Greece: Trying to understand SYRIZA - Paul Mason

Thanks for posting this Juan.

So are there Trots in Greece?

Sure, theres a couple of groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Greek_Trotskyist_parties

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/greece.htm

Do we know if they have much activity or influence? It's just that Mason paints of a Greece with a very active left and it doesn't mention any Trot groups. Unless, of course, some of them are Trots and he just hasn't mentioned it as such.

Well he mentions one:

Then, in the 2004 election, Synaspismos came together with other small parties to form SYRIZA. These included a split-off from the British SWP

fair point.

the Greek Trotskyist movement and its left communist breakaway groups never really recovered from the killings by Nazis, Fascists and Stalinists 1941-1949, in the early/mid 1930ies, the Greek "Archeio-Marxists" were probably the strongest group of the International Left Opposition ... some are in Syriza (DEA (Ex-SWP), Xekinima/CWI, Kokkino), some in Antarsya (SEK (SWP), OKDE-Spartakos (USFI)), some are on their own (OKDE (Ex-USFI), EEK (CRFI)) ... some Greek Trotskyists or Ex-Trotskyists like Pablo-Raptis or Castoriadis played a major part abroad

Interesting stuff. I'd like to know more about Greek anarchism though, what kind of initiatives there are outside of the black bloc / insurrectionist people who we all know about. Has there been much of an attempt to build a social base by anarchists in Greece?

A throwaway, but probably accurate, assessment of Syriza in an interview with Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis:

I would caution anyone who reads too much into the titles of parties like the Radical Left [i.e. Syriza]. The Radical Left Party is not that radical. If anything, it is, more or less, where the socialist party used to be 10 years ago. So it’s a centre-left party in reality, with some radical elements that are, more or less, marginalised within it.

Varoufakis is a left social democrat who I think is fairly sympathetic to Syriza, so this comment wasn't necessarily intended as criticism.

Athens News journalist saying the same kind of thing on twitter:

I've only found 5 MPs of the 52 Syriza MPs who come from far-left parties. Synaspismos is not far left.

NY Times interview with Alexis Tsipras

Reuters interview with Tsipras

Channel 4 interview with Tsipras

It is not between nations and peoples," he says. "On the one side there are workers and a majority of people and on the other are global capitalists, bankers, profiteers on stock exchanges, the big funds. It's a war between peoples and capitalism … and as in each war what happens on the frontline defines the battle. It will be decisive for the war elsewhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/18/greek-leftist-leader-alexis-tsipras
But apart from that rhetoric, he quotes Keynes, etc.

http://www.okde.gr/?p=1084

It is clear that SYRIZA better expressed the sentiment that basically is predominant –for the moment– in the popular masses, that is of seeking a solution through the elections, possibly inside the European Union. On the other hand, of course, it objectively expresses the militant feeling of the masses, their will to get rid of the pro-memorandum forces, the lust for unity of the left forces and maybe for a left government or for an alternative to the barbarity of the system.

mons

But apart from that rhetoric, he quotes Keynes, etc.

I think that's what it's about really, a kind of neo-Keynesianism vs. neo-liberalism.

From a discussion on Yanis Varoufakis's blog

Question: who is Euclid Tsakalotos?

Varoufakis: A good colleague of mine at the University of Athens, recently elected member of parliament for the Greater Athens constituency.

Ya. He’s with Syriza and apparently a key economic adviser to that party. I just heard him interviewed (somewhat hostilely, of course) on the radio here in the U.S. and he spoke with a pronounced British accent. Any information on his bio, CV, publications, beyond the very limited amount I could find with a quick google. It seems like he would be an interesting character to get to know under the circumstances…

So I've done a quick google myself and come up with these links, which I suspect say quite a lot about where Syriza is coming from:

Articles by Euclid Tsakalotas from the Greek Left Review

Greek Left Review

Euclid Tsakalotos is a professor of economics at the University of Athens. He is a member of the central committee of Synaspismos and the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA)

● A Different Strategy for Greece and Europe

● Three Myths Concerning the Greek Crisis

A couple of academic papers (pdfs)

● Contesting Greek exceptionalism within the European crisis

● Greek economic crisis

And an Australian TV interview on May 15

From the transcript:

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: And to discuss the Greek crisis I was joined a short time ago by Euclid Tsakalotos, economics professor at the University of Athens. He was elected to parliament in the May six elections as a member of the left coalition SYRIZA party, and he's considered a close confidante of leader Alexis Tsipras.
[…]
Look, if we assume that the deadlock can't be broken and Greece will go to the polls again, given you've got only 17 per cent of the vote so far, how do you increase your share of the vote? What is it that you offer to voters as an alternative to austerity?

EUCLID TSAKALOTOS: Well, we offer a different program based on very different social and economic priorities: income redistribution, social welfare. We really have a program the old labour parties and the social democrats used to have, who used to represent labour on a program of jobs, on a program of wages and pensions and social welfare. We'll be going to the European Union should we win the election, or win it as part of a coalition, and really ask for what Germany gained in 1953 when it had a debt problem. It gained a Marshall plan, it gained some cutbacks in the debts, and it also gained - and this is very significant - that countries like Greece and Spain and Italy and Portugal should only pay back their debt, if and only if they have the growth and exports to justify repayment. In other words, our creditors are not our first responsibility. We do not want not to repay all of our debt, but we're only willing to pay that debt should the economic and social conditions allow for it. At the moment the Eurozone is at risk, not because of the Greek radical left - it's at risk because it has an architecture, a financial and economic architecture that is evidently unable to deal with the crisis in the eurozone, and we think part of the solution is a change in that architecture.

EMMA ALBERICI: Let's dissect what you've just said one bit at a time. The Marshall plan that you talk about post-war was all about rebuilding economies devastated by war. It's generally agreed that the problems with the Greek economy are self-inflicted. I mean, the damage in Greece was that you borrowed too much - you'll find it hard, won't you, to convince your neighbours in Europe that profligacy makes one eligible for charity?

EUCLID TSAKALOTOS: Well, as you know, in the 70s and 80s we had a third world debt problem, and eventually the creditors realised when you lend too much, half the problem is with the people who borrowed, and half the problem is with the banks that lend too much. And that's why we had the Brady bonds, and we had an international solution to the debt crisis of the south. So we're saying something very similar. It's all very well saying that it's just the Greek people who have been profligate but there's a crisis in Spain and in Portugal and in Italy, and part of the problem was the banks made an awful lot of money during those periods, and now that they're not making money the rest of society is socialising their losses. Quite frankly, that isn't capitalism, is it? It's not a capitalist solution that every time the banks don't make money and make losses, the rest of society pays for it. Thus we think that to get out of this crisis we have to have a very different banking system that invests in the real economy; we have to have growth, Germany cannot get out of this crisis if it doesn't expand its economy - it's no longer a small open economy, and it can't run its macroeconomic policy as if it doesn't care what's happening in the south. If it continues to do so, as many economists in the Financial Times and the economists in the New York Times have said, the eurozone will collapse, and it will collapse because of bad German economic policies and a bad architecture that cannot deal with the recession.

EMMA ALBERICI: All that aside, would you agree that Greece - if we look at just Greece for the time being - there might need to be some cultural shift in your country that there can't continue to be an attitude that says paying tax is an optional measure; and also this idea that people are entitled to a pension in their 50s, where virtually everywhere else in the world we wait until our 60s?

EUCLID TSAKALOTOS: You're listening a little bit too much to the creditors' point of view. But that having been said, you're quite right. Nobody in the left in Greece suggests that we should go back to the pre-2008 situation. You're quite right, we need to expand a taxable base. We need to have important reforms in the public sector, we might want to make the public sector more public and not be a field for private interests and private gain. We have a big program which is not a return to the pre-2008 program. We were very critical of the model of development that was based on lending and big projects in the pre-2008 period, so you're actually preaching to the converted. But, on the other hand, we also need a model that has a regulation of the banks, that deals with social inequalities, that deals with regional inequalities - and that is what the Greek left is saying. And we're appealing to progressive forces in Spain and Italy and France that there is no reason why the eurozone should always be the eurozone of Merkel, why it should always be the eurozone of the banks, why it should always be the eurozone that restricts democracy, that doesn't allow peoples to vote on alternative policies - which says more or less you can vote for anything you like as long as you vote for what Merkel and Schauble says is right. That can't be a permanent just equilibrium for Europe.

EMMA ALBERICI: The Germans have a very persuasive view and that is that money talks. The Germans have put something in the order of $600 billion into the stability fund - the financial firewall, so...
[...]
EUCLID TSAKALOTOS: There's two issues there. The first issue is that Germans have not put any money into Greece which they're not profiting from. Even German newspapers you will read and understand how much profit they've made from loans to all the southern European economies. Not just now in the crisis but before the crisis as well. The second issue is that after every crisis of capitalism - in 1929, in 1974 - we never returned to the status quo. All these arguments that we're hearing - that we must go out of this crisis by reducing wages, reducing the public sector - we heard in the 1930s, and no economy in the 1930s got out of a recession or reduced its debt-to-GDP ratio through austerity. It was true then, it's true now, and unless there's going to be a settlement that will have to be imposed on Schauble and on Merkel, and by what I see in German election results they're losing ground, and people are discussing euro bonds, they're discussing a different European Central Bank, they're discussing a very different macroeconomic strategy; the discussions, the debate has opened. I will just tell you what very many leader articles and opinion makers have been saying in the main financial papers: the eurozone will either change in a more progressive direction, or it will collapse - and it will not collapse because the Greek left got 17 per cent of the vote, it will collapse because it didn't understand what the economics of monetary union are and that you cannot reduce your debt through recession.

EMMA ALBERICI: Mr Tsakalotos, they're tough words you speak, but the fact remains that the IMF, the European Commission and the European Central Bank have sent you a very clear message - you being Greek society. The $170 billion bailout money is not negotiable: it comes with conditions and conditions of severe austerity?

EUCLID TSAKALOTOS: Well, because I'm a professor of economics and I've studied economic history, negotiating positions can change when the balance of forces change. Obviously, I wouldn't expect Merkel and Schauble to say anything else before negotiations, but if the peoples of the south change the balance of forces, difference social forces come to the fore - as they did in the 50s and 60s. In the 50s and 60s, after the recession of the 30s, no economist who had been saying these things about the necessity of austerity was in power. They had all been marginalised because people came back after the war and said and, "We will not return to the devil's decade of recession, unemployment, hunger marches; we can do something better". And we're in this situation again. We can do something better. And if Merkel and Sarkozy and the others don't understand that, I think they will have to understand it when the balance of forces changes.

EMMA ALBERICI: I think it's Hollande now you will be dealing with, not Mr Sarkozy. But at what point do you countenance a Greek exit from the Eurozone?

EUCLID TSAKALOTOS: Well, we're not actually proposing a Greek exit. We're proposing different kind of proposals for economy and society which are good for Greek people and for the peoples of Europe. We have no intention of leaving by our own accord monetary union, and as very many economists have been saying, the eurozone cannot withstand a Greek withdrawal. It's rather like adultery. Once you've done it once, the temptation to do it again is greatly increased. If they throw Greece out, investors will know that Portugal or Spain or Italy will be the next, and the eurozone - this is in professor Krugman's blog of this week - once Greece go, the probability of another country goes is very, very strong, and that's what gives us bargaining power against what the Germans are saying and against what the IMF is saying.
[…]

Edit: Australian TV again, a talking heads type program with Euclid Tsakalotas, Costas Lapavitsas and others. The difference in coverage between Australia and the UK is interesting, but then Australia isn't directly involved in the eurozone crisis and there are a lot of Greeks living there.

from above

...the problem was the banks made an awful lot of money during those periods, and now that they're not making money the rest of society is socialising their losses. Quite frankly, that isn't capitalism, is it?

This "it's just not capitalism!" trope (about the socialisation of the bank losses, being "unfair") is made much of by right-wing bailout critics in Ireland, like David McWilliams, Shane Ross, etc.

The general "jobs and growth" versus austerity (aka "fiscal consolidation or discipline", by advocates) is what the so-called left have fallen into here, as well. The United Left Alliance (SWP + SP, a marriage made in hell) have the town covered in posters for a NO in the Fiscal Compact treaty referendum here, which are all basically - against austerity, for jobs & growth. All pretence of anti-capitalism has gone out the window. You could say they've moved from "Vote Labour with no illusions" to "Vote for us with no illusions" :roll: .

'Main points of Syriza proposals'

Tsipras interviewed before the May 6 elections

[youtube]Mc9POOmmNgw[/youtube]

http://greekleftreview.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/10-programmatic-commitments-of-syriza/

Time interview with Tsipras - This is longer and more interesting than the others I've seen.

Jesus Christ that interview intro is embarassing.

'Alexis's Soviets' - Greek newspaper headline

Syriza launches new programme (Athens News)

Syriza economic manifesto (scroll down for English translation)

[youtube]ywgRcSiO1vw[/youtube]

radiobubble: election commitments of New Democracy and Syriza

[youtube]yksJ-4IYjN4[/youtube]

Bloomberg Businessweek profile of Tsipras

Kathimerini interview with Tsipras

Kathimerini is a fairly serious conservative newspaper, maybe the Greek equivalent of the Times or Telegraph.

“We are not under the delusion that the people who voted for us are all ideologically sided with the left,” Tsipras told Sunday’s Kathimerini. “To a degree, our success is due to the succession of mistakes made by our opponents: They openly supported a memorandum that leads to catastrophe and then they led the country to new elections when they could have formed a government, hoping that the responsibility would be chalked up to us.”

.

Yanis Varoufakis on the eurozone crisis and voting for Syriza

There's an argument within this that could be paraphrased as something like 'ignore Syriza's manifesto promises and pay attention to what their economists are saying, along with the political and economic realities. It's safe for the political centre to vote for them, in fact it might be the only way to save the eurozone.' The view from the Keynesian centre-left.

[…]
To conclude, Europe’s peoples are being marched into a catastrophe. They know that this is their predicament. They can see their march is leading them off a mighty cliff. But they are too afraid to veer off, in case they are beaten back into line, in case they get lost in the woods, for reasons that sheep know best. However, the only way this hideous march can end is if someone summons up the courage and does it. And steps out, showing the others that this march can stop and must stop – for everyone’s benefit. Who is that someone? We, Europeans, do not have many options. As I wrote above, the Irish people had a chance but did not take it. In two weeks, the Greeks have their chance. Voting for Syriza would offer us (and by ‘us’ I mean all Europeans) a chance of this circuit-breaker. A chance to say: Enough! Time to change course in order to save the Eurozone, so as to prevent the Great Postmodern Depression which lurks once the euro-system fragments formally. 

Should we be afraid of Syriza’s ‘ultra-leftism’? My answer is a resounding No. I recommend that (even those who have Greek amongst their languages) you do not read their manifesto. It is not worth the paper it is written on. While replete with good intentions, it is short on detail, full of promises that cannot, and will not be fulfilled (the greatest one is that austerity will be cancelled), a hotchpotch of  policies that are neither here nor there. Just ignore it. Syriza is a party that had to progress, within weeks, from a fringe political agglomeration struggling to get into Parliament (at around the 4% mark) to a major party that may have to form government in a few short weeks. It is, in important ways, a ‘work in progress’; and so is its unappetising Manifesto. No, the reason it is safe to take a gamble on Syriza is threefold:

First, because it is probably the only party that ‘gets it’; that understands (a) that Greece must stay in the Eurozone (despite the latter’s obvious failures), and (b) that the Eurozone will not survive unless someone forces Europe to put an immediate halt on this “march off the cliff of competitive austerity”. 

Secondly, because the small team of political economists that will negotiate on Syriza’s behalf are good. moderate people with a decent grasp of the grim reality that Greece and the Eurozone are facing (and, no, I am not part of that team – but I know the ones I am referring to).

Thirdly, because, in any case, a vote for Syriza is not going to establish a purely Syriza government. No party, including Syriza, will be in a position to form a government outright. So, the question is whether Europe is better off with a government in Athens which includes Syriza as a pivot or one which is supported by discredited pro-bailout parties, with Syriza leading from the opposition benches. I have no doubt whatsoever that Europe’s interests are best served by the first option.

Edit: according to one of the comments for that blog post there's press speculation in Greece, whether accurate or not, that Varoufakis would be offered a position in a Syriza-led government.

Kathimerini has a report on who is planning to vote for who that analyses the shift in voting intentions away from the smaller parties. It suggests that people that who voted for the anti-memorandum parties on the right, the Independent Greeks (a split from ND) and Golden Dawn (neo-nazis), are switching to Syriza rather than New Democracy.

SYRIZA’s post-election momentum is clearly stronger, not only than that of ND, but also in comparison with the pre-election trend seen working in its favor during the final two weeks of the run-up to the recent ballot. After the May elections, this social current has taken on the characteristics of an electoral leap and now constitutes a phenomenon that is precisely described by the term ‘structural break’. With regard to party preferences, the widespread electoral current in favor of SYRIZA appears to be broadly diverse: It absorbs a considerable segment from the general pool of Communist Party of Greece voters, the majority of voters of small formations of leftist protest (ANTARSYA, leftist groupings not represented in Parliament, NO, Ecologists Greens), but also the greater portion of the right-wing anti-Memorandum protest (Independent Greeks, Golden Dawn). Lastly it has also attracted a stream of voters who had chosen to abstain in the elections of 6 May.

Time for a quick backpedal?

Grauniad

Alexis Tsipras, the radical leftist leader who has unnerved leaders both in and out of the euro zone by vowing to "tear up" the bailout agreement Greece has signed up to with the EU and IMF, has stunned political observers with a decision to meet G20 ambassadors in Athens this morning.

Five days after the head of the Syriza party pledged to "cancel" the memorandum outlining the onerous terms on which Greece receives cash injections from foreign lenders, he has taken the unexpected step of "explaining" his policies with representatives from each of the G20 countries stationed in Athens. As I type, Tsipras is locked in closed door talks with the ambassadors at the Zappeion conference centre. Could the 37-year-old firebrand be changing his spots? The news has been received as nothing short of a volte-face by political observers.

"There is a clear change of strategy by Syriza," veteran commentator Nikos Evangelatos told Flash radio. "The change of line is more than obvious from the daily statements of leading party cadres on the party's economic program."
[...]
Yiannis Dragazakis, the leftist MP widely credited with drawing up the coalition's economic program, went as far as saying that Syriza's fiscal policies were not only "flexible" but would take into account "daily reality."
"We [in Syriza] are not talking about unilateral actions," he said referring to fears that, if in power, the party would automatically revoke the bailout accord. "On the contrary, we recognize that we have an institutional inter-dependence in the European Union and as such we don't speak about unilateral actions but about renegotiating everything – except if we are forced to act unilaterally."
[...]
a senior party member said it was essential that ambassadors from the [G20] bloc "understand we are not a threat."

Running for election on a promise to renegotiate the terms? Where have I heard that one before? :p

Athens News: Syriza in opposition, interview with Panos Skourletis

The Commune: Is Syriza a workers’ government in waiting?

Andrew Flood: Notes on the non election of Syriza and the retreat from anti-capitalism by the left

from http://kasamaproject.org/2012/06/26/unity-struggle-crisis-currents-within-greeces-coalition-of-the-radical-left/

Roughly 25% of SYRIZA are people not affiliated with any party (ranging from revolutionary communists to refugees from Greece’s collapsed mainstream political parties).

And there is also an even larger movement around SYRIZA that came out of the Squares Movement and other places.

SYRIZA also contains a revolutionary communist faction, mainly characterized by the Communist Organization of Greece (KOE), but also including other individuals and some small additional organizations.

Right now there is unity. At some future point, there may prove to be disunity as events and the people move.

I had an interesting conversation with a young member of the Internationalist Worker’s Left (DEA), who tells me that there are revolutionary and reformist poles in SYRIZA. He says in a way that I found rather simplistic that the Trotskyists and Maoists in SYRIZA compose the revolutionary pole, and that the Eurocommunists are the reformist pole, and that in the struggle between these two, SYRIZA is quickly moving to the left.

I also spoke to a supporter of Kokkino (Red), another small organization inside of SYRIZA. He tell me that his organization is trying to solve problems between revolutionaries and reformists by demanding that Kokkino and other organizations receive more seats on the leadership of SYRIZA, and that SYRIZA then merge into a single unified party.

Later, I asked a young KOE supporter what he thought of this solution. He tells me that this is a structural attempt to solve what are actually deeper line problems.

In his view, the way to “transform SYRIZA” is through bringing new generations of radicals into SYRIZA, and at the same time “leading through line.” In other words, he wants KOE to develop a program that wins out because of its correctness and ability to lead, not the numbers of seats. And according to him, the scene inside SYRIZA are quite dynamic and fluid, and cannot be understood in such a static and structural way.

The influence of Keynesian economists on Syriza...

Yanis Varoufakis: Syriza and the Yanis strategy

Economics expertise in Greece seems to be a small world and quite a few of the players on both the pro- and anti-bailout sides are academics from the economics department at Athens University. See for example:

Yanis Varoufakis: Open letter to a good friend and colleague (who happened to become Greece’s Finance Minister yesterday…).

Eagainst.com: Interpreting the results of the Greek elections

Julien Febvre

While a large part of Greek society has placed its hopes to SY.RIZ.A. the fact that many left-wing and democratic-socialist parties – either the radical ones like the Chilean Partido Socialista and the Sandistas of Nicaragua, or the more moderates as the German Sozialdemokratische Partei – betrayed their promises, and more or less followed strict Neoliberal policies, is largely ignored. Similarly, SY.RIZ.A as a party entrapped within parliamentary values could very easily become in the future another bourgeois power that will contribute very little (or not at all) to the revolutionization of Greek society, especially if we take into account the fact that Tsipras does not intend to withdraw Greece from European Union and the Eurozone, and does not threaten the aristocracy of the Orthodox Church (which exercises great power in political life, and despite that it possesses enormous wealth, is a subject of tax exemption). Tsipras also talks about economic growth. Given that economic growth is the essence of capitalism Tsipras promises little more than social democracy, and SY.RIZ.A is probably another capitalist (reformist) party.

Under these circumstances, where most of the Greeks are exhausted by the cuts, the “solutions” proposed by SY.RIZ.A. could benefit temporarily the majority of the Greek citizens, but in no way should be considered as permanent answers for all the problems of Greek society. The principles we need to follow in order to pursue a radical social transformation, are the ones that contribute to the formation of a truly democratic political consciousness. Hence, in the long (but not very distant) future the ideological and political hegemony of the central leadership of  SY.RIZ.A. upon the movements will not allow them to become a grate revolutionary force, able to pursue deep changes and to overcome the lack of democracy, cronyism and corruption that plagues the country. Therefore, all libertarian forces of society must take the game in their hands instead of laying their hopes on a party which the stronger it gets the higher is the risk to become bureaucratized, and to rescind from the most innovative and radical trends. At this stage, the role of the social movements is to contribute to a further radicalization of the rest of society based on truly democratic values to the greatest extent possible, and secondly, to become independent from the idea that only through a central leadership social emancipation can be achieved. Consequently, if we want to talk about the birth of a new political force organized from below, truly democratic, with horizontal structures and libertarian projects, able to set the foundations for a society of equality, egalitarianism, and transparency, we must not let ourselves to the hands of a party which despite the fact that seems much more promising than other parliamentary monstrosities, it can demobilize the movements as did Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a populist Argentinian social democrat who used “radical rhetoric to ride a wave of popular unrest” according to Leonidas Oikonomakis.

Leonidas Oikonomakis

Upon his election, Kirchner refused to implement the IMF’s conditionalities, which included further cuts in social spending and a shrinking role for the state in the economy, while at the same time announcing that he would pay back to the country’s private creditors 30 cents on every dollar that it owed to them, using the effective threat of a total default instead. Of course, he paid back the IMF in full, but refused to continue receiving loans (and orders) from it.

In addition, Kirchner introduced policies that raised the minimum wage, protected workers’ and unions’ rights, and expanded social security programs to more unemployed and workers in the informal sector. He increased public spending on education and housing, and put limits on the prices of the formerly state-owned enterprises privatized by Menem. Moreover, Kirchner’s government took a solid stance on the prosecution of criminals involved in the 1976-83 dictatorship.

And of course, Kirchner did little to hide his intentions, which were to save the Argentine state from implosion and reconstruct the capitalist system in the country, reversing the extreme neoliberal measures that the previous governments had taken and replacing them with a more humanistic or social democratic orientation.

Kirchner’s measures brought middle class Argentinians back home from the streets — to the normalcy they were asking for. At the same time, while it cannot be denied (and it should not be underestimated either) that this certainly helped middle and lower class citizens to get back on their feet, it should also be noted that Kirchner’s measures clearly played a decisive role in the demobilization of the country’s once powerful social movements.

Some piquetero leaders were coopted and given positions in the government while certain civil society organizations were offered state subsidies. Those who insisted in their resistance were treated with police repression, isolation, and exclusion from the public sphere.

The rest was a matter of time. Soon, the radical experiments on direct democracy and life beyond capitalism lost their  momentum, giving way to Kirchner’s ‘capitalism with a human face’ (which, no matter how you mask it, remains capitalism, albeit slightly more regulated by the state). “In other words,” As Benjamin Dangl summarizes, “Kirchner was handing out crumbs, when what many demanded was revolution.

In a way, the challenges faced by the piqueteros were nothing new. Throughout history, social movements around the world have been faced with an eternal and seemingly intractable dilemma: how to bring about lasting social change? While some have opted for a revolutionary road to capture state power, others chose the electoral road to obtaining state power. Others still have chosen to ignore the state altogether and build alternative institutions of direct democracy and autonomous self-management from the grassroots up.

Ahead of the Greek elections, and against the backdrop of widespread excitement around Europe about the expected electoral victory of a ‘radical’ left-wing party, maybe we should turn back and try to remember what happened in other parts of the globe when a left-wing party answered the eternal dilemma facing social movements with a decisive choice for the ‘parliamentary path’ to state power.

Maybe then we‘ll be able to answer the question asked by James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer: “Why do social movements consistently lose out to electoral institutional politics once the center-left takes over a regime?” And maybe then, at last, we will realize that we need to come up with new slogans to keep the Greek squares from falling prey to the same fate as the one that befell the piqueteros of Argentina.

Syriza looks to Chavez

During an interview with Telesur on Tuesday night, Alexis Tsipras, the leader of the Greek left wing coalition SYRIZA, emphasised Venezuela as an example, as a model to follow to leave behind the capitalist, consumerist model that is presently dominant in Europe.

“The example of Venezuela is characteristic. Hugo Chavez was able to achieve important things for his country through a peaceful process. He carried out the nationalisation of the natural sources of production. And he did so while under the constant attacks of the big end of town”, he said, pointing out that for many years, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela all followed the same recipe of neo-liberal shock measures that they’re applying today in Greece.
[...]
Tsipras said that the social, economic and political development of Latin America is a “shining example” that he will consider if elected Greek prime minister in Sunday’s general election.
[...]

trying to understand... what? they are a political party.. what else is there to understand?

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article27168

SYRIZA, after the 2012 elections, also rallied the majority of the working classes who still refer, in a rather general and abstract way, to the ideological tradition of the left. Certainly, after the collapse of “actually existing socialism”, more than two decades of ideological dominance of neo-liberalism have dispersed confusion and disorientation in the working class and popular strata. But SYRIZA (and previously SYNASPISMOS) have never attempted to come to terms with this situation with a clear and honest self-criticism on the restrictions and the attitude of the historical leadership of KKE-interior and then SYN towards the bureaucracies of “really existing socialism”. Even more, the general ideological weakness and organizational decline of the Left opened the way for the growing stronger trends of xenophobia and racism within Greek society, and finally allowed, under the conditions of sharp economic crisis, the emergence of right-wing and neo-Nazi parties.

The rallying of workers to SYRIZA took place mainly in the parliamentary arena. It was not a product of the development of party structures and the activity of party members in the labor movement, nor did it come from the new resistance movement of popular assemblies and popular local self-organization. The presence of SYRIZA in mass mobilizations remains half-hearted, limited and linked to its rise in parliamentary elections. The election campaigns of SYRIZA rely much more on “contact” with the popular strata through the media and advertising slogans, and much less on the direct contact and activation of the potential of its social base. The public speeches of Tsipras move increasingly towards promises of a better management of the bourgeois state and the capitalist economy. Moreover Tsipras (like the young A. Papandreou) tries to rise above the party apparatus and to address directly popular feelings and hopes for a painless, parliamentary way out of the crisis nightmare — within the institutions of the EU. The popular strata rally reluctantly and without enthusiasm around SYRIZA, because they sense both the gravity of the situation and the utopian character of the easy promises.

An important section of the SYN party cadres is already integrated in the state bureaucracy. The election program of SYRIZA remains strictly within the framework of management of the bourgeois state. The legendary declarations for “debt rescheduling” through the institutions of the EU are of dubious credibility and are restricted to the rescue of the remnants of the welfare state and the rather vague “productive reconstruction” of the capitalist economy. The prospect of socialism, with planned economy, nationalization of banks and large companies, as the only real alternative to the crisis of capitalism was not really mentioned in pre-election period, and much less in post-election proclamations. The word “socialism” has been expunged, seemingly forever, from Tsipras’ vocabulary.

Even worse, with the rapid rise of the fascist Golden Dawn (GD), SYRIZA restricts itself to defending the institutions of a bankrupt bourgeois democracy. It is a democracy that sinks into general disrepute, immersed in scandals that reflect the mutual recriminations of panicked capitalist politicians. At the very moment when the socialist perspective should be advanced against the corrupt regime, SYRIZA provides space for the screaming and the demagogy of the GD gang. At the very moment when SYRIZA should decisively confront the fascist terror in the streets and neighborhoods with mass mobilizations, it resorts to invoking bourgeois legitimacy and relying on the cops – who are heavily infiltrated and corroded by fascism. Also, the first attempt to integrate or eliminate the radical “components” of SYRIZA began much earlier with the proposal of the SYN leadership for a single party apparatus last September. This mutation is supposed to make it more reliable in the eyes of the ruling class.

Certainly, the chance of obtaining governmental power in a European country like Greece, by one of the traditional left parties like SYRIZA for the first time after decades, alarmed the European rulers. Not due to the risks posed by SYRIZA, but because of the general instability and uncontrolled developments likely to unfold as broad layers will perceive such a left government as their own victory, and because of the chain reactions likely to occur in other European countries. They know very well that the conditions of the economic crisis have created a social powder keg that could explode at any time, regardless of the desires, plans and estimations of a left reformist leadership.

On the other hand, the majority of the European radical left seems to be hypnotized by the prospect of an electoral victory of SYRIZA. Most of the European left parties rushed to give unconditional support to the SYN party leadership, without much understanding of the relationship of class forces within Greek society, its reflection on the political scene, and the true nature and history of the SYN party. Certainly the desire for a victory of the left in Europe, after nearly three decades of continuous decline, is fully justified and understandable. But substituting one’s desires for the reality under current conditions is extremely dangerous. Even worse are the unjust characterizations and attacks on those forces trying to establish a consistent anti-capitalist and communist left under these difficult conditions.

Paul Mason's latest update on Syriza and interview with Tsipras:

'Blackmail, terrorism and tension' - Greek left turns up rhetoric

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article29409 ... an article by a member of DEA (close to ISO/USA) about the congress of SYRIZA in July

Greek elections on Sunday

[youtube]ztKxwCM6JMI[/youtube]

Mark.

A throwaway, but probably accurate, assessment of Syriza in an interview with Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis:

I would caution anyone who reads too much into the titles of parties like the Radical Left [i.e. Syriza]. The Radical Left Party is not that radical. If anything, it is, more or less, where the socialist party used to be 10 years ago. So it’s a centre-left party in reality, with some radical elements that are, more or less, marginalised within it.

Varoufakis is a left social democrat who I think is fairly sympathetic to Syriza, so this comment wasn't necessarily intended as criticism.

That was from 2012. Yanis Varoufakis is now standing for Syriza and I expect will end up negotiating with the EU.

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/01/09/why-i-am-running-for-a-parliamentary-seat-on-syrizas-ticket/

Paul Mason interviews Yanis Varoufakis

http://www.channel4.com/news/we-are-going-to-destroy-the-greek-oligarchy-system

Paul Mason blog post on Syriza

http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/ripped-poor-suicidal-farmers-turning-syriza/3001

Paul Mason - last minute thoughts about the Greek election

http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/minute-thoughts-greek-election-syriza-voters/3025

[youtube]ZaDxljKTXgg[/youtube]

Greek elections 2015: a quick rundown of the electoral system

https://theirategreek.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/greek-elections-2015-a-quick-rundown-of-the-electoral-system/

Why Greece’s ‘also ran’ parties are crucial

http://www.macropolis.gr/?i=portal.en.the-agora.2148

Some background on Syriza

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/phase-one/

Paul Mason - Exit polls put Syriza on course for victory

http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/exit-polls-put-syriza-victory/3079

Roarmag - What would a Syriza victory mean for the movements?

http://roarmag.org/2015/01/elections-greece-syriza-movements/

Markos Vogiatzoglou

During the last two years, the Greek movement has produced significantly fewer impressive mobilizations compared to the 2011-’12 period. Many attribute this to a broadly diffused expectation that could be summarized in the following sentence: “Everyone is waiting for SYRIZA to come to power.” This is also related to the fact that the 2011-’12 protests produced minimal concrete outcomes. Therefore, many activists chose to devote themselves to smaller scale actions (such as neighborhood-level interventions through the social solidarity structures, or the anti-fascist struggle), where movement activity stands a higher chance of having a direct impact on people’s everyday lives.

It should be noted that SYRIZA is not a movement party, at least not in the sense Podemos is in the Spanish context. SYRIZA is particularly weak in traditional social movement milieus such as the unions and the universities. Yet, many among its members and (even high-ranking) officials come from grassroots movements or still maintain contacts with street-level politics.

It is therefore reasonable to expect that a left government will initially assume a friendlier stance towards the movements compared to the extreme oppression all mobilizations met during the crisis period. This is particularly important for the more militant activists (social centers, squats, anti-fascists) who may now find the much-needed time and space to regroup and reorganize. Generally speaking, some sort of re-organization in terms of action repertoire and re-orientation in terms of agendas and claims will be almost mandatory for everyone.

The price movements will have to pay is their unavoidable co-optation by a government that will be offering no revolutionary perspective whatsoever. Greece has a very negative tradition in this respect: during the early 1980s, the post-dictatorship movement was literally devoured by the newly elected, then, social-democratic PASOK government. Many expect a repetition of this sad era, whilst the more optimistic hope that today’s turbulent situation will not allow for sinister relations between activists and the state to expand beyond an unavoidable minimum.

Guardian live updates

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/25/greek-election-syriza-confident-of-victory-live-updates

Today, across Europe, the left is excited by Syriza topping the polls in the Greek election. Some on the left have gone so far as to suggest the election itself will mark the end of austerity policies, in the terminology of the Anglo left, an end to the idea that There Is No Alternative (TINA). Another indication that something of significance is happening is that ahead of the election a new wave of capital flight has started from Greece with an estimated 8 billion transferred out of the country over the last few weeks.

From an anarchist, non electoralist perspective we might hope that Syriza’s election represents the high water mark of the swing to electoralism that came out of the defeat of mass resistance to the imposition of the crisis. That won’t be today or tomorrow, it will take a period of weeks for Syriza to have been in power long enough to demonstrate that the problem with the old electoral left was not reducible to corrupt social democrats and lying politicians. Rather it is in the nature of the electoral system, a system that takes in young idealist transformers and spits out older, corrupt defenders of the status quo. A process we have seen recently in Ireland with both the previous Green Party and current Labour Party governments.

Read on at
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/andrewnflood/election-syriza-greece-power-parliament

Interior Ministry election website - the results so far

http://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/v/public/index.html?lang=en#{"cls":"main","params":{}}

A rather clearer results page here

http://www.repubblica.it/static/speciale/2015/elezioni/grecia/index.html?refresh_cens

Live stream (in Greek)

http://gr.euronews.com/news/streaming-live/