What
has to be done? Is it the organiising “the Unity
of the left”?
Is it sectarism
that the KKE refuses an alliance/united left front with Syriza?
Is it
“understandable” that they refuse because of the practices of
Syriza?
Is there an
evolution to the left against austerity on which there has to be an
answer of an “united left front”?
....and what
are other “communist parties” saying, .......for example the WPB
(PVDA/PTB)
Is the WPB
similar to the KKE whith THEIR refusal of a left (electoral !!) front
as they seem to do until today?
A “left”
FB-friend:
Who today is
not making a priority of making coalition or front at the left-side,
bears a heavy historical responsability. He let slip away the power
and give it as a present to the extreme-right.
Someone reacts:
Syriza was cooperating in the past with extreme-right to beat KKE in
lokale elections, so I understand the reflex of KKE and their point
of view that change is not coming by voting-box. But, are 'nt they
stalinists?
Another
:...Lets
put pressure on those parties bearing a enormous historical
responsability to take it and to cooperate round the potential at the
left-side which has chosen today syriza to express herself. Because
that potential will not exist forever and without conditions. It is
really painfull to see that a left party let slip away this
historical chance to potential fascist votes. Such a party is not
striving honestly for progressive social change, but only for own
power... and so coming into the sphere of stalinsim, indeed. I am
critical to syrriza and not saying that KKE has to let fall her
points of view about Syriza, but I say that they have to overcome
their arrogancy as if they were “the only true revolutionaries”
and reach out a hand to the base of Syriza, the working people who
are pleading for left cooperation by voting massivly on Syriza and
not on KKE...
Another
FB-friend:
Refusing is the same as trying to find unity, that is
again the blind sectarism showed by the KKE. It is even more
criminal, knowing that all those who are anti-austeritiy-plans had a
chance to unite so the refusal is condemning the people of Greece to
find themselves again in the hands of the austerity-imposers. It was
to expect but sad....
....and he is
comparing it with the refusal of the WPB to form a unity of the left
until today in Belgium.
About Syriza
In Syriza's program is
said that, Unity is neccesary and urgent to protect society against
the crisis and to put a moratorium on the debt servicing.
“The
crisis” is evoked by “the debt burden” which “is produced by
the tax evasion of the Rich, the looting of public funds and the
exorbitant procurement of military weapons and equipment.”
So the debt has to ba paid
by those who are guilty of.
“We are asking
immediately for:
Moratorium of debt
servicing
Negotiation for debt
cancelling, with a provision for social insurance funds and small
savers’ protection. This is to be pursued by exploiting any
available means such as audit control and suspension of payments.
Regulation of the remaining debt with clause provisions for economic
development and employment. European regulation for the debt of
European States. Radical change of European Central Bank’s role.
Prohibition of speculative banking products.
Paneuropean tax on wealth,
financial transactions and profits.
3. Income redistribution,
taxation of wealth and abolishment of unnecessary expenses
Reorganization and
consolidation of tax-collecting mechanisms.
Taxation of the fortunes
over 1 million Euros and large-scale revenues.(...)
Quest for new resources
via efficient exploitation of European funds, via the claims on the
payment of the German occupation loan and of German World War II
reparations and finally via the steep reduction of military
expenses.
So NOT a revolution
against capitalism but “a democratic control over the “banking
system”
and a development of
“state-capitalisme”.
“4 Productive, Social
and environmental reconstruction
Nationalisation/
socialization of the banks and integration of them in a public
banking system under social and worker’s control in order to serve
developmental purposes. The scandal of the recapitalization of banks
must stop immediately.
Nationalization of all
public enterprises, of strategic importance, that have been
privatized so far. Administration of public enterprises based on
transparency, social control and democratic planning. Support for the
provision of Public Goods. (...)Ecological transformation of the
developmental model. This includes a transformation in the sectors of
energy production, manufacturing, tourism and agriculture. (...)
“Workers control” by
true parliamentary democracy:
6. Deepening
Democracy.(...)
A refoundation of popular
sovereignty and an upgrade of parliamentary power within the
political system. Instigation of a proportional electoral system.
Separation of Powers. (...)
Foundation of democratic,
political and trade union rights. (...)
Demilitarization and
democratization of the Police and the Coastguard. Disbandment of
special forces.
Let those who are guilty
of the “debt burden” pay the debt and finance......
“7. Powerful Welfare
State (...)
An immediate programme of
rescue of the pensions system that will include tripartite financing
and gradual return of the pension funds portfolios into one public,
universal system of social insurance.
A rise in unemployment
benefits until the substitution rate reaches the 80% of the wage. No
unemployed person is to be left without unemployment benefit.
Introduction of a guaranteed minimum income.
A unified system of
comprehensive social protection covering the vulnerable social
strata.
8 Health is a Public Good
and a social right
Health is to be provided
for free and will be financed through a Public Health System.
Immediate measures include:(...)
Free and costless access to
medical treatment for all the residents in the country.
Free pharmaceutical
treatment and medical examinations for the low-pensioners, the
unemployed, the students and those suffering of chronic diseases.
9. Protection of Public
education, research, culture and sports from the Memorandum’s
policies. (...)”
Summarised:
“The incumbent economic
and social system has failed and we must overthrow it !
The economic crisis
rocking global capitalism has shattered the illusions. All the more
people witness that capitalist speculation is an inhuman
organizational principle for the modern society. It is also
unanimously shared that that private banks function only for the
benefit of the bankers harming the rest of the people. Industrialists
and bankers absorb billions from Health, Education and Pensions.
The exit from the crisis
entails bold measures that will obstruct those who create it from
continuing their destructive work. We are endorsing a new model of
production and distribution of wealth, one that would include society
in its totality. In this respect the large capitalist property is to
be made public and managed democratically along social and ecologic
criteria. Our strategic aim is socialism with democracy, a system in
which all will be entitled to participate in the decision-making
process.”
How Syriza thinks to
realise this program?
But how should it be
possible to realise? By uniting those organisations and parties who
can more or less find themselves in those principals and then say to
the people:
These are the things you
have to fight for....and for this you can vote for in elections,
because no worker can be against it, and because it is the most
radical option present (“uniting all tendencies who can maximal but
also minimal “agree” with it") This will collect probably a
majority and so allow a government who will implement this program.
Giving “leadership” to
the class struggle by limiting in advance the objectifs to a certain
level is in advance recuperating all possible developments of
consciousness in revolutionary direction.
Making of your “radical
program” first of all the input of the elections is deceiving the
workers as if getting an election-majortity will give a government
who will do the job for you, so there has to be no mobilisation of
the workers to taker their fate in their own hands.
...and the KKE is
refusing any unity-proposal on this program. Sectarism? Or just
mistrust?
The KKE refused any
alliance to this proposal, which refusal is seen by “leftists”
as “sectarism” or
which refusal is “explained by their
mistrust based on certain anti-KKE experiences with Syriza”.
But in fact in what I have read there are fundamental
political differences ..... although I
agree that they are not always so clear formulated (as if there are
some internal diferences or as if there are not made so sharp
analyses, perhaps to general analyses or a little dogmatic.....)
Elections and the
mechanism of “parliamentary democracy” will not be the dynamic to
change. Elections are not more and not less a mesure of level of the
consciousness of the working class.
Well, the Belgian
WPB(PVDA/PTB) which is accused by other “left”
organisations, for a similar “sectarian
policy” against initiatives of a “unity
of the left” is not so clear about the
arguments of the KKE. In fact there seemed to exist for the WPB no
real qualitative
differences of the KKE with the Syriza, only quantitative
differences....
“Left of the
social-democratic PASOK, there are two big parties: the Communist
Party of Greece (KKE) and Syriza (radical left). They voted both
against the austerity-memorandi and in the polls they have both 11%
(....)In the perspective of the struggle for a peoples power, the KKE
is pleading for the annulation of the debt. This work in the field
and the defence of the interests of the workers are fruitfull. 'I
think that the most workers who are struggling in the factories and
the workfloors, together with the PAME, will vote for the KKE,
because itis the only party choosing their side”, is explaining
Giorgo Pontikos, responable of the PAME.”
The inconsequency of
Syriza is seen as the “big difference”
with the KKE:
“Syriza want
renegociate, within the framework of the European Union, about the
Greek debt. The party voted in favor of several treaties of the
European Union, with catatrofal consequence for the working
population. She was also in favour of a partial privatisiing of the
Greek telephony- and electricity-companies.
Syriza was proposing a
left “antimemorandum”-alliance and had critic on the KKE because
she was refusing this alliance. To understand better this refusal, we
have to go back to the communal elections of 2000 in which Syriza
made an alliance with PASOK, ND and the extreme-right LAOS to break
the power of the KKE.
Steel-worker Yannis of the
striking Aspropyrgos, reveals another element. “In Volos, another
steelfactory of the group, Syriza voted by her union delegates
against the strike as reaction on the patronal costsaving-plan.”
But then by quoting a
militant or the KKE, the WPB is in fact giving the big difference of
the WPB itself with the KKE what is concerning the importance of
elections in her strategy (allthough no one of the actual membres of
the WPB and surely not the editor of the article would notice...):
"The people of
the KKE understand that it is not always easy to vote for communists.
“The people who have not yet lost everything, are still thinking
that perhaps it will go better within a year or two”, says Eleni, a
militaint of the KKE, “Voting for communists, means to be convinced
that capitalism has not anymore good to bring for the workers, for
the people, and that another system has to come, with the power to
the people.”
In fact has the WPB a
serious problem, which could be a source of internal contradictions.
The “new” WPB has a SIMILAR program as SYRIZA, (and a similar
strategical focus on elections, winning votes and gaining delegates)
but is (or was?) always considering the KKE as a lighting example and
a “sister-party”.
The real arguments of
the KKE against the “unity of the left” (italic-fat
by me)
Elections, the
participation to them and the final result are NOT an objective on
itself, but just a part of the strategy of increasing the
consciousness of the people, in order to mobilise them (or by which
they are organising themselves) in order to develop the revolutionary
taken over the power and the means of production... and this is not
the case of Syriza or the “unity of the left”.:
...(T)he KKE not only did
not abandon its programme and principles, not only it did not decline
in the elections but it also had a small increase both in the
percentage and the number of votes.
Specifically, the KKE has
achieved the highest percentage of votes approximately in the last 30
years (since 1985) i.e. 8,5% which means 1% increase compared to
2009. Again it exceeded half million of votes (536.072) and had a
rise of 19.000 votes gaining 5 more seats in Parliament (26 out of
the 300 seats of the Greek Parliament). In many workers’ and
people’s neighborhoods the KKE has achieved a high percentage of
votes which is twice as its percentage at national level while for
the first time it took the first position in an election district
(Samos-Ikaria) gathering 24,7% of the votes. (...)
In the elections of 6th
May the KKE submitted its political proposal for the struggle for
workers’ and people’s power. The
political proposal of the KKE regarding the struggle for working
class-people’s power will find itself at the epicentre in the next
period, as the difference between a government and real people’s
power will become even clearer, as well as the overall proposal
concerning the immediate issues of the people’s survival and
working class popular power. From this standpoint political electoral
activity of the KKE in harmony with its strategy, as is proper,
constitutes an important legacy for the next political battles.
There can be no unity
between a strategy of “reforms” (how radical they are formulated)
while accepting the fundamental rules of capitalism and a strategy
which is focused in the first place (and not just formulated as a
secundary “intention” -which is in fact populism) on mobilising
the working people for revolutionary change of production-relations
and production-sytem.
“The head of Syriza, A.
Tsipras, who received on the 8th of May the exploratory mandate from
the President of the Republic to form a government and began contacts
with the heads of the parties, is resorting to tactical shenanigans
and headline grabbing stunts.
The head of Syriza
contacted the GS of the CC of the KKE, Aleka Papariga, by telephone
and asked for a meeting in the framework of his contacts with the
party leaders regarding the formation of a government. Aleka Papariga
answered that there is no subject for discussion for such a meeting.
In his statement, A.
Tsipras repeated the proposal for a “left government” with the
aim of “redistributing the tax burdens, dealing with the fiscal
problems in terms of social justice, the productive reconstruction of
the country and the ecological planning of development”.
The minimum conditions
SYN/Syriza have set for cooperation are:
“The need for the
immediate cancellation of the implementation of the measures of the
memorandum and especially those shameful laws which cut wages and
pensions even further.”
The cancellation of laws
which abolish basic labour rights and in particular the law which
determines that after the 15th of May the extension of existing
collective bargaining agreements will be abolished and that
collective agreements themselves will cease.
The promotion of immediate
changes to the political system for the deepening of democracy and
social justice, first of all by changing the electoral law, by
introducing full proportional representation, as well as the
abolition of the law regarding the responsibilities of ministers.
The public control of the
banking system, which today, despite having received nearly 200
billion euros in liquidity and guarantees from state funds, remains
in the hands of the executives who bankrupted it. We demand that
Black Rock’s report be published immediately. The banks must be
transformed into instruments for the development of the economy and
the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses.
The creation of an
Auditing Commission to explore the odious section of the state debt,
a moratorium on its repayment and the quest for a just and viable
European solution.”
In its statement, the
Press Office of the CC of the KKE notes the following regarding the
statements of Alexis Tsipras:
In his statement today A.
Tsipras used the mandate which he received to assist his next
election campaign, making partial proposals which have the character
of a pre-election campaign statement aimed at the most desperate
people in order to mislead them and steal votes.
Despite the basic fact
that a government must deal with more than 4 or 5 issues- it must
deal with all the issues- A Tsipras bypassed this reality as if it
did not exist. The KKE highlights the following:
The memorandum and the
loan agreement are not going to be abolished by the proposals of A.
Tsipra. Despite this fact, he presented certain proposals, as
pro-people way out, which conceal the generalised anti-people
offensive of the monopolies and their parties, the commitments which
all the EU member-states have undertaken, such as the “Europe 2020
Strategy”, policies which are incorporated in the memorandum and
the loan agreement.
The proposals of A.
Tsipras clearly state that the workers will be called on to pay again
for a large section of the debt for which they are not responsible,
while the people needs the cancellation of the debt. At the same time
these proposals leave the way open for
privatizations and for the implementation of new anti-worker measures
by the capitalists (salaries of 400 euros, flexible labour relations
etc.). They leave the reactionary changes in education, healthcare
and welfare untouched.
The declarations
regarding the public control of the banks for the benefit of the
small and medium-sized businesses are a conscious effort at
deception, as they condemn them to taking out new loans in the
conditions of their suffocating encirclement by the monopolies.
The proclamations of A.
Tsipras regarding “productive reconstruction with sensitivity to
ecological matters” are related to the same development path which
has already led to the deep crisis and the bankruptcy of the people,
while it ignores the Common Agricultural Policy and its consequences
for the poor farmers.
The silence regarding the
permanent treaty obligations undertaken by the Greek governments
within the framework of NATO and the imperialist plans to intervene
in the Eastern Mediterranean, is extremely characteristic of the
submission of SYN/Syriza to the ruling class and its international
allies. Such a government will complicate and sharpen the people’s
problems.
The people must divorce
themselves from all those who call on them to continue along the
nightmarish “EU one-way-street”, whether they have a pro or
anti-memorandum façade.
The battle will be
determined first of all within Greece and not only within the EU. In
addition, the notorious “ European wind of change” which Hollande
is allegedly bringing, is not related to the peoples but the struggle
of the monopolies of every country for domination.
Another formulation of the
same principles:
“1. The election result
leads to the reinforcement of the tendency for the renovation of the
political scene, as it had been formed for three decades with the
rotation of ND and PASOK in the government since these parties have
suffered a heavy defeat. (...) Despite the spectacular decline of ND
and PASOK the election result does not constitute a new era in the
correlation of forces between the people and the monopolies, an
overthrow or a “peaceful revolution” as has been said.
2. The
reforming of the bourgeois political scene, which still finds itself
in a transitional phase, serves the attempt to inhibit the tendency
of radicalisation, and the liberation from the bourgeois and
political influence. (...) This
possibility to attempt the renovation of the system is based on the
fact that the forces of the “EU one way-street”, the forces that
serve the interests of capital, of the capitalist system, were not
reduced in terms of their overall vote.
3. The vast majority of
the voters of the two bourgeois parties were scattered mainly to
political forces with a similar ideology that support the policy of
the “EU one way- street”. (...) In addition, the election result
is marked by the low participation that also expresses a dead-end
indignation as well as the financial difficulties of the voters who
had to travel. (...) (I)n conditions of a deep crisis and
impoverishment of the people, while the workers’ and people’s
movement has not moved into counterattack and the majority of the
parties support the capitalist system or refer to the illusion of its
humanization, the danger of the influence of nationalist and
neo-fascist views increases. Indeed, in conditions when the EU and
all member-states have adopted the equation of fascism with communism
as a state ideology. Only a strong workers’ and people’s movement
and a powerful KKE can deal with these dangerous views and make them
marginal and harmless.....(and)...cannot be dealt with by antifascist
sermons even more by appeals to national unity and the anti-fascist
consensus.
4. The
people should not have a position of “wait and see” regarding
these processes that start with the attempt to form a government. The
hard core of the bourgeois class, the business groups as well as the
mechanisms and the leading bodies of the EU and the IMF will play an
active role in the renovation of the political system. They seek to
provide substitutes to the people as soon as possible before the
workers and people’s radicalism, the organisation and the
initiative of the people becomes stronger and acquires mass
characteristics. Irrespective of the outcome of these attempts the
main orientation is the acceleration of the actions in order to head
off in a timely fashion the sharpening of the class struggle and the
rallying of the social forces, the interests of which are to be in
opposition to and rupture with the monopolies and imperialism, with
the EU itself and the choices of NATO, to strengthen the
anti-capitalist consciousness. SYRIZA, which has a social-democratic
programme, bears immense responsibilities in relation to the people
for the blatant lies that it told before and during the election
period, for the illusions it fostered and fosters that there can be a
better situation for the people without a confrontation with the
monopolies, the imperialist unions.
5. The
renovation of the bourgeois political system must be confronted by
the people’s vigilance and readiness along with the mass
organisation and struggle in the workplaces , in the sectors, the
offices, the people’s neighborhoods, the countryside, in schools ,
universities and vocational schools with immediate demands to repel
the new measures which are on the way. No toleration for the slogans
of renegotiation, the gradual disengagement from the memoranda and
the loan agreement in the framework of the bodies of the EU and the
IMF.
6. (...) IT
IS THE IRREPLACEABLE AND DECISIVE FORCE FOR THE PEOPLES MOVEMENT THAT
WILL STRUGGLE, COUNTERATTACK AND HAVE THE PROSPECT of the conquest of
the workers’ and people’s power and economy, for the
disengagement from the EU and the unilateral cancellation of the
debt, the socialization of the means of production, the productive
cooperatives of the people , the nationwide planning for the
utilization of the development potential of the country with workers’
and people’s control from the bottom up.
7. (...) On the one hand
there was blind indignation and on the other hand there were
illusions that a government of the so-called anti-memorandum forces
can provide relief and a solution to the pressing problems. The
largest section of the discontented and angry workers and unemployed
submitted to impatience and the pressure of the illusion of an
immediate positive result, the immediate solution without having
acquired the required direct experience from the participation in the
organization and waging of the struggles. It submitted to the
generalized propaganda that there can be no radical change or that
this will occur in the “second coming”, a beloved slogan of
Syriza that is dangerous for the people. The KKE assesses the
election results and tendencies with the objective conditions as its
criterion, it does not determine its stance based on the electoral
strength or electoral shrinkage of the other political parties. (...)
The evaluation of the KKE
which it stated openly at the outset of the crisis has also been
borne out: that in the conditions of the capitalist economic crisis,
which increases both the relative and the absolute destitution of the
people, there co-exist two elements: that the movement can move
forward and also that it can temporarily retreat. That the most
destitute sections of the working class, the unemployed and the
semi-employed, sections of the petty bourgeois strata which suddenly
lost their income, are subject to the influence and tendencies which
are developing within discontented petty bourgeois strata which are
still enduring from a financial point of view, but do not want to
lose everything, and which are still hostile to radical change
because they believe in their continuing survival. The KKE considers
that the second element, that of retreat, has not yet been
determined. There are possibilities in the next period for the class
struggle to sharpen and the movement to acquire new strength so that
there is hope and a positive perspective. (...)
The political
proposal of the KKE regarding the struggle for working class-people’s
power will find itself at the core of the people in the next period,
as the difference between a government and real people’s power will
become even clearer, as well as the overall proposal concerning the
immediate issues of the people’s survival and working class popular
power. From this standpoint political electoral activity of the KKE
in harmony with its strategy, as is proper, constitutes an important
legacy for the years to come.
The KKE will not
support any government, no matter what its composition, which will
emerge from the post-election collaboration of the parties, whatever
title it may have. This government will not provide anything positive
for the people. On the contrary it will respond to the needs and
interests of capital, the choices of the EU and IMF. For the KKE to
agree to participate in a government, the party would not have to
simply carry out a small retreat, but it would have to turn its
programme and political line upside down, and make unacceptable
compromises regarding the present and future of the people’s
interests. The people do not need such a KKE.(...)
Against the use of
populism in elections (which every party has to use how “left”
she is profiling herself whenever she makes of elections and the
participation to them, the most important strategical objective):
(...) in the election
period the question of unemployment will be used by the other parties
as a theatre piece, and they foster illusions that investments which
support the profitability of capital will reduce unemployment and
raise wages and pensions. The KKE has a unified proposal for
struggle. The one axis supports radical measures for the protection
of the unemployed in conjunction with the highlighting of the urgent
need for mass hiring in sectors which are related to social
infrastructure, public works, the filling of recognized gaps in
Health and Education. The other axis shows the road of struggle for
the complete abolition of unemployment in the conditions of the
people’s economy, with the socialization of the monopolies,
nationwide planning with workers’ control, out of the EU and with a
unilateral cancellation of the debt. In this situation the
utilization of all the development potential of the country with
planning for full employment will be possible.(...)
With this invitation the
Central Committee of the KKE calls the members and friends of the
party and KNE, its voters, to wage the struggle all over Greece,
above all in the workplaces, so that the electoral list and voice of
the party reaches every worker, poor farmer and self-employed person,
every young man and woman, every woman from the families of the
popular strata. The election battle must be fought with tenacity,
optimism, militancy to decisively strengthen the KKE.
Against the ELP which is a
European form of “unity of the left” as is Syriza in Greece:
“The causes of the
crisis which is a crisis of the capitalist mode of production itself,
a crisis of capital over-accumulation, highlight the boundaries of
the capitalist system and the need for its overthrow as well as the
timeliness of socialism. (...)
In the face of this goal
the inter-imperialist competition is sharpening and deepening,
demonstrating that the EU is not a union of the peoples but was and
is a union of the imperialists which cannot become pro-people. The
anxiety which the ELP and other opportunist forces are exhibiting
regarding the salvation of the EU, their propaganda to prettify it
highlight that they faithfully serve the perpetuation of capitalism
and class exploitation.
The EU serves the strategy
of capital for cheaper labour power in the competition with the other
imperialist states and unions. This strategy explains why there is a
general tendency, not only in Greece and Spain but in the whole of
Europe, for savage measures to be taken which attack the people and
increase the profits of the monopolies. The ELP submits to this
strategy with its Statutes and the acceptance of “the EU’s
principles” which are in the service of capital. The EU is not a
counterweight to the USA nor should the peoples choose imperialist,
as the opportunists and the ELP do. Objectively the capitalist
crisis, the realignment of the imperialist powers and their
intensified competition stoke new flashpoints of war and the massacre
of the peoples. The peoples must decisively refuse to shed their
blood for the interests of the bourgeois class.(....)
The need today is for
class-oriented rallying, the regroupment of the labour movement, the
popular alliance of the workers and the poor popular strata to fight
for working class power. The formation of a class pole in the labour
movement is a pre-condition for the correct orientation of the
struggles.(...)
We salute the great
struggles of the workers in Greece, Spain and many other countries
with the communists and class-oriented forces in the front line. Such
struggles will multiply. We particularly salute the magnificent
strike of the steelworkers in Greece. This struggle, like the general
strikes, demonstrates in practice that the crucial battle will not be
waged in the squares with the “indignant citizens”, or at the
social dialogues of the compromised representatives of the ITUC/ETUC.
The anger and indignation in order to have a prospect must be
expressed in the workplaces, where the class struggle is judged, in
opposition to the so-called “social cohesion” and the social
dialogues which are promoted and supported by the social-democrats,
the ELP and the compromised confederations of trade unions, the ITUC
and ETUC.(...)
The KKE and the PCPE will
strengthen their joint initiatives both in their countries and in the
International Communist Movement in order to invigorate the
perspective in the working class and the popular strata which is
forged by the revolutionary strategy for an implacable class struggle
for working class power. The International Communist Review plays a
particular role and has a special contribution to this cause. This is
an initiative of the theoretical journals of communist parties which
aims at reinforcing the Marxist-Leninist direction in the
international communist movement as a pre-condition for its necessary
regroupment. (...)
The bourgeois and
opportunists who saluted the overthrow of socialism, who spoke of the
“period of freedom, prosperity and peace”, have been completely
refuted. Today the ELP bears a particular responsibility for the
anti-communist hysteria because it accepted the core of the offensive
of the bourgeois class by denying and slandering the socialism we
knew, promoting the “21st century socialism” which is nothing
other than capitalism with a “human face”, something that cannot
exist. The nostalgia for socialism in the countries where it had been
constructed is increasing today. The peoples who experienced
socialism do not forget it. The CPs can today draw conclusions
regarding the laws of socialist construction which were violated and
the mistakes which were made. The new socialist revolutions will have
a legacy before them, the socialism we knew, the superiority of the
socialised and centrally planned economy, without capitalists and
exploitation, without crises and unemployment, with disengagement
from NATO and the EU, without insecurity about the future, where the
working class will be in charge and in control, the class which will
take the reins of power into its hands.
...and it is not “just a
Greek problem”.... it is a problem of capitalism (in its
imperialist stage). So the strategy has to focused on overcoming
capitalism(imperialism:
“1. The unprecedented
escalation of the offensive against their income and rights which the
people are experiencing is not due to the real inflation of the
public debt. The political line of the “continuous memorandum” is
being implemented in all the EU member-states. This leads the people
to both relative and absolute destitution and ensures cheaper labour
power, accelerates the concentration and centralisation of capital.
The deeper goal of the
escalation of the anti-people offensive is the reinforcement of the
competitiveness of the European monopoly groups in the international
capitalist market, where the inter-imperialist competition is
apparent. All the member-states of the EU enrich the National Reform
Programme and the Stability Pact with harsh new anti-people
commitments, which directly specialise the directions of the
Euro-Pact.
In France, ιn
Britain, in Austria the retirement age and social-security
contributions of the workers are on the increase. In Italy, in Spain,
in Ireland unfair indirect taxes have increased dramatically. In
Austria, in Poland, in Romania, in the Czech Republic, in Ireland,
the salaries of the workers are being significantly reduced as well
as the number of public sector employees.
2.
The workers are not responsible and must not pay for the public debt.
The propaganda of the capitalist power attempts to obscure the real
causes of the inflation of the public debt such as:
a.
The fiscal management of the governments of ND and PASOK to the
benefit of the monopoly groups in the post-dictatorship period. Basic
common characteristics are the legal tax cuts for the profitability
of big capital, extensive tax evasion and the goldmine of state
support for the business groups (development laws, national
participation in the 2nd and 3rd CPS and more generally in EU funding
etc). That is to say, during all the previous years, the state
borrowed in order to serve the needs of the profitability of capital
and now it is calling on the workers to pay.
The
public debt dramatically increased during the period of the first
PASOK government from 26.9% of GDP in 1981 to 64.2% of GDP in 1989.
In the period 1981-85 the government followed a social-democratic
form of management with the aim of assimilating a section of the
workers through clientelist hiring to the public sector, the
nationalisation of problematic private businesses etc
Later
on there were measures of a restricted fiscal policy for the workers,
while there was a continuation of the scandalous state support of the
business groups through state subsidies, the allocation of public
works, outsourcing, public-private partnerships, with the most
glaring example being the counterproductive state funding of the
Olympic Games in 2004. The public debt from 97.4% of GDP in 2003
reached 106.8% in 2006.
b.
The massive spending on armament programmes and missions (e.g.
Bosnia, Afghanistan), which do no serve the nation’s defense but
the plans of NATO. A characteristic example is that in 2009 Greece’s
military spending was 4% of GDP, in comparison to France’s 2.4% and
Germany’s 1.4%.
c.
The consequences of the Greek economy’s assimilation into the EU
and the EMU. An example of this is that significant sectors of
manufacturing have been on a course of shrinking which have been on
the receiving end of strong competitive pressure and have been
reduced (e.g. textiles, clothing, metal, shipbuilding industry and
the manufacture of other means of transport). The expansion of the
trade deficit and the rapid increase of imports from the EU had a
corresponding impact on the inflation of public debt. The trade
deficit has been transformed from 4% of the GDP from 1975-80, to 5%
in 1980-85, to 6% in 1985-1990, to 7% in 1990-95, to 8.5% in
1995-2000, and it exploded to 11% of the GDP in the decade 2000-2010,
with the accession of the country to the Eurozone. The Common
Agricultural Policy led to the agricultural balance of payments, from
a surplus of 9 billion Drachmas in 1980, to a deficit of 3 billion
Euros in 2010, transforming the country into an importer of food
products. The deterioration of the trade deficit was followed by the
“external” balance of payments (balance of current accounts),
that is to say the overall “annual fund” of the country with
other countries, which from a surplus of 1.5% in 1975-80, was
transformed into a 0.9% deficit in 1980-1990, the deficit increased
to 3% of GDP in 1990-2000,. This deficit exploded with the accession
of the country to the Eurozone to an annual average which exceeds 13%
of the GDP in the decade 2000-2010, leading to an increase of state
borrowing to service the external balance of payments. The profitable
activity of ship-owning capital did not reverse this situation.
The
reduction of interest rates on loans after the accession to the EMU
also had an impact by facilitating the increase of public borrowing
of the Greek government to the benefit of big capital.
The
high rate of development, on average 2.8% during the decade 2000-10,
was the mortgage of the working class and popular income which we are
paying today. Of course this process is not exclusively Greek. The
increase in the trade deficit of the USA in the decade 1997-2007 is
also connected to the increase of the annual public deficit and of
course to the public debt.
d.
The lending terms (interest rates, duration, conditions of repayment)
led to the increase of the interest from 9 billion Euros annually at
the beginning of the decade, to 15 billion Euros in 2011, while
certain studies place the overall spending (interest and
amortization) which serve the public debt at 21.3% of the GDP in 2000
to 40% of the GDP in 2010.
e.
The impact of the capitalist crisis on the Greek economy.
The
outbreak of the crisis contributed to the increase of the annual
public deficit and the inflation of the public debt. On the one hand
through the reduction of tax income due to the reduction of economic
activity ( e.g. reduction of turn-over, closure of businesses,
increase of unemployment etc) and on the other hand due to the new
state support packages for the banks and other monopoly groups. The
impact of the crisis on the inflation of the public debt can be seen
throughout the whole of the EU, as in the last four years the overall
debt increased by 34%.
3.
It has been demonstrated that the anti-people political line of
bourgeois power in Greece, in coordination with the strategy of the
EU, amongst other things has increased the debt burden of the
country. It has also been demonstrated that no variation of bourgeois
management can cancel the manifestation of the crisis of
over-accumulated capital, nor can it create a pro-people way out from
it. The fraudulent promises of PASOK are being shattered by the
reality of the economic crisis which is deepening.
a.
In the first quarter of 2011, the reduction of the GDP reached 5.5%
in comparison with the same period in 2010. The Greek economy will
not even return to its pre-crisis levels next year in 2012.
b.
After the implementation of Memorandum 1, the public debt has already
increased from 127.1% of GDP in 2009 to 142.8% of GDP in 2010.
The
problem of the public debt does not only concern its level, but the
increased spending for its servicing, which in the final analysis
determines the inability of a state to pay, i.e. bankruptcy. The
government policies as expressed by Memorandum 1 and the Medium-term
Programme increase spending on interest and amortization for the
immediate future. According to the assessments of the European
Commission itself, spending on interest will reach 9.6% of the GDP in
2015, compared to 6.8% of the GDP today. In 2009 spending on interest
and amortization was 12 billion and 29 billion Euros correspondingly,
in 2010 13 billion and 20 billion Euros, while dramatic increases
have been predicted for the coming period, 16 billion and 36 billion
Euros in 2011, 17 billion and 33 billion Euros in 2012, in 2013 20
billion and 37 billion Euros, in 2014 22 billion and 48 billion
Euros, and in 2015 23.4 billion Euros and 33 billion Euros.
Even
bourgeois economists admit (e.g. the head of the Macroeconomic
Institute IMK in Germany) that the plan to reduce the debt through
the Memorandum and the suffocating austerity measures lead to a
vicious circle of increasing public debt and recession.
As
was admitted officially by the President of the European Council Van
Rompuy, the anxiety over the management of the public debt of the
indebted EU states concerns the reinforcement of the Euro as an
international reserve currency and the future of the Eurozone as a
whole, due the high level of interdependency of the economies. The
safeguarding of the Eurozone and the major lending groups is the
reason, despite the significant intra-bourgeois contradictions, there
was to begin with agreement on the European Stability Mechanism and
the payment of the installments of the loans to the indebted
countries.
What
worries the imperialist centres is not so much the size of the Greek
debt, but the difficulty of managing the chain reaction in countries
such as Spain and Italy, always with the goal of salvaging the
financial system, which is a fundamental mechanism for capitalist
accumulation.
4.
While the workers are already on the road to bankruptcy, relative and
absolute destitution, the member-states of the EU and the strong
groups from the financial sector are negotiating for a course of
controlled bankruptcy for the Greek economy. The struggle concerns
the distribution of the losses, the distribution of the necessary
depreciation of capital, while they all agree on the escalation of
the anti-people offensive.
The
plan to restructure the debt which is being proposed by the Union of
French Banks (FBF) provides for the transformation of 50% of the
current bond debt to new 30 year bonds, with an extortionate interest
rate ranging from 5.5 % in period of crisis to 8% in a phase of high
capitalist development.
Different
variations of state plans (e.g. Germany’s) propose that the owners
of state bonds (banks, institutional investors etc) accept a time
extension for the repayment of a part of the Greek state bonds, with
in exchange a high interest rate and as motivation the avoidance of
the losses which they would have had if the Greek state had
immediately gone bankrupt. The German and French governments seek to
minimize their state participation in the support mechanism of the
indebted states and to transfer a part of the burden of the
restructuring onto creditors-banking groups.
The
ECB and the European banking groups are pressing so that the partial
cancellation of the debt does not occur at their expense. They are
not satisfied with the offer of a high interest rate, because they
consider the repaying of the debt unlikely; they question the
likelihood of whether the proposed plans will succeed.
The
restructuring of the debt is being promoted by American circles,
which intervene in the Euro-Dollar competition, as international
reserve currencies. Now a race is going on between the French and
German banks to get rid off Greek state bonds and load them on to the
European Central Bank to begin with. Germany is utilizing the
negotiations to pose the dilemma “stricter harmonization of
economic policy in the whole of the Eurozone or a narrower and more
compact Eurozone.”
5.
In any case, the workers can expect nothing positive from the outcome
of this particular struggle. Whatever the result of this struggle
between various sections of capital and imperialist states, the
offensive of the ruling class will continue and escalate in order to
ensure cheaper labour power, the acceleration of the restructurings
and privatizations, the selling off of public property to the
monopoly groups.
Especially
in relation to the repaying of the public debt the various bourgeois
proposals only differ as to when and how the workers will foot the
bill. E.g. With the extension of the period for the repaying of the
bonds, the workers will pay more over a longer period of time (if the
interest rate remains stable and even more so if the interest rate
increases).
But
even if an immediate reduction of the high level of debt of the Greek
state is achieved, this will simply lead to new tax exemptions and
state backing for big capital and not measures to satisfy the needs
of the people. It will pose yet again the process of increasing the
debt. The dilemma of the process is not a real one for the peoples’
forces. Moreover, the state revenues are sufficient to pay the
salaries and pensions. They are not sufficient for the creditors. The
gross revenues of the regular budget were 48.5 billion Euros in 2009
and 51.1 billion Euros in 2010, while spending on salaries-pensions-
subsidies to the social- security funds was 42.3 billion Euros in
2009 and 37.9 billion Euros in 2010. The payments on the interest
alone were 12.3 billion in 2009 and 13.2 billion in 2010.
Today,
at the same time when the government is invoking the danger of
bankruptcy, it continues to provide support packages to the banks,
its exorbitant military spending for NATO, it reduces taxation on
undistributed profits etc. The guarantees of the Greek public sector
to the banks during the crisis have reached 108 billion Euros. In
2010, Greece bought six frigates from France (2.5 billion Euros) and
six submarines from Germany (5 billion Euros).
The
workers must not expect any pro-people way out from the processes
which are related to the formation of a new more effective management
formula and the achievement of a new temporary compromise between
sections of the bourgeois class and within the imperialist alliances.
All have endorsed the Pact for the Euro (the Covenant of
Competitiveness) and the strategic directions of “Europe 2020”
which aim at securing cheaper labour power in the EU, to reinforce
the monopolies in the competition in the international market.
All
promote the “liberalization” of strategically important sectors
(energy, telecommunications etc), restructurings, so that they find a
suitable outlet for the satisfactory profitability of the
over-accumulated capital, which are today stagnating in the EU.
For
this reason, “New Democracy”(ND) has voted for 38 governmental
bills and LAOS voted for Memorandum I. For this reason, ND and PASOK
can hold discussion about joint governments, as they have the
programmatic basis for it, the “continuous memorandum” which will
apply to all the EU member-states. For this reason their sister
parties jointly support the anti-people offensive against Portugal
and Ireland.
For
this reason, ND demands the acceleration of the implementation of the
basic goals of the Medium-term Programme and voted for the majority
of the clauses concerning privatizations, the sale of public assets,
the lifting the restrictions on private investments which protect the
environment, the reduction of salaries in the public sector which
will contribute to their further decrease in the private sector.
The
“renegotiation” which ND demands is related to new measures to
strengthen big capital, such as the new reduction in the rate of
taxation on undistributed profits, at a time when PASOK has already
lowered it 20% and in Germany the level is 30%. It is related to the
new state support packages which will lead to a new bleeding of the
people’s income and the exemption of businesses from the employer
contributions to the social security funds.
The
positions of Synaspismos/European Left Party concerning the
separation of the public debt into legal and illegal–onerous
sections as well as concerning the possibility of a transformation of
the EU in favour of the people are deeply mistaken. These positions
leave the door open for the people to pay for the crisis and the
biggest part of the “legal” public debt for which it has no
responsibility. The positions concerning a pro-people transformation
of the EU and a European federation conceal the class content that
the imperialist interstate alliance of the EU objectively has.
Irrespective of the form that the EU will take, its reactionary
strategy against the working people and its involvement in
imperialist interventions and wars cannot change.
Various
components of the opportunist current seek to deceive the people
arguing that there allegedly exist painless solutions which are in
its interests without a direction of conflict and rupture with the
power of monopolies. Various components of SYRIZA and ANTARSYA
(opportunists’ coalitions) promote the exit from the Eurozone and
the cancellation of the debt without touching the power of capital as
a pro-people solution and a link for an anti-capitalist rallying of
forces. In addition, certain “national-patriotic” forces talk
about leaving the Eurozone and remaining in the EU. Thus, the
inflated public debt and the accession to the Eurozone are
misleadingly presented as the main causes of the offensive against
the people. Thus, the demolition of workers’ rights both in the
states outside the Eurozone, such as Sweden and Britain as well as in
Germany which is not heavily indebted proves that the main culprit is
the capitalist path of development as a whole. The line of struggle
that the opportunist current promotes is in fact an alternative form
of management within the framework of the system which –in the best
case- can contribute to a temporary recovery of capitalist
profitability. Nevertheless, even if the restoration of a higher rate
of capitalist development is achieved this does not go hand in hand
with the people’s prosperity but runs contrary to it. The examples
of Argentina and Ecuador prove that the cessation of payments and the
currency devaluation were followed by new sacrifices of the working
people in order to reinforce the competitiveness of the economy and
boost exports.
The
solution for the workers is not to return to the past, to the
protectionism of the capitalist economy at a national level but to
move forward to people’s power, to socialism.
The
opportunist proposals are embellished with the misleading appeal to
the people calling it on to overthrow the occupation of the IMF and
troika. Thus, they hide the active role of the Greek ruling class in
the offensive against the rights and the income of the people. They
conceal the interweaving of national and international capital. They
present the concession of certain sovereign rights by the ruling
class, which serves the reinforcement of its power and the
safeguarding of its profitability, as a new phenomenon.
The
workers must struggle against the economic dominance of the
monopolies, the capitalist state and the imperialist alliances, such
as the EU. They should not be trapped into the impasses and the
dilemmas of capitalist power.
The
people must organize its counterattack in order to repel the worst.
Its coordinated activity should spread everywhere rejecting every
form of bourgeois management. It should demand that big capital pays
for the social security funds and not the people’s families. It
should come into conflict with the political line that demolishes
labour and social security rights, reduces salaries and enables the
direct utilization of public property by the monopoly groups.
The
people must act so as to change the correlation of forces everywhere,
it should struggle along with the KKE in the unions, in the trade
union movement, it should be organized against the capitalist
institutions which oppress and exploit it. Only in this way can the
weakening of every capitalist government begin, of every
parliamentary majority as well as the conflict with the laws and the
violence of exploitation.
The
time has come for the capitalist class and its political staff that
use the bogey of bankruptcy to feel true fear. If the government
actually resorted to borrowing because it cannot pay salaries and
pensions then the overthrow of the monopolies power must be
accelerated. The development path of the people’s economy,
socialism can pay salaries and pensions utilizing the rich domestic
natural resources, ancelling the debt and establishing international
agreements of mutual benefit through the disengagement from the EU
and NATO.
So
there is a solution: “disengagement from the EU and cancellation of
the debt with people’s power”.
It
is time for the labour movement to come together with the radical
movement of the self-employed and the farmers with a line of struggle
that will have as its final outcome the sweeping away of the rotten
and bankrupted system of exploitation.
Conclusion
So
it is not a “contradiction” of sectarism towards a initiative of
unity, but a fundamental difference in strategy: A (very “left”
formulated) REFORMIST strategy, at one side which can have only the
objective to recuperate al anger against capitalism while objectively
PROTECTING its continous existence, against at the other side a
fundamental revolutionary strategy of mobilising the working people
to overcome capitalism by revolution. It is true that I have
personnally, formulated critic on the (as I see it) to generalising formulation of that
revolutionary strategy of the KKE, which could be regarded as a form
of dogmatism. Examples of my critic to the KKE you can read here.....
But I am pretty sure that internal discussion and
evaluation/selfcritic is going on in the KKE, so that someday my
critics will be outdated....At the other hand it is possible that I have myself to review my former points of view about the KKE.
