Tariq Ali, a well respected left intellectual
and writer and a revolutionary leftist in his youth, has stated that ANTARSYA
is “influenced by the CPG’s (KKE’S) sectarianism” and “refused the proposal to
collaborate with SYRIZA.” We didn’t know that Tariq Ali is so “well informed”
about the situation of the Greek left, but his comments obviously make it quite
urgent that we, members of ANTARSYA, ask ourselves what is going on in this
discussion about the election results in Greece and the prospects of the Greek
left as a whole. This task becomes even more important in light of other
messages we have received from abroad, among them from the British section of
the Fourth International (FI), Socialist Resistance (SR), and even from the FI
leadership, that call on us, OKDE, the Greek section of the FI, to support the
“5 points” that SYRIZA’s leadership has suggested to DIMAR, the very right wing
“left” party and split from SYRIZA, and indirectly even to PASOK and to the right-nationalist
“Independent Greeks,” as a programmatic platform for a coalition government
after June 17.
If we are to take these “5 points” seriously it
should be clear that we are dealing with a very right-wing version of a
left-bourgeois government, something that was quite commonplace for decades
after WWI and WWII, when social democratic and Stalinist parties participated
in “left governments” in Europe and on other continents. In all cases such
“left” governments - sometimes rhetorically confused with “workers’
governments,” a formula which is used again by some in our present discussion -
have led to disastrous results for the working class, the oppressed and
exploited, as well as for the workers’ movement. These are the experiences
starting from the social democratic government in Germany after the revolution
of November 1918, continuing with the popular front governments in France and
Spain in the ‘30s, the Indonesian coup of 1965, the popular front government in
Chile, the Mitterand government in France with the participation of the PCF
(1981-84), prime minister Jospin (1997-2002), along with the various social
democratic-led governments in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Britain and
other countries. Nobody should forget so easily the lessons of the workers’
movement over almost 100 years.
The
meaning of SYRIZA’s success
This is the first crucial point of this
discussion: Is SYRIZA a “left centrist,” by which we mean an “almost
revolutionary” formation, as some commentators suggest these days - for example
due to the participation of organizations with (Mao-)Stalinist or Trotskyist
origins? Or is it simply a left reformist party like the other parties of the
“European Left” - Melenchon’s “Left Front” or the German party, “Die Linke,”
for example? After all the propaganda we hear from abroad, from comrades and
organizations with a euro-communist, Maoist or (half-) Trotskyist background
(among others) about SYRIZA’s “steadfastness” against the memoranda policies
and other things, we are required to simply state that SYRIZA is nothing qualitatively different
from all of the other parties of the “European Left.” This means that it is
left-reformist. It is not a political formation that intends to push developments
in the direction of a socialist transformation of society, nor will its coming
to power move things “objectively” in this direction.
Quite the opposite is true, in fact. SYRIZA will
try everything it can to keep workers’ and popular anger within the limits of
capitalist society and of the bourgeois state. The few organizations of
Trotskyist or Maoist origins inside SYRIZA do not have significant weight and
are forced to adapt to every decision taken by the SYRIZA leadership, which is
in fact the leadership of the SYN party. This is a very heavy burden—probably
too heavy—for organizations that claim to be revolutionary. It’s true that the
SYN party, particularly its youth association, as well as the other
organizations of SYRIZA, are involved in all of the actions of the resistance
movement, more or less, since 2004. But the leadership keeps the forces back;
there are always reservations. So it was no surprise that SYRIZA’s principal
demand during the hot phase of the October strike, for example, was “for new
elections,” a demand it shared with the other big reformist party, the CPG
(KKE). This is very characteristic of the attitude and the mentality of both
reformist parties.
From a social or political view, the sudden rise
of SYRIZA’s votes in the May elections, which will be followed by an even
bigger success on June 17, is an instinctive (a left but also conservative)
reflex to “improve” the system and to keep the anger and the protests within
the limits of the existing (capitalist) order. There is a desire by broad
layers to stop - perhaps even reverse - the memoranda policies, but at the same
time to maintain the euro. This means not coming into a too-sharp conflict with
the present regime in the EU. Let us explain carefully to avoid
misunderstandings: Obviously, neither the Greek bourgeoisie nor the Troika are
in favour of a SYRIZA government, do not want even a SYRIZA-led coalition
government. The system of bourgeois rule has reached an impasse, whatever
government might emerge after June 17. Yes, a SYRIZA or even a SYRIZA-led
government will be better for the big struggles which will come after the
elections - life and death battles, to be sure. Yes, all political forces of
the left, including KKE and ANTARSYA, should support every measure of a
SYRIZA-led government that will be directed against the memoranda policies and
the loan treaties. ANTARSYA should try to push SYRIZA as a whole to the left.
The
necessity of the United Front
A key element of such an approach is the concept
of the UNITED FRONT, another question of life and death for the Greek workers’
and other movements in this terrible situation. Actually, the UNITED FRONT is a
question of survival for the entire society. It means the cooperation of all
parties, organizations, alliances, trade unions, formations like the “Popular Assemblies”
and so many other initiatives—self-organized groups that developed during the
last two years, in particular after the square occupations (Syntagma) in June
of last year, one of the most heroic phases of the resistance movement so far.
UNITED FRONT means united and decisive action against the common enemy wherever
it is necessary: against all forms of the memoranda policies, against the wave
of racism and the extremely dangerous rise of the Nazi gang “Golden Dawn”
(still completely underestimated by both the KKE and the SYRIZA leadership). It
means united struggles against the terror of dismissals, unemployment, of the
unbearable poll taxes, for feeding the poorest and taking care of the homeless,
for the defence of the health and education system, for the protection of the
environment through a plan of public investments. There is no doubt that these
struggles should be organized from below, by the rank and file of the movements
and should be supported by the parties and organizations of the left along with
everyone else.
Yes, the systematic and constant denial of such
an absolutely essential UNITED FRONT by the KKE leadership is CRIMINAL. There
is no other characterization for their attitude. ANTARSYA has always (or at
least usually) supported the UNITED FRONT concept both in declarations and in
practice. But at the same time it is indispensable not to confuse the UNITED
FRONT concept, which means “march separately but strike together,” with the
question of participation in a left-bourgeois government, even when that
government is led by a left-reformist party like SYRIZA. The government
question in this case is certainly a question of power, but only in a very
limited sense, because even with a SYRIZA or a SYRIZA-led government the real
power will remain in the hands of the capitalist class, the Troika, and of the
bourgeois state with its apparatus of repression fully intact. It is simply an
illusion to believe that there will be any form of a “workers’ government” or
workers’ power without a decisive clash with these real power structures of
capitalist society. How is it possible to “forget” this simple but crucial
truth? It will be impossible to get rid of this real power structure without
the UNITED FRONT formations of the self-organized exploited and oppressed,
without the appearance of dual power from below - centralized on a national
level.
What can we say about the attitude of the SYRIZA
leadership from this viewpoint, which in the final analysis is decisive for us?
Unfortunately, during the last two months electoral politics have swept over
public life. Streets now are quiet. SYRIZA has withdrawn from the streets, in
order to persuade the ruling class that it is not a threat to social peace and
stability. ANTARSYA and some groups of anarchists with their fights against the
Nazis in the streets try to keep alive the spirit of resistance. The current
electoral public debate in Greece does not mirror the actual balance of power
between the contending social classes. It deforms and renegotiates this
balance. SYRIZA, for example, by responding awkwardly and shyly in the
affirmative to the urgent calls for a "national unity government,"
has already moved a considerable distance to the right. It quickly becomes a
substitute for the “mutated” social democracy of PASOK. During the last
electoral campaign several ex-leading members of PASOK joined SYRIZA.
Can there be any doubt that SYRIZA
is such a reformist party and that it is moving in a social democratic
direction? Ask people in Greece themselves. Nobody will doubt it. In fact,
SYRIZA’s propaganda for a “left government” in combination with “staying in the
euro-zone” - which means finding some “good compromise” with Greek big capital
and the Troika - was the secret of SYRIZA’s election success on May 6. Many
people obviously hope that such a “left government” can achieve the “squaring
of the circle,” satisfying both the needs of the ruling classes and of the
exploited and oppressed. The problem is that this will not be possible. We call
such hopes “parliamentary illusions.” The SYRIZA leadership itself does not
hide its very moderate approach. To avoid misunderstandings it must be added
that SYRIZA’s success nevertheless reflects the radicalization on a mass scale,
even if in a way that is limited for now - something that is not untypical at
the beginning of revolutionary processes. But it seems clear that this phase,
the awakening of class conscience and of a (limited) anticapitalist stance, is
unavoidable.
For a third pole of the Greek left
At the same time one should bear in
mind that the development of anticapitalist and, finally, revolutionary class
conscience on a mass scale will not be the “automatic” result of events but is
linked to the rise of mass struggles and to the political, programmatic and
ideological confrontations that will necessarily be expressed in the arguments
of different and opposite political parties and formations of the left. From
this point of view it will be crucial to develop the nucleus of the
anticapitalist/revolutionary left, i.e. mainly ANTARSYA, to transform itself
into the “third pole” of the Greek left. It is one of the main tasks of the
revolutionary Marxist forces today in Greece to participate in this process,
precisely because both the KKE and SYRIZA leaderships are deeply reformist, by
which we mean that they are closely linked to the social and political system
of bourgeois class rule and therefore unavoidably obstacles to any
revolutionary process that will appear. This (again unavoidable) struggle for
hegemony within the left, between reformism and an anticapitalist/revolutionary
orientation, will be decisive if our goal is for the workers and the oppressed
to conquer the class hegemony in society (in a Gramscian sense). This means to
develop dual power and to establish a workers’ government based on the
self-organization of the mass movement during the course of a revolutionary
crisis.
So it is also necessary that the
workers and oppressed organize themselves around real transitional demands and
for an alternative democratic system, for a “true democracy,” as the square
occupation movement demanded last June, a democracy that must replace the
rotten and corrupt system of bourgeois democracy which clearly reveals itself
to be the dictatorship of the creditors, of big capital, and of the Troika.
Last year we witnessed original transitional demands being adopted by broad
popular layers when hundreds of thousands supported the slogan “We don’t owe,
we don’t pay, we don’t sell!” at Syntagma Square and everywhere in Greece. This
meant that the demand for debt cancellation, raised only by ANTARSYA in 2010,
was suddenly accepted also by KKE and, even if only partially (as we can see
now), by SYRIZA, with its call for a “moratorium” and “renegotiations” with the
Troika. The demand for “true democracy” undoubtedly expressed, even if in a not
completely developed or totally clear way, the need to replace the bourgeois
“democratic” dictatorship by the democracy of the self-organized workers and
people. This will be achievable only through the overthrow of capitalist class
rule. That is the road to a true workers government, to revolution and to
socialism.
All this does not mean that we are
indifferent towards the election results on June 17. Yes, we want to see the
defeat of the right parties, the fascists and PASOK also in the parliamentary
elections. But as a matter of facts there will be no “majority for the left” on
June 17. The left parties, alliances and organizations (including even the
dubious cases of DIMAR and the Ecological Greens) gained around 37% on May 6
whereas the hardcore right and neoliberal parties and alliances had more than
46% and PASOK, a contemptibly new-right party, more than 13%. On June 17 there
will be another shift to the left but it will not be enough for a “left
majority.” So all the talk of some leftist organizations, mainly abroad, about
a “workers’ government” is without real substance.
Tactical or strategic question?
In any event, a left victory in the
elections is not an end in itself but should be one step to promote class
consciousness and the fighting spirit of the workers and oppressed, their
understanding that the struggle for basic transitional demands—like the
unconditional cancellation of the debt and the nationalization of the banks and
big capital under workers’ control—cannot be achieved within the framework of
the imperialist project called “The European Union.” It is obvious, however,
that raising consciousness in this way plays no role in the approach of the
SYRIZA leadership. Therefore one could say that the autonomous building of an
alternative anticapitalist/revolutionary pole, mainly ANTARSYA, has priority
over something that many consider to be the “correct tactical behavior” towards
SYRIZA and its supporters. A tactic that would emphasize the necessity of
supporting SYRIZA “critically” in the elections on June 17 would have to be
based on the idea that this is the key element which will allow us, under the
banner of “unity,” to win broader layers, including SYRIZA voters, to a more
radical attack on the fundamentals of capitalist class rule in Greece.
Even if such a tactical approach is
not advocated by OKDE and ANTARSYA, everybody must admit that posing the
question in this way is legitimate and reasonable. Minorities in OKDE and other
organizations that participate in ANTARSYA believe that this is the correct
tactic under the present circumstances, characterized by an overwhelming wave
of workers’ and popular support for SYRIZA. It appears logical that everybody
involved in the anticapitalist left has to weigh the necessity of strengthening
our own pole against a correct and suitable tactic towards SYRIZA, the KKE, and
their supporters. This should include support for every measure that a SYRIZA
government might take against the memoranda policies and in any possible
conflicts with big capital and the Troika.
It is true what comrade J.-Ph. Dives
writes in a recent article referring to a remark in the “Transitional Program”
(1938) where Trotsky states: “Is the creation of such a
government [a real workers’ government] by the traditional workers’
organizations [social democratic and Stalinist] possible? Past experience
shows, as has already been stated, that this is, to say the least, highly
improbable. However, one cannot categorically deny in advance the theoretical
possibility that, under the influence of completely exceptional circumstances
(war, defeat, financial crash, mass revolutionary pressure, etc.), the petty
bourgeois parties, including the Stalinists, may go further than they wish
along the road to a break with the bourgeoisie.” One should add, of course,
that since these words were written in 1938 no “left government” elected
through parliamentary means has ever travelled such a road. Nevertheless, Dives
leaves open the possibility that a SYRIZA
government will turn left and come into open conflict with capital and the
Troika. But even in this “highly improbable” case it will
be a huge advantage if the anticapitalist/revolutionary pole of the Greek left
develops and pushes such a government to the left.
And we also have to note that the idea of
“critical support” in order to build an alternative
anticapitalist/revolutionary pole is not the attitude suggested by the SR and
FI leaderships, whose statements have called simply for an uncritical
adaptation to the “5 point-program” offered to us by the SYRIZA leadership as
the basis for a coalition government. Such a call for uncritical support of
SYRIZA has nothing to do anymore with a discussion about “correct tactics” for
revolutionary Marxists towards reformist parties, since the gulf that exists
between a revolutionary orientation and a reformist one does not seem to exist
for the SR and FI leaderships. They tend to replace the concept of building
revolutionary Marxist organizations and parties, as sections of the Fourth
International, with the concept of building “broad left parties.” For the
programmatic, political and ideological standards of the FI this is indeed
something new that should be rejected by the international and by all of its
sections.
Andreas Kloke, June 11, 2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment