exit polls suggest absolute majority for syriza, GD in 3th position

[Sasha]

If anything I await entertaining footage of fist fights between MPs...

If the absolute majority poll is true at least syriza will need to show what they are made off, a result where they would have won big, yet wouldnt have been able to form a governmentwouod have ended up in a total shitshow

[The Feral Underclass]

Will they actually do what they promise?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I do hope they form a government because that will at least stop everyone banging on about how great SYRIZA is. What's more, we'll be able to drag out their posts from before the election to embarrass them.

Of course, SYRIZA is a popular front, so when they inevitably do what any other party that has been elected to lead the Greek bourgeois state would do, the "radical" elements are going to accuse openly bourgeois members of the coalition-party-thing. We've already seen it happen with Podemos.

[Sasha]

@ tfu; No, bourgeois electoral politics can never deliver social justice, but let's hope that on the one hand the greek people get some reformist room to breath and the guaranteed disillusionment gives room to organize a real revolutionary alternative.

[RedKobra]

It won't quite be Obama levels of disappointment (of those that believed in him) but it will be a pretty bitter experience, I'm imagining. As we all know there is no way out for Syriza. They've promised that they can make Reformism work the people, and that just isn't true. Whether Tsipras can give the Greek people some sugar with the poison, who knows but one thing is for sure, unless Syriza want to get pummeled then they're going to have to play ball. Its the way the system works.

Merkel and her ilk don't give two shits if austerity hurts.

[Sasha]

They care in so much that they are more willing to throw the people some bones if there is an actual thread to their hegemony, social-democracy was cooked up to prevent revolutions, a return to the threat of revolutions, even if they don't happen does dampen the people exploitation.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

But we have in living memory an example of what happens when social democracy fails as well, GD coming in third is a bigger problem imo.

[Rudolf]

Suppose Syriza gets a majority of the seats and can form a govt on its own... i doubt they'll end austerity, i expect a u-turn well before spring.

[Sasha]

Decent piece lifted from the Facebook of the Irish WSM;
Today, across Europe, the left is excited by Syriza topping the polls in the Greek election. Some on the left have gone so far as to suggest the election itself will mark the end of austerity policies, in the terminology of the Anglo left, an end to the idea that There Is No Alternative (TINA). Another indication that something of significance is happening is that ahead of the election a new wave of capital flight has started from Greece with an estimated 8 billion transferred out of the country over the last few weeks.

From an anarchist, non electoralist perspective we might hope that Syriza’s election represents the high water mark of the swing to electoralism that came out of the defeat of mass resistance to the imposition of the crisis. That won’t be today or tomorrow, it will take a period of weeks for Syriza to have been in power long enough to demonstrate that the problem with the old electoral left was not reducible to corrupt social democrats and lying politicians. Rather it is in the nature of the electoral system, a system that takes in young idealist transformers and spits out older, corrupt defenders of the status quo. A process we have seen recently in Ireland with both the previous Green Party and current Labour Party governments.

Both those governments came to power after the politicians who comprised them had been house trained. This is certainly not the case with Syriza, a party that like Podemos in the Spanish state are defined by their youthful idealism and determination to smash the mold of pragmatic politics and business as usual. But corruption and pragmatism are the symptoms of failure to win fundamental change and not the cause. Along with the belief that the change that was not possible now, will be possible in the future, if only power can be retained. The cost of relearning that lesson, so soon forgotten after Allende and Mitterrand may be paid in blood in Greece depending on how the conflict between Syrzia in power and the rest of the Greek state develops.

Why so glum?But lets take a step back and explain our pessimistic outlook. First off the quick simple explanation. Power does not lie solely or even principally in parliament and never has. Rather the decisions that parliamentarians can make are tightly constrained by two forces. The first ‘soft’ force is the invisible hand of the market. Governments that make or even look likely to make decisions ‘the market’ won’t like will face huge amounts of funds leaving the country, a capital strike that removes the ability to pay for reforms. The second ‘hard’ force is that of the military and secret state. The state is never simply controlled by the elected executive in any country. In Greece in particular there is resistance both from the civil service and from the military. In addition the secret state in the form of large sections of the police will resist the democratic will expressed in the election today just as it has battered and gassed the movement on the streets again and again over the last years.

In 1981 the first of these, the ‘soft’ force of the market was enough over two years to erode and reverse the policies of the left government elected under Mitterrand in France. This despite the inclusion of four Communist Party ministers in the Cabinet. In Chile in 1973 the second ‘hard’ force was deployed when the, the military and secret state overthrew the Allende government in a coup, murdered the president and thousands of other leftists and instituted years of military dictatorship.

The faith of Syriza in power will be one of those paths, either soft market terrorism forcing the abandonment of election promises or, if that fails, a coup removing Syriza from office. This is inevitable unless Syrzia transforms the politics it intends to implement into something more acceptable to the EU, the military and the secret state. Syrzia itself seems to think it can win a game of chicken with the ECB, but this doesn’t seem to be taken seriously by many outside the parties ranks although its impossible to rule out altogether some face saving compromise being stitched up. I don’t intend to discuss beyond this the details of what sort of deals with the Trokia may or may not be possible, the internet is awash with opinions on that question.

If that were to happen Syriza will ends up looking more like PASOK (the older socialist party that was in government) but without, for now, the corruption that came to define it. In that case Syriza becomes the shepherd for capitalism that carefully herds the explosion of street and workplace level social organisations that has emerged into the safe field of a renegotiated austerity. This will almost certainly look reasonable as a protection against the soft and hard wolves at the gate.

Indeed if that is the path taken the same leftists who are now uncritically proclaiming the Syriza election is in itself the end of TINA will in a couple of months be defending Syriza’s action on the grounds that given the forces arrayed against them There Is No Alternative.

Some necessary expansions & explanations The summary above assumes a fair bit of knowledge, if you know what is referred to it the examples make sense, if not it’s a string of assertions. So below I break down those brief references into longer explanations.

This is probably particularly relevant for readers in Ireland where the southern state has mostly tried rule though consent and populism. Here the failure to implement promises is generally read simply as an indication that politicians are lying. The connections of the 1% with politicians to make their wealth possible is seen as a product of corruption. Most successfully - in state terms - most police are unarmed and seen as primarily concerned with criminality rather than political control. That’s unusual in Europe where many demonstrations are accompanied by if not broken up by obviously political riot police.

Because this is not how the Garda are generally viewed in the Irish republic this has meant the use of widespread police action against communities has arrived as a considerable shock for most of the population. The level of that shock is demonstrated by the widespread belief that simply reminding the Garda of the oath they take will be enough to correct their behaviour. So when we look to these international examples it’s perhaps easier to understand the forces at work beneath the surface.

Capital flight When the left talks about capital it primarily means stocks, shares and bonds. Modern capitalism has developed so that technology on the one hand and the rules laid down by global institutions like the World Trade Organisation on the other, make the transfer of funds for the super rich (the top 0.01%) from country to country possible at a keystroke. When the government of Cyprus tried to pay for its banking crisis through seizing funds, the super rich largely managed to transfer its wealth out leaving the small saver carrying the costs.

It’s somewhat more complex for the rest of the 1% but even so its not that complicated or long a process to liquidate investments in one country and transfer them to another. The start of a financial crisis is often when that top 1% panics and starts to transfer its wealth out of a country.

Often that’s ahead of the fear of a banking collapse. Indeed the huge transfers of wealth generated by the fear of collapse can then ensure the collapse, the threat of that panicked the Irish government into the bank guarantee. But capital flight can also occur because of a concern that the election of a new government will be less favourable to the rich; It will certainly occur if - horror of horrors – a new government intends to attempt a wealth transfer from the rich to the rest of society. Capital flight removes the wealth that might have made such transfers possible as well of forcing a reversal of such policies. Established political parties know this – it’s an unstated limit on what policies can be passed that, because it’s unstated, it’s often invisible to the general public. But lets look at an example.

1981 Mitterrand government In 1981 for the 1st time in the 5th Republic a socialist, François Mitterrand because the president of France. He was elected on a radical left program with the Communist Party as coalition partners. This wasn’t hot air, policies and initial achievements included a 15% raise in the minimum wage, a minimum of 5 weeks holidays, a maximum 39 hour week and increased social welfare including a 64-81% increase in state pensions and a 44-81% increase in childrens’ allowance. This was to be paid for through a tax on wealth and to involve nationalisations of key industries. A lot of repressive legislation was also abolished, including the death penalty and limits were placed on police powers to stop and search.

The 1% responded by transferring wealth out of France, a process that in 1981 was much slower and more complex but which within two years brought Mitterand to heel. By March of 1983 Mitterand was forced to announce an ‘austerity turn’ and reverse some of what had been given. Despite this he was re-elected but during that second term the gap between rich and poor increased and unemployment and poverty rose as the economy went into recession. By the time he left power he was seen by many as yet another corrupt lying politician in a long line.

The Greek military and secret state As recently as 1974 Greece was ruled by a military dictatorship, one that was only overthrown due to mass struggle. In April 1967 a military coup saw tanks in the centre of Athens while military units arrested left organisers, activists and politicians, some 10,000 were arrested in all. Much of this was the work of the Military police, whose director later said “Within twenty minutes every politician, every man, every anarchist who was listed could be rounded up...It was a simple, diabolical plan” In the years that followed an estimated 3,500 people were tortured.

Militant resistance, including rioting, is relatively acceptable with a large segment of the Greek population because of the memory of those times and the struggle that brought an end to the dictatorship. The military was never really purged or reduced so that today in terms of population and GNP it remains one of the best funded militaries in Europe. Alongside this, there is a considerable ‘secret state’, one aspect of which, that has come to light in the last couple of years is the very considerable overlap between membership of the neo fascist Golden Dawn party and the police. The extent to which either the military or the police forces would follow instructions from a radical left government is questionable at best. The 1967 Greek coup showed the possible human costs of a coup, so to did the coup in Chile in 1973.

Chile and Allende In November 1970 the radical Marxist Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile, another country with an overblown military and substantial secret state. In power he started to implement what was called The Chilean Path to Socialism. Because of the relative poverty of Chile it was in some respects was more modest than Mittarands 1981 program in France but did involve large scale nationalisations, poverty relief, social welfare programs and other measures. The impact is shown by the 28% increase in purchasing power that occurred for most people in the first 9 months in power.

The rules of global finance and the technology available meant that although capital flight happened it did not have the power it had a decade later in France. And the nature of Chilean capital meant that some of it could not be easily transferred. It is not possible, for instance, to move a copper mine to another country and copper mining was a huge part of the economy. Copper still provides 20% of GDP and 60% of exports. All the same capital flight and the other methods of economic terrorism of the ruling elite pushed the economy into recession and saw foreign reserves decline. Despite this Allende’s government pushed on with its reforms.

June 1973 saw the first failed coup attempt. Allende felt unable to use the Carabineros (national police) as the influence of the secret state meant he suspected they were not loyal to his government. The modern revolutionary left sometimes presents the story as if the Chilean left foolishly wandered into the coup that was coming but in fact they were aware of the dangers and sections of the left were arming themselves in preparation.

On the 11th September 1973 Augusto Pinochet, the head of the armed forces launched a coup that was backed and at least in part organised by the CIA. Jet fighters attacked the palace, a level of force lightly armed workers militia’s have no answer to then or indeed now.

Allende went on radio one last time to say “Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Keep in mind that, much sooner than later, the great avenues will again be opened through which will pass free men to construct a better society. Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!" Allende died shortly afterwards holding the AK47 Fidel Castro had given him, either at his own hands or at those of the military.

The military rounded up tens of thousands of union and community activists and members of left organisations, tortured many and murdered at least 3000. Thousands fled into exile and for 17 years a military junta ruled the country. Over this time the military continued to arrest, torture and in many cases disappear activists, some being murdered by being thrown from helicopters into the ocean so their bodies would never be found.

Back to Greece The Greek economy has already been destroyed by the years of austerity, the impact has been compared to the Great Depression of the 1930s.. There is 60% youth unemployment and there has been a 30% drop in real incomes. Ahead of the election there has already been significant capital flight, but in any case the Greek banks are already depended on ECB funds in order to remain open. Even a modest move by Syriza to implement its program after the election with be read by the ECB as a breach of the conditions under which this support is given and if it is withdrawn a widespread banking collapse is likely, indeed perhaps inevitable.

A coup seems almost unthinkable to the population of the EU but if it comes to that it probably won’t be as crude as the Allende coup in Chile. Rather we are likely to see the neo-fascist Golden Dawn used to bring chaos to the Greek streets, the police simply standing by and then as the killings and destruction mount, the army stepping in to restore stability and ‘save democracy’. Which will of course start with a period under a caretaker government acceptable to the 1% before fresh elections. We can be sure that in terms of the EU secret state the plans for such an eventuality are already in place.

But lets be clear. We are not saying Syrzia are unaware of these dangers. The older members after all, would include those who fought the previous military dictatorships. Many of the younger members coming from the anti-austerity protests of 2009 will have experienced the secret state, in the form of the riot police, first hand. Others will have already encountered Golden Dawn and all cannot help but be aware of the links between Golden Dawn and the police. Even Pablo Iglesias, the leader of the Spanish equivalent, Podemos covered many of the themes we have touched on here, including Chile, is his Winning Elections does not Mean Winning Power speech as a Syriza rally early this month.

Times are desperate and we can presume that the Syriza strategy is in part based on desperate measure for desperate times, in part on hoping to give some space for the social movements at the base of Greek society to further grow and solidify and unfortunately in part on illusions in EU democracy and the ability of the left in the EU to come to the rescue. In any case the vote is underway, by tomorrow the result will be known and the die will be cast.

Why write?Our purpose here is not to convince those on the ground in Greece of anything - apart from the foolish self importance of such a goal, we don’t have that many Greek readers, and the hour has passed. Rather we want to prepare our readers in Ireland and elsewhere for what is to come.

Let us again be clear; We are not electoralists but we are willing to mobilise to defend the right of a Syriza government to deliver on the promises that have brought it to power. In the soft form that will mean protesting against the attempts by the ECB (and the 1%) to force Syriza to roll back on its policies through soft economic terrorism. And in the hard form it may mean being willing to mobilise against any form of coup by the Greek secret state and the military.

It is not necessary to believe Syriza has taken the best road in order for us to take this stance. It is clear that what will be key is what happens on the streets and in the workplaces in Greece. There is a fear that so much effort has gone into the election that the social movements have in effect been partially demobilised. But after the elections they will be needed to demand the implementation of what has been promised and to mobilise not only against the financial and military threats but also to demand solidarity from elsewhere in Europe.

What it will mean In making these predictions if it turns out that Syriza takes the other route and fails to implement the policies it is coming to power under we hope you will understand that corruption and lying politicians will only be a partial answer. Syriza is both a young party in the sense it has only existed for a few years and in the sense that many of its activists are young, or at least only recently politicised. If those who make up its ranks wanted power above all else they would surely have joined another party years ago, probably PASOK.

The rise of Syriza is so recent that there can be very few who are in the leadership simply out of a desire for power. Which will make the real reasons for any retreat from their promises very clear, the nature of the electoralist system itself and how it connects and is controlled by the interests of the 1%. The discovery, when faced with the threat of capital flight on the one hand and military coup on the other, is that within the rules of the electoralist game There Is No Alternative after all.

From tomorrow one of those two stories will start to be told. One might be the discipline of the market bringing Syrzia into line, the second less likely one, ( only less likely because capital flight and ECB action will be enough) may be the build up to a coup. It probably will not be clear for some time which of them it is. Either way our solidarity goes to the Greek movement in the streets, to those fighting austerity and especially to those also fighting racism and the rise of the far right. We intend to watch, mobilise and learn because in your fight we see our fight.

The only thing that seems certain is that after tomorrow we will need to see you in the streets.

[The Feral Underclass]

I realised I don't know the specifics of Syriza's manifesto. Does anyone have a link to an English translation?

[Crux]

I see the commentariat of Revleft are as you ever were. Anyway...
here is some essential reading:
Greece: Phase One (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/phase-one/)

Syriza is the Left’s best chance at success in a generation. But for socialists, the hard part starts after election day.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Today marks the beginning of the true test of the problematic "workers government" thesis of the Comintern and the equally problematic "majority socialist coalition" thesis of inter-war social democracy, as SYRIZA has won the elections and is either just shy of an outright parliamentary majority or is that majority.

[DOOM]

So SYRIZA is forming a government with the Independent Greeks

I'm not even surprised

[Atsumari]

Can't say I blame them. Austerity is a horrible thing to live under and the last thing many people want is a left-wing party addicted to splits.
Plus, it seems like many people who support SYRIZA are not necessarily leftists, they just want a strong party against austerity.

[Tim Cornelis]

So how long did the SYRIZA delusion among socialists last? A few hours?

[Broviet Union]

I'll wait until they actually fail. Premature pessimism is rather boring, given that this is the only spark of hope for the European Left in a generation.

[DOOM]

Edit, wrong thread

[Tim Cornelis]

SYRIZA had a run-of-the-mill Keynesian programme which, under present conditions (neoliberalism), meant it had to either make major concessions to capital, and moderate its programme to the right, or force it to radicalise to the left -- which is already the far lesser likely option in and of itself. If SYRIZA would uphold the programme without modification it would likely lead to deinvestment and capital flight. SYRIZA is dominated by 'right-wing' reformist socialists, has to a large extend abandoned that programme already in favour of more right-wing ("realistic", that is, capital-friendly) positions, it has been building bridges with businesses, and now it collaborates with the equivalent of a British UKIP or a Dutch PVV, which are bordering the far-right.

How many signs does the delusional far-left need to see that it's clear that SYRIZA is walking the, at this point, irreversible road of concessions to capital? This supposed "only spark of hope" is self-delusion and desperation.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'll wait until they actually fail. Premature pessimism is rather boring, given that this is the only spark of hope for the European Left in a generation.

How many times are "radical", "socialist" parties with programmes and rhetoric that would have seemed right-wing to interwar social-democracy allowed to forget everything they promised and, surprise surprise, govern like any other bourgeois party, before we're allowed to notice a pattern?

Or perhaps even apply some elementary Marxist theory for once?

If SYRIZA is a "spark of hope" for "the European Left", that says more about the said left than it says about SYRIZA.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't want to wallow in cynicism, but some of you should be old enough to know better by now..

[Thirsty Crow]

I see the commentariat of Revleft are as you ever were. Anyway...
here is some essential reading:
Greece: Phase One (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/phase-one/)

Syriza is the Left’s best chance at success in a generation. But for socialists, the hard part starts after election day.

I suppose the right course of action would be to pack up, go there and do something do something amirite? Or perhaps shut our pieholes and only speak when something duly optimistic and favorable needs to be said? That way we might get promoted to that superior echelon of the comentariat, the vanguard comentariat. Of course, that might not get us onto King's College, but still a part of the vanguard we would be.

For socialists, the hard part is to square the circle and bring that traditional Leninist notion of parliamentary participation in line with hard cold facts - that the party in question will probably be the ruling party, and not any kind of an opposition. It would seem that this is some long needed updating of the old model, no doubt itself in harmony with the new demands arising from the contemporary situation. Or some other nonsense like that. Of course, that's only one aspect of the problem.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm quite amazed at the ability of the KKE to maintain a stable voter base despite lacking (as far as I know) an electoral programme with minimum demands. Instead, it only has its political programme which is merely a set of maximum demands including virtually complete nationalisation and workers' control. It also rejects collaboration with anyone who does not subscribe to such a similar line, including SYRIZA. Programmatically, it is to the left of ANTARSYA, and almost a Stalinoid brand of "ultraleft" (while ideologically Stalinist). And despite not offering anything tangible to the workers in the short-term, while SYRIZA does have such concrete anti-austerity positions, it still maintains a stable voter base.

[Sasha]

i assume people in Greece vote for the KKE for the same reason i might vote for the CPN if they where still around, my family always voted for them and even fought for them during the war. Also, no hope in hell in them ever getting in power so slim chance of getting disillusioned with them

[RedKobra]

I'm quite amazed at the ability of the KKE to maintain a stable voter base despite lacking (as far as I know) an electoral programme with minimum demands. Instead, it only has its political programme which is merely a set of maximum demands including virtually complete nationalisation and workers' control. It also rejects collaboration with anyone who does not subscribe to such a similar line, including SYRIZA. Programmatically, it is to the left of ANTARSYA, and almost a Stalinoid brand of "ultraleft" (while ideologically Stalinist). And despite not offering anything tangible to the workers in the short-term, while SYRIZA does have such concrete anti-austerity positions, it still maintains a stable voter base.

Its encouraging. Clearly the communist parties of Europe aren't currently in a form that is adequate to wage war on Capital but I believe we should, as communists, be flocking to these parties to build them up. The only way these parties will be be remade is to join them and work within them to make them genuine forces for Socialism again. I haven't joined the CPB because I think its program is especially good, I've joined because I believe that the masses are going to need a Communist Party sooner rather than later. We need to start to build now the organisations that will bring together the might of our class. If we sit on our hands when the people do begin to mobilise our forces will be chaotic and spread unevenly and we will be defeated. Organisation is the key.

[hashem]

any idea why every leftist current (except Syriza) lost too many votes in this election?
i was not expecting this at all. have they really lost their popularity or people prefer them but vote for Syriza because it has a chance for victory?

[Rudolf]

Its encouraging. Clearly the communist parties of Europe aren't currently in a form that is adequate to wage war on Capital but I believe we should, as communists, be flocking to these parties to build them up. The only way these parties will be be remade is to join them and work within them to make them genuine forces for Socialism again. I haven't joined the CPB because I think its program is especially good, I've joined because I believe that the masses are going to need a Communist Party sooner rather than later. We need to start to build now the organisations that will bring together the might of our class. If we sit on our hands when the people do begin to mobilise our forces will be chaotic and spread unevenly and we will be defeated. Organisation is the key.

Is that the CPB that kicks out the Morning Star? Tbh though your reason for joining doesn't explain why you joined. Why the CPB as opposed to the CPB(ML), the CPGB(PCC), the CPGB(ML), the RCPB-ML? and there's probably some i've missed using pretty much the same name. Even as a revolutionary i get you all mixed up.


Oh and i wouldn't say anything about the kke is encouraging tbh.

[Per Levy]

ah the happienes about the win of syriza has allready ended in a hangover, its quite lovely to see really. after all that suppor for syriza from all kinds of trots, social dems and democratic socialists they just ally themselfs with a rigth-wing populist party.
and here i was and though the kke might do something golden dawn to shit on syriza just like the kpd did with the nsdap during weimar times but the syriza has beatem them to it when it comes to working together with the right.

but on other platforms i have read allready the defences for syrizas actions, they had no other option, the kke is to blame, its still better than nothing and all that stuff. socialists should might try something else than the parliamentary tactic that only sows illusions in the working class about the bourgeois politics and institutions.


have they really lost their popularity or people prefer them but vote for Syriza because it has a chance for victory

i think its the latter, once it actually looked like syriza could pull it off, kke lost a big chunk of its votes to syriza.

[RedKobra]

Is that the CPB that kicks out the Morning Star? Tbh though your reason for joining doesn't explain why you joined. Why the CPB as opposed to the CPB(ML), the CPGB(PCC), the CPGB(ML), the RCPB-ML? and there's probably some i've missed using pretty much the same name. Even as a revolutionary i get you all mixed up.


Oh and i wouldn't say anything about the kke is encouraging tbh.

I don't even think the RCPB-ML is still active. The CPB-ML, as far as I can tell is active only in South London and only has a handful of members. The CPGB-ML (a) don't have any links to the working class in the shape of union or coalition movements. So its hard to see them being able to grow beyond what they always have been, which is criticism (b) a ridiculously hard line Stalin fan club. I did look very hard at the CPGB(PCC) but they had very little organisational structure outside of Hackney, in North London and I remain to be convinced by Kautskyism.
The CPB has strong union links, issues the only daily leftist newspaper in Britain, good international connections, is a founding party of the 'People's Assembly against Austerity' and has the national infrastructure to build on.
It wasn't an ideological decision. A Communist party of my dreams does not exist at this time. The only group capable of building such a party is the CPB, in my opinion. I have strong disagreements on a number of issues with party policy but I'm going to fight for my vision of what a Communist Party should be.
I guess I don't feel I, or indeed any of us, have the luxury of sitting around waiting for the movement to build itself. If we don't organise then the enemy will, whether that be the far right or the forces of conventional Capital.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It's not very easy to change the character of organizations, particularly from the position of a rank and file member. Organizations are what they are for real, specific reasons not from accidental misunderstandings or oversights. Joining an existing group means inheriting their baggage. It's not as if you can just take their network or publications and make it work this way instead of that way. I would not get your hopes up. Literally the best you can expect is the creation of a faction and then a split, which is to say you can expect nothing at all.

[Rudolf]

I don't even think the RCPB-ML is still active. The CPB-ML, as far as I can tell is active only in South London and only has a handful of members. The CPGB-ML (a) don't have any links to the working class in the shape of union or coalition movements. So its hard to see them being able to grow beyond what they always have been, which is criticism (b) a ridiculously hard line Stalin fan club. I did look very hard at the CPGB(PCC) but they had very little organisational structure outside of Hackney, in North London and I remain to be convinced by Kautskyism.
The CPB has strong union links, issues the only daily leftist newspaper in Britain, good international connections, is a founding party of the 'People's Assembly against Austerity' and has the national infrastructure to build on.
It wasn't an ideological decision. A Communist party of my dreams does not exist at this time. The only group capable of building such a party is the CPB, in my opinion. I have strong disagreements on a number of issues with party policy but I'm going to fight for my vision of what a Communist Party should be.
I guess I don't feel I, or indeed any of us, have the luxury of sitting around waiting for the movement to build itself. If we don't organise then the enemy will, whether that be the far right or the forces of conventional Capital.

Fair enough. Hope you don't get purged for your disagreements :p

I've not had much contact with CPB but i have had contact with some CPGB-ML members who were pretty delusional about their importance. I'd agree with your last point though, we can't wait around but then im an anarcho-syndicalist so i think you can guess my take on party building.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I hadn't even noticed that the abstention rate was still higher than those who voted for syriza. Not much of a mandate after all imo.

[Creative Destruction]

I am confused as to why they didn't ask the other leftist parties to make a coalition, like the KKE. I was pretty skeptical of this to begin with, but this doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[Creative Destruction]

The Communist section of Syriza released a statement:

http://www.marxist.com/against-a-coalition-of-syriza-and-independent-greeks-decleration-by-the-communis-tendency-of-syriza-26-january-2015.htm

[Tim Cornelis]

The KKE rejects any coalition and collaboration.

[Durruti's friend]

I am confused as to why they didn't ask the other leftist parties to make a coalition, like the KKE. I was pretty skeptical of this to begin with, but this doesn't make any sense to me at all.
I'm pretty sure they did, but the KKE rejected the notion.

Which I don't consider to be a bad decision in and of itself; it might even prove good for the KKE on the next election, when the SYRIZA-induced enthusiasm wanes. Though I have a bad feeling that GD will do much better next time :unsure:

[RedKobra]

I can understand the KKE's perspective. They, like us, must know that this "Left government" project is a poisoned chalice. You can't beat Capitalism at its own game. You cannot reform Capitalism. Don't take power unless you intend to seize ALL power.

[Art Vandelay]

The IMT can prattle on about a SYRIZA/KKE coalition all they want, it ain't gonna happen. I suppose, given the state of the Greek left, the best line for communists to have taken leading up to the election, would of been to give the KKE critical support - the type of support a noose gives a hanging man.

[human strike]

I think it says a lot how relatively calmly the markets have reacted to this news. If the capitalists are calm, why should I be excited?

[Creative Destruction]

the IMF and World Bank seem to freaking out, which is amusing to watch.

[nomoba]

Samaras denied to meet Tsipras to deliver presidency! Tsipras will meet with the director of the presidential office for the ceremony of delivering ministries. Samaras is unable to accept his defeat.

[nomoba]

The hope: SYRIZA 36,34% 149 seats

The nightmare: Golden Dawn 6,28% 17 seats

[FSL]

I'm quite amazed at the ability of the KKE to maintain a stable voter base despite lacking (as far as I know) an electoral programme with minimum demands. Instead, it only has its political programme which is merely a set of maximum demands including virtually complete nationalisation and workers' control. It also rejects collaboration with anyone who does not subscribe to such a similar line, including SYRIZA. Programmatically, it is to the left of ANTARSYA, and almost a Stalinoid brand of "ultraleft" (while ideologically Stalinist). And despite not offering anything tangible to the workers in the short-term, while SYRIZA does have such concrete anti-austerity positions, it still maintains a stable voter base.

People have forgot what ultra-left is because left-wing opportunism hardly exists now. Maybe it was a product of the 1917 revolution and of the excitement that came with it.
Not wanting to manage a capitalist state is what Marx and Lenin spoke for. Nothing more, nothing less. KKE wants to govern in a workers' state and wants to be in opposition as long as the working class is in opposition.


I'm also quite satisfied that -despite our syriza comrades' wishes- support for the party has stabilized and is even growing again.
Not everyone votes the communist party because they want a revolution here and now, some are just convinced that Syriza's promises of a humane capitalism are unachievable which is a good start.
They also believe that the best way to gain even something small is through class action and not though this or that government.

But it's also true that there is a very significant number, members and close supporters, that want the revolution and speak of the revolution. It is noteworthy that they, the core of the party's support, are also the biggest group and can't be enticed by false promises or even a couple sweeteners to go along with capitalism. We can build on that.

[FSL]

I am confused as to why they didn't ask the other leftist parties to make a coalition, like the KKE. I was pretty skeptical of this to begin with, but this doesn't make any sense to me at all.

They were asking that before the elections, naming KKE and Antarsya.

After the elections they reached an agreement with the Independent Greeks in less than an hour.

[KurtFF8]

The IMT can prattle on about a SYRIZA/KKE coalition all they want, it ain't gonna happen. I suppose, given the state of the Greek left, the best line for communists to have taken leading up to the election, would of been to give the KKE critical support - the type of support a noose gives a hanging man.

Well the KKE isn't just saying that you can't beat capitalism by becoming the government: their criticism seems very specific. They don't like Syriza's stance on the EU, i.e. their statements about staying in the Eurozone. The KKE thinks that Greece should just leave and also just leave NATO while Syriza wants to have "honest negotiations" and the like.

Of course Greece could end up being forced out by tough negotiations, and I think it would be interesting if this happens anyway.

Personally, I think that the KKE should have accepted a coalition position and used it as leverage to make Greece be even tougher in negotiations with the aim of leaving the Eurozone.

It seems Syriza used to have an anti-NATO stance, but it seems they've moderated that since. Having anything other than that is likely unacceptable to the KKE.

[Sasha]

People have forgot what ultra-left is because left-wing opportunism hardly exists now. Maybe it was a product of the 1917 revolution and of the excitement that came with it.
Not wanting to manage a capitalist state is what Marx and Lenin spoke for. Nothing more, nothing less. KKE wants to govern in a workers' state and wants to be in opposition as long as the working class is in opposition.


I'm also quite satisfied that -despite our syriza comrades' wishes- support for the party has stabilized and is even growing again.
Not everyone votes the communist party because they want a revolution here and now, some are just convinced that Syriza's promises of a humane capitalism are unachievable which is a good start.
They also believe that the best way to gain even something small is through class action and not though this or that government.

But it's also true that there is a very significant number, members and close supporters, that want the revolution and speak of the revolution. It is noteworthy that they, the core of the party's support, are also the biggest group and can't be enticed by false promises or even a couple sweeteners to go along with capitalism. We can build on that.

I would say that, aside from all our other diferating opinions of the revolutionary viability and intent of the KKEs strategy, the focus on industrial workers as the sole revolutionary class in the Greek context is an obvious dead end. The only way the KKE could ever hope to come power in their current strategy would be piggybacking on a broad revolution and then hijack that to establish a workers dictatorship in the most negative sense of those words. This would obviously perfectly in line with their Leninist example but yeah...

[FSL]

I would say that, aside from all our other diferating opinions of the revolutionary viability and intent of the KKEs strategy, the focus on industrial workers as the sole revolutionary class in the Greek context is an obvious dead end. The only way the KKE could ever hope to come power in their current strategy would be piggybacking on a broad revolution and then hijack that to establish a workers dictatorship in the most negative sense of those words. This would obviously perfectly in line with their Leninist example but yeah...

There is no focus on industrial workers, there is a focus on the working class which can be found in factories as well as in malls.


New developments: Syriza was elected with the promise -among other things- of having the largest part of the debt written off.
Varoufakis, a keynesian economist looking likely to become the Finance minister gave an interview to BBC and when the reporter asks him how do they plan to write half of it off he goes "No no no, before every negotiation there is a lot of posturing, what really matters is that we sit down and negotiate so that the debt writedown is minimised, what we really want is payments tied to growth".
About 3 minutes in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02hp632

[Creative Destruction]

New developments: Syriza was elected with the promise -among other things- of having the largest part of the debt written off.
Varoufakis, a keynesian economist looking likely to become the Finance minister gave an interview to BBC and when the reporter asks him how do they plan to write half of it off he goes "No no no, before every negotiation there is a lot of posturing, what really matters is that we sit down and negotiate so that the debt writedown is minimised, what we really want is payments tied to growth".
About 3 minutes in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02hp632

Ugh.

[RedKobra]

What the hell goes through the minds of people like Tspiras? He's not a stupid man, he's not an uneducated man...Over and over again the same thing happens with the same catastrophic results.

[Atsumari]

What the hell goes through the minds of people like Tspiras? He's not a stupid man, he's not an uneducated man...Over and over again the same thing happens with the same catastrophic results.
It would not be surprising if the mindset of ANEL and SYRIZA is to simply to make an alliance until the issue of austerity is tackled, just like the KMT And CCP did at one point to manage the problem with warlords and the Japanese.
I am sure most people would love to have privilege of being able to have the left and right try to engage in ideological rivalries without a third party intervening too much.

[Per Levy]

well aftersome time on the inet i do have to say this: i knew the "left" was desperate but i didnt knew it was this desperate. so many people supporting and defending this coalition between syriza and anel its really sad. its like left unity and ukip would go together, or die linke and the alternative for germany and so on. we would scold those party for doing this but defend it for syriza?

and once again nothing will change, it is all confined into the bourgeois playground called the parliament. everyone is talking about "politics" and means bourgeois politics. and the working clas is once again tied to reformist illusions.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

well aftersome time on the inet i do have to say this: i knew the "left" was desperate but i didnt knew it was this desperate. so many people supporting and defending this coalition between syriza and anel its really sad. its like left unity and ukip would go together, or die linke and the alternative for germany and so on. we would scold those party for doing this but defend it for syriza?

and once again nothing will change, it is all confined into the bourgeois playground called the parliament. everyone is talking about "politics" and means bourgeois politics. and the working clas is once again tied to reformist illusions.

I don't know, I think it's kind of admirable that people are sticking to their guns instead of pretending they have amnesia and don't remember their own statements made a few days ago. Ridiculous, but admirable in its own way.

Maybe we can have a SYRIZA-LAOS government after the next election. They still won't do anything remotely "progressive" (what a nasty little weasel word), but that won't stop people from bleating "WELL DO YOU WANT THE GREEK WORKERS TO SUFFER FROM AUSTERITY???".

[Grenzer]

Strange how Revleft's own Don Quixote, Rafiq, is staying silent on this matter despite being so vocal and insistent in the past as to how a Syriza victory could magically produce some kind of opportunity for the working class.

It seems like only the Spartacists and the Left Communists had made a principled opposition to Syriza from the start and faced nothing but ridicule for it. Now we are seeing a whole host of opportunists who are suddenly pretending to have always been critical of Syriza. Thankfully for them, the memory of the average revlefter seems to extend back about two weeks.

[Sasha]

https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/10921639_594559190677996_3682089713525020501_o.png

[DOOM]

Strange how Revleft's own Don Quixote, Rafiq, is staying silent on this matter despite being so vocal and insistent in the past as to how a Syriza victory could magically produce some kind of opportunity for the working class.

It seems like only the Spartacists and the Left Communists had made a principled opposition to Syriza from the start and faced nothing but ridicule for it. Now we are seeing a whole host of opportunists who are suddenly pretending to have always been critical of Syriza. Thankfully for them, the memory of the average revlefter seems to extend back about two weeks.

What a weird combination.
And I don't believe that left-coms and certain trotskyist sects were the only groups critiquing SYRIZA and the whole liberalism surrounding "radicals" supporting SYRIZA.
I guess this is another episode of tendency dick measuring contest.

[Tim Cornelis]

Remember when socialism came to Greece when the communists won in 2015?
Remember when socialism came to Guyana when the communists won in 2011?
Remember when socialism came to Moldova when the communists won in 2010?
Remember when socialism came to Nepal when the communists won in 2009?
Remember when socialism came to Cyprus when the communists won in 2006?
Remember when socialism came to Kerala when the communists won in 2006?
Remember when socialism came to West Bengal when the communists won in 2006?
Remember when socialism came to France when the communists won in 1956?



Strange how Revleft's own Don Quixote, Rafiq, is staying silent on this matter despite being so vocal and insistent in the past as to how a Syriza victory could magically produce some kind of opportunity for the working class.

It seems like only the Spartacists and the Left Communists had made a principled opposition to Syriza from the start and faced nothing but ridicule for it. Now we are seeing a whole host of opportunists who are suddenly pretending to have always been critical of Syriza. Thankfully for them, the memory of the average revlefter seems to extend back about two weeks.

Grenzer is back?

I've seen no one that's made a change of heart here, so if your memory is so much better, could you point those people out? I've always felt that pro-SYRIZA folk were in a minority here.

[Rudolf]

So after Syriza and then Podemos later in the year where else are we gonna see the same nonsense play out? It's kinda like watching a car crash. It's just so cringe-worthy.

[Rafiq]

Strange how Revleft's own Don Quixote, Rafiq, is staying silent on this matter despite being so vocal and insistent in the past as to how a Syriza victory could magically produce some kind of opportunity for the working class.


Let us look at Rafiq's alleged past insistence that Syriza is going to "magically produce an opportunity for the working class"


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.


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



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.



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.



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.



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:



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.


How's that for your memory, Grenzer? The position on Syriza has been, and remains consistent. The fact of the matter is that the opportunity is there - I consider Syriza's victory to have great possibilities. That opportunities exist, does not mean they will be seized, and that possibilities have been opened up, does not mean they will be realized. If anything, Syriza's victory only goes to further prove the dire necessity of tactical and strategic sophistication among the Left. I am not, and have never been interested in Syriza's immediate goals or the direct implications their victory will have for Greece. This has never interested me. What has, and still does engage me is the possibility of a Left which is able to derive itself from present circumstances of struggle. Syriza's victory alone opens up new coordinates of struggle across Europe and the potential of a revival of the movement. The potential is there - no one makes predictions as far as its likelihood. Should Syriza's platform inspire the emergence of new political currents across Europe, this alone would be a victory for Communism.

It would entail the embryo for the possibility of a real radical political force shaped by the conditions of the 21st century. So haughtily, so ignorantly you attempt to re-emulate the spirit of the noble Left in circumstances which reduce it to posturing - you disgrace it with your worthless pretense to purity. This pretense to righteousness amounts to nothing more than hollow phrase-mongering, in an attempt to guise your real innate aversion to the possibility that all of these nice ideas, all of this perfected and pure rhetoric enshrined by its inarguable historic truth will actually come to life in our present world - it is a fantasy for you whose realization would be a nightmare. Those truly dedicated to the spirit of Communism are willing to lower themselves so and take risks - capable of stepping out of their intellectual comfort zones.

The fact of the matter is that it's complete bullshit that Syriza betrayed anyone. Never did they pretend to be a disciplined revolutionary party (The fact is that these do not stem out of our ass - they emerge through the intensification of a real existing context for struggle - not merely petty struggle itself. The context, politically, now exists). It is beyond me how anyone is even remotely surprised by what they might perceive as caving in - any idiot could have predicted this not one, but two years ago. So tell me Grenzer - what is the relevance that I haven't been engaging in any of this? What difference does their victory actually make as far as my position? Speak up.

[Rafiq]

Possessing firm, disciplined and uncompromising positions are absolutely and utterly worthless if they derive from the conditions of struggle from the 20th century. All attempts by fringe Left parties to expand, to garner a semblance of support were not done so with the intention or care to actually do so properly or effectively but to fulfill a pre-ordained and expected role, a form of infantile identity building. That we do our duty, feel good about ourselves and go home to call it a night is apparently enough for some. I would respect these parties infinitely more if they did not actually pretend to be political parties but fringe intellectual groups. The latter would most likely be able to yield infinitely more positive effects anyway - by dropping and ditching the facade of a "real movement" or revolutionary party, they might actually be able to come up with something outside the constrains of a "political" tradition which has absolutely no context today. Platypus, for example.

What is the real pathology behind Grenzer's condescending I-told-you-so garbage? That Syriza won, has become "official" and at this point legitimate is enough to warrant that it has revealed itself as rotten to the core all along. That they've "sold out". I don't know what kind of idiot would actually expect anything more from Syriza than modest measures - but Grenzer's mentality has absolutely nothing to do with this fact. It is the mere fact that Syriza has become a part of our reality - now that the cat's out of the bag and they've won, apparently anything less than blind condemnation is considered dishonest and unprincipled.

Had Syriza lost the elections, they could have been perceived as a struggling underdog. This is the mentality of the masochistic 21st century 'Left'. The Left whose sense of principality stems solely from its reluctancy to be engaged in any domain of struggle - in a world tainted by the "poison" of capital. Whether it is trauma from the great defeat, or sheer comfortability with being eternally and parasitically opposed to everything, we can never truly know.

[Rafiq]

How many signs does the delusional far-left need to see that it's clear that SYRIZA is walking the, at this point, irreversible road of concessions to capital? This supposed "only spark of hope" is self-delusion and desperation.

This is a false argument to begin with. Syriza caving in was something any idiot could have seen a long time ago. The point is that Syriza has changed the political standards in not only Greece but in Europe. This is incredibly significant. That the standards have changed, we can expect no matter how small, a rise of the Left, or Leftist politics in general in Greece. Syriza by itself has not and has never been the answer.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

But what standards have actually changed? This is a claim made by every bourgeois party upon victory. When Obama won in 2008 it was claimed that the republicans would be in opposition for decades to come, that this was the signal of a generational shift, here we are less than 8 years later and we can see that is not the case. If the hope for the new left rests on a kind of party that would ally itself with xenophobes in less than a day, then what are we to expect from the next decade of copy-cat parties? Opposition from some may truly originate from a musty 20th century dogmatism but your misplaced hope itself belongs to a 19th century dogma. The idea that the bourgeoisie will ever again allow a true opposition to come to power via their own representation system is a fevered delusion .

[Kill all the fetuses!]

But what standards have actually changed? This is a claim made by every bourgeois party upon victory. When Obama won in 2008 it was claimed that the republicans would be in opposition for decades to come, that this was the signal of a generational shift, here we are less than 8 years later and we can see that is not the case. If the hope for the new left rests on a kind of party that would ally itself with xenophobes in less than a day, then what are we to expect from the next decade of copy-cat parties? Opposition from some may truly originate from a musty 20th century dogmatism but your misplaced hope itself belongs to a 19th century dogma. The idea that the bourgeoisie will ever again allow a true opposition to come to power via their own representation system is a fevered delusion .

The way I see it Syriza in-and-of-itself is not a solution or "true" opposition or what have you. The point is about the sort of forces it is carrying within itself. Comparing Obama and Syriza is missing the point - the former is merely another bourgeois representative without any radical social context for its existence, it's yet another bourgeois party that can do this or that without any opposition from organised social movement of the working-class. On the other hand, Syriza, while it objectively is a bourgeois party who merely wants to manage capitalism in a certain way, it has its origins in currently existing social conditions, in currently existing social movement of the working class of Greece. The point in this is that Syriza can't compromise on the question of austerity and neoliberalism. Not in a sense that they can't in a literal sense - it's evident that they will sell-out and compromise inevitably - but in a sense that workers' movement won't merely go along whatever Syriza does as it is the case with Obama. Syriza, or rather its inevitable degeneration, carries seeds for both revolutionary as well as fascist politics to arise. Its compromising on the question of austerity or neoliberal politics in general will swing the workers' movement to either side of the political spectrum - either left or right to Syriza depending on various factors.

It's not a question of parties saying things about themselves - it's evidently true that all bourgeois parties chant about "new epoch" upon victory - the question is about objective social conditions that led to the party to get elected or absence thereof. So while austerity can easily be incorporated in Obama's politics (as it has been), Syriza simply can't do that without the consequential shifting of workers' movement to either side of political spectrum and away from Syriza and creating new political forces in Greece and Europe.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The seeds for a growth in GD membership are being planted in this victory, on that we agree. I see no indication that the working class has tied it's hopes to syriza however, more people still didn't vote at all than voted for them. Even their bogus claim of a mandate 'of the people' stinks like typical post- election nonsense from any bourgeois party with that bit of context in mind. This is at best a dangerous sideshow.

[Rafiq]

But what standards have actually changed? This is a claim made by every bourgeois party upon victory. When Obama won in 2008 it was claimed that the republicans would be in opposition for decades to come, that this was the signal of a generational shift, here we are less than 8 years later and we can see that is not the case. If the hope for the new left rests on a kind of party that would ally itself with xenophobes in less than a day, then what are we to expect from the next decade of copy-cat parties? Opposition from some may truly originate from a musty 20th century dogmatism but your misplaced hope itself belongs to a 19th century dogma. The idea that the bourgeoisie will ever again allow a true opposition to come to power via their own representation system is a fevered delusion .

The changing of standards does not entail "copy cat" parties but a shift in potential political legitimacy. It would be ridiculous to assume that the appearance of Syriza's ascent to power is going to generate "copy-cat" parties of whom would behave in specifically similar ways - if Syriza at least keeps up the symbolic appearance of a Left party (more than just slogans or colors, but its place in the current political sphere and what it represents) then we should expect a rise of Left-wing politics in general. Though shameful and greatly mistaken, the alliance with the Independent Greeks is not the only distinguishable characteristic of Syriza - at the end of the day this was a concession, not necessarily an affirmed alliance by will. Because of what Syriza can symbolically represent, we can expect that the learned mistakes will lead to an ever deeper radicalization of political standards - if power can be retained without, say, "non-democratic" means of removal. The Left, as diverse as it is has always existed - it has simply never been taken seriously, i.e. it lacked legitimacy. New standards of political conflict arise - this is a fundamental rule in any given circumstance of power. When one is able to establish even a minor, modest demand which exists outside present coordinates of perceived possibility, there is a definite shift of standards. I'll give you an example: Modest social-democratic parties no longer even have a platform in Greece anymore - what was once maybe one or two decades ago considered the Left party of Greece is now associated and identified with the right. Or, let us look toward France where a platform for fascists would have been impossible only decades ago - the standard of political debate has been, willingly or not - dictated by Le Pen and the rise of Front National. This is how politics work - legitimacy is gained through power, power is gained through the ability to garner means of force to which demands can be acted upon (In this case, significant followers) and up to a certain point through consciousness the logic of legitimacy all-together becomes obsolete and suddenly 'anything is possible' independently of an organized hierarchy of state-truth.

One should remember that Allende's rise to power in Chile was never self-sufficient on its own as far as political significance - the political standards were broadened, widened, and Chile flourished with a demographically impressive diverse array of radical currents. The example of Allende isn't meant to be ironic - we all know what happened next - but this misses the general point.

Dare I say the example of Obama itself, while not comparable to Syriza by any means (There are a plethora of differences - Obama was seen as a substantiation of a long tradition of American politics, Syriza is seen as a decisive change in it) this example doesn't work in your favor. The political standards in the United States have changed - the healthcare debate became intensified and suddenly universal healthcare was a real possibility and so on - Occupy Wall Street wouldn't have been possible without the incessant shit-shoveling society had to take from the spectacle like frenzied paranoia of the American reaction. It's easy to look at the rise of reaction in general in the United States since Obama's presidency, but it's clear that it was inevitable upon inception: from the 1990's onward we can see the roots of Libertarianism much clearer. Obama being labeled as a socialist was ultimately in our favor - not simply as a means of spreading awareness but the fact that something like socialism is even perceived as possible, no matter if opposed. The fact that the boogymen were no longer marginalized forces of banal evil, an 'other' a la Tolkien (I.e. Islamists) but something that could actually pose a threat to the existing order (Even if purely imagined) was a positive development.

Reaction, in the form of the Golden Dawn is just that - reaction. The rise of reaction in general under the backdrop of radical-Leftist politics is by no means a bad indication - it means that all of the elements of the "balanced' pluralistic old order are decaying and people are being forced to take sides. This is why ultimately I predict that support for the Golden Dawn will not come from the left en masse but from the voter base of the official or "soft" parties. Reaction for capitalism is never an "extreme" - the Golden Dawn is not an extremist party. Rather, it represents a possible compromise, a new "balanced middle ground" for the sustenance of the capitalist order.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Hm, I'm not sure where to start rafiq that was a very odd post to read. I could be mistaken but you seem to be suggesting that legitimacy is something we should seek through the bourgeois election system rather than something we should supersede as a movement or class. The day communism begins polling well is either the last day of the ruling class or it's a message to communists that something dangerous moves amongst us. What is possible, remains so whether it can take political office or not. Universal healthcare was as much a possibility in 1993 as it was in 2009. Of course at no time was it politically possible in the US regardless of obama's election. During the "healthcare debate" some polls showed that up to 70% of Americans supported universal healthcare, but if you look back at what the politicians said and did, it's clear it was never even viewed by anyone in power as a really existing possibility. Obama took a massive concession with a Public Option instead, only to jettison it at the first opportunity during the ensuing fight. So what was 'possible' politically never actually changed, only the flavor of the carrot which was allowed to dangle in front of the yearning masses for a moment or two.

I appreciate the optimism but what you're saying has happened with this election is in reality something that might happen, but realistically won't. The concessions made by syriza will lead to dissatisfaction with them and probably lead to an increase of support for golden dawn, but the idea that it will cause former supporters to leverage more of their power to push syriza in a radical direction seems like empty optimism, given the tepid response to the alliance with the Right. We can hope instead that it will lead to a radical opposition in the streets, because of course that's where power has been the entire time. If we hold anything against syriza it should be that it has so successfully de-escalated the struggle for communism and the destruction of the bourgeois state. We should in turn hope that their inevitable defeat will re-start what it has dismantled in such a cynical and opportunistic fashion.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Ethics, didn't UK's Labour party ranks became radicalised after their 1974-79 fiasco with Tony Benn in front? Didn't Russian workers became radicalised after the fiasco of Provisional Government in 1917?

I am not even sure where are you taking this idea that the GD is now somehow strengthened. It hasn't been as of yet. It might. And so the radical left might be strengthened by the events that will unfold as well. But that's precisely the point - possibilities for revolutionary politics to rise are there. Of course it will depend on many factors - how demoralised the working-class will become, what radical groups within and outside Syriza will do etc. All of this is merely a possibility - a realistic one at that - but it all depends on how things will play out as time passes.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

GD is not stronger now, it's only been two days. I'm talking several months in the future, when the moderates who have taken a chance lf syriza become disillusioned. Your point about the UK labor party is useful. What was the outcome of this radicalization? As for your other example nothing about the present situation resembles Russia is 1917, but all the same we can see that the provisional government was itself also a sideshow, an attempt by so called radicals to divert the inevitable revolution it claimed to serve.

[Tim Cornelis]

Wow, so Independent Greeks got the defence minister position. According to its leader, because of a threat of Greater Macedonia and Greater Turkey Greece needs a strong military. What a load of shit. Yes, why not give the far-right the ministry which controls an army of 200,000, SYRIZA, why not?

[Creative Destruction]

Does the defense ministry actually have the power to do anything without the consent of the prime minister?

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't know, but the Greek army's higher ranks are filled with patriots and nationalists, so if push comes to shove, where would their loyalty lie?

EDIT:

"The president is the nominal commander-in-chief of the Greek Armed Forces and occupies the first place in the country's order of precedence. Although the Greek Constitution of 1974 vested him with considerable powers on paper, in practice the president took a largely ceremonial role; the Prime Minister of Greece is the active chief executive of the Greek government and the country's leading political figure. The president's role was formally brought into line with actual practice by the 1986 constitutional amendment, which reduced his official powers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Greece

[Rafiq]

I could be mistaken but you seem to be suggesting that legitimacy is something we should seek through the bourgeois election system rather than something we should supersede as a movement or class. The day communism begins polling well is either the last day of the ruling class or it's a message to communists that something dangerous moves amongst us. What is possible, remains so whether it can take political office or not. Universal healthcare was as much a possibility in 1993 as it was in 2009. Of course at no time was it politically possible in the US regardless of obama's election. During the "healthcare debate" some polls showed that up to 70% of Americans supported universal healthcare, but if you look back at what the politicians said and did, it's clear it was never even viewed by anyone in power as a really existing possibility. Obama took a massive concession with a Public Option instead, only to jettison it at the first opportunity during the ensuing fight. So what was 'possible' politically never actually changed, only the flavor of the carrot which was allowed to dangle in front of the yearning masses for a moment or two.

No, that's not the point. Electoral politics is only one of the various means by which legitimacy can be gained - politics concerns the organized struggle within the domain of actual power - it can manifest itself in various ways, one of which include electoral politics. To talk of the "bourgeois election system" assumes, in a crypto-conspiracy theory esque way that somehow elections are consciously controlled by an identifiable interest. They are not. Of course being elected will ultimately change very little, of course the state cannot contradict the interests of capital without conflict - but this is not the point of electoral politics as it has been used by various radicals throughout our history. I highly doubt Eugene Debs thought he would have won the presidential election - it's not the point. It is almost a form of crypto-spoilage, demonstrating a point of identification and allegiance - if the election can be won, all the better (in that, again, it can bolster legitimacy and send a message. Of course the bourgeois state cannot be administrated by Communists - but that's not the point). The Left should not cower away with fears of failure or disappointment - risks must be taken. We already have absolutely nothing to lose.

Again, you are confused about what I am arguing. In no way did I mean to say that Obama made good on his promises, or that Syriza will do as well. The point is that they were able to muster and garner support as a reuslt of these promises - they established new standards of debate wherein henceforth all candidates, all rising political currents and all candidates will have to articulate, internalize and recognize the expectations and wants of people and frame the debate in this fashion.

It is almost a basic truism: At the height of the cold war, with an organized and militant working class, no political party which entailed anything less than the welfare state would have been able to gain a semblance of credence - "neoliberalism" would have been laughable. Why is this? Standards were in favor of working people - they, in a sense held the "upper hand" both on an economic and political level as far as practical or even radical struggles went. In Venezuela, despite the sham that is Chavez - one only need look at the nature of leading opposition parties - almost all of them are social democratic not even in the neoliberal sense. In the United States these opposition parties would be labeled as radicals. The sword cuts both ways: Following Neoliberalism, the most significant development was new labor and the influx of neoliberal social-democratic parties across Europe. Here in the United States, the legacy of Reagan wasn't even thought about in a critical sense until Obama.

The point is not that support should be granted for Obama, even so-called "conditional" or "critical" support as some of the more spineless intellectuals here guise it. The point is that the healthcare debate isn't going away - it has, even if in the smallest, most insignificant sense raised a semblance of consciousness among Americans about such matters. Many claim that should Syriza fail, this would lead to the rise of not only the golden dawn but far right parties all across Europe. Frankly, this is lazy thinking. I could not even possibly fathom how Syriza can fail in such a way as to offer context for mass support for the golden dawn. Supporting leftist politics means being consciously engaged - the only cases historically whereby the Left has collapsed in such a way are when they are overthrown, side-stepped or rendered impossible by forceful or violent means and henceforth forgotten. Syriza may fail, but they offer a new political alternative that isn't going to go away merely with their potential failure.

There is no optimism: No one thinks it is, at this present rate, likely for revolution to sweep across Europe. The point is that there is a possibility which CAN be seized. The opportunity is there, and we can take it.

[Crux]

They were asking that before the elections, naming KKE and Antarsya.

After the elections they reached an agreement with the Independent Greeks in less than an hour.
A superficial analysis from far away regarding the new Greek government: The alliance with ANEL/Independent Greeks was always on the cards. In fact, if, for a moment we consider this from ANELs position what was their stated goal, what did they campaign on? A "national salvation" government of all anti-memorandum forces, excluding the neo-nazis of the Golden Dawn. Which forces does then that leave? Syriza and the KKE. Since may 2012 however it has been clear that KKEs strategy would not accept any such deal. If the KKE genuinely considers Syriza to just be Pasok in new clothes their position does make a certain sense. Being a juniour left partner in a rightwards sliding socdem government has never worked out very well for that junior left partner. I am being quite charitable here of course, but I think I have said plenty on the KKE before already.



So then that leaves the different forces of Syriza: to the center, ever since it was clear that the KKE would not be on board, this position certainly makes sense. The 13 seats of ANEL were needed to give a Syriza-lead government stability, probably even if the magic limit of 151 seats had been achieved.



The stated goal of To Potami and PASOK after all was that for them to support a Syriza government they would in return ask for a further moderation in regards to the troika and austerity. A suicidal path if there ever was one. The right inside Syriza might have prefered such an alliance, but in the end probably an alliance with ANEL was acceptable to them too, after all going down that path has achieved some moderation as well, dropping the call for a nationalisation of the banks for instance. As for the left, lacking the option of the KKE, that left either To Potami or ANEL. In reality an alliance with the center could probably have a far more insidious effect than an alliance with ANEL, because ANEL are unlikely to find much room to pressure the right and the center of Syriza, more than they already have. Realistically, and especially after glancing at the composition on the new government, ANEL are unlikely to win any outright concessions on the issues of say immigration or the church.



A Syriza majority government is extremely unlikely to go along with, say, giving over the entire system of education to the Greek Orthodox church. They will probably act as a stumbling block for more radical positions but it's very unlikely that they'll win any outright reactionary concessions. I think.

On the other hand ANEL could scarcely reject an alliance with Syriza, so perhaps in a sense they were as cornered as Syriza.

I think the best bet is still those left forces in and around Syriza. Either it will be possible to push Syriza to the left or it will not.

And no matter the scenario there, it will result in regroupment. What will the role of the KKE be then? Who can say? Of course if Syriza fails there is the distinct possibility of the forces of the far right and the deep state coming to the fore. Interesting, terrifying times.