View Full Version : Where does the left go after Syriza?
soup
17th July 2015, 13:54
Syriza's handling of the Greek crisis was a huge opportunity for the left, with a successful handling potentially paving the way for other leftist parties in the EU. Now that they have utterly failed and capitulated, where does the left go?
Growing populist leftist parties like PODEMOS are now tanking in the polls. The right are seemingly about to have a field day. Is there no hope for the immediate future?
keine_zukunft
17th July 2015, 14:18
It's a good question but i guess they go for anti-eu rhetoric rather than trying to strike a deal with Germany. Populist left parties in countries that are under the weight need to learn that finance will be used aggressively to control them and that trying to strike a deal with capitalism is really a waste of time in the long run.
Faust Arp
17th July 2015, 14:56
Honestly, I don't think SYRIZA is an utterly lost cause, but if we want anything potentially constructive to come out of it we need to look outside of parliamentary logic - the Left Platform within SYRIZA is getting stronger, and let's not forget that the majority of SYRIZA's Central Comittee voted against the memorandum. The Left Platform has to use that momentum in order to focus on extra-parliamentary struggles and building a mass movement in the workplaces and on the streets - explicitly against Tsipras' line, if need be. Under the combined pressure from within the party and outside of the party, there is still hope for SYRIZA to get back on track, potentially through a change in party leadership.
Of course, some say that the government might fall and that Tsipras will seek a "national salvation" coalition with ND, PASOK, TP and maybe ANEL. If that does happen, the Left Platform will either be expelled or leave the party through its own will - and either might prove catastrophic if it doesn't manage to amass grassroots support. But I hope that, in the case of a split, KKE and ANTARSYA might be more open towards cooperating with SYRIZA's left split - a united front between them, supported by a strong mass movement, would prove to be an immensely strong political factor, maybe even with a revolutionary potential.
No need for political parties when you can seize the means of production. But what else would an anarchist say? :lol:
Tim Cornelis
17th July 2015, 15:09
Dutch news said SYRIZA may split up, that they may form a socialist party, without the communist-leaning groups. So yeah, lost cause. Where do they go? Well, maybe the left split from SYRIZA.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
17th July 2015, 16:19
Syriza's handling of the Greek crisis was a huge opportunity for the left, with a successful handling potentially paving the way for other leftist parties in the EU. Now that they have utterly failed and capitulated, where does the left go?
Growing populist leftist parties like PODEMOS are now tanking in the polls. The right are seemingly about to have a field day. Is there no hope for the immediate future?
What kind of "left" are we talking about?
Revolutionary socialists who had illusions about SYRIZA should lose them. Unfortunately, from personal experience I would say this is highly unlikely.
Populist social-democratic parties? Hopefully after this they'll go into the dustbin of history.
Cliff Paul
17th July 2015, 17:01
Revolutionary socialists who had illusions about SYRIZA should lose them. Unfortunately, from personal experience I would say this is highly unlikely.
Perhaps the problem is that you assume these people are "revolutionary socialists" in the first place.
Wyboth
17th July 2015, 17:02
SYRIZA's failure should be just one more piece of evidence that you can't vote capitalism away. Where should leftists go? Join a revolutionary party, of course.
PhoenixAsh
17th July 2015, 17:06
What makes you think they have failed? There was never any assumption on the position of SYRIZA. The assumption is how they managed to stay within capital and with what conditions.
What the moderate left do is radicalize and realize the utter insanity of their position which will always leave them between two evils. That is what this has shown.
soup
17th July 2015, 17:57
What kind of "left" are we talking about?
Revolutionary socialists who had illusions about SYRIZA should lose them. Unfortunately, from personal experience I would say this is highly unlikely.
Populist social-democratic parties? Hopefully after this they'll go into the dustbin of history.I'm less concerned with the committed socialists and more with the masses of people who could potentially be thrown into the arms of the right.
Rafiq
17th July 2015, 18:37
Revolutionary socialists who had illusions about SYRIZA should lose them. Unfortunately, from personal experience I would say this is highly unlikely.
But what did you think we were saying? That Syriza is going to bring forth revolution? No one claimed this. In fact, the possibility that Syriza could simply fail was amply stressed as a very real one. This changes nothing. Syriza has made more of a ruckus than any European Left organization in the past two decades. Syriza has forged the predispositions for a matured, cohesive left. The point is that of all times for the Greek left, now would be the time to make risky decisions. The Syrzia leadership under Tsipras proved incapable of doing this, of taking risks. But the conditions are ripe for them none the less.
Gloat all you want, but the truth is that Syriza has succeeded in sparking hope in Europe for an alternative to Fascism. Either way, Syriza, by itself, would have ushered in a failure. Had they been able to avert the austerity program in its entirety, what would have been different in YOUR mind? Nothing, there would have been no revolution, but capitalism would have been saved. And this goes for all users in general: Do not pretend like you haven't suckled the practical substance of this Syriza hoopla for all it's worth, do not pretend like it didn't set off some kind of revitalizing spark inside that at the very least constitutes political difference from three years ago. People claimed the same of OWS, and they were wrong.
Working Class Hero
17th July 2015, 19:54
Needless to say, I'm disappointed in Syriza. After the referendum they seemed to lose all of their gravitas, bargaining from a position of weakness. From a political standpoint, you have to remember the Tsipras and his cabinet don't want to leave the eurozone; it's the opposite of what they want.
I think that the only way to resolve this crisis without Greece leaving the euro is for the bankers to forgive most or all of Greece's debt, much like Greece did for Germany in 1953/4. Of course, this isn't going to happen because Brussels is full of greedy sycophants.
What I'm interested in is the emerging solidarity economy that is being developed. There's an article in the Guardian that I'll post as soon as I hit 25 posts.
For a revolution to occur, Greece would have to be taken over by a combined popular front, the anarchists would have to work witth everyone else, Greece would have to leave the eurozone, leave NATO, and find backing from someone. But who? There's no USSR, and Cuba and the pink tide countries are in no financial state to support them. That makes a successful revolution pretty unlikely. And if they had one, you'd see a repeat of the Greek Civil War which would be bloody and short.
Don't grab a political party. Grab a weapon.
If you don't trust the working class with weapons, you don't really trust the working class.
BIXX
17th July 2015, 23:19
Needless to say, I'm disappointed in Syriza. After the referendum they seemed to lose all of their gravitas, bargaining from a position of weakness. From a political standpoint, you have to remember the Tsipras and his cabinet don't want to leave the eurozone; it's the opposite of what they want.
I think that the only way to resolve this crisis without Greece leaving the euro is for the bankers to forgive most or all of Greece's debt, much like Greece did for Germany in 1953/4. Of course, this isn't going to happen because Brussels is full of greedy sycophants.
What I'm interested in is the emerging solidarity economy that is being developed. There's an article in the Guardian that I'll post as soon as I hit 25 posts.
For a revolution to occur, Greece would have to be taken over by a combined popular front, the anarchists would have to work witth everyone else, Greece would have to leave the eurozone, leave NATO, and find backing from someone. But who? There's no USSR, and Cuba and the pink tide countries are in no financial state to support them. That makes a successful revolution pretty unlikely. And if they had one, you'd see a repeat of the Greek Civil War which would be bloody and short.
None of that matters if the revolution just ushers in something that is functionally identical to capitalism.
ComradeAllende
17th July 2015, 23:45
The problem is that there aren't that many leftist voters to go around (at least in America). The only revolutionary (not reformist) parties around are full of Trots and Tankies, so even if we do mobilize a mass movement it may not end well.
The only way slave owners can enforce their will upon the slaves, is with weapons. When the slaves have weapons, this becomes more difficult.
Whatever political principles you hold, if you don't apply those principles to those who hold the sword and those who hold the pen, then you haven't applied those principles.
Peachman2000
18th July 2015, 18:22
The only option at this point is revolution. I know that's hard for a lot of Greeks to swallow, but it's the only option if they want Socialism. This isn't appealing for many Greeks because it will cause the economy to temporarily get worse. They will have to make temporary cuts in certain programs, and times will be tougher. They will probably have sanctions on them by the EU, and other allying nations. It is, of course, all for the better good. They must remember that short term cuts are better than the long term cuts that the EU will impose. If they can successfully build Socialism, they would never have to be slaves to IMF Banks again.
When the poor take from the rich, the poor get richer, and the rich get poorer.
What non-Greek capitalists really fear is that it would spread beyond Greek borders, whether literally in terms of Greeks invading capitalist territories in other countries, or their own people following the Greek example.
The ruling class's usual response to the fear of revolution is the promise of reform. They'll pretend to begrudgingly surrender, paint a really pretty picture, and say they'll get right to building a better world just like the revolutionaries want. Then they'll drag out the promised reforms for years, meanwhile continuing with pro-capitalist propaganda, and eventually they'll all be back to the old slavery. This cycle happens repeatedly. Currently we're just on the verge of another wave of fake promised reforms.
StromboliFucker666
18th July 2015, 19:58
They are proof that attempting to bring anti-capitalism thru a modern capitalist "democracy" is destined to fail.
I would hope that we would all realize this and join a revolutionary party, take direct action against the state, and just attempt to help the working class as much as we can with what we have. Eventually, this will lead to a full on revolution which will lead to our end goal.
When austerity measure are being implemented, the ruling class doesn't care if you show up and protest. But if they know the population is well armed, they would try to prevent protest at all costs, even to the point of postponing austerity xD
Vladimir Innit Lenin
19th July 2015, 00:02
The first thing is to commit to adopt a more mature analysis than 'revolutionary communism = good/right, social democracy/elections/mass parties/engagement in the mainstream political process = bad/wrong'.
SYRIZA was always bound by its origins (essentially a coalition), its aims (essentially to try to reform international capital from within), and its enemy (international capital and the politicians who use the regional and international institutions they lead to provide cover for capital). The three were thoroughly incompatible: a (relatively) loose coalition party aiming to take on the institutions and social power of international capital was never going to achieve its actual aims.
Rather, what was provided by SYRIZA, amidst its own failures, was the space for debate. It is now accepted that opposition to debt relief and the harsh imposition of austerity on an un-willing populace is economically illiterate as well as unjust. What the failed attempts by SYRIZA to take on international capital (albeit in a limited way) have shown us is that international capital's position, and that of the political institutions that represent it, are not based on the interests of the European people, nor even what makes economic sense, but on pursuing their own political agenda, to shore up their own political and social power, and to use economic policy to punish those who do not bend to their dictatorial will. This is why I personally supported the SYRIZA project; it was not out of a love for the politics of SYRIZAs leadership nor in hope that they would win their own battle. Rather, it was an opportunity - an imperfect one yes, but an opportunity nonetheless - to have a public dispute with international capital. History has shown us that every time capital is genuinely threatened, even in a minor way, it lashes out and shows its true colours. In Germany in the 1930s, after the collapse of the post-war consensus, and now in the austerity world of post-2008, we can see that when it seriously thinks it will suffer even a minor defeat to its social hegemony, capital stops buying the workers off, stops attempting to genuinely legitimise its position in society, and instead attacks the people it controls through harsh economic policies, through political scare tactics and threats. Showing Europe this side of capital has been a success borne out of the inevitable failure of the SYRIZA project.
So where we go in the future? I think the actions of the EU and international political and economic institutions shows us that our position on Europe has to change. We have been shown - perhaps to an extent that is surprising - that far from being a project borne out of a desire for closer cooperation and solidarity but stifled by bureaucracy and a lack of democracy, the EU is a capitalist institution that mirrors capital itself; it rules its (and capital's) interests and against those of the people it is said to represent; it is anti-democratic in the extreme as shown through the Irish and Greek votes; it is far more concerned with shoring up the social position of capital in society, vis a vis the welfare, solidarity, dignity, and class power of the hundreds of millions of working people it presides over. From here, we have a clear basis for a democratic, socialist politics of the 21st century: fuck Europe, fuck the institutions. Tear them down and destroy them. Start at home - disrupt and oppose 'Europe' in terms of its institutional power and attempt (for example in the referendum here in the UK) to take powers that we can use to develop a genuinely respectful society that has solidarity with all - migrants, refugees, 'foreigners' the lot.
Spectre of Spartacism
19th July 2015, 00:35
The first thing is to commit to adopt a more mature analysis than 'revolutionary communism = good/right, social democracy/elections/mass parties/engagement in the mainstream political process = bad/wrong'.
If your analysis precludes arriving at the inescapable conclusion that social democracy and parliamentarism are snares to co-opt and defeat working-class movements, your analysis isn't "mature." It's part of the problem.
SYRIZA was always bound by its origins (essentially a coalition), its aims (essentially to try to reform international capital from within), and its enemy (international capital and the politicians who use the regional and international institutions they lead to provide cover for capital). The three were thoroughly incompatible: a (relatively) loose coalition party aiming to take on the institutions and social power of international capital was never going to achieve its actual aims.SYRIZA is just the latest in a long line of historical examples of how popular-frontism, and the betrayal it represents of working-class political independence, hampers the working class movement despite intuitive appearances about masses in motion doing various political things. I think it is fair to ask at this point how many examples of this will be necessary before the lesson sinks in.
Rather, what was provided by SYRIZA, amidst its own failures, was the space for debate. It is now accepted that opposition to debt relief and the harsh imposition of austerity on an un-willing populace is economically illiterate as well as unjust. What the failed attempts by SYRIZA to take on international capital (albeit in a limited way) have shown us is that international capital's position, and that of the political institutions that represent it, are not based on the interests of the European people, nor even what makes economic sense, but on pursuing their own political agenda, to shore up their own political and social power, and to use economic policy to punish those who do not bend to their dictatorial will. This is why I personally supported the SYRIZA project; it was not out of a love for the politics of SYRIZAs leadership nor in hope that they would win their own battle. Rather, it was an opportunity - an imperfect one yes, but an opportunity nonetheless - to have a public dispute with international capital. History has shown us that every time capital is genuinely threatened, even in a minor way, it lashes out and shows its true colours. In Germany in the 1930s, after the collapse of the post-war consensus, and now in the austerity world of post-2008, we can see that when it seriously thinks it will suffer even a minor defeat to its social hegemony, capital stops buying the workers off, stops attempting to genuinely legitimise its position in society, and instead attacks the people it controls through harsh economic policies, through political scare tactics and threats. Showing Europe this side of capital has been a success borne out of the inevitable failure of the SYRIZA project.Yes, working class discontent in Greece produced a more diverse set of voices in parliament, which then produced practically nothing in terms of results, because the few voices that were revolutionary hitched their wagons to others harboring reformist illusions. One of the ways that capitalism legitimates itself through the illusion that the state is a neutral institution designed to promote a public good consistent with the functioning of a stable and equitable capitalist system. In the geopolitical and economic context of Greece, austerity represents an essential function of capital. It cannot be voted away anymore than capital can. All the supposed analyses of SYRIZA in this thread that try to play three-dimensional electoral chess miss that point and are in practice papering over the class basis of the state.
The opportunity created by SYRIZA's failure is the opportunity for workers in Greece and around the world to learn from the mistake of parliament-centered struggle and the inevitable opportunist sell-outs it produces. To realize this opportunity means that people have to be willing to admit they were wrong in their earlier approach. I think Xhar-Xhar was right, though. I don't see it happening, at least not on this forum.
So where we go in the future? I think the actions of the EU and international political and economic institutions shows us that our position on Europe has to change. We have been shown - perhaps to an extent that is surprising - that far from being a project borne out of a desire for closer cooperation and solidarity but stifled by bureaucracy and a lack of democracy, the EU is a capitalist institution that mirrors capital itself; it rules its (and capital's) interests and against those of the people it is said to represent; it is anti-democratic in the extreme as shown through the Irish and Greek votes; it is far more concerned with shoring up the social position of capital in society, vis a vis the welfare, solidarity, dignity, and class power of the hundreds of millions of working people it presides over. From here, we have a clear basis for a democratic, socialist politics of the 21st century: fuck Europe, fuck the institutions. Tear them down and destroy them. Start at home - disrupt and oppose 'Europe' in terms of its institutional power and attempt (for example in the referendum here in the UK) to take powers that we can use to develop a genuinely respectful society that has solidarity with all - migrants, refugees, 'foreigners' the lot.If your position didn't take into account that the EU was an organization of capitalist states, designed to serve the ruling classes of those societies, then I wonder what kind of political framework you are operating within. What's next, a confession that you are shocked that the UN is a tool of imperialism?
This is why "Bernie Sanders for president" is doomed to fail. You can bring in a brand new cog into the machine, and it might perform remarkably better than previous cogs, but it is still a cog in the machine. If the machine doesn't change, then the machine will still do what it's always done. The military will still be run like a top-down dictatorship. The media will still be run like a top-down dictatorship. Government departments will still be run like a top-down dictatorship. If the dictator is strong, then he will rule with an iron and bloody hand. If the dictator is weak, then he will be a single point of failure, through which the forces of corruption will continue to rule.
LuÃs Henrique
19th July 2015, 00:51
Don't grab a political party. Grab a weapon.
Er... a poliical party is a weapon.
Like any weapon, it is not enough to grab it. It is necessary to grab it correctly. Don't grab a knife by the blade, don't grab a gun by the barrel, don't grab a political party by its newspaper; they won't work that way, and may hurt you if you try.
If you don't trust the working class with weapons, you don't really trust the working class.
Guns are property, and property regularly makes people less trustworthy.
Luís Henrique
A political party structured like a hierarchical pyramid is a good weapon only for the ruling class, and a trap for the working class. Of course, if it weren't structured like a pyramid, then you might have some hope.
If you don't trust the working class with weapons, who do you trust with weapons?
Atsumari
19th July 2015, 03:35
Give it a break cyu. This is RevLeft, not a cinematic speech
If you want a technical breakdown of why hierarchical organizations favor the ruling class, it's possible:
1. Hierarchical organizations are controlled by a small minority. Typically, this is just the ruling class. If you try to replace them with party cadres, they become the new ruling class.
2. There is scientific evidence that having hierarchical power decreases people's empathy and makes them behave more like sociopaths.
3. Even if the top of the hierarchy were "solid ideologues" they are still single points of failure. If they are targets of intimidation or blackmail, then the entire organization becomes compromised.
From the flip side, do you have arguments supporting why you believe hierarchical organizations will work?
As far as military power goes, if leftists believe society should be ruled by the working class, it logically follows that military power should go to the working class. If that power is given to someone else, for example, a special military class, then it reverts back to the capitalist situation, in which the military class will rule over the working class. Do you have arguments against this?
blake 3:17
19th July 2015, 05:40
I was going to post an excerpt but realized it was almost the whole thing. Panitch has been getting bashed as a total apologist for capitulation, Gindin tends to be savvier about movements and the base. Some of the comments are interesting. Link here: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1145.php
The Real Plan B:
The New Greek Marathon
Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch
In the face of being excluded from desperately needed funds and the threat of being kicked out of the European Union, the Greek parliament has now voted to accept the Troika memorandum. The Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras acknowledged – unlike social democrats choosing to implement neoliberalism as part of their ‘modernization‘ – that this was ‘a bad deal’ forced on the Greeks. Syriza's MPs were divided although three quarters of them followed Tsipras and voted yes. Outside in Syntagma Square thousands of angry demonstrators gathered and then marched through downtown Athens, this time the ‘NO’ being reserved for rejecting the memorandum. There is a strong current of dissent in the Syriza party Central Committee, which has yet to meet. Yet there is also a general sense we get from party members and supporters at all levels we have talked with here that the government should be supported and continue in office.
In the face of these divisions and frustrations, what if anything might be done to revive and continue Syriza's struggle against neoliberalism? And since neoliberalism is what capitalism is today – there is no other kind – what can be done to lay the basis for ending capitalism? This is not just a question for Greeks, though crucial aspects of this dilemma are of course specific to Greece, but for how the left everywhere thinks about and responds to the challenges of coming to power in a hostile environment to try to protect people from the worst depredations of neoliberalism, and tries to embark on ‘really-existing transitions’ to a more egalitarian, solidaristic, substantively more democratic world.
Sections of the Greek left and a good part of the international left have argued that the deal should have been rejected, and Grexit embraced instead. This opens up a number of scenarios but the most likely would be the government resigning, calling new elections, and Syriza running on a program that reversed its former support for staying in the eurozone. Whether or not the party would win, its credibility would, according to this argument, be maintained and it would at least live to fight another day.
Exiting the Euro, Leaving the State
We would not dismiss the above argument out of hand. It reflects legitimate emotional sentiments and strategic orientations. Until recently, however, three of four Greeks opposed Grexit, and even if this has shifted dramatically with the referendum and its aftermath, there is no clear and deep consensus on leaving. Tsipras and a good part of the leadership is, in this regard, not simply ‘tailing’ the public but deeply committed to Europe on both economic and cultural grounds. For those of us who have long argued that eventual exit is essential, especially from a socialist perspective, the challenge is not so much to condemn this but to ask: When is the right moment to take this on? What practical steps, ideological and in terms of state capacities, might be argued for now to move the party and its base toward a consensus?
As for counselling Syriza to risk losing its governing status, it needs to be noted that Syriza already faced this question in the run up to the 2012 elections, and concluded that the responsible decision was to enter the state and do everything it could to restrain the neoliberal assault from within the state. Its electoral breakthrough that year was based on Tsipras's declaration that Syriza was not just campaigning to register a higher percentage of the vote but determined to form a government with any others who would join with it in stopping the economic torture while remaining within Europe. It was only when it came close to winning on this basis, that Syriza vaulted to the forefront of the international left's attention, and by the following summer, Tsipras was chosen by the European Left Parties to lead their campaign in the 2014 European Parliament elections. Syriza's subsequent clear victory in Greece in this election foretold its victory in the Greek national election of January 2015, when it became the first and only one of all the European left parties to challenge neoliberalism and win national office.
Even apart from the humanitarian measures it immediately introduced without allowing the Troika's representatives to vet the legislation, the very attempt by the new government to challenge the Troika has helped expose the neoliberal essence of the EU and to generate discussions on what the alternatives, however difficult to imagine, might be. It strikes us as premature to conclude from the denouement to this five month challenge that was finally reached this week, however sobering it has been, that it is better for Syriza to leave the state to its bourgeois opponents. It seems better to move beyond outrage and protest, let alone resignation, and instead struggle with what kinds of changes remain possible in the state to support the needs of the majority of Greek people who voted OXI in the referendum, and to contribute to the much-needed further development of their already powerfully demonstrated capacities for solidarity and innovation. Without this a productive path out of the eurozone, and perhaps even the EU, to escape neoliberalism would be inconceivable. It is this, not just surreptitiously making plans for a new currency, that properly preparing for Grexit would really need to be about.
Those advocating an exit from the euro acknowledge that there will be costs. Yet they also tend to understate, sometimes rather glibly, the chaos this would entail especially for a state steeped in two centuries of clientalist practices. Along with this comes an exaggeration of what exiting the euro would, in itself, achieve. The economics of a new devalued currency are sure to lead to high inflation and further dramatic reductions in living standards, nor can it of itself produce new competitive industries. Where the depth of the crisis is as severe as it is in Greece, and partly rooted there in the very restructuring of its economy that came with its deeper integration into Europe, changes in the currency are unlikely to restore old industries or develop new ones. It is worth remembering how many states with their own currencies are unable to withstand the ravages of neoliberalism.
That the options open to the Syriza government are even more limited by the way the new memorandum is structured to cruelly discipline Greece's integration into neoliberal Europe is obvious enough. It should also be increasingly obvious to those in the party whose commitment to the EU was foundational that staying in the eurozone is inconsistent with restraining neoliberalism's negative impact on most Greeks. It is much to be hoped that Syriza, and the European Left Parties in general, will abandon the notion that an even more centralized transnational European state would be more progressive. But it does not follow from any of this that it would be correct for Syriza to lead a Grexit right now, without a much deeper preparation for dealing with the consequences.
What about resigning from office to free itself from administering the memorandum? It would be highly irresponsible, having entered the state in the first place promising to try to at least ameliorate the effects of neoliberalism in Greece, to step down now after what has been imposed on the Syriza government for its anti-neoliberal orientation and its democratic temerity in calling the referendum. This only deepens its responsibility to do all it still can to restrain the impact of neoliberalism. To do otherwise would be to acquiesce in the goal of those who tried to use the negotiations as a way to bring this government down.
Toward a Real Plan B
The point we are getting at is that framing the issue in terms of an exhausted Plan A (negotiating with Europe) and a rejection of the euro (Plan B) is too limited a way to frame the dilemmas confronting Syriza. What the deeper preparation for leaving the eurozone, and possibly also the EU, actually entails is to build on the solidarity networks that have developed in society to cope with the crisis as the basis for starting to transform social relations within Greece. That is the real plan B, the terrain on which both Syriza and the social movements might re-invigorate now. What, more concretely, might this mean?
The recent years of struggle have developed the famous grassroots solidarity movement that began – as all organizing must – by addressing the needs of people. Out of this grew the some 400 solidarity groups all across Greece addressing basic community needs through self-organized democratically run collectives which provide support for people's health, food, housing and other needs. Syriza members were among those deeply involved in establishing and maintaining the solidarity networks and its MPs elected in 2012 contributed 20 per cent of their salaries to them. But since the Syriza government was elected this year it has done very little to change and use the state so as to sustain and broaden this remarkable movement.
Two leaders of the ‘Solidarity for All’ assembly of these groups told us how frustrated they were that they could not even get from the Ministry of Agriculture the information they need on the locations of specific crops so they might approach a broader range of farmers and develop more direct links between them and people in need. Only 12 people in total are employed in working for Solidarity for All – their numbers should be multiplied with the state's help. The military trucks sitting idle between demonstrations could be used to facilitate the distribution of food through the solidarity networks as a way of offsetting some of the cuts to the poorest pensioners, and of compensating for the increased VAT on food imposed by the latest memorandum. Various state departments could be engaged in identifying idle land – of which there is plenty in the countryside and in light of the crisis also in urban areas – which could be be given over to community co-ops to create work in growing food, and coordinating this across sub-regions.
The Ministry of Education should be actively engaged in promoting the use of schools as community hubs that provide spaces for the social movements organizing around food and health services, and also to provide technical education appropriate to this. We talked with many students who were clearly enthusiastic about working in the community but were also quick to admit that while they were adept at competing in student union elections and good at distributing pamphlets and organizing demonstrations, their skills for longer-term community organizing were very limited. The Ministry of Education could help overcome this by setting up special programs to prepare students to spend periods of time in communities, contributing to adult education and working on community projects.
Similarly, the privatizations forced on the Greek state should be accompanied by requirements that the new owners make a compensating commitment to establish industrial parks where new jobs might be created. Privatized firms might be required to source inputs inside Greece, while the state's own purchases of furniture, materials and supplies (including for schools and hospitals) might be sourced from new production units set up this way. With so many structures standing idle and under-used (like the Olympic sports facilities), all manners of co-ops and small businesses should be supported in setting up operations in them, aided by groups of young architects and engineers recruited to reconfigure these spaces. The U.S. New Deal Work Projects Administration could serve as an example not only in this respect, but especially in respect to the broad range of artistic, theatrical and cultural activities in which so many unemployed young people are already engaged.
We do not want to overstate this. These experiments would not themselves be 'solutions’. And they would no doubt lead to objections that they negate the intent of the new memorandum's structural adjustment demands. But seen strategically, they invite a constructive approach to linking the state to communities in new ways that would offset the black and grey markets which might otherwise overwhelm an economy that moved out of the eurozone. And it helps lay the foundation for a new stage in addressing the domestic barriers imposed by the inequalities of wealth and private property, and concretizes the need for investment planning and public ownership so as circulate society's social surplus to local, regional and sectoral institutions.
Conclusion: Leadership of a New Kind
The Syriza government currently retains a store of good will, even if this has been damaged by the memorandum. To prevent the further erosion of that popular support it will need to concretely counter the Troika-imposed legislation. For every negative bill it puts forth it should creatively put forth a positive bill that confirms its continuing commitment to the fight against neoliberalism. Syriza's ministers must never depart from treating the negative impositions as something positive, and indeed be expected to act as socialist educators, helping people grasp the barriers to improving their lives and raising rather than lowering long term expectations by continuing to attack neoliberalism and speak to a socialist vision of solidarity and democracy. And it is this that should inspire and guide the transformation of state structures away from the old clientalism.
None of this can happen unless Syriza as a party develops the orientation and capacities to lead the Greek state and society in this direction. We have met with people in the party and social movements, as well as the state, who are concerned that Syriza falls well short in this respect. Among the various reasons for being critical of Syriza, this is the most significant. •
Sam Gindin is adjunct professor and Leo Panitch is distinguished research professor at York University, Canada. They co-authored The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire (Verso). Both are currently in Athens, Greece.
LuÃs Henrique
19th July 2015, 06:00
If you don't trust the working class with weapons, who do you trust with weapons?
I don't trust myself with weapons, and I seldom trust anyone else more than myself on any subject.
A political party structured like a hierarchical pyramid is a good weapon only for the ruling class, and a trap for the working class. Of course, if it weren't structured like a pyramid, then you might have some hope.
I have never seen anything that isn't structured "like a pyramid", and I don't think such a wonder is possible within a class society. Usually, organisations that delude themselves about their "pyramidness" are the worst, as their internal authoritarianism tends to be secret and informal.
Luís Henrique
If you don't trust yourself with weapons, I suppose you trust the police and military with weapons then? If you don't trust the police and military with weapons, what will you do about the existing police and military in your country and in other countries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_organization lists a few alternatives to pyramid structures. Those aren't the only alternatives of course. Even different corporations are experimenting with "non-traditional" forms of organization. Valve, for example. Are you and your friends organized like a hierarchy? Do you and your friends vote for a President Friend, who orders all your other friends around, and banishes friends who disobey?
Do you believe a different party from Syriza, but still organized in a pyramid structure, could have succeeded where Syriza failed? Do you believe the leaders will be immune to bribery, seduction, blackmail, and threats against their family? If you were the leader, would you mind if the NSA leaks your entire internet history to the internet?
BorisBandit
19th July 2015, 16:50
The first thing is to commit to adopt a more mature analysis than 'revolutionary communism = good/right, social democracy/elections/mass parties/engagement in the mainstream political process = bad/wrong'.
.
More "mature" or more "bourgeois"? Revolutionary communism == working to overthrow capitalism, & the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Engagement in bourgeois politics either involves that ultimate aim or it involves reformism.
LuÃs Henrique
20th July 2015, 14:51
If you don't trust the police and military with weapons, what will you do about the existing police and military in your country and in other countries?
To put an end to that, we need a revolution. What has a revolution to do with the private, individual ownership of weapons that are, by definition, incapable of facing the weapons of police, not even to talk about the military? What has a revolution to do with the private, individual ownership of weapons that are only really useful to further enforce individual ownership of petty property?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_organization lists a few alternatives to pyramid structures. Those aren't the only alternatives of course. Even different corporations are experimenting with "non-traditional" forms of organization. Valve, for example. Are you and your friends organized like a hierarchy? Do you and your friends vote for a President Friend, who orders all your other friends around, and banishes friends who disobey?
I think this is a quite naïve view of what a pyramidal structure is. No, me and my comrades do not vote for a President/Chairman/Secretary General/whatever. We have a collective leadership, and even that collective leadership cannot ban comrades who "disobey" (otherwise I would have been banned a couple times by now...)
But I don't delude myself that my organisation is non-hierarchical; the hierarchy, or hierarchies, might be informal, but they are there, and cannot be dispelled by decree or some other voluntaristic method.
And it is an organization of a few scores of people; imagine an organization of several millions, which is, of course, what we need.
Luís Henrique
LuÃs Henrique
20th July 2015, 14:58
Do you believe a different party from Syriza, but still organized in a pyramid structure, could have succeeded where Syriza failed? Do you believe the leaders will be immune to bribery, seduction, blackmail, and threats against their family? If you were the leader, would you mind if the NSA leaks your entire internet history to the internet?
No, no, and of course no.
And the answers would be exactly the same for a non-hierarchical organisation (rank-and-file members are also not immune to bribery, seduction, blackmail, and threats).
As I said elsewhere, an organisation is a tool for the people, not the other way round. If we make of the organisation a fetish, we might delude ourselves in the search for the Holy Grail of the perfect, undegenerateable organisation. If instead we understand that the struggle goes on, even when we have to discard an organisation into the dustbin of history, we are better equipped to fight on.
Luís Henrique
To put an end to that, we need a revolution.
The point is that currently the ruling class controls the weapons. I don't expect any revolution to succeed as long as that is true. You might say we'll just have weapons temporarily, or we'll convert a few military divisions to our side until the ruling class is overthrown, that's fine. So after capitalism is gone from the entire world, then you'll get rid of the weapons? If it takes that long, I'm ok with postponing the decision, since before the revolution is over, I'm sure the next generation will have forgotten your words ;)
the answers would be exactly the same for a non-hierarchical organisation (rank-and-file members are also not immune to bribery, seduction, blackmail, and threats).
Exactly, but the strength of the network is that it becomes much more difficult. That's why the internet was invented in the first place. The American military was afraid that a Soviet attack will take out major important centers, leaving its ability to respond in tatters. So they instead distributed everything out into as many nodes of a network as they could, thus vastly reducing the single points of weakness - even if one center is taken out, the more distributed you are, the less that one center matters.
Comrade Jacob
20th July 2015, 21:33
You can't vote away capitalism, sadly. The KKE needs to get together disillusioned Syriza voters and cause mass-riots.
That's kinda what they are doing, I think.
LuÃs Henrique
22nd July 2015, 18:31
The point is that currently the ruling class controls the weapons. I don't expect any revolution to succeed as long as that is true. You might say we'll just have weapons temporarily, or we'll convert a few military divisions to our side until the ruling class is overthrown, that's fine. So after capitalism is gone from the entire world, then you'll get rid of the weapons? If it takes that long, I'm ok with postponing the decision, since before the revolution is over, I'm sure the next generation will have forgotten your words ;)
So the revolution comes in two stages: first stage we get the weapons (how, if the ruling class doesn't want us to?), then we make revolution properly. This quickly becomes circular: we can't have a revolution, because we have no guns; we can't have guns, because we would need a revolution to secure them.
Exactly, but the strength of the network is that it becomes much more difficult.
I think there is a conflation here. A network does not need to be non-hierarchical, and a pyramidal network is something quite possible (even theorised by Carlos Marighella).
That's why the internet was invented in the first place. The American military was afraid that a Soviet attack will take out major important centers, leaving its ability to respond in tatters. So they instead distributed everything out into as many nodes of a network as they could, thus vastly reducing the single points of weakness - even if one center is taken out, the more distributed you are, the less that one center matters.
Hm, that is problesome.
First, it depends on against what we are trying to protect ourselves. It can be quite different whether against violent repression, or whether against bribery. A modular structure could make it easier to "cut off" from openly compromised nodes (as in, imprisoned people who might spill the beans) but could also make contagion of covert compromise (as in, a mole that keeps repression informed of our moves without our knowledge).
Second, a "network" can perfectly exist only in the imagination of its members; when collective action is effectively necessary, they may discover that what they have, instead of an array of small organistions, is just a pletora of small organisations in disarray.
Third, small isn't beautiful, at least not when it comes to political organisations: the smaller they are, the greater the chance that they are in fact political fiefs of their petty rulers, with little space for free discussion and questioning. Big organisations have other problems (and some of those problems may indeed be even worse), but they do not tend to degenerate into cults as easily as groups of 20.
Luís Henrique
we can't have a revolution, because we have no guns I don't know what country you live in, but this is not true in all countries. In countries where citizens are indeed prevented from having weapons, then I would indeed support the siege of police stations (along with mass media outlets).
a mole that keeps repression informed of our moves without our knowledge
This happens regardless of whether you have a pyramid or a network - as I mentioned already, I would recommend discussion be done with the assumption that spies are present, since the closer you are to overthrowing the system, the more spies you can expect.
small isn't beautiful ...they are in fact political fiefs of their petty rulers
That is an argument against hierarchy, not for it. And whether something is small or large is orthogonal to whether something is hierarchical or not. Something can be small and hierarchical, or vice versa.
As also mentioned before, hierarchical organization has less filters against bad ideas, especially those coming from the leaders. If the leader thinks genocide (or surrendering to the Troika) is a good idea, then the hierarchy is expected to obey, not decide for themselves whether it's a good idea or not.
the closer you are to overthrowing the system, the more spies you can expect
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2727/4339657477_02f76d4e63_b.jpg
Corollary with respect to espionage:
1. They don't bother spying on you since they have better things to do with their resources.
2. They do some surface intelligence gathering, just in case you become a concern.
3. They commit serious resources to investigating you because you've become a credible threat.
4. They commit as much resources to infiltrating you as possible because they're basically shaking in their boots.
5. Large numbers of their own spies switch to your side because they honestly believe in your cause.
6. Even spies who don't trust you switch to your side simply because they feel safer to be on the winning side.
A successful revolution happens at around step 5. Step 6 happens when the revolution is basically already won.
LuÃs Henrique
24th July 2015, 15:46
I don't know what country you live in, but this is not true in all countries.
Of course it is true in all countries. You may have pistols or revolvers, but you cannot have RPGs or bomber-fighters, so you are still basically unarmed when facing the State.
In countries where citizens are indeed prevented from having weapons, then I would indeed support the siege of police stations (along with mass media outlets).
Storming police stations is going to be necessary in any revolution, but while we certainly shouldn't shy from taking the weapons there, it is possible that the most important things in storming police stations is disrupting their communication services and destroying their files.
For weapons, of course, we should go preferably to Army and Air Force arsenals.
This happens regardless of whether you have a pyramid or a network - as I mentioned already, I would recommend discussion be done with the assumption that spies are present, since the closer you are to overthrowing the system, the more spies you can expect.
It does.
In a pyramidal clandestine structure, each member knows a few people, usually above or below them in the pyramid. So an infiltrated mole will know only a few people, most of them below him in the structure. Of course, if the mole is at the top, the whole structure is going to be destroyed, as the Brazilian VPR, that fell to the police due its higher echelon being infiltrated by Cabo Anselmo. But if the infiltration is at rank-and-file, the structure will quite probably resist quite well, for the information provided by the mole will only compromise the lower ranks (and so is quite probably not going to be immediately used by the police).
A more flexible organisation would be more prone to be destabilised from below, and more resilient to blows to its top. It doesn't even need to be a model decentralised organisation; the Brazilian PCdoB, with all its uber-centralised stalinism, was able to survive an infiltration to its Central Committee (that resulted in the police murdering three and capturing five of its ten members), because, albeit being a centralised clandestine structure, it had enough communication between its rank-and-file members and intermediate leadership that the organisation could be rebuilt.
That is an argument against hierarchy, not for it. And whether something is small or large is orthogonal to whether something is hierarchical or not. Something can be small and hierarchical, or vice versa.
Something can be small and hierarchical, certainly, and it seems to me that small hierarchies tend to be even more oppressive than huge ones - but it is very difficult to be big and non-hierarchical; indeed growth and hierarchisation are commonly intertwinned phenomena for organisations. The "network" solution usually doesn't manage to solve the problem of growing without going hierarchical, because if its growth is the growth in the size of its nodes, then each node will face the problem of becoming hierarchic - and the main organisation risks becoming a federation of little tirannies. On the other hand, if the growth is the growth in the number of different nodes, then the most probable outcome is fragmentation.
And even without growth, fragmentation is always a concern, with each node tending to assert its own autonomy against the main organisation.
As also mentioned before, hierarchical organization has less filters against bad ideas, especially those coming from the leaders. If the leader thinks genocide (or surrendering to the Troika) is a good idea, then the hierarchy is expected to obey, not decide for themselves whether it's a good idea or not.
This is certainly true. Bad ideas from the top of a hierarchy will easily destroy an organisation, or at least its credibility. Bad ideas in a non-hierarchical organisation will only compromise it if it is very small. But then non-hierarchical organisations are usually very small. And if an organisation is actually a network of small non-hierarchies, then eventual bad ideas will accelerate the tendency to fragmentation: when circle #227 decides that genocide is a good idea, while the other 226 circles will certainly dissociate from that, they cannot also stop circle #227 from going genocidal, at which point we have a split.
(Surrendering to the Troika, evidently, is something that only a huge organisation would be in the position to do. Sure, something like the OAKKE can - and does - bootlick Western imperialism, making silly proclamations of revolutionary capitulation, but that doesn't make any difference in the real world, to which the OAKKE is irredeemably irrelevant.)
So, we are still without a workable formula for a several million people organisation that isn't either hierarchical or brittle, or both. My gut feeling is that such formula, like the philosopher's stone, simply doesn't exist: all organisations are prone to degeneration, and, absent the conditions that may reinstill life and energy into them, will effectively degenerate. Statute can accelerate such a tendency, but it cannot really stop it - be it a Leninist centralist statute, be it a federalist network-like one.
Luís Henrique
The internet itself is large - perhaps the largest organization known to history. Is it hierarchical? There are certainly parts of it that are - for example, RevLeft itself has a ruling class that can do as they please, and a class on the bottom that is at their mercy. However, in general I would say that the internet is non-hierarchical in general (and because of this, some would say it isn't really an "organization" since it lacks many of the characteristics of hierarchical "organizations").
Perhaps it is simply a matter of the lack of technology of the past that did not allow non-hierarchical organizations to take off, and that the invention of the internet was an unintentional gift to anarchism, allowing anarchist forms of organization to do things they were never able to do in the past.
...likewise as mentioned before, it seems newspapers, radio, and television were an unintentional gift to authoritarianism, since they allowed uniform, one-directional delivery of propaganda from a central source, out into the general public.
LuÃs Henrique
24th July 2015, 18:52
The internet itself is large - perhaps the largest organization known to history. Is it hierarchical?
Perhaps not, but it is certainly purposeless.
Luís Henrique
Everyone has a purpose when they go on the internet. They might not agree. They might have a different purpose from yours, but they still have a purpose. Just because the dictator at the top of the pyramid has a purpose, doesn't mean it's the right purpose, and it doesn't mean everyone has to agree. So if everyone in a hierarchical organization doesn't agree with the dictator's purpose, how should those differences in opinion be resolved? Does it apply to the internet?
LuÃs Henrique
25th July 2015, 16:02
Everyone has a purpose when they go on the internet. They might not agree. They might have a different purpose from yours, but they still have a purpose. Just because the dictator at the top of the pyramid has a purpose, doesn't mean it's the right purpose, and it doesn't mean everyone has to agree. So if everyone in a hierarchical organization doesn't agree with the dictator's purpose, how should those differences in opinion be resolved? Does it apply to the internet?
Everyone has a purpose when they go to the internet, but the internet has no purpose of itself.
A revolutionary organisation has - or should have - a purpose - to make a revolution. So it is not the same kind of organisation as the internet.
The corollary is that the internet doesn't have to solve problems relating to different opinions. Here is revleft, there is Freerepublic, further there Stormfront... and Salon, snopes, Richard Dawkins.org, History Forum, IMDB, RT, Yoshi Forum, BBC online, Subnormality, Pivit, and hundreds of thousands of other things with mutually exclusive or completely unrelated goals.
A revolutionary organisation does have to solve problems relating to different opinions among its members. There are several methods to achieve this, varying from "the guy in the top decides what is right" to "we pretend that there are no different opinions, so that we keep our unity without actually solving the problem". Most of these methods are bad, some are awful, the only marginally reasonable ones are "we discuss it to the point of exhaustion, until everybody gives up except those who defend the winning position", and "we discuss it to the point of exhaustion, and then take a vote, and stick with the position of the majority". Which are also very, very bad methods, just not so bad as the remaining 6,643 ones.
Luís Henrique
If the internet doesn't have a purpose, neither does Germany or Russia. Yet a purpose can be imposed on Germany or Russia - whether it's genocide or worldwide communist revolution. If you don't believe the internet can be forced to have a purpose, then Germany and Russia can't be forced to have a purpose either. There's nothing special about the internet, Germany, or Russia - they are all groups of people. If you cannot get the internet to do what you want, you might as well give up trying to get Germany or Russia to do what you want, much less trying to get revolution worldwide.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.