SYRIZA: â€œthe left reserve forceâ€ of capitalism - Communist Party of Greece [Archive]

View Full Version : SYRIZA: â€œthe left reserve forceâ€ of capitalism - Communist Party of Greece

Mirrorsonic

10th April 2014, 09:14

SYRIZA: “the left reserve force” of capitalism

Elisseos Vagenas
Member of the CC of the KKE
Responsible for the International Relations Section of the CC of the KKE.

After the outbreak of the capitalist crisis in Greece the bourgeois class sought intensively to ideologically disarm the people by means of obscuring the causes of the crisis and the problems that the working people are experiencing in order to lead them to political choices that do not call the exploitative system into question. Thus the bourgeois political parties, both old as well as newly emerging, began to focus on isolated phenomena e.g. the economic scandals, presenting them as the cause of the crisis. “There was money. Some people (the politicians) squandered it and now the people are paying” is one of the common views. The so called “movement of the indignant citizens”, which fostered the aversion to the organized class-oriented labour movement and its goals, was utilized in these plans. This movement focused on the slogans “thieves! thieves!” and “traitors”, which were directed at the politicians. In this way it prepared the ideological ground for the “seeds” of the racist and criminal views of the fascist “Golden Dawn”.
In these conditions the KKE declared decisively that we are dealing with a crisis of the system itself which requires rupture, disengagement from the imperialist unions of the EE and NATO with socialization of the means of production and the construction of another economy and society that will focus on the satisfaction of the people’s needs and not on profit. On the contrary, the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) indulged in all kind of ideological-political tastes in order to manage to become the main opposition party. It is worth mentioning several elements regarding the stance of this party, especially in the current period when it is being promoted by the “European Left Party” as “a force for the overthrow” and the forces of the ELP are represented by its president Alexis Tsipras as a candidate for the office of the president of the EU Commission.
When the “radical left” meets the far right
On 7th February 2014 the Political Secretariat of SYRIZA decided to withdraw the candidacy of the journalist T. Karipidis for Regional Prefect in Western Macedonia in the upcoming local elections that will take place in the period of the EU parliamentary elections (May 2014). Greece is divided into 13 regions. So SYRIZA was led to withdraw its candidate in a large geographical area, that of Western Macedonia (not immediately but after 5 days of inner-party soul-searching). Why? The reason was the views of this journalist that were made public, as he is a supporter of a conspiracy theory regarding the torments that the working people in our country are suffering. According to his theory the Prime Minister A. Samaras is destroying Greece according to a plan of the Jews! This extreme conspiracy theory which dovetails with the corresponding views of fascist circles has been accommodated by the radical left of SYRIZA. So much for… “radicalism”…
The undeniable truth is that this is the “tip of the iceberg” as over the last three years SYRIZA has absorbed entire sections of the social-democratic party PASOK which is in the process of disintegration.
Even if we do not focus on this episode, we will see that over recent years SYRIZA has been making a systematic effort to rescue capitalism in the eyes of the working people. How is it doing this? Let us briefly examine this.

Praising “healthy” capitalism like Obama’s
SYRIZA is claiming that neoliberalism and neoliberal capitalism are to blame for the crisis and the problems of the workers. It is extolling the policy of Obama as neo-Keynesianism and characterizes it as “progressive”. At the end of last year the president of SYRIZA, Alexis Tsipras praised the US president Barack Obama in a speech in Texas, USA, stating that “I feel that we can have a constructive debate with Washington on the issue of the crisis of the Eurozone. This is one of the reasons that I am happy to be here today.”
In this way the leadership of SYRIZA and the ELP is involved in the fierce competition amongst the imperialist powers. It is well known that the government of the USA, France, Italy are pressing Germany to shoulder a larger section of the losses regarding the management of the debt of the indebted states of Eurozone and limit its trade surplus. The forces of the ELP are siding with the USA. Nevertheless, this confrontation, is not related to the interests of the popular forces. It does not concern the interests of the peoples in the more powerful capitalist economies or in the weaker ones. Whatever formula is followed for the management of the crisis the working people will not be disentangled from capitalist exploitation, poverty, destitution, new anti-people measures. This is shown by the immense social and economic problems that tens of millions of working people face in the USA. Even if some statistical data indicates that capitalist growth appears on the terrain of the destruction of the social achievements, this growth will be at the expense of the people, the working people will suffer the consequences of the next and deeper crisis of capital over-accumulation.
By restricting its criticism to so called “neoliberal capitalism” SYRIZA is fostering illusions amongst the working people that there can be another “good” capitalism.

Anticipating the change of the predatory alliance

Let us bear in mind that in the 1960’s the KKE characterized the EU as “lions’ den”. In 1980 it said NO to the accession of Greece to the EEC and in 1991 it said NO to the Treaty of Maastricht that transformed the EEC into EU.
In contrast, all the other parties, including the parties from which SYRIZA emerged, supported these choices of the bourgeois class for the assimilation of Greece to the EEC and the EU.
Today SYRIZA is claiming that the EU is “violating its founding principles and goals”. The truth is that from 1957 until today, and for as long as the EU exists, whether it is split into a union of the south or of the north, whether it becomes a federation, or a confederation, it will be an imperialist union, aimed against the peoples and youth.
It is obvious that the EU does not change, either with the change of the president of the EU Commission, which is an apparatus for the elaboration and the implementation of the most severe anti-people measures, or with political reforms, because the exploitation of man by man, that is to say class exploitation, the main contradiction of capitalist society, is inherent in it.
The main question is what interests did the foundation of this inter-state union serve. It was founded in order to help the capitalists to more effectively exploit the working people in its member-states; in order to enable them to buttress their power supported by the bourgeois classes of the other countries of the union. It was created in order to assist the European monopolies in their fierce conflict with the monopolies of the other countries and regional unions.
The EU, with most of its member-states being members of NATO as well, is organizing the war with financial, political and military means. It conducted a war on European territory, it participates in the plans to intervene in Asia, Africa, today in the Central African Republic, it accompanies the USA in its anti-communism and in dealing with the movement using terror legislation.
SYRIZA, due to its position as the official opposition, bears a great share of responsibility for the conscious deception of the working people because it claims that the EU can allegedly be democratized and humanized.
Recently, in relation to the bloody events in Ukraine, SYRIZA once again discovered the “lack of an independent foreign policy” in the blatant intervention of the EU in the internal affairs of Ukraine, which was carried out together with the USA and in confrontation with Russia over the control of the markets, the raw materials and the country’s transport networks. SYRIZA argued that the EU could have a “stronger role” in favour of the people of Ukraine if it did not align itself with the USA. Then, according to this viewpoint, the EU would become a “force for stability and peace”. However, there is no greater fraud than for someone to claim that the imperialist EU can become a “factor for peace”, fostering illusions about a pro-peace imperialism! The imperialist “predators”, the EU amongst them, during the “dividing up of the loot” can come into conflict, but they always remain “predators” and hostile to the interests of the peoples.
The “front” and the “wind” of the South
SYRIZA is fishing in the “muddy waters” of the parties of the so-called “anti-memorandum arc”, of “anti-Merkelism”, and “anti-banking” version of the EU and Eurozone, of parties that condemn merely the troika and particularly Germany.
Nevertheless, it conceals the fact that the outbreak of the capitalist crisis preceded the memorandum. It overlooks the fact that the EU is a component of the Troika. The memorandum that the Greek government has signed with the troika of the lenders, is nothing other than the specialization of the general political line of the EU in the conditions of crisis in Greece. Consequently the opposition of SYRIZA to the memorandum is dust to the people’s eyes given that this party does not oppose the EU but supports it.
But why is SYRIZA only blaming the troika or Germany? Because, in this way it conceals its essential support for the EU of capital, of the monopolies. It is fostering illusions to the people that the EU can change through “a front of the countries of the South”. Nevertheless, the international allies and support that are invoked, such as the governments of the USA, France, Italy, the Mediterranean South, are enemies of the people, they steamroller the people’s rights in their countries, just as the German government does.
The EU is a hell for all its peoples. Τhe truth is that the anti-people measures concern the working class and popular strata of all the countries, regardless of memoranda and debts.
In other countries measures were taken in the 1990s and in the 2000s, in some all together as a “shock”, like Greece in the conditions of the crisis, in others gradually as in Germany. However there are differences from country to country in terms of workers’ gains, social needs, the rate of unemployment. The reason is that Greece had a weaker starting point in the Eurozone and it is not due to the bad political choices or the use of the “wrong medicine”.
For example, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a general policy which has as its aim the concentration of the agricultural production and land in fewer hands. However, it was more painful in countries which still had numerous small producers, like Greece.
The new wind of the South that will sweep the bad EU and bring a better on is a “fairy tale” that aims at deceiving the peoples. On 12th June 2012 the newspaper of SYRIZA wrote: “A new page opened for France yesterday. Victory of the left”. SYRIZA and its leadership fostered many illusions regarding the election of Hollande claiming that the EU is starting to change. Now we all know how that has developed…
Contrary to these illusions, the KKE and the other parties that participate in the European Communist Initiative assess that the EU cannot change, that it is a reactionary apparatus which has at its core the interests of the monopolies.

The odious and unsustainable debt

The KKE has demonstrated with evidence that the workers are not responsible for the public debt and must not pay for it. The propaganda of the capitalist power is trying to conceal the real reasons for the inflation of the public debt. In reality, the state borrowed in the previous years in order to serve the needs of the profitability of capital and now it is calling on the workers to pay. The debt also increased due to the enormous spending on arms programmes for the needs of NATO and the participation in imperialist missions, as well as due to the consequences of the assimilation of the Greek economy in the EU and EMU. The course of the shrinking of important branches of manufacturing, which were on the receiving end of strong pressure from competitors and shrank, is characteristic (e.g. textiles, clothing, metal, ship-building and ship-repair, production of transport means.) The expansion of the trade deficit and the rapid increase of imports from the EU had a similar impact on the inflation of the public debt.

SYRIZA, for a long time period, especially before the previous elections, argued that a “left government” of SYRIZA will separate the debt into a correct part (which must be paid) and an “odious”, “unjust” part that will not be paid. Indeed they let it be understood that possibly the largest part of the public debt is “odious” and sharply criticized the KKE for not adopting this “realistic” rationale. Nevertheless, the more the possibility of SYRIZA taking on the “reins” of bourgeois management increases, the more its position gradually alters. SYRIZA’s economist, G. Stathakis, stated in February 2014 that based on his calculations the “odious” debt is only 5%. Consequently, he recognized that the people should pay the remaining 95% of the debt. The head of SYRIZA claimed in the very same month during a visit to Italy that the crisis in Greece is the result of “a mistaken development model of over-consumption with loans”! I.e he is regurgitating the basic bourgeois ideological constructs inside and outside of Greece regarding the cause of the debt and is calling on the people to pay for the debt, as longs as it can become “sustainable”. He is calling for another “haircut” to take place, in opposition to the government of ND-PASOK, which is demanding an extension of the payment period. And these two management solutions are not merely not “radical” and “people-friendly”, but provide for new anti-people measures against the workers.

The only people-friendly solution is the one promoted by the KKE: unilateral cancellation of the debt for which the people are not responsible. Socialization of the means of production, disengagement from the EU, working class-people’s power.

“Radicalism” inside the “walls” of the system

SYRIZA is an opportunist party which very rapidly is developing into a modern social-democratic party and is fostering illusions amongst the people that there can be a better form of management for the people, despite the dominance of the monopolies. It plays with the pain of the people, with the pressure for immediate solutions without radical changes.

The speech of A. Tsipras at an event in honour of the Austrian social-democrat Bruno Kreisky is revealing. A. Tsipras clarified that the “A left government in Greece will extend a hand to Europe’s social democrats, to Europe’s free thinking liberals”, with as its plan “the project of stabilising the Eurozone – a first step towards an open, democratic and cohesive Europe.” Such a government will seek a “European Marshall Plan”, which will include: “proper banking union, a public debt centrally managed by the ECB and a massive programme of public investment.” These goals, as A. Tsipras categorically assured the audience, can be satisfied without “without any treaty changes” in the EU.

But the assurances of SYRIZA that the “state has continuity”, clearly stating that it will continue the work of the previous governments on the terrain of the anti-worker political line, of the ruins of the working class people’s rights, also highlight how it understands the so-called “governmental left”. The candidacy of Tsipras for President of the Commission reveals SYRIZA’s devotion to the EU, this union of the monopolies. The promotion of the Obama government by SYRIZA as a model is a confirmation that its governance will manage capitalism. These are assurances that the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises has assessed very specifically, praising the “useful radicalism of SYRIZA”.

About “Democracy” and “National Sovereignty”

SYRIZA is trying with its propaganda to conceal the fact that the participation of a capitalist state in an inter-state capitalist union, such as the EU, objectively means the cessation of sovereign rights. Of course, this is not due to the “German occupation”, as various nationalist groups of the bourgeois “anti-memorandum current” misleadingly claim, a sloganeering that the forces of SYRIZA have from time to time adopted. But it is a conscious strategic choice of capital in every state, and in Greece as well, with the aim of strengthening its economic and political position. Inter-state unions which are formed in the framework of an increasingly intensified capitalist internationalization, which means the increasingly more extensive interconnection of sections of capital of different states, the development of relations between them, the inter-dependence of the capitalist economies, and as a consequence the capitalist states. These are relations of unequal interdependence that of course are unequal because they are formed on the terrain of uneven development, relations that are formed with the economic and political strength as the criteria. This is the characteristic feature both of inter-state capitalist unions, as well as of the nexus of inter-state relations which are formed in the framework of the global imperialist system. The KKE argues that these relations can break, can be overturned only through the disengagement of the country from the capitalist inter-state unions and from the capitalist development path, and not by patching them up, as SYRIZA aims to do.

It is apparent from the positions of SYRIZA that this party only disagrees with the “German leadership of the EU and Eurozone”, and not with the controls on the budgets, as long as they are carried out by “legitimate bodies”. If, for example, they are carried out by the EU Parliament, there is no problem, because it says that this is the only democratically elected body of the EU.

Nevertheless, the terms “democracy” and “sovereignty” have a specific social “identity”, according to which class is in power. Bourgeois democracy is nothing other than the class dominance, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with a parliamentary mantle and the justice that accompanies it is the justice of the bourgeoisie. SYRIZA is the vehicle of a petty bourgeois, non-class view about freedom and democracy. It makes criticisms regarding these issues from the standpoint of petty bourgeois “pluralism”. It ignores and conceals the class- and in reality restricted- character of democratic gains under capitalism. It conceals the fact that the source of authoritarianism is the political line that serves capital, which at the same time is closely connected to the implementation of the EU’s decisions. With its more general position about the EU and the Common Policies, it takes a position in favour of the creation of inter-state mechanisms of repression of the EU, which are objectively aimed at confronting the anti-imperialist movements. In its criticism it conceals the role of these mechanisms so that the EU is not incriminated (Europol, Eurostat, Frontex, Schengen etc.)

Character of the “referendum”. For what reason and in whose interests?

SYRIZA, because it sees that the EU itself has lost ground, has created revulsion and discontent in wider sections of the workers, is seeking to pose other false dilemmas in light of the EU Parliamentary elections and the local elections, it is trying to provide them with the character of a “referendum on the policies and parties that led the country to its current position”, “legitimization or not of the political line that the government is implementing.”

SYRIZA says that it will support the “healthy” sections of capital, and thus the referendum which it demands is about what sections of capital will be reinforced in the recovery phase. About which sectors will receive financial backing. Really, from whom will they receive this money?

It is demanding a “referendum” about how the workers, popular families will be even further squeezed: Through an extension of the payment period (which the government is asking of the foreign creditors) or as SYRIZA asks through a new haircut of the debt.
SYRIZA is declaring its devotion to the EU, which with its “economic governance” established the “permanent memorandum” for the peoples. So the referendum that it asks for is aimed at winning the people’s support so that it can guarantee the EU one-way street and the implementation of the EU’s permanent memorandum. So that it can better manage the poverty and destitution. It is trying to trick the workers that its proposal will bring prosperity to the people.
SYRIZA is demanding a referendum in favour of a “left government”. However the developments in France, Italy, Cyprus and elsewhere demonstrate that “left” and “centre-left” governments constitute the left “reserve force” of the capitalist development path.
The KKE notes that the workers must go to the ballot box in May with other criteria.
They must go with the criteria of punishing all those who with lies, intimidation and illusions over the previous years, and even now, try to persuade them that there can be a pro-people development for the Greek and other peoples of Europe inside the capitalist development path and the EU.
They must have as their criterion the formation of a strong working class-people’s opposition, the need to regroup the labour-people’s movement, the People’s Alliance for the struggle against the anti-people political line, the EU and the parties of the EU one-way street.
With the criterion of strengthening the struggle for a Greece with people’s prosperity, with the utilization of all the country’s productive potential, with solidarity and cooperation with all the peoples, in opposition to the chains of the European Union, capitalist exploitation and injustice.
With the criterion of paving the way for the socialization of the monopolies, the unilateral cancellation of the debt, the disengagement from the EU. So that the people can acquire their own power and become protagonists in the developments, so that they can influence them in a direction favourable to them.
The workers must utilize the May elections with these criteria, rejecting false dilemmas and false referenda, contributing to a change in the correlation of forces in favour of the people, through the strengthening of the KKE.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 12:20

O...good...I was wondering when we would get another anti SYRIZA polemic from the KKE.

Is it perhaps possible to ask some KKE bobo's to write something about what they are currently doing to actually work to a revolution and counter increasing fascism on the middle to long term (I have given hope of them doing so on the short term) outside of parliamentarism and blaming SYRIZA for everything?

Delenda Carthago

10th April 2014, 13:28

Is it perhaps possible to ask some KKE bobo's to write something about what they are currently doing to actually work to a revolution and counter increasing fascism on the middle to long term (I have given hope of them doing so on the short term) outside of parliamentarism and blaming SYRIZA for everything?
This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2738328&postcount=6).

Now tell us your class war struggles. Bought any fair trade chocolates recently?

ArisVelouxiotis

10th April 2014, 14:51

Dejavu phoenix ash and delenda all over again.Get over it guys you will never come to an agreement or a conclusion.

PhoenixAsh

10th April 2014, 18:24

I am a party all by myself. I know. Lately it has been slow.

Yesterday I was contemplating to get something going. I was reading Stalin and it was strongly suggested I needed a party. So I went on the web to find one and I stumbled upon this.

http://www.greenamerica.org/livinggreen/FTParty.cfm

I think it would be an excellent basis for my: fair trade chocolate unity party. Which would be abbreviated to the following acronym: FTKKE. Fair Trade KaKao Eenheids partij.
If people would vote for my party they would strengthen my platform and bring closer a better world for all. Plus socialism will be mentioned a lot too.

But seriously.

The fascination with SYRIZA is getting tiresome. Instead of continuously opposing them it would perhaps be wiser to find out why they are gaining more support than the KKE and why workers flock to them in such huge numbers rather than to the KKE.

Rafiq

10th April 2014, 18:50

In its current form Syriza is not particularly radical and there are undeniable reformist tendencies within the party. However, any idiot can see that their perogative is opposed to the immediate interests of capital. The leftist reserve force for capital does exist, however it assumes the form of Hollande or new Labour. Syriza is something different entirely, mark my words.

ArisVelouxiotis

13th April 2014, 15:41

Thirsty Crow

13th April 2014, 16:30

Different as in bad or good?
Different as in "I'm going to pretend that no clear signs of utter reformism exist in relation to that party". It's pitiful, really, especially when the notion of a leftist reserve force for capital is equated with the ruling party in France.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th April 2014, 17:05

Different as in "I'm going to pretend that no clear signs of utter reformism exist in relation to that party". It's pitiful, really, especially when the notion of a leftist reserve force for capital is equated with the ruling party in France.

Not to mention that the notion of a leftist reserve force for capital is equated with the party [New Labour] that presided over one of the greatest ever periods of capital accumulation in this country, perhaps even greater than when Thatcher privatised half the country in the 80s.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 17:07

Different as in "I'm going to pretend that no clear signs of utter reformism exist in relation to that party". It's pitiful, really, especially when the notion of a leftist reserve force for capital is equated with the ruling party in France.

What is the significance in them being the "ruling party"? What does that even mean? You make it as though bourgeois democracy does not posses the mechanisms for other parties to come into power. Bourgeois politics is not wholly conspiratorial.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 17:12

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 17:19

Nobody argues that in their current form, they are a revolutionary party. But just as the revolutionaries of the early 20th century, the Bolsheviks, the Spartakusbund, would never have come to be without their split with the second international (but none the less their initial identification with it), no such phenomena will arise today without parties like Syriza. Just as Luther could not have existed without Catholicism.

Thirsty Crow

13th April 2014, 17:40

If you cannot see that Syriza possesses the foundations for potential Communist based political struggle, perhaps you are a real "left reserve force" for bourgeois ideology in that your abstract understanding of existing conditions cannot find legitimacy in a real threat to the immediate interests of capital.
Okay, when you mention abstract understanding, let's see where you stand on some rather concrete issues.

So, you claim foundations are there. The question is rather simple, show me these foundations.

And about Hollande, you managed to miss the point about the notion of a leftist reserve force entirely; the very fact that Hollande and the SP neither represent a meekly reformist political force nor that they are by virtue of some such thing, an opposition force but rather a ruling party that doesn't stand apart the general bourgeois political strategy in Europe.

And it seems to me that you're actually saying that SYRIZA and the foundations it represents is dependent on a split in the organization; that's a rather idiosyncratic view of what foundations could mean really.

If you think I'm wrong, please elaborate.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 18:46

You make it as though it is such an outlandish claim that Syriza's organizational composite as well as their political strategy is something unique. The foundations I speak of are not empirically verifiable like a mathematic equation, but something that should be obvious in a comprehensive understanding of the world historical context from which they have arisen. Syriza's tactical and pragmatic platform against the immediate interests of capital as well as their integration of everyday struggles with a wider political program, the establishment of an alternative culture lay the basis for radical leftist politics in today's world. Essentially, what makes Syriza unique in contrast with other left organizations, is the fact that their political prerogative, or the essence of the party encompasses all areas of life (economic, political, and so on) in a fashion that is relevant, or ideologically adequate in modern times. I mean, there is more to this than what it appears. Syriza is building a place for Leftist politics in the modern world, within this ideological universe by which bourgeois ideology reigns supreme. Essentially they are building affirmative space for proletarian ideology, the ability for the proletariat to develop their own language outside of the bounds of bourgeois politics. Other left parties are able to, perhaps successfully literally preserve the exact politics of previous epochs of struggle, but again this has no place in the world today.

What is important to remember is that Syriza does this only by merit of political struggle. Some of their leadership's intentions might be different, the way in which they understand themselves could be different, but in an ironic twist of Marx's famous "They don't know it, but they are doing it", Syriza is laying an embryo for something much larger than themselves. And they're not alone, with other parties like Die Linke attempting to pursue revivalist alternatives to today's left. Their validity is proven by their sheer success alone, in comparison with the rest of the radical left. Essentially Syriza is the opposite of today's radical parties, they do not espouse particularly radical doctrine, but they are posing a real, radical threat to the order of things. Conversely, several left parties espouse revolutionary rhetoric, but their place in the order of things is nothing more than recreational, dramatic, and insignificant.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 18:49

Whether Syriza becomes a leftist reserve force of capital is something entirely up to the Communists of Greece. The potential for revolutionary political struggle, and feeble reformism exist in equal magnitude. But the basis, the only basis for the former resides in something similiar to Syriza.

If you don't understand this, or if you at least don't understand what I'm trying to say, then you should reapproach the situation and surely you'll see what I mean. Sometimes, things cannot be fully expressed through words, you have to know it. I mean I don't know how you cannot tell the difference between social democratic reformist parties, which are neoliberal in nature, and parties like Syriza.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th April 2014, 18:50

If you cannot see that Syriza possesses the foundations for potential Communist based political struggle, perhaps you are a real "left reserve force" for bourgeois ideology in that your abstract understanding of existing conditions cannot find legitimacy in a real threat to the immediate interests of capital.

What do you mean by the 'immediate interests of capital'?

Capitalism goes through peaks and troughs; not totally aligned to boom and bust, in some periods the bourgeoisie are aggressive and accumulate capital, in other periods they are forced to be more defensive and take on the role of legitimising their continued social hegemony, mainly through concessions and mild reforms.

Whilst I wouldn't go as far as to label bourgeois politics 'conspirational', nor would I say that SYRIZA are some sort of evil baby-eating agency, it would be fair to say that SYRIZA represents a force that wishes to maintain social order by enacting reforms and giving welfare concessions to workers. In this sense, SYRIZA are indeed left-wing on the capitalist political spectrum.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

13th April 2014, 18:52

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 19:05

Whilst I wouldn't go as far as to label bourgeois politics 'conspirational', nor would I say that SYRIZA are some sort of evil baby-eating agency, it would be fair to say that SYRIZA represents a force that wishes to maintain social order by enacting reforms and giving welfare concessions to workers. In this sense, SYRIZA are indeed left-wing on the capitalist political spectrum.

The problem with users here, is that they assume the platform the party pursues represents an ideological ends, some kind of magical solution or remedy to all the problems in the world. Essentially, you are making it as though Syriza, as opposed to a pragmatic party engaging in active struggle in which in correlation with their successes and failures could turn into something much more radical, is a party with a static ends, a party whose political platform directly reflects their ideological nature in the wider context of world capitalism. But nothing is farther from the case. If we were to measure parties in such a way, than the Bolsheviks, with their modest demands before the first world war, can be categorized as initially not a revolutionary force. Revolutionary struggle is not a policy, it is an active struggle that exists directly in correlation with developments in bourgeois offensives, changes in capital, politics and so on. It is an active war with offenses and defenses. The Bolsheviks were only able to call for revolution when the situation was in their favor, when they actually were relevant enough, when they actually had the basis built to do so.

All forces of class struggle "maintain the existing order" if maintaining the existing order means policy based struggle. What you fail to understand is that this is NOT an ends, it is simply a field of struggle by which the real ends is proletarian dictatorship. If consciousness is not developed enough, that does not mean the struggle is non-existent, it does not mean that they actually represent a force of class struggle. What are Syriza's reforms? Raising the minimum wage, strengthening social services, and so on. Essentially, the opening up of breathing space for the proletariat to develop consciousness. Any idiot sees that class consciousness develops best in times where the proletariat has the upper hand in struggle. All politics reflects the field of class struggle, it is not some kind of utilitarian game as we would have believed from the 1990's onwards. How do I explain this in a proficient manner? I don't know if you're getting the gist of what I'm saying, but I hope you can. Even if they are attempting to maintain the social order (doubtful, look at the parties by which they are composed of!) they are in the process undermining it. They are opening the field for class struggle, raising questions which before had not been raised. Just look at the stir they've caused just through these modest practical demands alone.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 19:12

This mentality that engaging in political struggle is poisonous and pervasively reformist is what led to the cult-like nature of several communist organizations, with their completely insignificant, isolated communities in which they could only ever appeal to their own members. They're more comparable to petite-bourgeois communities in the American rural south, with their rejection of modern developments and their desire to preserve themselves. What do I mean by this? The "radical" left today rejects the modern developments in the world, but opposes them in a way that does not make them integrally a part of the modern world. In that sense, they are wholly reactionary. The embryo of Communism only exists within capitalism, we are the RESULT of contradictions within capitalism, not some external, opposing force. No wonder their are similarities between Fascists today and some Leftists (with regard to anti-imperialism, with regard to "decadence", and so on), no wonder there is this subconscious solidarity between local, grassroots religious establishments and some leftists (like party meetings taking place in churches). They are all reactionaries who refuse to find a place within the world as it exists today. They find common ground. These leftists believe that engaging in politics makes them integrally a part of the harmonic order of bourgeois dictatorship. The mistake these self proclaimed Marxists make is that they assume a natural harmonic order is even possible, in a world and system ripe with contradictions.

Thirsty Crow

13th April 2014, 19:29

The problem with users here, is that they assume the platform the party pursues represents an ideological ends, some kind of magical solution or remedy to all the problems in the world.
You pulled that out of your arse, didn't you?

The platform, or the programme is a significant element that indicates what kind of a political organization we are dealing with currently; the thing with SYRIZA, as you acknowledge, is that it represents a pro-capitalist political organization judging by its platform. This is clear.

Another thing to note is the political dynamic inside an organization; now, can you really tell me with a straight face that you believe that the revolutionary tendency inside SYRIZA is a) currently capable, and actually doing it, of pushing the organization in a revolutionary direction, or at least b) that it is in a favorable position to build up its forces so that it may be in such a position in the future?

I'm sceptical to say the least, and you simply need to stop resorting to vague arguments and focus on proving your point.

All forces of class struggle "maintain the existing order" if maintaining the existing order means policy based struggle. What you fail to understand is that this is NOT an ends, it is simply a field of struggle by which the real ends is proletarian dictatorship.I'm sorry to say so, but behind the vague phraseology and banalities there's this gem right here; the real end is the end proletarians set themselves actively; it is manifestly the case that it is simply not true that the real end is the dictatorship of the proletariat for SYRIZA. Radicals need to bear that in mind, along with the concrete balance of forces inside the organization, so that any meaningful relationship to SYRIZA might be achieved. And by meaningful I'm not talking about either forms of tailism, entryism, or any such project of trying to steer the organization in a revolutionary direction, from without or from within (obviously this refers to the potential for entryism). These attempts would necessarily be based on a suppression of the defense of revolutionary positions and critique; do you really think this represents a way forward?

They are opening the field for class struggle, raising questions which before had not been raised. Just look at the stir they've caused just through these modest practical demands alone.You got your chronology wrong. The field for class struggle was opened way before SYRIZA started achieving both influence in the workers' movement and electoral success. They're not opening anything, but merely modifying it in a particular way.

This mentality that engaging in political struggle is poisonous and pervasively reformist is what led to the cult-like nature of several communist organizations, with their completely insignificant, isolated communities in which they could only ever appeal to their own members.
Again with pulling stuff out of your arse.
Newsflash, I know you hold yourself in high esteem, but you know jack shit about any mentality of mine.

It is precisely not the case that argued anything here on the basis of an anti-political stance; for fuck's sake, the gist of my argument wasn't even that SYRIZA's is an electoral platform; I never even mentioned it. The crux of the issue here is the relationship of communists to SYRIZA, not any phantom of anti-politics.

So, do yourself a favor, and for once get off your high horse and start reading what folks actually wrote. That is, if you're even interested in a debate proper.

Their policy programs are opposed to the current "proper" norms of a Capitalist society laid out by the EU, which is why Merkel and the others don't want them to win.
Exactly. Precisely this is the reason why parties like SYRIZA can be reasonably called the left reserve of capital: they represent both a political and economic alternative models of a possible reorganization of capital.

FSL

13th April 2014, 19:38

You make it as though it is such an outlandish claim that Syriza's organizational composite as well as their political strategy is something unique. The foundations I speak of are not empirically verifiable like a mathematic equation, but something that should be obvious in a comprehensive understanding of the world historical context from which they have arisen. Syriza's tactical and pragmatic platform against the immediate interests of capital
Someone trying to be so verbose, usually has few things to say.

Syriza isn't against the "immediate" interests of capital. It's in favour of the immediate interests of sections of capital. The industrialist's union often arranges meetings with Tsipras and its head has supported the notions that "Greece has become Europe's lab rats" and that "Growth should replace austerity".
Syriza is promoting the immediate interests of that section of capital that would gain from government spending, much like Obama or a number of other bourgeois leaders, center-left and center-right, have done elsewhere.

If some of the greek bonds Germany owns are not repayed, Germany will lose and this "gain" will go straight into the pockets of the domestic "healthy enterpreneurs" Syriza speaks for. It's of little concern to the workers which shark is the most well fed, don't you think?
Of course the current government would also like that but they aren't going to push the greek bourgeoisie's relationship with Germany to the brink and neither will Syriza's majority, so real differences are basically non-existent.

Even the most radical wing of Syriza which "wouldn't mind" breaking those ties, wouldn't do so out of love for the working class but because it's shamelessly pro-Russian (again promoting the immediate interests of that section of greek capital that is in business with Russia) and wants to establish relationships with that country.

If you can't understand that differing views and colliding interests can appear among capitalists, then I'm not sure just how "comprehensive" is your understanding of the world.

#FF0000

13th April 2014, 19:40

hey guys remember when the kke literally defended parliament from mobs of proles and anarchists

Thirsty Crow

13th April 2014, 19:45

Oh yes, and this gem:

The foundations I speak of are not empirically verifiable like a mathematic equation, but something that should be obvious in a comprehensive understanding of the world historical context from which they have arisen.

I'm not so sure you have a good grip on what constitutes empirical verifiability, but sure as hell equations in mathematics aren't empirically verifiable. Guess that the entire talk on something that either is or isn't empirically verifiable coming from you is really suspect then.

But to go on, and for a minute accept this falsehood, you know what else isn't empirically verifiable? The belief in a deity. How about that then, to serve as some kind of a foundation in revolutionary criticism (which is not that far off base I'd say given the fact that you're harping on the need for revolutionary mythology lately).

And finally, what this really comes down to is, as FSL stated, a verbose cover up of a basic fact that in all probability you don't know much about the concrete dynamic of factions and tendencies within SYRIZA; but still you're more than content with rather sweeping claims. That's a new low for esteemed Marxists scientists. And politically dangerous.

EDIT: But seriously, this right here is some outlandish shit. Hiding behind a proclaimed "comprehensive understanding of the world" - and how is that going to proceed if not through empirically verifiable theses - so that a proclamation on foundations might be said not to be empirically verifiable but still no need for any of that, right? Fuck me.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th April 2014, 19:46

hey guys remember when the kke literally defended parliament from mobs of proles and anarchists

Remember also when people on here defended it and one ideological leading light on here supported the handing over of anarchists to the pigs

FSL

13th April 2014, 19:52

Many Leftist parties have reformist and revolutionary elements, yet these parties are declared "essentially" reformist or "essentially" revolutionary as if the other part of the party doesn't count. Why is this? Why is SYRIZA a "left reserve force of Capitalism" and not the KKE (which for that matter was in a coalition gov with PASOK at one point!)? Both these parties are "flawed" if we hold their ideology to a purified standard of what it takes to be revolutionary.

The Spartacists came out of the SDP in Germany, and no political party in the world is monolithic. This is especially true in SYRIZA which is a coalition of Leftist parties ranging from more moderate to more radical ones. Their election victory would be disruptive to the Capital-State relations mandated by the EU as would a KKE victory (the latter is not likely however), even if they wouldn't be able to overturn those relations. Their policy programs are opposed to the current "proper" norms of a Capitalist society laid out by the EU, which is why Merkel and the others don't want them to win.
Republicans didn't want Obama to win but he surely didn't disrupt the state's functions. There are no "proper norms" as you define them. The QE we saw in the US or in Japan was considered to be amazingly progressive and even people from Antarsya praised Shinzo Abe (!) for his opposition to "neoliberal orthodoxy".
And in the past weeks we've heard that if Germany's economy doesn't show some serious growth, the ECB will also move forward with non-standard measures. What does that mean? That Merkel is now against neoliberal orthodoxy and that we should support her?

The proper form of managing capitalism is not just what the republicans and Paul Ryan suggest now in the US or Merkel and the german christian-democrats propose in Europe.
What Obama did, what Shinzo Abe did, what the government of Brazil does or what Syriza and the party of european left suggest, all these policies also make up proper forms of managing capitalism. The only thing that changes is how the pie is shared among capitalists.

Parties are essentially reformist or essentially socialist much like economies are essentially capitalist or socialist. And syriza is essentially a full-blown bourgeois party that ends up looking funny with its pitiful efforts to manipulate the movement. If you want to claim otherwise, do so with some evidence. Use their programme, their actions, their political acquaintances and vocabulary.

FSL

13th April 2014, 19:57

hey guys remember when the kke literally defended parliament from mobs of proles and anarchists

When workers defended themselves against fascists and anarchist voters of Syriza, (you know, like that Phoenix Ash guy).

How were they any danger to the parliament or what the special importance of said building is, only other anarchists and fascists that have read Goebells' playbook would know.

#FF0000

13th April 2014, 19:58

workers are only workers if they're represented by the union of my eurocommunist social democrat party guys

FSL

13th April 2014, 20:01

FSL

13th April 2014, 20:02

workers are only workers if they're represented by the union of my eurocommunist social democrat party guys

The eurocommunist social democrat party in greece is Syriza, if they are that much, so congratulations on another meaningless comment.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 20:17

Links, I don't feel inclined to, with any serious consideration respond to your posts because they rely on the false premise that I was responding completely to you. I wasn't attempting to describe your positions and views - which I have held in relative high regard, but something I find common among Leftists. While I recognize a general misuse of terms (as you said, empirically verifiable, it was a stupid way of trying to get my point across, yeah), I don't think that at all takes away from the actual content, or substance of my point. I don't have the inclination to play stupid semantics games, I also stress the need to read my posts carefully instead of carelessly throwing around accusations of trying to be "verbose". Links, do you think these posts are well-crafted? I simply respond as I would if I were talking in person. I don't find any need to be verbose at all.

Essentially, what I was trying ot say to FSL is of course if you take the platform pursued by Syriza, and see this as some kind of static proclamation of what the party constitutes as - Well, let me rephrase that, if you see them as utilitarian solutions, rather than tactical measures, of course they are the "left wing of capital". But if you understand them within the context of the existing political climate in Europe, what the Left actually constitutes as today, what forms class struggle take today, it is clear that it is not so simple.

Links, with such hostility towards me, you should honestly be ashamed of yourself, you serve only to discredit yourself and utilize arguments not deployed for a better understanding of the topic at hand, but for the sake of defending yourself or "winning" an argument. Empiricism by itself is complete and total garbage, my point wasn't that facts don't need to be verified scientifically, but that I'm not going to be able to go out and find things espoused by members of Syriza, or tiny little tidbits of information which are going to be a total and complete source of support for my argument. I mean there's a reason why empiricists say Marxism is unfalsifiable and not empirically verifiable, it is because they (empiricists) rely on notions with regard to science which are ideological and incomplete. Truth only exists as a component of the whole, they don't exist in their own abstract vacuums. That's hardly comparable to declaring that there is a deity, which is not only wrong because it is unfalsifiable and not verifiable (as empiricists would have us think) but because there are underlying psychological, social (etc.) foundations which lead one to believe that there is a deity, that deities are a clear manifestation of human consciousness. Things can be deduced logically based on verifiable and apparent modes of understanding, and a deity's existence, unlike Syriza's uniqueness, cannot be.

You've made a damned clown of yourself, the lot of you. This is precisely why I kept stressing that I'm not confident you will understand what I'm trying to say, but you have managed to surprise even me with all the dribble you've run wild with, all the nonsense you've deduced. There's a reason why my posts are vague, Links, it's not because I don't have the bulk to back it up, it's because I feel no reason to divulge into things which I would expect any good Marxist should already know. Some users have been able to adequately interpret my posts, others, you among them, have failed. I simply lack the initiative, and the care to impress others or gain legitimacy in the eyes of users here. If you don't know how to understand my posts, that's your problem.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 20:29

When I say comprehensive understanding of the world, I mean an understanding of conditions as a whole, in a larger context. I am not attempting to say that things do not need to be empirically verified, merely that this is not enough, an understanding of (X) relationship to the grander scheme of things is necessary as well. Links you need to shut the fuck up, sit down and reassess everything I have said, and then look back on your response. You have no right to be so aggressive and adamant when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not going to be able to dig up something about Syriza which is going to magically back up everything which I have said, but let me make this much clear:

It is very much possible to give you multiple different examples, to pinpoint everything I have said, based on my understanding Syriza, and give a comprehensive understanding of them and why I have formed the conclusions that I do. I mean, if I'm confident about anything, It's that. But here, within this discussion, no, I'm not going to be able to link any one thing that's going to shatter all of your arguments. The point is, Links, I'm telling you all to go do that for yourselves, understand what I have said and re-approach the situation in Greece and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't have the initiative to prove myself to any of you, I don't look to you for approval and I am confident enough. Can I prove it to you, that I know? No, but like I said, re-approach everything and take what I have said into account and you will know. It's why science without philosophy is impossible. I mean jesus fucking christ, imagine how tiresome that would be, imagine the hours I would have to pour in. Why? I give fuck all about you, I already know myself, and all of this information is accessible to everyone to find out for themselves.

ArisVelouxiotis

13th April 2014, 20:30

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 20:34

And for the record, I didn't mean mathematic equations in themselves, I meant something like a mathematic model that would verify something that has been realized through testing, experiments, whatever. The point is, something as simple and convenient as a mathematic model to demonstrate the validity of what I say does not exist, and cannot exist when one speaks of human social relations as a whole. Empiricism will never alone be capable of understanding this because it itself is a part of the illusion which forms reality. I mean what a dishonest piece of shit you are, attempting to levy arguments against me from something like this and then create this snowball effect of complete and utter frozen piss.

No, no, It's completely my fault for not explaining myself, but still, for you to be so quick to assume, what a clown you are.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 20:36

So you admit of making vague posts on purpose?

They're vague, only if you rely on my posts, and my posts alone (rather than a pre-existing understanding of several things, which I assume you to already have) in an interpretation of their content. I expect everyone to take into account whole truths, things which I do not directly mention, when understanding my posts.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 20:39

Perhaps then, there is a clear disconnect between theory and ideology for users. They do not find legitimacy in Communism, but in bourgeois ideology. I've spoken of this before, they may be theoretically adept, but in the end, they recognize the absolute truth of hegemonic ideology alone, as reflected when the fires start actually raging, when the trumpet of war is actually sounded. During the October revolution, so many Socialists, Marxists were quick to condemn it for precisely that reason.

ArisVelouxiotis

13th April 2014, 20:41

They're vague, only if you rely on my posts, and my posts alone (rather than a pre-existing understanding of several things, which I assume you to already have) in an interpretation of their content. I expect everyone to take into account whole truths, things which I do not directly mention, when understanding my posts.

No you didn't say that or imply that in your post.You litterally said you make vague posts.Or I am just too stupid to see(it's a possibility).

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 20:45

Exact phrase

There's a reason why my posts are vague

I mean it's clear that I meant that there's a reason why my posts are (known to be) vague. I mean this is precisely the pinnacle of irony, no? I shouldn't have to engage in all of this semantic bullshit, it's clearly possible to understand what I'm trying to say.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 20:46

ArisVelouxiotis

13th April 2014, 20:49

I might not have directly said that, but you can logically deduce that is what I meant, of course I was not trying to say they were intentionally made to be vague. That's perfectly analogous to the point I've been trying to make about empiricism.

Thanks for clearing that up.But there is difference when you say there is a reason my posts are vague and not there is a reason why you see them as vague which I assume is what you meant.

Die Neue Zeit

13th April 2014, 20:51

And they're not alone, with other parties like Die Linke attempting to pursue revivalist alternatives to today's left.

Although I've been pre-occupied for a couple of years to focus on Germany, comrade, has Die Linke indeed made attempts to organize outside the electoral box? :ohmy:

Die Neue Zeit

13th April 2014, 21:03

Here are the key comradely points to take away from comrade Rafiq's engagement with the sectarian KKE polemic:

Syriza's tactical and pragmatic platform against the immediate interests of capital as well as their integration of everyday struggles with a wider political program, the establishment of an alternative culture lay the basis for radical leftist politics in today's world. Essentially, what makes Syriza unique in contrast with other left organizations, is the fact that their political prerogative, or the essence of the party encompasses all areas of life (economic, political, and so on) in a fashion that is relevant, or ideologically adequate in modern times.

All forces of class struggle "maintain the existing order" if maintaining the existing order means policy based struggle. What you fail to understand is that this is NOT an ends, it is simply a field of struggle by which the real ends is proletarian dictatorship.

This mentality that engaging in political struggle is poisonous and pervasively reformist is what led to the cult-like nature of several communist organizations, with their completely insignificant, isolated communities in which they could only ever appeal to their own members.

Thirsty Crow

13th April 2014, 21:04

Links, do you think these posts are well-crafted?I think the substance, your argument is terribly confused and vague. That's the problem.

Links, with such hostility towards me, you should honestly be ashamed of yourself, you serve only to discredit yourself and utilize arguments not deployed for a better understanding of the topic at hand, but for the sake of defending yourself or "winning" an argument.
Somehow I don't see that shame ever happening. Perhaps if I abused you personally, but that was not the case.

The hostility is warranted by what I see as both theoretical and political confusion. That cannot be considered productive, such confusion that is. And I don't think that fancy speaking in gloves is what is necessary among communists. That may suit a bourgeois salon though.

Another point is that it is not the case at all that I see a personal, psychological and emotional gain in feeling like I won anything here. That's not the point to debate, at least not for me; on the other hand, I do believe that you do manifest such a streak yourself.

But to return to the before mentioned confusion and vagueness of your argument, this is indicative:

There's a reason why my posts are vague, Links, it's not because I don't have the bulk to back it up, it's because I feel no reason to divulge into things which I would expect any good Marxist should already know.Now, tell me what does that say about your motives for debating anything really?

And just to reiterate what is clear here, you don't want to provide information which just might be useful to someone else here because you've got your moral standard about what a Marxist ought to actually know. And good grief are you going to punish them Marxists who don't know what they obviously need to - by not divulging evidence, information, or clear argument.

Now, do you think this is a mature way to go about things? Or is this rather childish?

That's to provide you benefit of doubt. I actually don't think you do know much about what you're talking about - in this specific case this relates to the alleged foundations manifest in SYRIZA.

So, that's it for that meta-debate stuff.

The theoretical confusion I speak of refers to the apparent way you misunderstand what constitutes empirical verifiability, evident in what you wrote about equations; the larger problem here is the fact that you invoked a comprehensive understanding of the world as though SYRIZA and its relationship to first the Greek working class and then to the global working class is somehow not part of that world; this I gather from your facile rejection of concrete questions about SYRIZA as not being amenable to empirical verification.

The thing is, this is an epistemological disaster in waiting. Any analytical assessment of a political organization and class forces must have as its norm that same empirical verifiability; apart from that, we're left with a wide playing field for wild speculation. That's the territory of the postmodern anything-goes. Of course that the rigorous insistence on procedures of verification and falsification as practiced most of all in physical sciences can't be copied here; but that is besides the point.

And I'm afraid that such hand waiving of an important feature of communist criticism is not as you make it sound, a mere semantic argument or a clumsy way of getting your point across. To quote you once again:

The foundations I speak of are not empirically verifiable like a mathematic equation, but something that should be obvious in a comprehensive understanding of the world historical context from which they have arisen. Here you're doing basically two things:

1) ditching the notion that any such foundations can be empirically verifiable - effectively meaning that your idea is a mere phantom of the brain without any correlate in actual reality, but you're doing this so that you may defend

2) the vague notion that a "world historical context" is somehow enough to actually acknowledge the existence of any such foundation; but no context will tell you about the programme of SYRIZA or of the political dynamic of factions inside the organization if you do not bother to observe that easily verifiable stuff.

Why do I insist on dealing with the political dynamic of the organization? Precisely because I've no intention whatsoever to observe the programme as essentially unchangeable and static, which you accuse me of doing. But I'm doing no such thing; I take it from what I know about the org and its activity that communists need to be very, very sceptical of potentials for pushing the SYRIZA majority in a revolutionary direction.

Why do I mention pushing the majority in a revolutionary direction? Because any talk of SYRIZA as a foundation of really anything, while acknowledging the reality of the org's pro-capitalist programme, implies a specific relationship on behalf of communists to SYRIZA. That can take many forms, and some of them can be described as tailism and entryism. I believe that the common thread to all of these forms is that a revolutionary critique would need to be silenced and the door for opportunism left wide open.

That doesn't mean I think it is futile to engage their members in discussion; just that this cannot be based on such an underlying position.

But in your last post you changed your mind, and argued as follows:

Essentially, what I was trying ot say to FSL is of course if you take the platform pursued by Syriza, and see this as some kind of static proclamation of what the party constitutes as - Well, let me rephrase that, if you see them as utilitarian solutions, rather than tactical measures, of course they are the "left wing of capital". But if you understand them within the context of the existing political climate in Europe, what the Left actually constitutes as today, what forms class struggle take today, it is clear that it is not so simple.

Now, don't get me wrong, but the conclusion that the situation is not that simple is banal. No one argued any such thing here; however, no one is actually saying that the actions of the left wing of capital are always detrimental to class struggle. The point is different: to call a spade a spade, since that's probably the first step in achieving political clarity which can serve as the basis for developing an organization of communists.

That is, if you do not take the platform and the programme as tactical measures in the sense that somehow the whole of SYRIZA is playing a double game - posing as reformists while they're actually, in a covert way, revolutionaries. Do you honestly believe all of the highlighted actions and characteristics of SYRIZA are a clever, devious ploy?

Well, that would surely reduce politics to a very, very strange kind of conspiratorialism. Anyway, I can see no merit to such a view.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 21:06

Although I've been pre-occupied for a couple of years to focus on Germany, comrade, has Die Linke indeed made attempts to organize outside the electoral box? :ohmy:

No, their model is not completely sufficient, but the point is that they are, despite their limited strategy, attempting to revive the Left in a way that is relevant.

Rafiq

13th April 2014, 21:09

Links literally everything you have said was addressed by my posts directly. And I mean directly. They're there, everyone can see them, I'll let everyone form their own conclusions.

Thirsty Crow

13th April 2014, 22:20

Links literally everything you have said was addressed by my posts directly. And I mean directly. They're there, everyone can see them, I'll let everyone form their own conclusions.
This is getting absurd.

Your response is as follows:

When I say comprehensive understanding of the world, I mean an understanding of conditions as a whole, in a larger context. I am not attempting to say that things do not need to be empirically verified, merely that this is not enough, an understanding of (X) relationship to the grander scheme of things is necessary as well.Should I remind you what you wrote prior to this?

The foundations I speak of are not empirically verifiable like a mathematic equation, but something that should be obvious in a comprehensive understanding of the world historical context from which they have arisen. Now, it might be that you're really bad with words. But here we've got a very straightforward statement that these foundations aren't empirically verifiable - and then you liken it to something that isn't empirically verifiable on its own - so tell me how am I supposed to make sense out of all your confusion? Do I need to read minds or assume what you think?

No. I'll go by what you wrote and will not engage in guessing games. If you have a problem with that, learn to express yourself in a better way.

And it's a simple fact that you're consistently misusing terms which can't lead anyone to believe anything but that you don't know how they're used:

And for the record, I didn't mean mathematic equations in themselves, I meant something like a mathematic model that would verify something that has been realized through testing, experiments, whatever.It might seem like a semantic argument; but this actually means that at the very least are really confused about how that verification works. As mathematical models don't verify anything; on the other hand, it is observation and experiment that do.

The purpose to this particular quote is to show that you're not making it easy for folks to comprehend you. You admit that yourself.

And in relation to this:

Empiricism will never alone be capable of understanding this because it itself is a part of the illusion which forms reality.You want to tell me that you expect anyone to get this easily? Okay I can try Empiricism is part of the illusion which forms reality.

Illusion forms reality. That means probably that ideological mystification is a part of social life - if I had to guess.

So then I'd need to ask, what the fuck has this got to do with what I asked for? Do you even know what empiricism is? A foundational approach in philosophy, with its rival called rationalism; contrast this with a modest request of some sort of backing up of a vague argument.

I've no intention of adopting the kind of a position you do; that's why I'm going to direct you to Guy Robinson's Philosophy and Mystification (it's available for download at library genesis) which quite neatly deals with both empiricism and rationalism.

Now, do you want to argue that any request for verification falls under the category of ideological mystification? I don't think you do, but can't be sure since you've managed to encompass what I argued under a completely inappropriate framework of empiricism.

There's a reason why my posts are vague, Links, it's not because I don't have the bulk to back it up, it's because I feel no reason to divulge into things which I would expect any good Marxist should already know.
How about that. Posturing as if deliberately withholding information.

The problem is that your wording makes it hard to guess what you might be referring to. It's not so productive to assume that we're all here a cabal of masters who can communicate in codewords. That's not how communication really works.

Links you need to shut the fuck up, sit down and reassess everything I have said, and then look back on your response. You have no right to be so aggressive and adamant when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not going to be able to dig up something about Syriza which is going to magically back up everything which I have said, but let me make this much clear: Oh I would love to make a pun on a hardcore communist crying about someone not having right to do something. The irony is almost palpable.

But no, I don't need to do any such thing. Unfortunately, all I've got is your discourse which is what it is. But that should be enough.

In relation to this:

It is very much possible to give you multiple different examples, to pinpoint everything I have said, based on my understanding Syriza, and give a comprehensive understanding of them and why I have formed the conclusions that I do. I mean, if I'm confident about anything, It's that. But here, within this discussion, no, I'm not going to be able to link any one thing that's going to shatter all of your arguments. The point is, Links, I'm telling you all to go do that for yourselves, understand what I have said and re-approach the situation in Greece and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.I gotta ask, what's the purpose of making vague arguments here, then?

The real irony is that under the torrent of prose your point is rather simple, and it's not that I dispute it per se, but merely that I think the recognition of SYRIZA as the left wing of capital is necessary for the clarity of communists' positions.

I assume the point you're trying to make - though I'm not at all sure - is that there are at least some positive effects of the activity of SYRIZA on the working class and its struggle in Greece. That on its own is hardly contradictory to a clear recognition of the character of the coalition; the point about the communist criticism of reformism is not to erase any considerations of real effects and influence, and bury it under the rug of revolutionary sounding phrases.

But can you understand how vague talk of foundations muddies the waters here and makes it rather unclear of just which foundations, foundations for what and achieved how are we talking about?

Yeah, looking back at how I started this debate, that was a mistake:

Different as in "I'm going to pretend that no clear signs of utter reformism exist in relation to that party". It's pitiful, really, especially when the notion of a leftist reserve force for capital is equated with the ruling party in France. It probably set the whole tone. Sorry for that.

On the other hand, I'm completely convinced that the political assessment of SP in France and New Labor is off the mark completely; the former in government hasn't even represented a meek opposition to the dominant political line in Europe, and not at home for that matter. It's nonsensical to claim that the ruling party who pushed through the change to the Labor Code that did in fact happen under Hollande in 2013 is anything like a left reserve force for capital.

Two more things and that's it.

I don't have the initiative to prove myself to any of youYes, you do. Since there's that awkward stuff called the burden of proof - not that anyone should realistically expect essays from you, but arguments, clear arguments. After all, you wouldn't want to be likened to a believer writing about God but then reneging on that same claim when refusing to provide argument - since they are the one bringing forth a statement.

And finally, you really now better I hope than insinuate any attachment to bourgeois ideology:

Perhaps then, there is a clear disconnect between theory and ideology for users. They do not find legitimacy in Communism, but in bourgeois ideology. I've spoken of this before, they may be theoretically adept, but in the end, they recognize the absolute truth of hegemonic ideology alone, as reflected when the fires start actually raging, when the trumpet of war is actually sounded. During the October revolution, so many Socialists, Marxists were quick to condemn it for precisely that reason. Now, sure, this isn't really addressed to anyone in particular, so I'm not going to assume this is directed, among other users, at me although I wouldn't be wrong in suspecting that this might be the case after all.

So, who is it here with that nasty disconnect? Who doesn't find legitimacy in communism, but in bourgeois ideology?

FSL

13th April 2014, 23:19

Essentially, what I was trying ot say to FSL is of course if you take the platform pursued by Syriza, and see this as some kind of static proclamation of what the party constitutes as - Well, let me rephrase that, if you see them as utilitarian solutions, rather than tactical measures, of course they are the "left wing of capital". But if you understand them within the context of the existing political climate in Europe, what the Left actually constitutes as today, what forms class struggle take today, it is clear that it is not so simple.
How does the existing political climate in Europe justify picking sides between the german and the greek state? Why is it important to the workers whether it's the german or the greek capitalist that gets more subsidies and tax cuts?

Even if it was the greek capitalist that got all that money in his pocket, say, if Germany cancelled our debt and the government of Syriza could then help the healthy enterpreneurs as much as it would like, what difference would that make? Would the greek capitalist go back to paying uncompetitive wages or would he accept inflexible labor legislation?

Because what I think he would do is try to keep all those reforms in place and at the same time take all the subsidies that can fit in his pocket.
What part isn't simple cause I'm certainly not seeing it.

FSL

13th April 2014, 23:22

They're vague, only if you rely on my posts, and my posts alone (rather than a pre-existing understanding of several things, which I assume you to already have) in an interpretation of their content. I expect everyone to take into account whole truths, things which I do not directly mention, when understanding my posts.

The whole truths that someone can take into account completely contradict everything you say and since you aren't willing to bring up even one of the countless examples and facts you have at your disposal, I don't think anyone is going to be changing their mind.

Dagoth Ur

13th April 2014, 23:42

I don't see how the KKE is wrong. Syriza helped the liberals and Golden Dawn form a government by setting themselves up separately from the KKE.

Geiseric

14th April 2014, 00:01

Thirsty Crow

14th April 2014, 00:12

Gotta say, this peculiar idea of PS in France representing anything like left alternative bugs me. Incidentally, I've been reading an article over at CPGB site about the municipal elections, and something caught my eye:

The French working class is entitled to feel disappointed, and disillusioned, with Hollande. His winning platform was based on promises to hire more staff to boost France’s state education system, reduce the retirement age from 62 to 60 for people who have completed a minimum 41 years of work, create subsidised jobs in areas of high unemployment for the young, give foreigners/immigrants the right to vote in local elections, promote more industry in France by creating a public investment bank, separate retail banking from the far riskier ‘casino’ investment banking, cap tax loopholes at a maximum of €10,000 per year and so on. None of which has happened yet. Quite the opposite. Youth unemployment, to take one example, shot up to 27% at one stage - and still remains at 25.4% - and Hollande is sticking to Nicolas Sarkozy’s hated, and failed, austerity policies

Which, taken in conjunction to the mentioned Labor Code change in 2013 (anti-worker based; basically codifying the drive to flexibilization), should tell us something.

Delenda Carthago

14th April 2014, 13:54

hey guys remember when the kke literally defended parliament from mobs of proles and anarchists
Sure I do. I was there. That day I stopped being an anarchist after 8 years active in the milieu, feeling ashamed for every (A) I ever spray painted in my life. It was the most fascist thing I had ever seen in my life.

Epictetus

14th April 2014, 15:00

Anyone claiming that SYRIZA is revolutionary in any shape or form are deluding themselves. Their political platform is pro-bourgeoisie; they want to stay in the European Union as if they don't understand that by doing so they are essentially supporting liberal capitalist policies that aim to exploit the people. The factions within SYRIZA are being consolidated into a new party organization that aims to eradicate and sort of radicalism (if there ever was one).

ArisVelouxiotis

14th April 2014, 16:18

Sure I do. I was there. That day I stopped being an anarchist after 8 years active in the milieu, feeling ashamed for every (A) I ever spray painted in my life. It was the most fascist thing I had ever seen in my life.

Care to explain to everyone here why attacking the bourgeois parliament was the most fascist thing you had ever seen in your life?

Delenda Carthago

14th April 2014, 17:15

Care to explain to everyone here why attacking the bourgeois parliament was the most fascist thing you had ever seen in your life?
No, because I have done this conversation a billion times in here. Whoever still chooses to believe that what happened that day was an actual attempt to raid the parliament and not a thugish attack from luben and petit bourgeois elements to the organised workers movement of the country, is a fascist beyond saving. At least way beyond my care to still try to convince him. I made my choices. Bye bye luben anarchist scum, hello class movement.

Now, everyone is where they feel comfortable...

PS. at the strike of 4th of the month, the roles had switched, and all the opportunists (SYRIZA-ANTARSYA-anarchists) were in front of the PAME in Syntagma sq. Just imagine if PAME started to throw dynamites and molotovs to them in order to come to the front line, what you crypto-fascists would have said.

PS2. Since you are a greek, I dont have to transalte again this...
ON-BoxVZ4-U

If you dare, explain to your fellow forumists that share your views on the incident what does the video shows.

ArisVelouxiotis

14th April 2014, 17:47

No, because I have done this conversation a billion times in here. Whoever still chooses to believe that what happened that day was an actual attempt to raid the parliament and not a thugish attack from luben and petit bourgeois elements to the organised workers movement of the country, is a fascist beyond saving. At least way beyond my care to still try to convince him. I made my choices. Bye bye luben anarchist scum, hello class movement.

Now, everyone is where they feel comfortable...

PS. at the strike of 4th of the month, the roles had switched, and all the opportunists (SYRIZA-ANTARSYA-anarchists) were in front of the PAME in Syntagma sq. Just imagine if PAME started to throw dynamites and molotovs to them in order to come to the front line, what you crypto-fascists would have said.

PS2. Since you are a greek, I dont have to transalte again this...
ON-BoxVZ4-U

If you dare, explain to your fellow forumists that share your views on the incident what does the video shows.

First,calling everyone who isn't kke fascist or opportunist is sectarian and idiotic.
Second I won't defend the anarchists on the video for no reason but as I am sure you know kke does that to anarchists all the time.
Thirdly why would all of the "opportunists" as you say do that?(defend the parliament?)
I currently don't support syriza or antarsya or consider myself an anarchist even though I support them(seeing them the only revolutionary force in greece).But label me whatever you want.
You still haven't answered my question about why it was "the most fascist thing you ever did".Idc if you answered it one million times.I'm not going to search every thread to find the answer.

Delenda Carthago

14th April 2014, 17:52

I dont give a crap who you support or not. It doesnt matter. Translate what we see in the video.

ArisVelouxiotis

14th April 2014, 17:57

I dont give a crap who you support or not. It doesnt matter. Translate what we see in the video.

I see a racist dude attacking an innocent immigrant.
Now answer my question.

Delenda Carthago

14th April 2014, 17:59

I see a racist dude attacking an innocent immigrant.
Now answer my question.
Thats the second part of the video. Tell us what dude is doing on the first part of it.

ArisVelouxiotis

14th April 2014, 18:02

Thats the second part of the video. Tell us what dude is doing on the first part of it.

He is sitting there receiving first aid.From what the video says he was one of those who attacked PAME.Now explain to me why you think he is anarchist.Given that he is racist and islamophobic.

Delenda Carthago

14th April 2014, 18:13

He is sitting there receiving first aid.From what the video says he was one of those who attacked PAME.Now explain to me why you think he is anarchist.Given that he is racist and islamophobic.
I m not saying he is an anarchist. I am saying that when anarchists attacked PAME, there were fascist elements like him on their side. Because they both share the anticommunist menace and the hatred for the organised class struggle. So, its pretty safe to use the term "anarchofascists", isnt it?

ArisVelouxiotis

14th April 2014, 18:18

I m not saying he is an anarchist. I am saying that when anarchists attacked PAME, there were fascist elements like him on their side. Because they both share the anticommunist menace and the hatred for the organised class struggle. So, its pretty safe to use the term "anarchofascists", isnt it?

Have you not heard the term "asfalitis" again?The cops or gders provocators.Maybe he is posing as anarchist?Do you think the anarchist let him come with them intentionally?To say that anarchists ally with fascists is ridiculous because anarchists are the ones who are stabbed by fascists most of the time.

Dagoth Ur

14th April 2014, 18:34

That's rather irrelevant to a situational alliance.

Delenda Carthago

14th April 2014, 18:41

FSL

14th April 2014, 19:16

Have you not heard the term "asfalitis" again?The cops or gders provocators.Maybe he is posing as anarchist?Do you think the anarchist let him come with them intentionally?To say that anarchists ally with fascists is ridiculous because anarchists are the ones who are stabbed by fascists most of the time.

Most anarchists have the political education of a toddler because books are oppressive I guess. The best depiction of anarchists is made by Ernest Hemingway in "For whom the bell tolls". It was amazing to read a book about the spanish civil war and be able to recognize modern characters in it.

Now anarchists have no problem voting for Tsipras or any other center-left Messiah. Similarly they had no problem joining the flag-wavers in the squares (albeit at a distance) and praising the indignant movement for its spontaneity and its democratic principles. This is how anarchists started to hang out with fascists. Now of course everyone should understand that we're talking about 2011, before golden dawn's support increased.
This was just your garden-variety fascist hating immigrants, communists, unions and, as of 2010, Germans, for attempting to take away his tax evasion.

Anarchists and leftists like the ones you find in Syriza had no second thoughts about allying themselves to those people, claiming it was revolutionary to have as broad a front as possible.
And this broad front is what attacked PAME (and not the parliament of course).

Rafiq

15th April 2014, 03:02

This is getting absurd.

Your response is as follows:

Should I remind you what you wrote prior to this?

Now, it might be that you're really bad with words. But here we've got a very straightforward statement that these foundations aren't empirically verifiable - and then you liken it to something that isn't empirically verifiable on its own - so tell me how am I supposed to make sense out of all your confusion? Do I need to read minds or assume what you think?

No. I'll go by what you wrote and will not engage in guessing games. If you have a problem with that, learn to express yourself in a better way.

And it's a simple fact that you're consistently misusing terms which can't lead anyone to believe anything but that you don't know how they're used:

It might seem like a semantic argument; but this actually means that at the very least are really confused about how that verification works. As mathematical models don't verify anything; on the other hand, it is observation and experiment that do.

The purpose to this particular quote is to show that you're not making it easy for folks to comprehend you. You admit that yourself.

Although you have made it clear as to why you have responded in the way you did - and for which, I am deeply appreciative of the honesty, you have still failed to properly understand just what I was trying to say. And equally clear, is that this perhaps may be my fault, as other users have come across a similar problem.

However, firstly, I did not mean to say they are not empirically verifiable. What I said, was that they are not empirically verifiable like a mathematic equation. Of course perhaps without explanation these seems absurd, but I (perhaps wrongfully) assume users are capable of getting the gist of what I'm saying as a whole. Context is everything, links. I was trying to say, that any attempt to provide you with proof as to what I was saying, would be incredibly difficult because my statement was something I deduced based on a collection of experiences I have had with regard to reading, listening, hearing about, etc. Syriza. Meaning there most likely isn't any solid data that exists, or data that would confirm what I said precisely because what I said didn't require proof as such. But you didn't ask for proof, you asked for examples, or for me to elaborate as to why I think so. So looking back, I can take responsibility for over looking this.

Anyway, to be clear, what I should have said is that the potential for Syriza to become a legitimate party of the bourgeoisie or a proletarian party rests on a variety of different factors, among them, whether there are elements in the party with more of a radical ends than Tsipras, or whether it is possible for these elements to develop. Links, it would be foolish to disagree with the fact that Syriza can be distinguished from other left parties in their overall successful political strategies and tactics, for reasons I have already mentioned. And it would seem that you are overall in concurrence with this fact, and logically, that they are undeniably correlated with their overwhelming success in gaining support. What seems to be the disagreement here is whether the party is "a reserve force for capital" or not. All I had been trying to say, is that left to it's own devices, yes, it clearly would attempt to save capitalism from ruin in Europe. Things to keep in mind, however:

The collapse of capitalism through it's internal market contradictions in Europe benefits absolutely no one, would logically lead to barbarism, some kind of reactionary nightmare. Syriza most likely identifies itself as a party attempting to steer the future of Europe's direction away from the technocracy Merkel would establish, that is being established, and the neo-populist far right. Quite simply, this isn't a game of what new society (as in, what new mode of production) what party has to offer, and quite frankly it would be awfully dishonest of Syriza to have adopted the platform of attempting to bring about Communism or whatever, as the KKE has done. Marxism is not vulgarism, and in understanding these different political agents, we must bear in mind their own immediate prerogatives, that is, the actual goals espoused by them and what precisely they mean.

In a way, I doubt that Syriza's leadership pretends it is not a bourgeois party, but interestingly enough they don't identify as social democrats as they recognize what social democracy in Europe has become. I think it is not so strange to say that a revolutionary party that cannot address the immediate problems Europe is facing, would never amount to anything at all. That is, a party that does not take into account the political context of Europe that they are entering. However, with parties like Syriza opening new questions and perhaps potentially broadening the scope for more radical politics, this might very well be possible. Historically, when the proletariat is in a position of strategic advantage, when the proletariat is ceded it's immediate economic demands, through unionizing or something else (i.e. Syriza), the development of proletarian consciousness is a logical result. Syriza is thus not an ends, but a means, and has the potential to become something much bigger.

You want to tell me that you expect anyone to get this easily? Okay I can try Empiricism is part of the illusion which forms reality.

Illusion forms reality. That means probably that ideological mystification is a part of social life - if I had to guess.

So then I'd need to ask, what the fuck has this got to do with what I asked for? Do you even know what empiricism is? A foundational approach in philosophy, with its rival called rationalism; contrast this with a modest request of some sort of backing up of a vague argument.

Well, links, what I was talking about was empiricism, or Anglo-Saxon empiricism as opposed to the continental school. What I had been trying to say is that anglo-saxon empiricism is not simply the verification of ideas, indeed, nothing alone can do this. Ideology is a necessary component in conceptualizing the way in which ideas are verified, thus philosophy is necessary in understanding these (verified) ideas in relation to other things, rather than just casually or passively accepting ruling class ideology. And, it's important not to take this in a superficial way, ideology encompasses all areas of life, not just politics. Then again, you should already know that.

How about that. Posturing as if deliberately withholding information.

It's not as though I'm posturing or withholding information, but that I'm attempting to allow users to see Syriza in a different light. I find it relatively unnecessary too, since we both agree that they are not a revolutionary party. Just to be clear - do we disagree that as a party it is distinguishable, in their strategies and so on, from other Leftist parties in Europe?

Oh I would love to make a pun on a hardcore communist crying about someone not having right to do something. The irony is almost palpable.

But no, I don't need to do any such thing. Unfortunately, all I've got is your discourse which is what it is. But that should be enough.

Okay, well let me rephrase myself, then: Don't argue so aggressively when you yourself have admitted that you are unsure as to what exactly I am trying to say. While I can recognize this and work on making my posts more clear when they need to be, it comes off as incredibly foolish to argue with fire when there is no flammability.

The real irony is that under the torrent of prose your point is rather simple, and it's not that I dispute it per se, but merely that I think the recognition of SYRIZA as the left wing of capital is necessary for the clarity of communists' positions.

I assume the point you're trying to make - though I'm not at all sure - is that there are at least some positive effects of the activity of SYRIZA on the working class and its struggle in Greece. That on its own is hardly contradictory to a clear recognition of the character of the coalition; the point about the communist criticism of reformism is not to erase any considerations of real effects and influence, and bury it under the rug of revolutionary sounding phrases.

First, there is no prose being used here.

Secondly, while I can agree in a relative sense, I think that this kind of recognition is predisposed to obfuscate and dismiss the role Syriza is playing here, in broadening the scope for politics, and what it means for the European working class. I can confidently say that at this moment there is no room for a revolutionary party to just spontaneously gain legitimacy in the field of European politics. What I am concerned with is not so much Syriza itself, but the strategies being utilized - which are not necessarily bourgeois. It's quite difficult for Communists today to establish a political program that encompasses all areas of the political, but Syriza is doing precisely that. It might be at the moment a party that is left-wing of capital, but surely it doesn't have to remain that way.

But can you understand how vague talk of foundations muddies the waters here and makes it rather unclear of just which foundations, foundations for what and achieved how are we talking about?

The organizational foundations, as further recognized by DNZ. That's what I mean.

It probably set the whole tone. Sorry for that.

On the other hand, I'm completely convinced that the political assessment of SP in France and New Labor is off the mark completely; the former in government hasn't even represented a meek opposition to the dominant political line in Europe, and not at home for that matter. It's nonsensical to claim that the ruling party who pushed through the change to the Labor Code that did in fact happen under Hollande in 2013 is anything like a left reserve force for capital.

There's no need to apologize, as I am equally at faults here. Just to be clear, I don't wish to, despite our very defined disagreements, speak with such hostility.

This relies on what exactly a left reserve force for capital means, in a sense, there are elements within New Labor (as insignificant as they are) as well as Hollande's party which attempt to masquerade as being opposed to the current state of things, most especially in the former's case. But you're right, in action, they have proven themselves to be nothing more than neoliberal parties. I claim, however, that in the building of a new revolutionary political strategy, Syriza might be a stepping stone as the European working class is currently under constant attack and siege by the immediate forces of capital, or the forces of capital as they exist today (as opposed to what is alternatively possible for capitalism), and the slaying of this beast is a crucial step.

So, who is it here with that nasty disconnect? Who doesn't find legitimacy in communism, but in bourgeois ideology?

Users who are incredibly confused by my posts - as although ideological in nature, rely on Communist ideological presumptions, rather than defensive, elaborated and complex positions adopted within a world of bourgeois ideology, essentially, affirmative ideology (see Badiou's affirmative dialectics).