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

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here are the key comradely points to take away from comrade Rafiq's engagement with the sectarian KKE polemic:

Syriza's tactical and pragmatic platform against the immediate interests of capital as well as their integration of everyday struggles with a wider political program, the establishment of an alternative culture lay the basis for radical leftist politics in today's world. Essentially, what makes Syriza unique in contrast with other left organizations, is the fact that their political prerogative, or the essence of the party encompasses all areas of life (economic, political, and so on) in a fashion that is relevant, or ideologically adequate in modern times.

All forces of class struggle "maintain the existing order" if maintaining the existing order means policy based struggle. What you fail to understand is that this is NOT an ends, it is simply a field of struggle by which the real ends is proletarian dictatorship.

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.

[Thirsty Crow]

Links, do you think these posts are well-crafted?

I think the substance, your argument is terribly confused and vague. That's the problem.

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.

Somehow I don't see that shame ever happening. Perhaps if I abused you personally, but that was not the case.

The hostility is warranted by what I see as both theoretical and political confusion. That cannot be considered productive, such confusion that is. And I don't think that fancy speaking in gloves is what is necessary among communists. That may suit a bourgeois salon though.

Another point is that it is not the case at all that I see a personal, psychological and emotional gain in feeling like I won anything here. That's not the point to debate, at least not for me; on the other hand, I do believe that you do manifest such a streak yourself.

But to return to the before mentioned confusion and vagueness of your argument, this is indicative:

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.

Now, tell me what does that say about your motives for debating anything really?

And just to reiterate what is clear here, you don't want to provide information which just might be useful to someone else here because you've got your moral standard about what a Marxist ought to actually know. And good grief are you going to punish them Marxists who don't know what they obviously need to - by not divulging evidence, information, or clear argument.

Now, do you think this is a mature way to go about things? Or is this rather childish?

That's to provide you benefit of doubt. I actually don't think you do know much about what you're talking about - in this specific case this relates to the alleged foundations manifest in SYRIZA.

So, that's it for that meta-debate stuff.

The theoretical confusion I speak of refers to the apparent way you misunderstand what constitutes empirical verifiability, evident in what you wrote about equations; the larger problem here is the fact that you invoked a comprehensive understanding of the world as though SYRIZA and its relationship to first the Greek working class and then to the global working class is somehow not part of that world; this I gather from your facile rejection of concrete questions about SYRIZA as not being amenable to empirical verification.

The thing is, this is an epistemological disaster in waiting. Any analytical assessment of a political organization and class forces must have as its norm that same empirical verifiability; apart from that, we're left with a wide playing field for wild speculation. That's the territory of the postmodern anything-goes. Of course that the rigorous insistence on procedures of verification and falsification as practiced most of all in physical sciences can't be copied here; but that is besides the point.

And I'm afraid that such hand waiving of an important feature of communist criticism is not as you make it sound, a mere semantic argument or a clumsy way of getting your point across. To quote you once again:

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.

Here you're doing basically two things:

1) ditching the notion that any such foundations can be empirically verifiable - effectively meaning that your idea is a mere phantom of the brain without any correlate in actual reality, but you're doing this so that you may defend

2) the vague notion that a "world historical context" is somehow enough to actually acknowledge the existence of any such foundation; but no context will tell you about the programme of SYRIZA or of the political dynamic of factions inside the organization if you do not bother to observe that easily verifiable stuff.

Why do I insist on dealing with the political dynamic of the organization? Precisely because I've no intention whatsoever to observe the programme as essentially unchangeable and static, which you accuse me of doing. But I'm doing no such thing; I take it from what I know about the org and its activity that communists need to be very, very sceptical of potentials for pushing the SYRIZA majority in a revolutionary direction.

Why do I mention pushing the majority in a revolutionary direction? Because any talk of SYRIZA as a foundation of really anything, while acknowledging the reality of the org's pro-capitalist programme, implies a specific relationship on behalf of communists to SYRIZA. That can take many forms, and some of them can be described as tailism and entryism. I believe that the common thread to all of these forms is that a revolutionary critique would need to be silenced and the door for opportunism left wide open.

That doesn't mean I think it is futile to engage their members in discussion; just that this cannot be based on such an underlying position.

But in your last post you changed your mind, and argued as follows:

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.

Now, don't get me wrong, but the conclusion that the situation is not that simple is banal. No one argued any such thing here; however, no one is actually saying that the actions of the left wing of capital are always detrimental to class struggle. The point is different: to call a spade a spade, since that's probably the first step in achieving political clarity which can serve as the basis for developing an organization of communists.

That is, if you do not take the platform and the programme as tactical measures in the sense that somehow the whole of SYRIZA is playing a double game - posing as reformists while they're actually, in a covert way, revolutionaries. Do you honestly believe all of the highlighted actions and characteristics of SYRIZA are a clever, devious ploy?

Well, that would surely reduce politics to a very, very strange kind of conspiratorialism. Anyway, I can see no merit to such a view.

[Rafiq]

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?

No, their model is not completely sufficient, but the point is that they are, despite their limited strategy, attempting to revive the Left in a way that is relevant.

[Rafiq]

Links literally everything you have said was addressed by my posts directly. And I mean directly. They're there, everyone can see them, I'll let everyone form their own conclusions.

[Thirsty Crow]

Links literally everything you have said was addressed by my posts directly. And I mean directly. They're there, everyone can see them, I'll let everyone form their own conclusions.

This is getting absurd.

Your response is as follows:

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.

Should I remind you what you wrote prior to this?

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.

Now, it might be that you're really bad with words. But here we've got a very straightforward statement that these foundations aren't empirically verifiable - and then you liken it to something that isn't empirically verifiable on its own - so tell me how am I supposed to make sense out of all your confusion? Do I need to read minds or assume what you think?

No. I'll go by what you wrote and will not engage in guessing games. If you have a problem with that, learn to express yourself in a better way.

And it's a simple fact that you're consistently misusing terms which can't lead anyone to believe anything but that you don't know how they're used:

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.

It might seem like a semantic argument; but this actually means that at the very least are really confused about how that verification works. As mathematical models don't verify anything; on the other hand, it is observation and experiment that do.

The purpose to this particular quote is to show that you're not making it easy for folks to comprehend you. You admit that yourself.

And in relation to this:

Empiricism will never alone be capable of understanding this because it itself is a part of the illusion which forms reality.

You want to tell me that you expect anyone to get this easily? Okay I can try Empiricism is part of the illusion which forms reality.

Illusion forms reality. That means probably that ideological mystification is a part of social life - if I had to guess.

So then I'd need to ask, what the fuck has this got to do with what I asked for? Do you even know what empiricism is? A foundational approach in philosophy, with its rival called rationalism; contrast this with a modest request of some sort of backing up of a vague argument.

I've no intention of adopting the kind of a position you do; that's why I'm going to direct you to Guy Robinson's Philosophy and Mystification (it's available for download at library genesis) which quite neatly deals with both empiricism and rationalism.

Now, do you want to argue that any request for verification falls under the category of ideological mystification? I don't think you do, but can't be sure since you've managed to encompass what I argued under a completely inappropriate framework of empiricism.

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.

How about that. Posturing as if deliberately withholding information.

The problem is that your wording makes it hard to guess what you might be referring to. It's not so productive to assume that we're all here a cabal of masters who can communicate in codewords. That's not how communication really works.

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:

Oh I would love to make a pun on a hardcore communist crying about someone not having right to do something. The irony is almost palpable.

But no, I don't need to do any such thing. Unfortunately, all I've got is your discourse which is what it is. But that should be enough.

In relation to this:

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 gotta ask, what's the purpose of making vague arguments here, then?

The real irony is that under the torrent of prose your point is rather simple, and it's not that I dispute it per se, but merely that I think the recognition of SYRIZA as the left wing of capital is necessary for the clarity of communists' positions.

I assume the point you're trying to make - though I'm not at all sure - is that there are at least some positive effects of the activity of SYRIZA on the working class and its struggle in Greece. That on its own is hardly contradictory to a clear recognition of the character of the coalition; the point about the communist criticism of reformism is not to erase any considerations of real effects and influence, and bury it under the rug of revolutionary sounding phrases.

But can you understand how vague talk of foundations muddies the waters here and makes it rather unclear of just which foundations, foundations for what and achieved how are we talking about?

Yeah, looking back at how I started this debate, that was a mistake:

Different as in "I'm going to pretend that no clear signs of utter reformism exist in relation to that party". It's pitiful, really, especially when the notion of a leftist reserve force for capital is equated with the ruling party in France.

It probably set the whole tone. Sorry for that.

On the other hand, I'm completely convinced that the political assessment of SP in France and New Labor is off the mark completely; the former in government hasn't even represented a meek opposition to the dominant political line in Europe, and not at home for that matter. It's nonsensical to claim that the ruling party who pushed through the change to the Labor Code that did in fact happen under Hollande in 2013 is anything like a left reserve force for capital.

Two more things and that's it.

I don't have the initiative to prove myself to any of you

Yes, you do. Since there's that awkward stuff called the burden of proof - not that anyone should realistically expect essays from you, but arguments, clear arguments. After all, you wouldn't want to be likened to a believer writing about God but then reneging on that same claim when refusing to provide argument - since they are the one bringing forth a statement.

And finally, you really now better I hope than insinuate any attachment to bourgeois ideology:

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.

Now, sure, this isn't really addressed to anyone in particular, so I'm not going to assume this is directed, among other users, at me although I wouldn't be wrong in suspecting that this might be the case after all.

So, who is it here with that nasty disconnect? Who doesn't find legitimacy in communism, but in bourgeois ideology?

[FSL]

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.

How does the existing political climate in Europe justify picking sides between the german and the greek state? Why is it important to the workers whether it's the german or the greek capitalist that gets more subsidies and tax cuts?

Even if it was the greek capitalist that got all that money in his pocket, say, if Germany cancelled our debt and the government of Syriza could then help the healthy enterpreneurs as much as it would like, what difference would that make? Would the greek capitalist go back to paying uncompetitive wages or would he accept inflexible labor legislation?

Because what I think he would do is try to keep all those reforms in place and at the same time take all the subsidies that can fit in his pocket.
What part isn't simple cause I'm certainly not seeing it.

[FSL]

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.

The whole truths that someone can take into account completely contradict everything you say and since you aren't willing to bring up even one of the countless examples and facts you have at your disposal, I don't think anyone is going to be changing their mind.

[Dagoth Ur]

I don't see how the KKE is wrong. Syriza helped the liberals and Golden Dawn form a government by setting themselves up separately from the KKE.

[Geiseric]

In its current form Syriza is not particularly radical and there are undeniable reformist tendencies within the party. However, any idiot can see that their perogative is opposed to the immediate interests of capital. The leftist reserve force for capital does exist, however it assumes the form of Hollande or new Labour. Syriza is something different entirely, mark my words.

I've been saying this for a long ass time.

[Thirsty Crow]

Gotta say, this peculiar idea of PS in France representing anything like left alternative bugs me. Incidentally, I've been reading an article over at CPGB site about the municipal elections, and something caught my eye:

The French working class is entitled to feel disappointed, and disillusioned, with Hollande. His winning platform was based on promises to hire more staff to boost France’s state education system, reduce the retirement age from 62 to 60 for people who have completed a minimum 41 years of work, create subsidised jobs in areas of high unemployment for the young, give foreigners/immigrants the right to vote in local elections, promote more industry in France by creating a public investment bank, separate retail banking from the far riskier ‘casino’ investment banking, cap tax loopholes at a maximum of €10,000 per year and so on. None of which has happened yet. Quite the opposite. Youth unemployment, to take one example, shot up to 27% at one stage - and still remains at 25.4% - and Hollande is sticking to Nicolas Sarkozy’s hated, and failed, austerity policies

Which, taken in conjunction to the mentioned Labor Code change in 2013 (anti-worker based; basically codifying the drive to flexibilization), should tell us something.

[Delenda Carthago]

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

Sure I do. I was there. That day I stopped being an anarchist after 8 years active in the milieu, feeling ashamed for every (A) I ever spray painted in my life. It was the most fascist thing I had ever seen in my life.

[Epictetus]

Anyone claiming that SYRIZA is revolutionary in any shape or form are deluding themselves. Their political platform is pro-bourgeoisie; they want to stay in the European Union as if they don't understand that by doing so they are essentially supporting liberal capitalist policies that aim to exploit the people. The factions within SYRIZA are being consolidated into a new party organization that aims to eradicate and sort of radicalism (if there ever was one).

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Sure I do. I was there. That day I stopped being an anarchist after 8 years active in the milieu, feeling ashamed for every (A) I ever spray painted in my life. It was the most fascist thing I had ever seen in my life.

Care to explain to everyone here why attacking the bourgeois parliament was the most fascist thing you had ever seen in your life?

[Delenda Carthago]

Care to explain to everyone here why attacking the bourgeois parliament was the most fascist thing you had ever seen in your life?

No, because I have done this conversation a billion times in here. Whoever still chooses to believe that what happened that day was an actual attempt to raid the parliament and not a thugish attack from luben and petit bourgeois elements to the organised workers movement of the country, is a fascist beyond saving. At least way beyond my care to still try to convince him. I made my choices. Bye bye luben anarchist scum, hello class movement.


Now, everyone is where they feel comfortable...


PS. at the strike of 4th of the month, the roles had switched, and all the opportunists (SYRIZA-ANTARSYA-anarchists) were in front of the PAME in Syntagma sq. Just imagine if PAME started to throw dynamites and molotovs to them in order to come to the front line, what you crypto-fascists would have said.

PS2. Since you are a greek, I dont have to transalte again this...

+ YouTube Video

If you dare, explain to your fellow forumists that share your views on the incident what does the video shows.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

No, because I have done this conversation a billion times in here. Whoever still chooses to believe that what happened that day was an actual attempt to raid the parliament and not a thugish attack from luben and petit bourgeois elements to the organised workers movement of the country, is a fascist beyond saving. At least way beyond my care to still try to convince him. I made my choices. Bye bye luben anarchist scum, hello class movement.


Now, everyone is where they feel comfortable...


PS. at the strike of 4th of the month, the roles had switched, and all the opportunists (SYRIZA-ANTARSYA-anarchists) were in front of the PAME in Syntagma sq. Just imagine if PAME started to throw dynamites and molotovs to them in order to come to the front line, what you crypto-fascists would have said.

PS2. Since you are a greek, I dont have to transalte again this...

+ YouTube Video

If you dare, explain to your fellow forumists that share your views on the incident what does the video shows.

First,calling everyone who isn't kke fascist or opportunist is sectarian and idiotic.
Second I won't defend the anarchists on the video for no reason but as I am sure you know kke does that to anarchists all the time.
Thirdly why would all of the "opportunists" as you say do that?(defend the parliament?)
I currently don't support syriza or antarsya or consider myself an anarchist even though I support them(seeing them the only revolutionary force in greece).But label me whatever you want.
You still haven't answered my question about why it was "the most fascist thing you ever did".Idc if you answered it one million times.I'm not going to search every thread to find the answer.

[Delenda Carthago]

I dont give a crap who you support or not. It doesnt matter. Translate what we see in the video.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

I dont give a crap who you support or not. It doesnt matter. Translate what we see in the video.

I see a racist dude attacking an innocent immigrant.
Now answer my question.

[Delenda Carthago]

I see a racist dude attacking an innocent immigrant.
Now answer my question.

Thats the second part of the video. Tell us what dude is doing on the first part of it.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Thats the second part of the video. Tell us what dude is doing on the first part of it.

He is sitting there receiving first aid.From what the video says he was one of those who attacked PAME.Now explain to me why you think he is anarchist.Given that he is racist and islamophobic.

[Delenda Carthago]

He is sitting there receiving first aid.From what the video says he was one of those who attacked PAME.Now explain to me why you think he is anarchist.Given that he is racist and islamophobic.

I m not saying he is an anarchist. I am saying that when anarchists attacked PAME, there were fascist elements like him on their side. Because they both share the anticommunist menace and the hatred for the organised class struggle. So, its pretty safe to use the term "anarchofascists", isnt it?