SYRIZA: “the left reserve force” of capitalism - Communist Party of Greece

[FSL]

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

Someone trying to be so verbose, usually has few things to say.

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

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

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


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

[#FF0000]

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

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh yes, and this gem:

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

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

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

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

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

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

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

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

[FSL]

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

The Spartacists came out of the SDP in Germany, and no political party in the world is monolithic. This is especially true in SYRIZA which is a coalition of Leftist parties ranging from more moderate to more radical ones. Their election victory would be disruptive to the Capital-State relations mandated by the EU as would a KKE victory (the latter is not likely however), even if they wouldn't be able to overturn those relations. Their policy programs are opposed to the current "proper" norms of a Capitalist society laid out by the EU, which is why Merkel and the others don't want them to win.

Republicans didn't want Obama to win but he surely didn't disrupt the state's functions. There are no "proper norms" as you define them. The QE we saw in the US or in Japan was considered to be amazingly progressive and even people from Antarsya praised Shinzo Abe (!) for his opposition to "neoliberal orthodoxy".
And in the past weeks we've heard that if Germany's economy doesn't show some serious growth, the ECB will also move forward with non-standard measures. What does that mean? That Merkel is now against neoliberal orthodoxy and that we should support her?

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



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

[FSL]

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

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

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

[#FF0000]

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

[FSL]

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

Communist parties were mass, militant organizations as long as they had an equally militant class line.
They started to degenerate only when they began to engage in bourgeois politics, or political "struggle" as you put it. When an alliance with the social democrats became the priority, when parliamentarism didn't seem that bad anymore, when everyone became more open-minded.

This is how gigantic parties with hundreds of thousands of dead became kittens or were dissolved.

[FSL]

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

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

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

[Rafiq]

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

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

[ArisVelouxiotis]

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

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

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

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

So you admit of making vague posts on purpose?

[Rafiq]

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

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

[Rafiq]

So you admit of making vague posts on purpose?

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

[Rafiq]

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

[ArisVelouxiotis]

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

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

[Rafiq]

Exact phrase

There's a reason why my posts are vague

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

[Rafiq]

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

[ArisVelouxiotis]

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

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

[Die Neue Zeit]

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

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