Declaration of the Central Committee of OKDE-Spartakos (Greek Section of the 4th International) on the electoral result and the political situation - 31/5/2014

Social and political polarization

In spite of the inevitably distorted way social formations and phenomena are reflected in the elections, the ones of May show clearly the constantly increasing polarization between capital and labor. At the same time, we can see the stabilization of a political geography characterized by two elevated wings close to approximately 40% each, the Left and the Right, and a weak and unstable centre.

Social polarization is not directly reflected on politics. The Left, of course, is recording clearly its best results among employees, minor business owners and unemployed people, whilst the governmental block, especially Nea Dimokratia (1), are mainly supported by the bourgeois class and the employers, as well as an important part of the middle and higher rural social strata. The popular and working class districts that used to vote traditionally for PASOK have passed to SYRIZA. The middle strata are in conflict with the governmental block, so SYRIZA has taken the (borderline) lead there as well. The youth and long unemployed vote for the Left, while the older aged, who still hold important material relationships with the old-time political system and their favor, vote for the Right. On the other side, there is political polarization even inside working class and popular districts: the highest percentages of the Left come together with the highest ones of Golden Dawn (GD) and sometimes of the Independent Greeks (2). GD is recording its lowest percentages among employees and organized workers spaces (civil servants) and its peak is among employers and businessmen. Apart from these strata, GD also gathers young unemployed people and individualistic lower classes, showing that they can convert the anger and the disappointment of a part of the popular layers towards the reactionary direction of hatred against immigrants, the Left and the different or weakest ones, from a class point of view.

The continuous crisis of the bourgeois political system is a dominant characteristic of the political scene, with its highlight to be the decomposition of the governmental block. Within two years, the government (including Democratic Left- DL ) (3) has lost more than 15% of the overall voters. The crisis has to do mainly with PASOK, who are celebrating that they lost only the 1/3 of their 2012 votes with their decision to participate in the European Parliament Elections as ELIA (4). PASOK collapsed for 40 to 8% within 5 years, due to the fact that the social compromise (always under the dominance of the capitalist class interests) on which they based their power for decades. The working class abandoned it massively, as it became obvious that PASOK is no more willing to do any sort of allowances towards the workers, even compared to ND. The biggest part of the voters and ex-members of PASOK turn to the Left, even in an unstable way with unclear intentions, although another part of it, which is mostly socially and politically ruined, turn to the far right.

ND is mainly losing votes towards GD, although there are parts of their voters turning to the left, but obviously in a slower and more hesitant way in comparison to the ones of PASOK. ND continues to be the first choice of the national bourgeois class and their European allies. They have a more clear class functionality in comparison to PASOK and is bound to remain the basic bourgeois political point of reference in the future. This is the reason why, in spite of their 7% overall decrease, ND does not collapse. However, their mid-term perspective is not so favourable and the ruling class has to find alternatives.

The hybrid formations that cannot enter the two political poles in a clear way are vanishing. DL’s crash was the outcome of their opportunism. Their leadership is interpreting the electoral result as a sign for a right turn and firm integration of their majority to the centre-left. The IG survive, but with severe losses, as the part of the bourgeois class that used to support them has turned back to ND, while their popular base is attracted by GD. Potami (5) recorded an important percentage, however did not achieve its declaration goal, which was for them to be the third party of the political scene and participate in the political life in the next period. The future of this newborn liberal centre-left formation is more than uncertain.

An important aspect of the political crisis, of the crisis of the bourgeois parties and the social polarization is the victory of the minoritarian Party of Equity, Peace and Friendship in Thrace (Northern-Eastern Greece), as well as the fact that their candidates in a series of municipalities. The attachment of the Thrace minority on the ruling parties, especially PASOK, is no more, and the minority issue is returning in explosive terms on the political map. The historical and systemic oppression of the Greek State on the national groups of Turks, Pomacs and Thrace Rom can no longer stay in the shadows, although the media are doing their best to silence their yelling and given the indifference of the parliamentary left. The anticapitalist left cannot allow for nationalist propaganda on the issue, such as the rumors on the financial support of the Turkish embassy and government on the minority party, as this conceals the political essence, which is the oppression of the minority. It is not possible to organize  actual political work in Thrace while ignoring the vote of Muslim people and without clear positions for their rights.

As a result, it is clear that the system is not stabilizing itself at all, in spite of any governmental or EU declarations for the opposite. The rupture opened by the crisis and the big class confrontations is not closed at all, despite the relative stagnation of workers’ and social struggles during the last two years. The political situation of the days cannot be solved without important political and social confrontations, without confrontation between the block of the bourgeois power and the organized labor and popular movement. So, the political guidelines of offensive strategy chosen by the anticapitalist and revolutionary left during the period that followed the imposition of the memoranda are still valid.

First of all, the need for the development of an overthrowing movement, a labor and popular uprising that will overthrow the government of Samaras-Venizelos, thus casting aside the illusions of SYRIZA’s motto “we vote on the 25th, they leave the 26th”.

Forces and limitis of the Left

The victory of SYRIZA in the elections for the European Parliament as well as a series of municipalities of Athens has a big symbolic importance, as it discourages the bourgeois class and intensifies the crisis of their political hegemony. At the same time, the rapid social-democratization of SYRIZA, their often and warm meetings with the Association of Greek Industry Owners, the statements of R. Dourou on the EU grants, the agreement with ship-owner and alleged oil smuggler  Mellissanidis of the construction of (his team) AEK stadium may show that under some conditions a part of the bourgeois class could trust SYRIZA, but these are not yet enough for the capitalists. Contrary to PASOK of the ʼ80’s, SYRIZA is not in the position to control the unions in a political and organizational way, which makes them less attractive in the eyes of the bourgeois class as a tool for class control. And of course, the bourgeois class has no reason to accept them so long as the pressure of the movement remains minor. So, the Greek capital did not welcome the victory of SYRIZA and they definitely did not welcome the decline of the electoral power of the government.

However, neither the immediate political results nor the overthrowing potential of SYRIZA’s victory should be overestimated. First of all, the government does not face an immediate stability problem, as they have enough members of the parliament and under some terms they can even add to them some of the many “independent” members of the parliament (6).  Although it is notable for a government to elect only the 1/3 of the European Parliament representatives, the elections result, especially the one of the regional elections, does not create to them an immediate survival problem. We voted against them on the 25th, but they didn’t leave on the 26th: the main motto of SYRIZA’s campaign was more of an electoral blackmail for gathering the vast majority of the anti-governmental votes than an actual plan.

ND’s boast that SYRIZA surpassed them without achieving more votes or percentage is comical. However, it is a  fact that a massive current for the left was not formed and the greatest part of the increase in left votes was directed to KKE and ANTARSYA. The middle layers do not abandon the governmental parties in an organized way and in a generally left-oriented direction, but show a tendency to disperse themselves in all directions, integrating into the far-right as well and allowing for the efforts to regroup the centre to survive. Thus, the general result of the elections cannot be described as a “turning towards the Left”.

The political responsibility of the leaderships of KKE and SYRIZA for decelerating the social movement towards the Left is huge. During the previous summer, the workers’ movement had the chance to overthrow the government through the climax of their struggles. The decision of secondary education professors to strike during the exams of May 2013, despite the government’s Acts who forced them to work on legal terms and under the threat of massive layoffs, the workers’ uprising after the closing down of the public TV broadcast that forced DL to exit the government in June 2013, the second strike of the professors in September, the mobilization against public-sector layoffs during September and October and of course the antifascist explosion that followed the murder of Pavlos Fyssas, which offered the chance to link antifascism with the workers’ uprising, had created an explosive social concoction for Samaras and Venizelos. SYRIZA’ leadership kept a stance of expectation for the elections, while KKE’s leadership tactic of avoiding a climax of the movement so that does not benefit SYRIZA, thus allowing for the federation bureaucracy to declimax the struggle. The barrage of general strikes that the public TV workers needed never happened. The need of the antifascist movement for a national-wide antifascist strike was never posed by the unions.

This is why the political polarization may be intense, but is increasing in a moderate tempo in the last months. This shows the limits of the enthusiasm caused to the workers and the oppressed the main part of the Left, SYRIZA, and their plan. SYRIZA was voted for in the European Parliament elections and in the Athens district county, that is in the elections that were seemingly more directly linked to the central political scene, but did not manage to mobilize people under the motto “three elections – one vote ” (7). Although they won the biggest county, they lost 11 out of 13 overall and managed to enter the second round of the elections only in two of them. Respectively, although they won in a series of municipalities in the different districts of Athens, in a series of other local elections their participation was a mediocre one. This phenomenon is not irrelevant with the survival of material relationships and reconciliations with local authorities, which re-increased after the allowance of the distribution of EU grants by the counties. In local levels the political system is seemingly much steadier than in a central level. But that is not enough to explain the inconsistency of SYRIZA’s electoral results. It is obvious that the vote to SYRIZA is considered by an important part of the popular layers as the least bad vote, no more than a tool to overthrow the government. The demands for SYRIZA are relatively low and the vote to them is not linked to an active orientation in the movement, as was clear in the pre-electoral period. The same person who votes for SYRIZA in the central elections may be supporting or even mobilize for KKE or the anticapitalist left in the counties, the municipality, his workers’ or student union. This means that the support of the working class and the oppressed to SYRIZA is not definite, class conscience is still fluid and constantly changing and the potential for the anticapitalist left still remains big – but this has to do with the policy they will follow.

KKE is seemingly satisfied with their partial regaining of the lost votes of June 2012 (8) , as well as the victory of their municipal candidates in 4 big municipalities (9). KKE seems to resist the pressure, despite their sectarian and defeatist policy of their leadership, showing that the party still has important popular roots. Given the poor results in a series of peripheral elections, without the pressure of SYRIZA, the optimism of KKE’s leadership is not justified at all.

In any case, the Left is in control of two counties and some important municipalities. This will definitely lead to important pressure for political adjustment to the level of the bourgeois parties through the need for managing the local authorities. The anticapitalist left has to keep the right to support any progressive act of the left municipal and county authorities and although they did offer a critical support in favor of the reformists in the second round of the elections, should not undertake the political responsibility of the administration of bourgeois institutions, or bind to support a priori any left mayor. In this point of view, the case of Chalandri (10) needs special attention.

Golden Dawn

GD rise as the third party of the political scene, although expected by the polls, is a phenomenon which demands immediate and radical treatment. The nazi current has gained depth in the society, giving expression to petit-bourgeois rage and will for revenge, as they see their financial power declining and their links to the power and their traditional political representation to be cut violently, while their conservative traditions and individual situation does not allow for them to turn left. Sociologically, GD represents a league of businessmen and employers of all levels, as well as unemployed people and impoverished self-employed. Their emphasis is shown in the middle ages and the part of the youth that abandons education and does not enter the university, that is found more in the popular than the richer districts. In this point of view, GD is the agent of capital in the petit-bourgeois and lower classes.
It is obvious that the legal accusations the government was forced to adopt against the Nazis, did give an important blow to the mechanisms of GD, but are not enough by themselves to cast the fascist danger aside. The strategy of “constitutional” or “democratic alliance” against the Nazis, that is the alliance with the government, the State and the police, who fostered the Nazis in a systematic way, is not only an illusion, not only binds the Left on bourgeois legality and renders it politically neutralized by making it a follower of the Right and Social-Democracy, but also tends to aid the Nazis show that they are truly the only political power that is against the political system.

The rise of GD underlines the urgency for climaxing the antifascist activity. After all, it is the victories of the antifascist movement that did not allow for the fascist threat to thrive. GD was forced to an electoral campaign without offensive mottos and relatively fewer racist rhetoric, in relation to the past. They were incapable of making public appearances, or take their squads on the street. Their offensive activity was diminished to a few attacks, mainly against ANTARSYA. It is logical to assume that without the great antifascist movement of the autumn of 2013 that their electoral result would be even higher and they would achieve their basic electoral objectives, which were an overall percentage higher than 10% in the European Parliament elections and their candidate to enter the second round in the elections for the Municipality of Athens.

Fascism cannot be treated with calls for the government and “justice”, or with positive statements for the voters of GD, who can no longer call upon their unawareness of the murderous nature of the organization. What we need is a united front of all workers’ organizations and left parties in action, with combative wide antifascist committees in every workspace and neighborhood, massive mobilization along with systematic antifascist propaganda in all levels. The anticapitalist left, which has shown very good reflexes at times, continues to carry the Stalinist tradition of undermining the duty of antifascist struggle, needs to lead a new round of assemblies, interventions and mobilizations that has to begin as soon as possible.

European Elections in the rest of Europe

In a European level, the elections were marked by a similar, but not of the same size, decomposition of the bourgeois coalitions which imposed and managed austerity as a class offensive of capital against labor. Again the social-democrats are the parties under the highest pressure, however the European Popular Party has important losses, although they remain the first party of the European Parliament. The most impressive and dangerous issue is of course the rise of the far-right, who prove to be the first parties in France, Denmark and Austria and has neonazis elected in Greece and Germany. At the same time, the right-orientated euroscepticism of N. Farage wins the election in Great Britain. These currents manage to get anti-governmental votes, but also reflect a sharpening of national contrasts inside the EU framework.

The left is benefited in few countries. In some cases (Spanish State, Portugal, Ireland, Czech Republic) the reformist left manages to achieve important results. On the left of reformism we note the case of PODEMOS in the Spanish State (where the section of the 4th International has one their member elected in the European Parliament,), the coalition against the EU in Denmark, with the participation of the Red-Green Alliance (11), as well as the election of a CWI section in Ireland. In general however, the vague character of these formations, the very bad result for the NPA and LO in France and the crisis of the British SWP reveal a crisis of the anticapitalist left, despite the important chances offered by the period. In this harsh environment, the discussion started between ANTARSYA and NPA is important, as these two collectivities carry the burden of regrouping the anticapitalist left in a European level.

It is a fact that the position towards the EU was one of the most crucial political questions of the elections. The Left, a part of which is trapped in a pro-EU old-time shake eurocommunist strategy, tends to undermine the question. The explanation of a rise of the far-right as a consequence of the negligence of the Left to pose anti-EU questions and demands is too shallow and ignores the class basis for their political rise. The different examples of each country are, after all, quite contradictory: GD rose without anti-EU positions, while the long-lasting anti-EU tradition of the Danish Left did not prove to block the rise of the far-right. It would be even more arbitrary and biased to suggest that what the anticapitalist left actually lacks, in Greece and in other countries, is a direction towards national independence, especially at the point it has become clear that the Left has failed (willingly or not) to highlight the social, class source of crisis and austerity.

ANTARSYA and the anti-capitalist formations

ANTARSYA took part in the elections being in a difficult position. First, because of an extraneous factor: the workers’ tendency to vote for ‘the lesser of two evils’, which in this case is SYRIZA, in order to cause the collapse of the government, a choice made not only in parliamentary elections, the second reason being on the inside of ANTARSYA, having to do with the bad mood and the political division within the coalition.  Actually, the gap from the process of joining with Plan B (12), a strategic debate, hasn’t been narrowed neither before, nor after the elections.Regardless of this situation, ANTARSYA’s participation in the elections was independent, while a significant part of the coalition along with member –organisations disagreed, a fact that could have nothing but consequences.      

Additionally, in the previous period, ANTARSYA posed insufficiently and unsuccessfully at times the transitional programme that is necessary in the crisis. The one-sided manifestation of the EU and the euro currency issue, regardless of the political importance included in the inconsistency with these international capitalist and imperialist mechanisms, not only is programmatically vague, but proved to be unattractive as well. Overemphasis on leaving the euro and the EU doesn’t counterbalance the lack of slogans, on the one hand, such as pay rise and prohibition of dismissal that should be immediate and of demands that bring out the issue of power on the other. The slogan ‘‘power and wealth to workers’’ was only in the last poster and that not before the complaints of OKDE-SPARTAKOS. The workers’ control which was the centre point in the previous campaigns was now overshadowed. The anti-capitalist left cannot hope that a magical slogan will make people come close. On the contrary, it must promote all the axes of the transitional programme and the revolutionary plan with clarity and perseverance, particularly in a period that the working class is seeking overall answers.
Nevertheless, in the elections for the regions and in some municipalities as well, the forces ANTARSYA, collaborating in some cases with other revolutionary and anti-capitalist organizations, had a very positive result.

The 2,4% and the about 130.000 votes (30.000 more than in 2010) in the regional elections, show clearly that an anti-capitalist current is for the first time recognizable and of a wide range all around Greece. In spite of   SYRIZA supporters’ opinion, it seemed that the working class is not frustrated with ANTARSYA because of not voting for SYRIZA in June 2012. Moreover, despite the disunion of the forces, the unwillingness of an ANTARSYA’s part to mobilize themselves and the delay of the election campaign, the experience we had was positive if we take into account our communication with the workers, the unemployed and the lower classes, the  political discussions we had with them and the spread of the anti-capitalist Marxist views. The opinion that ANTARSYA is a  sincerely militant and anti-systemic force which broad parts of these classes share, is favourable and the political  attempt is more widely known than before.

In municipal elections the picture was more complicated. In general, the point of view claiming that the formations characterized by grounding in local fights and a consistent participation in the movement are rewarded in the elections, is correct. In these particular circumstances, this was reaffirmed in some cases (Peristeri, Dafni) 13. However, in some other cases, electoral pressure was exercised on formations with important fights in the past, although they managed to elect delegates for the local councils again (Vironas, N. Smirni,Zografou) (13).  On the other hand, several formations emerging for the first time, got very good results, although they had various different characteristics depending on the case. Actually, the factors defining each formation’s progress were even more complicated: not only the actual involvement in the movements, but the opponents’ ballot papers in the area, the situation in the inside, whether it had the support by the whole of ANTARSYA or not, whether they responded to existing local needs, regardless of the problems during their
Creation (e.g. Nikaia) etc. Unfortunately, the battle for the municipal elections, although in some cases had very good results, wasn’t united. Every organization issued their own list of the formations to be supported, and sometimes these formations had absolutely no connection with ANTARSYA; just the title was unilaterally and unfairly used.

In Giannena (14) and Patra (15), the forces of ANTARSYA not only voted for but also were in the opponents’ ballot papers. The battle for the heads of the formations, apart from having as an outcome the vast majority of the elected to belong to one particular organization, in several occasions ended up in a situation where half of ANTARSYA didn’t practically support its local formation. The most problematic phenomenon, however, was that in various cases, comrades and whole constituent
organizations of ANTARSYA took part in SYRIZA’s ballot papers or officially co-operated SYRIZA (Mytilene, Halandri). Even so, however, the result of the municipal elections, especially in the region of Attiki (16) is favourable.

Nonetheless, in the European Parliament Election, ANTARSYA, couldn’t hold but a small percentage of votes compared to those of the regional election, which is not interpreted only from the fact that there were a great deal of ballot papers. The result of 0.74% is not good, even if it is improved in comparison with the previous European elections and Parliamentary elections as well in June 2012. The way in which the anti-capitalist left will persuade the militants who join it in the movement to support its proposal in the elections too, when they choose the ‘‘useful vote’’ for SYRIZA to a great extent, is in question. The stabilization of ANTARSYA’s political influence in all levels is a real problem to be solved. However, it wasn not such a negative result so as to bring the future and the use of an independent front of the anti-capitalist left into question.

Joining (with Plan B) and perspectives of the anti-capitalist left

Despite the several desires or scenarios over the plan of joining, which dominated the political debate of ANTARSYA during the last year, this plan is emphatically disproved. Plan B’s election campaign does not allow approaches. Alavanos chose a personalized campaign, with slogans that fall short not only of the necessary anti-capitalist transitional programme in a period of financial crisis, but of the negotiations during the previous time with ANTARSYA. Furthermore, this campaign could not have a chance in the elections. The unsuccessful negotiations concerning
the joining had some cost for ANTARSYA.

However, the cost ANTARSYA would have to bear, if the negotiations succeeded leading the coalition to take the political responsibility for Plan B, would be bigger. A possible reintroduction of the proposal for a new round of negotiations about the joining would be disastrous and disruptive. The political and programme prerequisites posed by the conference of ANTARSYA about the joining were examined and proved to be unreal. It is taken for granted that the unsatisfactory electoral result in the European elections will reintroduce points of view according to which the anti-capitalism is limited and requires a wider left front.

The discussion about the programme and the pursuit of a proper revolutionary strategy today is not only rightful but essential too. The idea, though, that we need a moderate adaptation, a front intervening between the present ANTRASYA and SYRIZA or a political orientation
not ‘‘closely anti-capitalist’’ any more would be absolutely wrong. The conclusion of the political advances is totally different: in the environment of a financial and political crisis which cannot be
healed , in a situation of unstable and unsettled conscience and in a political correlation where the left realism and every reformative and managerial proposal is dominated by SYRIZA’s attempt, the duty of the revolutionary Marxists is to develop an alternative and distinctly anti-capitalist means. A means that will not refuse the militant unity in the streets, but it will preserve its political and organizational independence on the basis of an anti-capitalist programme and the revolutionary methodology and will prepare a minor but existing part of the workers and the repressed for the next stages, building the fights and the social resistance.

ANTARSYA’s report on the elections must not be based on the criteria of  ‘‘parliamentary cretinism’’  (this does not mean, of course, that the electoral results do not play any role at all), but mainly on the criterion of the political efficiency concerning the participation during the election campaign, the spread of the anti-capitalist ideas, the picture that the workers have about the front, the political bonds that were forged during this political experience, the possibilities for political initiatives that arose regarding the period after the elections. In the next period, ANTARSYA  should immediately take political initiatives for the movement as well and  fight practically against the parliamentary illusions which immobilize the workers’ movement in anticipation of the governmental change through the elections and paralyze its action today. In order to manage this, ANTARSYA must get rid of its own illusions too.

Above all, ANTARSYA must build political relations with the militants who voted for it in the elections. The answer to the way in which ANTARSYA’s electoral influence will be stabilized lies in the transformation of its relation with the people from electoral to political, in people’s acquisition of the sense that ANTARSYA is the tool that they will use to take political action themselves.

OKDE-SPARTAKOS and the elections
       
OKDE-SPARTAKOS took part in the political process of the elections actively, participating in the ballot for the European parliamentary election, for 8 regional and several municipal anti-capitalist slates as well. It did not intend to fill in the lists with candidates to boost its status as if there was a runway. On the contrary, it proposed particular comrades who were politically related to the elections and could be actively occupied with them. The picture of the candidates’ participation was positive.

Although OKDE-SPARTAKOS stated its opinion about the content, the slogans and the heads of the slates wherever it had forces to interfere, and in some cases this opinion was strongly supported, OKDE-SPARTAKOS did not selectively support the slates of ANTARSYA. Whether its opinion outvoted or not, whether it had its own candidates or not and whether the heads of the slates were of OKDE-SPARTAKOS’ choice or not, the organization invested its forces, taking into consideration the limits of its potential, in the success of these lists. So, this enables us to criticize strongly the organizations and the members that did not have such an attitude.

Finally, OKDE-SPARTAKOS, in accordance with ANTARSYA’s decisions, tried at the same time to propagndise its own particular views. These views about the progress of the class struggle, the duties of the anti-capitalist left and the perspectives of ANTARSYA will be stated in all the processes of the front as well during the next period.

C.C. of  OKDE-SPARTAKOS,      31/5/2014

NOTES

(1): i.e. New Democracy, from now on ND

(2): Populist split of ND, anti – memoranda rhetoric, looking into supporting a possible SYRIZA government. From now on IG.

(3): Dimokratiki Aristera – Democratic Left is a right wing split from SYRIZA that joined the government from June 2012 to June 2013, when the government closed the public tv broadcast. Since then they support critically parts of the governmental policies.

(4): ELIA, i.e. Olive, symbol of the social-liberal coalition of PASOK and splits of PASOK that participated in the European Parliament elections as the Greek section of the European Democratic Party.

(5): Potami, i.e River, is a newly-formed liberal party controlled by media people and other well-known liberals who had no important success in Greek politics so far.

(6): More than 20 members of ND, PASOK and IG have split from them after being elected in the elections of June 2012 and remain in the parliament as “independent”. Their links to ND and PASOK mainly make them a good “transfer” target for the two parties whenever some other members of their parliamentary teams resign/split, so that the government keeps the 150+1/300 parliamentary members support. ND now counts 125 and PASOK 29.

(7): On May 18^th there was the vote for counties and municipalities and on May 25^th the vote for the European Parliament.

(8): They rose from 4,5% (June 2012) to 6%, although they recorded an actual 8,5% in May 2012.

(9): In Patra, Chaidari (western Athens), Petroupoli (same), Ikaria.

(10): The Mayor elected comes from SYRIZA, with members of ANTARSYA participating in the same municipal formation and elected in the Municipal Council.
(11): Both formations scored around 8%.
(12): a small organization set up by Alekos Alavanos in 2012, the former leader of  SYRIZA that our comrades in ANTARSYA wanted to  co-operate with.
(13): all these are suburbs of Athens and municipalities as well.
(14): (also: Ioannina) the largest city in Epirus; the 8th in Greece
(15): the 3rd largest urban area in Greece; it lies in the northern Peloponnese

(16): Attiki is the biggest region of Greece, where Athens, the capital of Greece is located.

OKDE-Spartakos (Greek Section of the Fourth International): UKRAINE: BETWEEN FASCISM AND IMPERIALIST INTERVENTION

At the end of 2013 we witnessed many anti-governmental demonstrations in the capital of Ukraine, Kiev, and in other cities. The centre of this movement was the Square of Independence (Maidan) in Kiev and the central squares of other cities. The movement was against the government of Victor Yanukovych and his U-turn regarding the pro-EU policy after the political pressure of Russia. This movement, due to the pro-EU elements and the name of the square Maidan, took the name Euromaidan.
 In the West, the media presented those demonstrations as a people's movement for freedom and stronger ties with the EU. There is no question that the government of Yanukovych was corrupted and unpopular after 3 years of imposed neoliberal policies. The main aim of most protesters was the fight against poverty, state corruption and oppression from Russian imperialism. The leadership of this movement was at the beginning in the hands of neoliberal right opposition, who falsely claimed that the stronger ties with the EU will bring democratisation. Later, the far right and the fascists groups took the leadership. As a consequence, the demands had not the slightest relation with the acute social problems in Ukraine.

The demands and the political groups

The demand for "freedom", under the flag of EU, was directly related to the Ukrainian-EU commercial treaty, which is not going to solve the crisis. On the contrary, this type of deal is against the Ukrainian economy. The treaty stipulates lifting of tariffs and barriers for the EU products and will destroy the Ukrainian heavy industry. That is the reason why many oligarchs are in dilemma. Those who control the industry, which is located on the east side of the country are looking for stronger ties with Russia, but those who control the commercial trade, the agriculture and the telecommunications are pro-West. This division on the ranks of oligarchs is in constant mobility. The political parties that control the leadership of Euromaidan are pro-West, like the party "Motherland" of Yulia Tymoshenko, an oligarch herself and an ex-President of the country. Tymoshenko was until recently in prison for corruption. The other party, UDAR ("Punch"), of the former boxer Vitali Klitschko, is considered to be a creation of the German Chancellor Merkel. The third party that played the main role in the events is the fascist . “Svoboda” (“Freedom”) whose leader is Oleh Tyahnybok. “Svoboda” is in coalition with the new-born "Pravy-Sektor” (“Right Sector"). "Right Sector" is the main force of the violent events with the police, and is controlling the paramilitary groups of "self-defence" who use pistols and rifles. Their slogans, such as "Ukraine above all", "One race, one nation, one motherland", "Down with the Jewish-Moscovite mafia”, eventually prevailed.
 The reasons that enabled  the fascists to assume the leadership of the massive social movement are the following: the absence of a strong left movement, the coalition of the Communist Party with the government that makes left look like an undemocratic force with a neoliberal agenda supporting Russian imperialism. At the same time, Tymoshenko and Klitschko were trying to compromise with Yanukovych. The far right appeared to be the only militant and uncompromising force. By the time Yanukovych tried to have an agreement with the opposition by giving away the position of prime minister it was too late. The fascist paramilitary groups were in control of the streets. After a week of clashes with at least 80 dead, Yanukovych escaped in helicopter. Α new transitional government took place, with Yatseniouk, Tymoshenko’s “lieutenant”, and fascists in key ministries, such as the ministry of interior affairs, came to power.

The "anti - Maidan" revolt in Crimea and in South and East regions, the Russian intervention

From the first days of the victory of the opposition, many monuments of Lenin were destroyed and a pogrom against the political enemies of the new regime took place. The fascists destroyed the central office of the Communist Party; they attacked the office of the left group “Borotba” ("Struggle") which didn't support the Yanukovych government. Left wing activists received death threats. Additionally, in line with the new law against ethnic movements, the government imposed restrictions on the Russian language and on the languages of ethnic minorities. They also introduced heavy media censorship. Because of the fascistic terrorism, the ethnic minority groups in the south and east regions reacted with an "against Maidan" social movement with pro - Russia rhetoric. This movement already assumed control in the areas of Crimea, Harkovo, Donetsk and other cities. The Russian Duma voted unanimously to support the intervention of the Russian army in order to protect the Russian speaking minority in Ukraine. The situation is very tense. The US, EU and NATO are supporting the pro-West government and they are threatening Russia. So far the military conflict is not between Russia and the West but an internal conflict in Ukraine with the participation of Russian troops. This development is particularly negative for all Ukrainians regardless of the outcome. Many Ukrainians hate the pro-West government and their fascists' alliances, but Putin is only interested in promoting Russian imperialist plans in the region. A possible outcome is the independence of Crimea and some eastern Ukrainian regions and the unification with Russia. The rest of the Ukraine will be under the total control of the fascist groups that overthrew Yanukovych and they parade like heroes in the streets of Kiev. Even if they don't wrest full control (have total autonomy) from old corrupted politicians like Timoshenko, they will strongly influence the governmental policy and with their “storm troops” they will violently crush any social criticism. As for the national question, the problems will not only remain unsolved, but will deteriorate, since large minority groups will trapped I the "wrong side" of the border, in a similar way as we have seen in the former Yugoslavia.  

The Left

Left and anarchist groups in Ukraine are quite small. Notwithstanding this fact, since the beginning of the mobilizations they tried to influence the situation. Left trade unionist and activists of "Borotba" camped in the square and distributed leaflets. Unfortunately, they have been violently attacked by the fascists. Similarly, anarchists have been attacked and repelled from the centre of events. It is our duty to promote the international solidarity of the working class against all oligarchs (pro-West and pro-Russian), against USA, EU, and NATO. The Greek left should be on the side of the Ukrainian people and support the Ukrainian comrades:

• Against Russian military intervention and any imperialist intervention. Ukraine should not be a pawn in the geopolitical games of imperialists
• Against the IMF financial assistance and its associated high social costs
• Against nationalism and chauvinism. Workers, regardless of nationality, language, religion, and residence, have one and only enemy - the capitalists
• Support the demands of ethnic and religious minorities of Ukraine, respect of their rights - including that of self-determination
• Support common struggle of all workers in the east and in the west against the new far right government, the neo-liberal agenda and the fascistic gangs of "Svoboda" and "Right Sector"
• Against the participation of the Greek government in the imperialist plans of USA and EU

The Ukrainian people have nothing to gain from western or Russian imperialism or from fascistic gangs or the corrupted group of Yanukovych.  All the above are just trying to exploit the Ukrainian people. Only the united working class and the class struggle can provide a solution to the problems of the Ukrainian people.

Manos Skoufoglou (OKDE-Spartakos): "The Intervention of the FI in Greece"

This article is a slightly updated version of an introduction made in the context of the Conference for the 75th anniversary of the Fourth International. The Conference was held in Mannheim in November 2013.

1. A few Historical Remarks

In Greece, the Fourth International has a long history. There has always been a section of the FI in Greece since its foundation in 1938.

In 1928, the “Spartakos Group” (publishing a journal bearing the same name) was founded as a left opposition within the Greek Communist Party (KKE). The leader of the Group was Pantelis Pouliopoulos the first Secretary of the KKE. The journal “Spartakos” published translations of the documents of the International Left Opposition in Greek and also genuine analyses of Greek capitalism. In 1934, militants largely originating from the “Spartakos Group” along with a group split from the Archeiomarxists (led by Michel Raptis – Pablo) founded the Organization of Communist Internationalists of Greece - OKDE.

In 1938, OKDE was represented in the founding Congress of the FI, by Michel Raptis (Pablo). Just after the creation of the FI, OKDE became the Greek section. After WW2, following a Unification Conference in 1946 with other Trotskyist forces, the Communist Internationalist Party of Greece (KDKE) was founded and continued to be the Greek section of the FI till 1974. After the fall of the military dictatorship, in 1974, , KDKE turned again into OKDE, and finally, in 1986, following a split with forces that gradually moved away from the FI, our organization took its present name: OKDE-Spartakos (Greek section of the FI).
2014 will mark 80 years of continuous presence of the Greek section of the FI in Greece.

When the “Spartakos Group” was created in 1928, it included a number of the most important cadres of KKE, including, not only its first General Secretary, Pantelis Pouliopoulos, but also the first Secretary of the Communist Youth and  the first Director or the KKE newspaper. Pouliopoulos, in particular, was a very important intellectual and a leading member of the communist soldiers' groups opposing the war against Turkey in 1922.

In 1936, the Metaxas dictatorship was imposed on the Greek people followed by 9 months of war and then the Nazi occupation of the country till 1944. Due to the persecutions of the dictatorship of Metaxas (1936-1940) and later both by the Nazis and the Stalinists, the Greek section of the FI was nearly physically exterminated.

Pouliopoulos himself was executed by a firing squad of Italian fascists in 1943, and this happened to other comrades. It is still a matter for historical investigation to identify the exact number of FI comrades that were executed or murdered by Greek fascists, Nazis and Stalinists in the period 1936-1945.
The remaining comrades, having an analysis for an imperialist war, went on fighting both German and English imperialism, as well as the Greek bourgeoisie, under very difficult circumstances.

The majority of the leadership of the Greek section, however, committed a major mistake, underestimating the importance of the demand for national liberation during the German occupation, and took a sectarian position against EAM (National Liberation Front – the resistance front). EAM was lead by KKE and its leadership followed a treacherous Peoples Front strategy of collaboration with the national bourgeoisie that resulted, in the end, in the defeat of KKE. But still, the movement it led was a genuine popular uprising with a revolutionary dynamic.

Unfortunately, it was only the minority of the leadership of the FI section those days that took a non-sectarian approach to the EAM masses in accordance with the line of the European Secretariat of the FI. The choice of the majority of the leadership of the Greek section  marginalized politically the Greek section for a decade.

In the 1960's, under the leadership of those who were a minority in the late 40’s, KDKE was the biggest group to the left of KKE. Severe persecution during the military dictatorship (1967-74) had a negative impact on its dynamic. Many of our comrades were imprisoned or exiled. Despite this, our militants played a key role in the historical revolt of the Polytechnic School in 1973, especially in organizing the Workers' Assembly, and in 1974 (after the collapse of the military junta) our newspaper was the first one to be sold in the streets, long before the KKE newspaper appeared.

2. Our Politics Today

Let's now proceed to our activity nowadays. OKDE-Spartakos, is a small organisation of around 100 members, located within a constellation of far left groups of a multiplicity of origins, as one can imagine.

Despite our small size, we are active in several sectors of the mass movement:

- in the trade unions, mostly through our participation in “Paremvaseis” (Interventions), the radical platform of the far left (ANTARSYA and others). In some sectors the “Paremvaseis” Platform has a very important influence: e.g. it leads many local unions of primary and secondary school teachers, (having played a key role in the recent secondary teachers strikes), it is the majority in many local Municipal workers' unions etc. It also has a considerable presence in some union federations, especially in the public sector. In the new Executive Committee elected at the most recent Congress of ADEDY (the National Confederation of Public Sector Employees), in November 2013, the “Paremvaseis” Platform has as many members as the KKE!

- in the university students' movement, we are active in EAAK, the far left coallition of students with around 1000 members. EAAK has been leading every student mobilization since 1991. In the Students Unions elections, EAAK scores around 12% - 14% nationally, more than double compared to SYRIZA's students platform.

- the antifascist movement is maybe the most successful sector of our work. This task has been underestimated for many years by the majority of the left, including the far left (and most of the organisations of ANTARSYA). OKDE-Spartakos has been working for a long time in local neighborhood antifascist assemblies, often along with anarchists, as well as in any attempt to coordinate all these initiatives. We have been supporting the proposal for a united front of all left and anarchist organisations in action against fascism, as well as the need to organise the social movement’s self-defence. We have played an important role in the campaign which managed to cancel the international Nazi camp in Greece this summer. Our practical work is complemented by the publication of books and pamphlets analyzing fascism from a Marxist point of view.

As you know, there is a real fascist danger in Greece nowadays, with the rise of the Golden Dawn Neonazi Party. They have elected 18 deputies in the Parliament, polling more than 10%. The most important thing, they have organised local groups based on destroyed petit-bourgeois strata, on shop-owners hit by the crisis, on mafia capitalist circles and on unemployed youth sectors. They have started by attacking immigrants and later they moved further by attacking workers' organizations, leftists and anarchists. The recent murder of the antifascist hip-hop singer Pavlos Fyssas (Killah P) in September 18 2013 triggered big antifascist protests and a demostration against the Nazi headquarters. It is worth mentioning, that in the maximum height this movement, and I mean the 30,000 people demo marching on the Golden Dawn HQ in September 25 2013, ANTARSYA, despite all its previous contradictions, was the largest and the most significant actor, in contrast to  SYRIZA whose contingent of a few hundred people preferred to attend a concert in Syndagma Square.

- our section is one of the few organisations with a presence in the feminist movement, which is rather underdeveloped in Greece.

- some of our young comrades are active in the network for the democratic rights of soldiers (in Greece there is still a conscription army)

- some comrades are active in local urban movements, mostly in some districts of Athens

- last year, we have founded an Institute in Athens, where seminars and discussions are held every weekend

3. Our work with Antarsya and FI supporters 

Since its foundation in 2009, we participate in ANTARSYA, an anticapitalist coallition founded on the basis of political and organisational independence from reformism.

There has always been a whole range of organizations and militants to the left of the 2 reformist parties, the KKE (a stalinist party that currently follows a third-period, bureaucratic and ultra-pessimist line) and the Synaspismos Party (post euro-communist party, following a modern, left social-democratic line). Some of them decided to join the Synaspismos party into SYRIZA. Most of the others, having cooperated for a long time within EAAK and “Paremvaseis”, allied in ANTARSYA.

ANTARSYA has 3000 members, mostly young people. It has failed to score more than 2% in regional elections and 1.2% in national elections, under the electoral pressure of the reformism of SYRIZA. It's real dynamic is bigger, though. ANTARSYA is visible on a national scale, it has led a considerable number of struggles and it has a remarkable presence in several unions. Its program is still quite vague and ambiguous, with several stalinist influences (that's why we would not consider dissolving the section in this front),, however it is clearly governed by revolutionary ideas and it consciously calls for a radical rupture with Capital, the bourgeois state institutions, the EU and all imperialist alliances.

Apart from the section, in Greece there are also some other groups who affiliate in one way or another, with  the FI.

Kokkino is a small group originating mostly from the IST. They have permanent observer status in the FI. They participate in SYRIZA, supporting its Left Platform. Kokkino, in the process of the last SYRIZA Conference suffered a triple split losing half of its membership, which  supported the majority Tsipras Platform. The Left Platform in SYRIZA is led by the bureaucracy of the Left Current of the former Synaspismos and supported also by DEA.

DEA is a somewhat bigger organization, also a split from the IST (in fact Kokkino is a split of DEA). They don't have any formal status in the FI, but they have been invited to take part in the FI meetings as a guest since last year.

Our relations with Kokkino are good. We have cooperated in the antifascist movement and in organizing two FI youth camps in Greece, but actually our organizational links are loose. The reason is that both Kokkino and DEA (DEA even more) are too much devoted to the work within SYRIZA and its platforms in the Unions. Despite critisizing the leadership of SYRIZA, they finally subordinate themselves to it. Let me give just one example: DEA refused to join the big demonstration against the Golden Dawn national headquarters in October, just because the SYRIZA leadership refused, in the name of “responsibility” and for the stability of the country.
OKDE-Workers Strike, our old split in the 80's, adheres to to the Mandelist tradition, but does not have any real link to the FI any more. We somewhat cooperate in publishing books or documents of our historical current.

4. Our political Tasks

You certainly know some things about the present situation in Greece, so I won't waste your time with data you can find in journals. The economic and political crisis in Greece is not at all resolved. We have now an extremely authoritarian and conservative government, by New Democracy and PASOK.

What I would like to underline is that the situation is deeply contradictory.
On the one hand, we are suffering continuous attacks by Capital and its personnel that suppress the living conditions, as well as the self-confidence of working people – on the other hand, they do so only at the cost of the loss of their hegemony.

On the one hand, we have suffered continuous defeats, as the mass movement has hardly managed to prevent any austerity measures – on the other hand, new strata of the oppressed have gathered valuable experience for the future struggles, that will certainly come, as the system cannot re-stabilize.

On the one hand, fascism threatens to divide and individualize the oppressed, terrorize and destroy their organisations – on the other hand, the fight against fascism may very well turn into a fight against capitalism itself.

What are the reasons why we think we need an independent anticapitalist left in Greece, outside the CP and SYRIZA?

First of all, we have to make clear that both those parties are incapable of offering a solution in favor of the workers' interests. SYRIZA has inspired hopes, when it came second in the national election of May and then June 2012. It has been always dominated by the reformist party of Synaspismos, however it has undergone a further social-democratic mutation as it got closer to government. Its program nowadays is something really close to Die Linke, and is actually far inferior compared to the PASOK program when it first won the elections in 1981. It is incorporating a whole range of former PASOK bureaucrats. It does not meet the criterion of independence from the bourgeois institutions, set by our International. Neither does it meet the criterion of internal democracy, as, by its last conference decision, it forced all organisations within it to dissolve.

Our analysis is that SYRIZA is clearly using the mass movement to support its march to power, instead of using its perspective to gain power to support the mass movement.


It is indicative the fact that they have betrayed the secondary school teachers strike twice in a few months: once in the spring, when their elected unionists in the federation cancelled a general strike voted for by the general assemblies because it was forbidden by the government and once more in September 2013, when they voted to end a new general strike 7 days after it started. They refuse to take part in the demonstrations against the Nazis’ headquarters, but at the same time they call all “constitutional” parties, including the governing New Democracy rightwing party which nurtured the nazis for all these years, to discuss about how to fight fascism all together. They are cooperating with the far right anti-memorandum party of the Independent Greeks. All this is quite obvious now. And the Kokkino comrades agree.

[On 8 January 2014 SYRIZA gave a new proof of their political orientation. It was the day of the inauguration of the Greek presidency of the EU. The government and the police prohibited any demonstration on this day, which was something quite unprecedented. ANTARSYA called for a joint demonstration of all the left against the EU, the government and the authoritarian prohibition. SYRIZA denounced the prohibition, but just did nothing (and so did also the Left Platform, as well as the Communist Party). A demonstration of more than 1,000 people, most of them ANTARSYA members, actually happened, despite the prohibition, the police attacks and the boycott by the reformist left.]

But still, the question can be asked, why not be an oppositional current within one of those parties, SYRIZA or the KKE? The reasons should be searched for in the concrete conditions of the class struggle in Greece.

a. Greece is one of the countries most badly hit by the crisis in the word. There doesn't seem to be any way out, despite all the austerity measures and the collapse of every single welfare institution and public service. There are more austerity measures to come. 70% of the employees in the biggest universities are being fired, that's why we are now in the 11th week of a university strike.  This is just the most recent example. In the face of the devastating effects of the crisis, we need to be more, rather than less, militant and aggressive, given also the high level of the struggles. There is no way out of the crisis in favor of our interests and needs within the framework of the capitalist rules and the bourgeois institutions. We need to attack, not to defend - this is our basic approach of the period.

b. There is not a stable, historical link of the masses with the reformist leaderships any more. The support for SYRIZA is something unstable, not enthusiastic, a “lesser evil” tactic in the eyes of most of its supporters. Social consciousness is liquid and abrupt leaps are to be expected-this is the second pillar of our approach

c. The idea of an independent anticapitalist and revolutionary left in Greece is not something fictitious. There is a really existing space of such militants, who have worked together in various collectives and unions for many years. This space would be autonomously expressed anyway - if we had joined SYRIZA, somebody else would have regrouped them.

d. Based on the former remarks, we think that the problem in Greece is not a supposed re-stabilization of capitalism or a lack of combativeness of the masses, but a conscious subject that can organize the vanguard and offer a concrete revolutionary perspective. We have to work on this subjective factor, build it right now, and not count on objective factors and on estimations about the possible trajectories of reformism. If we are not independent, we can affect neither reformism nor the class struggle itself.

ANTARSYA is still in a contradictory process. It is facing strategic dilemmas. It is an important tool, though. ANTARSYA has supported the secondary teachers up to the end. It plays a key role in the strikes in the universities now, as will do soon in the hospitals, were we have a lot of comrades. But the  most important factor is this: ANTARSYA is not limiting its combativeness due to the restrictions posed by the parliamentary politics.

As a conclusion few words about what to do:

- We need a united front in action against capitalist attacks and fascism, in order to coordinate all social struggles, as each one separately, no matter how heroic, can't win (ANTARSYA is proposing such a front)

- We need a united and independent anticapitalist and revolutionary left, able to propose a modern transitional program to overthrow capitalism

- We need to maintain our distinct organization, the FI section, within such a front, as strategic questions, far from becoming obsolete, they are getting even more relevant today

- We have to explain that no “left” government can offer a solution to workers and the oppressed. No former eurocommunist or social-democratic bureaucracy, not any renegotiation within the framework of the EU and the bourgeois institutions, no “national development plan” without the memorandum, but with the right of individual property intact.

If ANTARSYA had elected Deputies in the Parliament, we would consider a conditional vote for a left (SYRIZA) government. We wouldn't take part in it though. We would insist on saying that the only way out is massive struggles, self-organization and a revolutionary strategy.

Since we don't have any deputies, we cannot just withdraw from the election, given that SYRIZA does not at all propose or accept a program similar to ours. ANTARSYA met SYRIZA after the May 2012 election, proposing some key demands which we consider indispensable, such as: break with the EU and the euro, cancel the debt, nationalize the strategic sectors of the economy without any compensation, worker's control etc. Obviously, they were rejected. Nevertheless, we still believe that it is absolutely crucial that somebody puts forward such an anticapitalist transitional program. We cannot sacrifice it in the name of an abstract “unity of the left”, which practically means tailing behind reformism.

We use the slogan for a workers government, but we have also to keep in mind what the Transitional Program says:
a. The eventuality of a real workers government (i.e. a government genuinely in favor of workers' interests) within a bourgeois state is extremely improbable, even though not impossible
b. In any case, we need an independent organization of revolutionary Communists in order to have any influence in the developments that such a government would provoke (so, not fuse in the governing party).

Contrary to a stageist approach, which claims that a “simple class” (i.e. reformist) consciousness is a necessary stage we have to go through before being able to speak about a revolution, our task today is to construct both class and revolutionary consciousness simultaneously. Revolution may seem impossible to the majority of the working class, but it is reform what is objectively impossible.

DECLARATION DE CONSTITUTION DU CURRANT “ANTICAPITALISME ET REVOLUTION” – NPA

(Déclaration adoptée à la réunion nationale de constitution du courant le 1er décembre)

1. Une situation contradictoire : offensive des bourgeoisies, luttes de masse à l’échelle internationale, résurgence du réformisme et de l’extrême droite

Face à une crise mondiale qui se poursuit sans perspective de solution, et à des bourgeoisies qui tentent partout d’en faire supporter le poids aux classes populaires, les travailleurs et les peoples ne restent pas sans réagir. Le processus révolutionnaire en Afrique du nord et au Moyen-Orient se poursuit, et s’étend à de nouveaux Etats. De très grandes luttes touchent un nombre de pays croissant, sur tous les continents (de la Turquie au Brésil, de la Bulgarie au Bangladesh…). Le socialisme n’est toujours pas redevenu une idée crédible pour la grande majorité de ceux qui luttent, ce qui pèse sur les différents mouvements, mais n’empêche pas que la situation donne pour les anticapitalistes révolutionnaires une nouvelle actualité aux questions stratégiques, à la question du pouvoir des travailleurs et de la révolution. On assiste à l’expression multiforme d’une révolte qui est mondiale.

En même temps force est de constater que les pays centraux de l’Union européenne (Allemagne, France, Italie, Royaume-Uni) échappent pour l’instant à cette dynamique internationale. On y assiste même à une dégradation assez générale et qui tend à s’accélérer au niveau des organisations qui se réclament du mouvement ouvrier, du rapport de forces entre les classes comme du niveau de conscience au sein même du monde du travail. Pour l’instant les classes dominantes parviennent à imposer des reculs considérables pour la classe ouvrière en Europe. Cette situation des luttes et des rapports de classes peut changer rapidement comme elle peut s’installer durablement. La possibilité pour le NPA de faire face à la crise qu’il connait, comme la construction d’un courant en son sein qui y contribue efficacement, dépendent pour une bonne part de notre capacité à faire face aux aspects contradictoires de la situation et à y apporter une réponse politique plus approfondie et plus homogène que par le passé.

Dans ce contexte deux phénomènes politiques, en partie nouveaux, sont apparus ces dernières années en Europe. Le premier est la montée de l’extrême droite (dans différentes variantes, depuis des partis nationalistes populistes jusqu’à des formations ouvertement fascistes) qui s’explique par la crise économique, l’ampleur des attaques de la classe dominante et les nouveaux reculs dans le rapport de forces. Le second, la réapparition ou le renforcement de partis et coalitions réformistes antilibéraux, clairement différents du social-libéralisme même si, de par leur politique institutionnelle, leurs liens avec les directions syndicales ainsi qu’avec l’Etat, ils collaborent à divers niveaux avec les partis socialistes.

En France, l’installation du Front national dans le paysage politique, comme son influence dans les milieux populaires, sont en train de franchir un nouveau cap. Par son passé qui se reflète encore dans la composition de son appareil dirigeant, comme par les liens qu’il continue à entretenir avec divers groupuscules, le FN reste potentiellement une organisation à partir de circonstances un parti de type fasciste. Mais pour l’instant, le principal danger réside dans sa capacité à exploiter le désarroi qui existe profondément dans les classes populaires face à l’absence de perspective collective d’émancipation, bien plus que dans sa capacité à enrôler une petite bourgeoisie prête à en découdre avec les organisations du movement ouvrier, ou à exprimer les intérêts d’une classe capitaliste qui a pour l’instant bien d’autres cartes en main pour maintenir la paix sociale. Reconstruire une perspective d’émancipation, changer les rapports de force entre les classes sociales, permettre tout simplement au monde du travail de renouer avec des victoires même partielles sur le terrain de la lutte de classe sont des objectifs essentiels à cette étape. Dénoncer le «fascisme» ou prétendre interdire l’apparition d’un parti qui ne serait pas « comme les autres » ne permet pas aujourd’hui de combattre la montée de l’extrême droite. Par contre il faut chercher à construire à chaque fois que c'est possible une riposte militante et unitaire contre l'extrême droite.

Face à de possibles succès électoraux, c’est d’abord le caractère bourgeois, anti-ouvrier et raciste de ce parti, aspirant à bien s’installer dans les institutions et facilement corruptible, comme il l’a montré dans un passé récent, que nous devons dénoncer en priorité.

La résurgence du réformisme a pris la forme du Front de gauche, lancé au moment même où le NPA était fondé. Très vite, dans une situation qui nous était plus défavorable, nous en avons subi la pression et cela a conduit notre parti à subir plusieurs scissions, la dernière en date ayant impliqué un secteur central de son ancienne direction.

2. L’évolution de l’orientation majoritaire justifie la formation d’un courant

La rupture avec la GA, la campagne Poutou ont maintenu une separation organisationnelle avec les réformistes. Cela n’a pourtant pas permis de clarifier l’orientation du NPA.

Même si différentes orientations cohabitent au sein de la nouvelle majorité constituée après les présidentielles de 2012, celle-ci a repris à son compte, à travers le mot d’ordre de « gouvernement anti-austérité », la politique du « front social et politique », conçu pour l’essentiel comme une démarche permanente d’interpellation, discussion et recherche d’accords politiques avec le Front de gauche. Ainsi, aux difficultés réelles de la situation objective s’ajoute une crise d’orientation persistante.

Le but politique de notre parti, la revolution socialiste, implique une politique de front unique adaptée. Le front unique revêt une double dimension. La première est la dimension stratégique : c’est l’unité de millions de travailleurs qui permettra de s’opposer à la bourgeoisie. Nous proposons l’unité d’action à toutes les forces du mouvement ouvrier, de la base au sommet, pour agir sur des échéances ou des questions précises quel que soit leur positionnement par rapport au gouvernement.

Le critère déterminant pour l’unité est qu’elle permette la mise en action de notre camp social dans l’optique de gagner sur des revendications immédiates, de permettre de reprendre confiance dans nos propres forces, de favoriser l’auto-organisation et la possibilité de dépasser les organisations existantes et les appareils syndicaux. Pour autant, nous ne nous alignons pas sur leurs positions : nous menons les batailles nécessaires sur les mots d’ordre et la stratégie militante, y compris en organisant les participants contre la politique de ces directions.

De plus, il faut parfois savoir agir seuls, prendre des initiatives lorsque l’action avec les réformistes est impossible. A tous les niveaux, nous favorisons toutes les formes d’auto-organisation, des comités de grève et de lutte, des coordinations, dans la perspective de prendre le contrôle de toute la société, ce qui suppose pour les exploités et les opprimés de commencer par contrôler leurs propres luttes.

Nous ne partageons pas l’orientation des « gouvernements contre l’austérité » et de la priorité au débat public avec « toutes les forces qui ne participent pas au gouvernement ». Pour autant, c’est l’objectif d’un parti de poser la question du pouvoir. Mais on ne peut pas réduire la question du pouvoir à une réponse en termes de gouvernement.

Le « gouvernement des travailleurs » dont nous défendons la nécessité, un gouvernement dont l’objectif est de remettre en cause le droit des capitalistes à diriger la société, ne pourra pas résulter de combinaisons parlementaires dans le cadre des institutions bourgeoises. Il ne pourra surgir que d’un grand mouvement de mobilisation et d’auto-organisation des travailleurs et de la jeunesse (grèves de masse, grèves générales, manifestations, occupations, réquisitions...), d’un double pouvoir, d’un « nouveau Mai 68 qui aille jusqu’au bout ». Nous mettons donc en avant le mot d’ordre de gouvernement des travailleurs/euses comme mot d’ordre transitoire en partant des luttes pour aller vers le renversement du capitalisme. Il s’agit de répondre à la question « que feriez-vous à la place de Hollande ? » ou encore d’expliquer en quoi notre démarche est différente de celle des partis du FdG. Notre réponse s’articulerait donc autour de deux points : les mesures transitoires que prendrait un tel gouvernement (interdiction des licenciements, réquisition des entreprises qui ferment ou licencient, réquisition des banques, etc.) et la base à partir de laquelle pourrait émerger un tel gouvernement : la nécessaire auto-activité des masses travailleuses. »

Mais défendre cette perspective de façon effective, pratique, implique aussi de mettre notre implantation et notre intervention en rapport avec elle et, au-delà, avec notre objectif stratégique de la prise du pouvoir par les travailleurs. Or la majorité du congrès ne s’est pas donné les moyens d’une réelle priorité d’intervention et de construction, notamment celle qui est indispensable en direction des entreprises et de la jeunesse.

Lors du congrès du NPA de février 2013, la plateforme Y a porté principalement deux batailles, à nos yeux essentielles pour le NPA et son intervention dans la lutte des classes. D’une part, celle pour l’indépendance politique des anticapitalistes révolutionnaires, avec la volonté d’ancrer l’intervention et la construction du NPA dans les entreprises et dans la jeunesse. D’autre part l’approfondissement d’une discussion sur le bilan du NPA et notre projet de parti, qui a fait l’objet d’un texte alternatif. Près d’un tiers (32 %) des militants du NPA ont alors soutenu nos positions sans qu’il y ait eu ensuite, de la part de la majorité, la moindre volonté de nous associer autrement que sur la base d’un ralliement pur et simple à sa propre politique.

C’est parce qu’à l’issue du congrès nous ne voyions pas de possibilité d’amélioration sans la poursuite et le renforcement d’un combat politique organisé que nous avons alors décidé, non seulement de ne pas dissoudre la PY, mais d’explorer la possibilité de transformer cette plateforme en un courant interne, en lui donnant – sur une durée nécessairement indéfinie – plus de coherence et de moyens d’intervention.

L’évolution, depuis le congrès, du NPA et de sa direction confirme l’analyse que nous avions formulae et la perspective que nous avions tracée. La crise d’orientation et de direction se poursuit et s’approfondit, tandis que continuent à cohabiter au sein du NPA plusieurs projets de parti don’t celui, majoritaire, de « rassemblement de tous les anticapitalistes ». Cela entretient une grande confusion qui s’est également exprimée au travers du vote pour la PW, allant jusqu’à remettre en cause l’utilité même d’un parti fonctionnant sur des bases centralisées. A tel point que les différentes orientations qui cohabitent au sein de la majorité finissent par empêcher celle-ci de jouer son rôle de direction.

L’illustration la plus claire en est donnée dans la préparation des élections municipales : la variété de listes impliquant le NPA (anticapitalistes indépendantes, communes avec le PG et/ou d’autres secteurs du Front de gauche, communes avec le Front de gauche dans son ensemble en général sous la direction du PCF) donne lieu à une cacophonie dans le cadre de laquelle même la ligne officiellement votée devient inaudible. Les accords locaux d’ores et déjà passes avec le Front de gauche, dans des villes significatives, ne font que cautionner sa stratégie et sa politique. Au lieu d’agir sur les contradictions des réformistes, ce sont encore une fois les réformistes qui agissent sur nos faiblesses. Le conseil politique national et le comité executive continuent à passer plus de temps à discuter de la politique dite « unitaire » avec le Front de gauche qu’à orienter les tâches d’intervention dans la lutte de classe et de construction de parti. Sans pour autant traiter, sauf de façon très ponctuelle et superficielle, des grandes questions qui sont posées aux travailleurs et aux révolutionnaires au niveau mondial, européen et national.

3. Un désaccord stratégique qui a des conséquences politiques et pratiques

Mais ces désaccords vont au-delà des questions de simple tactique. Le mot d’ordre de «gouvernement contre l’austérité », compris comme le prolongement d’une « opposition de gauche » qui se construirait face à Hollande-Ayrault, découle en effet d’une hypothèse stratégique erronée. Pour en comprendre la portée, il faut faire un détour par la Grèce, où la direction de la IV° Internationale défend un mot d’ordre similaire, celui de « gouvernement des gauches », et surtout explique qu’un tel gouvernement pourrait être une « transition possible » vers une transformation radicale de l’économie et de la politique.

Dans le même sens, la résolution adoptée majoritairement au congrès et défendue par les camarades de la position X déclare que : « la proposition de gouvernement de la gauche unie, de ‘‘salut social’’, pourrait être un premier pas vers la réorganisation du pays sur une base anticapitaliste.»

On rejoint ici l’hypothèse stratégique qui a été formulae de manière plus systématique par des camarades de la Gauche anticapitaliste et que l’on peut résumer ainsi : dans les pays capitalists avancés, la rupture avec le système passera par une combinaison de mouvements de masse et de victoires électorales.

Cette hypothèse est erronée : loin d’être des points d’appuis pour une transformation révolutionnaire de la société, les gouvernements de gauche « radicale » ou des gauches, avec à leur tête des organisations réformistes, se sont toujours avérés être tôt ou tard des obstacles que les travailleurs ont trouvé dressés face à eux. Une démarche tactique est nécessaire vis-à-vis de ces organisation dans le but de leur disputer leur influence et leur audience, mais les anticapitalistes ne pourront en aucun cas faire l’économie d’une rupture avec elles. La question de la rupture ou des ruptures au sein du front unique est pourtant esquivée par les camarades de la majorité, au profit d’une vision stratégique linéaire : le gouvernement anti-austérité dans le prolongement de l’opposition de gauche, la reorganization du pays sur une base anticapitaliste dans le prolongement du gouvernement des gauches. Une telle orientation relativise le fait que seules la mobilisation et l’auto-organisation des salaries pourra modifier le rapport de forces et ouvrir la voie à un gouvernement représentant leurs intérêts, dans une dynamique qui ne peut être que de renversement du système capitaliste. C’est pourquoi nous maintenons le choix d’une orientation indépendante, dans laquelle la construction d’une alternative révolutionnaire, pour un gouvernement des travailleurs ouvrant la voie au socialisme, s’appuie sur des tactiques de front unique pour et dans les luttes, qui n’impliquent nul accord politique – encore moins de gouvernement – avec les réformistes antilibéraux.

C’est une hypothèse qui est également potentiellement lourde de conséquences quant au type de parti que nous souhaitons construire. En effet, si les victoires électorales sont une des clefs de la rupture avec le système, alors il faut construire des organisations taillées pour les élections. Le rapport sur la situation en Europe présenté lors du Bureau exécutif de la IV° Internationale en octobre 2012 déplore d’ailleurs l’incapacité à court terme des organisations anticapitalistes « de se transformer en puissant référents électoraux, à un moment où ceci est plus nécessaire que jamais

devant l’avancée des politiques d’austérité ». De là à conclure que les anticapitalistes et les révolutionnaires doivent pour devenir ces référents rejoindre des organisations ou coalitions plus larges, incluant des courants ou partis réformistes, il n’y a qu’un pas. Un pas qu’ont franchi les camarades de la GA, et que franchit d’ailleurs le rapport cité ci-dessus : « c’est pour cela qu’il faut placer la construction d’organisations anticapitalistes et révolutionnaires dans le cadre de la perspective plus ample de construction de nouveaux outils politiques unitaires… »

Nous devons au contraire avancer dans la construction d’une forte organisation marxiste, anticapitaliste et révolutionnaire, d’autant plus susceptible de mener une politique unitaire audacieuse et ouverte sur les autres courants, qu’elle sera capable de définir en son sein une orientation cohérente et largement partagée à l’échelle de tout le parti. Un parti centré sur l’intervention dans la lutte de classe, intervenant prioritairement dans la classe ouvrière (classe des salariéEs exploitéEs) qui est la seule à pouvoir mener un processus révolutionnaire vers le socialisme, donc avant tout dans les entreprises, ainsi que dans les lieux d’étude où se concentrent les travailleurs en formation. Ce qui ne signifie pas que des terrains tels que les luttes féministes, écologistes, antiracistes devraient être délaissés, mais que sur ces terrains aussi, c’est l’intervention des travailleurs et travailleuses qui sera décisive. Un parti qui, pour gagner en force et en efficacité, devra faire l’effort d’offrir à ses militants une véritable formation marxiste.

Un parti qui soit également pleinement internationaliste, pas au nom simplement d’une solidarité morale, mais sur la base de la conscience que la révolution socialiste ne peut être qu’internationale, donc nécessite une construction politique internationale. Les principes fondateurs adoptés en 2009 se concluaient par l’affirmation selon laquelle « le NPA engagera le dialogue et des collaborations politiques avec les autres forces anticapitalistes et révolutionnaires dans le monde dans la perspective de la constitution d'une nouvelle Internationale. » Une telle perspective reste juste. Des membres du NPA sont aujourd’hui membres d’une association, commune avec la GA et C&A, adhérente de la IV° internationale.

De nombreux liens existent par ailleurs, via les RIJ en particulier. Mais les rapports du NPA avec la IV°, comme avec les autres regroupements révolutionnaires internationaux, ne sont pas pour l’instant maîtrisés collectivement, ni par le parti ni par ses instances. Il nous faudra, dans la perspective du prochain congrès, ouvrir ce débat et plus généralement celui de la construction d’une Internationale.

4. Un courant pour changer le NPA, son orientation et sa direction

Le courant que nous constituons se donne pour objectif, à partir des acquis de la plateforme Y, un changement global de l’orientation du NPA dans le sens précédemment indiqué, ce qui implique aussi de redéfinir ce que devrait être le projet du parti dans la période actuelle.

Dans le même temps, nous continueront bien évidemment le travail de construction à toutes les échelles du parti. Le courant doit nous servir à être plus efficaces, doit être un outil pour l’intervention des militants, notamment autour de nos priorités : action dans les comités, structuration des branches, formation, construction dans la jeunesse et la classe ouvrière… Nous affirmons que la constitution de ce courant signifie aussi fortement notre attachement au NPA, à sa construction et à la solidarité fraternelle et politique de l’ensemble de ses camarades.

Un tel changement passera évidemment par l’émergence d’une nouvelle direction. Nous savons que cela ne proviendra pas d’un grossissement linéaire de notre seul courant politique mais impliquera des recompositions internes, notamment avec des secteurs de la direction qui aujourd’hui cohabitent dans la nouvelle majorité. Nous sommes également conscients que cette bataille politique n’aboutira pas nécessairement dès le prochain congrès, et devra alors être poursuivie à plus long terme.

Nous nous organisons aujourd’hui pour contribuer à un tel processus et le faire déboucher demain. Cette bataille pour l’émergence d’une nouvelle direction passera à la fois par des demonstrations militantes, la formulation et la défense quotidienne d’une autre orientation et par le fait de mener des débats stratégiques dans le parti.

Nous chercherons à nourrir le débat concernant les moyens de la prise du pouvoir par les travailleurs en prenant appui sur les acquis du marxisme pour les confronter avec les experiences des luttes et des soulèvements actuels dans les différentes régions du monde. Dans le même temps, et en vue du même objectif, nous nous efforcerons d’aider concrètement les comités (ceux où nos camarades sont présents, comme les autres) à développer leur intervention et à formuler leur politique dans la lutte de classe.

Le nouveau courant prend officiellement naissance les 30 novembre et 1er décembre 2013. En sont membres tous ceux qui se reconnaissent dans les textes de la PY du dernier congrès, dans la présente déclaration.

Le courant est dirigé par ses membres qui le représentent au CPN. Pour son intervention au quotidien dans la vie du NPA, il se dote d’une équipe d’animation nationale. Celle-ci, en lien avec la représentation du courant au CPN, sera responsable de l’organisation de réunions périodiques, nationales et régionales, de la liste de diffusion et de la publication de ses positions et élaborations à travers une revue et/ou un bulletin.

Ces matériels n’ont pas vocation à remplacer les publications du NPA mais à être un outil pour mener les discussions sur les orientations que nous défendons dans le parti et dans nos milieux.

Cette équipe d’animation sera élue lors de la reunion nationale de constitution et rééligible à chaque nouvelle réunion nationale. Elle pourra, en cas de besoin, être renforcée sur décision des membres du CPN.