Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Greek elections

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 30 Jan 2015, 12:33
As Engelsist pointed out, the KKE is not opposed to alliances with non-members or even with other strata in society that objectively come into conflict with monopoly capital. You can see the former in the fact that the party has organised and cultivated PAME, whose membership is many times greater than that of the party. It is a mass organisation where, regardless of their pre-existing political viewpoint, workers can learn how to struggle on a class basis, instead of the constraints of employer-led trade unionism.

Instead of complacently leaving the arena of everyday struggle to the class enemy (as their detractors accuse them of - see the godawful statement by the American PSL, for instance), the party actively intervenes in this through mass organisations like PAME. The same goes for alliances with other sections of society, like students, farmers, the self-employed, etc. The difference with many other communist parties is that the KKE supports a broader front of social forces, rather than political parties. At this juncture, an alliance or front must be based on social struggle, rather than on the parliamentary machinations of this or that party. When the parliamentary machinations are prioritised, then you get the current situation: a weakening in mobilisations, a weakening in struggles, because everyone is at home waiting for parliament to fix things for them.

It is disingenuous to use a Trotsky quotation to attack the Leninist theory on socialism that the KKE adheres to. Socialism is the first, lower phase of communism. This is transitional in the sense that the new society is immature, it still carries the birthmarks of the old society. There are still inequalities that need to be gradually taken away, bourgeois law still exists in spheres other than production, there is still the need for a state to suppress the exploiting minority. That doesn't mean that the transition from capitalism to socialism must be "all or nothing". In Russia, the effort to build a socialist economic base was constrained by all the remaining feudal inheritances, by the level of productive forces, by the destruction of civil war, etc. Dealing with all this takes time, and only Trotskyists would consider it "stagism" to acknowledge this. As the KKE themselves put it:

Quote:
4. The approach arguing for the existence of “transitional societies”, with distinct characteristics both in relation to capitalism, as well as in relation to socialism, is an incorrect one. Starting from this viewpoint the development of capitalist relations in China and Vietnam is mistakenly interpreted as representing transitional “multi-sectoral societies”.

We do not overlook the special characteristics of the period which in the Marxist bibliography is known as the “transitional period”, during which the socialist revolution is seeking victory, a possible civil war develops and the sharp struggle of the immature communist (socialist) relations that are just beginning to develop against capitalist exploitative relations, which have still not been abolished, is being waged. Historical experience has shown that this period cannot last for a long time. In the USSR this period was completed by the middle of the 1930s. The struggle with capitalist relations, the difficulties in the construction of a socialist base were sharpened due to the feudal and patriarchal inheritance in the former colonies of Tsarist Russia. Lenin, in his time, noted that the extent, the duration and the nature of the transitional measures would depend on the level of development of the productive forces that socialism inherits from capitalism. [3] He also stressed that for countries where industry is more developed, the transitional measures towards socialism become reduced or, in some cases, even completely unnecessary.

The transitional period is not independent from the process of socialist construction, since it is during its course that the basis is established for the development of a communist society in its first phase.

It is also a mistake to restrict exclusively to the transitional period social phenomena and contradictions that continue, up to a certain extent, to exist also during the immature (socialist) phase of communism (forms of individual and cooperative production, the existence of commodity-money relations, the difference between town and country). Such an approach perceives socialism as a classless society with the persistence of the contradiction between manual and intellectual labour being the only characteristic differentiating it from developed communism. Thus, according to this approach, it is during the socialist phase that the withering-away of the state is effected, that the dictatorship of the proletariat ceases to exist. This view distances itself from the class approach to the issue of the state and of the class struggle under socialism. It underestimates the role of the subjective factor in socialist development. In certain cases it leans towards a spontaneous decay of forms of individual – cooperative property, of commodity-money relations. It downplays the character of social ownership, on the basis of actual problems in the “mediation” between producers.


And:

Quote:
14. The implementation of certain “transitional measures”, within the perspective of the complete abolition of capitalist relations, was inevitable in a country like Russia of the years 1917-1921.

The factors that forced the Bolshevik C.P to implement a temporary policy of preservation, to a certain extent, of capitalist production relations were: the class composition, where the petit- bourgeois agrarian element was in the majority, the lack of a distribution, supply and monitoring mechanism, the large scale of the backward small-sized production and, mainly, the dramatic worsening of sustenance and living conditions, due to the destruction caused by the civil war and the imperialist intervention. All these factors made the development of medium-term Central Planning difficult at that point.

The New Economic Policy (NEP), which was implemented following the civil war, constituted a policy of temporary concessions to capitalism. It had the basic goal of restoring industry from the ravages of war and, on this basis, to build in the field of agricultural production relations that would “attract” farmers into the cooperatives. A number of enterprises were given over to capitalists for use (without them having ownership rights over them), trade was developed, the exchange between agricultural production and the socialized industry was regulated based on the concept of the “tax in kind”. The possibility was provided to the peasants to put on the market the remaining portion of their agricultural production.

The maneuverings and temporary concessions to capitalist relations that are demanded under certain circumstances and special conditions are not in any way an inevitable characteristic of the process of socialist construction. It is presumptuous and misleading to utilize NEP, as was done by the leadership of the CPSU with perestroika during the 1980s, to justify the turn towards private property and capitalist relations.


http://interold.kke.gr/News/2009news/18 ... n-2nd.html

I hope this demonstrates how different their position is from that of Trotskyist phrasemongers, the "scholastically invented, “concocted” definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?)" that Lenin mocked.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 Jan 2015, 15:11
Quote:
As Engelsist pointed out, the KKE is not opposed to alliances with non-members or even with other strata in society that objectively come into conflict with monopoly capital.

You will never find a sectarian communist who wouldn't make alliances with itself. PAME and other stuff like that are totally controled by the Communist party. Everyone knows that. Sectarian people will always pretend to be open-minded because they have created a worker union, a sport club, and other organizations which in France we used to call transmission belts. It's a bit like fascist parties denying being racist because they have 1 black man in their party.

The KKE writes a lot about monopoly capital. In his works Lenin never wrote so much about monopoly capital. When Lenin made an alliance with the Mensheviks, the petty bourgeoisie, did he said: "I will make an alliance with the Mensheviks because they objectively oppose monopoly capital (the big bourgeoisie)." Of course not. That would have been an economistic distortion of Marxism.

If you take The State an Revolution for example, you won't find a single chapter about "monopoly capital", and not even about imperialism. In itself, the fact that the KKE uses this concept of "monopoly capital" as if it was the alpha and omega proves that their approach is dogmatic. Their statements look more like religious recitals than actual analyses.

Quote:
I hope this demonstrates how different their position is from that of Trotskyist phrasemongers, the "scholastically invented, “concocted” definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?)" that Lenin mocked.

I don't see how this is relevant. The KKE isn't in power in Greece, and far from it.

They obtained 5%, and this proves that their political ideas are not widespread amongst the masses. This is a fact. This isn't about parliamentarism or elections, but about the masses in general.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3871
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 30 Jan 2015, 19:03
If they have access to more people than the 5% through PAME and other organizations, and they're not able to make them vote for KKE, then their policy "to make people understand and also thinking the same way as them" is not working very good...

Creating those organizations is fine, actually a great idea, but if they can't get them to power, it's useless. The people need organization, but they also need those organizations to actually be able to change their political reality.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 31 Jan 2015, 12:06
That has been the problem on the left this past 7 years, Che, and no matter how correct a particular train of thought, policy or action might be, it means nothing when an established group can only mobilise 5% of the electorate at a time where you expect deep polarisation of society and people swelling their ranks.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 05 Feb 2015, 14:13
Quote:
It's memerizing to see a stalinist party like the KKE to behave like a bunch of trots.


It's fun how you still agree with everything I say about Syriza on facebook


Quote:
This morning, the press said that Tsipras was going to meet with ANEL first, and then KKE and The River. An hour later, the ANEL coalition was already formed, and the other two were never heard from again.


That's because Koutsoumbas refused to even meet Tsipras. And seriously To Potami openly stated that their goal was to prevent Syriza from carrying out their economic programme. They're complete liberals. At least you can exploit ANEL's cluelessness on the economy. But the coalition is already beginning to break up anyways, ANEL said they wouldn't support Syriza's migration law. The process is moving forward.

Of course a coalition with the KKE would be better. Some kind of Syriza-KKE cooperation is absolutely necessary in order to see real progress. A coalition government would be perfect, but parliamentary cooperation on economic issues would also be quite enough for the moment. If it weren't for the KKE's sectarianism, if the KKE actually tried to be a part of the struggle, Greece could soon begin to nationalize banks and big industries as the EU's economic attacks get more severe.

Quote:
People voted for the party which opposed austerity and proposed immediate and concrete measures to improve the life of many. They might betray the people, or they might not. But one thing is certain: people were not interested by the KKE's ideas.


Trotsky wrote:
The strategic task of the next period – prerevolutionary period of agitation, propaganda and organization – consists in overcoming the contradiction between the maturity of the objective revolutionary conditions and the immaturity of the proletariat and its vanguard (the confusion and disappointment of the older generation, the inexperience of the younger generation. It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.

Classical Social Democracy, functioning in an epoch of progressive capitalism, divided its program into two parts independent of each other: the minimum program which limited itself to reforms within the framework of bourgeois society, and the maximum program which promised substitution of socialism for capitalism in the indefinite future. Between the minimum and the maximum program no bridge existed. And indeed Social Democracy has no need of such a bridge, since the word socialism is used only for holiday speechifying. The Comintern (here: the KKE) has set out to follow the path of Social Democracy in an epoch of decaying capitalism: when, in general, there can be no discussion of systematic social reforms and the raising of he masses’ living standards; when every serious demand of the proletariat and even every serious demand of the petty bourgeoisie inevitably reaches beyond the limits of capitalist property relations and of the bourgeois state.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsk ... p-text.htm


Syriza pulled this off quite perfectly with their Thessaloniki programme in the pre-election period. They still intend to stick to this program. Another fun fact: While you guys say the KKE acts like Trotsky, Trotsky shows how they act like social democrats.

Quote:
I believe that the KKE should form a coalition with SYRIZA against austerity, without taking part in their government. They would do something great for the people without losing their freedom to criticize SYRIZA. They like to praise comrade Stalin and I can't blame them for that. However Stalin's Communist Party made the Popular Fronts in Europe and broke with the sectarian line. The KKE, however, is behaving like a trotskyist party. They are the first trotsko-stalinists in the whole history of the Communist movement.


The Syriza-PAME coalition is much more of a popular front than Syriza-KKE would be, because the popular front is defined by its crossing of class boundaries, usually to work together with the "national bourgeoisie", which incidentally is precisely whom ANEL represent - Kammenos is basically the political flagship figure of the Greek shipping magnates, and I'm pretty sure Tsipras justifies the coalition precisely by saying this is a struggle of national independence that calls for a popular front. Here's a good analysis of the coalition strategy: Syriza's national strategy).

Syriza-KKE would be a united front of workers' parties, with a completely different character.

Quote:
Dismissing the possibility of class alliances, of transitional stages, of compromises, even in the conditions of western capitalism, is totally contrary to Leninism.


And surely it makes a difference whether you make an alliance of "all the oppressed" or turn to the "national" bourgeoisie.

Quote:
The Greek people will win, the Spaniards will win, I am not anti-EU per se, neither are Syriza and Podemos, but they propose a new Europe based on solid social democracy, moving towards democratic socialism.


There is no room for this. There is no economic possibility of reformist policies under the conditions of a crisis of deflation. The reforms would have to be of such huge extent that you will end up having a planned economy no matter what (which is why a proper transitional strategy is essential, as OP-B noticed) because you won't get the bourgeoisie to just peacefully invest in stuff, as you've explained yourself:

Quote:
Fact is, if Syriza want to get the Greek economy going, they have to force investment from their capitalists into the economy - they have a mandate to do so, and should. Economic stagnation at present is only caused by capitalists pulling a Reardon and going on "investment strike" when there are opportunities aplenty to invest, what with high unemployment (indeed, with a highly educated unemployed labour army), if they don't want to bloody well invest in what people need, then it is up to the government to seize assets and invest, pull a Roosevelt or a Stalin - put that money into things like renovating housing, renovating the docks, investing in social services of all kinds, investing massively in new energy tech. As far as I know, the Greek economy is a ginormous contributor to the overall production of olives, tobacco, citrus fruits within the EU, they have an economic standing and can pull a trump card. They should not be playing tentatively, they know they have the ECB and IMF by their balls and have a reasonable resource economy to fall back on, coupled with my fantasised seizure of unused assets, they have a royal flush. They should know this, otherwise the reaction from these letter organisations would not be so hysterical.


Precisely this and this is why it's so necessary for them to align with the KKE, which is the only party that actually wants to do all these things.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Feb 2015, 01:12
Quote:
The Syriza-PAME coalition is much more of a popular front

No it would be more like a united front since the PAME is a worker union controlled by the KKE, not a political party. The main idea behind the "united front" (in French "front unique", literally the only front), which was usually called "united front at the base" (in French: "Front unique à la base") was to rally all workers inside factories, trade unions, and in the streets, against the reformist leaders. There was no political alliances between the Communist Party and reformist parties.


Quote:
the popular front is defined by its crossing of class boundaries, usually to work together with the "national bourgeoisie", which incidentally is precisely whom ANEL represent

No, inside the Popular Front there was no right-wing party. The radicaux were not right wing, they used to be at the far left of French politics. ANEL is a far-right party, that's totally different. Moreover ANEL is a tiny party while the radicaux were still very strong.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure Tsipras justifies the coalition precisely by saying this is a struggle of national independence that calls for a popular front. Here's a good analysis of the coalition strategy: Syriza's national strategy).

No that would be a National Front, not a Popular Front: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_F ... istance%29

Quote:
Syriza-KKE would be a united front of workers' parties, with a completely different character.

No that would be a Popular Front.

Quote:
And surely it makes a difference whether you make an alliance of "all the oppressed" or turn to the "national" bourgeoisie.

Of course. If you are in a situation in which your possibilities are limited, your influence is limited, you might not be able to gather "all the oppressed" around you. However you might be able to make a compromise with a part of the bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie (in this situation SYRIZA). In Russia the proletariat was very weak, except in the main cities, especially Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Lenin's main idea was that you had to make an alliance with a part of the Russian bourgeoisie, the peasantry, in order to prepare the socialist revolution, in order to make the "alliance of all the oppressed" possible. Thus, as you can see, there is no opposition between rallying the oppressed and making a temporary compromise with the bourgeoisie.

Quote:
There is no economic possibility of reformist policies under the conditions of a crisis of deflation.

Roosevelt in the USA made important economic reforms.

The KKE talks a lot, but it refuses to assume power or make compromises. For example, they talk a lot about NATO. However, which party is the biggest threat to NATO right now? SYRIZA or the KKE? The KKE keeps talking, but SYRIA, even if it doesn't say that Greece should leave NATO, is actively discussing with Russia. Therefore SYRIZA is clearly much more dangerous right now than the KKE.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 08 Feb 2015, 21:15
OP-Bagration wrote:
You will never find a sectarian communist who wouldn't make alliances with itself. PAME and other stuff like that are totally controled by the Communist party. Everyone knows that. Sectarian people will always pretend to be open-minded because they have created a worker union, a sport club, and other organizations which in France we used to call transmission belts. It's a bit like fascist parties denying being racist because they have 1 black man in their party.


Well, what can one respond to a comparison like that? 1 black man in a fascist party vs a million workers in a communist-backed trade union front whose membership, in fact, far outnumbers that of the party itself. It is not an "alliance with yourself" when the very nature of the trade union front is that it works on a class basis, that anyone can join it regardless of how they voted in the last election. The whole point of it is that it's not the same people in a different room, but different people, people who may not be communists yet (or perhaps never will be), but who are willing to fight alongside the communists anyway, to learn how to struggle in the workplaces instead of waiting for Essex graduates (or wherever else they got their education in "post-Marxism") to do it for them.

OP-Bagration wrote:
They obtained 5%, and this proves that their political ideas are not widespread amongst the masses. This is a fact. This isn't about parliamentarism or elections, but about the masses in general.


You say it isn't about parliamentarism, but you treat the parliamentary election as the sole measure of mass support, so what's the difference?

Mabool wrote:
That's because Koutsoumbas refused to even meet Tsipras. And seriously To Potami openly stated that their goal was to prevent Syriza from carrying out their economic programme. They're complete liberals. At least you can exploit ANEL's cluelessness on the economy. But the coalition is already beginning to break up anyways, ANEL said they wouldn't support Syriza's migration law. The process is moving forward.


Yes, I don't deny that about the meetings. Neither party had any intention of having talks, because there was nothing to talk about. Anyone who has paid any attention recently understood that there must have been some kind of arrangement between SYRIZA and ANEL already. What's harder to understand is why Tsipras would say that talks with the other parties were imminent, this being the case. "Meetings" unilaterally announced by one party through leaks to the bourgeois press. I guess that's one way to integrate into the system of governance. But at least Tsipras isn't wearing a tie.


OP-Bagration wrote:
The KKE talks a lot, but it refuses to assume power or make compromises. For example, they talk a lot about NATO. However, which party is the biggest threat to NATO right now? SYRIZA or the KKE? The KKE keeps talking, but SYRIA, even if it doesn't say that Greece should leave NATO, is actively discussing with Russia. Therefore SYRIZA is clearly much more dangerous right now than the KKE.


News must travel slowly to some parts. Greece has already voted to extend sanctions on Russia, with an option for more sanctions later. The way Varoufakis explained it (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/ ... 4020150129) basically makes it look like the whole confrontation was just a silly mistake, and that Greece was simply pissed off about not being asked first. It's just bluster, part of the negotiations. Greece said that it has nothing against the Russian people as such, but then again no country openly says that it wants to starve the Russians into submission. It's all words, words, words.

A tough stand on NATO, including demanding that our own country leaves it, is absolutely necessary for communists. The reason for this was aptly demonstrated in 2010 by a Wikileaks cable about Die Linke in Germany, which showed the machinations of the party leadership to keep that kind of demand out of its program. New reformist parties like Die Linke pay lip service to the principle that NATO should be dissolved (others, like the Dutch SP, say NATO can be reformed into a "defensive, regional" alliance, just like in the non-existent good old days), but if they are voted into power, they will not take the steps that might lead to such a dissolution. And if the left wing of the party complains, they can just say that they're waiting for the global revolution to sweep NATO away.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Feb 2015, 03:10
Quote:
Well, what can one respond to a comparison like that? 1 black man in a fascist party vs a million workers in a communist-backed trade union front whose membership, in fact, far outnumbers that of the party itself. It is not an "alliance with yourself" when the very nature of the trade union front is that it works on a class basis, that anyone can join it regardless of how they voted in the last election. The whole point of it is that it's not the same people in a different room, but different people, people who may not be communists yet (or perhaps never will be), but who are willing to fight alongside the communists anyway, to learn how to struggle in the workplaces instead of waiting for Essex graduates (or wherever else they got their education in "post-Marxism") to do it for them.

That's what we used to call "transmissions belts" and "mass organizations", but you don't make an "alliance" with your own mass organizations.

Quote:
You say it isn't about parliamentarism, but you treat the parliamentary election as the sole measure of mass support, so what's the difference?

Parliamentary elections are a measure of mass support, but it doesn't mean that you can increase this mass support only through parliamentary activities. That's the difference, and I'm only repeating what Lenin used to say.

Quote:
News must travel slowly to some parts. Greece has already voted to extend sanctions on Russia, with an option for more sanctions later. The way Varoufakis explained it (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/ ... 4020150129) basically makes it look like the whole confrontation was just a silly mistake, and that Greece was simply pissed off about not being asked first. It's just bluster, part of the negotiations. Greece said that it has nothing against the Russian people as such, but then again no country openly says that it wants to starve the Russians into submission. It's all words, words, words.

You probably need more fresh news:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_ar ... 015_546951

Quote:
A tough stand on NATO, including demanding that our own country leaves it, is absolutely necessary for communists.

It's not necessary for a communist to demand that the country leaves NATO if nobody listen to what you say. The only thing that is absolutely necessary for communists is to be useful to the people. And you are not useful if you refuse to make any compromise just because of the stance on NATO.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5167
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 09 Feb 2015, 04:54
What about refusing to make the people pay for someone else's conflict with Russia makes you not useful?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Feb 2015, 01:22
What do you mean?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 12 Feb 2015, 22:23
Quote:
No it would be more like a united front since the PAME is a worker union controlled by the KKE, not a political party. The main idea behind the "united front" (in French "front unique", literally the only front), which was usually called "united front at the base" (in French: "Front unique à la base") was to rally all workers inside factories, trade unions, and in the streets, against the reformist leaders. There was no political alliances between the Communist Party and reformist parties.


I made a mistake, I meant Syriza-ANEL
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 16 Feb 2015, 22:57
KKE may be accused of sectarianism. However, its trade unions are strong and assist the workers in many situations, and to my mind, this matters more than a sold-out government that is currently discussing with the EU on which manner they will give our tax money to foreign and domestic bankers. I can assure you (although I don't have the honour of belonging to the Party) that when the bosses try to do something "illegal" against an employee, the threat "I'll tell the Party" still makes them reconsider.

Note: To make myself clear, I belong to a trade union controlled by PAME, I am a low-waged employee that expects nothing from a government of watered-down euro"communists". Please excuse my rather absolute opinion, but that's how I feel.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2015, 22:01
They are not eurocommunists, they are something far better; pragmatic left-wingers. Considering that the majority of Greeks did not want to leave the EU, its impossible to make an actual break with the EU and the capitalist system. If the negotiations fail however, which they may (but I doubt), I think their socialist tendencies will come to the fore. I don't remember the exact quote, but Eric Hobsbawm said something very Marxist once; the only things worse then being raped by capitalism is not being raped by it (of course, he formulated it much better...). I doubt that Greece of all countries is ready to develop socialist relations of productions when the its more developed counterparts in the West don't seem to be at all (capitalism is still functioning). Its idealistic to assume that you force socialist relations on a poor country which can't even get capitalism to work properly!
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 21 Feb 2015, 12:39
OP-Bagration wrote:


"Never mind the deeds, look at these pretty words over here!"

Meanwhile, an agreement about the bailout has been reached. The parties of the former government are congratulating Tsipras for continuing their programme, and are only disappointed that it took this charade for almost a month to bring the situation back to where it was before the elections. Even the Dutch media are now pointing out that only the Communist Party (correctly) identifies the agreement as the continuation of the austerity programmes, when normally they only talk about the bigger parties in Greece.

What is left of the SYRIZA programme? Last week, we had these demonstrations of "solidarity with the Greek people" (and, implicitly at least, SYRIZA), but now SYRIZA will be directly responsible for exploiting and oppressing those same people. They might as well invite ND, PASOK and The River to the government now, because there are no more fundamental areas of disagreement, except that the former governmental parties can now say, "We told you so".

But hey, at least. SYRIZA contains "leftists" (Trotskyists and Maoists), and the PM and Finance Minister don't wear ties!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 23 Feb 2015, 23:29
It's still too early to tell what will happen. Of course SYRIZA has many trotskyists inside, and thus they can't be trusted, but we can already see some disagreements inside their own ranks, especially criticism from Panayiotis Lafazanis.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 24 Feb 2015, 08:46
He is the leader of the left opposition, isn't he? What did he say? Because as far as I can see, he's got a cabinet position now. Looking at this message from half a year ago, he sounds like the kind of person who overpromises a bit. I think guys like this may very well be principled, but based on their functions in the party, they must also necessarily compromise on their own principles, and limit themselves to voicing careful criticisms. Or even worse, they may spread dangerous illusions when they tell their support base that there is still room to implement SYRIZA's original programme at the same time as the ongoing sell-out.

To be honest, I would be disappointed if there wasn't any criticism. Mikis Theodorakis, the great composer, and Manolis Glezis, resistance hero and SYRIZA MEP, have carefully spoken out as well.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 24 Feb 2015, 13:10
I don't have an English source, but according to Le Monde he said that all agreemens must be compatible with the program of Syriza, which he defined as a radical left program, and also that some bills are ready such as the freeze of foreclosures.

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/ ... _3234.html

As for the agreement with the EU, Tsipras basically said that he could make more privatizations. The rest of the agreement could be acceptable as a compromise, especially because the didn't abandoned the idea of increasing the minimal wage, but this question of privatizations is a shame and will probably bring a lot of dissent inside SYRIZA.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.