Europe turns Left as Greece breaks all records

[nomoba]

A historical moment for Greece and Europe

http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2015/01/europe-turns-left-as-greece-breaks-all.html

[Hrafn]

Haha.

[Zoroaster]

Meh, just some boring reformists. At best, they will get anti-austerity liberal reforms.

[Marxizm]

A historical moment for Greece and Europe



Im very glad this happened, if the Golden Dawn Fascists gained the most votes that would be horrible. Europe seems to be turning to the Right sadly, France is now right wing at least Greece was smart enough to turn Left.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

There is every reason to dread the consequences of the upcoming disappointment

[Red Star Rising]

Regardless of whether SYRIZA are what they're cracked up to be, Marxism went from scarcely mentioned to all over the news overnight in Europe. That at least is a plus which could draw working class people away from far-right nationalism and towards a socialist alternative.

[Tim Cornelis]

Regardless of whether SYRIZA are what they're cracked up to be, Marxism went from scarcely mentioned to all over the news overnight in Europe. That at least is a plus which could draw working class people away from far-right nationalism and towards a socialist alternative.

That is an incredibly unrealistic expectation. You think that name-dropping of Marxism in the news turns people away from fascism to socialism? I'd say it's unrealistic enough to think that name-dropping will make moderate leftists more radical (rising consciousness is far more difficult). If anything, it makes far-rightist sympathisers more scared of an imminent commie takeover.

Also, Marxism is not mentioned in the media at all.

[Hit The North]

Well Greece represents something like 2% of the Eurozone GDP so in itself this is small fry and nothing like "Europe turns left." It will depend on how succesful or abject SYRIZA is in meeting its objectives. But, frankly, this is a great opportunity for the bourgeoisie to pick at and frustrate the progress of the new government, isolated as it is, and prove the "incorrectness" of attempts to challenge neoliberal orthodoxy.

If SYRIZA is unsuccessful in negotiating a humane settlement to the debt crisis then it will depend on how they manage the defeat. Theoretically, this could be yet another stage in the escalation of class consciousness and opposition to capital, as the obstruction of the Troika becomes a cause of further resentment and forces the working class to escalate militant action. Or it could be the frustrating anticlimax of another lame attempt at change from above.

What do people think is most likely?

[RedKobra]

Everything depends on Tsipras. He is pretty much the only Syriza personality that anyone outside of Greece knows. If he appears satisfied with what will certainly be a screw job settlement then the people may well blame the left and assume this is just what the left does. It promises big and then sells everyone out. If Tsipras uses the defeat to the troika as a rallying call, possibly even as a excuse to call fresh elections then who knows peoples anger might be directed firmly at the troika.

My suspicion is it will be the former, Greeks will continue to suffer, Syriza will crack and split over the next couple of years before they're obliterated at new elections, Europe's left goes back to looking for a tiny crumb of hope.

Electoralism is pointless. By all means use it to propogandise but the idea that a genuine left program can be achieved through civil negotiation with Capital is just laughable.

[Sewer Socialist]

What records?

[Sewer Socialist]

Also, why wouldn't PASOK have wanted to coalesce with SYRIZA? They have as many seats as Greek Independence, it was only Papandreou who changed the party line to pro-EU, and he just left, so it seems like moving back to anti-EU would maybe be good for reversing their falling popularity...?

[Luís Henrique]

Meh, just some boring reformists. At best, they will get anti-austerity liberal reforms.

Do you ever eat something, or do you consider that as "merely reproducing labour power, not worth the pain?"

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

There is every reason to dread the consequences of the upcoming disappointment

Disappoitment is what moves the world.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Also, why wouldn't PASOK have wanted to coalesce with SYRIZA?

The question, I fear, is not why PASOK wants or wants not to coalesce with anybody, but why would anybody want to coalesce with PASOK, or even touch it without dressing something as safe as this (or more):

http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/01/30/82da2d36-77b9-4d70-b3ea-5f22060bdf2a/thumbnail/620x350/1df419f0dc414061707ff22de96dfb07/h7n9v2.jpg


They have as many seats as Greek Independence, it was only Papandreou who changed the party line to pro-EU, and he just left, so it seems like moving back to anti-EU would maybe be good for reversing their falling popularity...?

Instead, they are decrying Papandreu as a traitor for having left the party, so it doesn't seem they are eager to make a left turn for the moment.

(Nothing in the world is just one person; the PASOK did what it did of its own accord and cannot break with its past that easily. Papandreu was an important figure in that past, but was far from being the only one, and those that succeeded him have in no way reversed PASOK's path to the right.)

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

GREECE: After the Elections of January 25 -- by Dominique Ferré (informations Ouvrières, Jan, 28, 2015)


After the Elections of January 25

By Dominique Ferré

(reprinted from Issue No. 336, January 28, of Informations Ouvrières [Labor News], weekly newspaper of the Independent Workers Party / POI of France)

"Greek vote seen as a rejection of austerity” was the headline of the International New York Times the day after the parliamentary elections in Greece. The U.S. newspaper underlined the international significance of the vote, noting that, “from France to Spain to Italy, more voters are growing fed up with policies that demand sacrifice to address the discipline of financial markets.”

This election is seen as as a "referendum on the austerity policies" by the French daily Le Monde, which is concerned about the massive rejection by those on the "left" and on the right of all the politicians who during the past five years have implemented the Memoranda of the Troika (International Monetary Fund-European Central Bank-European Commission). More than the victory of Syriza[1], what Le Monde regrets primarily is that "only 35% of the electorate voted in favor of a party that had implemented austerity measures (New Democracy, PASOK and the new party of George Papandreou, the Movement of Social Democrats, which has no representatives in the Parliament).”

This rejection was particularly strong among the working class and the poor, who have been beaten down brutally by five years of implementation of the Memoranda. One peasant in three, 39% of workers in the public and private sectors, and 45% of the unemployed voted for Syriza. In the working-class district of Piraeus, whose port has been dismantled, 42% voted for Syriza.

This was a class vote against the Memoranda and against those who have implemented them. It is a rejection of those who “after five years of submission to the Troika are seen as the latest incarnation of the hated foreign debt collectors who have lorded it over Greece at regular intervals during its 183 years of independence.” (Financial Times)

This result is the expression in the distorted field of the elections of the immense strength of the Greek working class -- championing and drawing behind it the peasants, the youth and sections of the petty bourgeoisie. For five years, in the direct field of the class struggle, hundreds of strikes, occupations, and demonstrations, as well as dozens of days of inter-professional strikes, have faced powerful obstacles placed in their path by the top leaders of the trade union confederations and by the “left” parties (PASOK, Communist Party, Syriza, etc.). This has prevented the working class from beating back and defeating these austerity plans.

On Sunday evening, January 25, after the announcement that Syriza had won 149 seats out of the 300 seats in Parliament, thousands of activists gathered in the center of Athens. There were thousands -- but this was not a tidal wave by “those Greeks who,” according to Le Monde, “voted Syriza massively, but without much conviction, to end austerity."

“Blowing hot and cold," according to the Agence France-Presse, “[Alexis Tsiparas], the spokesperson for Syriza, stated: ‘The mandate of the Greek people indisputably cancels the Memorandum. The Troika is now a thing of the past.’ But for the rest, his words were quite moderate. He called to ‘negotiate’ a ‘new viable solution that benefits everyone’.” Le Monde quotes the Syriza spokesperson as stating that, "Greece will bring its own proposals and a reform plan without adding to the budget deficit.”

There is, on the one hand, a huge expectation. It is the hope of millions of people who voted for Syriza. It is the hope of all those who refused to vote for the "parties of the Memorandum." It is the hope of all those who participated in the strikes, occupations, and demonstrations and who chanted: "Take Your Memorandum and Get the Hell Out!”

It is the expectation of those who heard Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras announce, in September 2014 in Thessaloniki, that the first steps he would take as the new head of government would be to establish a minimum wage of 750 euros and a thirteenth month for pensions of less than 700 euros. He said he would also restore collective-bargaining, create 300,000 jobs, restore electricity for poor families, and make transportation free for the unemployed. . . .

But there is, on the other hand, as the Financial Times notes, the fact that, “Mr. Tsipras will be under intense pressure from Greece’s EU and international monetary fund creditors, who own most of the nation’s foreign debt, to abide by the reform commitments of previous Greek governments in return for more assistance. . . . Mr. Tsipras’s options appears limited.” For its part, Les Echos states that, “Tsipras’s margin of economic and financial flexibility is almost zero.”

Alexis Tsipras called for negotiating "a new, viable solution that benefits everyone,” noted the International New York Times, adding that, “Tsipras’s biggest promise -- and the one that has stirred deep anxiety in Brussels and Berlin as well as on financial markets -- has been his pledge to force Greece’s creditors, led by Chancelor Angela Merkel of Germany, to renegotiate the terms of the country’s 240 billion euro bail out.”

But the creditors are demanding, "that the new government respect the commitments made by the Greek State" (Le Monde). In short, everything must continue as before. "I don’t think there will be a majority in the Eurogroup, especially in the euro zone, that favors a reduction of Greek debt,” said Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission.

Christine Lagarde, IMF managing director, said: "We will re-launch the dialogue with the Greek authorities, especially regarding their structural reform agenda. There is a lot of catching up to do. . . . There are internal rules for the euro zone that must be respected. We cannot create special categories for specific countries."

What Lagarde means by “catching up” is, for example, the implementation of massive layoffs in the public sector, something that no Greek government till now has been able to accomplish fully on account of the massive resistance of the workers. Faithful to his previous statements according to which "the commitments were made [a reference to the Greek Memoranda – Ed. Note], and they must be upheld," François Hollande, noted that, “the stability of the euro zone must be safeguarded.”

The wiggle room is as narrow for the institutions of finance capital and its banks as it is for the new Greek government. "Merkel knows that something will have to be done, but she sees little maneuvering space to provide debt relief,” stated El País, noting that Germany in fact holds a significant part of that debt.

Angelos Tsakanikas, of the IOBE think-tank, warns of a possible "bad scenario -- namely that Tsipras may feel confident enough to take a hard line with the European Union. . . . It may be dangerous. The Commission could cut the structural funds. The tension might then provoke a capital flight." And this, in turn could set off a chain of collapses of banks in the creditor countries.

That is why another "ringing bell" is beginning to be heard. It is one voiced by Cœuré Benedict, a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, who said: "Europe is undertaking a process of dialogue and cooperation with Greece. They need help; it is necessary that this new experience succeed." (Europe 1)

What is meant by "helping the Greeks” was laid out by a spokesperson for financial capital, Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington. He called for efforts to ensure that, “Mr. Tsipras move toward a more centrist stance. . . . It would show that these protest movements ultimately recognize reality, which is that they are in the euro and they have to play by the rules.”

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in a European Central Bank memo of January 22, [ECB President] Mario Draghi, “chose the candidate of the Greek radical left, Tsipras.” According to an expert at the Bank of America - Merrill Lynch, the ECB's measures amount to "a carrot for Syriza to conclude an agreement with the Troika." (Bloomberg)

Moreover, the leadership of Syriza had already hailed an "important decision [by the ECB] that the future Greek government will put to good use in the national interest." In the Financial Times on January 20, Tsipras sent out a number of signals to the international financial institutions which are the inevitable consequences of his refusal to break with the European Union and the euro: respect for a balanced budget, defining financial targets, compliance with the "social market economy," restructuring the debt in order to repay it. . . .

Huge efforts are being made now to compel the new Greek government to turn its back on the mandate that the people entrusted it with on January 25. "Germany has been playing during the last three weeks on two fronts: Threats and appeasement." (Le Monde)

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Jörg Asmussen, the Social Democratic Secretary of State to the German Minister of Labor, has been conducting informal talks with Syriza for weeks. Another leader of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), Martin Schulz, the president of European "Parliament," has also been involved in these discussions. His role has been to ensure that Tsipras "renounce the most radical aspects of his program, because Greece is still very dependent on this aid [from the “creditors"] and Alexis Tsipras knows it." [2] (ABC)

The same kind of message came from the French finance minister, the "socialist" Sapin, live from the World Economic Forum in Davos: "The partners of Greece are ready to give sufficient time to the new Greek government.”

They will allow all the time that is needed . . . to "convince" the workers and the people of Greece to give up what they have been fighting for during all these years -- to give up the very reasons why the cast their votes for Syriza and why they have been demanding that the Memoranda and those pushing them “get the hell out.”

Already, the editors of Les Echos are drawing the outline of a possible "agreement": "Europe will probably reschedule again the Greek debt, and reduce the interest charged. Also it will have to accept that Alexis Tsipras implement part of his program. . . . But the hour of debt forgiveness has not come. Nor is it time to stray from any and all budgetary rigor.”

There could very well be a gap between the wishes of these captains of industry and finance, and reality: The Financial Times is already concerned about those in Syriza and its electorate who “would be intransigent critics of any compromise on debt relief and austerity." Le Monde quotes a member of Syriza who was out in the streets on the evening of January 25: "I am afraid that we are cutting ourselves off from our electoral base by making too many compromises.”

This last remark confirms an inescapable fact about the vote of January 25 and what it expressed: For Greek workers, after five years of murderous Memoranda, it is no longer possible for things to continue as they were.


- - -



Endnotes

[1] Syriza: "Coalition of the Radical Left", formed originally by Synaspismos, a group that came out of the crisis of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and whose Members of Parliament voted in favor of the Maastricht Treaty (1992). Syriza became the leading opposition party in Parliament when, in May 2012, its leaders voted for "the cancellation of the Memoranda."


[2] This determination to impose on the peoples the iron heel of the dictates of the European Union, wielding both a carrot and a stick, can only raise questions about the statements of those who see this vote as an "opportunity to rethink Europe" (Jean-Luc Mélenchon) or “an opportunity to promote the reorientation of European construction" (Benoît Hamon).


[3] Last minute: On January 27, the formation of a coalition government between Syriza and the (bourgeois) Independent Greeks party, was announced. Independent Greeks is a "sovereignt-ist" split-off from the right-wing New Democracy Party. Its leader, Panos Kammenos, negotiated the major giveback regarding the port of Piraeus in 2008. “It’s a choice that portends difficult negotiations with the European Union,” according to Les Echos on January 27 -- or, conversely, perhaps it is one more factor leading toward a "reasonable" agreement with the European Union.

[ckaihatsu]

Btw, this may be a good time to say 'I told you so', as often and as vocally as possible -- this election result shows the world that monetarism is a dead-end, and that servicing capital only leads to deflation and impoverishment for most.

Also:


Greece: the shift left, the class struggle and communist tactics – PSL Statement

By PSL Statement Jan 28, 2015

http://www.liberationnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/greece-syriza-party-supporters-after-winning-elections-reuters-260115-300x199.jpg
Supporters of radical leftist Syriza party chant slogans and wave Greek national and other flags after winning elections in Athens
Post-election rally, Athens, Greece, Jan. 25, 2015

Following is a statement on the recent election in Greece by the Party for Socialism and Liberation (USA).

The situation in Greece and Europe as a whole has taken a dramatic turn with the electoral victory of the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) and its leader, Alexis Tsipras, as prime minister. Poor and working people in Greece, who have suffered tremendously under austerity measures that have stripped away the gains won over decades of struggle, expect the new government to deliver on its promise to end this offensive against social rights and reduce the country’s debt burden.

http://www.liberationnews.org/greece-shift-left-class-struggle-communist-tactics-statement-psl/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=shared_article&utm_campaign=Liberation%20Newsletter

[VivalaCuarta]

Compare and contrast.

Lenin in March, 1917:


Our tactics: no trust in and no support of the new government; Kerensky is especially suspect; arming of the proletariat is the only guarantee; immediate elections to the Petrograd City Council; no rapprochement with other parties.

[La Guaneña]

Compare and contrast.

Lenin in March, 1917:

What guns? And what parallel organ should greek workers be ellecting officials to then?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Last minute: On January 27, the formation of a coalition government between Syriza and the (bourgeois) Independent Greeks party, was announced. Independent Greeks is a "sovereignt-ist" split-off from the right-wing New Democracy Party. Its leader, Panos Kammenos, negotiated the major giveback regarding the port of Piraeus in 2008. “It’s a choice that portends difficult negotiations with the European Union,” according to Les Echos on January 27 -- or, conversely, perhaps it is one more factor leading toward a "reasonable" agreement with the European Union.

That footnote is wrong. The "reasonable agreement" would have been more possible had SYRIZA warmed up to To Potami or PASOK.

[VivalaCuarta]

What guns? And what parallel organ should greek workers be ellecting officials to then?

I misquoted Lenin! The telegram actually said, "Arming of the proletariat is the only guarantee, but if somebody thinks that's not practical, then forget about it, go ahead and support bourgeois governments for the time being."

[La Guaneña]

I misquoted Lenin! The telegram actually said, "Arming of the proletariat is the only guarantee, but if somebody thinks that's not practical, then forget about it, go ahead and support bourgeois governments for the time being."


I'm not arguing rather arming workers is the only guarantee or not, I'm just asking you where were getting the guns from. If you can't answer that question without resorting to sarcasm, why are you proposing such a serious thing? I doubt you've even smelled burnt flesh, friend.

[VivalaCuarta]

When we don't agree about where we are going, there is no point in discussing how to get there. Program first. Should the workers oppose the new government, as Lenin insisted, or should they support it "insofar as...", as Stalin and Kamenev proposed?

[FSL]

I misquoted Lenin! The telegram actually said, "Arming of the proletariat is the only guarantee, but if somebody thinks that's not practical, then forget about it, go ahead and support bourgeois governments for the time being."

Don't you know? We should not be reading Lenin dogmatically!

...said the people who all reach the same conclusion in every possible situation, ie let's vote for someone a bit more left than the one in charge.

[FSL]

I'm not arguing rather arming workers is the only guarantee or not, I'm just asking you where were getting the guns from. If you can't answer that question without resorting to sarcasm, why are you proposing such a serious thing? I doubt you've even smelled burnt flesh, friend.
When we need the guns we'll take them from police stations.

Until then, no support to the bourgeois state and bourgeois governments.
This is what seperates communists from social-democrats.
And there is nothing seperating social-democrats from monetarists.

[Luís Henrique]

What exactly is the parallel between Kerensky and Tsipras?

Kerensky came to power amid an imperialist war, as the result of a popular revolution in March (February) 1917, the main objective of which was to put an end to the war (not exactly the purest socialist demand, as capitalism and peace are not all that incompatible, at least in the short term). And then Kerensky's government... refused to put an end to the war.

Tsipras came to power amid a situation of enormous international pressure on Greece, as international (but mainly German) finance capital demands "austerity" measures (indeed, some kind of reengineering) in Greece, which the Greek populace rejects (and has expressed such rejection in the January 25th election).

It may well be that Tsipras goes Kerensky's ways and refuses his mandate; but this is yet to be seen. At the moment, Tsipras' government has halted privatisation schemes, and reinstated pensions and the minimum wage (or so The Guardian lies to me (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/alexis-tsipras-athens-lightning-speed-anti-austerity-policies)). This is of course not the same as a full rejection of any "austerity" measures, but it certainly points that way.

And so, at this moment, a call for "no trust in and no support of the new government" seems unlikely to boost the political chances of anyway spelling it. As for "arming the proletariat", this was of course half-done in 1917 Russia, as the country was at war, and relied on a drafted army; nothing similar is going on in Greece today - to arm the proletariat would mean either forcibly disarming the standing army (a measure that would entail a coup and wouldn't be supported, in all likeliness, by the supposed beneficiary, the Greek working class) or engaging in a foreign war (which seems, as of today, even more unlikely - though if finance capital really wants to force Greece into compliance with its demands, it is possible that circumstances may change soon).

Anyway, even if the case can somehow be made that Tsipras is Greece's Kerensky (and a gross exaggeration that would be - Tsipras is an elected leader, Kerensky was put into power by a revolution), then a curious Kerensky he would be: a Kerensky without its Lenin... because the KKE isn't a bolshevik party, nor anything remotely comparable to it, and the overdivided rest of the left, even less, if possible.

But I am told that history repeats itself as a farce, so perhaps we will soon see a mock Lenin stand up to face this mock Kerensky and the mock war in which he, and Greece, are involved. And I fear that the joke won't be funny at all.

Let's see.

Luís Henrique

[Prof. Oblivion]

Compare and contrast.

Lenin in March, 1917:


When we don't agree about where we are going, there is no point in discussing how to get there. Program first. Should the workers oppose the new government, as Lenin insisted, or should they support it "insofar as...", as Stalin and Kamenev proposed?

How on earth can you compare what is happening in Greece right now with revolutionary Russia? You are completely out of your gourd.

Also, what's up with the thread title? Europe hasn't "turned left" at all. Is this another case of self-proclaimed revolutionaries prophesizing the coming of Communism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Paul Mason wrote a really good article on some key details of the new Greek parliament and government: Tsipras: the reverse shock doctrine (http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/tsipras-reverse-shock-doctrine/3155)

Now the euphoria in Greece has subsided, it is being matched by astonishment in Berlin and the European Union institutions.

On its first day in government yesterday, Syriza cancelled a privatisation progamme of the ports and energy sector, pledged to re-employ around 15,000 workers, and announced minimum wage and pension rises costing around 12bn euros.

The astonishment in Europe cannot be expained by lack of foreknowledge. Numerous journalists who cover Greece, including me, reported in detail what Syriza planned to do: cancel the austerty and privatisations, run a balanced budget and massively hike the tax take from the so-called oligarchs and the black economy.

The astonishment comes because all the political centre’s contingency plans come apart. The centre-right did not win, the centre-left parties formed to create a moderation mechanism on Syriza in coalition did not get asked into the government (and in the case of Papandreou’s party, To Kinima, failed to get into parliament).

By tying up an immediate coalition with a far-right nationalist party, Tsipras was able to seize the apparatus of the Greek executive faster than anybody expected. That is what drove yesterday’s collapse of Greek bank shares, and the fall on the stock exchange.

Most market analysts thought before the election that Syriza would be forced into a U-turn. As someone who has grilled all of its economics team on camera, and Mr Tsipras himself, I can report they have no intention of backing down.

Dealing with the ‘troika’

But their strategy is not confrontation over debt. It is confrontation over the institutional form of debt resolution. They will deal with the “troika”, as Yanis Varoufakis (pictured below) put it to me last week, “as a sovereign government” - i.e. separately. They will no longer recognise the troika, and will challenge its legality.

Syriza’s ministers know that it is the job of the ECB, and the politically conservative Bank of Greece Governor Yannis Stournaras, to manage Greek bank stability. The ECB’s said yesterday that it has Greek bank liquidity under control:

“A lot of good work has been done to strengthen their balance sheets during the last years. So I think that they will go through this crisis like they went through the previous ones,” said the ECB’s Daniel Nouy. But he said Greek banks have to manage their liquidity positions carefully.

What that means is that any sustained withdrawals by retail savers would require capital controls or large cash injections from the ECB under emergency lending assistance.

Fiscal union

Syriza’s international strategy remains, economically, to insert themselves into the wider debate over austerity and monetary policy in Europe. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney became the latest European policymaker to slam Germany’s begger-thy-neighbour polcies and refusal to share risk. He said:

“Cross-border risk sharing through the financial system has slid backwards. Europe’s leaders do not currently foresee fiscal union as part of monetary union. Such timidity has costs.”

Syriza, and its ally Podemos in Spain, which also has a chance to gain power this year, want Europe to be a full fiscal union. Yanis Varoufakis, the Syriza finance minister, has proposed for example that the Greek banks be “Europeanised” - with banks in Cyprus, Greece and Spain handed over to the ECB to recapitalise direct.

So long term, Syriza’s leaders know the fate of their government lies not just in debt renegotiation, but in the ability to make QE apply to Greece, to grab a part of any infrastructure money that comes out of the commission, and in forcing a strategic policy change in Germany which leads to a banking and fiscal risk-recycling union.

The two metrics to watch over the next few days are bank share prices and Greek bond yields, which have soared to 17 per cent - crisis levels - since Syriza demonstrated it is effectively governing alone on economic issues. But it’s worth remembering that only about 60bn of Greek long-term debt is held by the private sector. The government is not going to go bust short-term because yields rise, though it will right now be looking hard at its short-term liquidity.

Extreme-right links

I want to explain here the parliamentary arithmetic. There’s been strong criticism and distaste among the European left and centre of Syriza’s coalition with the Independent Greeks (ANEL), an ultra-conservative right-wing party whose leader accused Greek Jews of not paying their taxes in December, and who are alleged to have links with the Russian extreme right.

The outcome is to create a stable government for Syriza. The Independent Greeks - who will run defence, and have ministers in tourism, the cabinet office and Macedonian regional affairs – will have little or no influence on economic policy. Even if their parliamentary group fragments, Syriza only needs two of their MPs in any confidence vote.

People looking for political synergies between Syriza and ANEL will find them in just one area: geopolitical stance towards Russia. And this is deeply rooted. Tsipras’s party emerged out of a split with pro-Moscow communism - but the Greek people have both religious affinities with Russia (orthodox Christianity) and historic sympathy (via the Communist-led resistance movement during the war). Meanwhile the Russian sanctions on EU agricultural exports have hit Greece hard.

Economically, meanwhile, Syriza can rely on the support or abstention of 15 communist MPs, who have refused to join a coalition, in any economic measures against austerity. Even if the communist KKE refuses to back nationalisations, wage rises and welfare increases on principle, just by abstaining it gives Syriza - voting alone - a majority on any measures.

Tsipras’s original position was that he would call a referendum if the ECB tried to force Greece out of the eurozone, or tried to veto anti-austerity measures. Given his unexpectedly high 36 per cent vote, the wipeout of the Democratic Left (which refused to join Syriza), and the surge of positivity that’s happened in the political centre since he won, my guess, after speaking to party activists, is that now he would do something different.

If he can enfranchise 200,000 18-year-olds the government refused to put on the register, and change the law to allow a further 200,000 Greek recent emigres to vote at embassies abroad, Syriza could probably win a snap second election.

That’s what some on the left of Syriza, queasy at the coalition with ANEL, actually want.

[FSL]

What exactly is the parallel between Kerensky and Tsipras?

Kerensky came to power amid an imperialist war, as the result of a popular revolution in March (February) 1917, the main objective of which was to put an end to the war (not exactly the purest socialist demand, as capitalism and peace are not all that incompatible, at least in the short term). And then Kerensky's government... refused to put an end to the war.

Tsipras came to power amid a situation of enormous international pressure on Greece, as international (but mainly German) finance capital demands "austerity" measures (indeed, some kind of reengineering) in Greece, which the Greek populace rejects (and has expressed such rejection in the January 25th election).

It may well be that Tsipras goes Kerensky's ways and refuses his mandate; but this is yet to be seen. At the moment, Tsipras' government has halted privatisation schemes, and reinstated pensions and the minimum wage (or so The Guardian lies to me (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/alexis-tsipras-athens-lightning-speed-anti-austerity-policies)). This is of course not the same as a full rejection of any "austerity" measures, but it certainly points that way.
Yes, the guardian lies to you, the parliament hasn't even met yet.

Tsipras is very far from being a Kerensky. The Social Revolutionaries were in the soviets as well as in the provisional government. Tsipras is just another manager of the capitalist state.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How on earth can you compare what is happening in Greece right now with revolutionary Russia? You are completely out of your gourd.

The point, which I think some people are missing on purpose, is that socialists can not extent any support to a bourgeois government, no matter how "radical" or "socialist" it imagines itself to be. Of course Tsipras is no Kerensky. For one thing, Kerensky was in a coalition with the Cadets. Tsipras is in a coalition with the equivalent of the Russian Monarchist Union and the Right of the Duma.

The reaction of various "leftists" to the SYRIZA government has been absurd. Is there something about "leftism" that prevents people from learning from past experience? It's like watching a moth dash for the flame, except the moth has achieved sentience (I think - it's hard to tell with some people), but instead of figuring out the flame will hurt him, he makes intricate theories about why, no, really, this time everything will be different, you'll see.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry to part somewhat with the orthodox conception of proletarian / revolutionary politics, but if it turns out that real-world momentum, from the ground, happens to be expressed formally in genuine leftward movement -- as we're now currently seeing in Greece -- then that *direction* should be encouraged, as far as it can go.

This is not a time to elevate ourselves onto soapboxes with an ultraleft prolier-than-thou attitude.

I'll invoke an idea I raised recently, that the dotp may *potentially* be virtually synonymous with the radical reform of a 'universal basic income':





[A] fairly recent post had mentioned the dotp and its control of the wages economy in the transitional period. I recalled at a later point this whole 'unconditional basic income' thing -- wouldn't this be all that's required, as a radical reformist / revolutionary step, to insure the provision of humane goods and services as the core functioning of the dotp economy -- ? (Or would there really have to be more of a scrutinizing, hands-on administrative component, as is conventionally conceived -- ?)




With this I mean to point out a similarity / overlap / convergence of the *reform* of unconditional-basic-income, with the *revolutionary* step of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the socialism-transitional phase.




Basically this is saying that instead of the current, capital-driven, "supply"-side impetus to economic activity, simply flooding everyone with sufficient monetary resources for purchasing the basics of life would be a *demand*-sided approach, with supply -- labor, especially -- moving to get a slice of that large pool of subsidized demand. (As things are now many taxpayer-subsidized industries like war spending and finance create artificial pools of capital for privileged salaried positions.)

The argument that I'm inching towards is that this overturning of what gets subsidized *might* be sufficient, in and of itself, to either *be* or *supplant* the conventional conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, since a demand-driven economy would arguably not be dependent on any centralized command functioning -- the source of much political reservation and consternation around the whole dotp principle / proposal.

Once the market-type economy has definitively shifted to serving demand-sided social need, this empirical reality would very much resemble socialism, anyway, since the corollary is that *workers* would be serving social need -- the final step would be for workers to assume full control of their working conditions, since their basic needs would already be fulfilled on an ongoing basis, and then for them to socialize all production away from any vestigal capital-based, market-type functioning.

[RedKobra]

I'm puzzled. The DotP entails the working class snatching the levers of power from the Capitalists. This is clearly in order to both ensure that the Capitalists can't sabotage the revolution and also so that the process socialisation can begin. How is this in any sense comparable or synonymous with a hand out like a universal basic income? The first is revolutionary, one class usurping another. The second is economism, an amelioration for the toiling classes which entails the continued existence of classes and ergo exploitation.

I don't belittle it as a reform, anything that can stop people from starving is good but I really don't see the two as being remotely alike.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm puzzled. The DotP entails the working class snatching the levers of power from the Capitalists. This is clearly in order to both ensure that the Capitalists can't sabotage the revolution and also so that the process socialisation can begin. How is this in any sense comparable or synonymous with a hand out like a universal basic income? The first is revolutionary, one class usurping another. The second is economism, an amelioration for the toiling classes which entails the continued existence of classes and ergo exploitation.

I don't belittle it as a reform, anything that can stop people from starving is good but I really don't see the two as being remotely alike.


Fair enough, and I have nothing further to add, anyway. It's a Point-A-to-Point-B type of argument, towards the end that I already mentioned:





[T]he final step would be for workers to assume full control of their working conditions, since their basic needs would already be fulfilled on an ongoing basis, and then for them to socialize all production away from any vestigal capital-based, market-type functioning.


(I mean to say that, despite a universal basic income being economistic -- like the 'Europeanization' of all European countries' fiscal policy, per the article at post #27 -- it would *empirically* be a further-*socialization* (anti-privatization), which would be a positive incremental step.)

[RedKobra]

I think I would also question how remotely feasible it was for this to be achieved under the Capitalist system. Capitalism relies on the ability to pit national working classes against each other. If it can't abandon a developed labour market (i.e - expensive) in order to exploit a cheaper labour market then the falling rate of profit becomes an insurmountable and immediate problem. The game of musical chairs will have stopped. This would be incredible news for the working class as Capitalism would have met its final crisis but I do wonder how dense Capitalists would have to be to sleepwalk into such a crisis.

[ckaihatsu]

I think I would also question how remotely feasible it was for this to be achieved under the Capitalist system. Capitalism relies on the ability to pit national working classes against each other. If it can't abandon a developed labour market (i.e - expensive) in order to exploit a cheaper labour market then the falling rate of profit becomes an insurmountable and immediate problem. The game of musical chairs will have stopped. This would be incredible news for the working class as Capitalism would have met its final crisis but I do wonder how dense Capitalists would have to be to sleepwalk into such a crisis.


You just described the current empirical situation -- the ruling class *needs* to cut social expenditures to free up cash, use quantitative easing to pump liquidity onto the balance sheets, *and* cut wages to workers for the same reason, but look: Not only is it running headlong into its own domestic working class and sustained opposition to these measures of austerity and monetarism, but the whole global economy is stagnating so there aren't any markets *anywhere*, anyway.





[A]nother indication of the state of the global economy is the record low interest rates on government bonds. This week, the yield on German five-year government debt turned negative. As the Financial Times commented in an editorial: “When people pay the government to look after their money, it seldom presages thriving economic times.”




http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/10/econ-j10.html


You're attributing far more ability to the 'dense capitalists' than they actually even *have* -- it's not a matter of them being *unaware* ('sleepwalking'), it's a matter of them being *unable* to do anything while the trainwreck gradually takes form, in slow-motion, before the eyes of the world.

[ckaihatsu]

Btw, in accordance with 'socializing the costs, privatizing the benefits', I just noticed that even *monetary policy* is class-divided, since the action of cutting workers' wages is a *monetarist* step (expropriating value), while 'quantitative easing' is a *diluting* step (debasing the currency).

Business constantly calls for *stronger* valuations for the balance sheet, as from cutting wages and benefits, but the country as a whole uses public funds to *weaken* the valuation of its currency so that its exports are more competitive on global markets.

This means that workers are exploited to *increase* capital values while at the same time those same workers are taxed to *decrease* capital values, through a government's quantitative-easing monetary policy.

Obversely, balance-sheet (monetarist) capital values are *reinforced* with government-funded quantitative easing measures (underwriting financial risk), while labor-power valuations are *debased* through the cutting of wages and benefits, and through a weakened domestic currency used as the vehicle for those wages.

[Luís Henrique]

The astonishment comes because all the political centre’s contingency plans come apart. The centre-right did not win, the centre-left parties formed to create a moderation mechanism on Syriza in coalition did not get asked into the government (and in the case of Papandreou’s party, To Kinima, failed to get into parliament).

It is funny to see the commotion of rightwingers deploring Syriza's "lack of coherence" on this issue: how dare they not invite PASOK or Potami?

Of course, in their case, what they are doing is quite predictable: PASOK and Potami are respectively the old and the new pretense leftist facades for recuperation. More impressive is to see actual leftists falling for this charade, and even exaggerating the problems with ANEL (and helping the liberal right to portrait a commonplace right-of-centre party, actually a split from New Democracy, as a "far right populist party").

Short of staging a coup de force, that was the most expedient way to put an end to "austerity"; other options were either impossible (an alliance with KKE) or would be tantamount to building a pro-austerity government.

If it is going to work, we are going to see; but in the realm of parliamentaty democracy, and given the constraints posed to them by the actual composition of the new parliament, they acted correctly; the only other option was to mess up with unending parliamentary negotiations, while the austerity measures continued to take their toil on the Greek people, until all failed and a new election was unavoidable. At which point, having failed so obviously, Syriza would be in their way to the dustbin of history, together with PASOK, DIMAR, Papandreu, et caterva.

And we would probably be seeing Golden Dawn being called into the stage, to prove itself against the circumstances.


Most m/arket analysts thought before the election that Syriza would be forced into a U-turn.

Market analysts and revleft revolutionaries.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Short of staging a coup de force, that was the most expedient way to put an end to "austerity"

It was the most expedient way to put a SYRIZA government in power, so that Tsipras and co. finally have their turn managing the bourgeois state. It has not put an end to austerity, and it can not put an end to austerity, as austerity represents the real demands of capital in a period of crisis.

Again, people seemingly refuse to learn from history. When Obama was elected all those years ago, with the enthusiastic support of much of the pretend-left, we heard similar arguments. Only Obama could reform the healthcare system.

More like "only Obama could push a Republican-originated plan while the idiot left claps and cheers".

Similarly, the only options a SYRIZA government has is austerity in some form, or political sepukku. And they don't have the guts for the latter, as shown by their courting of ANEL and other right-wing forces in order to stay in power.

[NewLeft]

Any possibility of a right wing coup with ANEL controlling military?

[RedKobra]

No. The political repercussions would be unimaginable.

[FSL]

It was the most expedient way to put a SYRIZA government in power, so that Tsipras and co. finally have their turn managing the bourgeois state. It has not put an end to austerity, and it can not put an end to austerity, as austerity represents the real demands of capital in a period of crisis.

Again, people seemingly refuse to learn from history. When Obama was elected all those years ago, with the enthusiastic support of much of the pretend-left, we heard similar arguments. Only Obama could reform the healthcare system.

More like "only Obama could push a Republican-originated plan while the idiot left claps and cheers".

Similarly, the only options a SYRIZA government has is austerity in some form, or political sepukku. And they don't have the guts for the latter, as shown by their courting of ANEL and other right-wing forces in order to stay in power.
Are you saying Obama isn't on our side?
http://news247.gr/newspapers/Morning/i_avgi/article3273508.ece/BINARY/w620/20271168.jpg

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Any possibility of a right wing coup with ANEL controlling military?
Lets not get carried away now.

[Ocean Seal]

Haha.
Such quality posting.

Meh, just some boring reformists. At best, they will get anti-austerity liberal reforms.
Meh, boring forum poster who doesn't understand what transformative power stopping neoliberal reforms could have. Are you prepared to build on what Syriza is attempting to do, or is it easier to claim defeat and do nothing.


There is every reason to dread the consequences of the upcoming disappointment
We are leftists not crystal ball analysts. Might there be fascism at the end of all of this? Maybe. Living in dread isn't practical right now. Stop trying to be the goth kids on south park, the truth is that sometimes good things happen. Learn to accept that, lets see how we build on it.

[FSL]

Meh, boring forum poster who doesn't understand what transformative power stopping neoliberal reforms could have.

Apparently, syriza also doesn't understand the "transformative power of stopping neoliberal reforms". Just today, 6 days after their election and while the negotiations with the EU go on, their minister of labor, Skourletis, said that in order to restore the minimum wage, they must first write off business debts and allow more convenient payment schedules on their taxes as well as hold discussion between social partners (ie the union bureaucracies and the business owners' representatives) and let them agree on a timetable that won't burden the economy.

The same person, only a few days before the election, had said that restoring the minimum wage would be the first law brought into parliament.


Now, I know that this U-turn is because these "neoliberal reforms" have a cause, capitalism, and you can't stop them while keeping that intact, especially during a crisis when the rate of profit needs to increase.
But do non-marxists know that? Or maybe this leftist government will only prove right those fascists who claim that the problem is "the lying politicians that betray us"?

Modern left! Doing nothing for the worker, doing everything for the nazis!
Much like their not so modern predecessors in SPD etc.

[PhoenixAsh]

The extreme rare occasion I agree with FSL.

[FSL]

The extreme rare occasion I agree with FSL.

Too late now, if you were here last Sunday you would have voted for them with both hands.


I think it's also noteworthy that people in Greece are in a sort of patriotic frenzy with Varoufakis especially (the finance minister) ready to be named sexiest man alive.
What he did was say that he doesn't want to work with troika, instead he wants to work with the ECB, the Commision and the IMF.
These are the very same institutions represented in the troika of course but this act of defiance (against what I'm not sure) has people very excited.

It's quite amazing how irrational people can be at times.

[ckaihatsu]

What he did was say that he doesn't want to work with troika, instead he wants to work with the ECB, the Commision and the IMF.
These are the very same institutions represented in the troika of course


Shit -- is it over already -- ??

[PhoenixAsh]

Too late now, if you were here last Sunday you would have voted for them with both hands.

I don't vote. Ever...or at least...maybe 1 or 2 times since I can vote and then only on very local levels. So this would have been hard to do and extremely unlikely.

[FSL]

Again, new developments. Varoufakis gave an interview to the Financial Times and completely gave up on asking a debt write-off after everyone, even our friend, France, refused. Instead he wants to replace the existing bonds with others that will require interest payments only when Greece hits a growth target (doesn't say what it will be) and perpetuities (bonds for which you pay an annual interest until the end of time).

Attempting to sound an emollient note, Mr Varoufakis told the Financial Times the government would no longer call for a headline write-off of Greece’s €315bn foreign debt. Rather it would request a “menu of debt swaps” to ease the burden, including two types of new bonds.
The first type, indexed to nominal economic growth, would replace European rescue loans, and the second, which he termed “perpetual bonds”, would replace European Central Bank-owned Greek bonds.


Perhaps more interestingly he admitted that Syriza might not deliver on all their promises:

Mr Varoufakis said the government would maintain a primary budget surplus — after interest payments — of 1 to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product, even if this meant Syriza, the leftwing party that dominates the ruling coalition, would not fulfil all the public spending promises on which it was elected.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7af4252c-ab03-11e4-91d2-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QcjsY8uv


But the most interesting part for me is that all this comes down to one person. No organs of Syriza met, not even the government met. Varoufakis, perhaps talking to Tsipras on the phone, decides this and that and then announces it with an interview to a bourgeois paper, letting everyone in Greece learn our new "national aims" by reading it there.
This process is downright reactionary.


PS I mentioned before that Varoufakis is currently considered a perfect mix of George Clooney and Batman in Greece. I think that's why he was given the reins in the negotiation. He has political capital to spare and even if people dislike his moves, Tsipras isn't directly hurt.

[RedKobra]

Again, new developments. Varoufakis gave an interview to the Financial Times and completely gave up on asking a debt write-off after everyone, even our friend, France, refused. Instead he wants to replace the existing bonds with others that will require interest payments only when Greece hits a growth target (doesn't say what it will be) and perpetuities (bonds for which you pay an annual interest until the end of time).



Perhaps more interestingly he admitted that Syriza might not deliver on all their promises:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7af4252c-ab03-11e4-91d2-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QcjsY8uv


But the most interesting part for me is that all this comes down to one person. No organs of Syriza met, not even the government met. Varoufakis, perhaps talking to Tsipras on the phone, decides this and that and then announces it with an interview to a bourgeois paper, letting everyone in Greece learn our new "national aims" by reading it there.
This process is downright reactionary.


PS I mentioned before that Varoufakis is currently considered a perfect mix of George Clooney and Batman in Greece. I think that's why he was given the reins in the negotiation. He has political capital to spare and even if people dislike his moves, Tsipras isn't directly hurt.

How desperately depressing and yet utterly predictable. Liars, charlatans, bourgeois collaborationist scum. There is nothing progressive in any of this, you can practically smell the 'odour-petit-bourgeois' wafting off of these Syriza people.

[Georg Lukacs]

How desperately depressing and yet utterly predictable. Liars, charlatans, bourgeois collaborationist scum. There is nothing progressive in any of this, you can practically smell the 'odour-petit-bourgeois' wafting off of these Syriza people.

That is KKE's line, hence why they won't form a coalition with them. But even if they do reneg on their initial promises, like all bourgeois centrist-left parties invariably do, shy of violent revolution, there doesn't seem to be any alternative way of playing politics in this age of Neoliberal fiscal authoritarianism ... hence the pressing need to reeducate workers in revolutionary rather than reformist politics. But what an uphill battle, if not Sysiphean, task that is.

[Tim Cornelis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3uNIgDmqwI

Yanis Varoufakis: Confessions of an Erratic Marxist

Interesting talk about how Yanis Varoufakis wants to save capitalism from itself because he believes the left is not capable at this moment of overthrowing capitalism.

[RedKobra]

Haven't Social Democrat "Marxists" always said this? Didn't the Menshaviks say this in 1917?

SRYIZA aren't a new phenomenon, there always has been and will always be lapsed Marxists who have succumbed to the "practicality" argument that underpins Social Democracy. Never mind that it isn't Marxist, or revolutionary, or democratic, or socialist, or anti-capitalist, or principled, or possible or demonstrated as viable by an examination of history...No never mind any of that! Selling out is practical you see. We can do that without the working class. We don't need to do any of that difficult stuff like building a working class movement or waging war on Capital, of actually being revolutionary. I spit on these moderate, reasonable, practical people.

[Thirsty Crow]

Here is what at first glance appears a brilliant article on SYRIZA coming from TPTG (a Greek communist group): http://eiszeit.nfshost.com/on-syriza-and-its-victory-in-the-recent-general-elections-in-greece/

What might be most interesting is the section on changes in programe, under the "What happens to left political programs when social movements retreat" headline. It tracks changes in fundamental issues from 2010-11, through 2012 and up until today - which paints a very clear picture. I't would be useful if some users with a depth knowledge of the issue chimed in if some points in the article need correcting or completing.

[RedKobra]

I'll say this, now my rage has subsided, he speaks very well and despite my profound political differences with him he is clearly a very smart and shrewd guy. I like how candid he is about his politicking. None the less people like him are fundamentally incapable of delivering socialism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Here is what at first glance appears a brilliant article on SYRIZA coming from TPTG (a Greek communist group): http://eiszeit.nfshost.com/on-syriza-and-its-victory-in-the-recent-general-elections-in-greece/

What might be most interesting is the section on changes in programe, under the "What happens to left political programs when social movements retreat" headline. It tracks changes in fundamental issues from 2010-11, through 2012 and up until today - which paints a very clear picture. I't would be useful if some users with a depth knowledge of the issue chimed in if some points in the article need correcting or completing.

This was a really good article. A lot of the demands that they have dropped make sense in connection to the defeat of the communist opposition within the party but what didn't make any sense was their abandoning the demand for an audit. Even if you were intent on being cynical assholes, wouldn't you still want to know what you've been paying for? Pretty fishy.

This was the worst part:
" Nothing illustrates the popularity of SYRIZA’s alternative political program better than this example: inside the Amygdaleza concentration camp, the “illegal” immigrants who had revolted against their incarceration in the summer of 2013 and who are not eligible to vote were rhythmically chanting “Tsipras-Tsipras” in the face of their wardens on the night of January 25."

By tying themselves to a group of xenophobes they've ensured that nothing will be done for these folks. Immigration and the conditions of refugees are working class issues in every sense of the word, this can only be seen as a betrayal.

[Thirsty Crow]

By tying themselves to a group of xenophobes they've ensured that nothing will be done for these folks. Immigration and the conditions of refugees are working class issues in every sense of the word, this can only be seen as a betrayal.
I think you badly misunderstood that part you were replying to. The point was twofold - that immigrants inside the camp put their faith in SYRIZA (thus the chanting "Tsipras-Tsipras") and that SYRIZA's platform includes social rights for immigrants. That last point, though, is complicated by the fact that they depend on Independent Greeks for being able to form the government (and the mere fact they struck a deal with that party, which casts doubt over their committment to immigrant rights).

EDIT: yeah, this part about misunderstanding the point doesn't hold, which becomes clear once someone reads your post carefully. Still, I think it is too early to be sure that nothing will be done for these people.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3uNIgDmqwI

Yanis Varoufakis: Confessions of an Erratic Marxist

Interesting talk about how Yanis Varoufakis wants to save capitalism from itself because he believes the left is not capable at this moment of overthrowing capitalism.

That's what I said in DNZ's thread recently. All our marxist academics have no spine. Their starting assumption is of complete and hopeless defeat of the international proletariat. Not very healthy mentality to have at all, especially as a leading public figure.

[Georg Lukacs]

[QUOTE=LinksRadikal;2818978]I think you badly misunderstood that part you were replying to. The point was twofold - that immigrants inside the camp put their faith in SYRIZA (thus the chanting "Tsipras-Tsipras") and that SYRIZA's platform includes social rights for immigrants. That last point, though, is complicated by the fact that they depend on Independent Greeks for being able to form the government (and the mere fact they struck a deal with that party, which casts doubt over their committment to immigrant rights).

I think we need to know about how their Parliament works, because it does not operate like other systems: it is radically different for example from the Westminster system. I think the party with the majority can apply all platforms without for example needing the motion passed in a Congress or Senate. Whether this means that it has to get past the minority party it has formed a coalition with, I am not sure. Could someone clarify?

[blake 3:17]

From Syriza MP Costas Lapavitsas:


The inaugural week of the new government in Greece has already delivered a considerable jolt to EU politics, and there is much more to come. First, it is necessary to deal with the widely circulated canard that the coalition government between Syriza, the party which I represent in parliament, and the Independent Greeks (Anel) signifies an unholy “red-brown” alliance. Anel is not a soft version of the fascist Golden Dawn. It is a nationalist party that speaks for broad sections of grassroots conservatism, and they have consistently opposed the disastrous policies of austerity. Indeed, with regard to Greece’s national debt, its position might even be considered to the left of Syriza.

Needless to say Syriza would have preferred to form a government alone, but the election results did not allow it. To its shame, the Greek Communist party refused to join or even support a Syriza government. There is no other party with anti-bailout credentials in the Greek parliament. The dilemma for Syriza, therefore, was either to form a government with Anel and apply the anti-bailout programme, or let the country go to fresh elections, which would have been disastrous for both economy and society.

We did the right thing.

Greece no longer considers the troika to have a valid institutional status
The reality of Syriza in power began to emerge as soon as the government was formed. A succession of ministers made remarkable announcements while taking office: reversal of electricity and oil privatisations, the re-employment of sacked public sector workers, the scrapping of labour deregulation, raising the minimum wage and more. Meanwhile, the new minister of finance declared that the country will no longer negotiate with the troika of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Greece will not submit to the planned assessment of its bailout programme, even if that means not receiving a further €7.2bn of troika funding this year. Indeed, the country no longer considers the troika to have a valid institutional status. To cap it all, Greece appeared to differentiate itself from EU policy regarding sanctions on Russia.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/02/syriza-solutions-austerity-europe-greece-leftwing-alliance

[ckaihatsu]

Varoufakis pledged that Syriza would push ahead with “structural reforms” in Greece, correcting the BBC interviewer, who had said that Syriza’s manifesto called for EU austerity measures to be reversed. “Not only do we not want to reverse structural reforms, we want to deepen them and make them more extensive,” Varoufakis said.

Asked what he thought of the government’s statement that full privatisation of the port of Piraeus would be halted, he said: “The particular investment in the port of Piraeus that has been unfolding over the last few years has my full support. I would like to be part of an attempt to attract to this country foreign direct investment that has a similar effect on raising productivity and competitiveness.”

His only complaint was that previous privatisations were “a kind of fire sale,” where “assets that are potentially very valuable… are being sold off during a deflationary crisis for peanuts.”

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/02/gree-f02.html

[RedKobra]

I think we've found the answer to the question 'When is it indecent to still call yourself a Marxist?' The guy can protest as much as he wants but this is just classic sell out behaviour.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think you badly misunderstood that part you were replying to. The point was twofold - that immigrants inside the camp put their faith in SYRIZA (thus the chanting "Tsipras-Tsipras") and that SYRIZA's platform includes social rights for immigrants. That last point, though, is complicated by the fact that they depend on Independent Greeks for being able to form the government (and the mere fact they struck a deal with that party, which casts doubt over their committment to immigrant rights).

EDIT: yeah, this part about misunderstanding the point doesn't hold, which becomes clear once someone reads your post carefully. Still, I think it is too early to be sure that nothing will be done for these people.

The independents come off as an almost single issue organization regarding immigration. I have seen it asserted that they oppose the concentration camps, but I haven't seen real proof of that. Regardless, as it is such an important issue for them it's really hard to believe that SYRIZA would threaten the stability of their own coalition by introducing meaningful immigration reform, especially considering everything else they've already been so willing to part with. It would be great to see the concentration camps closed, but with the independents in mind what would that even mean? Lightning speed deportations? Most of these people are escaping warzones and open dictatorships.

[ckaihatsu]

Cancel the Debt! -- editorial by Daniel Gluckstein (published in Issue No. 337 - February 4, 2015 - of Informations Ouvrières [Labor News], the weekly newspaper of the Independent Workers Party of France / POI)


By Daniel Gluckstein
POI National Secretary

(editorial published in Issue No. 337 -- February 4, 2015 -- of Informations Ouvrières [Labor News], the weekly newspaper of the Independent Workers Party of France / POI)

What to do about the Greek debt? It must be "re-negotiated," Obama declared, adding that once Greece had “found its way back to economic growth” it would then be in a position to “repay its debt.” It is therefore necessary to “continue discussing” to "lessen the burden," said French Finance Minister Michel Sapin. But cancel the debt? This is out of the question: "That would only transfer the debt burden from the Greek taxpayer to the French taxpayer.”

All world leaders are now coming around to the position of renegotiating the debt with Greece. They want to prevent the growing revolt that is rising across Europe from spreading; they want to save a European Union on the verge of imploding.

All agree on the following three points: (1) one way or another, in whole or in part, rescheduled or not, the Greek debt will have to be repaid; (2) an agreement must be reached with the European Central Bank (ECB), the IMF, and the European Commission; and (3) the "reforms" (anti-worker and anti-democratic) will have to be continued.

In France, the leaders of the Left Front speak this same language. Day after day, they propose in the columns of L'Humanité "an alternative way" to save the euro and the ECB -- without ever putting into question the principle of debt repayment.

Let us review the facts.

Who holds the Greek debt? Thirty percent is held by private banks, which are reaping lucrative interests. Seventy percent is held by the United States, Japan, the IMF, and the major European countries (directly or through the European Financial Stability Fund / EFSF). The debt is fed by their national budgets and managed by the ECB.

Why did the European countries buy the Greek debt in 2012? They did so because the Troika (ECB, IMF and European Union) insisted upon it with the aim of reassuring speculators who held the debt and imposing the “conditionalities” for debt repayment -- i.e., privatization and austerity -- that have strangled the Greek people.

How did the European countries fund this purchase? They did so mainly by borrowing . . . from the banks. For example, the French government borrowed money based on France’s solvency to reassure bankers worried about Greece’s insolvency! This operation swelled a little more the debt of the European countries, and was then used as an "argument" to impose austerity and counter-reforms in each of these countries. In France, for example, this meant the imposition of the “Responsibility Pact” and the Macron Law. In all cases, it is the bankers and speculators who win. In all cases, it is the workers and the people who must pay.

The French debt was established by using a mechanism comparable to the Greek debt. It enabled, and continues to enable, the use of public funds to provide hefty interests to the financial markets. It is just as illegitimate as the Greek debt.

To recognize and accept to repay this debt is to maintain one’s subordination to the bankers, speculators, and finance capital – all of which are strangling the global economy, fueling the misery and degradation of millions of people, and leading humanity into barbarism. It is to submit to a policy that requires the continued implementation of the Troika’s “counter-reforms.”

Promoting the legitimate resistance movement of the working class against the dictates of the European Union requires taking a clear-cut political stance: The debt “owed” to the bankers and speculators -- those of Greece, France and all of Europe -- must be cancelled outright!

It is necessary to break the ties of subordination to the ECB and the IMF. It is necessary to dismantle the institutions of the European Union. Any other policy would simply accompany the march to the abyss.

[VivalaCuarta]

What to do about the Greek debt? ...

And what follow is a predictably national-reformist utopia that is crafted to be equally appealing to social democrats and Golden Dawn nationalists. That's what you get from the nationalists of the counterfeit "Fourth International."

[Luís Henrique]

A few thoughts more:

1. Labour is the left wing of capital, so no revolution is possible until working class people cease to see themselves as "workers" in the sence of the necessary and legitimante counterpart of capital;

2. Workers are the only social force that can effectively destroy capital;

3. Consequently, the tension between reformist and revolutionary politics is intrinsic to the working class struggle;

4. The first classic response to this antinomy is the rejection of politics: politics cause tension between the reformist and revolutionary tendencies within the working class, so it must be rejected, for the unity of the class;

5. The second classic response is to erase this conflict by reducing the revolutionary potential of the working class to its position as a necessary complement of capital: the reformist tendency is therefore declared revolutionary in and of itself (this is usually furthered by some impossibilist statements: some aspects of the progressive role of capital has played in the past are decreed to be no longer supported, or even supportable, by the bourgeosie);

6. The third classic response is to refuse class struggle as it plays out in the real world, since the reformist tendency usually plays a dominant role within it;

7. These responses are often mixed in real life working class movements, which sometimes reject both politics and class struggle, or, in rejecting politics, endorse an economicist view according to which only the most down-to-earth economic demands are in the actual interest of the class, etc;

8. All these responses, however, are attempts to establish some kind of "revolutionary reformism", by failing to address the structural contradiction at the kernel of proletarian class struggle, as per 1., 2., and 3. above.

******************
It is easy to see how these questions play out in the ongoing Greek crisis, as Syriza puts forward a version of 5., while the KKE goes for a curious mix of 4. and 6., that basically sums up as "only our kind of reformism is revolutionary, all other kinds of reformism are merely reformist".

The point of revolutionaries, on the other hand, should be something like,

9. The only way to defeat the reformist tendencies that are intrinsic to working class movements is through class struggle as it unfolds in the real world, even if dominated by reformist tendencies; it is by being tested in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and the State that reformist ideas come out as reformist.

*********************

More practically, this crisis is far from any solution; Syriza won't "recuperate" the situation for the Greek or European bourgeosie, even if it wishes, because the questions posed by this crisis, even if they are, and probably need to be, asked in Greece, can only be solved in the EU as an entity - which is to say, again in Germany. And so, its attempts to find a compromise can only end in one of three possibilities:

a) Syriza capitulates and imposes austerity upon the Greek populace, which means a new political/parliamentery crisis within this year, resulting in an electoral defeat of Syriza (and the electoral triumph of either the KKE or Golden Dawn, or of some new political actor);

b) The EU capitulates to the Greek government and comes out with a program to revamp capitalism in Europe as a whole through Keynesian policies of aggregate demand boosting (which probably will require a refurbishing of the whole architecture of the EU, de facto abolishing the boundaries among the member countries);

c) Or Greece is forced to abandon the EU in order to retake fiscal and monetary policies into its hands, which in the short term, at least, means even bigger duress for the Greek populace.

In the event of c), however, the issue becomes an issue of international affairs, and other countries will be attracted to mess with it (certainly the US, probably Russia). This could result in the front line of the Russian-American conflict moving west, from Ukraine to Greece (and even further, if the other European peripheric countries taking the brunt of the crisis - Ireland, Portugal, Spain, perhaps Italy - perceive an alliance with Russia as easing Greece's fate). In which case the US will probably have to reign on Germany, lest they want a pro-Russian corridor in the Northern margin of the Mediterranean.

This would require, of course, that Russia can actually play a curious kind of retro-imperialist role (in which the centre distributes wealth to the periphery, in exchange for political gains, instead of exploiting it) in Southern Europe, that probably needs more expensive oil to be made possible.

Unhappily, it is going to be interesting times.

[ckaihatsu]

And what follow is a predictably national-reformist utopia that is crafted to be equally appealing to social democrats and Golden Dawn nationalists. That's what you get from the nationalists of the counterfeit "Fourth International."


I'd *rather* let this one ignominiously slide, but it's just a little *too* much, and I have to call it out as being ultraleft sectarianism.

You'd rather be dismissive of 'cancel the debt' than see it as being the next step of tactical demands-escalation in the face of virtually utter capitulation by Syriza, to the Troika.

F.y.i., I *did* happen to already warn about this kind of positioning, for this kind of situation, back at post #30:





Sorry to part somewhat with the orthodox conception of proletarian / revolutionary politics, but if it turns out that real-world momentum, from the ground, happens to be expressed formally in genuine leftward movement -- as we're now currently seeing in Greece -- then that *direction* should be encouraged, as far as it can go.

This is not a time to elevate ourselves onto soapboxes with an ultraleft prolier-than-thou attitude.

[BIXX]

What I'm getting from skimming this thread, Chris, is that criticizing reformism makes you "ultraleft".

[ckaihatsu]

What I'm getting from skimming this thread, Chris, is that criticizing reformism makes you "ultraleft".


Given the gravity of the actual situation, a solid reform -- as of 'canceling the debt' -- may as well be revolutionary because the establishment direction is going *the other way*, to *legitimize* the international bankers' holdings at the expense of the people.

In other words it's a tangible 'fork in the road' at this point, and it's sufficient to say 'Take the left fork' rather than to say 'Take the right fork'.

[Luís Henrique]

What I'm getting from skimming this thread, Chris, is that criticizing reformism makes you "ultraleft".

Curiously, what I am getting from it is that criticising "radical apathy" makes one a reformist...

Luís Henrique

[FSL]

Given the gravity of the actual situation, a solid reform -- as of 'canceling the debt' -- may as well be revolutionary because the establishment direction is going *the other way*, to *legitimize* the international bankers' holdings at the expense of the people.

In other words it's a tangible 'fork in the road' at this point, and it's sufficient to say 'Take the left fork' rather than to say 'Take the right fork'.

It's more like "take the left lane".

[BIXX]

In other words it's a tangible 'fork in the road' at this point, and it's sufficient to say 'Take the left fork' rather than to say 'Take the right fork'.

I reject the logic that says we even follow the road. I would hope that we don't even have to have this debate. Blow up the rode instead of traveling along it.

[BIXX]

Curiously, what I am getting from it is that criticising "radical apathy" makes one a reformist...

Luís Henrique
No, telling us to shut up and play the politics is what make one a reformist.

[Luís Henrique]

No, telling us to shut up and play the politics is what make one a reformist.

It is really not like you are being told to shut up, is it?

*************************************

Your position, in my reckoning, is summarised as:


The third classic response is to refuse class struggle as it plays out in the real world, since the reformist tendency usually plays a dominant role within it;

While you are certainly welcome to sustain and expound such views, it would be interesting that you acknowledge that they don't solve the actual problem - the fact that reformism is inherent to the position of the proletariat within the capitalist society. Nor they seem to be a good base for actual discussion on how to fight against reformism in practice. On the contrary, they seem to be a theoretical base for capitulation: since real struggle is plagued with reformism, it follows that we shouldn't... struggle at all.


I reject the logic that says we even follow the road. I would hope that we don't even have to have this debate. Blow up the rode instead of traveling along it.

Well, the debate is unavoidable. We won't reign on reformism unless we understand what it is and where it comes from.

But fine, let's blow the road up.

Did you bring the dynamite? Show it to us...

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No one is proposing "radical apathy", people are expressing their apathy toward a social-democratic government in power in Greece. Theorising about the place of reformism in the class struggle is all well and nice, but electing a social-democratic government is not class struggle. It's a derailing of class struggle.

[FSL]

No one is proposing "radical apathy", people are expressing their apathy toward a social-democratic government in power in Greece.
More like opposition towards the social-democratic government.


Tsipras had his first speech in the parliament last night and tommorow night it's giving him the vote of confidence.

Notable parts:
1) The increase in the minimum wage is postponed for 2016, even though it's the only promise that doesn't directly affect the budget.
2) He pleaded with the people to pay the amount of ENFIA they still owe from last year (ENFIA is the unpopular real estate tax) to help with the state's liquidity.
3) He more or less announced the tax cuts and spending increases he had promised (he announced the intention to move forward with them, no actual legislation yet).

But regarding point 3, all those changes rely solely on the EU since EU will need to finance them. I'm assuming this is them keeping a tough stance before the EU meetings that take place this week but what comes next?

In the event where an agreement isn't reached could a member of the Party of European Left initiate a grexit? So far, the dominant faction in syriza claims the europeans will cave in and only the minority speaks of a referendum in the case they don't.

[ckaihatsu]

I reject the logic that says we even follow the road. I would hope that we don't even have to have this debate. Blow up the rode instead of traveling along it.


I do appreciate this point, and I'm not going to make any argument for the sake of realpolitik -- that's all it is, really (to me), and I of course realize and agree that 'cancel the debt' is essentially reformist, not revolutionary.

That said, I would only maintain that the revolutionary left, or parts of it, anyway, might 'stretch' far enough to engage with the actual situation, and on the basis of *that*, say that a *tactic* could be 'cancel the debt'.

(I do find the lack of addressing the real-world situation to be too abstentionist and ultraleft.)

[ckaihatsu]

My understanding -- though I haven't bothered yet to confirm it from other news sources -- is that the German government capitulated, as it has repeatedly, quietly, before, which would mean bailout money to Greece:


Greek gov. says German ultimatum not accepted

http://www.revleft.com/vb/greek-gov-says-t192214/index.html

[ckaihatsu]

FRANCE: POI Statement in Solidarity with the Greek People, Call for Demonstration on Feb. 11


to
INDEPENDENT WORKERS PARTY
87 Faubourg-Saint-Denis
75010 PARIS
Tel.: 01.48.01.85.85
[email protected]
www.parti-ouvrier-independant.fr
- - - - - - - - - -

Paris -- February 10, 2015

PRESS RELEASE

In a major affront against democracy and the sovereignty of peoples, crisis-ridden finance capital is demanding that the Greek people reimburse the speculators and bankers a debt that was created only to fatten their profits.

Finance capital is demanding -- in the name of repaying the public debt in Greece, Spain, Portugal, France, and beyond -- that the peoples be subjected to deregulation, and that their healthcare systems, social protection and education be destroyed and their public services privatized.

According to [French President François] Hollande, "The role of France is to find a solution, to contribute to reaching an agreement, but with respect, that is, respect of the vote of the Greek people but also respect of the European rules and previous commitments."

"Respecting the vote of the Greek people" means not forcing the Greek people to pay back a debt that was manufactured and swelled by the speculators.

"Respecting the vote of the Greek people" means respecting what the Greek working class had affirmed in its massive responses, 20 of them in total, to the calls by the trade union leaders for 24-hour general strikes, and in the clear demands raised in their protest actions: "Down with the Memorandum! Out with the Troika!”

"Respecting the European rules and previous commitments" is what the Valls-Hollande government is doing with its Responsibility Pact and Macron Law, both of which are an assault on all democratic and workers’ conquests!

Isn’t the best help we can provide the Greek people to put a halt to the French government’s plans -- to force it to repeal the counter-reforms, thus taking a first step on the path to breaking with the dictates of finance capital imposed by the European Union and the European Central Bank?

The POI will be demonstrating in solidarity with the Greek people on Wednesday, February 11, at 6:30 p.m., Place du Palais Royal in Paris.

[JohnnyD]

Im on the fence on this but ...

To characterize "repealing the debt" as a reformist slogan is wrong. The debt can not be annulled with knocking down the worlds financial house of cards. Land , peace and bread amounted to a call for socialism when capital couldn't provide those concessions, and demanding the debts annulment is the only tangible slogan we can behind right now. If nothing else the Greek people deserves our solidarity, regardless of the machinations of SYRIZA.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Im on the fence on this but ...

To characterize "repealing the debt" as a reformist slogan is wrong. The debt can not be annulled with knocking down the worlds financial house of cards. Land , peace and bread amounted to a call for socialism when capital couldn't provide those concessions, and demanding the debts annulment is the only tangible slogan we can behind right now. If nothing else the Greek people deserves our solidarity, regardless of the machinations of SYRIZA.

Yes, sure, except for the fact that Syriza doesn't want to cancel the debt, has publicly committed itself to repaying all of it to the ECB and the IMF and most of it to the "social partners" of Europe, claimed that they agree with 70% of troika's austerity policy, refused to even audit the public debt to cancel the "odious part of it", committed itself to running primary budget surplus (which thus far has been synonymous to austerity) etc.

Yes, demanding debt annulment is a great slogan to rally around. The problem is, of course, that Syriza isn't the party using that slogan and hasn't been for a very long while.

[FSL]

Im on the fence on this but ...

To characterize "repealing the debt" as a reformist slogan is wrong. The debt can not be annulled with knocking down the worlds financial house of cards. Land , peace and bread amounted to a call for socialism when capital couldn't provide those concessions, and demanding the debts annulment is the only tangible slogan we can behind right now. If nothing else the Greek people deserves our solidarity, regardless of the machinations of SYRIZA.

That wasn't all they said though, was it?

[VivalaCuarta]

Something about "All Power to the Sort-of-Left-Talking Bourgeois Government of Kerensky," if I recall correctly.

[JohnnyD]

The troika can not meaningfully even renegotiate the debt, knowing the precedent that would set for Spain, Ireland, Italy. I have no pretense of syriza being modern day Bolsheviks, but the grass roots of the party machine and immense pressure from the public to reach ANY deal with the troika that's more favorable leaves both sides with untenable position. I believe that the working class will lead when historical conditions thrust us into leadership. I think negotiations breaking down, witch inevitably will happen, will bring this about. Syriza is a cross class populist outfit, but one with immense pressure on it from its grassroot and the general public. We shouldn't be cheerleaders, but we must formulate a line instead of negative chatter. Boycott the debt, and force the state to comply!

[Luís Henrique]

On another note, it doesn't seem that Europe is turning left. That may be the case of Southern Europe, but to the North it seems rather to be turning to the far right. UKIP, FN, Swedish Democrats... those are the parties making actual inroads in their countries (and in the case of France and UK, huge and frightening inroads, I would say). And then there is M5S in Italy, which while certainly not being the same as the Swedish Democrats or Golden Dawn, or even the UKIP, doesn't smell as leftist either to me.

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

On another note, it doesn't seem that Europe is turning left. That may be the case of Southern Europe, but to the North it seems rather to be turning to the far right. UKIP, FN, Swedish Democrats... those are the parties making actual inroads in their countries (and in the case of France and UK, huge and frightening inroads, I would say). And then there is M5S in Italy, which while certainly not being the same as the Swedish Democrats or Golden Dawn, or even the UKIP, doesn't smell as leftist either to me.

Luís Henrique


Perhaps it could be said, then, that almost *all* of Northern Europe -- not just Germany -- has benefitted from the introduction of the euro.

So, from the perspective of the currency, there's now a serious *schism* between North and South, as seen in the respective politics of populism (South), versus privileged-identity (North).

[FSL]

I think negotiations breaking down, witch inevitably will happen

Apparently not, and "we've won".

Varoufakis spent the last few days changing the percentage of the memorandum he finds detestable, he started saying it was 60-70% of it, then settled to 70%, then made a sharp turn left and said that a 100% of the toxic 30% of the memorandum would be history (I shit you not, he said this) and somewhere on this rollercoaster an agreement was made possible.

Tsipras appeared triumphant saying Juncker didn't use the words "memorandum" or "troika" in his statements after the european council making this a huge victory for Greece. What Juncker did say however was that Greece can change up to 30% of what the memorandum entails as long as it proposes equivalent measures.

Also the troika is history but officials from the greek ministry of finance are meeting "experts" and "technocrats" from the IMF, the ECB and the European Commision to have a look at some numbers.



Great fun.

[VivalaCuarta]

Perhaps it could be said, then, that almost *all* of Northern Europe -- not just Germany -- has benefitted from the introduction of the euro.

ckaihatsu is the proof that just about anything could be said. Or made into a diagram. Just about as convincing as the stained-glass bible stories in cathedral windows, but not as artistic.

[ckaihatsu]

Perhaps it could be said, then, that almost *all* of Northern Europe -- not just Germany -- has benefitted from the introduction of the euro.

So, from the perspective of the currency, there's now a serious *schism* between North and South, as seen in the respective politics of populism (South), versus privileged-identity (North).





ckaihatsu is the proof that just about anything could be said. Or made into a diagram. Just about as convincing as the stained-glass bible stories in cathedral windows, but not as artistic.


Okay, apologies for the tentativeness of the statement -- I just did some quick research around the bourgeois press and it looks like Germany has benefitted most from its *austerity policies*, particularly on wages, more than anything else, including the euro currency.

Any claims from Southern European countries of being adversely affected by the currency union seem to be exaggerations since they've reportedly tended to stray the most from the currency parameters (national debt-to-GDP ratios).

[Kill all the fetuses!]

It seems that thus far Greeks are quite happy with the government even if it achieved nothing.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10989119_1046682798691754_2084771403931524831_n.jp g?oh=868e13135fd8a116bb4fd8a47d8c5216&oe=555BE6F2&__gda__=1431816909_aacd89e4ad69e7e7870cb2629e1fca1 4

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu is the proof that just about anything could be said. Or made into a diagram. Just about as convincing as the stained-glass bible stories in cathedral windows, but not as artistic.


Also, to support your point, have an artistic diagram....


[9] culture and critique framework

http://s6.postimg.org/5hdkvighd/9_culture_and_critique_framework.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/z9anap3al/full/)

[Prof. Oblivion]

Also, to support your point, have an artistic diagram....


[9] culture and critique framework

http://s6.postimg.org/5hdkvighd/9_culture_and_critique_framework.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/z9anap3al/full/)

wtf is this?

[ckaihatsu]

---





wtf is this?





[A]n artistic diagram....

[Luís Henrique]

On another note, it doesn't seem that Europe is turning left. That may be the case of Southern Europe, but to the North it seems rather to be turning to the far right. UKIP, FN, Swedish Democrats... those are the parties making actual inroads in their countries (and in the case of France and UK, huge and frightening inroads, I would say). And then there is M5S in Italy, which while certainly not being the same as the Swedish Democrats or Golden Dawn, or even the UKIP, doesn't smell as leftist either to me.

The results of the recent local elections in France seem to reinforce this. The conventional right in the rise, the far right perhaps even more so, and the socialdemocrats in retreat. No sign of new alternatives to the left of these.

Luís Henrique

[cyu]

The structure of the modern government and political party is not very conducive to leftist thought. After all, a capitalist system is actively trying to ensure control by a ruling class. As a result, modern political, corporate, and even political party structures are formed in a top-down hierarchy.

If your goal is the elimination of social classes, but if even your political party is structured to operate with a "leadership class" and a "follower class", then superimposing that on top of the same type of structure within the existing civil service, social classes will never be eliminated. As a result, these structures are better suited for right-wing organizations, who have no problem with dividing up society into different castes.