Greece: SYRIZA now as a unified party

[Die Neue Zeit]

And Tsipras elected as SYRIZA's president: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/07/14/alexis-tsipras-was-elected-president-of-main-opposition-coalition-of-the-radical-left-syriza/



By Andy Dabilis

Alexis Tsipras was elected president of main opposition ‘Coalition of the Radical Left’ (SYRIZA) with 74.07 percent of the vote on Sunday, at the conclusion of a founding conference converting SYRIZA into a single, unified entity.

Tsipras received 2,477 votes in total, giving him a clear and uncontestable lead over rival candidates Sissy Vovou (157 votes or 4.69 percent) and Panos Iliopoulos (22 votes or 0.66 percent).

There were 3430 registered voters at the conference and a total of 3,412 votes cast, of which 3,344 were valid votes. There were a total of 68 ‘invalid’ votes and 688 blank votes.

In statements after his election as the new president of the newly unified ‘Coalition of the Radical Left’ (SYRIZA) party, Alexis Tsipras said the founding conference held to create the new SYRIZA was a “major step and a historic milestone for the Left and democracy”.

“Three and a half thousand delegates from all over Greece have put their stamp on the birth of the new. With open and vibrant democratic dialogue. With clear decisions. We have taken the historic step. From tomorrow, our new party, men and women together, more united and stronger than ever, embark on a great and victorious course: To stop the social destruction and to rebuild Greece,” he said.

[Paul Pott]

Excellent, now the social democrats can better serve the national wing of Greek capital.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

And Tsipras elected as SYRIZA's president: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/07/14/alexis-tsipras-was-elected-president-of-main-opposition-coalition-of-the-radical-left-syriza/



By Andy Dabilis

Alexis Tsipras was elected president of main opposition ‘Coalition of the Radical Left’ (SYRIZA) with 74.07 percent of the vote on Sunday, at the conclusion of a founding conference converting SYRIZA into a single, unified entity.

Tsipras received 2,477 votes in total, giving him a clear and uncontestable lead over rival candidates Sissy Vovou (157 votes or 4.69 percent) and Panos Iliopoulos (22 votes or 0.66 percent).

There were 3430 registered voters at the conference and a total of 3,412 votes cast, of which 3,344 were valid votes. There were a total of 68 ‘invalid’ votes and 688 blank votes.

In statements after his election as the new president of the newly unified ‘Coalition of the Radical Left’ (SYRIZA) party, Alexis Tsipras said the founding conference held to create the new SYRIZA was a “major step and a historic milestone for the Left and democracy”.

“Three and a half thousand delegates from all over Greece have put their stamp on the birth of the new. With open and vibrant democratic dialogue. With clear decisions. We have taken the historic step. From tomorrow, our new party, men and women together, more united and stronger than ever, embark on a great and victorious course: To stop the social destruction and to rebuild Greece,” he said.


Certainly interesting from an academic perspective. But is there any information we know about what kind of factions there are and what their outspoken differences are? If there is no move by even a tiny faction within SYRIZA to start arming the party member base, or create some kind of a scandal, we'll never know where the different faction leaders really stand. I mean, there must be some honest communists in one of the 3,000 delegates, no?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, I'm sure that there were numerous honest communists in the congress, and that they were divided into pro-party and pro-"coalition" (anti-party, status quo) camps.

[Q]

Great. Now it's time for communists to fight for a communist programme. Only then can Syriza be transformed from something that has potential, to a formation that is at the head of the class fight for political power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Meanwhile, the euroskeptic Left Platform got just over 30% of the central committee's seats: http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_15/07/2013_509380

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Meanwhile, the euroskeptic Left Platform got just over 30% of the central committee's seats: http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_15/07/2013_509380


From the Article:
SYRIZA’s leftist wing, which believes the party should not rule out a return to the drachma, received 30 percent support in the vote to elect 200 members to SYRIZA’s central committe...

Here the communists within the SYRIZA party should agitate against the SYRIZA Left Wing's blatant 'bourgeois nationalism' in mentioning the cursed word "Drachma".
I do not know the greek language so I will not say how exactly comrades should go about this, but there should be a definite counter-position to this nationalist deviation of the supposed "Left Wing" from independent Proletarian politics.

Perhaps a campaign on a greek word which rhymes with Drachma, which has a connotation with the Class Struggle (such as the word "Doula", female slave?) that would remind people of the Proletariat's need for Labor Money or Labor Vouchers, would suffice to draw the lines between the opportunist and honest worker delegates. That is for Greek comrades to figure out.

[Paul Pott]

Even if it would cease the austerity attacks on the working class and mobilize sections of the petit-bourgeoisie and ruling class to your favor, a return to the drachma and the resulting economic isolation under a social democratic government will cause utter economic ruin in the mid term and a hard reaction, resulting in a military junta and/or Golden Dawn dictatorship.

The problem is not just austerity or Europe, or neoliberalism. The problem is capital itself, and anyone who tries to save it with a plan to return to some golden age of pre-neoliberal 20th century social democracy will find out how mercilessly history will eat them alive.

I have a feeling we're going to see that in many countries over the next decade.

[Delenda Carthago]

Great. Now it's time for communists to fight for a communist programme. Only then can Syriza be transformed from something that has potential, to a formation that is at the head of the class fight for political power.
Sure.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Sure.

That's all? A one-word post.
Keep your useless crap out of this thread.

[khad]

Sure.
Please make sure your contributions to this thread are of a substantive nature, ie no one liners. This is not exactly chit chat.

Take this as a verbal warning.

[CyM]

The "left" is actually pretty shitty. The only contribution they had were amendments to the leadership document. There was only one opposition document presented, and that was by the communist platform. I'll try to get a copy. Meanwhile, here's an article they published before the congress.

Founding congress of SYRIZA: an opportunity for a much needed change of programme and tactics (www.marxist.com/syriza-an-opportunity-for-change-of-programme-and-tactics.htm)

his article was published in the run up to the SYRIZA congress and poses the need for a genuine revolutionary programme to be adopted by the party. We publish it as we await a more detailed report of the congress. What we can say for now is that two comrades of the Communist Platform were elected to the Central Committee of the party.

[Tower of Bebel]

From what I've heard, SYRIZA has developped from some kind of democratic forum, a platform for discussion, into an electoral machine. Though SYRIZA has a decent amount of members, many have come over from the PASOK.

What is the role of, and how strong is, the former (right wing) Communist group called Synaspismos?

[Philosophos]

From what I've heard, SYRIZA has developped from some kind of democratic forum, a platform for discussion, into an electoral machine. Though SYRIZA has a decent amount of members, many have come over from the PASOK.

What is the role of, and how strong is, the former (right wing) Communist group called Synaspismos?

Synaspismos is the main party to the SYRIZA coalition (the first two letters). When it used to be alone Synaspismos was barely making its way to parliament. After the whole coalition the party started gaining more power until the big boom of the last elections where they became 2nd party.

I believe Synaspismos has lots of power between SYRIZA (I mean most people especially old people haven't realised that SYRIZA is a coalition and they still call it Synaspismos).

I'm not quite sure for the situation inside the party but I think the same goes for it too.

[Delenda Carthago]

That's all? A one-word post.
Keep your useless crap out of this thread.
Im sorry. I thought this was chit chat where we speak gibberish at each other.Didnt realise that this guy

http://asset.tovima.gr/vimawebstatic//4F430F12172E252F9D268E133C2BA19B.jpg

all there is to be done is just turn communist and SYRIZA will have potential.


No, you are right. My post was crap.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Tsipras is naive-he thinks he can work out a deal with the German bankers. Merkel & Co will throw him to the wolves ASAP.

Acording to several polls, many Greek workers will vote for Syriza but also feel it is the most likely party to betray them.

Having said this, while Syriza isn't a revolutionary party, their election possibly could trigger a revolutionary situation, especially after German imperialism boots Greece out of the EU.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Im sorry. I thought this was chit chat where we speak gibberish at each other.Didnt realise that this guy

http://asset.tovima.gr/vimawebstatic//4F430F12172E252F9D268E133C2BA19B.jpg

all there is to be done is just turn communist and SYRIZA will have potential.


No, you are right. My post was crap.

Yeah, this one also is crap.
You seem to be good at crappy post, I guess.

Care to explain why it isn't so? Or are you just gonna spam crap?

[Delenda Carthago]

Yeah, this one also is crap.
You seem to be good at crappy post, I guess.

Care to explain why it isn't so? Or are you just gonna spam crap?
Yes, I do care to explain why someone I just posted talkin to an american think tank will not turn communist. Check me out: because.

Next time, I ll explain why I think the current prime minister, Antonis Samaras and his party ND will not turn communist. You gon luuuuuuuuuuuuuv it.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Yes, I do care to explain why someone I just posted talkin to an american think tank will not turn communist. Check me out: because.

Next time, I ll explain why I think the current prime minister, Antonis Samaras and his party ND will not turn communist. You gon luuuuuuuuuuuuuv it.

It's not about turning the opportunist Socialist party leaders into honest representatives of their working class base. It's about us exposing, beating and repeatedly attacking the betraying political positions of such opportunist leaders like Tsipras and winning over the working class base within the socialist parties which allow us the freedom to do so. This poster and agitation of yours would be grand propaganda for any honest communist political organization in Greece.

[Geiseric]

Even if it would cease the austerity attacks on the working class and mobilize sections of the petit-bourgeoisie and ruling class to your favor, a return to the drachma and the resulting economic isolation under a social democratic government will cause utter economic ruin in the mid term and a hard reaction, resulting in a military junta and/or Golden Dawn dictatorship.

The problem is not just austerity or Europe, or neoliberalism. The problem is capital itself, and anyone who tries to save it with a plan to return to some golden age of pre-neoliberal 20th century social democracy will find out how mercilessly history will eat them alive.

I have a feeling we're going to see that in many countries over the next decade.

You offered no positive advice to the situation, you're just exhorting hot air and trying to sound academic like sectarians usually do. Honestly what are you trying to accomplish with your menshevik sounding fear mongering? If SYRIZA is successful, there will be a fascist dictatorship? Are you fucking serious? We would be lucky in the U.S. if there was anything like SYRIZA where communists could speak openly and offer definite solutions to problems the working class actually deals with without any doublespeak.

[Delenda Carthago]

It's not about turning the opportunist Socialist party leaders into honest representatives of their working class base. It's about us exposing, beating and repeatedly attacking the betraying political positions of such opportunist leaders like Tsipras and winning over the working class base within the socialist parties which allow us the freedom to do so. This poster and agitation of yours would be grand propaganda for any honest communist political organization in Greece.
This party was an ex-opportunist party that turned completely sell out socialdemocratic the last year that had the electorical rise. There is NOTHING to expect from that party, not anymore than it was expected by the social democrats in Weimar Democracy. They are as much of enemies of the working class as the next bourgeois party, if not more.

Whoever expects that commies are gonna take over SYRIZA and that party will turn revolutionary, is a idiot. And I have low tolerance to idiots lately- the last 25 years.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yes, I do care to explain why someone I just posted talkin to an american think tank will not turn communist. Check me out: because.

Next time, I ll explain why I think the current prime minister, Antonis Samaras and his party ND will not turn communist. You gon luuuuuuuuuuuuuv it.

Awww, you're so amusing when your brain stops functioning.

[crazyirish93]

Are you two gonna add anything or are u gonna keep squabbling like spoiled children

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Are you two gonna add anything or are u gonna keep squabbling like spoiled children

The latter.

No, I'd love to be able to contribute to threads like these. However when people do shit like Delando I can't learn anything, hence why I get so iffy about it.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If I may change the subject , but not the topic,for a minute..

What do people think of the Initiative of 1000,an attempt to cut though the sectarianism of the left?


But there is also an attempt by sections of the Left, grouped around the ‘Initiative of 1000’, calling for a united Left, to build a strong, socialist opposition, and to win a future Syriza-led government to implement socialist politics, see http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6101

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6215

[Geiseric]

If I may change the subject , but not the topic,for a minute..

What do people think of the Initiative of 1000,an attempt to cut though the sectarianism of the left?


http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6215

That would be great, if they had some kind of program, which SYRIZA already seems to have.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If I may change the subject , but not the topic,for a minute..

What do people think of the Initiative of 1000,an attempt to cut though the sectarianism of the left?

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6215

Lenina, was it pro-party or pro-"coalition" during the founding congress?

[Rafiq]

Sure.


It may be unlikely but at least the base for which it is possible exists. That is the point of Syriza for us, it is not an ends, but it is a base from which proletarian struggle can be conducted, I might add, within the context of Greece, the only viable base which I can see.

[Rafiq]

All successful radical movements were built from the carcass of simple and modest left parties. The Bolsheviks broke with the second international but without the prior spd model and the building of a strong political base that radical break would be too insignificant for revolution.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

That is the point of Syriza for us [Revolutionary Marxists], it is not an ends, but it is a base from which proletarian struggle can be conducted

This, exactly.

[Delenda Carthago]

It may be unlikely but at least the base for which it is possible exists. That is the point of Syriza for us, it is not an ends, but it is a base from which proletarian struggle can be conducted, I might add, within the context of Greece, the only viable base which I can see.
Its not gonna happen my man. Because the people that voted for SYRIZA, are people that voted not for a party that will give struggles, but a party that, on the contrary, will save them while they sit on their couches. A party that, without the need of a radical change, will change people's lives to the better.

And if you dont take my word about it, check the record,go to the two previous newswires in here and see, what is the stance of SYRIZA where it matters: the movement. What struggles have they given? What people's movements has the electoral rise of SYRIZA provoked? What has changed since one year before other than SYRIZA being turned to a completely social democratic party? Even the so-called "communists" of SYRIZA, the neo-maoist KOE, fuckin self-dissoluded in order to have a good relationship with Tsipras!!!!


Get over yourselves, SYRIZA, and every party that is willing to govern within capitalism, is an enemy. Nothing more. I mean, GODAMN, I posted you a picture of the president of SYRIZA talkin to a USA think tank!!! And there are people voting for this man, and you think there is hope in that fuckin thing?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Its not gonna happen my man. Because the people that voted for SYRIZA, are [1]people that voted not for a party that will give struggles, but a party that, on the contrary, will save them while they sit on their couches. A party that, without the need of a radical change, will change people's lives to the better.

And if you dont take my word about it, check the record,go to the two previous newswires in here and see, what is the stance of SYRIZA where it matters: the movement. What struggles have they given? What people's movements has the electoral rise of SYRIZA provoked? What has changed since one year before other than SYRIZA being turned to a completely social democratic party? Even the so-called "communists" of SYRIZA, the neo-maoist KOE, fuckin self-dissoluded in order to have a good relationship with Tsipras!!!!


Get over yourselves, SYRIZA, and [2]every party that is willing to govern within capitalism, is an enemy. Nothing more. I mean, GODAMN, I posted you a picture of the president of SYRIZA talkin to a USA think tank!!! And there are people voting for this man, and you think there is hope in that fuckin thing?

1. What do you expect the millions of abused Greek service and professional workers, whose strata do not traditionally unionize, to do? They already know(!) that Capitalism is shit my friend, otherwise they wouldn't be voting a party that is decried as "Radical Leftwing", with "Communist background" etc. by the bourgeois media, a party which has positioned itself to the left of PASSOK as a broad movement of "Socialist" and even revisionist "Marxist" parties. They need leaders to inspire and party social, recreational political activities to mobilize them. My god you are blind! It is pure sectarianism which reeks of strange ideological dogmatism to the only-slightly aware working masses, for us to go on a campaign against another party of Socialists, as KKE has.

SYRIZA is developing into something quite interesting my friend, with centralized leadership, food banks, freedom of debate, freedom for minority factions etc. and millions of working class supporters. The problem is absolutely not the mass party frame, which seems ever more attractive, but the indecisive theoretical and personal leadership within the party that we know will currently not lead to Socialism.

2. Parties have leaders and programs. Leaders can be toppled by cunning politics and programs can be changed. If you think a Communist faction would have no chance to beat the revisionist factions within SYRIZA, you must have very little faith in in our creative ability and the material force of our ideas.

KKE is a huge party which, if it would embrace Marxist political strategy and use the SYRIZA party as a base of continual proletarian struggle for class independence and political power, could initiate for the rest of the global communist movement to get out of its sect mode and enact real social and eventual revolutionary change in the world once again.

It is an outcry and absolute smack in the face of the most ardent defenders of the workers, us Socialists and Communists, that the Bourgeoisie has felt the liberty to actively attack the welfare of our European Peoples through austerity and not see the routine Molotov Cocktails and Bricks thrown at their property and defenders of it, as a big enough threat to their rule. In fact - it seems, the more Molotov Cocktails fly and the more Youth's lives are wasted, the more determined the path of "Reform" is.

If the Proletariat were to attain its own SYRIZA, the Bourgeoisie and their media everywhere would be wincing and howling with outrage and fear without stops. Immediately the austerity induced crisis of the social order would be lifted by the Bourgeoisie in order to retain power.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Lenina, was it pro-party or pro-"coalition" during the founding congress?

Not sure, the be honest. As I understand Xekinima (CWI in Greece) feels that party building is a step forward. Xekinima was in the Syriza coalition but left after the split in Synapismos. It was hoped that Syn, after their right left to form DIMAR would then move leftwards. This hasn't happened.There have been some regrets over this decision-if Syriza formed a gov't, Xekinima would possibly get some seats in Parliament and would be in na position to influence things.

Overall though,no one has high hopes for Syriza. Too bad.

The KKE is a workers movement but their extreme sectarianism has prevented them from playing a bigger role. As I understand the KKE's very definition of socialism is different and not all that inspiring. They point to Bulgaria under Zhikov as a model.

[Delenda Carthago]

They point to Bulgaria under Zhikov as a model.
:confused:
No! KKE has no already existed form of socialism as a model, specially Bulgaria(?!).

KKE's idea on socialism can be found here (http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/18congres-resolution-2nd).

[Die Neue Zeit]

As I understand the KKE's very definition of socialism is different and not all that inspiring. They point to Bulgaria under Zhikov as a model.

The only two inspirations I find with Bulgaria's model for Third World conditions are its appropriate relations with its sponsor state (warmer than East Germany's) and the political tenure of its leader (so long as the leader doesn't screw up enough to be "recalled" by a palace coup and/or managed electorate).

Now:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/971/letters

Echo

This weekend marked the formation of a Syriza-Unitary Social Front. Instead of a coalition organising solidarity network services and not based on trade unions, what emerged was a unitary party on the same basis, overcoming anti-party, pro-‘coalition’, pro-status quo opposition claiming to be from the ‘left’.

Also, it should be noticed that the new unitary party has a leadership structure similar to that of the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, topped not by a colourless secretary or by a power-hungry chairman, but instead by a president, echoing the early history of the German worker-class movement.

Meanwhile, the Eurosceptic Left Platform secured 30% of the central committee seats.

[garrus]

The following are some proposals of the left wing inside syriza that were voted down at its first congress.
-Nationalization of public service companies and strategic, integral parts of the national economy
-Workers' control on production and state management
-Nationalization and socialization of the banking sector
-Deletion of national debt

So yeah.

[Paul Pott]

You offered no positive advice to the situation,

My advice is that reformist platforms offer nothing tangible to the working class. Instead of tailing centrists, the revolutionary working class must form its own alternative, recognizing that the working class is the only revolutionary class, the Greek state is the manager of the common affairs of capital, and so the working class must dismantle the state and seize state power for itself. Once that happens, then we're getting somewhere. Until then, all they're doing is "exhorting hot air" as left wing populists.


Honestly what are you trying to accomplish with your menshevik sounding fear mongering?

What the fuck are you talking about?


If SYRIZA is successful, there will be a fascist dictatorship?

So Golden Dawn won't become more powerful?

[Philosophos]

The following are some proposals of the left wing inside syriza that were voted down at its first congress.
-Nationalization of public service companies and strategic, integral parts of the national economy
-Workers' control on production and state management
-Nationalization and socialization of the banking sector
-Deletion of national debt

So yeah.

can you provide me with a link over these issues?

[Fred]

My advice is that reformist platforms offer nothing tangible to the working class. Instead of tailing centrists, the revolutionary working class must form its own alternative, recognizing that the working class is the only revolutionary class, the Greek state is the manager of the common affairs of capital, and so the working class must dismantle the state and seize state power for itself. Once that happens, then we're getting somewhere. Until then, all they're doing is "exhorting hot air" as left wing populists.



What the fuck are you talking about?



So Golden Dawn won't become more powerful?

Your main point is well taken. Syriza will be an obstacle to the revolution - it will not facilitate it. The last 125 years has seen many formations like Syriza and they always stand in the way of revolution, often in the most insidious manner. The reformist left loves them, because they appear to be radical leftists, at times. All this shit about Syriza providing a platform for communists. The only platform they would supply real communists, if they were elected, would have a hangman's noose on it.

I would point out that any success for the left will necessarily create greater political polarization that would tend to strengthen Golden Dawn as well. That being said, it is not a big problem if the success of communists outstrips that of GD. I suppose you might argue that if the "success" is merely electing Syriza to administer the stinking corpse of Greek capitalism, GD might ultimately gain.

[FSL]

1. What do you expect the millions of abused Greek service and professional workers, whose strata do not traditionally unionize, to do? They already know(!) that Capitalism is shit my friend, otherwise they wouldn't be voting a party that is decried as "Radical Leftwing", with "Communist background" etc. by the bourgeois media, a party which has positioned itself to the left of PASSOK as a broad movement of "Socialist" and even revisionist "Marxist" parties. They need leaders to inspire and party social, recreational political activities to mobilize them. My god you are blind! It is pure sectarianism which reeks of strange ideological dogmatism to the only-slightly aware working masses, for us to go on a campaign against another party of Socialists, as KKE has.

SYRIZA is developing into something quite interesting my friend, with centralized leadership, food banks, freedom of debate, freedom for minority factions etc. and millions of working class supporters. The problem is absolutely not the mass party frame, which seems ever more attractive, but the indecisive theoretical and personal leadership within the party that we know will currently not lead to Socialism.

2. Parties have leaders and programs. Leaders can be toppled by cunning politics and programs can be changed. If you think a Communist faction would have no chance to beat the revisionist factions within SYRIZA, you must have very little faith in in our creative ability and the material force of our ideas.

KKE is a huge party which, if it would embrace Marxist political strategy and use the SYRIZA party as a base of continual proletarian struggle for class independence and political power, could initiate for the rest of the global communist movement to get out of its sect mode and enact real social and eventual revolutionary change in the world once again.

It is an outcry and absolute smack in the face of the most ardent defenders of the workers, us Socialists and Communists, that the Bourgeoisie has felt the liberty to actively attack the welfare of our European Peoples through austerity and not see the routine Molotov Cocktails and Bricks thrown at their property and defenders of it, as a big enough threat to their rule. In fact - it seems, the more Molotov Cocktails fly and the more Youth's lives are wasted, the more determined the path of "Reform" is.

If the Proletariat were to attain its own SYRIZA, the Bourgeoisie and their media everywhere would be wincing and howling with outrage and fear without stops. Immediately the austerity induced crisis of the social order would be lifted by the Bourgeoisie in order to retain power.

If they "knew" capitalism was bad then they wouldn't be voting for a party that repeats ad nauseam its support for "healthy enterpreneurship", for private investments, for participation in the EU, for a "new Marshall plan", for a closer cooperation with the United States.

See? These are all the things they hear from the party they are voting. And they are voting it because of them. Are you claiming they are voting it because of all the things it vehemently denies it is? Are you making a claim that all the Syriza voters are insane?

What you should do as a communist when you meet this kind of people, people who think a better capitalism is available once you do away with Merkel or crooks or whatever, is explain to them why they are wrong. Not nod in agreement. That should be simple enough for everyone to agree, no?


Now, Syriza is developing into a fullblown Pasok. Oh, did you not know that Pasok also had "leftists" in it, up till a few weeks ago? Did you not know they had all sorts of "debates"? That's weird because it's not just them. All bourgeois parties are alike, with manifactured "dissent". You're from the US. Don't you then know of "left-wing democrats" who'll say a thing or two more about the banks? Don't you see them running in the race for the nomination?Kucinich and the like? What impresses you in Syriza then? You mention food banks? Really? Well, just about everyone organizes food banks. Why support a party version of a food bank and not one by workers though? Why support "handing out food" instead of workers showing solidarity to each other? This is the top-down behaviour in the movement you want to support? Some movement it will be then.

The mass party frame seems ever more repulsive to me. It gives you the chance to always drift further and further to a simple management of capitalism and claim "it's what the majority wants". Of course it's what the majority wants, that's why we live in this capitalist hell. The majority is wrong though. And if you choose to bury that truth behind an argumentum ad populum fallacy, well maybe you want them to stay wrong and poor and oppresed.

The revolutionary party gains in members and support as class consiousness grows. It doesn't gain in members and support by simply refusing revolution. Well, it can do so but it's not a revolutionary party then, is it? And speaking of Syriza, that party never was one to begin with.


The "argument" that our arguments must be very strong and therefore we can turn any opportunist into a communist impresses by being so poor.
Then the whole bolshevick split, the whole international was a mistake. Luxembourg leaving the SPD was a mistake. All these communists had one simple thing to do. "Use their arguments". Had Luxembourg used her arguments in a creative manner, her former comrades might not have armed the nationalists that murdered her.
It' not like they were part of the opposing side in a brutal class war. They were only "misled". If they had only tried to convince them, everything would have been fine.

The problem with Syriza isn't just in its leadership. You thing it has millions of members? It has 30.000 members, out of which about 1/3 took any part in pre-congress discussions. It was made almost impossible to contribute in the party's programme because you needed a 100 signatures to present a document. Most of its members aren't the proletariat you think you can convince and get on your side but segments of the labor aristocracy from the public and the private sector. Unionists that had six figure incomes in the previous years enjoying what being a leading Pasok member brought, were to be found in that congress. You thing you'll just give an excellent speech about communism and just make them betray themselves? Well, that's naive of you. This kind of behaviour is exactly what these people would want. Nothing better than a movement they'd control, that they could ride all the way to some government post. You 'd think your "convincing them to join the communist ranks" and they'd be laughing behind your back. You think it was a different situation in the Labor Party in England with those trotskyists? You think it was a different situation in any party in a similar posistion?


Nowhere have I seen marxist political strategy claiming communists should only exist as the margin of some "left" party. Even the manifesto of the communist party is just that. A manifesto of party of communists. A party that has its own aims, its own ideology, its own organization. And when you speak of a global communist movement you certainly don't see it in some "sect mode". In fact, taking into account what you call "sect", that would be great. What you do see however when you look the communist movement globally, is exactly what you'd want to see in Greece. Take France, take Spain, take Italy, take Russia, take Brazil. In every case communist parties aim at some government of some loosely allied progressive forces. In France communists voted for Hollande, in Brazil for Russef, in Russia they want a government of "national responsibility" like the one they participated in in 1998.
Is that what you call "suffering from sectarianism"?



Austerity induced crisis? That is certainly not marxist. And that's not bad by itself I guess. It's especially bad though when you take into account that if Marx got one thing right, that was the workings of capitalism.
There is no "austerity induced" crisis. There is a capitalist induced crisis with austerity its only possible outcome. There is a fall in the rate of profits that capitalists need to reverse by increasing the rate of exploitation. As in any capitalist crisis and as in any capitalist crisis to follow, some companies, the weakest, will go bankrupt, capital will depreciate and all, all, workers will become poorer and face tougher living conditions, enough to bring a new era of increasing profits.
You are mistaken to think that someone simply "chose" austerity or that austerity means anything anyway. Have we got austerity in Greece? We have budget cuts but then, a large part of it went to support banks. Did you have budget cuts in the US? Well, not as many but banks took over the homes of the people that couldn't pay. You think someone who's left homeless in Greece because he couldn't afford his "estate tax" is in a different situation then an American who was evicted? No, they both are in the exact same situation. Some minor differences always will exist among the ways all the countries deal with crises. One is not better than the other though, they all have the same general aim.

Are you voting for Obama? If you are, then you have no job teaching others about some "great marxist political strategy".
If you aren't however then you should ask yourself why support its greek counterpart. If you think you can magically turn syriza communist using solely the strength of your arguments why not do the same to the democrats orthe republican even? I think you'll find that bourgeois parties have very, very strong antibodies protecting it from any workers' influence in their policies.
If only the opposite was as true.

[FSL]

My god you are blind! It is pure sectarianism which reeks of strange ideological dogmatism to the only-slightly aware working masses, for us to go on a campaign against another party of Socialists, as KKE has.
And as I saw my signature again, I realized the same thing can be said and has been said with much fewer words.



We shall never recognise equality with the peasant profiteer, just as we do not recognise “equality” between the exploiter and the exploited, between the sated and the hungry, nor the “freedom” for the former to rob the latter. And those educated people who refuse to recognise this difference we shall treat as whiteguards, even though they may call themselves democrats, socialists, internationalists, Kautskys, Chernovs, or Martovs
Straight from the greatest sectarian of them all.

[Geiseric]

My advice is that reformist platforms offer nothing tangible to the working class. Instead of tailing centrists, the revolutionary working class must form its own alternative, recognizing that the working class is the only revolutionary class, the Greek state is the manager of the common affairs of capital, and so the working class must dismantle the state and seize state power for itself. Once that happens, then we're getting somewhere. Until then, all they're doing is "exhorting hot air" as left wing populists.



What the fuck are you talking about?



So Golden Dawn won't become more powerful?

The mensheviks told the bolsheviks that the czarists and counter revolutionaries would crush the "pre mature" russian revolution if the working class seized power through a mass revolutionary workers party. You have the same attitude about a genuine working class political party, which could shake the entire system, like Allende when he was voted for in Chile.

[Paul Pott]

Wow, you even bring up Allende and you still think I'm wrong?

I find it odd that we basically have to have these old debates over basic questions of the nature of the state, organization, what a revolution is, etc. all over again with reformists and revisionists from Venezuela to Greece, but I guess that's the price of failure in the 20th century.

I mean, you'd expect that to some extent but damn.

[garrus]

can you provide me with a link over these issues?
Yeah, it's in greek though.

You can go to synedrio.syriza.gr , although the servers seem to be down for the moment, so I can't find the exact place.I'll edit this post later.

You can see the political positions that the congress passed, compared to the changed proposed by the left wing that didn't pass, which I outlined to my previous post.

[baronci]

REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM:

(1) SURMOUNTS REDUCTIONISM, revisionism, and sectarianism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=592); (2) Has, as its minimum goal, the revolutionary MERGER OF MARXISM AND THE WORKER-CLASS MOVEMENT; and (3) Has, as its revolutionary goal, the social-abolitionist rule of the working class - SOCIAL PROLETOCRACY (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=624)!


lol, i cant tell whats more insane: this or the "dialectical theory of everything" guy

[Fred]

The mensheviks told the bolsheviks that the czarists and counter revolutionaries would crush the "pre mature" russian revolution if the working class seized power through a mass revolutionary workers party. You have the same attitude about a genuine working class political party, which could shake the entire system, like Allende when he was voted for in Chile.

You have, with great precision here, demonstrated why you are not a Trotskyist -- that you and your organization are simply reformists that never learn. Of all things to cite Allende as a POSITIVE example? Allende was a catastrophe for the Chilean working class. And the real revolutionary Marxists said so, well before his downfall. The point is not to "shake the entire system," it is to make socialist revolution. Allendes popular front government is a prime example of how not to proceed. And this methodology of loving anything in motion has nothing in common with Marxism. That's how ostensible Marxists can embrace Syriza, the Arab Spring, and even Khomeini. Wake up comrade. the masses in motion is merely one aspect of what is needed to make proletarian revolution. Without a revolutionary program and party you cannot get there. And enthusing about amorphous and reformist movements is the freaking road to hell for would be proletarian revolutionaries. "Genuine working class political parties," have time and again led their members into dead ends that often end in complete debacle. The issue here is the vast difference between the Bolsheviks and Syriza. At best, Syriza will be the Mensheviks of a Greek proletarian revolution.

[MarxSchmarx]

lol, i cant tell whats more insane: this or the "dialectical theory of everything" guy

Don't troll. Post in response to people's posts, not their signatures. Consider this your verbal warning.

[n0b0dy]

If SYRIZA turns into a new PASOK depends on various other aspects than the decision about some parts of the party program: the development in other european countries (since its an european crisis!), how the social struggles continue, the relationship with the trade unions and social movements etc.
Btw.: there are very similar statements of Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci about that. You can have the best party of Marxists, but without social struggle the path to bureaucracy and parliamentarism is hardly unevitable.
A weakness of SYRIZA in polls was that the people dont think they were ready to govern. The foundation as a party is an important step to overcome the fragmentation of the coalition and this weakness. So far SYRIZA did the most things right.

Tsipras often refers to the revolutionary prozess in Venezuela and says that socialism will not be achieved by a "single victory or by decrees". Thats no turn to the right, thats just the way to go. The KKE still wants an immediate system change to socialism - you may call that radical, but that wont work and ends in an authoritarian bureaucracy. On top of this the KKE still rejects any proposals for a left government to end the mass immiseration - thats just sad.

[Coggeh]

If SYRIZA turns into a new PASOK depends on various other aspects than the decision about some parts of the party program: the development in other european countries (since its an european crisis!), how the social struggles continue, the relationship with the trade unions and social movements etc.
Btw.: there are very similar statements of Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci about that. You can have the best party of Marxists, but without social struggle the path to bureaucracy and parliamentarism is hardly unevitable.
A weakness of SYRIZA in polls was that the people dont think they were ready to govern. The foundation as a party is an important step to overcome the fragmentation of the coalition and this weakness. So far SYRIZA did the most things right.

Tsipras often refers to the revolutionary prozess in Venezuela and says that socialism will not be achieved by a "single victory or by decrees". Thats no turn to the right, thats just the way to go. The KKE still wants an immediate system change to socialism - you may call that radical, but that wont work and ends in an authoritarian bureaucracy. On top of this the KKE still rejects any proposals for a left government to end the mass immiseration - thats just sad.

I think thats quite naive in a sense. This is undoubtedly a move towards a more reformist approach by the right wing of Syriza. Far from being a radical left movement such as its foundation, after the boost in the polls many on the right in Syriza took this as an opportunity to snatch an electoral victory, thus watering down of a programme in order to push themselves over the line in a sense.

The move to create a 'unified' party was non other than to take power away from several movements pushing towards a revolutionary socialist programme in order to please media circles who have been spewing propaganda about SYRIZA being an organisation made up of evil communists how can we trust them. Instead of reacting with an attack on the right wing private media, they reacted by doing their best to castrate the more radical elements of Syriza.

Tspiras talk of Venezuala and socialism is nothing other than populism, he also praised Obama, said he would obey the Memorandum of the Troika (with some negotiation) and would do his utmost to remain in the EU (most likely even if it means bending the knee to more vicious austerity.) He's a social democrat .. at best.

However, Syriza as a movement and now as a party has captured what the sectarian KKE has completely failed to do, that is pushing an alternative for the working masses, this was not done through reformist dogma, but because they showed there was a way for the radical left and the working class to attain a different society. The capitulation of the leadership and the right in the party are damning, but there is (in my view) still a revolutionary potential to be born out of the success of Syriza, for example the initiative 1000 which many groups on the left have signed is a coalition of forces to demand a socialist programme and within Syriza is rapidly gaining momentum.

Its a play by ear situation really....

[FSL]

If SYRIZA turns into a new PASOK depends on various other aspects than the decision about some parts of the party program: the development in other european countries (since its an european crisis!), how the social struggles continue, the relationship with the trade unions and social movements etc.
Btw.: there are very similar statements of Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci about that. You can have the best party of Marxists, but without social struggle the path to bureaucracy and parliamentarism is hardly unevitable.
A weakness of SYRIZA in polls was that the people dont think they were ready to govern. The foundation as a party is an important step to overcome the fragmentation of the coalition and this weakness. So far SYRIZA did the most things right.

Tsipras often refers to the revolutionary prozess in Venezuela and says that socialism will not be achieved by a "single victory or by decrees". Thats no turn to the right, thats just the way to go. The KKE still wants an immediate system change to socialism - you may call that radical, but that wont work and ends in an authoritarian bureaucracy. On top of this the KKE still rejects any proposals for a left government to end the mass immiseration - thats just sad.
So a party can magically turn revolutionary despite the will of its members, simply because of how the "social struggle continues". If so, why is that only true for Syriza? Why is not true for the christian-democrats?
If anything, praising enterpreneurs who "honestly" make their profits and praising the EU are two major points in any party's programme and they are two points in which Syriza and your christian-democratic party are exactly alike. Why can one turn revolutionary but the other one cannot?


Tsipras as was mentioned hardly ever mentions Venezuela and if he does he does so only to spesific crowds, as liars often do. Tsipras even denied ever saying that the government is "treasonous" and that we are becoming a "german colony" when giving an interview to a german reporter so that he'd come out as a true european statesman. But he was very comfortable saying that nonsense to those that wanted to hear it (and this kind of nonsense is very similar to golden dawn's nonsense, might be why Syriza is losing voters to them?). A revolution is a qualitative change. It's how it differs from reform. It's not prepared in a day, but it does happen in an instant. You may reject revolution in favour of reform, but to just call reform revolution, that's borderline mad.

And lastly, how can a left government stop the immiseration of the people? Please, be exact. Will the government just order the capitalist crisis to end? Will it order the capitalists to invest at a loss, so as to decrease unemployment and they will comply?
Syriza promises many things, none of which will end the immiseration of the people. In fact, the only way for us to have growth again, like Syriza promises, with capitalism intact is to have every worker become even cheaper. So why be a part of that government?




he also praised Obama, said he would obey the Memorandum of the Troika (with some negotiation) and would do his utmost to remain in the EU (most likely even if it means bending the knee to more vicious austerity.) He's a social democrat .. at best.

However, Syriza as a movement and now as a party has captured what the sectarian KKE has completely failed to do, that is pushing an alternative for the working masses, this was not done through reformist dogma
You have to admit that you're not making much sense.
Syriza's alternative even before the elections included all those nasty things you mention in the first paragraph. So then, how is that an alternative? It's an alternative to what? It's exactly the same policy.

Syriza didn't offer any alternative. Syriza said that it would "negotiate" better, because after all we had a crisis caused by poor negotiation... Syriza said that they would be more fit to govern because they were more honest and less likely to take bribes and not in Siemens' payroll (Siemens being involved in a scandal where it financed major parties).
That's the alternative Syriza offered. If you can find one ounce of class politics in that mess, tell me where.


Instead of trying to change people's minds, you think all that's needed is to change yourselves and what you are saying. "If you can't beat 'em, join e'm" but join them where? Certainly not in socialism and certainly not in any kind of a fair society.
You speak of this right turn (who could have predicted it, right?) and still you speak of your hopes.
These hopes have hurt us more than anything. What exactly are you hoping for? That the initiative of the 1000 will succeed in what? Calling for an exit from the euro? How is that a socialist programme?


You say that an exit from the euro is a socialist programme and you're "hoping" the demand will gain steam. Someone else says that revolution happens slowly through governments that manage capitalism in a way the makes everyone happy.
Why can't you call the things you want by their name?
If you want us to depreciate drachma and thus become cheaper faster, say that.
If someone else wants the "structural reforms" that will push us towards capitalist growth, to be the work of a self-proclaimed left government, he can also say that.

Why is it that you propose these things but seem to actually think they're revolutionary or helpful even?




Dragasakis, the man who is considered the top economist in Syriza and who was elected in its central committee with the most votes, just gave an interview. It's published in its entirety tomorrow, but among the things he said is that "We (Syriza) don't want a return to the era of deficits".
So, there you go, not even as Keynesian as Obama. Don't forget to "hope" that something might "change". It's not like time is of the essence.

[nizan]

So long as your SYRIZA plays the game, it will reflect its decisions. Ideology is ideology, it's of no relevance how amassed in the appearance of revolution it may be. Alienation cannot be combated with alienated means- the sooner SYRIZA and its lackeys of modernity realize this, the sooner we may yet see something worthy of the phrase 'revolution'.

[Coggeh]

You have to admit that you're not making much sense.
Syriza's alternative even before the elections included all those nasty things you mention in the first paragraph. So then, how is that an alternative? It's an alternative to what? It's exactly the same policy.

I agree. Apologies if i didn't make my point clear, I was making the point about a shift to the right with regards the unified party idea, but in that context with regards Tspiras its not just a recent thing nor was i trying to portray SYRIZA as an a revolutionary organisation turned sour, but you can't deny its formation and afterwards did present real hope towards the building of a real left alternative and being a vehicle to build a new mass workers party in Greece.



Instead of trying to change people's minds, you think all that's needed is to change yourselves and what you are saying. "If you can't beat 'em, join e'm" but join them where? Certainly not in socialism and certainly not in any kind of a fair society.
You speak of this right turn (who could have predicted it, right?) and still you speak of your hopes.
These hopes have hurt us more than anything. What exactly are you hoping for? That the initiative of the 1000 will succeed in what? Calling for an exit from the euro? How is that a socialist programme?

That was not what I was saying. I doubt my words could possibly be read wrong to come up with the summation you have presented.

We did predict the right turn, it was of no surprise, i didn't mean to give the idea that it was one. I was merely stating the potential for Syriza then and even now if the left controlled the party or even if there was a left/ right split.

Exit from the Euro? what are you talking about? where did i mention that?
Here is the policies of the Initiative 1000 groupings :http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/6101
Where did i ever say an exit from the Euro is a socialist programme ?!


You say that an exit from the euro is a socialist programme and you're "hoping" the demand will gain steam. Someone else says that revolution happens slowly through governments that manage capitalism in a way the makes everyone happy.
Why can't you call the things you want by their name?
If you want us to depreciate drachma and thus become cheaper faster, say that.
If someone else wants the "structural reforms" that will push us towards capitalist growth, to be the work of a self-proclaimed left government, he can also say that.

Again. I didn't.
Are you refering to my posts or someone elses? if not mine then I apologise for my responses I'm really confused right now. Because what i said doesn't remotely correspond to your points.

[FSL]

I agree. Apologies if i didn't make my point clear, I was making the point about a shift to the right with regards the unified party idea, but in that context with regards Tspiras its not just a recent thing nor was i trying to portray SYRIZA as an a revolutionary organisation turned sour, but you can't deny its formation and afterwards did present real hope towards the building of a real left alternative and being a vehicle to build a new mass workers party in Greece.
Of course I can deny that. I was denying that since the very beginning and as it turns out, I'm not the one who needs to be all sad for the party's shift to the right. The important thing is then why was I able to deny Syriza offered any real hope. And that is because I looked at their proposals (not their slogans, but the core of their politics) and realized they were compatible with capitalism. It made much more sense that as time passed they would give up on their radical phrase-mongering to have it match what they proposed, rather than think they would change the core of their politics to match their radical slogans.





That was not what I was saying. I doubt my words could possibly be read wrong to come up with the summation you have presented.

We did predict the right turn, it was of no surprise, i didn't mean to give the idea that it was one. I was merely stating the potential for Syriza then and even now if the left controlled the party or even if there was a left/ right split.

Exit from the Euro? what are you talking about? where did i mention that?
Here is the policies of the Initiative 1000 groupings :http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/6101
Where did i ever say an exit from the Euro is a socialist programme ?!

Again. I didn't.
Are you refering to my posts or someone elses? if not mine then I apologise for my responses I'm really confused right now. Because what i said doesn't remotely correspond to your points.
How could you predict the right turn and not have it be a surprise to you, then speak of potential? You mean of potential to do the turn to the right as you predicted? Because if you mean there was potential for a shift to the left and to a revolutionary stance, then you didn't predict any shift to the right. You perhaps merely acknowledged that it was a "possibility", much like when you flip a coin and you have a possibility of getting either heads or tails.



I know what this Initiative proposes. Maybe you are not careful enough.


The Left must seek the widest possible cooperation of its forces in the fight against the Memoranda, the Troika and the Greek ruling class, starting from the demand of ‘No Sacrifices for the Euro!’

Is it for the euro then, that we make sacrifices? And then, people in the UK make sacrifices for the pound, people in the US for the dollar, the consumption tax will rise in Japan for the yen and people in China work like slaves for the yuan?
Is this class politics, is this trying to "enlighten" others?
Euro is presented as a tool for german hegemony and it's easy to put the blame on it. But is german hegemony the problem and not capitalism? Aren't we making sacrifices for profits?
And if we stopped making any sacrifices for profits, wouldn't they keep on tumbling?
So these kind of initiatives, by people who must have at least glanced upon Marx's work, what are they? What kind of "progressive plan to restructure the economy" are we speaking of? Would they order capitalists to invest at a loss, as I asked before? What would be done with the 1.5 million unemployed? Would they be hired in the recently nationalized "strategic public sector" much like in the 80s? But now we can't borrow money like we could then.


You are saying that is a socialist programme but it's not in the slightest sense. It is a programme of wishful thinking and of an undying belief that capitalism can and will provide. I don't think that the people who put forward these kind of programmes are naive. They know that not one of these things can be achieved within the EU and furthermore, that not one of these things can be achieved within capitalism. I'm sure they've read Lenin on Kautsky and on his concept of a "real democracy" that wouldn't be neither bourgeois nor proletarian, a term however they quite shamelessly continue to use. I'm sure they're aware that the only economic reconstruction capitalists would accept is one much like what we're having today.

Even if they do hope in an exit from the eurozone(which is the only realistic way of doing some of the things they want), and they did buy back from capitalists certain sectors of the economy, they of course wouldn't be enough to restart the economy, they wouldn't be enough to give jobs to the unemployed, they certainly wouldn't be enough to somehow tailor the capitalist economy into being worker-friendly.

The only real aim of a programme like that, of a programme that puts the blame on currencies and that wants to leave the greater part of private property intact and replace some of it with the property of the capitalist state can only be to bring growth back by worsening life for workers. Have them payed in a depreciated currency so that industrialist exporters and hotel owners can make more money off of them (since they will earn their profit in foreign exchange). Give cheap credit to capitalists via the "public" banking system. And try to control society by creating a new labor aristocracy in the expanded public sector. We've seen that play out again, it should come as no surprise that people dream of this being their turn.


This is what this programme that you call sosialist would amount to. A programme that would infact be socialist though, it would socialize all capitalist property, all the banks, all the factories, all capitalist businesses. It wouldn't leave anyone as a wage worker for someone else's gain. The small producers of today could reorganize in cooperatives, the rest of the economy, the sigificantly bigger part, would be planned.
That is a socialist programme. You may not support it for whatever reason, but why would you call by that name something that is totally different, that's what I don't get.

[n0b0dy]

At the Subversive Festival this year Zizek said in a talk with Tsipras: "If you are a good honest capitalist you should vote for SYRIZA. Capitalists for SYRIZA that would be my dream." (worth to watch on yt btw.)
Of course Zizek likes to joke around, but this points to a real contradiction. You can't introduce communism the next day in a capitalist world. SYRIZA wants to overcome capitalism, but until socialism it will need capitalists. Its the same story in Venezuela: The governments talks about the good cooperation with capitalists to keep production going and at the same time they create plans how to establish workers control.
I wrote a post about this topic in the thread about Venezuela. I'll quote myself:
"We've seen several revolutionary strategies in histrory. The social democrats wanted to reach socialism by state reforms, which failed totally. Some anarchists wanted to build a better society from below against the state and failed too because the state smashes every serious project. The problem with the leninists is that they want to smash the bourgeois state and abolish the old structures immediately. But the new has not been born and nobody has the masterplan, so the vacuum tends to be filled by bureaucrats of the leninist party.
The strategy used in Venezuela that can be found in theories by Nicos Poulantzas for example (Poulantzas: State, Power, Socialism 1978) is to take over the state democratically and while transforming the state institutions, opening up spaces for self-organisation from below. The occupied and worker-controlled factories in Argentina are great but the main problems are lack of legal recognition and capital. Its obvious that the workers movement in Venezuela are now in a far better situation."

But exiting the eurozone would make everything even worse. Greece hardly has any export that could profit from depreciation, but it highly depends on imports wich would become much more expensive. The debt would remain in euro and appreciate. Hence another huge(!) haircut would become necassary and government financing will have no access to capital markets for a long time. Therefore greece will stay depending on financing via european institutions. In Addtion there are the technical problems of introducing the drachma. There will be bankruns, capital flight etc.