Alexis Tsipras' speech at the Die Linke Party Congress

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.european-left.org/positions/news-archive/alexis-tsipras-speech-die-linke-party-congress-berlin-germany



By Alexis Tsipras



Comrades and Friends,

We are only few days away from the most critical European elections in the history of the European Union. Because this time, we are not voting only to elect members of the Parliament. We are voting to shape the balance of political forces in a Europe, which is at a critical crossroads. We are voting to hold back catastrophic austerity and regain democracy. We are voting for our lives.

To tear down the «wall of money». To overcome the North-South division. A division that cancels the European idea and Europe itself.

The dilemma is now clear: Either with the Europe of the peoples or with the Europe of the bankers. Either with democracy and solidarity that unite Europe or with austerity that kills Europe. Either with the European Left or with Ms Merkel.

And the answer is only one: All together, let’s march ahead, with the European Left. With Die Linke and SYRIZA. Once again with the Left!

Comrades and Friends,

I bring to you the message of hope and change that I receive from every corner of Europe. The optimism and the anticipation of the ordinary citizen of Europe on the street. That the Left will be the pleasant surprise of the European elections.

We can, we must and we will be. Because now is the hour of the Left. Now is the hour of democracy. Now is the time for change! The other Europe is not only our motto. It is the demand of every citizen in Europe. Wherever he or she may reside. In North or South, East or West.

I bring to you the hope of every citizen. Whose patience is over. Who cannot withstand austerity any more. Who cannot tolerate fear any more. Who are ready to vote for dignity and the European Left at the European elections.

In the four corners of Europe. Citizens are optimistic that, at the polls, we will break through the wall of austerity built by its three musketeers:
the conservatives, the liberals, and the social-democrats.

Because in a few days we are not voting on the dosage of austerity. We are voting for its immediate termination. We are voting for a policy change.
For democracy, justice and growth. That's why we are voting Left.

And I am optimistic. We will break through the neoliberal consensus of the three. The European Left will be the third political force in the next European Parliament and will play a leading role in developments. It’s becoming clearer with every day that goes by.

That we will leave the past behind:
Mr Juncker, who has presided over all the Eurogroup meetings for the Memoranda and austerity. And who has grave political responsibility for the failure of the austerity programs.

But also, Mr. Schultz. Who assumed the Presidency of the European Parliament in half term, after a political deal between the conservatives and social-democrats. And, in the critical periods of the crisis, he has shown no difference in essence from his right-wing predecessor.

And, the «determined duo», as their own Chairman, Graham Watson, characterized the liberals Guy Verhofstadt and Olli Rehn. The symbol of harsh austerity in Europe, Mr Olli Rehn. Whom the Liberals are hiding behind Mr Verhofstadt in order to deceive people ahead of the elections. That's why every vote in favor of Juncker, Schultz and Verhofstadt is a willing yes to the continuation of austerity. And every vote that is lost by abstaining for any respectable reason is also an unexpected yes to austerity.

Those who are critical to the current Europe from a progressive angle. They should be the first ones to go to the polls. They should be the first ones to vote down the political forces that have contributed to the current neoliberal and undemocratic Europe of fear and Memoranda.

Those in Europe who want policy change and a change in course. They should vote the lists of the European Left. But, above all, the first ones to go to the polls should be those who are the first victims of this crisis. The young and the women. From unemployed, they should become the pioneers of change in Europe.

May 2014 offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape Europe for the better. We must seize it. All the more since, For the first time, The peoples of Europe themselves, Have set the political agenda of these elections. No to austerity. Yes to growth.

That's why even the most consistent political supporters of austerity are critical of it, just ahead of the elections. But this opportunity should not be missed.

Now we can and must turn Europe Left. Because those who are now denouncing right-wing Euroscepticism, nationalism and neonazism are the same who fuelled it with the choice of the barbarous austerity measures. And we, the European Left. We are the only counterweight to the nightmare of the far-right and to the reappearance of the ghost of fascism in Europe.

Comrades and Friends,

Let me say it once again: The neoliberal European establishment. Ms Merkel and her political allies. Have taken advantage of the crisis in order to rewrite Europe’s postwar political economy. And to impose the Anglo-Saxon neoliberal capitalism. And they did that with myths and populism.

First, they said that the Greeks were supposedly lazy and for that reason they went bankrupt. But when the crisis began to spread, they did not dare to repeat it. They also said that it was the money of the taxpayers of the North that saved Greece. Once again, they did not tell the truth. Because, with your money, they saved the overexposed to Greek bonds European banks. That’s why the Greek debt was not restructured at the outset.

That is, with your own money you saved the European banks and the neoliberal governments of Europe. And then. Out of the loans disbursed to Greece. Only 1,6% went to the country’s government budget, namely, €5,3 billion.

The rest goes out from one pocket. And only after the self-destructive prerequisites of the Memorandum have been fulfilled. The money goes back in the same pocket. Because it is deposited immediately to a special account, only for the repayment of past loans. This is the reality. And for this to happen successfully, Greece has plunged into a recession for the seventh consecutive year.

Because unlike the forecasts of the accomplices who pretend that Greece is a «success story». The OECD forecasts recession this year for Greece.
At the rate of 0,3%. And timid growth after 2015 – and that only conditional. This is the growth which the troika had assured that it would appear as early as 2012. Now that’s postponed for until 2015 – and we shall see.

And so one reasonably wonders: The average German citizen. The average Dutch citizen. The Finn and others. Would they tolerate in their countries an official unemployment close to 30%? An unprecedented for a European country, in peacetime, humanitarian crisis? Children in school fainting from hunger? Small businessmen committing suicide because of debts and closures? Retired people who cannot afford to buy their medicine?

Show me the European country whose citizens would tolerate such living conditions.
And tell me: Would you describe that as a «success story»? As it is described by the advocates of austerity? By Ms Merkel, Mr Samaras, and his assistant, Mr. Venizelos, Mr Juncker and the duo Guy Verhofstadt and Olli Rehn . They talk about success, so that to continue with the austerity.

Or would you describe it as a modern Greek tragedy that must end immediately?

And it will end immediately. Because, I assure you. SYRIZA will win a great victory in the May 25 elections. A victory that would mean the end of the Samaras government and the beginning of the end of austerity in the entire Europe. The, beloved to Ms Merkel, Samaras government will soon prove to be a minority among the people. And I regret that I will say it here, in Berlin. And Mr Merkel, who will listen to it, will be upset. But soon, she will have to deal with a government of the Left in Greece. A government that – and I promise that to you. Will negotiate with her on your behalf as well. Because our own differences with Ms Merkel do not have a national sign. They, instead, have a political, social and class sign. And the end of the strategy of austerity in the South will be the most optimistic message for the working people in the North. That the devaluation of their labor will end. That their rights will be protected.

Comrades and Friends,

I want you to be fully conscious of it and convey this message to the German people: Everything that took place in Greece and in Europe’s South, with the austerity programs. It did not happen to tackle the debt crisis. The proof is that: Before the Memorandum, public debt as a percentage to GDP was 124% in Greece. Today, after four Memorandum years, it is 175%. Now, that the productive base of the country is in ruins. That unemployment is as high as never before. And Greece is on the verge of a humanitarian crisis. Despite massive austerity, Greece’s public debt is unsustainable. Because debt sustainability has never been a policy goal. The policy goals have been austerity per se, privatizations and neoliberal reforms.

But the Greek public debt will not become sustainable without bold initiatives. Like writing-off a large part of its nominal value.
Similar to the solution for Germany in 1953. Which has been a landmark in European solidarity.

But, if it is not sustainable. Then it will be a real burden and a threat, not only to Greece, but to the entire Eurozone. Those who think that the indebtedness of Greece and the pending debt sustainability is a negotiating weapon, they should know that they are holding a boomerang instead of a revolver.

Comrades and Friends,

I know that, once again, you are all looking at Greece. But this time you turn your eyes upon us with optimism. It was from Greece that the vicious and black circle of austerity and social despair started. It will be from Greece that the new circle of change will start.

But I want you to know that we, as SYRIZA, we are particularly looking forward to the German people and to the sister party of Die Linke. We are looking forward to your solidarity and support.

And, at this point, I would like to thank you on behalf of the Greek people and SYRIZA. For the sincere support of Die Linke on a European moral and political issue, still pending. That of German war reparations. And, in particular, of the forced occupation loan from the Bank of Greece at the time. A loan, with which Nazi Germany financed its warfare.

That’s why it is not a bilateral, Greek-German dispute. It is a European issue, which is pending and must come to an end. And its resolution will be a moral vindication for all peoples in Europe.

And we have the ability. We can and we should. SYRIZA, Die Linke, and the Party of the European Left. Become ambassadors of a new unity between Greeks and Germans. Among all the peoples of Europe.

Comrades and Friends,

In the few days left until elections. For the Europe of tomorrow. We are fighting all together for each and every single vote. So that, especially those who are reluctant or have political objections, go and vote. We fight that battle from door to door. To make the European Left a force that can decisively influence the everyday life of the average citizen in Europe. A force of hope and prospect.

In that battle, I am trying to contribute with all my strength, as your candidate for President of the European Commission. Your choice is an honor for the Greek people who are suffering from austerity. And for all the peoples of the South, as well as across the entire Europe, who are against austerity. That is why , on a democratic, social and ecological basis.

With the vote of the citizens in a few days. We will open our sails for a Europe of dignity, justice and development.

Comrades and Friends,

This May will be for Europe. This May will be for the young, the women, the unemployed, the people of labor and culture. This May is ours! We will be the pleasant surprise of this election.

We are holding our fate in our vote. We are holding our life in our hands.

We will succeed in our struggle! Thank you all very much.

[Geiseric]

Kick ass. I know they'll do well.

[Thirsty Crow]

We are only few days away from the most critical European elections in the history of the European Union. Because this time, we are not voting only to elect members of the Parliament. We are voting to shape the balance of political forces in a Europe, which is at a critical crossroads. We are voting to hold back catastrophic austerity and regain democracy. We are voting for our lives.The worst kind of mystification.

The upcoming elections themselves will not do a single thing to alter the balance of political forces; this simply doesn't work that way I'm afraid.

And of course, I suppose this regaining democracy business will have to do with a change in the personnel of the bourgeois state and supra-state institutions.

This is nothing more than electioneering with the side effect of producing significant illusions. Have fun lapping it up.


Kick ass. I know they'll do well.
Can you tell me something about my chances in love? Must be one hell of a crystal ball you got there.

EDIT: Oh yes, and by the way, Trots take heed, this is what happens with political formations emulating the mass parties of old, when reformists and putright social democrats mingle with (self styled) communists, even if the initial strategy was that of militancy and active presence in workers' struggles. Just see the electoral platform - not that Leninist conception of propaganda but not power - take precedence and end up in open strategy of taking charge of the bourgeois state apparatus.

[Rafiq]

Changing the balance of political forces means setting new political standards, Links. I'm sure you know how that works. I don't know if I would ever call for mass mobilisation for voting in these elections. What I do know, is that Syriza is, as Chavez did, setting new standards (even a man like Capriles has to operate under the guise of relatively social democatic politics, to hold legitimacy). Of course none of these are genuine proletarian movements. But the space for such movements in Europe today does not exist. Not while these skewed technocratic politics reign supreme, not while austerity goes unchallenged and not while ultra nationalist, and far right parties being legitimate contenders to bourgeois democracy is a more feasible prospect by week. In the process of the (progressive) bourgeoisie saving their own rule (Europe today cannot go on like this), they will effectively unleash the class struggle.

[Rafiq]

Everyone must recognize that even by bourgeois-liberal standards, speaking within historical proximity, there is something deeply rotten with the direction Europe is headed.

[Broviet Union]

Popular front-ism has basically always been the right strategy. Ultra leftist avoidance of elections is fruitless. We've seen what happens when bourgeois society shifts to the Right.

[Per Levy]

In the four corners of Europe. Citizens are optimistic that, at the polls, we will break through the wall of austerity built by its three musketeers:
the conservatives, the liberals, and the social-democrats.

and the 4th musketeer is of course die linke, just if some of you forgot, everytime die linke was in part of gouverment, like in berlin, brandenburg, mecklenburg and so on they always said yes to cuts, didnt kep their promises and showed just how empty the slogans of die linke are.


Because in a few days we are not voting on the dosage of austerity. We are voting for its immediate termination. We are voting for a policy change.
For democracy, justice and growth. That's why we are voting Left.

bullshit, the european parliament doesnt have the power to end austerity. building up illusions and promises that they can never keep, just like the liberals, consevatives and social-dems.


No to austerity. Yes to growth.

yeah let capitalsm grow more, it has done so much good in the past right? tsirpas is nothing but a social democrat who speak to a social democratic party.

[Per Levy]

Kick ass. I know they'll do well.

geis, you do know that your german comrades are in the spd right? so you should want that the spd and the european social dem do well, just saying.


Popular front-ism has basically always been the right strategy. Ultra leftist avoidance of elections is fruitless. We've seen what happens when bourgeois society shifts to the Right

popular fronts are a horrible stragety and always has been, its a stragety to reduce worker militance, to pretty much give up class struggle in order to fight with one part of the bourgoisie against another. and lets be honest here, all popular fronts have failed miserably. also i dont know what exactly the popular front has to do with anything in the european elections.


Changing the balance of political forces means setting new political standards, Links.

how will they do that exactly? the european parliament is useless and powerless and the majority of voters, especially the majority of workers dont give a shit about the european elections.

the german constitutional court removed the election threshold of 3% for this election because they basicly said that the european parliament is so powerless and unimportent that there is no need for a election threshold.

seriously the only things that have power in europe are the national gouverments and the european commision whos personel get chosen by the national gouverments, the commision makes the laws and sometimes the parliament can vote on those.

[Q]

DNZ, I'm leaning with the left-commies on this one, despite the little slander LeftRadikal put up in his edit...

It is positive that Tsipras at least offers some kind of pan-European strategy. This as opposed to the Dutch SP, which resides again behind the idea that "The Hague is more easily to hold democratically accountable than Brussels".

But what we need is not an alternative government, but an alternative opposition. Tsipras is also still in the opposition, but only because he can't find any coalition partners to govern with, an opportunist opposition as I call it. He aims to be in power and this has the dynamic of selling out any and all principles Syriza has in order to become 'trustworthy' to other parties. What we need is a principled opposition and Tsipras is not going to deliver that. Communists should be fighting for a different programme and strategy in both Syriza and Die Linke (and the Dutch SP) and be the principled opposition inside these parties.

[Thirsty Crow]

Changing the balance of political forces means setting new political standards, Links. I'm sure you know how that works.
Well, being European and learning a thing or two about the EU, I'd say yeah. The thing here is that it is a farce to claim this might be achieved by voting in EU parliament elections.


What I do know, is that Syriza is, as Chavez did, setting new standards (even a man like Capriles has to operate under the guise of relatively social democatic politics, to hold legitimacy). This remains to be seen. Nothing new about it, the capitalist class itself has a wing which is absolutely in favor of shutting down austerity so nothing really new here. Why I say it remains to be seen? Because forming a government and ruling will be the litmus test for these social democrats.


Of course none of these are genuine proletarian movements. But the space for such movements in Europe today does not exist.Why do you think space for proletrian movements doesn't exist? Honest question, and gotta say, this not only sounds a bit wrong on the factual side of things (even though the space you mention is small, in my opinion), but also defeatist. Tailing bourgeois forces can easily result from this.


Not while these skewed technocratic politics reign supreme, not while austerity goes unchallenged and not while ultra nationalist, and far right parties being legitimate contenders to bourgeois democracy is a more feasible prospect by week.Well, yes I actually had in mind that any proletarian movement in formation will be born on practices against these phenomena you mention.


In the process of the (progressive) bourgeoisie saving their own rule (Europe today cannot go on like this), they will effectively unleash the class struggle.There's still room to pummel us with austerity. This is not the most viable strategy in the long run though.
But I completely disagree with the assessment of there being a progressive bourgeoisie; that seems as if there's a New Deal in waiting. It's not first and foremost due to the free capital flows which means that any such political project must be international from the very start (encompassing not only the institutions of the EU, but getting into national governments as well). Instead it is conceivable that there might be some kind of a state-private capital agreement in the future, but you can forget about full employment, job security, rising wages, when profitability remains low.

Anyway, I do think that your attitude is that of tailing bourgeois forces, nothing more. The real struggle against austerity, crypto-fascism can only be waged successfully by the working class; I don't think there's getting around that fact, and that there is no short cut.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Changing the balance of political forces means setting new political standards, Links. I'm sure you know how that works. I don't know if I would ever call for mass mobilisation for voting in these elections. What I do know, is that Syriza is, as Chavez did, setting new standards (even a man like Capriles has to operate under the guise of relatively social democatic politics, to hold legitimacy). Of course none of these are genuine proletarian movements. But the space for such movements in Europe today does not exist. Not while these skewed technocratic politics reign supreme, not while austerity goes unchallenged and not while ultra nationalist, and far right parties being legitimate contenders to bourgeois democracy is a more feasible prospect by week. In the process of the (progressive) bourgeoisie saving their own rule (Europe today cannot go on like this), they will effectively unleash the class struggle.

So because revolution can't be achieved tomorrow we should aim for social democracy?

This is a pig dressed up in a nice frock with some lipstick.

Tsipras is an excellent politician and his faux-radical rhetoric reflects this. He calls the conservatives, liberals and social democrats the 'musketeers' and then effectively says that his aim is to oppose austerity and neo-liberalism. Isn't that the job of social democrats? He can't really juxtapose himself with the centre-left and then make demands typical of the centre-left.

Once again, Tsipras is a social democrat masquerading as something more radical in order to gain votes. Let's not mistake his politics as anything that is particularly relevant to working class interests in either the short- or long-term, and let's not subscribe to this re-hash of the 'British Road to Socialism' that somehow finds it acceptable to replace revolutionary demands with reformist social-democracy, simply because revolution isn't a realistic option in the short-term.

[Rafiq]

No one is talking about tailing anyone, and no one is settling for Syriza. The language for revolutionary politics is alien and foreign to Europe, it would never survive or gain favor in current circumstances, because the forces of reaction are consuming bourgeois democracy, and it is they, reactionary populists who are currently able to mobilisize the working class en masse. And its stupid to compare Syriza to modern social democratic parties, which are effectively neoliberal parties. Syriza has more in common with the politics of mid 20th century Europe, *this* social democracy. I don't think winning the elections will directly have any meaningful effect, besides the fact that again, political standards will change that will make proletarian consciousness more possible.

I like how you, in the spirit of an internet forum, talk of "THEY JUST REPRESENT SOCIAL DEMOCRACY" like all groups and organizations are to be catagorized by your silly political tendency matrix and judged accordingly, rather than their actual implications on a political level. I spoke about this in another forum I started.

[Thirsty Crow]

No one is talking about tailing anyone, and no one is settling for Syriza. The language for revolutionary politics is alien and foreign to Europe, it would never survive or gain favor in current circumstances, because the forces of reaction are consuming bourgeois democracy, and it is they, reactionary populists who are currently able to mobilisize the working class en masse. And its stupid to compare Syriza to modern social democratic parties, which are effectively neoliberal parties. Syriza has more in common with the politics of mid 20th century Europe, *this* social democracy. I don't think winning the elections will directly have any meaningful effect, besides the fact that again, political standards will change that will make proletarian consciousness more possible.

I like how you, in the spirit of an internet forum, talk of "THEY JUST REPRESENT SOCIAL DEMOCRACY" like all groups and organizations are to be catagorized by your silly political tendency matrix and judged accordingly, rather than their actual implications on a political level. I spoke about this in another forum I started.
Don't be a tool.

Of course this isn't a matter of "silly political tendency matrix" - the issue is class politics. Nothing more and nothing less (well, in my view you can't even have this "more").

In this sense, communists as communists have a really clear role - defend the class autonomy of the proletariat and our exertion and build up of power. Here it is vital to unmask the political currents employing radical rhetoric with the express political programme to bind the working class to capital in a particular way. For all the invocations of concrete political implications and effects, this is one you seem to be missing completely.

About the political implications themselves, you're not really following through and assessing them at all. Only wishful thinking here, evident in:


I don't think winning the elections will directly have any meaningful effect, besides the fact that again, political standards will change that will make proletarian consciousness more possibleYou're not making n argument here but merely restating the original assumption. Which is itself based on wishful thinking at best.

For one thing, it is the express position to form government. Which effectively means that working class activity and energy is going to be rerouted this way, not the other way around. This is how this thing works when an organization is based on this kind of an electoral platform.

Secondly, it would seem that this change in political standards you believe in is based on ideological propaganda enabled by SYRIZA seats in the EU parliament - but this assumes that the current party programme will be carried out in the parliament in the first place without modifying influences - and I think it is much more reasonable to expect significant pressure and such modifying influences as SYRIZA approaches the position of forming the government. This is why I'm saying that taking charge of the bourgeois state will prove as the most reliable litmus test.

And in this sense, all the nice stuff in SYRIZA's programme, as I said (and you flt out ignored) mean very little when there is no real drive at internationalism among social democrats like SYRIZA. Because capital flows and the ever present threat of capital flight act as a significant counter-weight to any comprehensive social democrat national solution to the crisis of austerity. I'm not here talking about symbolic and merely ideological coordination and mutual support - if this born again social democracy is to even produce what you claim it can, better conditions for proletarian class consciousness, it simply has to coordinate a political campaign of not only conquering ruling position within EU apparatuses, but also national governments. There is of course no serious attempt at this.

And again about these better conditions for proletarian class consciousness, even if we disregard the blatant and open mystification in a text which is put up in this thread, and allowing for some kind of such an effect, it is also clear that opposing effects to this are likely to be expected also. One of the most dreadful ones being what I said about tying the working class to capital in a particular way. Which is also what happened with post WWII social democracy which you explicitly liken to SYRIZA:


Syriza has more in common with the politics of mid 20th century Europe, *this* social democracy.And ask yourself about a) the huge difference in social and political situation, especially in relation to potentials for profitable accumulation, and b) how this same old social democracy fared historically with producing better conditions for proletarian class consciousness.

The answer to the latter is of course it produced better conditions - by provoking mass proletarian resistance and action against these very political currents and institutions. Which is quite a different situation than one you seem to be hoping for with your idea of a progressive bourgeoisie (which really hasn't got that under "a)" at its disposal now).

[Terror]

It should be obvious that a "popular front" as a method will be constrained by the limitations that "popularity" imposes onto a movement or a party. The political content of a popular front will therefore be, in today's political context, anything but revolutionary. Political parties such as SYRIZA, Die Linke, and other similar parties in Europe are letting popularity decide their direction, and as it seems, they do not care where this takes them.

While it might be more difficult to gain power by other means, such as stimulating the growth of a proletarian movement which has the potential to overthrow the the capitalist system, it's the path we must take if we want to avoid being recuperated by the bourgeois state.

[Rafiq]

I have absolutely no doubt that a class conscious proletariat would oppose Syriza, let me make that very clear. When the proletariat is given relative comfort, space is opened up for class consciousness. Time and time again this has been proven. I would not dare talk of the proletariat collaborating with the progressive bourgeoisie holding power - merely that it could be strategically beneficial if they were to hold power, as opposed to the other contenders. Of course winning seats in the upcoming EU election will have absolutely no direct effect on the state of capitalism, the problem links is that this is not a pragmatic question, but an ideological - or political one. Again, I must stress, political standards will have to change in order for a popular Syriza to be rivaled, as always, and the proletariat realizing the impotence of Syriza whilst still holding to a standard which absolutely excludes reactionary politics could have positive implications for Communists.

The proletariat as a class historically have possessed the ability to force the bourgeoisie to completely change their political conditions by the pressure of their conscious existence alone. I do not speak of Syriza attaining power alone, Links, I speak of the tendency and political trends across Europe this could entail.

A second point I would like to introduce is the fact that Syriza's place in political discourse extends beyond holding seats in any parliament, they attempt to hold a firm cultural basis in society (a la the Black Panthers breakfast program), in the same way the Golden Dawn does - Syriza is a broad organization with room for more radical politics to take charge - which evidently do not hold sway.

[Thirsty Crow]

A second point I would like to introduce is the fact that Syriza's place in political discourse extends beyond holding seats in any parliament, they attempt to hold a firm cultural basis in society (a la the Black Panthers breakfast program), in the same way the Golden Dawn does - Syriza is a broad organization with room for more radical politics to take charge - which evidently do not hold sway.
Just this quick point, I've tried to find some information on what you say here quite a few times and there simply is no information available on anything apart from some bread thing in schools organized (or planned) by the local SYRIZA chapter in Crete.

Might be that I searched in a wrong way, but I'd say that first 7-8 pages of google search aren't at all insignificant.

So, I think you got it all wrong about this, no doubt under the influence of DNZ mythology. Do you have any information about this apart from this school campaign?

EDIT:


I have absolutely no doubt that a class conscious proletariat would oppose Syriza, let me make that very clear. When the proletariat is given relative comfort, space is opened up for class consciousness.

Do you think that there is any ground for such a development, that of relative comfort? I think that there's only grounds for easing the attacks actually.

Which brings me yet again to a very concrete point, that what you call pragmatic concerns are actually the basis for the ideology:


Of course winning seats in the upcoming EU election will have absolutely no direct effect on the state of capitalism, the problem links is that this is not a pragmatic question, but an ideological - or political one.


I think that purely ideological/political questions divorced from their basis, what you call pragmatic questions, don't have much sense especially since I don't even believe SYRIZA will prove to be consistently anti-austerity if they come even closer to forming the government (and the campaign in Euro elections I also take as a part of the overarching strategy - forming a government). Any such effect you think is realistic is at most incremental and not that significant in my opinion.


I would not dare talk of the proletariat collaborating with the progressive bourgeoisie holding power - merely that it could be strategically beneficial if they were to hold power, as opposed to the other contenders. I get it.

I just don't share the same perspective on possible effects as you do; though, I'm not denying the possibility of some positive effects, but I view it as more side effects of a kind, and not that significant, especially since I'm of the opinion that social democracy is even in a better position to bind the working class to capital in certain conditions (especially these prevailing today; this is the "secret" of the platform of renegotiating Greek debt, the focus being on "renegotiating").


The proletariat as a class historically have possessed the ability to force the bourgeoisie to completely change their political conditions by the pressure of their conscious existence alone.I don't think that the pressure came from proletarian conscious existence alone - that was almost always accompanied by militant action as well.

But yes, I'm not denying that budding proletarian consciousness, especially as manifest in independent action, can force changes; far from it. It's just that I doubt that what SYRIZA does can lay a sound groundwork for this.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Rafiq;2752112]When the proletariat is given relative comfort, space is opened up for class consciousness. Time and time again this has been proven.

Has it? Isn't this what happened between 1945 and c.1970 in post-war Europe? And this was followed by an avalanche of an attack by capital in response to the 'relative comfort' afforded to working people in the post-war years. I'd like you to point me to where it has been 'proven' that welfare/standard of living reforms tend to heighten class consciousness in mature capitalist societies.


I would not dare talk of the proletariat collaborating with the progressive bourgeoisie holding power - merely that it could be strategically beneficial if they were to hold power, as opposed to the other contenders. Of course winning seats in the upcoming EU election will have absolutely no direct effect on the state of capitalism, the problem links is that this is not a pragmatic question, but an ideological - or political one. Again, I must stress, political standards will have to change in order for a popular Syriza to be rivaled, as always, and the proletariat realizing the impotence of Syriza whilst still holding to a standard which absolutely excludes reactionary politics could have positive implications for Communists.

It's weird that for all this talk of 'opposing' the 'impotent' SYRIZA, the likes of you and DNZ spend a great deal of time defending their politics.


A second point I would like to introduce is the fact that Syriza's place in political discourse extends beyond holding seats in any parliament, they attempt to hold a firm cultural basis in society (a la the Black Panthers breakfast program), in the same way the Golden Dawn does - Syriza is a broad organization with room for more radical politics to take charge - which evidently do not hold sway.

I simply cannot believe you would compare the BPP and SYRIZA. One advanced social revolution and was called the greatest threat to America in the late 1970s, the other is a party that is merely opposed to austerity and neoliberalism, which are merely two of capitalism's own ideologies.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's weird that for all this talk of 'opposing' the 'impotent' SYRIZA, the likes of you and DNZ spend a great deal of time defending their politics.
Vladimir, this isn't actually the case, I'd say. It's not a defense of the politics (well DNZ probably does but whatever) but some illusions about the possible effects. I think it matters how you formulate it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Vladimir, this isn't actually the case, I'd say. It's not a defense of the politics (well DNZ probably does but whatever) but some illusions about the possible effects. I think it matters how you formulate it.

Yes, I think that's probably fair if you take their words at face value, but I see the sort of philosophical manoeuvring as a de facto defence of the party itself, and therefore its politics; whether this is intentional or not is really irrelevant.

[Geiseric]

geis, you do know that your german comrades are in the spd right? so you should want that the spd and the european social dem do well, just saying.



popular fronts are a horrible stragety and always has been, its a stragety to reduce worker militance, to pretty much give up class struggle in order to fight with one part of the bourgoisie against another. and lets be honest here, all popular fronts have failed miserably. also i dont know what exactly the popular front has to do with anything in the european elections.



how will they do that exactly? the european parliament is useless and powerless and the majority of voters, especially the majority of workers dont give a shit about the european elections.

the german constitutional court removed the election threshold of 3% for this election because they basicly said that the european parliament is so powerless and unimportent that there is no need for a election threshold.

seriously the only things that have power in europe are the national gouverments and the european commision whos personel get chosen by the national gouverments, the commision makes the laws and sometimes the parliament can vote on those.

Go screw yourself. I already explained that in a different thread. I haven't seen any political activity from you other than on the internet anyways so I don't see how you can really think I care about your opinion.

[Rafiq]

Yes, I think that's probably fair if you take their words at face value, but I see the sort of philosophical manoeuvring as a de facto defence of the party itself, and therefore its politics; whether this is intentional or not is really irrelevant.

For what reason would I be an apologist for Syriza? It would appear that the irrelevancy of my intentions is solely based on your inability to confront me without the initial predisposition towards my post that holds I am an apologist. As far as I'm concerned, it's your take that is really irrelevant.

I am accused of mystifying a real, genuine defense of Syriza in it's entirety, as though I have a relative or two high up in the party, as though I have some kind of personal motivation for supporting Syriza. Perhaps If I did, your judgement would hold sway. No, what you fail to realize is that any sort of 'support' you might see in my "philosophical maneuvering" is a conclusion of said philosophy, and not the other way around.

Will I defend aspects of Syriza's tactics and strategy? Certainly. Despite Tsipras at helm (You should know there is a Left-Wing of the party that is disappointed with Tsipras), and despite the fact that they are a bourgeois party, they have managed to mobilize a significant portion of the Greek population in favor of a cosmetically new Left, they have formed a coalition of the most irrelevant and pathetic parties and unified them into a strong force with actual political relevancy to the point where it has worried the European neoliberal strata. Despite their weak politics, they are at the very least opening up new debates that would have otherwise not existed, bringing new standards and questions to the table that weren't there before. Tsipras has made appearances in Washington assuring that Greece will remain in NATO, he has met with people high in the IMF and is trying desperately to portray himself as a reasonable person. And by bourgeois-liberal standards, what he is saying is perfectly reasonable or 'moderate'. The point is that we can clearly see how worrying the situation in Europe is if a man like Tsipras is portrayed as some kind of extremist, when not four decades ago the ruling parties of Europe were just as 'extreme'. I think the point is that the standards for politics and the political spectrum has shifted drastically towards the right, and while I would not call for mass mobilization for voting for Syriza (as this would force me to identify with them and assume responsibility for their inevitable 'selling out') that doesn't mean there is nothing we can learn from them. I would take Syriza more seriously (notice I do not say more supportively) than any Left Communist party as far as the ultimate goal for any good Marxist is here - that is, the revival of a new revolutionary politics.

[FSL]

geis, you do know that your german comrades are in the spd right? so you should want that the spd and the european social dem do well, just saying.

The eternal dilemma of a trotskyist.
I remember speaking to someone else who opposed Obama but supported Syriza (the local trotskyist section does) when Syriza has nothing but praise for Obama.

The rule is: we oppose social-democrats after they get in power because then they've betrayed us but we support the before they get in power or when they're rulling in a country far away (since the effects of their governance remain unkown to the local population).


For those interested there were local elections in Greece.
The results are here: http://ekloges.ypes.gr/may2014/dn/public/index.html#{"page":"synoptiki","params":{"mode":"snom"}}

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Go screw yourself. I already explained that in a different thread. I haven't seen any political activity from you other than on the internet anyways so I don't see how you can really think I care about your opinion.
Yes, we all recall how your international attempts to organize "radicals within the SPD", though what radicals would be doing in such a party or why Marxists would desire to organize these radicals remained unexplained. Why not Die Linke? Perhaps the likes of Die Linke are "ultraleft" in the same way the IMT criticized the communists who split from the Brazilian worker's party. Either way the approach surrenders the independence of the communist programme to the organizational disciplines of alien class forces


Have fun hanging with Rosa's butchers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-00539%2C_Berlin%2C_Revolution%2C_Standrechtlich_Er schossene.jpg

[Geiseric]

Wow you all don't even have proof that the 4th international in any way endorses the SPD platform because guess what, we don't, nor do any of my German comrades. So go fuck yourselves. Otherwise find proof, waste your time on a Google search or something. Don't spam this forum with your bullshit. In fact you and the Per Levy, whom started this should be infracted for continued slander.

[Geiseric]

Yes, we all recall how your international attempts to organize "radicals within the SPD", though what radicals would be doing in such a party or why Marxists would desire to organize these radicals remained unexplained. Why not Die Linke? Perhaps the likes of Die Linke are "ultraleft" in the same way the IMT criticized the communists who split from the Brazilian worker's party. Either way the approach surrenders the independence of the communist programme to the organizational disciplines of alien class forces


Have fun hanging with Rosa's butchers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-00539%2C_Berlin%2C_Revolution%2C_Standrechtlich_Er schossene.jpg

You uphold Mao though, who killed tons of more revolutionaries than the SPD managed to. Reevaluate your political education.

[Thirsty Crow]

Don't spam this forum with your bullshit. In fact you should be infected for slander.
I think you may wanna edit this post. Just so there's no confusion, you know, that you wanna have someone infected (a bizarre personal attack if I ever saw one).

[synthesis]

I am accused of mystifying a real, genuine defense of Syriza in it's entirety, as though I have a relative or two high up in the party, as though I have some kind of personal motivation for supporting Syriza. Perhaps If I did, your judgement would hold sway. No, what you fail to realize is that any sort of 'support' you might see in my "philosophical maneuvering" is a conclusion of said philosophy, and not the other way around.

The two are inseparable. You have a drive to find something redeemable in the Greek elections, the eternal optimism of socialists coming from a certain perspective. This informs both what VIL sees as your "support" and what you see as your "philosophy" (or, I assume you'd prefer, politics).

[Futility Personified]

Could you point out which aspects of Syriza's strategy are effective for me, Rafiq?

Apologies if i've missed them in this thread, it's too early for me to function yet.

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ, I'm leaning with the left-commies on this one, despite the little slander LeftRadikal put up in his edit...

Now that clearer heads are making themselves known in this thread, comrade, I think we should have a discussion at some point about our common reservations concerning SYRIZA's local elections victory in the Athens municipality and the wider Attica region.

This framework should serve as a basis for that discussion:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ideal-electoral-oppositioni-t180560/index.html?p=2615139

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Now that clearer heads are making themselves known in this thread, comrade, I think we should have a discussion at some point about our common reservations concerning SYRIZA's local elections victory in the Athens municipality and the wider Attica region.


If you're only interested in arguing with people who largely agree with you, how do you propose you're ever going to achieve anything wider? Aren't you meant to be a 'leading light' of the working class or whatever you claim to be?

The arrogance.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you're only interested in arguing with people who largely agree with you, how do you propose you're ever going to achieve anything wider? Aren't you meant to be a 'leading light' of the working class or whatever you claim to be?

The arrogance.
Didn't you get the memo?

The entire point to posting here is to snatch fence sitters who claim some revolutionary politics.

It's like a virus really, though this discriminates about its potential victims.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you're only interested in arguing with people who largely agree with you

On the contrary, the proposed discussion is open. For many reasons, I didn't suggest a comradely discussion.


Aren't you meant to be a 'leading light' of the working class or whatever you claim to be?

Clearer heads have the political humility to not aggrandize themselves or be aggrandized as "leading lights." :glare:

[Geiseric]

I think you may wanna edit this post. Just so there's no confusion, you know, that you wanna have someone infected (a bizarre personal attack if I ever saw one).

Lol I meant infracted. Sorry. My phone is to blame for that type o.

[Per Levy]

Go screw yourself. I already explained that in a different thread. I haven't seen any political activity from you other than on the internet anyways so I don't see how you can really think I care about your opinion.

geis, how come that most of your "arguments" come down to "screw yourself, fuck yourself, you're full of shit, you moron, you idiot" and what not? and that mostly to people who arnt insulting you?

also you explained nothing about what your german comrades do in the spd, just some vague talking points that said nothing. and again im really interested what they do there, and you're the only person i could ask cause your german comrades dont have a website to my knowledge.

edit: and about doing stuff, i do stuff i just dont go around tell everyone about it(like you), cause its really unimportent and means nothing.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

My logic is, if Allende could do it in a country like Chile where the Christian Democrats had tight control of the country's politics for decades despite winning by a slight margin. In addition, Chile was in a deary economic situation facing inflation not unlike the current economic situation in general Europe.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My logic is, if Allende could do it in a country like Chile where the Christian Democrats had tight control of the country's politics for decades despite winning by a slight margin. In addition, Chile was in a deary economic situation facing inflation not unlike the current economic situation in general Europe.

Do what? Because what Allende did was nationalise some industries, using the machinery established under the Radical (liberal) president Cerda, establish an interesting cybernetic control system (but one that could be established by any bourgeois government and, indeed, had precedents in French economic planning), and then get killed by the person he appointed to be the head of the army while the Chilean workers were powerless to intervene as he never armed them. Some "socialist".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

My logic is, if Allende could do it in a country like Chile where the Christian Democrats had tight control of the country's politics for decades despite winning by a slight margin. In addition, Chile was in a deary economic situation facing inflation not unlike the current economic situation in general Europe.

If Allende could do what? Get shot? :rolleyes:

[Geiseric]

geis, how come that most of your "arguments" come down to "screw yourself, fuck yourself, you're full of shit, you moron, you idiot" and what not? and that mostly to people who arnt insulting you?

also you explained nothing about what your german comrades do in the spd, just some vague talking points that said nothing. and again im really interested what they do there, and you're the only person i could ask cause your german comrades dont have a website to my knowledge.

edit: and about doing stuff, i do stuff i just dont go around tell everyone about it(like you), cause its really unimportent and means nothing.

As far as I can tell I don't even have any more German comrades than i do Norwegian ones. You need to show something other than your opinion or there is no argument.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

and the 4th musketeer is of course die linke, just if some of you forgot, everytime die linke was in part of gouverment, like in berlin, brandenburg, mecklenburg and so on they always said yes to cuts, didnt kep their promises and showed just how empty the slogans of die linke are.




We are the real Social-Democratic Party in Germany today - Gregor Gysi

No one is denying this reality, comrade. But Die Linke and the other new left parties give tens of millions of euros to communist organizations which are allowed to platform within them, not to mention that some MPs have very radical working class political intuitions, outing themselves as members of the parliamentary "communist platform".

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

If Allende could do what? Get shot? :rolleyes:

Sadly not a surprising comment on Revlib :glare:

[FSL]

But Die Linke and the other new left parties give tens of millions of euros to communist organizations which are allowed to platform within them
They're allowed to platform *for* them, giving them a radical alibi.

And it would seem you're suggesting that communists should literally sell out.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

They're allowed to platform *for* them, giving them a radical alibi.

I don't think you understand. Die Linke gets its political power mainly from radical foundations like the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung that it itself has set up and finances. Those government financed communist forums in turn hold meetings and invite leftist intellectual leaders from around the world to freely debate Marxist theory.

The problem isn't that communists are being "used" by reformist and opportunist "Socialist" politicians, the problem is that the comrades within the funded organizations like Marx21 etc. have a total lack of principled revolutionary leaders who have their own will to power. The "radical" left all over the world today is caught in this stupid unrealistic idea that we can have total democracy now. No, we need the best representatives we can find within our class who will be capable of fighting and outshining the best persons the other political parties come up with. Building leaders is a difficult and sadly long process, but the radical/"communist" left today isn't even trying to compete.


And it would seem you're suggesting that communists should literally sell out.

No. We should accept and cooperate with all democratic forums which allow us to freely spew our proletarian revolutionary doctrine. In a free forum of unhindered debate, the best idea, that is the idea which has the best historical narratives and practical logic, wins.

Perhaps you are not so confident of your Stalinist doctrine? I, however, have no qualms nor insecurities that the doctrine of revolutionary social-democracy, of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, is the truest path of liberation for the world proletariat, indeed of humanity, and only burn to watch my comrades take the stage and clear tables with the swaying political leaders of today.

We must burn and strive to claim our right to hold a seat in the mass forums of debate. And if the media is not set along democratic and equal principles, we must fight and protest to change the rules of debate towards equality and democratic rules, with violence if necessary! The working people will not be silenced anymore! Thousands of years of voicelessness has been enough. Our fight today is the same fight as those of the bourgeois revolutionaries of the 18th and 19th century. We should take notes from past revolutionary movements, like that of Germany 1848 with song "Die Gedanken sind Frei" (Thoughts are'th Free) making quite clear what is necessary: We need to fight for the right to push our frame (that of the struggle of of the poorer classes for the abolition of classes) into the public debate. We need to claim that right. So to say that those of us who enter onto the "communist" forums of leftish parties are "sell-outs" is an absolute disgrace. They're listening to us!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The problem isn't that communists are being "used" by reformist and opportunist "Socialist" politicians, the problem is that the comrades within the funded organizations like Marx21 etc. have a total lack of principled revolutionary leaders who have their own will to power. The "radical" left all over the world today is caught in this stupid unrealistic idea that we can have total democracy now. No, we need the best representatives we can find within our class who will be capable of fighting and outshining the best persons the other political parties come up with. Building leaders is a difficult and sadly long process, but the radical/"communist" left today isn't even trying to compete.

Yeah, so you're advocating revolutionaries sell-out to a bourgeois reformist party.

It is also telling that you think we should focus on building representatives and leaders - that is the most bourgeois shit i've heard on this forum. The whole point of destroying capitalism is to fuck leaders and people who claim to represent us, and run our societies and our lives ourselves.

If you don't think that's realistic, then go support the social democrats, but don't try and co-opt communism into being some freaky, bourgeois, state-loving reformathon.


No. We should accept and cooperate with all democratic forums which allow us to freely spew our proletarian revolutionary doctrine. In a free forum of unhindered debate, the best idea, that is the idea which has the best historical narratives and practical logic, wins.

But Die Linke is a bourgeois party that operates within a bourgeois democracy, not a free democracy. And in that arena, the best idea doesn't win, the best capitalist idea wins. There's a huge difference which you don't seem to understand.
[/I][/QUOTE]

[FSL]

I don't think you understand. Die Linke gets its political power mainly from radical foundations like the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung that it itself has set up and finances. Those government financed communist forums in turn hold meetings and invite leftist intellectual leaders from around the world to freely debate Marxist theory.

The problem isn't that communists are being "used" by reformist and opportunist "Socialist" politicians, the problem is that the comrades within the funded organizations like Marx21 etc. have a total lack of principled revolutionary leaders who have their own will to power. The "radical" left all over the world today is caught in this stupid unrealistic idea that we can have total democracy now. No, we need the best representatives we can find within our class who will be capable of fighting and outshining the best persons the other political parties come up with. Building leaders is a difficult and sadly long process, but the radical/"communist" left today isn't even trying to compete.

There is in the whole wide world a lack of principled leaders and that is why the collective wisdom of Die Linke ends up being "let's join SPD in local governments and cut away".
Tell me, have you considered the possibility that it's not the lack of principled marxists at fault here but that these "government financed communist forums" go out of their way to fund and promote the most anti-marxist, anti-revolutionary intellectuals they can find?

Total democracy isn't a stupid, unrealistic idea and you're naive if that's all you see in it. The concept of a "complete democracy" was the rallying call of Kautskyites and other social democrats who sold themselves to the capitalist class and murdered Rosa Luxembourg (whose name and ethics they now want to claim as their own). They're not being unrealistic when they talk about a total democracy or a fair (capitalistic) society. They're being liars and frauds.




No. We should accept and cooperate with all democratic forums which allow us to freely spew our proletarian revolutionary doctrine. In a free forum of unhindered debate, the best idea, that is the idea which has the best historical narratives and practical logic, wins.

Perhaps you are not so confident of your Stalinist doctrine? I, however, have no qualms nor insecurities that the doctrine of revolutionary social-democracy, of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, is the truest path of liberation for the world proletariat, indeed of humanity, and only burn to watch my comrades take the stage and clear tables with the swaying political leaders of today.


So to say that those of us who enter onto the "communist" forums of leftish parties are "sell-outs" is an absolute disgrace. They're listening to us!
Lenin was very confident of his ideas. Did he hesitate to break with those that wanted to promote bourgeois ideas? No, not at all. Didn't Rosa Luxembourg and the Spartacists break away from the SPD? Yes, they did. The whole communist inernational broke away from the second international.

It's a farce to say that the best idea wins as if ideas compete in a perfect vacuum. Some ideas are supported by the habits of centuries if not millenia.
When the "leftist intellectual" preaches inaction and submission he has every other bourgeois voice singing along to the same tune. When communists sound radical, "leftist intellectuals" sound reasonable because we've been taught capitalism is reasonable.
Revolutionaries never showed any hesitation in breaking away from sell outs. Lenin even wrote about how they were free to dive into the swamp if they wanted, after they let go of the revolutionaries' hands. The more certain someone was of his ideas, the quicker he was in relieving himself of that burden. The bolshevicks were quick enough. The spartacists weren't and they ended up murdered by their former comrades who now preached a "total democracy" unlike the bolshevick dictatorship that was evidently going to be built on the corpses of communists and with the guns in the hands of future nazis.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

[1] Yeah, so you're advocating revolutionaries sell-out to a bourgeois reformist party.

It is also telling that you think we should focus on building representatives and leaders - that is the most bourgeois shit i've heard on this forum. [2] The whole point of destroying capitalism is to fuck leaders and people who claim to represent us, and run our societies and our lives ourselves.

If you don't think that's realistic, then go support the social democrats, but don't try and co-opt communism into being some freaky, bourgeois, state-loving reformathon.



But [3] Die Linke is a bourgeois party that operates within a bourgeois democracy, not a free democracy. And in that arena, the best idea doesn't win, the best capitalist idea wins. There's a huge difference which you don't seem to understand.
[/I]

[1] No, I am not. There's no need to get emotional and deliberately distort what I wrote. I am advocating that the comrades within the dozens of "communist" organizations and forums rebel, speak up, and contentually expose their organization's leaders as spineless collaborators with reformist and opportunist politicians.

You know that I'm a partyist, don't you? By the things I've posted and stood for I'm a lot more radical than you are, so it's quite stupid of you to act like I'm a so-dem pacifist or something, who accepts the current Gysis or Tsipras as leaders of the working class. You know Rafiq is a comrade of mine, don't you? What he says about revolutionary violence and insurrection, and here I speak for our whole tendency I believe, we wholly stand behind such a militant attitude. So, please, keep your underhanded comments to yourself. There's no usefulness for them if you're serious in trying to have a constructive discussion.

[2] I agree with that last part, definitely. That indeed is the whole point of our struggle I believe, fighting for human independence and freedom from unjustified Authority. The social revolution indeed. But there's the problem, isn't it my little anarcho-liberal friend? Authority of one human being over another is sometimes justified in the cases that it is a practical necessity:

Do you believe that the Surgeon who studied 12 years at university for his profession should bow down to the democratic authority of his half dozen or so technicians before going into to an emergency medical procedure? Obviously not. He had to study for years to make intelligent decisions in a timely manner to lead his team of workers to save lives. Now, does that mean that I favor such an economy of a rigid professionalization? As a communist, of course not. Ideally, all workers involved should have all the free educative tools necessary to become leaders as well. But once they have thoroughly learned the necessities of their profession, they will naturally be superior in knowledge and capabilities over the fresh young high school graduate helper. Of course we can have the discussion whether our whole industrial education system needs to be reformed, and that's a discussion definitely worth having at some point in the future. But this is the reality of the here and now, of how human society is organized still in this era of declining capitalism.

Likewise, do you believe that those comrades who are stuck having to work 60-80 hours to provide for their family, who have never had the privilege to go to university and learn to expand the mind yet, would be just as good candidates for a campaign leader in the here and now as the comrade who for decades has battled intellectually against the creme de la creme of the bourgeois education system? Meh. If it hasn't gotten through to your brain by now you should perhaps look into working for the Guardian and denouncing the freaky reformist, yet statist bourgeois communists some more.

[3] Correct, Die Linke operates within a bourgeois democracy. But it itself is an institution with its own culture. If you ever go to Germany, you should check out one of the local branch meetings of Die Linke. Its many off-shoot radical forums and meetings are thoroughly democratically organized in my opinion, unlike bourgeois parties. The microphone is passed around and workers complain about this and that, and heated arguments are very rarely seen at local party branches - unlike in the upper echelons of the party where the communist left wing of the party clash incessantly with reformists who would never dare to bring up dissent on a local level against elemental things like setting Germany's minimum wage to 15 Euros, which in front of the bourgeois press they talk conciliatory about 12 Euros. Such slimy reformist party leaders could easily be confronted and exposed at local meetings by some of the communists who platform within the party. But, the commies are too "radical", read too fucking stupid and docile, to engage in bloody principled politics and tear down the popularity of the slimers and make a name for ourselves as honest proletarian political representatives in our communities.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Workers-Control-Over-Prod;2753520][1] No, I am not. There's no need to get emotional and deliberately distort what I wrote.

I'm not getting emotional, but that's a nice and patronising start.


I am advocating that the comrades within the dozens of "communist" organizations and forums rebel, speak up, and contentually expose their organization's leaders as spineless collaborators with reformist and opportunist politicians.

This strategy has been tried before in England by the Militant Tendency and failed rather spectacularly, so i'm not sure this is a good idea...




You know that I'm a partyist, don't you?

I didn't know that, and I don't particularly care.


By the things I've posted and stood for I'm a lot more radical than you are,

Raaad, man. Well done. Hope typing that made you feel good about your following a tried and failed political strategy.


But there's the problem, isn't it my little anarcho-liberal friend?

The return of the patronising prick. Gotta be a vote winner there!


Authority of one human being over another is sometimes justified in the cases that it is a practical necessity:

Ah, you're about to school me in the necessity of pragmatism over idealism, aren't you?


Do you believe that the Surgeon who studied 12 years at university for his profession should bow down to the democratic authority of his half dozen or so technicians before going into to an emergency medical procedure?

Medical surgery is a specialised field. The point is that politics is not, or shouldn't be.


Obviously not. He had to study for years to make intelligent decisions in a timely manner to lead his team of workers to save lives. Now, does that mean that I favor such an economy of a rigid professionalization? As a communist, of course not. Ideally, all workers involved should have all the free educative tools necessary to become leaders as well. But once they have thoroughly learned the necessities of their profession, they will naturally be superior in knowledge and capabilities over the fresh young high school graduate helper. Of course we can have the discussion whether our whole industrial education system needs to be reformed, and that's a discussion definitely worth having at some point in the future.

And this is why you will never really be able to break free of your own, constructed radicalism. You may think that what is basically entryism into Die Linke is some sort of bona-fide strategy to communism, but in reality not only will it fail, but it will fail because you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the ultimate aims of communism. The idea of a non-hierarchical, post-political society is clearly lost on you. As long as you can't think past a society dominated by professional politicians, you will not be able to formulate a strategy, or support a strategy, to genuinely transform society beyond its current hierarchical nature.


But this is the reality of the here and now, of how human society is organized still in this era of declining capitalism.

As I suspected, the dose of 'realism' I apparently needed.


Likewise, do you believe that those comrades who are stuck having to work 60-80 hours to provide for their family, who have never had the privilege to go to university and learn to expand the mind yet, would be just as good candidates for a campaign leader in the here and now as the comrade who for decades has battled intellectually against the creme de la creme of the bourgeois education system?

Leaders? And I thought you were against rigid professionalisation. Or is it necessary to have hierarchies in our alternatively set-up institutions, y'know, that's what capitalism is? The whole point of an alternative culture is that institutions set up within capitalism are alternative but, as you have so clearly demonstrated, the vacuity of such a strategy is that capitalism is the sole social system and is all-encompassing. Much like you cannot escape wage-labour as a worker, so you cannot escape the hierarchical structure that is found in class society.


Meh. If it hasn't gotten through to your brain by now you should perhaps look into working for the Guardian and denouncing the freaky reformist, yet statist bourgeois communists some more.

And I thought you said something about constructive discussion earlier, no?


[3] Correct, Die Linke operates within a bourgeois democracy. But it itself is an institution with its own culture. If you ever go to Germany, you should check out one of the local branch meetings of Die Linke. Its many off-shoot radical forums and meetings are thoroughly democratically organized in my opinion, unlike bourgeois parties. The microphone is passed around and workers complain about this and that, and heated arguments are very rarely seen at local party branches - unlike in the upper echelons of the party where the communist left wing of the party clash incessantly with reformists who would never dare to bring up dissent on a local level against elemental things like setting Germany's minimum wage to 15 Euros, which in front of the bourgeois press they talk conciliatory about 12 Euros. Such slimy reformist party leaders could easily be confronted and exposed at local meetings by some of the communists who platform within the party. But, the commies are too "radical", read too fucking stupid and docile, to engage in bloody principled politics and tear down the popularity of the slimers and make a name for ourselves as honest proletarian political representatives in our communities.

As I said earlier, entryism is an out-dated, tried, and failed political strategy which has only a precendent of failure. It's naive to think that somehow it will work this time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's no need to get emotional and deliberately distort what I wrote.

Comrade, don't be too surprised. Ultra-left reactions have a tendency to be based on those things and worse like ad hominems.


You know that I'm a partyist, don't you? By the things I've posted and stood for I'm a lot more radical than you are, so it's quite stupid of you to act like I'm a so-dem pacifist or something

Again, going past cheap sloganeering of the lowest common denominator, which jumps further to the economic right wing than actual left-reformist public policymaking that we disagree with, is something our "active" agitation specialists refuse to understand.


and here I speak for our whole tendency I believe, we wholly stand behind such a militant attitude

Don't forget the revolutionary vs. non-revolutionary period distinction, though.

[M-L-C-F]

Fuck Die Linke, and the liberal traitors to the German Democratic Republic, that are in it. I'm willing to support the left end of the party, but as for it as a whole. Like, gag me with a spoon. :glare:

That's all I've got to say about this. :ninja:

[M-L-C-F]

Oh, and to the anti-Allende twats. Feel free to go fuck yourselves. If the kids on this site were half the leftist Allende was, our movement would be much better. I've seen so many people come and go in the left, it doesn't even phase me anymore. At least Allende fought until the bitter end. My Chilean co-worker at my last job, and his living through the terror of Pinochet, and his support of Allende. Is even more of a reason for me to post this. So I guess it looks like I had more to say after all. :ohmy:

[Rafiq]

If Allende could do what? Get shot? :rolleyes:

It's quite clear that Allende's downfall was a direct result of his inability to operate beyond the state-legalist framework of bourgeois politics. In other words, his reluctance to utilize organs of state repression against the class enemy. Allende was keen in operating consistently with bourgeois democracy, and he did so successfully - let that be a lesson to those who seek a bloodless revolution.

[Rafiq]

Fuck Die Linke, and the liberal traitors to the German Democratic Republic, that are in it. I'm willing to support the left end of the party, but as for it as a whole. Like, gag me with a spoon. :glare:

That's all I've got to say about this. :ninja:

Traitors? You do realize that by the time the Eastern Bloc fell apart, the Communist parties of their respective countries had organically transformed into either reactionary or social democratic parties, right? It is not as though Die Linke betrayed the GDR on an ideological or political level, liberal social democracy was a sequential, logical result of Socialism as the Communist state apparatus was diminishing.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Traitors? You do realize that by the time the Eastern Bloc fell apart, the Communist parties of their respective countries had organically transformed into either reactionary or social democratic parties, right? It is not as though Die Linke betrayed the GDR on an ideological or political level, liberal social democracy was a sequential, logical result of Socialism as the Communist state apparatus was diminishing.

Not only had the working class governing parties, precisely as you put it, organically transformed into almost wholly reactionary parties towards the end, but most were outright founded in Moscowite-geopolitical state security driven class collaboration. The East German ruling SED party was an apparatus formed by a merger of the east german KPD and SPD, in which the fat petty-bourgeois social-democrats were promised and indeed given power. Let the smallest seed of petty-propriety find a comfortable place in the party and it will prove to infect the whole legitimate communist process with the reactionary culture of competition - not that that lesson holds much relevance in terms of being able to prevent it again in backward country's revolution. Much more importantly is of course seeing that the comrades who flirt with the petty-bourgeois masses are simply acting out of a 'realist' attitude, understanding that if we don't pander to their socio-cultural strata, the class enemy will. Socialism in one Country (or rather, "anti-imperialist" socialism in an alliance of weak countries) seems an irreconcilable contradiction, at least so far.

Not to forget is that the mass privatization of public eastbloc economic assets (and thereby political capitulation of "real-existing socialism") was a direct result of the bankruptcy inducing austerity programs that the "communist" governments from Warsaw, Budapest, to Berlin (albeit, a little later than the rest of the Warsaw pact countries) brought against their peoples, with large pocketed western banking agents assuredly whispering the grubby and stagnant old eastern apparatchiks promises of a brave new world.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh, and to the anti-Allende twats.

Nice use of sexism to start off there.



If the kids on this site were half the leftist Allende was, our movement would be much better.

And here was me thinking that the strength of working class movements are derived from the collective class and political consciousness of a group of people coming together in a comradely way, not from someone being a 'better leftist' than everyone else. :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Allende was keen in operating consistently with bourgeois democracy, and he did so successfully - let that be a lesson to those who seek a bloodless revolution.

Indeed, although by definition I don't think it's particularly helpful to 'seek' either a bloody or a bloodless revolution.

Much like the militant atheist opposition to organised religion turning into a bit of a purge against any sort of religious element, even on a personal level, a problem with some anti-pacifist arguments is that, presumably in order to burnish their anti-pacifist credentials, they take on an ideology of almost pro-violence.

The more realistic and common sense potential scenarios of a revolutionary period tend to be those that are realistic in that they acknowledge that such a period would be marked by offensive and defensive violent acts on both sides (riots, wildcat and general strikes, and defensive actions against state repression by anti-state elements on the one hand and state repression by the state on the other), whilst also not actively seeking a violent means to any revolutionary ends.

I'm not really dis-agreeing with anything you say here, just adding a thought that opposition to pacifism should always be rooted in realism, not a moral opposition to peace!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh, and to the anti-Allende twats. Feel free to go fuck yourselves. If the kids on this site were half the leftist Allende was, our movement would be much better. I've seen so many people come and go in the left, it doesn't even phase me anymore. At least Allende fought until the bitter end. My Chilean co-worker at my last job, and his living through the terror of Pinochet, and his support of Allende. Is even more of a reason for me to post this. So I guess it looks like I had more to say after all. :ohmy:

When you say "go fuck yourself", does that include using toys? Because that I can do. Anything else, and I think I'm a bit too old and inflexible.

As for Pinochet, it was precisely Allende who appointed him as the chief of the army and who undercut any opposition to the bourgeois military by arguing that it was "politically neutral". Allende was directly responsible for the Pinochet regime due to his continued sowing of illusions in the bourgeois state among workers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let the smallest seed of petty-propriety find a comfortable place in the party and it will prove to infect the whole legitimate communist process with the reactionary culture of competition - not that that lesson holds much relevance in terms of being able to prevent it again in backward country's revolution. Much more importantly is of course seeing that the comrades who flirt with the petty-bourgeois masses are simply acting out of a 'realist' attitude, understanding that if we don't pander to their socio-cultural strata, the class enemy will. Socialism in one Country (or rather, "anti-imperialist" socialism in an alliance of weak countries) seems an irreconcilable contradiction, at least so far.

Comrade, I very much stand in opposition to letting in petit-bourgeois elements to worker-class parties in any country, but you should probably clarify that what you said from "much more importantly" onwards is a First World lesson, not a Third World lesson.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Comrade, I very much stand in opposition to letting in petit-bourgeois elements to worker-class parties in any country, but you should probably clarify that what you said from "much more importantly" onwards is a First World lesson, not a Third World lesson.

It wasn't intended as a geographic lesson but rather a historical explanation of why "Stalinism"/class collaborationist 'popular front' socialism was a necessity for communists of the third world. I obviously am also for the genuine proletarian vanguard being made up of workers, but in those countries where industry has not yet turned the majority of the people into wage dependent industry and service workers, any proletarian revolution will eventually be forced to pander to the petty-bourgeoisie if eventually wants peace and civility in society. Without at least the passive consent of the majority of people you cannot have a stable and functioning society. And in order to get the support of the middle classes, you have to adapt a part of their culture into yours.

The 'first world third world' distinction only comes in here that we in the west now can be hopeful to finally build genuinely free and independent proletarian movements in the advanced capitalist countries that do not have to democratically pander to alien classes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

but in those countries where industry has not yet turned the majority of the people into wage dependent industry and service workers, any proletarian revolution

Triggering "proletarian" revolution there is inadvisable.

http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1011/letters/

Vigilantes

I take issue with comrade Mike Macnair’s one-sided statement: “The logic of these phenomena is that the small proprietor classes - peasants and artisans, and their equivalents under capitalism - require a ‘man on horseback’ (either a ruling class or an absolutist state) to rule over them ... the natural political expression of the petty proprietor class, and the idea that this class is really ‘democratic’ in character is an illusion” (‘Exploitation and illusions about ‘anti-imperialism’”, May 15).

First, in countries where the working class is only a demographic minority relative to other classes, the small proprietors are the democratic class because they’re the demographic majority. It is they who have the democratic mandate there, in the third world, even if the rural elements tend to support strong executive power.

Second, the suggestion that strong executive power and democratic participation are incompatible is a false one. Gramsci saw past the classical socialist illusions on the subject in earlier history, writing instead of “progressive Caesarism” and its reactionary counterpart, then stressing lots of caution about episodes of such “progressive Caesarism”.

Further back, the real reason the Julius Caesar of people’s history was assassinated was not because of establishing a dictatura (which he did), but because of his plans to transfer power from the plutocratic senate to the more common man’s tribunal assembly. More recently, the strong-in-image-only executive power of the late Hugo Chávez pushed for the establishment of political communes in Venezuela, as an encouragement of more democratic participation, not just the stereotypical desire to undermine established municipalities and governorships.

Third, organising for class-based political independence is possible if the proletarian demographic minorities become the most politically visible vigilantes in anti-bourgeois crusades by the national/socioeconomically ‘patriotic’ petty bourgeoisie.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

That's a very good and radically important point by DNZ imo, re. "democratic classes".


Originally posted by DNZ:
Further back, the real reason the Julius Caesar of people’s history was assassinated was not because of establishing a dictatura (which he did), but because of his plans to transfer power from the plutocratic senate to the more common man’s tribunal assembly.

I think for sake of clarity we should remind comrades and readers that we are not supposing that Julius Caesar was in any way a democrat, i.e. the 'people's tribunal assemblies' (although representative of the majority of free men) were in no way democratic: the majority of the people in the sad era of slavery were downtrodden animals.

In this light, it's more plain to see imo that human history since the catastrophe of the neolithic (counter)revolution, indeed is the history of progress back towards our natural egalitarian social organization. The motivation for us communists to fight and win should not only be to alleviate the hardships that we and our friends in the here and now as wage laborers go through, but also more powerfully to strive to implement and vigilantly maintain a unified, international human egalitarian dominant culture as a new era of history.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Medical surgery is a specialised field. The point is that politics is not, or shouldn't be.


As long as you can't think past a society dominated by professional politicians, you will not be able to formulate a strategy, or support a strategy, to genuinely transform society beyond its current hierarchical nature.


And I thought you were against rigid professionalisation. Or is it necessary to have hierarchies in our alternatively set-up institutions, y'know, that's what capitalism is? The whole point of an alternative culture is that institutions set up within capitalism are alternative but, as you have so clearly demonstrated, the vacuity of such a strategy is that capitalism is the sole social system and is all-encompassing. Much like you cannot escape wage-labour as a worker, so you cannot escape the hierarchical structure that is found in class society.

If only you were a professional worker, so you would better understand the distinction between the functional division of labour and the social division of labour.