https://socialistaction.org/2017/08/27/greece-a-story-without-the-distorting-prism-of-syriza/
Greece, a story without the distorting prism of SYRIZA
/ 18 hours ago
APTOPIX Greece General Strike
Protesters chant slogans during a nationwide general strike in central
Athens Wednesday, May 17, 2017. Greek workers walked off the job across
the country Wednesday for an anti-austerity general strike that was
disrupting public and private sector services across the country. (AP
Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis)
By MANOS SKOUFOGLOU
— ATHENS — During recent years, the debate on Greece has not been just a
debate among the other ones. The particular intensity of the crisis, of
the capitalist attack and of the social fightback, as well as the
emergence of a party of reformist origin that finally managed to take
power, in coalition with a nationalist right-wing party—all these have
made Greece the point of reference for five years. The catastrophic
experience of SYRIZA has marked not only the end of an era for the
workers’ movement in Greece, but also the impasse of the political
strategy that advocated a “broad left party” and an “anti-austerity
government”.
Unfortunately, this strategy was not only promoted by reformist parties,
but also by the majority of the anti-capitalist left around the world.
Most left leaderships were so enthusiastic about the perspective of a
SYRIZA government that they wouldn’t even discuss the possibility of an
independent anti-capitalist formation in Greece or listen to what Greek
revolutionary organizations had to say about the character and role of
SYRIZA.
SYRIZA was the undisputed model for a strategic project in the context
of which political, organizational, and electoral unity with reformists
was absolutely instrumental. Now that this project has collapsed on the
heads of the Greek working class, the vast majority of the proponents of
this strategy is stubbornly avoiding an honest balance-sheet. After
SYRIZA imposed the harsh 3rd austerity pact (memorandum) in July 2015,
most of them wrote hasty articles blaming their former hero, Tsipras,
for being either a traitor or so naïve as to think that he could
negotiate with the lenders, and then just left Greece aside and started
envisioning the same project as SYRIZA in other countries.
As a leader of the Fourth International said in the International
Committee of February 2017, “If something proves wrong at some point, it
doesn’t mean it was already wrong in the first place.” According to
that, one can claim that nothing is ever wrong. Things just change.
If we need a clear balance sheet of the Greek experience, though, this
is exactly because the same strategy is attempted in other countries. We
think that comrades who are trying to draw their conclusions from Greece
may find it useful to read what the members of the Greek Section of the
FI, OKDE-Spartakos, have supported during all those years and why they
have opted from the very beginning to not follow or “critically” support
SYRIZA, but to build an independent anti-capitalist project, ANTARSYA,
instead. Anyone who follows the evolution of our positions step by step
can ascertain that, unlike the vast majority of left narratives, our
opposition to SYRIZA is not a post-,Christum prophecy.
Recent stories about Greece are like modern fairy-tails, full of
inaccuracies, myths and “wishful thinking”. This is our modest
contribution to the demystification of the recent political history of
this country.
Has SYRIZA been an expression of the rise of the social movement?
Most international left people would reply “yes” with no hesitation.
SYRIZA represented the mass movement, and this is why we should have all
supported it. However, this is not exactly true. SYRIZA did receive the
majority of the votes of the working class and the poor strata, and this
could not have happened if it wasn’t for the mass movement that
developed in the country. However, SYRIZA was never organically linked
with the movement.
The party had always a very small membership, with particularly few
workers and unionists. SYRIZA did never lead a single mass movement or
workers’ strike, and its intervention in class struggles was always
marginal. To present SYRIZA as a party of the mass movement is a myth.
Its relation with the working class and the oppressed was a relation of
electoral representation. Even this relation, though, was consolidated
not during, but after the culmination point of the mass movement.
During the hot period 2010-2012, SYRIZA was only polling poor results.
It skyrocketed not before the spring of 2012, when the mass movement had
already retreated. Struggles, sometimes important ones, went and are
still going on; however, the movement never reached the level of the
period between May 2010 and Feb. 12, 2012, which was the last really
huge demonstration. One reason for this setback was definitely the easy
solution that SYRIZA proposed: wait for the election to vote for a left,
anti-austerity government. SYRIZA has not been an expression of the
rising mass movement, but an expression of its fatigue and deceleration.
And it has also been a reason for this deceleration.
Was there any strategic alternative to the proposal for a left government?
During the peak of the mass movement in Greece, and especially after
June 2011, both SYRIZA and the Communist Party (KKE) rushed to ask for
elections. SYRIZA finally proved to be more convincing, because, unlike
KKE, they promised a left government that would abolish the austerity
agreements (memoranda). This promise was not only fraudulent, but also
harmful, as it fostered passive anticipation and the assignment of the
struggle against austerity to a parliamentary leadership. Ever since
2011, SYRIZA has been declaring that the mass movement has shown its
limit, and it is time to give a “political” (that is electoral) solution.
But no government can save the people, if the people are not organized
and determined to save themselves. The calls of OKDE-Spartakos and other
anti-capitalist groups for generalized self-organization was confronted
with skepticism or sarcasm by the majority of the left, who argued that
it would be invented and utopian to speak of councils or soviets in a
situation where such things simply don’t exist. Soviets, or anything
else, will never exist if nobody proposes them.
However, self-organization structures existed. The Syntagma square
hosted a daily people’s assembly for nearly two months. The assembly
formed sub-committees charged with various tasks. A self-organized radio
station was installed on the square. Several everyday popular assemblies
were created in different neighborhoods of Athens and in almost all
relatively big cities of the country. People were asking: what if we had
not a parliament that we vote for every four years? How else could power
be organized?
It was possible to build an alternative proposal based on those, limited
but actual and important, experiences of self-organization. It was
possible to call for assemblies in workplaces as well. It was possible
to propose that local assemblies elect their revocable representatives
and turn the Syntagma Square into a national assembly. It was possible
to explain that this assembly represents working people much better than
the parliament and the government, and should thus claim power for
itself. It was possible, even if very hard, to put forward a concrete
revolutionary perspective. But SYRIZA could only fiercely oppose this
perspective, and the Communist Party as well. The anti-capitalist left
did try, but it was still weak and not well prepared.
Was SYRIZA something different from a reformist party?
Militants coming from revolutionary Marxism have developed a large
spectrum of theories to deny the reformist character of SYRIZA before it
took power, in order to justify their support to the party. They were
those who saw an anti-capitalist party in SYRIZA. Alan Thornett (of the
British FI section) was definitely not the only one who could claim that
“the leadership of SYRIZA wants to trigger the overthrow of capitalism”
as late as the eve of the accession of the party to power in 2015
(http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3358). Today, the
experience of the SYRIZA-ANEL government makes it needless to confront
the embarrassing idea that the leadership of SYRIZA ever wanted to
overthrow capitalism.
A different idea was that SYRIZA represents a new kind of reformism
where “bureaucratic crystallization is not as strong as it is in the
leaderships of the Communist parties of Europe” (F. Sabado, April 25,
2013, http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2951)).
Our remarks that this is not exactly true were ignored. In terms of
party bureaucracy, the leadership around Tsipras proved much more
indisputable than the leaderships of the social-democratic PASOK or the
right New Democracy. “But it lacked links to the state bureaucracy,” the
same comrades retorted. This was no more correct. In relation to its
small size, SYRIZA had a large number of long-time national or local
deputies, municipal councilors, cadres in the state apparatus, in the
administration of universities, etc. The only reason why the party was
not more actively involved in the management of the system is that it
was very small, and nobody would offer them this opportunity. However,
as soon as SYRIZA appeared ready to win the election, it immediately
adopted entire sectos of the social-democratic state, local government,
and unionist bureaucracy. As for its will to manage the system, there
was nothing exceptional in the reformism of SYRIZA.
Was the program of SYRIZA a “grain of sand in the machinery” of the system?
The program of SYRIZA was getting more and more conservative and
rudimentary before the party came to power. The celebrated Thessaloniki
program of 2014 already rejected a large part of the program of 2012,
and the program of January 2015 already refrained from the promises of
the Thessaloniki program. But, of course, none of the modest promises of
this last program were applied by the SYRIZA government. The
international supporters of SYRIZA for “no sacrifice for the euro” and
failed to see that behind the refuection of the demand for rupture with
the euro and the EU, there was no anti-nationalist purpose but only
unwillingness to break with any capitalist institution.
As soon as it won the elections, SYRIZA made it clear that its real
slogan was “any sacrifice for the euro.” As for their supposed
anti-nationalist sentiments, SYRIZ formed a government with the
nationalist right party of Independent Greeks (ANEL).
The enthusiasm of the international SYRIZA supporters made them see
promises as already accomplished facts. Wishful thinking turned into
pure fiction! According to a member of the Fourth International Bureau,
SYRIZA was a “grain of sand in the machinery,” as it “returned the legal
minimum wage to its former level (751 euros,” “dissolved the entity
created by the Troika to manage privatizations” and “canceled the sale
fo the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki” (E. Toussaint, Feb. 12, 2015,
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3862).
Of course, none of these ever happened, and the government never claimed
any of those reforms. As soon as it was elected, theSYRIZA government
started negotiating with the bourgeois class and the international
capitalist institutions, and soon totally aligned with them. This was
dictated by its reformist character, and was thus absolutely
predictable. There is nothing exceptional in the reformism of SYRIZA
regarding this issue as well; in the crucial moment, reformism backs the
capitalist camp.
On the IV website, we have read several times that “the comrades of the
KKE and ANTARSYA made an elementary error in seeing SYRIZA’s proposal
for a left government as something that would simply manage capitalism”
(R. Fidler, 17 Aug 2015,
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article4176). Now, in the
light of the experience of the SYRIZA government, who made an
“elementary error”?
Would the election of a left government bring self-confidence and
combativity to the people?
Another usual justification for the support to SYRIZA was that, even if
a SYRIZA government could not confront austerity, it could raise class
self-confidence and trigger mass mobilizations, or even a
pre-revolutionary situation. In the words of a comrade who was convinced
that a “Syriza-led anti-austerity government of the left” would be “a
workers’ government in Marxist parlance,” “a pre-revolutionary situation
could quickly emerge if Syriza is elected and implements its programme
(A. Thornett, June 16, 2012,
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2654).
This abstract scenario was utterly refuted by facts. No progressive
reforms or “emergency” measures were implemented. SYRIZA’s broken
promises did not bring combativity but disillusionment and confusion.
Passivity and parliamentary expectations, both nurtured by SYRIZA and
its supporters, had rendered the people unprepared for a new round of
strikes.
The resistance of the working class against the introduction of the
third austerity pact (memorandum) in July 2015 was weaker than the one
against the first and second memoranda. The situation got worse
afterwards. The pension reform of 2016 and the fourth austerity pact of
May 2017 were imposed with almost no reaction. Social anger will
probably explode again, and we are counting on that. But it is undoubted
that the SYRIZA government did not favor workers’ mobilization. On the
contrary, it was the government that managed to restrain, and thus
suppress, social and workers’ reactions more than any previous one amid
the crisis.
Do workers and the people trust those who stand alongside them in
reformist projects?
One of the innumerable arguments that always concluded that everybody
should support SYRIZA is that, if SYRIZA fails to deliver on its
promises, its base will revolt and follow the left wing of the party.
People would trust the left wing more than the anti-capitalist
opposition outside SYRIZA, because it is with the former that they have
fought together for years.
A very old and dogmatic concept was repeated here: revolutionaries
should stand alongside the working class in labour parties so as to gain
their trust, and be ready to lead them out of those parties when the
leadership betrays them. However, SYRIZA was never a massive party, with
a vivid internal life and strong bonds between the leadership and the
rank and file.
The period is not the same anymore, neither are parties. The above
abstract scenario failed altogether. The Left Platform of SYRIZA did
create a split and leave the party after the third memorandum to create
Popular Unity. But they only attracted a small minority of the SYRIZA
members. A large part among those who left SYRIZA is not in Popular Unity.
Even more, Popular Unity has been in a constant state of crisis ever
since its creation. Organizations and tendencies abandon the project one
after another, and the party is in no position to take any substantial
initiative. The rank and file of SYRIZA did not trust them—and why would
they, since the leadership of Popular Unity has always been an organic
part of SYRIZA, including four first-class ministers in its first cabinet.
The crisis of the Popular Unity is far worse than the pressures that
ANTARSYA (the anti-capitalist left front), the Communist Party, or
anarchist groups suffer because of the setback in the mass movement.
Being long-time members of SYRIZA did not help the Popular Unity be a
massive party. On the contrary, to not have been in SYRIZA is not an
obstacle when we approach former SYRIZA militants in the mass movement.
We respect militants who left SYRIZA to join Popular Unity and want to
work with them in the mass movement, but we don’t approve their
political project for a “patriotic anti-austerity front” and for a
second, honest SYRIZA.
Did the leadership of the Fourth International support SYRIZA?
It has been recently claimed by members of the Fourth International
Bureau that the FI leadership never officially supported SYRIZA.
However, this is unfortunately not correct. In fact, all international
revolutionary leaderships with some influence, with maybe only a couple
of exceptions, supported SYRIZA.
The CWI and IMT did it in every official way possible, since being part
of broad reformist parties is an instrumental element of their politics.
However, currents that are typically building a project for independent
anti-capitalist formations have also actually backed SYRIZA in Greece,
even contrary to the position of their Greek sections.
Although the Greek IST section (SEK) participates in ANTARSYA and never
joined or voted for SYRIZA, pronounced members of the British SWP
expressed their direct or indirect support to SYRIZA. Even after the
formation of the SYRIZA-ANEL government, Alex Callinikos maintained that
“revolutionary socialists should celebrate the new government’s victory
and support the progressive measures it takes” (even if it took none),
and thought that it is “great” to have “senior ministers coming from the
left wing of SYRIZA,” although recognizing it is also risky (A.
Callinikos in a debate with Stathis Kouvelakis,
http://greece.trendolizer.com/2015/02/syriza-and-socialist-strategy—stathis-kouvelakis-and-alex-callinicos.html).
Even Altamira of the Argentine Partido Obrero and the CRFI called for a
vote to SYRIZA “under the banner of a rupture with the EU, for the
United Socialist States, for a workers’ government” in the 11th Congress
of the PO, although the Greek section of the CRFI followed an
independent project.
Unfortunately, the case was even worse with the Fourth International
leadership. Renowned members have repeatedly visited Greece as invited
speakers in SYRIZA meetings, without consulting or even informing the
Greek section. FI cadres served as economic advisors to Tsipras and as
close collaborators to the former SYRIZA President of the Parliament Zoe
Konstantopoulou. The current Minister of the State and Government
Spokesperson, Tzanakopoulos, takes pride in having been a member of the
British section a few years ago, while being a first-class cadre of
SYRIZA at the same time.
The official positions of the Fourth International Bureau were more
cautious, but in fact no less explicit. The Bureau’s permanent position
was that anti-capitalists should join SYRIZA or an alliance led by
SYRIZA, for a left anti-austerity government. In May 2012, it stated
clearly that everybody should unite under the emergency programme of
SYRIZA: “The Fourth International calls on the whole of the
international workers’ movement, on all the indignant, on all those who
defend the ideals of the Left, to support such an emergency programme …
we call for the coming together of all the forces which are fighting
against austerity in Greece—Syriza, Antarsya, the KKE, the trade unions
and the other social movements—around an emergency plan” (FI Bureau
Statement, 24 May 2012,
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2626).
In its reply to the letter of the Greek section, who complained for this
statement, the FI Bureau was clear: “Our answer, like that of almost all
the sections of the International, is clear: it is necessary to support
Syriza” (June 9, 2012).
The FI leadership position was not much different in 2015. Before the
January election that brought SYRIZA to power, a series of top FI
cadres, including Bureau members, co-signed an international call
titled, “With the Greek people, for a change in Europe—A call launched
in the Spanish State,” which was actually a call for a vote to SYRIZA
and did not even mention ANTARSYA, the project in which the Greek
section is engaged (9 Jan 2015,
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3795).
The statement of the Secretariat of the Bureau a few days afterward
said: “The various components of Syriza, their members in the trade
unions—in collaboration, often, with militants of the Antarsya
coalition, the student movement, etc.—are the vectors of these
mobilizations. Syriza and Antarsya have particular responsibility in
building a unitive project” and urged “to do everything so that the
Greek left, of which Syriza is the main component, wins these elections,
in order to create a social and political dynamic for a left government”
(Jan. 12, 2015,
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3804). There is no
doubt that this equals an official call for a vote to SYRIZA and a
suggestion that ANTARSYA should also join its project. After the
election of the SYRIZA government, the FI leadership advocated a policy
of “critical” support to the government, and the decision of the Greek
section to build a working-class left opposition was rejected, on the
pretext that only the bourgeois class opposes SYRIZA.
Even on the eve of the SYRIZA “betrayal” and after the experience of six
months of shameful negotiations with the capitalist and imperialist
institutions, the Fourth International Bureau could not draw a clear
conclusion about the nature of the SYRIZA-ANEL government. The Greek
section’s warning that SYRIZA would introduce a new austerity pact no
matter the result of the referendum of July 5 was ignored.
The Greek section fought for the NO with all its forces, but it
simultaneously declared no confidence to the government. On the
contrary, the statement of the FI Bureau praised the SYRIZA government
and called the people to support it once again: “the interests of the
exploited classes in Europe do not lie behind the governments who run
the European Union, but on the side of the Greek people and of Syriza,
who are fighting austerity. Resistance to austerity is possible. The
victories of Syriza, like the advances of Podemos in the Spanish state,
show the road to take in all the countries of Europe.” It invited the
workers of all Europe to “mobilize alongside the Greek social and
political movement in opposition to austerity, alongside the Greek
government” (July 7, 2015,
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article4113).
This statement was relentlessly ridiculed less than one week afterwards,
when the SYRIZA government approved the new austerity pact (third
memorandum). No balance sheet was ever drawn of this huge mistake. On
the contrary, the majority of the leadership of the FI shifted its
support to the Popular Unity, once again ignoring the suggestions of the
Greek section that the newly formed party wants to repeat the SYRIZA
project anew (see the joint statement of O. Besançenot, M. Urbán, and A.
Davanellos of the Popular Unity for the September 2015 elections, Sept.
19, 2015, http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article4225).
Unfortunately, we have to admit that the FI leadership, as well as the
leaderships of most international revolutionary currents, have
uncritically supported SYRIZA, and thus bear their own responsibility
for having helped SYRIZA hegemonize the social current that arose
against austerity, which induced passivity among the working class,
false electoral expectations and, finally, a disaster.
This development could be foreseen, and the Greek section foresaw it.
This is why the section dedicated its modest forces to an independent
anti-capitalist current that remained out of SYRIZA, its crisis and its
degradation. This project has helped avoid a situation of complete
collapse of the left and workers’ organizations, as happened in other
countries which experienced governments of the left or with the
participation of the left. The independent anti-capitalist left in
Greece is a first material to start our counter-attack with.
Greece calls for a balance sheet. But no balance sheet will be honest,
in as far as it avoids the main conclusion: the need for political and
organizational independence from reformism.
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
40Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)40
Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
August 27, 2017 in Europe, Greece, International.
Related posts
Will SYRIZA fight the Euro-bank bully?
Greek Syriza folds to EU demands
Lessons from the Greek elections
Post navigation
← Marxism and Literature, Or Bread and Roses
Get Involved!
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month August 2017 (14) July 2017 (17) June
2017 (16) May 2017 (17) April 2017 (14) March 2017 (13) February
2017 (19) January 2017 (13) December 2016 (12) November 2016 (19)
October 2016 (12) September 2016 (10) August 2016 (10) July 2016
(14) June 2016 (14) May 2016 (9) April 2016 (12) March 2016 (14)
February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015 (11) November 2015
(9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August 2015 (7) July 2015
(13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12) March 2015 (9)
February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12) November
2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014 (10) July
2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10) March 2014
(9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013 (10) November
2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13) August 2013 (10)
July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013 (14) March
2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December 2012 (7)
November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2) August 2012
(27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19) April 2012 (14)
March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17) December 2011
(3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September 2011 (13) August
2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011 (19) April 2011
(15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (15) January 2011 (15) December
2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September 2010 (3)
August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (9) April 2010
(3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9) December 2009
(6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009 (3) August
2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April 2009 (6)
March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December 2008
(11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14) August
2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April 2008 (3)
March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11) December 2007
(8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1) April 2007 (1)
March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11) November 2006
(11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006 (11) July 2006
(18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March 2006 (14)
February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9) November 2005
(8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005 (9) July 2005
(16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12) March 2005 (14)
February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004 (14) November 2002
(17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August 2002 (21) July
2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February 2002 (15) January
2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24) September 2001 (18)
July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17) September 2000 (21)
August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26) May 2000 (21) April
2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18) January 2000 (20)
December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999 (25) September
1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999 (24) May 1999
(27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999 (29) January 1999
(24) July 1998 (12)
Search
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook
View SocialistActUS’s profile on Twitter
View SocialistActionCT’s profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Upcoming Events
New York: Fascism — What it is and how to fight it
September 13, 2017 at 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm
Word Up Community Bookshop/Libreria Comunitaria, 2113 Amsterdam Avenue,
New York, NY, United States
Category Cloud
Actions & Protest Africa Anti-War Arts & Culture Black Liberation Canada
Caribbean Civil Liberties Cuba East Asia Economy Education & Schools
Elections En Español Environment Europe Immigration Indigenous Rights
International Labor Latin America Latino Civil Liberties Marxist Theory
& History Middle East Police & FBI Prisons South Asia Trump / U.S.
Government Uncategorized Women's Liberation
View Calendar
Blog at WordPress.com.
Follow