U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Tsipras: did he betrayed?

Log-in to remove advertisement.

Did Tsipras betrayed?

Too early to tell
I don't know
Total votes : 21
Post 02 Jun 2015, 23:03
Did Tsipras betrayed? What do you think?
Post 02 Jun 2015, 23:28
Betray what? The pinkest of reds don't have any principles?
Post 03 Jun 2015, 18:10
I actually voted no. Certainly he didn't betray what communists care about, because he didn't really lay claim to that. Perhaps he "betrayed" that when he went with Synaspismos during the 1990s, but it's hard to blame him personally for that, since he was young and wasn't in charge at the time. He just went along with existing political currents. But this is a significant moment in the sense that it represented a step away from the working class, away from the perspective of socialism, substituting these things for illusions about the anti- or alterglobalist movements, or "the movements" in general.

These are illusions that a lot of student activists like Tsipras fell for at the time, in no small part due to the completely different economic circumstances of the time. To think of that as a personal betrayal would be to overestimate the role of the individual. It is sufficient to analyse where this political current comes from and how it fundamentally underlies the role of SYRIZA to this day.

Come to think of it, in the present day you could say that he has betrayed SYRIZA's manifesto (the Thessaloniki Programme), but I believe that was already a climbdown from their previous stated positions, and pretty much an inevitability for anyone trying to manage the capitalist system in coalition. This has a certain propaganda value for us, but it should hardly be the main thrust, as if everything would have been great if some other SYRIZA programme had been implemented. It would only further the illusions in SYRIZA by essentially saying that there is a pro-worker or pro-people way out of the crisis through capitalist management, but that SYRIZA "betrayed" that course because reasons.
Post 04 Jun 2015, 15:10
I doubt that there is any national way out of the crisis. Even if you tried to bring socialism in Greece, how would that solve the crisis? You would still need foreign investments to repair the damages caused by the crisis. You would still need to be able to export your products in order to sustain your industry. The only way out of the crisis is a European negociation or confrontation with other countries, but Greece is a small country. However we can assume the economic crisis and turn it into a political crisis. We can take as much power as possible from the bourgeoisie and give it to the people.

I don't blame Tsipras for his supposed "capitalist management". Even the 1917 Socialist revolution started with some capitalist management. I can blame him however for his political weakness and obvious unwillingnes to assume the political confrontation with the haute bourgeoisie, and even to fulfill his program. Yet as we can notice, the Greek people isn't really blaming Tsipras for the moment, and the KKE remains at his lowest.

Image ... tion,_2015

I voted "too early to tell". But I don't trust him of course.
Post 05 Jun 2015, 18:32
Examples like these show why reformism doesn't work: eventually the reforms come up against the limits of international capital which obviously takes issues with them. Inevitably the left wingers are forced to temper their ideas and policies to suit the whims of international capital. This is why revolution is necessary; to smash the obstacle of international capital rather than to try and gradually modify it.
Post 28 Jun 2015, 10:01
OP-Bagration wrote:
I doubt that there is any national way out of the crisis. Even if you tried to bring socialism in Greece, how would that solve the crisis? You would still need foreign investments to repair the damages caused by the crisis. You would still need to be able to export your products in order to sustain your industry. The only way out of the crisis is a European negociation or confrontation with other countries, but Greece is a small country. However we can assume the economic crisis and turn it into a political crisis. We can take as much power as possible from the bourgeoisie and give it to the people.

I don't blame Tsipras for his supposed "capitalist management". Even the 1917 Socialist revolution started with some capitalist management. I can blame him however for his political weakness and obvious unwillingnes to assume the political confrontation with the haute bourgeoisie, and even to fulfill his program. Yet as we can notice, the Greek people isn't really blaming Tsipras for the moment, and the KKE remains at his lowest. ... ce2015.png ... tion,_2015

I voted "too early to tell". But I don't trust him of course.

The poll numbers are not really surprising. After all, what the electorate voted for is still pretty much what they're getting. They didn't vote for a party that promised "the political confrontation with the haute bourgeoisie", but for the one that promised a renegotiation in order to stay in the Eurozone, but on better terms than under previous governments. And that is still in process. It's not going very well, but they can blame that on the EU institutions rather than on the government. As long as the situation is still in the balance, there is no reason for the wait-and-see attitude to cease, or for the support for the government, and hence these poll numbers, to change, although time is quickly running out.

Now the latest move is to rush a referendum where you can vote for either Scylla or Charybdis, a desperate blackmail if there ever was one. They won't take political responsibility for their own plans, instead they want to further implicate the voters into whatever they decide to do next. I guess if the electorate somehow decide to vote for the EU's dictates (unlikely, but possible, if it's framed as a "stay in the Eurozone vs Grexit" dilemma), then I guess SYRIZA will just pack up and go home, since it's the will of the people after all?
Post 04 Jul 2015, 14:42
They didn't vote for a party that promised "the political confrontation with the haute bourgeoisie", but for the one that promised a renegotiation in order to stay in the Eurozone, but on better terms than under previous governments.

Actually the party proposed more than that like reversing privatisations. But the agreements that they made with the EU clearly betrayed those promises.
Post 10 Jul 2015, 19:41
Post 10 Jul 2015, 23:05
Yeah he betrayed the greek people because of what he said during the elections time (mainly with the privatization policy and retirement
age) , but yeah i always looked at them more as a "little bourgeois socialist party" then a real left party.
Post 13 Jul 2015, 13:03
Tsipras has sold his country.
Post 24 Jul 2015, 06:44
The Greek Tragedy

by Zoltan Zigedy

They were young, attractive, well-educated, and the darlings of the non-Communist left (and even some Communists!). The leaders of the Greek party, SYRIZA, promised the Greek people an escape from the jaws of the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Commission. Instead, they delivered the humiliating surrender of a people who only a week earlier had demonstrated a clear rejection of accommodation to the EU ruling classes.

The Financial Times headlined: “Greek PM likely to rely on opposition to pass most intrusive programme ever mounted by EU.” (My emphasis)

Regarding the SYRIZA surrender, The Real News commentator, Dmitri Lascaris, declared that “this is one of the worst political debacles in modern European history.”

Journalist and award-winning documentarian, John Pilger acidly commented: “An historic betrayal has consumed Greece. Having set aside the mandate of the Greek electorate, the Syriza government has willfully ignored last week’s landslide “No” vote and secretly agreed [to] a raft of repressive, impoverishing measures in return for a ‘bailout’ that means sinister foreign control and a warning to the world.”

Predictably, the non-revolutionary left scrambled to put an apologetic spin on the embarrassing collapse of the SYRIZA program. Before the draconian deal, the entire spectrum of the US left—from “progressive” Democrats to neo-Marxists and other hyphenated pseudo-Marxists—were swept into a love fest for SYRIZA unlike any since the orgy of Obama-mania. Typical of the post-referendum SYRIZA craze was the statement by the loquacious “Marxist” economist Richard Wolff on Democracy Now!

…And if Syriza can pull that off, the message sent to the comparable groups in every other European country is a staggering reconception of what the future of Europe may look like, where the words “anti-capitalism” become a unifying slogan for people across that continent…

You cannot impose economic structural reforms on a population that has voted 60 percent against them, with the television blaring out propaganda for them, every TV station and every newspaper, virtually, doing that. You just can’t do it. It’s not a question of argument; it’s a question of fact. (7-7-15)

Well, Professor Wolf, the Troika did it, thanks to the capitulation of SYRIZA.

Rather than heap deserved blame on the SYRIZA leadership, it is surely more useful to draw lessons from a fiasco that will have disastrous consequences for the Greek people. Of the many possible lessons, I offer the following three:

1. Social democracy offers no answer to the crisis of capitalism in its many manifestations. Whether it is the untenable strategy of overturning the neo-liberal model of capitalism and returning to the “golden age” of welfare statist policies, the once popular doctrine that “a rising tide raises all boats,” or the contradictory notion of democratizing capitalism, reformist programs that accommodate the bourgeois state and capitalist relations of production will fail to deliver the people from increasing immiseration and degradation. The European experience teaches nothing if not that.

Europeans have understandably lost patience with the evolution of their parliamentary systems toward two poles: tyranny of markets and tyranny of markets with a human face. They are turning instead to “radical” parties of the right and left. SYRIZA is an example of a “radical” party of the left that occupies the untenable space of defying the logic of capitalism while accepting its legitimacy. This is akin to diagnosing cancer while refusing treatment.

Clearly, the newly minted Euro-left parties that hide social democratic accommodation of capitalism behind the mask of “anti-capitalism” promise no more success than SYRIZA.

2. The Greek Communists (KKE) won a moral and ideological victory with their steadfast position that the SYRIZA program would end in disaster. They argued consistently that SYRIZA’s attempt to “manage” capitalism would end badly. Speaking before a July 2 rally in Athens, General Secretary Dimitris Koutsoumpas stated emphatically:

•Both the YES and the NO mean the acceptance of a new memorandum of anti-people measures, perhaps the worst that we have seen up to now.

•Both the YES and NO will lead the people to new torments and tragedies. •Both the YES and the No mean anti-worker, anti-people measures. •The referendum is an alibi for a new memorandum-agreement at the expense of the Greek people.

•The KKE calls on the Greek people to reject all the blackmail, to cast its proposal into the ballot box and say:


Nearly 6% of the voters– a remarkable write-in result– complied with Koutsoumpas’ call.

Not surprisingly, the bourgeois media ignored KKE’s campaign against the maneuvers and manipulations of the SYRIZA-ANEL government; one would expect no less from the mouthpieces of the capitalist ruling classes. However, the nearly total disregard of the KKE critique and counter-program by the broad left is indefensible. Apart from a few Leninist organizations, KKE’s position was either ignored or subjected to derision. Particularly in the US, intense anti-Communism and ideological conformity led to an almost complete misreading of the Greek tragedy, a development that could have been avoided with a measure of non-sectarian tolerance toward the KKE analysis.

With the collapse of SYRIZA as a left oppositional party, only KKE holds the banner of left resistance. Let’s see if our “left” friends will support its struggle.

3. For those of us living in the US, those of us destined to suffer through a tortuous, sensationalized, but ultimately disappointingly predictable Federal electoral campaign, the SYRIZA debacle holds some interesting parallels. As a friend and comrade so astutely points out, the Bernie Sanders campaign is a similar Trojan horse channeling dissatisfaction with capitalist institutions away from truly radical, effective solutions.

Instead of mounting a truly independent campaign outside of the two-party black hole, Sanders chose to run in the Democratic primary while promising neither to bolt the Party nor to withhold support from the primary victor regardless of the outcome. Thus, when he falls in the primaries to Hilary Clinton’s corporate coffers– as every serious commentator acknowledges he will, Sanders will dutifully urge the Party’s progressive wing to accept defeat and climb aboard Clinton’s juggernaut.

Apologists for this quixotic campaign will argue that Sanders will at least move the campaign conversation leftward. Of course this flies in the face of every primary campaign in any voter’s memory. Every Democratic Party primary season swings leftward in deference to the hard-core base, only to swing even further rightward to accommodate the “centrists” that strategists hope to cultivate. More often than not this strategy backfires; yet it remains an irreproachable axiom in the age of television and the Internet.

Sanders says in his campaign literature: “…the billionaire class is spending huge amounts of money to buy candidates and elections. We are now witnessing the undermining of American democracy and the rapid movement towards oligarchy where a handful of very wealthy families and their Super PACs will control our government.”

Does he think this process will be suspended for the 2016 primary season? Does he not count the Clinton family, its foundation, and its massive fund-raising machine as part of that “oligarchy”?

If Senator Sanders believes his words, he would support a movement away from this trap and not lend his name to legitimizing a corrupted, bankrupt process.

Zoltan Zigedy ... a-us-view/

Joint Statement in Solidarity with KKE [En, Ru, Es, Ar, Pt, It]

Dear comrades,

We, Communist and Workers Parties are following the developments in Greece, the offensive of the European Union, capital and its political representatives against the workers’-people’s rights.

We, Communist and Workers’ Parties have supported the struggles of the Greek workers and we have expressed our internationalist solidarity with and support for the struggle of the KKE.

For many years, the governments of ND and PASOK in cooperation with the EU-ECB-IMF have implemented memoranda and harsh anti-people laws with painful consequences for the working class and popular strata.

Today, the anti-people agreement-third memorandum which was signed by the SYRIZA-ANEL government, supported by ND and PASOK, with the Troika maintains the anti-people measures of the previous governments and thrusts new burdens onto the workers of Greece, unbearable taxation, the abolition of social-security and labour rights, the reductions in wages and pensions, privatizations etc., worsening the situation of the families from the popular strata even further.

These developments allow us to draw certain useful conclusions in order to strengthen the people’s struggle, such as:

Capitalism can not be humanized. It gives rise to crises, unemployment and poverty. In reality, it has been demonstrated that every kind of management of the system sharpens the people’s problems and increases the profits of big capital.
The EU is a reactionary imperialist organization. “Democracy”, “Solidarity” and social justice can not exist inside its framework.

We, the Communist and Workers Parties which sign this message, appreciate the decisive-consistent stance of the KKE at the side of the working class, the Greek people for the abolition of the memoranda, against the anti-people agreement signed by the SYRIZA-ANEL government (and the other bourgeois political parties) with the Troika (EU-ECB-IMF).

Our parties salute the struggle of the communists in Greece for the workers’-people’s rights, the overthrow of capitalist barbarity, for socialism.


CP of Albania
Algerian Party for Democracy and Socialism (PADS),
CP of Australia
CP of Bangladesh
Brazilian CP
CP of Britain
CP of Bulgaria
Party of the Bulgarian Communists
CP of Canada
CP in Denmark
CP of Macedonia (FYROM)
UCP of Georgia
Workers' Party of Hungary
Workers' Party of Ireland
CP of Luxembourg
CP of Malta
CP of Mexico
Popular Socialist Party of Mexico
NCP of the Netherlands
CP of Norway
CP of Pakistan
Palestinian CP
Phillipinese CP [PKP-1930]
CP of Poland
Russian CWP
CP of Soviet Union
NCP of Yugoslavia
CP of Slovakia
South African CP
CP of the Peoples of Spain
CP of Sweden
Syrian CP
CP (Turkey)
Union of Communists of Ukraine
CP of Venezuela

Other parties

Party of Labour of Austria
CP of the Workers of Belarus
Union of Communists in Bulgaria
Pole of Communist Revival in France
CP, Italy
Socialist Movement of Kazakhstan
Galizan Movement for Socialism
Party of Communists USA
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (USA)

The declaration is open for further signratures by other parties until tomorrow Friday 24.07.2015, 11.00am ... ith-kke-en
Post 26 Jul 2015, 20:55
The same European leftists who promoted the SYRIZA clique around Tsipiras have now changed tack: SYRIZA's Left Platform (and for some Trotskyists, the separate party ANTARSYA) are now the new great hope. They don't even bother with accountability for their previous positions. They just go on with the same old mindless boosterism, assuming that nobody has noticed them. The following is just for them:

The poisonous politics of SYRIZA's Left Platform

The KKE has long argued that the role of the Left Platform is not at all, as it has pretended, to "radicalize" SYRIZA, or, in another of its formulations, to "pressure it to the Left", but rather to: a) bolster illusions that this is possible and even desirable for SYRIZA and the Left Platform itself; b) hence, prevent those who buy into the illusion from making a real left turn toward KKE; c) assist in the overall effort to create a fracture within the KKE -- hence regularly hosting and promoting those who have been expelled from the KKE in more recent years, including venomously anti-KKE initiatives like "Ergatikos Agwnas" (Labor Struggle), as well as other, increasingly anti-KKE formations like ANTARSYA, in a broad "more left than SYRIZA, but still anti-KKE" alliance.

Yesterday, "Iskra" --the name is true to the pompous self-styling characteristic of Left Platform cadre, which is the definition of "labor aristocracy", i.e intellectuals and trade unionists who have seized the opportunity to transform their often communist past into an asset and a key to state appointment-- published an article by SYRIZA CC and Left Platform member Christina Soultanidou which, for the first time in my count, openly admits to the fundaments of the Left Platform's real role. Following is the relevant passage:

"If the government does not change its policy, even at the last moment, SYRIZA will have unwittingly contributed to the greatest success of the system. It will have converted the vast majority of the Parliament into a mechanism for the imposition of Memoranda, and the only non Memorandum parties, according to the political map that derives from the electoral process of January 2015, will be the KKE and Golden Dawn."

Note the poisonous admixture of cynical deception and unwitting candor here:

a) The false binary between "pro- and -anti Memorandum" parties is fully sustained. This despite the fact that ND was itself "anti-Memorandum" under the George Papandreou government only to become fanatically pro-Memorandum when it won entry into government cabinets, or that SYRIZA has followed exactly in the same footsteps, as the KKE has long warned would happen.

b) This deception is transferred now onto Golden Dawn, which the Left Platform has to admit, as everyone admits, is a fascist party. How can a fascist party be "anti-Memorandum"? What is being asserted here, if one accepts the idiotic binary that catapulted SYRIZA to power, is that Golden Dawn is currently to the "left" of SYRIZA! For Golden Dawn, this is effectively promotion and endorsement from the "left"!

Of course, "pro- and anti- Memorandum" means nothing if it does not mean "for or against the ruling class of Greek capitalists who have endorsed and abetted the systematic attack against labor rights and the economic sovereignty of the country". Given that history has never seen a fascist party that is against its own ruling class, it is absolutely self-evident that Golden Dawn's current rhetorical posture is patently false, as it was in Hitler's NSDAP, a party that posed as "anti-capitalist" even while it was being funded by the major capitalist monopolies of Germany against the communists. Which is precisely what Golden Dawn has been doing, at least in the Perama dockyards, where it was expressly set to destroy communist influence on trade unions on behalf of Greek shipowners. Incidentally, though the KKE has submitted a full proposal for the abolition of all Memoranda and Implementation Agreements since 2012 (and again, after the January 2015 elections), Golden Dawn has never done anything but give grand speeches about "traitors"...

These fundamental aspects of history and of current Greek experience are intentionally hidden so that

d) The poisonous and expressly anti-communist "coupling" of fascists and communists that Social Democracy has always undertaken is put in place. But

e) This can't be done without also openly admitting that the Left Platform's concern is to stop SYRIZA voters from turning to the KKE, "one of the two extremes" that SYRIZA's capitulation lets emerge as allegedly commonly "anti-Memorandum" parties, though Golden Dawn is not at all really "anti-Memorandum" and though KKE is only "anti-Memorandum" to the extent that it is an anti-capitalist, because it is a communist, party.

I invite anyone to argue against the incontrovertible fact that this ostensibly "equal distance" gesture toward fascism and communism openly endorses fascism as preferable, by falsely ascribing an anti-capitalist character to it and by simultaneously slandering communists through false implicit association with fascism.

The treacherous privileging of fascism in what poses as an "equal distance" policy in the Left Platform member's argument becomes even more apparent a few lines later:

"With such a situation in the Parliamentary system, and while the lives of citizens will be inevitably mortgaged by the third Memorandum, it is not at all impossible for Golden Dawn to emerge as a powerful voice for anti-Memorandum policy, with everything this implies as a consequence for the movement, the situation in Greek society, the possibility of disengagement from Memoranda, and more than anything, for democracy."

"Equal distance" is thus patently not equal distance. One of the poles of fascism and communism is always privileged from the standpoint of the craven Social Democrat, and that is fascism. And it is fascism, most basically, because it is the Social Democrat herself who refuses to reveal what fascism really is, it is the Social Democrat herself who confers on it a false "anti-systemic" image she then bewails will "dupe" others!!! The rotten, despicable role of Social Democracy in circumstances of acute capitalist crisis and the crisis of political legitimation that follows it could not be more apparent.

But even this is not enough for the Left Platform. Soultanidou goes on to explain why this morbidly ludicrous group does not quit its Parliament seats despite its ostensible disagreement with SYRIZA's "leadership" (they are in fact an organic aspect of that very leadership, as several of them are founding high cadre members of the party):

"Thus, in my view, it is NECESSARY for the 39 MPs of SYRIZA who did not vote for the first Memorandum legislation, and who will not vote for Memorandum laws to stay in the Parliament: so that there is a left anti-Memorandum expression of the people in the Parliament. For unfortunately, it has been proven that the KKE cannot express this people beyond its existing electoral percentage."

In simple English:

a) A false binary is used to conflate fascists and communists

b) This conflation creates an imaginary role for "Left Platform" Social Democrats

c) This imaginary role consists in supposedly preventing left voters from turning to fascism

d) While this is precisely what is endorsed by "Left Platform" Social Democrats through refusal to expose fascist collusion with the ruling class and its interests (but then, who would expose a collaborator? SYRIZA and Golden Dawn compete as all bourgeois parties compete, in terms of who will get the endorsement of "servant of the bosses")

e) Fascism's prospects are actively endorsed, albeit as a "threat"

f) Communism's prospects as an alternative to another Greek fascist dictatorship are actively pronounced nil.

This is the politics of the "left of SYRIZA" that US media like Jacobin embellish, falsify and promote. Unsurprisingly, it is exactly the same politics the "right of SYRIZA" (infamously anti-communist journalist and SYRIZA MEP Kouloglou) promotes:

It is incumbent for friends of the Greek people rather than accomplices of poisonous and internationally dangerous Social Democrats to expose and denounce the Left Platform's dishonest and politically reactionary stance before it can do more damage than it already has done; before the Social Democratic conspiracy against a communist and for a fascist alternative to its own rule has borne its fatal fruits.

http://indefenseofgreekworkers.blogspot ... -left.html
Post 27 Jul 2015, 23:03
He didn't betray, the biggest disappointment is that the KKE should have been much more involved with leading the mass movement and that's how these situations happen.
Post 30 Jul 2015, 00:21
A common misconception, not supported by the facts. It doesn't hold up when we look at what "the mass movement" consisted of, not just today and yesterday, but in recent years, how it developed, and the role of the KKE. It is explained thoroughly (and rather amusingly) here:

KKE "sectarianism" (Pt. 1)


My google search on the words "KKE" and "sectarianism" yielded a stunning 823,000 results. It's as if there exists some kind of Word feature that inserts the second word after every use of the first: the KKE is "sectarian" with the same phrasal predictability that the sky is "blue", the summer is "hot", or that kittens are "cute".

But then, what does "sectarian" really mean?

In an article entitled "Understanding the Greek Communists" (as in "Understanding the sexual rites of Kiribati", or "Understanding bipolar disorder"), published in the inevitable Jacobin, Nicos Lountos glosses it this way:

The reality is that the KKE has been paying for its sectarianism more than its radicalism. The KKE not only opposes common action with other political forces on the Left, but it’s stood apart from the broader mass movement in recent years.

KKE "sectarianism", then, appears to involve two nominal features: a. the refusal of collaboration with other political parties allegedly on the Left and b. the refusal to participate in the "broader mass movement."

Let's begin with the latter. Before nodding their heads in reflexive disapproval of the evil of "sectarianism", rational and politically informed persons would presumably ask themselves the question: what broader mass movement? For even KKE detractors admit the obvious: the KKE is a mass force on the street, the party with the most active supporters in terms of participation in the hundreds of demonstrations, rallies, protests, etc it organizes every year. Would SYRIZA's advertisers habitually steal KKE rally images and present them as its own (most recent symptom) if it were otherwise?

So when Lountos uses the words ""broader mass movement", he can only be referring to mobilization outside the parameters of the labor movement. When it comes to the labor movement, KKE and affiliated organizations like PAME are either a) the only ones demonstrating in the street or b) a segment of broader mobilizations organized by the Confederacy of Labor Unions (GSEE) or in popular marches (like the Polytechnic march, picture above), in which many different political organizations and parties (including both SYRIZA and ANTARSYA) participate. It is an organized segment, always, and a discrete element in any protest march, but so is every other major political organization. I can personally testify that when I attended a KKE rally against the imperialist intervention in Libya in Thessaloniki, there was a number of people from other political organizations there, including the Trotskyists of SEK (ANTARSYA), who were distributing their pamphlets and selling their newspaper peaceably and undisturbed and then formed their own block in our march.

But perhaps Lontos is not referring to the labor movement or the traditional progressive social movement but to new-fangled "movements" like the Greek indignados of 2011; yet KKE/PAME was there too, going to Syntagma square whenever there was a strike march. What it refused to do was to violate the principle of the Communist Manifesto according to which communists "disdain to conceal their views and aims" and hang around the plaza incognito to hear Varoufakis and the other "left economists" (Lapavitsas, Kazakis, and others) who were catapulted to fame there.

It is well known in Greece, but probably hushed abroad, that the "indignados", probably under the influence of circles that wanted to keep the movement controlled by themselves, declared open hostility against all political parties and labor unions; "Out with parties and syndicates" was a central --and politically extremely worrisome-- slogan of the Greek indignados. I will never forget the infernal booing to which a solitary Trotskyist, from what I later learned, was subjected for carrying a hammer and sickle flag to the plaza.


Page 3 of internal SYRIZA document containing instructions of how to do party work posing as "regular citizens". Published December 2011.

He wasn't the only one to be greeted with hostility while SYRIZA personnel (and arguably, Golden Dawn) did their propaganda work "undercover", without bearing insignia, and pretending to be "regular citizens"; KKE-ML faced widespread crowd hostility for daring to distribute their pamphlets as well. As for PAME, you may see for yourself how a young kid trying to distribute worker propaganda among the indignados is treated (it's worth noting that the video was uploaded by a fascist organization called "Hellenic Fist", as a gloating sample of what happens to people who try to do party propaganda; it's also worth taking a note of the guy in shaven head and t-shirt with German cross and skull, as no one had really thought of "Golden Dawn" as a rising political force with an active role in the indignado movement in 2011):

Or one could point to this video, where a PAME worker demonstration is actively booed by a crowd assembled in front of a "helicopter" banner; the "helicopter" banner was deployed by one of SYRIZA's most active constituents in plaza "fishing", KOE (as you will see the video of booing PAME is uploaded, similarly for gloating purposes, by the "Association of SYRIZA supporters"):

Indeed, on June 28, 2011, a Greek website was reporting the events thus:

The indignados pushed back a PAME rally

A short while ago, thousands of indignant citizens and employees who are demonstrating against austerity measures and against the voting of the Short-Term Program, and after the turmoil caused once again by hood wearers in the Athens center, pushed back PAME members who arrived outside the Parliament, after a march that began in the columns of Olympian Zeus.

So much for "sectarianism" in the "broader social movement", then.

http://indefenseofgreekworkers.blogspot ... -pt-1.html

And, more abstractly:

Sectarian blues


Given the fact that "sectarianism" originates in the study of religious factions and the violence that sometimes characterizes their attitude to antagonistic groups, it's supremely ironic but no less revealing how the term is used by political ideologues of the "New Left" today: the position that capitalism is, as an economic system, subject to a number of laws that cannot be bent or changed at will or by fiat of "good intentions" is the primary target of accusations of "sectarianism." One is "sectarian" because one is indiscrete enough to remind others that "democracy" is as much the alternative to capitalism as scissors are an alternative to computers; it is "sectarian" to not pretend to ignore that a form of political administration can never be an "alternative" to a system of organizing production (which is why the slaveholding US of the American Revolution, for instance, was certainly anything but less "democratic" than its postbellum industrial or its post 1890s imperialist counterparts). It is "sectarian" to not pretend to ignore that "distributive justice" is severely limited by the determinate form of specific relations of production and can never transcend them. It is "sectarian" to remind others that "justice" itself is never independent of these relations as far as its actual content is concerned. It is "sectarian" to insist that an economy founded and regulated by the law of competition can never be changed as regards its nature and consequences by not wearing ties or by proclaiming the rights of transgendered persons, or by espousing ecological causes. It is "sectarian" to not pretend ignorance at the fact that a falling rate of profit can only be recouped through the intensification of the exploitation of labor or through the destruction of forces of production. And it is "sectarian" to argue against the possibility of a "conciliation" between labor and capital that does not take the form of the submission of the former but is somehow achieved through the good offices and dialogical finesse of an "open minded" and "impartial" enough Left government.

In short, "sectarianism" consists in the proclamation of the existence of regulatory laws specific to the economic realm which are not suspended or abolished by personal ethics, appealing posters, catchy slogans and heartfelt speeches, and which shape the form of imaginable political practices. It is a derisive word for "respect for science", which becomes unpalatable when it makes visible necessities the petty bourgeoisie wishes to obfuscate and mystify (sometimes, through the crackpot positing of some imaginary Quantum law of political and historical "indeterminacy"). "Sectarian" are those who refuse to invest petty bourgeois placebos and fetishes with the magical efficacy the petty bourgeoisie demands. They are precisely those who refuse to proclaim their faith to the regressively religious, pseudo-transcendental heart-on-its-sleeve mode of responding to reality that masquerades as "ethics", "philosophy", and "politics" today.

http://indefenseofgreekworkers.blogspot ... blues.html
Post 31 Jul 2015, 03:14
Thanks for these KKE articles.
Post 08 Aug 2015, 10:23
I think calling for a referendum and then ignoring the result qualifies as a betrayal. If we ignore that step I'd have ticked the "dumb posturing windbag that made a bad situation into a worse one" option
Post 02 Sep 2015, 02:16
He is a traitor. I support the KKE.
Post 04 Sep 2015, 19:32
Long live the KKE! As for Tsipras, I think he is not a traitor but a schemer, who want to deceived people for his thirst of fame and power, and for the sake of upper classes.
Post 17 Nov 2015, 22:57
Tsipras did betray the Greek people, he assumed power, made a weak attempt at resistance and after predictable reactions from Europe he caved in.
Post 16 May 2016, 01:27
He just told lies. Tsipras after all has never been a leftist. His family was royalist
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]