, of course, but for this election)? I had been told by my pro-SYRIZA friend that they played the role of the PCF in May 1968.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't see one to be the better against the other (KKE & Syriza) from a revolutionary perspective...they're both electoral parties and I don't see either one of them to be particularly revolutionary at this point.

At least they're opposed to austerity....and that's good. But I'm skeptical that any are radical.

[Agathor]

KKE are unreconstructed Stalinist loonies who have about as much prospect of bringing socialism to Greece as New Democracy.

[sphlanx]

Pafilis would appear to be an impassioned speaker and his words are very nice, indeed. Nice words are just words, however. What actions have the KKE taken on the behalf of the Greek working class in recent times? I don't mean this as an attack on the KKE, by the way. I actually want to know.

I apologize for my previous belief that the KKE is worse than SYRIZA. I will even admit to the fact that it might be better. I am still not totally convinced, however, that the KKE isn't a reformist party masquerading as a revolutionary socialist party. How can I be sure that it doesn't have a similar reformist line as the PCE, PCF, or CPUSA. What is your opinion of the KKE? Are they genuinely a working class revolutionary party? Are they the best immediate hope the Greek workers have (not in the long run, of course, but for this election)? I had been told by my pro-SYRIZA friend that they played the role of the PCF in May 1968.

Art vandeley, its is hard to analyze the things that KKE has done for the working class of Greece in just one post.

In general, I will say that KKE has supported(many times organized from the start) every strike, every fight of every union in Greece no matter how small or big.

A good example is the steel workers("Elliniki Xalybourgia - Greek Steelworks") strike which today is closing 6 months of strike.

Also KKE has played a major role in the strikes of dockworkers, construction workers, tourist and big hotels etc)

KKE is a marxist leninist party of new type, organized and functioning as a revolutionary party with the principles of democratic centralism, militant and secrecy (by "secrecy" i dont mean a secret organization)

While I am not KKE (I am with ANTARSYA) I see high value in KKE struggles for the working class.

By no means i wouldnt call KKE reformist.

[FSL]

"Progressive credibility" is not the same thing as good politics. The riots, after all, were against the current government, in which neither KKE nor SYRIZA was participating, so all that shows is that SYRIZA is smarter and more tactically flexible than the KKE, not that it has better politics.

KKE? They are better because they are at least opposed to membership in the EU, the beginning of wisdom. But, if Tsipras has illusions in an anti-austerity policy with Greece part of the EU, the KKE, with its Stalinist "two stage revolution" methodology, has illusions in an anti-austerity policy with Greece outside the EU, as the "first stage" of the Greek Revolution in allinace with "nationally minded" Greek capitalists.

-M.H.-
Supporting riots when riots are "all the rage" and pacifism during the indignant demonstrations isn't a sign of tactical flexibility. It's a sign of manipulation.

The communist party doesn't want a two stage revolution and an alliance with some greek capitalists. That must be a misconception of yours.



Syriza gathers all sorts of opinions under an umbrella of pluralism. All of them are suggesting managing capitalism better, some have braver rhetoric than others. It campaigned during the previous elections under a mandate to unilaterally annul the memorandum. This has changed now and they swear this won't happen unless they're provoked.
I will say that to me they seem excellent in bourgeois politics, that is excellent in lying and deceiving, and on their way to becoming a second Pasok, much like they've always dreamt.

In a sense they are the opium of the people right now. If they prove false, anything goes.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The KKE's proposal to the crisis is to withdraw from the EU and return to the Drachma, which seems like a Stalinist Socialism-in-one-state proposal. SYRIZA seems to be pro-EU reformist. So both the KKE and SYRIZA are "reformist" in their own way. For example, if one supports the Drachma and the other supports the Euro, they are both equally demanding the continuation of a monetary society for the time being.

SYRIZA's biggest problem is that they cannot move harder to the left than is practically possible within the EU. That limits them severely in a Europe dominated by rightwing and centrist governments. However, Tsipras is right in that without bringing the revolution to the rest of Europe, the Greek revolution stands no chance. This means that the KKE's problem is that it will leave Greece alone in a sea of Capitalist nations without any obvious way to grow. The KKE might be more realistic though in that SYRIZA is selling the people this idea that they can avoid austerity and stay in the Euro, when at best all they can really do is negotiate a better deal.

FSL-It seems however that SYRIZA would be signing a suicide pact if they decided to become a "second PASOK" because the economic conditions of Greece necessitate either (1) the state come in and support labor by directly intervening or (2) imposing further austerity on the already suffering Greek population. SYRIZA's policy proposals seem very much to be limited within the material conditions facing Greece. It is also true that some more radical leaders like Latin American leftists have taken power on more moderate proposals then swung left after taking over, like in Venezuela. Of course I'm not saying they will, they could go into obscurity by failing to heed the call of history.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Some of the comrades here write as if you have to choose either the KKE or Syriza. You do not. It is the job of revolutionaries to carefully unmask these groups for what they really are. It is a thankless task, and could generate some ill will among the working class, but in the long run it is the right thing to do. By telling the truth in advance about what the KKE or Syriza will do in power, a group can gain tremendous credibility with the Greek masses. And thereby lay the grounds for building a Leninist Vanguard Party that will whole-heartedly fight to overthrow capitalism. Syriza or the KKE will only serve as impediments to revolution in the final analysis. They are not stepping stones to revolution. History is littered with groups like these leading the proletariat back to the dead end of popular front governments, talking about socialism and revolution as some pie-in-the-sky dream for an unspecified time in the future (the distant future). I know this sounds somewhat cynical, but revolution in Greece will happen over and against the leadership of these groups.

I think the best characterization of Syrzia and the KKE are pro-capitalist worker's parties. To distinguish them from say the SPD in German, which has been transformed into more-or-less bourgeois party.

[FSL]

The KKE's proposal to the crisis is to withdraw from the EU and return to the Drachma, which seems like a Stalinist Socialism-in-one-state proposal. SYRIZA seems to be pro-EU reformist. So both the KKE and SYRIZA are "reformist" in their own way. For example, if one supports the Drachma and the other supports the Euro, they are both equally demanding the continuation of a monetary society for the time being.

SYRIZA's biggest problem is that they cannot move harder to the left than is practically possible within the EU. That limits them severely in a Europe dominated by rightwing and centrist governments. However, Tsipras is right in that without bringing the revolution to the rest of Europe, the Greek revolution stands no chance. This means that the KKE's problem is that it will leave Greece alone in a sea of Capitalist nations without any obvious way to grow. The KKE might be more realistic though in that SYRIZA is selling the people this idea that they can avoid austerity and stay in the Euro, when at best all they can really do is negotiate a better deal.

FSL-It seems however that SYRIZA would be signing a suicide pact if they decided to become a "second PASOK" because the economic conditions of Greece necessitate either (1) the state come in and support labor by directly intervening or (2) imposing further austerity on the already suffering Greek population. SYRIZA's policy proposals seem very much to be limited within the material conditions facing Greece. It is also true that some more radical leaders like Latin American leftists have taken power on more moderate proposals then swung left after taking over, like in Venezuela. Of course I'm not saying they will, they could go into obscurity by failing to heed the call of history.
I'm pretty sure only anarchists suggest an immediate abolition of money and certainly no one claimed KKE is anarchist.
But the communist party neither suggests an EU exit just to have a national currency as you say nor would that equal "socialism in one country".
It does suggest building socialism in Greece. That might bring changes in the rest of Europe. Negotiating with Merkel and Hollande and european capital won't.


How can you support labor in the middle of a capitalist crisis? Leftist leaders in latin America were lucky enough in taking over in the aftermath of a capitalist crisis that had exhausted people. They presided over a period of strong growth. It was possible for them to push forward some kind measures for the workers. Not that any real problem was solved and even the most radical governments (like Venezuela's) have lost steam and face the problems of capitalism (inflation, minimal real wage growth etc) just as much.

A greek government faces a different task however. Profits are down, the labor market is considered too "rigid" by capitalists, wages "too high" and they refuse to invest. How can you move past that while making labor power more expensive? You can't. The two options capitalism gives is austerity in the EU or a devaluation of drachma.
What Syriza stands for is another Greece in another Europe (a slogan used by the maoist KOE just now, even they who used to oppose the EU are now in favor of staying). Essentially, a humane capitalism and polite businessmen who in the midst of a deep crisis will start giving away money to workers or else... nothing.

If Syriza knows the secret to a humane capitalism and is ready to show the world after so many centuries of exploitation, I'm sure that will be great.
But I doubt they do so I just think they'll govern -if elected- much like Pasok did, trying to fool workers better days are coming now that things changed.

[Delenda Carthago]

How can you support labor in the middle of a capitalist crisis? Leftist leaders in latin America were lucky enough in taking over in the aftermath of a capitalist crisis that had exhausted people. They presided over a period of strong growth. It was possible for them to push forward some kind measures for the workers. Not that any real problem was solved and even the most radical governments (like Venezuela's) have lost steam and face the problems of capitalism (inflation, minimal real wage growth etc) just as much.

A greek government faces a different task however. Profits are down, the labor market is considered too "rigid" by capitalists, wages "too high" and they refuse to invest. How can you move past that while making labor power more expensive? You can't. The two options capitalism gives is austerity in the EU or a devaluation of drachma.
What Syriza stands for is another Greece in another Europe (a slogan used by the maoist KOE just now, even they who used to oppose the EU are now in favor of staying). Essentially, a humane capitalism and polite businessmen who in the midst of a deep crisis will start giving away money to workers or else... nothing.

If Syriza knows the secret to a humane capitalism and is ready to show the world after so many centuries of exploitation, I'm sure that will be great.
But I doubt they do so I just think they'll govern -if elected- much like Pasok did, trying to fool workers better days are coming now that things changed.
Thats what people should understand. The point is not politics, not how great guy this or that politician might be, but the economy. If the Capital has the luxury to share with Labour, it might. If it dont, it wont. No matter how great and honest man Tsipras(and every Tsipras) might be.Either you gonna change the economy, deleting capitalistic private property on the means of production, or you gonna sustain under the austerity measures until the crisis deepens and a war will give the solution.

[Crux]

Thats what people should understand. The point is not politics, not how great guy this or that politician might be, but the economy. If the Capital has the luxury to share with Labour, it might. If it dont, it wont. No matter how great and honest man Tsipras(and every Tsipras) might be.Either you gonna change the economy, deleting capitalistic private property on the means of production, or you gonna sustain under the austerity measures until the crisis deepens and a war will give the solution.
For once, comrade, I absolutely 100% agree. However I think the contradictions of SYRIZA is a bit deeper than just rhetoric versus practice. The incredible naiviety of the SYN leadership in the face of the EU-leaders is potentially dangerous in that they are not preparing worker's for what will likely come, that said there is a growing support for SYRIZA (last poll I saw put them at 30%) and ever more a growing need for a united front of the left, not to subordinate our program under the SYN leadership (by the way I hear there are some rumblings in SYN as well and the left is making headway), but to intervene in a very real movement that is happening. Standing to the sidelines now should not be an option, the left must rise to the task. This is not just about the electoral punishment KKE and ANTARSYA will be facing, but much bigger thing's are at stake.

[PhoenixAsh]

My position on the KKE is well known and documented on this site....but SYRIZA is not a solution at all.

SYRIZA will, if forming a government, sell out. They will either get persuaded/blackmailed by the EU or they will renegotiate a watered down austerity package. In no way is SYRIZA a viable alternative for the working class. At the very, very best they are a temporary relieve in the sense of the proverbial frying pan and the fire.

[Tim Finnegan]

KKE did not oppose protests, they opposed riots. SYRIZA supported the riots. However, the KKE is at least revolutionary (on paper), whereas SYRIZA is not at all.
Since when did rhetoric outweigh practice? A practice which, in the KKE's case, involves active collaboration with the state security apparatus against the working class. I don't care how eloquent a paean to Red October they can give you, a scab is a scab.

[Delenda Carthago]

KKE does not oppose "riots" or clashes with the cops in general. It just need to be democraticly descided and openly identified. Not opposed to other demonstrators by people who are organised in black blocks, without identity, where anyone can be anyone under a hood.

tqMaCpERlPM

For istance, that a riot the dockworkers syndicate did in front of the Marine Ministry against the army forces of Coast Guards.

Or another example, when the war in Serbia broke out, KKE raided the Engilsh embassy. And they claimed responsibility for it. It wasnt a block of some people where many people are unknown to the rest. And they did it organised. No person who was not in a situation to take a part in the conflict was there. Thats how you do things.

[Ocean Seal]

From what I've heard about the KKE, they are playing the role of the PCF in May 1968. They have rejected or ignored the protests while SYRIZA has embraced and supported them. Of course, this comes from a pro-SYRIZA and incredible source.
Scumbag Trotskyist.
Makes historical reference to the collaboration of Stalinists with reformist elements against revolution.
Supports Reformist Elements.

And no the KKE hasn't ignored protests or turned this into a voting campaign. If anything Syriza has. That doesn't mean that the KKE doesn't have its flaws, fuck-ups, and limitations.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why is it that "pan-leftism" always seem to mean "apologising for Stalinists" in practice?


KKE does not oppose "riots" or clashes with the cops in general. It just need to be democraticly descided and openly identified. Not opposed to other demonstrators by people who are organised in black blocks, without identity, where anyone can be anyone under a hood run by the KKE.
Because a bit of honesty never fucking hurt.

[Delenda Carthago]

Why is it that "pan-leftism" always seem to mean "apologising for Stalinists" in practice?


Because a bit of honesty never fucking hurt.

If I say "fuck you you fuckin nobody", will I be fined about that?

[Ilyich]

Scumbag Trotskyist.[QUOTE]

First off, it wasn't me who said this about SYRIZA and the KKE. I didn't independently come up with the idea that the KKE was the PCF or that SYRIZA was supportive of the protests while the KKE opposed them. It was told to me by a pro-SYRIZA friend who, by the way, isn't a Trotskyist. She calls herself a Maoist. Don't call me a scumbag Trotskyist and don't call her a scumbag Trotskyist.

[QUOTE]Makes historical reference to the collaboration of Stalinists with reformist elements against revolution.
Supports Reformist Elements.

Secondly, I have maintained throughout this entire discussion that I have never supported SYRIZA myself. Initially, I had a neutral position of SYRIZA. After having being given better and more credible information than my friend gave me, I am now anti-SYRIZA. When this discussion began, I was of the opinion that SYRIZA (which I have never supported) has relatively better politics than the KKE. I was apparently wrong and I am seriously beginning to reconsider that opinion now. If you think I support SYRIZA, especially at this point, you are mistaken.


And no the KKE hasn't ignored protests or turned this into a voting campaign. If anything Syriza has. That doesn't mean that the KKE doesn't have its flaws, fuck-ups, and limitations.

I admit I was wrong about SYRIZA's role and the KKE's role in the protests.

[NoPasaran1936]

For the record, I don't support SYRIZA. I don't oppose it either.

Revolutionaries should always oppose the parties that use the bourgeoisie democratic means of power. Parliamentary, presidential or whatever style of liberal democracy are all the same, they allow for people to spread shit they promise, then take one step to the right and claim it's not possible and then accept austerity or the wants of the ruling elite.

[A Marxist Historian]

Supporting riots when riots are "all the rage" and pacifism during the indignant demonstrations isn't a sign of tactical flexibility. It's a sign of manipulation.

The communist party doesn't want a two stage revolution and an alliance with some greek capitalists. That must be a misconception of yours.



Right now the KKE is using some very radical language, especially on the Internet, but in fact they still have the very same "Peoples Front" policy going back to Dimitrov in the 1930s, by way of course of the Greek Civil War, where the KKE tried to collaborate with Churchill and was very badly burned. Have they ever even done a self-criticism for serving in a Greek government a decade or so ago? I don't think so.

Even in the most radical language, the KKE talks about a "Peoples" government not a workers government. Words mean things.

Right now, there is no "progressive" bourgeois party in Greece the KKE could ally with, all the bourgeois parties and even Syriza for that matter want to be part of the EU. The only anti-EU bourgeois party is Golden Dawn. If a serious "progressive national" anti-EU bourgeois party were to come into existence, led by Theodorakis or someone like that, then the KKE would want to build a "Popular Front" alliance with them.

-M.H.-

[FSL]

Right now the KKE is using some very radical language, especially on the Internet, but in fact they still have the very same "Peoples Front" policy going back to Dimitrov in the 1930s, by way of course of the Greek Civil War, where the KKE tried to collaborate with Churchill and was very badly burned. Have they ever even done a self-criticism for serving in a Greek government a decade or so ago? I don't think so.

Even in the most radical language, the KKE talks about a "Peoples" government not a workers government. Words mean things.

Right now, there is no "progressive" bourgeois party in Greece the KKE could ally with, all the bourgeois parties and even Syriza for that matter want to be part of the EU. The only anti-EU bourgeois party is Golden Dawn. If a serious "progressive national" anti-EU bourgeois party were to come into existence, led by Theodorakis or someone like that, then the KKE would want to build a "Popular Front" alliance with them.

-M.H.-
Ehm, Theodorakis did make a party/movement that spoke of a "german-imf occupation". It was criticized as a dead end for workers because if we left the EU for a capitalist Greece things would be just as bad.

I'm not sure where you're getting your info but since it doesn't seem so accurate you might as well depend on the things you can read here: http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/18cong/


PS. Golden Dawn wants continued participation in the eurozone but without austerity. It also wants a debt audit like in Ecuador so that we'll only pay the "legitimate part", agreeing on this with much of the left.

[A Marxist Historian]

Ehm, Theodorakis did make a party/movement that spoke of a "german-imf occupation". It was criticized as a dead end for workers because if we left the EU for a capitalist Greece things would be just as bad.

I'm not sure where you're getting your info but since it doesn't seem so accurate you might as well depend on the things you can read here: http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/18cong/


PS. Golden Dawn wants continued participation in the eurozone but without austerity. It also wants a debt audit like in Ecuador so that we'll only pay the "legitimate part", agreeing on this with much of the left.


FSL: Thanks for the link. Glanced at the main political resolution from the last KKE congress.

Central slogan, and I'm quoting, was for an "Anti-imperialist Anti-monopoly Democratic Front (AADF) as a sociopolitical alliance for the People’s Power and People’s Economy. It must stress the necessity and possibility of establishment of socialism–communism that constitute the only realistic and effective response to the capitalist economic crisis, against the exploitation, the oppression and the imperialist barbarity."

Dimitrov couldn't have put it better, including the leftist figleaf in the second sentence. This is the same plain old Popular Frontism that led the French, Greek and many other Communist Parties to participate in bourgeois "Popular Front" governments in the past. And I'm sure something like that was how the KKE justified joining a Greek bourgeois government a decade ago.

So, why did the KKE criticize Theodorakis, the obvious partner for an "anti-imperialist anti-monopoly democratic front"? For the obvious reason, namely that Theodorakis's attempt (second attempt I think?) to build a bourgeois liberal anti-EU party was just a flash in the pan, nothing really worth allying with.

If, as I put it, Theodorakis represented a *serious* force, and was fairly friendly to the KKE, I am sure things would have been differenent.

Why? Because most Greeks think that leaving the EU would be an economic disaster for Greece. And, they are right. Trouble is, staying in the EU is an even bigger economic disaster at this point. The KKE is continually creating illusions about how Greece could go on its own and not have austerity if it just left the EU. That a socialist figleaf is added lately is just words really.

The only solution is a Balkan Socialist Federation as part of a Socialist United States of Europe. What the KKE called for in the 1920s, when Pouliopoulos, later the leader of Greek Trotskyism, was the KKE leader.

I get my info from various places, but the main one is the Spartacists, who do have a very small Greek group so they are not just ignorant outsiders. The article in the current Spartacist newspaper on Greece is mostly devoted to a critique of the KKE's policies, including those conference resolutions you gave me a URL for, as in their opinion the KKE as they put it "has the allegiance of the most militant sections of the Greek working class." You would do well to read it.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/1002/greece.html

-M.H.-

[FSL]

Dimitrov couldn't have put it better, including the leftist figleaf in the second sentence. This is the same plain old Popular Frontism that led the French, Greek and many other Communist Parties to participate in bourgeois "Popular Front" governments in the past. And I'm sure something like that was how the KKE justified joining a Greek bourgeois government a decade ago.

So, why did the KKE criticize Theodorakis, the obvious partner for an "anti-imperialist anti-monopoly democratic front"? For the obvious reason, namely that Theodorakis's attempt (second attempt I think?) to build a bourgeois liberal anti-EU party was just a flash in the pan, nothing really worth allying with.

If, as I put it, Theodorakis represented a *serious* force, and was fairly friendly to the KKE, I am sure things would have been differenent.


-M.H.-
You could be sure but you'd still be wrong. There would be no agreement then because being "anti-imperialist" wouldn't just mean an exit from the EU but a break with all imperialists, including russians with whom Theodorakis would have liked a closer participation, including greek capitalists who export factories in Bulgaria or deposits in swiss banks.
And being "anti-monopoly" would mean an end to capitalism since capitalism has been for decades monopolistic capitalism. It would mean social ownership of all industry, of the banking system, of all the concentrated commerce, of all construction that had to do with public works and housing, of energy, telecommunications, goods' and public's transportation etc

This is how the communist party interprets being antiimperialist and anti-monopoly. And, if anything, it's accused of being sectarian because of it while at the same time you are claiming it's ready to work together with social democracy to advance some "reforms"? That's just funny.


No, no one claimed the 89 government that lasted a few months was a "popular front". Members of the previous pasok government were accused of getting millions through corruption and in Greece there is a law establishing that after 2 parliamentary periods any crime commited by a member of the government is forgiven. Knowing that Pasok changed the electoral law right then, in 1989, to make the next parliament hung and clear its members of any liabilities. That was the sole reason for forming a government then, there was no "political" agreement.




Why? Because most Greeks think that leaving the EU would be an economic disaster for Greece. And, they are right. Trouble is, staying in the EU is an even bigger economic disaster at this point. The KKE is continually creating illusions about how Greece could go on its own and not have austerity if it just left the EU. That a socialist figleaf is added lately is just words really.

The only solution is a Balkan Socialist Federation as part of a Socialist United States of Europe. What the KKE called for in the 1920s, when Pouliopoulos, later the leader of Greek Trotskyism, was the KKE leader.
If you are determined to believe that the communist party wants a capitalist Greece outside the EU, then I guess you'll believe it whatever I say and whatever the truth may be.

Having a socialist United States of Europe soulds very nice and all, much like having a socialist United States of the Earth. However, I guess it still means that until a revolution happens in Germany we should be happy to be in an advanced capitalist union and try to make up for the fact that Germany's and Greece's capital rip us off by ripping off Bulgaria's and Romania's workers as much as we possibly can in return.

But that doesn't seem too right, does it?

[A Marxist Historian]

You could be sure but you'd still be wrong. There would be no agreement then because being "anti-imperialist" wouldn't just mean an exit from the EU but a break with all imperialists, including russians with whom Theodorakis would have liked a closer participation, including greek capitalists who export factories in Bulgaria or deposits in swiss banks.
And being "anti-monopoly" would mean an end to capitalism since capitalism has been for decades monopolistic capitalism. It would mean social ownership of all industry, of the banking system, of all the concentrated commerce, of all construction that had to do with public works and housing, of energy, telecommunications, goods' and public's transportation etc

This is how the communist party interprets being antiimperialist and anti-monopoly. And, if anything, it's accused of being sectarian because of it while at the same time you are claiming it's ready to work together with social democracy to advance some "reforms"? That's just funny.

Well, that sounds very nice, but then we have the next paragraph...



No, no one claimed the 89 government that lasted a few months was a "popular front". Members of the previous pasok government were accused of getting millions through corruption and in Greece there is a law establishing that after 2 parliamentary periods any crime commited by a member of the government is forgiven. Knowing that Pasok changed the electoral law right then, in 1989, to make the next parliament hung and clear its members of any liabilities. That was the sole reason for forming a government then, there was no "political" agreement.

So, let's suppose that the only way to get out of the EU was to form a "temporary" coalition government with bourgeois forces. Then the KKE would do that, right? Surely a better justification than merely throwing a few crooks in jail?




If you are determined to believe that the communist party wants a capitalist Greece outside the EU, then I guess you'll believe it whatever I say and whatever the truth may be.

Having a socialist United States of Europe soulds very nice and all, much like having a socialist United States of the Earth. However, I guess it still means that until a revolution happens in Germany we should be happy to be in an advanced capitalist union and try to make up for the fact that Germany's and Greece's capital rip us off by ripping off Bulgaria's and Romania's workers as much as we possibly can in return.

But that doesn't seem too right, does it?

No, doesn't mean any such thing. The EU is a capitalist, imperialist alliance of thieves, whose purpose is to exploit poorer countries outside the EU, and, it turns out, inside the EU as well. Right now Greece is getting it in the neck, ten years ago it looked like Greece was benefitting from scraps thrown to it by the EU's true masters. But opposing it is a matter of principle, not to be judged just by what impact it has on the Greek economy this week.

Over the long term, the Greek chihuahua inevitably was doomed to get devoured by the German and French timber wolves, but the real reason to oppose the EU is in defense of all the sheep it preys on.

As for what the KKE really has in mind, yes, we have a lot of leftist rhetoric lately, making it sound like what the KKE wants is some sort of unrealizable Greek "socialism in one country." I don't believe that, as the KKE is the oldest political party in Greece, it has a record of coalitionism going all the way back to the 1930s, and none of this has been repudiated by the current KKE leaders--or even by you here on Revleft.

But hey, I'd even be willing to concede you this point, as the project of an independent socialist Greece is totally impractical, even less practical than Stalin's idea of "socialism in one country" in the USSR.

And anti-Leninist. Lenin made it very clear that the idea of the Bolshevik revolution was not some futile dream of an autonomous Russian socialism, but as a launching pad for workers revolution, first in Europe and then the world.

And in fact, if the Bolshevik Revolution had not sparked the overthrow of the German and Austro-Hungarian monarchies, the Revolution would have been crushed almost immediately.

The same applies to Greece. An independent socialist Greece is impossible in the long term. But if the Greek workers were to overthrow the Greek capitalists, this would have effects on the rest of Europe that would make the so called "Arab Spring" of last year, touched off by the revolution in tiny Tunisia, look like a tempest in a teapot.

-M.H.-

[FSL]

So, let's suppose that the only way to get out of the EU was to form a "temporary" coalition government with bourgeois forces. Then the KKE would do that, right? Surely a better justification than merely throwing a few crooks in jail?
Leaving the EU by itself is not a goal, as you've been told so many times.
I find it hard to believe that bourgeois parties would agree to build socialism in Greece so your point is invalid.
Also, those were not some ordinary crooks, those were sosialist crooks, who got elected on many promises and became what they are today. Not giving them a get-out-of-jail card was essentially the greek CP taking a divorce from social democracy (even though it never married it like CPs elsewhere did). It was exactly the opposite of what you're making it to be.




The same applies to Greece. An independent socialist Greece is impossible in the long term. But if the Greek workers were to overthrow the Greek capitalists, this would have effects on the rest of Europe that would make the so called "Arab Spring" of last year, touched off by the revolution in tiny Tunisia, look like a tempest in a teapot.
I don't get what you're saying. Do you for some odd reason get the impression that if there was a revolution in Greece and soon other countries followed, Greece would reject a socialist union with those countries, in favor of its "socialism in one country"?
Because that shows you don't really understand what it means.

[A Marxist Historian]

Leaving the EU by itself is not a goal, as you've been told so many times.
I find it hard to believe that bourgeois parties would agree to build socialism in Greece so your point is invalid.
Also, those were not some ordinary crooks, those were sosialist crooks, who got elected on many promises and became what they are today. Not giving them a get-out-of-jail card was essentially the greek CP taking a divorce from social democracy (even though it never married it like CPs elsewhere did). It was exactly the opposite of what you're making it to be.

I don't get what you're saying. Do you for some odd reason get the impression that if there was a revolution in Greece and soon other countries followed, Greece would reject a socialist union with those countries, in favor of its "socialism in one country"?
Because that shows you don't really understand what it means.

So, you should join a bourgeois government, repressing the Greek people, to put some socialist crooks in jail? That's the kind of "divorce from social democracy" that reminds me of a typical divorce case in a capitalist court.
Divorcing social democracy to shack up with the capitalist oppressors on a "temporary" basis is not exactly something to be proud of.

Anyway, your rhetoric is all very nice, and if I thought it seriously reflected the KKE's actual policies on the ground, I would have a different attitude to the KKE.

But what I am aware of is that the most militant workers in Greece are following the KKE now, and that this revolutionary rhetoric is impressing them.

But how does the KKE put this radical rhetoric into practice? By ritualistic one day general strikes every few months, which at this point accomplish nothing. And, last fall when you had a true mass mobilization outside the Greek parliament, the role of the KKE was to physically prevent the masses from storming parliament. Just another sellout in the KKE's long history of sellouts.

So, like I said, if I were in Greece right now, I would vote for the KKE on June 17, to better give the KKE the opportunity to turn its rhetoric into action. Which, I am sure, they will not do, enabling hopefully the most militant and revolutionary followers of the KKE to realise that they need to break from the KKE in a truly revolutionary direction.

What needs to be done? Well, since this is objectively a revolutionary situation, it is time to start forming workers councils as an alternative power, arming the workers, investigating possibilities for soldiers councils, etc. etc.

And crushing the Golden Dawn fascists, not by guerilla raids on them anarchist style but mass, united front mobilizations of all Greek haters of fascism, which is most Greeks, to smash them and drive them off the streets. Here, unlike in elections, is where united front methods are required.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Maybe you should revisit the old Comintern discussions about a "workers government," since you're so into the Spartacists and Comintern history.

I don't think there's a real revolutionary period for the Greek working class. At best, there can be regime change, and "workers government" is a possibility within such regime change.

[A Marxist Historian]

^^^ Maybe you should revisit the old Comintern discussions about a "workers government," since you're so into the Spartacists and Comintern history.

I don't think there's a real revolutionary period for the Greek working class. At best, there can be regime change, and "workers government" is a possibility within such regime change.

Ah, thereby hangs a tale, the Spartacists long ago beat me to it. They believe that Zinoviev's "workers government" resolution at the Fourth Congress was mechanical, contradictory and highly misinterpretable. Trotsky a few years later wrote that a "workers government" could only be a very temporary transitional moment, and should be seen as a slogan, not a stage in the revolutionary process which is what the Fourth Congress resolution could be read to mean.

And indeed Zinoviev himself at the Fifth Congress, while he was on one of his ultraleft zigzags, actually pretty much dropped the "workers government" as stage of the revolution conception.

The Spartacists have gone into this many times in their theoretical writings, most recently I think in their recent article in their theoretical magazine on "Marxist Principles and Electoral Tactics," in which, discussing the German Communist Party's entry into a coalition government with the SPD in Saxony in fall '23, they write:

"The KPD’s entry into these governments was prepared by the flawed and confused resolution on “workers governments” adopted at the Fourth Congress of the CI less than a year earlier. That resolution confused the call for a workers government—which for revolutionaries is nothing other than an expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat—with all manner of social-democratic governments administering the bourgeois state apparatus, and left open the possibility of Communist participation in such a government in coalition with the social democrats."

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/61/electoral.html

They go into this further in their earlier comprehensive analysis of the failure of the German Revolution in 1923.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/56/germany1923.html

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

And crushing the Golden Dawn fascists, not by guerilla raids on them anarchist style

And also certainly not by KPD-style confrontations, which only legitimise the fascist strategy of turning politics into paramilitary actions.


but mass, united front mobilizations of all Greek haters of fascism, which is most Greeks, to smash them and drive them off the streets. Here, unlike in elections, is where united front methods are required.

A good example would be the mass confrontation between Brazilian anti-fascists and the Integralistas in São Paulo in October 7, 1934, in which the Integralistas were not only dispersed and defeated, having actually to flee for their asses, but were permanently demoralised, earning the nickname "Green Chickens" for ever since (an ideological group that makes a fetish of violence cannot afford massive public displays of cowardice).

But then the degree of collusion between Golden Dawn and the Greek police would probably make such an event much more difficult - and probably bloodier - than the "flight of the Green Chickens".

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ah, thereby hangs a tale, the Spartacists long ago beat me to it. They believe that Zinoviev's "workers government" resolution at the Fourth Congress was mechanical, contradictory and highly misinterpretable. Trotsky a few years later wrote that a "workers government" could only be a very temporary transitional moment, and should be seen as a slogan, not a stage in the revolutionary process which is what the Fourth Congress resolution could be read to mean.

And indeed Zinoviev himself at the Fifth Congress, while he was on one of his ultraleft zigzags, actually pretty much dropped the "workers government" as stage of the revolution conception.

The Spartacists have gone into this many times in their theoretical writings, most recently I think in their recent article in their theoretical magazine on "Marxist Principles and Electoral Tactics," in which, discussing the German Communist Party's entry into a coalition government with the SPD in Saxony in fall '23, they write:

"The KPD’s entry into these governments was prepared by the flawed and confused resolution on “workers governments” adopted at the Fourth Congress of the CI less than a year earlier. That resolution confused the call for a workers government—which for revolutionaries is nothing other than an expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat—with all manner of social-democratic governments administering the bourgeois state apparatus, and left open the possibility of Communist participation in such a government in coalition with the social democrats."

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/61/electoral.html

They go into this further in their earlier comprehensive analysis of the failure of the German Revolution in 1923.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/56/germany1923.html

-M.H.-

What I meant was that you start a History thread on the subject. :)

[A Marxist Historian]

And also certainly not by KPD-style confrontations, which only legitimise the fascist strategy of turning politics into paramilitary actions.



A good example would be the mass confrontation between Brazilian anti-fascists and the Integralistas in São Paulo in October 7, 1934, in which the Integralistas were not only dispersed and defeated, having actually to flee for their asses, but were permanently demoralised, earning the nickname "Green Chickens" for ever since (an ideological group that makes a fetish of violence cannot afford massive public displays of cowardice).

But then the degree of collusion between Golden Dawn and the Greek police would probably make such an event much more difficult - and probably bloodier - than the "flight of the Green Chickens".

Luís Henrique

This is reminiscent of the situation in France with respect to the French fascists in the mid 1930s. The French police were also quite pro-fascist.

Trotsky, who was actually in France at the time, wrote about this at some length, going into the tactics. I can't give you the URL off the top of my head, but what I remember him saying is that the tactical trick is to give the fascists a good hiding *without* going directly up against the cops, preferably while the cops are watching, so as to impress on the cops the wisdom of not messing with the workers unnecessarily.

Just because the Greek cops are pro-fascist doesn't ncessarily mean that they want to take damage themselves on behalf of the fascists.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

What I meant was that you start a History thread on the subject. :)

Not a bad thought, will soon.

-M.H.-

[blake 3:17]

Statement of Support of the Greek Left

Jun 06 2012
by Etienne Balibar, Wendy Brown, Judith Butler, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak


[Protest in Syntagma Square in Athens on 19 February 2012. Image by Odysseas Galinos Paparounis / Flickr.
We write to express our support for the ideals embodied by the Greek left in advance of the election of June 17th as they articulate the requirements for social and economic democracy under conditions of neo-liberalism. We oppose those forms of international pressure currently brought to bear on the people of Greece to cede their popular sovereignty to a European Union that has, until now, reproduced and strengthened social and economic inequalities throughout Europe and extended forms of intra-European racism through discriminatory economic regulations and austerity measures. We note that the Greek Left (SYRIZA: Coalition of the Radical Left) have articulated the rights to work and to education, opposing those neo-liberal economic policies that increase precarity for growing numbers of people, establishing unemployment as a norm, decimating social and health services along with public education, and destroying the very conditions of economic production. We support the efforts of the people of Greece to wrest power from non-elected technocrats, and we oppose the reckless demonization of the current left coalition as unacceptable red-baiting and malicious propaganda. The accusation currently circulated in the European press that the Left threatens to take Greece out of the Euro-Zone fails to see that the Left is struggling for a different Europe, one governed by and for the people, committed to the open political participation of all its inhabitants in creating equal conditions for work and for a livable life.

Etienne Balibar
Wendy Brown
Judith Butler
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/5865/a-statement-of-support-on-the-greek-left-from-bali