Introduction
VIOME occupied factory in Thessaloniki |
We just received a letter from Savas Michael-Matsas, Secretary of
the Workers Revolutionary Party (EEK) of Greece. The letter summarizes the
zig zags of Syriza's leadership since winning the election on Jan 25 till their
capitulation to the Eurogroup on Feb 20. But in sharp contrast to the
pseudo-Marxists of the WSWS and other Internet sectarians, Michael-Matsas draws
a cogent conclusion from this analysis:
Revolutionaries should not be rejoicing
for all this saying to the pauperized people who invested their
hopes in Syriza, "you are idiots for supporting Syriza, we told you
so!".
It does not
take the accumulated wisdom of Marxism to have predicted that Syriza, given its
adherence to the program of - in the words of Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis
- “Saving capitalism from itself”, would not be able to carry out its election
promises. Indeed we made that very point
on Jan 25 when we reprinted the election statement of the EEK. We wrote then,
As the EEK statement points out, SYRIZA will not be able to meet the expectations of those who will be voting for it. [1]
But this is
not the end of revolutionary politics.
Indeed it is only a bare beginning. For the sectarian denunciators the
capitulation of Syriza’s leadership to the blackmail tactics of the Eurogroup
is nothing more than an “I told you so” moment.
They are completely clueless about the next step. All they can do is pat themselves on the back
for having their perspective “confirmed”.
If you ask them what initiative they propose to make a dent in the
consciousness of the working class and win them to revolutionary socialist
policies as the only alternative to austerity, they simply roll their eyes in
disbelief. “The masses MUST read our web site then join our movement because we
correctly predicted the betrayal of Syriza.”
This is not revolutionary politics but a rather sad parody of it.
We are
printing excerpts from Michael-Matsas letter because in contrast to the
lifeless approach of the Internet sectarians, he is proposing a set of bold
initiatives that could potentially transform the political situation in
Greece. It is of course by no means
guaranteed that the EEK will succeed in this endeavor. But an important element of revolutionary
politics is the art of testing the temper of the masses. The proposed march of workers from
Thessaloniki to Athens strikes us as exactly the right approach for a small
revolutionary movement to take in this situation.
Writing in
1931 Leon Trotsky gave some advice to the Communist Party of Spain that has
some bearing on the political dynamics in Greece today. He pointed to the need
for bold initiatives in a situation in which reformist groups, much like
Syriza today, held the allegiance of the great majority of the masses. He
sharply criticized the policies of the Communist Party, which was then going
through a sectarian phase, for their lack of initiatives and their refusal to
join in common struggle with the masses who were under the sway of the
reformists:
In Spain,
where in the near future the slogan of Soviets could already be put practically
on the order of the day, the very creation of Soviets (juntas), provided
there is an energetic and bold initiative of the Communists, is not to be
conceived of otherwise than by way of a technical organizational agreement with
the trade unions and the socialists on the method and the intervals of the
election of workers’ deputies. To advance, under these conditions, the idea of
the inadmissibility of work with the reformists in the mass organizations would
be one of the most disastrous forms of sectarianism.
Elsewhere in
the same document he writes on the subject of Reformism and the Working Class,
How then is
such an attitude on our part towards the proletarian organizations led by the
reformists to be reconciled with our evaluation of reformism as the Left wing
of the imperialist bourgeoisie. This contradiction is not a formal but a
dialectical one, that is to say. one that flows from the very course of the
class struggle. A considerable part of the working class (its majority in a
number of countries) rejects our evaluation of reformism; in other countries,
it has not as yet even approached this question. The whole problem consists
precisely of leading these masses to revolutionary conclusions on the basis of
our common experiences with them. We say to the non-Communist and to the
anti-Communist workers: “Today you still believe in the reformists leaders whom
we consider to be traitors. We cannot and we do not wish to impose our point of
view upon you by force. We want to convince you. Let us then endeavor to fight
together and to examine the methods and the results of these fights.” This
means: full freedom of groupings within the united trade unions where trade
union discipline exists for all.
No other
principled position can be proposed.[2]
It is
well to remember Trotsky’s words today.
Letter from
Greece
Allow me,
first, to remind you what happened before the agreement
with the Eurogroup. We have to keep in mind that the elections of January
25, 2015 in Greece was not just a banal parliamentary contest but a
dramatic turn in the class struggle in Greece and in Europe: after
five years of a depression deeper than that of the Great Depression in
the US in the 1930s, after an unprecedented social catastrophe
exacerbated by the measures of social cannibalism imposed by the
troika of the EU, the ECB , the IMF, and their servants in the
successive Greek governments, finally the struggles of
a people reduced into a nation of the destitute led to a huge tide of anger of the masses raising to power a left party, for the first
time in the history of a country marked by the civil war of
the 1940s and non-stop anti-communist witch hunts.
The tide
continues to grow, full of hope, despite the confusion
and doubts spread above all by the zigzags of the leadership
of Syriza.
First zigzag: after its victory, Syriza formed a coalition government
with a far right, xenophobic, anti-Semite nationalist party, the Independent
Greeks, linked with the shipowners and the Church, although it could form
a real government of the Left, which, even with only 149 seats among the 300 seats in
Parliament, it could be much stronger politically winning a much broader
political base in society itself. (See my previous essay, The Greek people have shaken the world.) The initial announcements by Tsipras, Varoufakis and other
Syriza ministers defying the EU, the troika, Schauble, Merkel
and the Memorandum, had produced enthusiasm among the
devastated people.
Then,
Syriza once again disappointed its supporters and the people by another
right wing step: its leadership, without even consulting the Party elected
bodies, proposed in parliament as a candidate for the position of the
new President of the Republic, a notorious right winger who
supported and voted for all the austerity measures, an ex- minister in
previous New Democracy governments, Prokopis Pavlopoulos. Within
the party there was anger and criticism. This was evident when the pro-Syriza main evening
newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton published our Call “to
stay faithful to the popular mandate and vote down the right wing candidate”
( Only one abstention was recorded) As many Syriza members
protested to the Party, the following statement was made in Syriza'
s Radio Station Kokkino,
"Unfortunately,
we have only 149 deputies; if we had 180 we could propose ....Savas
Michael-Matsas as a candidate!!!"
A rather
rude joke but it shows that the alternative to an alliance with the Right
should be an alliance - to be avoided - with forces in the revolutionary
Left.
These right
wing openings to hostile bourgeois forces for class collaboration were done
with the excuse that "a broad national patriotic, anti- Memorandum
front" was necessary to face the enormous pressures by
the "ordoliberal" Germany, the EU, the ECB, and the IMF. Syriza
was in any case vulnerable to these pressures as it always
stressed that it will avoid any break from the EU and the Eurozone, and
it considered Grexit a calamity.
John Milios
et al. (Greek left economists and cadres of Syriza) were
correct, in their criticisms later against the agreement with the
Eurogroup, pointing out that by making common cause with Greek
bourgeois interests, Syriza became even more vulnerable to the pressures
and blackmail of a hostile EU led by Schauble's Germany.
The
strategy of Syriza in these "negotiations" was self-defeating. Never
was it prepared for a break and the EU knew this very well. Furthermore,
the Syriza leadership never fully understood, or used, the crisis of Germany itself, which while it is facing the crisis in the Eurozone leading to an anti-austerity rebellion by Greece and the other over-indebted countries of the European periphery, is also facing at the same time the Ukrainian
crisis. It never played the
"geo-political card", threatening, for example, a veto of the EU sanctions against Russia or a withdrawal from NATO. You
have to keep in mind that Greece is situated at the center of the
triangle of wars in Ukraine, Syria/Iraq, and Libya.
On February
20, Varoufakis and Tsipras received an open ultimatum, a
cynical blackmail by the EU Commission under orders from Schauble: either
the Greeks sign immediately the Statement already prepared or the last channel of financing of the Greek banks by the ELA (
Emergency Liquidity Assistance) of the ECB would be cut off, leaving Greece to face a run on the banks and a declaration of insolvency.
We can never
call the result of blackmail by the gangsters of big capital "an
honorable compromise". It is true that the Eurogroup Statement
signed by the Greek side is written in terms of "a
constructive ambiguity" as the EU and Varoufakis had
said. They have changed semantics: the troika is now called "the
institutions", the Memorandum is called "current arrangement",
the dictatorial control by the troika is called "review".
Nevertheless some points are crystal clear:
1. Syriza
abandons its pre-electoral pledge for a negotiated cancellation of
the biggest part of the Greek debt. The Statement clearly and
unambiguously says: "The Greek authorities reiterate their
unequivocal commitment to honour their financial obligations to all their
creditors fully and timely".
2. Even if
the so-called primary surplus of Greece (the surplus after payment for debt and
interests) could be a topic of negotiation taking notice of
the current "conditions of the economy in 2015", nevertheless the
acceptance of the policy for "primary surpluses" as it was imposed on
Greece by the troika in November 2012 is accepted by Syriza
i.e the need to continue austerity to get these " primary
surpluses", larger or smaller. Paul Krugman is, in a sense, right
when he says in the NYT [3] that the Greeks accepted austerity to
"avoid more austerity". But the nightmare of austerity
continues, anyway!
The
crux of the matter is that you cannot fight austerity without cancelling the
debt and you cannot fight against the crashing burden of the debt
without rejecting austerity.
By
surrendering at this point the rest follows: the privatizations already
done are not touched and they will continue for example the privatization of
the Pireus harbor; " labor flexibility" will continue in the
labor market etc. etc. Every step taken by the Greek government in favor of the
people can be considered a forbidden "unilateral measure"
and be punished by pushing Greece into default. Anyway the
agreement is very precarious , it did not resolved the crisis between Greece
and the EU, and it is a factor for new explosions of crisis in the near future.
The problem
is not only that the leadership of Syriza retreated: they declared
the defeat - a victory, and, to add insult to injury, they compared
their agreement with... the Brest -Litovsk agreement of the Bolsheviks with
Germany!!!
Of course,
neither Greek workers or the destitute are idiots nor the Syriza
members themselves. Already there is an internal crisis in
Syriza and it is growing.
Revolutionaries
should not be rejoicing for all this saying to the pauperized people who
invested their hopes in Syriza "you are idiots for supporting Syriza, we told you so" like the Stalinist KKE and many sects do now. From
our side, we are in a continuous dialogue with these people,
patiently explaining what happens, and what are the
disastrous results of the policies of class collaboration with the
EU, the IMF and the Greek bourgeoisie. We are advancing transitional
demands for the cancellation of the debt, nationalization of the banks
and for an emergency program to put an end to austerity, hunger,
unemployment, the humanitarian disaster; furthermore to build
solidarity and coordination with the workers, and social movements
in Europe on an internationalist basis and perspective, against the EU,
for a socialist unification from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
To give you
a more concrete idea, here are two of our current practical
projects together with the self managed VIOME factory workers [4] we are preparing
a national March from Thessalonika to Athens, in a month, mobilizing the people
all over the country against unemployment and privatizations, and concluding in
Athens demanding, among others, a special law to guaranty the rights of
the workers of VIOME.
A second
project is the preparation of our 3rd European Conference early June to
bring together fighters and movements coming from different radical
traditions and struggles to debate and elaborate a program for a
socialist way out from the crisis and a plan for action all over
Europe.
[3] Link to Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times, What the Greeks won
[4] The VIOME factory in Thessaloniki has been occupied and managed by its workers for the past two years. See their web site, http://www.viome.org/.
6 comments:
Thank you for a great article. Had commented on the North sect's website. My goodness the replies I received were totally ignorant. I live in Sweden. Know people, real people who live in Athens. All I tried to say in my comments is that Greece is bankrupt and has been since 2010 if not earlier. Thank you for a point in the right direction.
Arthur
A non-sectarian sense of the tactical is one thing, but all tactics are not Marxist.
The term "zigzag," doubtless carelessly lifted from Trotsky´s description of the Third International's manoeuvres, describes the sharp changes in direction of a counter-revolutionary movement, it's shifting from ultra-left to opportunist positions, in reality, two polar expressions of the same phenomenon. It´s use with regard to Syriza, whose left credentials never passed beyond words and whose trajectory to the right is in practice uninterrupted, is inappropriate. What tactics flow from such a clumsy attempt to describe one situation with terminology historically used to describe quite another?
Is Savas Michael-'Matsas suggesting that Syriza SHOULD have played the "geo-political" card, that is, threatened to pull out of NATO to gain better terms? It sounds like it. Put another way, having secured a better deal, Syriza commits Greece's inflated military to NATO provocation and war against Russia. Interesting.
Regards,
Mind Your Own Business
I think "zig-zag" is an appropriate term to describe the maneuvers that a reformist party like Syriza employs when it tries to reconcile its election promises with the reality of what it is doing once in office. It is a contradiction and they must live with that contradiction at least to the extent that they need to provide explanations to their constituency. Maybe another word is better but the point should be clear.
I think Savas Michael-Matsas was not suggesting what Syriza should do, but rather explaining that if Syriza were serious about negotiating then even according to their limited perspective they should at least keep their bargaining chips intact. The fact that Syriza gave up its bargaining chips before the negotiations even began - and those bargaining chips would include the threat to leave Nato or veto EU sanctions against Russia - shows that Syriza was never serious about the "negotiations". It did not go into the negotiations with any notion of playing hardball, but basically was just hoping that the EU would give them a break.
Your argument against the ICFI here amounts to nothing more than a crude straw man. "If you bring up the betrayals of Syriza to them, members of the SEP will surely say 'I told you so'" etc.. In claiming that the ICFI has no "concrete" solution,you never mention the ICFI's position that workers throughout Greece and Europe must not only become familiar with the historical lessons of the international workers movement, the living embodiment of which is the World Socialist Web Site, but you also never mention the IC's call for workers to form their own independent political organizations. It is precisely this which you want workers to avoid at all costs which is why resort to crude subjectivity. There can be no doubt that had you been alive in the summer of 1917, you would doubtless have denounced the Bolshevik Party as "sectarians" and claimed that the Provisional Government was simply "zig-zagging." Further, your quotations from Trotsky once again actually undermine, rather than strengthen your position. Trotsky is speaking of creating soviets in Spain which would inevitably have the involvement of the trade unions and other reformist elements, but nonetheless the class content would be of a proletarian character. You would have us believe that a group of pettit bourgeois academics who have explicitly renounced Marxism, i.e. Syriza, constitute a genuine workers organization. This, in spite of their, "zig zags" which consistently "zig" to the right but somehow never "zag" back to the left.
This is Part I of my reply:
As far as the WSWS is concerned, and in this respect their perspective is no different than that of the Spartacist sectarian group, since Syriza is a bourgeois party, the victory of Syriza in the election is no different than a victory for New Democracy or Pasok would have been. And nothing therefore flows from it that could possibly influence their practice. Had New Democracy won the election instead of Syriza they would be saying and doing exactly the same thing they are doing now. But this is just to illustrate a point that Trotsky made in his classic article on sectarians, one that we have previously quoted:
“Sectarians are capable of differentiating between but two colors: red and black. So as not to tempt themselves, they simplify reality. They refuse to draw a distinction between the fighting camps in Spain for the reason that both camps have a bourgeois character”
Following the same logic, an abstract definition of a reformist party like Syriza not only misses its differences with other parties it also misses the internal contradictions that mark these formations. This was well illustrated in your comment,
"You would have us believe that a group of pettit bourgeois academics who have explicitly renounced Marxism, i.e. Syriza, constitute a genuine workers organization. This, in spite of their, "zig zags" which consistently "zig" to the right but somehow never "zag" back to the left."
I will leave aside your accusation of that we characterized Syriza as “a genuine workers organization”, - a patently false statement as we never said anything of the sort - in order to focus on your assumption that a reformist party like Syriza is somehow incapable of maneuvers, that it can only follow a straight right wing trajectory. Such a conception is not only non-dialectical, it completely denies that there is any connection between Syriza and the masses who voted for it. If that were the case then why did Alexis Tsipras refuse to be sworn in by the Archbishop of Greece, and why did he pay tribute to the martyrs of the partisans who were murdered by the Nazis on his first day in office? To be sure these were symbolic actions and in no way set the fundamental path on which Syriza is and has been embarked, which was to try to follow the impossible logic of ending austerity while at the same time remaining within the EU and within the capitalist framework. It was an impossible contradiction and Syriza’s capitulation to the Eurogroup was entirely predictable. But the twists and turns of its leadership and the internal dissension this has generated is not without significance for those who are trying to make the most of the political situation. It's a fissure from which it may be possible to win over some of Syriza's supporters. For the propagandists who are disconnected from the masses and think their job begins and ends with denunciations then of course it really does not make any difference.
This is Part II of my reply:
This same formal and abstract, that is, non-dialectical thinking, cripples sectarians not only in assessing a historical event, but also in formulating a program for intervening in the situation at hand.
Your characterization of what the ICFI proposes is I think a fair one. But this in no way resembles a program aimed at bridging the gap between the present consciousness of the working class and the need for a socialist transformation of society. They propose the building of “new working class parties” that are already committed to carry out a social revolution. This is all very well, but how to get there? That is a question that the ICFI is incapable of even asking let alone supplying a coherent answer. They have abandoned the approach that was once championed by the Trotskyist movement of placing before the masses a series of transitional demands. They have instead proclaimed what used to be called in the days of the Second International, the maximum program. Thus instead of concrete proposals for joint work with those sections of the working class not yet convinced of the need for revolution, they announce in a completely abstract manner the need for “the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a world socialist society”. (These statements are taken directly from ICFI's statement here:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/23/pers-f23.html )
Indeed it would be very difficult for members of the ICFI to find anyone anywhere with whom any kind of joint work is possible. It would not be possible for them to work with any political group since by definition any political group that is not already affiliated to the ICFI is by definition “pseudo-left”. The same goes for unions, who the ICFI never tires of telling us, are all “bourgeois”. So who in the world will join this "concrete"
"independent political organization" that the IC proposes other than that tiny group of people who are already convinced that the IC is, as you say,
"the living embodiment...of the historical lessons of the workers movement." You are aware I trust that the Holy Roman Catholic Church considers itself "the living embodiment" of Christ?
As for your speculation about what I would have done during the Russian Revolution, I think I know what you would have done. You would have posted screeds on your Facebook page thinking that is somehow equivalent to making a revolution.
Post a Comment