The appeal of SYRIZA

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/922/the-appeal-of-syriza



The left continues to squabble over the merits of the Coalition of the Radical Left in Greece - but, argues Paul Demarty, both sides miss the point

The European left, on the whole, has gone Syriza-crazy. It is not especially hard to see why. When even a middling soft-left like François Hollande can set the world alight with excitement, a self-proclaimed radical left coalition-cum-party achieving genuinely mass votes in a country on the sharp end of the European austerity nightmare is nothing to sniff at.

This excitement, of course, is not unanimous; everywhere, Syrizaphiles face off against Syrizaphobes. Many Trotskyist groups in Britain have their own horses in the chaotic race of Greek politics; and a good clutch of them are gathered in the rival Antarsya coalition. This presents certain problems for some: the Socialist Workers Party has had to sell its sister-organisation’s decision to persist with Antarsya on the grounds that Syriza is ‘reformist’ - as if even the most watered-down versions of its politics were significantly to the right of the SWP’s positions in Ireland, Britain and, well, everywhere else.

For the Mandelite Fourth International, the problem is even more acute. It seems a rift has opened up between the international centre and the Greek section, the Organisation of Communist Internationalists of Greece (Spartacus) (OKDE). There are whispers that a pro-Syriza article by Alan Thornett was implied, by the editors of the Mandelites’ International Viewpoint, to be the international’s official position, rudely gazumping their own comrades on the ground. Comrade Thornett - an opportunist even by the FI’s elastic standards - called Antarsya’s anti-Syriza stance “an object lesson in the role of ultra-left sectarianism, when real opportunities open up for the workers’ movement.” A Syriza-led government would be a “workers’ government in Marxist parlance”.

The OKDE has hit back with a piece strongly critical of Syriza. It “desperately tried to articulate a political programme of neo-Keynesianism”, which amounts to a “modernisation” of the “bourgeois system” without rejecting the “dominant mechanisms” at work - the European Union and the “hard euro”. More significantly, Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras (apparently) does not base himself on the mass popular movement.

The debate in the FI neatly summarises the pattern by which opinions on Syriza, and politics in Greece more generally, are polarised on the far left. Typically, both positions are false.

Syrizaphilia

The pro-Syriza position is false, in the first instance, because a left government - or a left government that, by the terminological laziness of an Alan Thornett, equals a workers’ government - will not save Greece from disaster. The workers’ government slogan was raised by the Comintern on the basis that, in the context of the early 1920s, such a government would be an immediate prelude to revolution across Europe.

Such a gamble cannot seriously be entertained in the current situation, for the same reason that Syriza-mania has such traction - elsewhere in Europe, the left is nowhere, and the revolutionary left less significant still. In Italy, which had the largest electoral base for ‘official communism’ down to the 1980s, the left is now reduced to a state even more parlous than it is in this country (readers will appreciate what a dire state of affairs that is). This, remember, is the country to which the anti-austerity fever is supposed to jump, post-haste, from Greece. Jean-Luc Mélenchon received a respectable vote in France, but the Front de Gauche is a long way from taking power. Die Linke looks to be dead on its feet. Who, pray, will follow Syriza?

If nobody follows Syriza - and this question may be posed very soon again, given the dilemmas the new Greek government will face in the coming months - then the latter will face an unpalatable choice. Either negotiate with Merkel and the troika - and take responsibility for whatever share of economic collective punishment is, from their point of view, non-negotiable - or pull out, causing the scenario so cheerfully called ‘drachmageddon’ by various financial hacks: the replacement of the euro by a Greek currency doomed, as Oedipus was to parricide and incest, to overnight collapse. Syriza will remain an attractive model for the international left until the moment it is put to the test of government; at that point, its success will prove just as fleeting as, say, Rifondazione’s in Italy.

Syriza, one would expect, would take the first course rather than the second. This is the second reason the Tsipras-philes are wrong - Syriza’s political character is, if not reformist, best characterised as centrist. It is a melange of different forces, but its main component - Synaspismos - is a fragment (of which many exist) of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) historically associated with Eurocommunism. Syriza’s leaders are happy to talk big about mass action and popular protest; but in the end their politics are precisely the kind of fantasy-land neo-Keynesianism that the OKDE criticises (and that the likes of Thornett typically advocate in their dismal political interventions).

The third reason has to do with the sort of lessons we are to take from the sudden and spectacular success of Syriza in Greek politics. It is implied that what we need are, to paraphrase Che Guevara, ‘two, three, many Syrizas’. But there is only one precisely because of the specific historical circumstances pertaining to Greece, which saw the KKE and other ‘official communist’ fragments survive, almost uniquely in Europe, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent period of political reaction more or less intact.

The KKE is routinely lambasted for its sectarian dogmatism. This is no doubt a fair enough charge. But it retains a very significant penetration into the Greek workers’ movement. As for the Eurocommunists, whereas in Britain they became Blairites in short order, and in Italy divided into the Democratic Party and Rifondazione (which in turn drove itself to destruction in the last Prodi government), in Greece they have retained some life as a serious and distinctive trend. It is this factor - the existence of serious organisations of the class and of the left - that produced Syriza’s vote.

On the contrary, it is plain that the likes of comrade Thornett - and dissidents against the anti-Syriza line in the Socialist Workers Party - imagine that Syriza’s success can unproblematically be replicated elsewhere. It cannot, without the serious development of radical, mass workers’ organisations that - however deformed those organisations are in Greece - made that success possible.

Syrizaphobia

On the other hand, the major problem for those who oppose Syriza is that their critique centres on its unwillingness to break from the EU and somehow ‘go it alone’. This is posed as a dividing line between reformists and revolutionaries - but the true distinguishing feature of reformism is that it seeks to work through the existing constitutional order, as opposed to a commitment to its overthrow and replacement.

Syriza, it is true, is at best ambiguous on this point - but so is the anti-EU dogmatism posed against it. There is nothing revolutionary about choosing the bosses’ club of the Greek state over the bosses’ club of the EU. If anything, it is the other way round - the existence of supranational organisations for the administration of capitalism is simply an imperfect reflection of the fact that production is thoroughly internationalised by this system. The answer is not to abolish such transnational institutions, but transform them through the mass, collective political action of workers across the EU. That Tsipras and co, however politically compromised they are, blow hot air in favour of such action is a strength rather than a weakness.

The ‘alternative’ posed by such comrades - perfectly clear in the OKDE statement - is more mass action, more occupations, strikes, demonstrations and whatever else. But all the mass action in the world will not change the fact that Greece has not been self-sufficient in the production of food for two and a half thousand years, and is unlikely to be in the near future.

Mass actionism, moreover, is the reverse side of the pro-Syriza electoralist coin. The latter, as noted, is a dodge from taking on the serious tasks of building the revolutionary workers’ organisations that can truly make a difference to the political situation - equally, the idea that ‘mass action’ in itself is capable of solving the political problems we face is an idea which descends to us from Bakunin, through the Second International left to the post-1968 ‘new left’. In all cases, it has failed quite as miserably to substitute for conscious political work as naive electoralism.

Above all, the back and forth over Syriza testifies to the fact that the left is utterly disoriented in this, the period when humanity most needs a revolutionary alternative. Syrizaphiles look to Tsipras as a messianic saviour figure; their ‘left’ opponents look to the more pantheistic god that is ‘the struggle’. Neither will confront the burning necessities of the day - the need for revolutionary mass parties, and common workers’ action across borders, in this most global of crises.

[MarxSchmarx]

Interesting, I agree with the author's critique that a lot of the criticism about Syriza and the EU are red herrings.

Unfortunately, I fail to see much of a positive program in the polemic. Whilst calls to "revolutionary mass parties, and common workers’ action across borders" are all well and good, the author goes to some length to denounce what they call "mass-actionism" when in fact precisely such activities are what, however uncoordinated or sloppy they may be, lay the foundation for broad based struggle. It was no accident that the rise of Syriza was preceded by years of anti-austerity struggles in the streets and in the workplaces. Precisely who is poised to emerge as a viable alternative uniting the left in Greece? Is the author advocating rebuilding such a party de novo?

Moreover, I think the author raises a good point about Syriza being the darling of leftists so long as it is out of power. This is in fact something of an opportunity for them to advocate an even more radical position, and I'm not as pessimistic as the author on this count.

[Die Neue Zeit]

the author goes to some length to denounce what they call "mass-actionism" when in fact precisely such activities are what, however uncoordinated or sloppy they may be, lay the foundation for broad based struggle

True, comrade, but I think here you're referring to "mass actionism" that's more political, a la Occupy, as opposed to "mass actionism" that isn't (mass strike fetishes). Genuine class struggle emerges out of generic political struggle, after all.


Moreover, I think the author raises a good point about Syriza being the darling of leftists so long as it is out of power. This is in fact something of an opportunity for them to advocate an even more radical position, and I'm not as pessimistic as the author on this count.

Comrade, what do you think of my proposed letter submission re. "more radical position"?

[To all recipient comrades in this thread: feel free to discuss the e-mail ahead of publication.]

[Delenda Carthago]

This presents certain problems for some: the Socialist Workers Party has had to sell its sister-organisation’s decision to persist with Antarsya on the grounds that Syriza is ‘reformist’ - as if even the most watered-down versions of its politics were significantly to the right of the SWP’s positions in Ireland, Britain and, well, everywhere else.


:laugh::laugh:

[Art Vandelay]

True, comrade, but I think here you're referring to "mass actionism" that's more political, a la Occupy, as opposed to "mass actionism" that isn't (mass strike fetishes). Genuine class struggle emerges out of generic political struggle, after all.

While I agree that as a tactic the mass strike has proven to be quite the failure, I don't know if we should simply disregard it, let alone condemn it. While, obviously, the mass strike has been fetishisted in Greece (they've had how many general strikes in the last how many years and its accomplished what exactly); we, as socialist, need to help redirect that popular anger in a more productive fashion. On top of that we cannot underestimate the ways in which the numerous Greek general strikes have helped to politicize the Greek workers (who, in my opinion, are some of the most class conscious in the world).

Just as a note, I wasn't accusing you, DNZ, of condemning the mass strike (let alone the Greek working class) it was more just of a general thought.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

I really want to see how you guys will react when SYRIZA governs Greece and applies a PASOK-like system.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/923/letters



Hamas style

There are welcome yet disturbing developments in relation to Syriza that Paul Demarty should consider (‘The appeal of Syriza’, July 12).

Someone in Greece commented on the Guardian ‘Comment is free’ website: “The emphasis was … on how to best support the vulnerable members of the community when the new austerity measures go through. Both on a local and national level. ‘Hamas’-style if you wish. I am in the committee for schools and we decided to use Syriza funds to set up a bakery on site to ensure the children get something to eat in the mornings. We are also pushing ahead with a scheme to provide free medical access for the under-12s at school (our hospital has closed and the private doctors no longer take national insurance patients)” (July 10).

The welcome news is that of mutual aid, etc as an alternative to mass actionism and naive electoralism. The bad news is the political illiteracy of the Greek left by calling this “Hamas-style”. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc are merely copying the pre-World War I Social Democratic Party of Germany model.

A ‘workers’ government’ coming to power in Greece should take on the lessons of Argentina, Iceland, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador all rolled into one. The first two countries implemented post-Keynesian monetary and labour measures, plus Argentina defaulted to screw the IMF. Venezuela’s cooperative, social, and co-management measures, and also its drive for energy and general economic sovereignty, is welcome. Bolivia is more focused on agriculture, while Ecuador shows how to deal with neoliberal media barons from the get-go.

[islandmilitia]

I really want to see how you guys will react when SYRIZA governs Greece and applies a PASOK-like system.

Really, can you point to a single organization which has actually said that SYRIZA would be able to introduce a social revolution? This is not the argument. The argument behind supporting the election of SYRIZA to power is that, because it is SYRIZA which has been able to develop deep roots in the Greek working class since the beginning of the crisis (especially as compared to the KKE in light of their poor performance in the last election) the election of SYRIZA would enhance the confidence of the working class in Greece and elsewhere. More importantly, there is also a recognition that the formal positions and commitments of SYRIZA as they currently stand are fundamentally irreconcilable, because it is naive to think that it would be possible to resist the austerity measures of the Troika whilst also remaining within the EU and the single currency. For precisely that reason, then, the election of SYRIZA would produce a situation where the irreconcilability of the party's currently politics would be made evident for all to see through the logic of events, and on that basis there would emerge debates and fissures within the party, and the possibility of winning large sections of SYRIZA away in a more genuinely revolutionary direction. Understood in these terms, supporting the election of SYRIZA does not mean having illusions about the reformist or centrist character of the party, and nor does it entail seeing a SYRIZA-led government as an end-point. Rather, it involves seeing the election of such a government as simply one moment (albeit an important one) in an ongoing revolutionary process.

[A Marxist Historian]

Interesting, I agree with the author's critique that a lot of the criticism about Syriza and the EU are red herrings.

Unfortunately, I fail to see much of a positive program in the polemic. Whilst calls to "revolutionary mass parties, and common workers’ action across borders" are all well and good, the author goes to some length to denounce what they call "mass-actionism" when in fact precisely such activities are what, however uncoordinated or sloppy they may be, lay the foundation for broad based struggle. It was no accident that the rise of Syriza was preceded by years of anti-austerity struggles in the streets and in the workplaces. Precisely who is poised to emerge as a viable alternative uniting the left in Greece? Is the author advocating rebuilding such a party de novo?

Moreover, I think the author raises a good point about Syriza being the darling of leftists so long as it is out of power. This is in fact something of an opportunity for them to advocate an even more radical position, and I'm not as pessimistic as the author on this count.

"rebuilding such a party de novo" is exactly what is needed, whether or not that is what the author is advocating. Can't be done overnight, true. So best to get started ASAP.

A "viable alternative uniting the left" is the road to hell, paved with good intentions.

Now, the trouble with the plausible sounding critique from the CPGB is their notion that the EU somehow or other is "progressive," as a form of multinational unity. It isn't. It's an imperialist club vs. rivals like the USA and Japan and its victims in the Third World.

Yes, you can't build socialism in one country, and especially not in Greece. But a Greek workers revolution would totally transform Europe, it would hit the rest of Europe in a thunderbolt bigger than the Tunisian revolt hit the Middle East. The CPGB pessimism that it can't spread, 'cuz the left is in such bad shape in Italy and elsewhere, is nonrevolutionary.

In 1916, the revolutionary left were a tiny, isolated sect numbering probably less than a hundred all over Europe outside Russia. After the Bolshevik Revolution, the Communist International rose seemingly out of nowhere into a mass power all over Europe.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Really, can you point to a single organization which has actually said that SYRIZA would be able to introduce a social revolution? This is not the argument. The argument behind supporting the election of SYRIZA to power is that, because it is SYRIZA which has been able to develop deep roots in the Greek working class since the beginning of the crisis (especially as compared to the KKE in light of their poor performance in the last election) the election of SYRIZA would enhance the confidence of the working class in Greece and elsewhere. More importantly, there is also a recognition that the formal positions and commitments of SYRIZA as they currently stand are fundamentally irreconcilable, because it is naive to think that it would be possible to resist the austerity measures of the Troika whilst also remaining within the EU and the single currency. For precisely that reason, then, the election of SYRIZA would produce a situation where the irreconcilability of the party's currently politics would be made evident for all to see through the logic of events, and on that basis there would emerge debates and fissures within the party, and the possibility of winning large sections of SYRIZA away in a more genuinely revolutionary direction. Understood in these terms, supporting the election of SYRIZA does not mean having illusions about the reformist or centrist character of the party, and nor does it entail seeing a SYRIZA-led government as an end-point. Rather, it involves seeing the election of such a government as simply one moment (albeit an important one) in an ongoing revolutionary process.

This is almost exactly backwards. Yes, if SYRIZA is elected, betrayal of its promises of non-austerity capitalism is inevitable, and surely much of its rank and file support would be outraged.

At that point, they would also be outraged at everyone who had voted for the traitor-leaders of SYRIZA and had helped put them in office. And rightly so. They would turn to those who had said in advance that SYRIZA in office would betray.

-M.H.-

[islandmilitia]

This is almost exactly backwards. Yes, if SYRIZA is elected, betrayal of its promises of non-austerity capitalism is inevitable, and surely much of its rank and file support would be outraged.

Actually, I think this is too simplistic a formulation, and there would actually open up multiple potentialities in the event of SYRIZA coming to power. It seems highly possible and even likely, based on what individuals Tsipras said during the election and what has been said since, that the SYRIZA leadership is now taking a more cooperative attitude towards the Trokia and is pledging re-negotiation rather than a radical rejection of the austerity measures. If SYRIZA were to maintain the Memorandum in basic form, in the interests of remaining within the EU, that would, I agree, promote an immediate wave of anger amongst the working class. On the other hand, there remains the possibility that, following the logic of the situation, a SYRIZA government would be compelled to withdraw from the EU and reject the Memorandum in order to remain consistent with its basic orientation against austerity. It depends on the internal balance of forces, keeping in mind that SYRIZA is a coalition rather than a regimented party organization. The latter scenario would open up a new set of contradictions and dilemmas for the government such as the inevitably massive attack the Greek economy would suffer from the forces of world capital, and it would also give new impetus to the struggle of the working class. This latter course would not amount to anything like a social revolution but it seems important to emphasize the dynamism and unpredictability of the present situation.


At that point, they would also be outraged at everyone who had voted for the traitor-leaders of SYRIZA and had helped put them in office. And rightly so. They would turn to those who had said in advance that SYRIZA in office would betray.

As Marxist dialecticians, though, we should know that there are different kinds of support. Support for the election of SYRIZA does not imply support without illusions, or support without any sense of the dialectic of struggle, and so it does not follow that Greek workers would reject those forces which called for people to vote for SYRIZA, if those forces also gave an analysis of what a SYRIZA-led government would entail, and the need to go beyond SYRIZA's formal positions. The performance of the KKE - basically a halving of their vote between the two elections, in a context of general social and political crisis - shows what happens when political forces fail to recognize, in a sectarian manner, the ways in which SYRIZA is now becoming a pole of attraction for social movements and class organization.

[A Marxist Historian]

Actually, I think this is too simplistic a formulation, and there would actually open up multiple potentialities in the event of SYRIZA coming to power. It seems highly possible and even likely, based on what individuals Tsipras said during the election and what has been said since, that the SYRIZA leadership is now taking a more cooperative attitude towards the Trokia and is pledging re-negotiation rather than a radical rejection of the austerity measures. If SYRIZA were to maintain the Memorandum in basic form, in the interests of remaining within the EU, that would, I agree, promote an immediate wave of anger amongst the working class. On the other hand, there remains the possibility that, following the logic of the situation, a SYRIZA government would be compelled to withdraw from the EU and reject the Memorandum in order to remain consistent with its basic orientation against austerity. It depends on the internal balance of forces, keeping in mind that SYRIZA is a coalition rather than a regimented party organization.

In other words, it is not only the rank and file members of SYRIZA who have illusions in SYRIZA--but islandmilitia as well. Or, more to the point, illusions in capitalism.

The crisis in Greece is a fundamental and serious crisis. No government within the framework of capitalism is capable of resolving it without attacks on the working class. Unless the capitalist state is smashed and the workers seize the power, austerity measures are inevitable and unavoidable. In fact, even if they do, some austerity measures might be unavoidable, but could at least be done fairly under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And, given the extreme dependence of Greece, it seems unlikely that a Greek capitalist regime could even seriously challenge the diet the European bankers have served up for Greece without disaster ensuing. Greece is not Argentina, it is a much smaller and much more dependent country.

As for SYRIZA being a "coalition," it is a coalition in which 85% of the organization are reformist Eurocommunists, and the other 15%, who desperately want to stay in SYRIZA at all costs, due to its parliamentary success, are simply decorations, whose only role is to enable SYRIZA to cover class collaboration with left rhetoric when convenient to delude the workers.



The latter scenario would open up a new set of contradictions and dilemmas for the government such as the inevitably massive attack the Greek economy would suffer from the forces of world capital, and it would also give new impetus to the struggle of the working class. This latter course would not amount to anything like a social revolution but it seems important to emphasize the dynamism and unpredictability of the present situation.

Which is why it is so totally predictable that the scenario you are imagining will not happen. If SYRIZA is elected, it will have to govern, and would not want Greece to undergo such assaults, since SYRIZA reformists, even with the very best of intentions, would have no idea how to handle such a situation.

The only way something like that could happen were if there were to be massive working class discontent against SYRIZA, with it becoming as hated as PASOK now is, and SYRIZA leaders desperately turning left so as not to be overthrown by the workers. Obviously, not a scenario that urging voters to vote for SYRIZA would help to create.

And, moreover, not necessarily a great scenario for the Greek workers either. SYRIZA reformists desperately trying to play radicals while in office would probably be utter failures and gum the economy up so badly as to give the Golden Dawn fascists ideal arguments for fascism as the only solution for Greece.



As Marxist dialecticians, though, we should know that there are different kinds of support. Support for the election of SYRIZA does not imply support without illusions, or support without any sense of the dialectic of struggle, and so it does not follow that Greek workers would reject those forces which called for people to vote for SYRIZA, if those forces also gave an analysis of what a SYRIZA-led government would entail, and the need to go beyond SYRIZA's formal positions. The performance of the KKE - basically a halving of their vote between the two elections, in a context of general social and political crisis - shows what happens when political forces fail to recognize, in a sectarian manner, the ways in which SYRIZA is now becoming a pole of attraction for social movements and class organization.

SYRIZA ran for office claiming that if elected, it could prevent austerity measures without breaking with the EU, indeed without breaking with capitalism at all. Tsipras's final election statement was "we will go to Brussels" -- to negotiate with the bankers!

Any sort of support for SYRIZA means you are supporting and promoting such deadly dangerous illusions as well. If Greek voters do not reject those forces who called for votes for SYRIZA, that means that they have not been cured of their illusions, which you promote. That would be unfortunate.

So the KKE lost votes? Who cares? That is parliamentary cretinism. What matters is the balance of forces in the class struggle, not vote totals.

This does not mean that SYRIZA becoming a pole of attaction for workers votes should be ignored. The way to combat this unfortunate development is indeed through use of united front tactics, but in the field of class struggle, vs. the fascists on the streets, and vs. the bosses on the picket line. I hear SYRIZA is joining the PAME rally for the steelworkers, for example.

Always remembering the basic purpose of united front tactics, which is, as Lenin so well put it, only "supporting" reformists like SYRIZA "in the fashion a rope supports a hanged man."

-N.H.-

[islandmilitia]

The crisis in Greece is a fundamental and serious crisis. No government within the framework of capitalism is capable of resolving it without attacks on the working class. Unless the capitalist state is smashed and the workers seize the power, austerity measures are inevitable and unavoidable. In fact, even if they do, some austerity measures might be unavoidable, but could at least be done fairly under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We can both agree that there is no way to resolve a capitalist crisis under capitalism without austerity, but to simply say this and stop there involves a failure to grasp the complexity of the situation. You are, I think, completely wrong to say that it is inevitable that SYRIZA, upon coming to power, would immediately and straightforwardly renege on all of its current commitments to fighting austerity and would simply follow through on the Memorandum in the way that all the other main parties have pledged to do. SYRIZA doing this is not given because the electoral success of SYRIZA and the possibility of a SYRIZA government is not the result simply of an electoral change in fortunes, it is to do with the fact that, SYRIZA, as a political formation, has deep ties to the mass movement, and has been able to generate electoral success primarily on that basis. In this respect, SYRIZA is different from, say, Melenchon, insofar as Melenchon's electoral success was not tied to broader processes of popular mobilization. It is also this characteristic that makes SYRIZA different from classical cases of left reformism.

So the question of what SYRIZA would do upon coming to power remains open and largely dependent on the relative strength of SYRIZA's internal forces as well as the relationship between SYRIZA and the mass movement. None of this is to say that SYRIZA is capable of overthrowing capitalism through the parliamentary state or that austerity can be avoided as long as capitalism continues to exist, but if SYRIZA were to defend its anti-austerity commitments to any extent, that would fundamentally change the political and social dimensions of the Eurozone crisis. Most importantly, if a SYRIZA government were to cease payments to the West European banks as part of a rejection of the Memorandum (even taking into account SYRIZA's promise that payments would resume in the event of economic recovery and growth) then that would obviously prompt a massive response from global capital, forcing Greece out of the Eurozone - but it would also completely undermine the position of the banks, given their investments in Greece, and in doing so it would completely reconfigure the state of the crisis, and open up a new set of political possibilities, inside and outside of Greece. This is the flip side of Greece's dependence, which you pointed to - yes, Greece is dependent on the rest of Europe, but at the same time it is not clear that any of the other European states would be able to simply cut Greece free and not have to endure political and social ramifications. This is exactly what me and other people mean when we talk about a SYRIZA government being just one moment in an ongoing process.


Any sort of support for SYRIZA means you are supporting and promoting such deadly dangerous illusions as well. If Greek voters do not reject those forces who called for votes for SYRIZA, that means that they have not been cured of their illusions, which you promote. That would be unfortunate.

But the position of forces like the SEK/IST is not simply to say that people should vote for SYRIZA because SYRIZA will abolish capitalism, it is that they should vote for SYRIZA with a full understanding that SYRIZA's positions are irreconcilable, and that a SYRIZA government would produce a serious conflict in which the impact of the mass movement will play a crucial role. Again, for Marxists, we recognize that there is never such a thing as support pure and simple, it is a matter of what kind of support, and support with what conditions.


So the KKE lost votes? Who cares? That is parliamentary cretinism. What matters is the balance of forces in the class struggle, not vote totals.

In normal circumstances it would be cretinous to emphasize the KKE's poor electoral performance, but these are not normal circumstances, this is a general crisis, and so the KKE's poor performance (especially when the main source of vote loss is voters transferring from the KKE to SYRIZA - which you would presumably see as a rightwards shift) is indicative of its broader failures. Moreover, as we know, the KKE has its own history of opportunism and reformism despite its Third-Period rhetoric (e.g. the 1989-90 government with New Democracy) so on what grounds do you argue that the ICL-FI's policy of encouraging votes for the KKE is not opportunistic in the way that calling for people to vote for SYRIZA is?


This does not mean that SYRIZA becoming a pole of attaction for workers votes should be ignored. The way to combat this unfortunate development

Your description of SYRIZA attracting mass support as an "unfortunate development" is indicative of a serious failure in your analysis. SYRIZA's support is not something contingent or even unfortunate, it is an indication of how the consciousness of the class changes over time, especially in terms of workers initially looking to left reformist rather than revolutionary solutions, in conditions where there is a general crisis and loss of faith in the status quo, but where the most serious questions about how austerity can be overcome have not yet been imposed on workers by the logic of events. To that extent SYRIZA represents a necessary stage in the development of consciousness. SYRIZA needs to be engaged with in those terms, as an organization that has become a pole of attraction at a comparatively early stage of the crisis, and as an organization whose election to power would, by the logic of events, open up new questions and facilitate the radicalization of the class.

[A Marxist Historian]

We can both agree that there is no way to resolve a capitalist crisis under capitalism without austerity, but to simply say this and stop there involves a failure to grasp the complexity of the situation. You are, I think, completely wrong to say that it is inevitable that SYRIZA, upon coming to power, would immediately and straightforwardly renege on all of its current commitments to fighting austerity and would simply follow through on the Memorandum in the way that all the other main parties have pledged to do. SYRIZA doing this is not given because the electoral success of SYRIZA and the possibility of a SYRIZA government is not the result simply of an electoral change in fortunes, it is to do with the fact that, SYRIZA, as a political formation, has deep ties to the mass movement, and has been able to generate electoral success primarily on that basis. In this respect, SYRIZA is different from, say, Melenchon, insofar as Melenchon's electoral success was not tied to broader processes of popular mobilization. It is also this characteristic that makes SYRIZA different from classical cases of left reformism.

In 1918, German Social Democracy had far, far deeper ties to the masses than does SYRIZA in Greece, and the country was going through outright revolution, with the Kaiser fleeing to Holland and workers establishing workers councils.

So, what did the Geman Social Democrats do in power? Murder Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, and set the Freikorps at the throats of the German workers.

This is not to suggest that SYRIZA would be likely to do any such thing in power, it is simply to show that your reasoning is utterly false.

Social Democrats in office inevitably betray their constituents, if their constituents support them. They only try to keep their promises if their masses are rebelling against them, and they fear losing their followers to others. This, unfortunately, is momentarily not the case. As I've said before, the opportunistic tactics you advocate are not just wrong in principle, in practice they will have exactly the reverse results to what you hope for.


So the question of what SYRIZA would do upon coming to power remains open and largely dependent on the relative strength of SYRIZA's internal forces as well as the relationship between SYRIZA and the mass movement. None of this is to say that SYRIZA is capable of overthrowing capitalism through the parliamentary state or that austerity can be avoided as long as capitalism continues to exist, but if SYRIZA were to defend its anti-austerity commitments to any extent, that would fundamentally change the political and social dimensions of the Eurozone crisis. Most importantly, if a SYRIZA government were to cease payments to the West European banks as part of a rejection of the Memorandum (even taking into account SYRIZA's promise that payments would resume in the event of economic recovery and growth) then that would obviously prompt a massive response from global capital, forcing Greece out of the Eurozone - but it would also completely undermine the position of the banks, given their investments in Greece, and in doing so it would completely reconfigure the state of the crisis, and open up a new set of political possibilities, inside and outside of Greece. This is the flip side of Greece's dependence, which you pointed to - yes, Greece is dependent on the rest of Europe, but at the same time it is not clear that any of the other European states would be able to simply cut Greece free and not have to endure political and social ramifications. This is exactly what me and other people mean when we talk about a SYRIZA government being just one moment in an ongoing process.

This is a very annoying posting from you, as I have already answered this argument, and you three dotted out my answer.

To repeat myself again, you have just given the perfect explanation of why SYRIZA would not in fact stop paying the debts. If they did, all the consequences you describe might happen, which would place SYRIZA in an impossible situation that they would be utterly unable to deal with. The country would fall into chaos and the SYRIZA government would fall.

Or perhaps you hope that the European bankers, fearing chaos, would let SYRIZA get away with not paying the debts? In that case, Spain, Portugal and maybe even Italy might follow suit, and the banks would go bankrupt. It would be Kreditanstalt 1931 all over again, and Europe would enter into a true Great Depression 1930s style. From their point of view, anything would be better than that.


But the position of forces like the SEK/IST is not simply to say that people should vote for SYRIZA because SYRIZA will abolish capitalism, it is that they should vote for SYRIZA with a full understanding that SYRIZA's positions are irreconcilable, and that a SYRIZA government would produce a serious conflict in which the impact of the mass movement will play a crucial role. Again, for Marxists, we recognize that there is never such a thing as support pure and simple, it is a matter of what kind of support, and support with what conditions.

Critical support is appropriate when there is something about a candidacy that is--supportable, even if criticism is appropriate. Which is why the KKE candidacy was critically supportable, even though there are huge things to criticize about the KKE.

You do not claim that the SYRIZA program is supportable in any way, shape or form from the standpoint of the workers. In fact, you want to support SYRIZA exactly because "SYRIZA's positions are irreconcilable," i.e. worthless, and you hope that in office SYRIZA would realize its programs are worthless and would adopt better ones, or perhaps that the failure of SYRIZA's policies would create a revolutionary situation.

This sort of maneuverist deceptive politics is oddly reminiscent of the German KPD's refusal to call for united front mobilizations against Nazism because since the Nazi program was, in their opinion, impossible, that if the Nazis came to power that would be just fine as they'd collapse and the KPD would come to power next. "Nach Hitler uns."

You should support an election candidacy, or anything else, when it is supportable, not because you think an election victory would create a better tactical situation for revolutionaries. That kind of thinking is manipulative and deceitful, and gives its proponents a bad name with the workers, and rightly so.




In normal circumstances it would be cretinous to emphasize the KKE's poor electoral performance, but these are not normal circumstances, this is a general crisis, and so the KKE's poor performance (especially when the main source of vote loss is voters transferring from the KKE to SYRIZA - which you would presumably see as a rightwards shift) is indicative of its broader failures. Moreover, as we know, the KKE has its own history of opportunism and reformism despite its Third-Period rhetoric (e.g. the 1989-90 government with New Democracy) so on what grounds do you argue that the ICL-FI's policy of encouraging votes for the KKE is not opportunistic in the way that calling for people to vote for SYRIZA is?

Very simple. The KKE says that capitalism is the problem and revolution is the solution. SYRIZA says, elect us, and we will administer capitalism without austerity, not leave the EU, and negotiate a better deal with the bankers.

It depends on whether you are a revolutionary or a reformist. If you are a revolutionary, supporting the KKE is principled and supporting SYRIZA is opportunist.

Contrariwise, if you are a reformist, supporting SYRIZA is principled and supporting the KKE is sectarian.

I prefer supporting the KKE because I am a revolutionary. You prefer supporting SYRIZA because, in the last analysis, you are a reformist not a revolutionary.



Your description of SYRIZA attracting mass support as an "unfortunate development" is indicative of a serious failure in your analysis. SYRIZA's support is not something contingent or even unfortunate, it is an indication of how the consciousness of the class changes over time, especially in terms of workers initially looking to left reformist rather than revolutionary solutions, in conditions where there is a general crisis and loss of faith in the status quo, but where the most serious questions about how austerity can be overcome have not yet been imposed on workers by the logic of events. To that extent SYRIZA represents a necessary stage in the development of consciousness. SYRIZA needs to be engaged with in those terms, as an organization that has become a pole of attraction at a comparatively early stage of the crisis, and as an organization whose election to power would, by the logic of events, open up new questions and facilitate the radicalization of the class.

SYRIZA perhaps represents an inevitable stage in the development of consciousness, though not a "necessary" one. If the Greek anarchists had been less inept, and had not gotten into pitched violent battles with KKE militants (which is much more the fault of the KKE than the anarchists but that is besides the point), then possibly the radicalization of the Greek workers could have gone through an anarchist stage. A year or two ago the anarchists seemed to have the momentum of the streets, now they seem to have dropped out of sight.

Does SYRIZA need to be engaged with on those terms. Yes indeed. And the way for revolutionaries to engage with it is to fight it tooth and nail politically, while using united front tactics on it in the streets and on the picket lines and in mass upsurges.

Its actual election would throw a wet blanket over mass struggles, as workers would stop fighting, hoping that "their" government would rescue them from the bankers. Repression of class struggle could be carried out much more effectively by SYRIZA than by discredited and hated forces like ND and PASOK.

Are there times when it is appropriate to vote for reformist workers parties? Certainly. Thus, after the British Labour Party adopted Clause Four in 1919, under the impetus of the Bolshevik Revolution, and started claiming that, if elected, they would introduce socialism, it was very appropriate to vote for it so as to force them to put up or shut up. Again in 1945 after WWII, when the BLP marched into parliament singing "the workers flag is deepest red." Or even in the early '80s, when the right wing had just split out and the LP was briefly talking socialism again.

But SYRIZA did not campaign for socialism, it merely campaigned "against austerity," like good Keynesian liberals. There was no basis for supporting them.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

In 1918, German Social Democracy had far, far deeper ties to the masses than does SYRIZA in Greece, and the country was going through outright revolution, with the Kaiser fleeing to Holland and workers establishing workers councils.

So, what did the Geman Social Democrats do in power? Murder Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, and set the Freikorps at the throats of the German workers.

That's a strawman. Deep ties could also be attributed to Independent Social Democracy, which had to deal with the sectarian formation of the KPD, similar to the KKE's refusal to engage in "united front" opposition with SYRIZA.

[A Marxist Historian]

That's a strawman. Deep ties could also be attributed to Independent Social Democracy, which had to deal with the sectarian formation of the KPD, similar to the KKE's refusal to engage in "united front" opposition with SYRIZA.

And what was the role of Kautsky's USPD in the German Revolution? They coalesced with the SPD in a "workers united front" in the leadership of the workers councils, thereby helping the SPD with their dirty work, and were tossed out of the workers councils as the SPD was dissolving them.

The centrist role of the USPD in helping to prevent the workers from taking the power in Germany resulted in the party collapsing, with its rank and file worker majority going over to the KPD, and Kautsky's minority after a brief period of independence just going back to and rejoining the bloodstained SPD of Ebert and Noske.

The problem of Rosa Luxemburg's Spartacusbund was not that they split from the USPD too early, it was exactly the reverse. When the Revolution broke out the Spartacusbund was still a left opposition within the USPD, which is exactly why it was unable to lead the Revolution, despite Karl Liebknecht's immense popularity, indeed the most popular person in all Germany as the workers and sailors were overthrowing the Kaiser.

And when the KPD was formed in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, it was dominated by ultralefts instead of Rosa and Karl, as much of the revolutionary rank and file thought Karl & Rosa weren't revolutionary enough because they had still been in the sellout USPD as the revolution broke out.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

And what was the role of Kautsky's USPD in the German Revolution? They coalesced with the SPD in a "workers united front" in the leadership of the workers councils, thereby helping the SPD with their dirty work, and were tossed out of the workers councils as the SPD was dissolving them.

I'm not making excuses for the USPD's right wing. I'm simply re-asserting the positions of its center against said right wing and also against the sectarian leftists who bolted out.


The centrist role of the USPD in helping to prevent the workers from taking the power in Germany resulted in the party collapsing, with its rank and file worker majority going over to the KPD, and Kautsky's minority after a brief period of independence just going back to and rejoining the bloodstained SPD of Ebert and Noske.

The problem of Rosa Luxemburg's Spartacusbund was not that they split from the USPD too early, it was exactly the reverse. When the Revolution broke out the Spartacusbund was still a left opposition within the USPD, which is exactly why it was unable to lead the Revolution, despite Karl Liebknecht's immense popularity, indeed the most popular person in all Germany as the workers and sailors were overthrowing the Kaiser.

And when the KPD was formed in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, it was dominated by ultralefts instead of Rosa and Karl, as much of the revolutionary rank and file thought Karl & Rosa weren't revolutionary enough because they had still been in the sellout USPD as the revolution broke out.

"All Power to Independent Social Democracy" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-power-independent-t155105/index.html) was the only realistic left position the German Revolution could have offered. The bigger problem was that the USPD itself was not formed earlier, not your pro-KPD excuse.

SYRIZA needs to further develop Alternative Culture, implement a workers-only voting membership policy, and solidify class struggle, substantive workers policy, revolutionary strategy, etc. in its program. If it does so, then the KKE can go by the wayside permanently.

[Optiow]

I'm very unhappy with the anti-Syriza current on these forums.

I agree with the article though - people are missing the point.

Anyone who does think Syriza is the party that will liberate the working class is delusional. But the ML's here are disregarding Syriza's potential. Syriza is bringing the political situation to a higher level. Rather than PASOK and ND going at logger heads, you have a mass movement that has already broken the deadlock.

Like the MANA movement in my country, Syriza is not a revolutionary party. But by becoming a mass movement, Syriza is showing the power of the people. It is proving that they do have the ability to change things. And when Syriza does not live up to the wishes of the people when it gets into government (as it is reformist), the masses themselves will radicalize it.

But jeez, all you KKK comrades need to look outside your own party. Syriza is a mass movement now, and unless you want the working class to desert you (half already have) you are gonna have to get on board with it. You don't like Syriza's reformism? Then join the KOE or the DEA and make it into a revolutionary party of the working class. Just like MANA in my country, we are working inside it because this movement is the biggest collection of class conscious people NZ has seen in many years.

[MarxSchmarx]

"rebuilding such a party de novo" is exactly what is needed, whether or not that is what the author is advocating. Can't be done overnight, true. So best to get started ASAP.

A "viable alternative uniting the left" is the road to hell, paved with good intentions.


At best,such approaches lead to sectarianism. But their spectacular failure in South america, to create a positive, broad-based internationalist org gives me real pause about their viability anywhere else. Even the very militant, organized worker's resistance in Brazil and Argentina has failed to appeal to the left as an alternative to" Chavismo"




Now, the trouble with the plausible sounding critique from the CPGB is their notion that the EU somehow or other is "progressive," as a form of multinational unity. It isn't. It's an imperialist club vs. rivals like the USA and Japan and its victims in the Third World.

Yes, you can't build socialism in one country, and especially not in Greece. But a Greek workers revolution would totally transform Europe, it would hit the rest of Europe in a thunderbolt bigger than the Tunisian revolt hit the Middle East. The CPGB pessimism that it can't spread, 'cuz the left is in such bad shape in Italy and elsewhere, is nonrevolutionary.

In 1916, the revolutionary left were a tiny, isolated sect numbering probably less than a hundred all over Europe outside Russia. After the Bolshevik Revolution, the Communist International rose seemingly out of nowhere into a mass power all over Europe.

-M.H.-

The opressors have succeeded marvelously in containing the Russian Revolution, the Prague spring, and, yes, the Arab spring. All the revolutions in the middle east have been spectacularly coopted by the reactionaries (as in Tunisia and Egypt) or have largely failed (as in Bahrain and Iran). I have no reason to believe that even if the stars were to align and a vibrant, truly internationalist left that eschews the EU were to seize power in Greece (and it takes years, if not decades, to build a machine like Syriza), it would gain any traction.

If there were such an event in, say, America or perhaps Germany or China, I would be inclined to think that it would be more consequential. But Greece remains on the periphery of capitalism, and citing the failures of the past as examples of how obscurist instigation allegedly changed the course of the struggle does not give me any more reason for optimism.

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm very unhappy with the anti-Syriza current on these forums.

I agree with the article though - people are missing the point.

Anyone who does think Syriza is the party that will liberate the working class is delusional. But the ML's here are disregarding Syriza's potential. Syriza is bringing the political situation to a higher level. Rather than PASOK and ND going at logger heads, you have a mass movement that has already broken the deadlock.

Like the MANA movement in my country, Syriza is not a revolutionary party. But by becoming a mass movement, Syriza is showing the power of the people. It is proving that they do have the ability to change things. And when Syriza does not live up to the wishes of the people when it gets into government (as it is reformist), the masses themselves will radicalize it.

But jeez, all you KKK comrades need to look outside your own party. Syriza is a mass movement now, and unless you want the working class to desert you (half already have) you are gonna have to get on board with it. You don't like Syriza's reformism? Then join the KOE or the DEA and make it into a revolutionary party of the working class. Just like MANA in my country, we are working inside it because this movement is the biggest collection of class conscious people NZ has seen in many years.

What you miss is that SYRIZA is really only a mass movement at the voting booth. The KKE still has more actual members, and it has far larger influence in the trade unions. The KKE leads a powerful trade union federation, PAME, which everyone knows is the most militant federation, whereas all SYRIZA has is various bureaucrats in unions controlled still by pro-PASOK and other right wing sellouts. The KKE called rallies during the election campaign bigger than any rallies called by SYRIZA.

Calling on KKE members to join the KOE or the DEA is totally absurd, as these groups are vastly smaller and less influential than the KKE. Unless of course they had a better political line than the KKE, which unfortunately they don't.

Now, I've been pushed in this thread by all the SYRIZA fans into the position of being a KKE defender, which is ironical, the KKE has a horrible history and there are many things wrong with it, and last fall during the demonstrations vs. parliament I was one of the loudest voices denouncing the KKE's rotten role then here on Revleft. And I wouldn't take back anything I said then.

But things change rapidly in a country in extreme social crisis, that was then and this is now. And the KKE was campaigning in this election for revolution and socialism, whereas SYRIZA was just campaigning "against austerity" like Keynesian liberals.

The huge SYRIZA vote totals could perfectly well be quite transient anyway, the political scene in Greece changes from month to month. (Does anyone still even remember the "indignados" movement of last summer, which seemed such a big thing in Greece at the time?) SYRIZA support could perfectly well collapse as quickly as it has risen, and if they were actually elected to office, I'm sure that is just what would happen.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

What you miss is that SYRIZA is really only a mass movement at the voting booth. The KKE still has more actual members, and it has far larger influence in the trade unions. The KKE leads a powerful trade union federation, PAME, which everyone knows is the most militant federation, whereas all SYRIZA has is various bureaucrats in unions controlled still by pro-PASOK and other right wing sellouts. The KKE called rallies during the election campaign bigger than any rallies called by SYRIZA.

Like I said above, times are changing. If Syriza entrenches its organizing like I suggested, the mere tred-iunion "movement" will switch to SYRIZA, and the organization will see higher membership. I think you and I can agree that political support is better measured by such honest voting membership than stuff from the voting booth.

[A Marxist Historian]

At best,such approaches lead to sectarianism. But their spectacular failure in South america, to create a positive, broad-based internationalist org gives me real pause about their viability anywhere else. Even the very militant, organized worker's resistance in Brazil and Argentina has failed to appeal to the left as an alternative to" Chavismo"

I think the problem here is with the left, not with the militant organized workers resistance.



The opressors have succeeded marvelously in containing the Russian Revolution, the Prague spring, and, yes, the Arab spring. All the revolutions in the middle east have been spectacularly coopted by the reactionaries (as in Tunisia and Egypt) or have largely failed (as in Bahrain and Iran). I have no reason to believe that even if the stars were to align and a vibrant, truly internationalist left that eschews the EU were to seize power in Greece (and it takes years, if not decades, to build a machine like Syriza), it would gain any traction.

The Russian Revolution hit the world, and especially Europe, like an earthquake. The Twentieth Century was basically the century of the Russian Revolution. It set off revolutions and revolutionary movements all over the world, and as late as the 1980s, the majority of the human race was living under regimes that considered themselves "Marxist-Leninist" in one fashion or another.

So what was the problem? Stalinism of course, strangling the revolutionary momentum. Not the oppressors from without, but the traitors from within.

As for the Arab Spring (let's not even mention here the "Prague Spring," a quite ambiguous movement that deserved only critical support, which Czech workers were initially quite dubious about), it failed because its leaders were petty-bourgeois and sold out almost instantly to Western imperialism or Islamic reaction or in the case of Libya, both at the same time. Now what's left of the Arab Spring is the ugly mess in Syria.

A genuine internationalist workers revolution in Greece would have an impact that would leave that of the Tunisian revolution, also in a pretty small country, in the dust.



If there were such an event in, say, America or perhaps Germany or China, I would be inclined to think that it would be more consequential. But Greece remains on the periphery of capitalism, and citing the failures of the past as examples of how obscurist instigation allegedly changed the course of the struggle does not give me any more reason for optimism.

YOu think Tunisia is some vast important center of world capitalism? This basically boils down to big nation chauvinism. Screw the Greeks, their country is so tiny...

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Like I said above, times are changing. If Syriza entrenches its organizing like I suggested, the mere tred-iunion "movement" will switch to SYRIZA, and the organization will see higher membership. I think you and I can agree that political support is better measured by such honest voting membership than stuff from the voting booth.

No doubt if the SYRIZA leaders read all your postings and convert to "proletarian caesarism" everything will be just fine and dandy;)

But meanwhile, we have to deal with the situation as it is, not how you would like it to be.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Except Greece isn't a Third World country (in the sense of proletarian demographic minorities, so TWCS doesn't apply) :p

[A Marxist Historian]

^^^ Except Greece isn't a Third World country (in the sense of proletarian demographic minorities, so TWCS doesn't apply) :p

Er, what is TWCS?

Greece isn't a Third World country, but it's a poor and small First World country, extremely dependent on others. Greece has been deep in debt to European bankers and other countries since ... the 1830s! The current Greek financial crisis is not new, in fact Greece has usually been deeply in debt since Greek independence, funded by the Brits who wanted the money paid back. Moments when Greece has not been deeply in debt have been few and far between, in its entire history.

Also, though you have farmers not peasants in Greece these days, Greece has an unusually high by European standards number and weight of the petty bourgeoisie in the classic sense-small shopkeepers, small farmers etc. And correspondingly a smaller than usual proletariat by European standards, though economically critical and very militant.

-M.H.-

[Art Vandelay]

Er, what is TWCS?

Third World Cesarean Socialism.