******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Your reply was thoughtful and, a welcome relief from the rank TINA-inspired apologetics of some people on this list serve and elsewhere. So let me try to answer in a thoughtful way. You seem to accept all the substantive criticisms I make of the Tsipras leadership, and agree that they were not compelled to do what they did, but want to characterize the their failure as a mistake as opposed to a betrayal. But my use of the word "betrayal" is more than mere indignation and venting. There is an important political reason why I employ the term. If it was obvious to me that the attitude of the Troika would be more or less what it turned out to be before negotiations even began (and I am no genius), why did it never seem to occur to the Syriza leadership, even as one possible outcome, to be taken into account and planned for ? It seems to me that more was involved here than an error in judgment. If, moreover, the leadership were now or at some point in the near future to hang their heads in shame and admit to their disastrous errors in response to criticism, I, in turn, would be inclined to accept your criticism of my harsh strictures. But let me venture another prediction: Tsipras and Co. will not admit the error of their ways in any criticism-self-criticism session of the Syriza Central Committee or at any Party Congress. The same political predispositions that prevented them from entertaining the possibility of a Grexit in the first place will now impel them (no doubt with more hand-wringing) to defend the course they have chosen, to continue upon it, and to defeat and perhaps expel those in their party who oppose it. I make this prediction because I think that the left-reformism you speak of, more than just a set of mistaken ideas, is closer to a class ideology based upon the position of middling layers (small business people, professionals of various kinds, union bureaucrats and party politicians) in capitalist society. And it is, unfortunately, these layers that are most prominent in the Western left today. The petty bourgeoisie (and the labor bureaucrats, who essentially share their outlook) are genuinely horrified by the ravages of neoliberal capitalism, but not to the point where they are willing to contemplate a decisive break with bourgeois institutions or determined popular struggle against them. Their in-between class position makes them too close to the big bourgeoisie to entertain any "extremist" solutions that might put their own social status in peril. And their social position also dictates their choice of means. They think they can abate the horrors of neoliberalism through shrewdness, game-theory based strategies, clever negotiating tactics and appeals to the humanity of the ruling classes, to whom they feel a certain kinship when all is said and done. The prospect of all-out class struggle fills them with foreboding and dread. They will always capitulate before embarking on that path. Having said that, I should also add that it is hardly enough just to say it. The left and the working class must be convinced that what I have said is true. But to do that will require political realignment, which will in turn necessitate a hard factional struggle against committed reformists who have no intention (apart from perhaps a few well-motivated radicals) of abandoning the methods that reflect their class position. In the present political juncture, I don't think what separates revolutionaries from reformists is whether or not one calls for socialism. I think both revolutionaries and reformists must now make demands which one can call Keynesian. The fight must take place over the methods (class-struggle or negotiations) for achieving those demands, and that class-struggle methods could very well open the way to going beyond demands for relief measures. But I think the fight for class-struggle methods in the left has to be a hard one, leading to a clear political differentiation. I don't believe the left-reformists in this fight are about to change their spots, and we must be prepared for that as much as the left should have been prepared for the Troika's hard line. Jim Creegan On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Michael Karadjis <mkarad...@gmail.com> wrote: > *From:* James Creegan <sectaria...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 18, 2015 4:25 AM > > I have had just about all can abide of statements to the effect that > Tsipras and Co. were "forced" to capitulate or "beaten into submission". > Were they forced to stand on a platform of ending austerity, knowing all > the while that they would mitigate austerity only to the extent that the > "institutions" found it acceptable? > > They had illusions that they could end austerity, or at least mitigate it > to a great extent, while staying in the eurozone. These were left-reformist > illusions. At the same time, they also believed their mandate was to end > austerity but to try to stay in the eurozone, as that is what most polls > seemed to indicate was the view of those who elected them. They therefore > put up a 5-month battle to try do the impossible. It is hard to fault them > for trying, and most give them the credit for fighting hard for most of > that time. > > Aside from illusions, it is also possible that they expected some kind of > moblisation of solidarity among working people in Europe to pressure their > governments. The fact that this barely occurred at all is, in my opinion, a > useful thing to discuss the meaning of. > > But I agree that in the end this was impossible. But having consistent > illusions, and fighting as hard as they could within that framework – and > what they saw as impossible alternatives – is different to “betraying”. > > I didn’t say they were “forced,” but “beaten into submission” is a good > description of what went on. The reports spoke of Tsipras alone and > sleepless being badgered hour after hour by Eurocats taking turns, a > process likened to “mental waterboarding,” while being presented with the > alternative of a total cut-off of ECB funds and a disorderly unprepared > grexit. > > I definitely don’t support Tsipras’ decision and from the outset of this > discussion I have said my sympathies all along have been with the Syriza > Left Platform. But that doesn’t stop me from recognising that he was forced > to make a decision between arsenic and cyanide at that moment, and as I > wouldn’t like to be in that position, I see it as futile calling people > that are traitors. Note that even in her fantastic speech to parliament > rejecting Tsipras’ capitulation, Zoe Konstantinopoulou used the kindest > words about Tsipras himself and the unequal struggle he had confronted ( > http://www.analyzegreece.gr/topics/greece-europe/item/288-zoe-konstantopoulou-n-to-ultimatums-n-to-the-memoranda-of-servitude) > while voting against him: > > “The prime minister spoke with > honesty, bravery, boldness and selflessness. He is the youngest of all > Greek prime ministers and he has fought as much as any of his > predecessors for the democratic and social rights of the people and of > the younger generations. He represented and represents our generation, > and he gives us hope. I honor him and will always honor him for this > stand and this choice. > > “And at the same time, I consider it my binding responsibility, as > president of the parliament, not to close my eyes or to pretend that I > do not understand blackmail. I cannot make it easy. I could never vote > for and legalize the content of this agreement. I think the same is true > and would apply to the Prime Minister, who is > today blackmailed with a weapon threatening the survival of his people.” > > > > Were they "forced" to oppose in their central committee Left Platform > Resolutions calling for a Plan B, and greater emphasis on mass > mobilization? > > No, they were not forced. This was their error all along, as I wrote here > the first day of this latest discussion. The lack of a Plan B was due to > their “Europeanist” politics. There ahs been much discussion on this list > of whether preparing a Plan B within that time frame would have made any > difference or is even feasible. That is a useful, real world discussion to > be having. It is much more useful than denouncing betrayers, however > fulfilling you find the latter. But yes, IMO, not having developed any Plan > B along the way did make theor choices at the end of the process much more > stark. > > > Were they "forced" to call a referendum, attempt to surrender to the > Troika before it was even held, and then do exactly what the voters > overwhelmingly rejected? > > No. The move you refer to just before the referendum, and just after, were > disastrous, inexplicable errors of Tsipras. They make no sense. I think by > then he was defeated. > > > Are they now being "forced" to ram an austerity bill through parliament > and act as accomplices to the Troika in driving their people deeper into > poverty and national humiliation? > > Not sure about the continual quote marks around the word “forced” since > you’re not quoting me, but of course I agree with the Syriza deputies that > voted against the new colonial memorandum. The reality is, however, that by > then the real world choices offered up by the Troika were both horrendous. > Part of the reason was the lack of any planning of a Plan B, but by then it > was too late. Much as I know which side, from afar, I would vote with, when > the choices are that horrible I don’t feel any pleasure in denouncing those > who I think have made the writing decision as betrayers. I’d much rather > focus on the enemy that imposed these choices on Syriza. > > > If all else failed, they could at least have had the decency to resign! > > Yes, if there are no alternatives at this moment, I’d prefer Syriza to > resign and allow the right/”centre” to carry out the new austerity > disaster. But I don’t live in Greece. Really, it seems to me there are > enormous issues to take in to account before doing something like that, and > it is people over there, including those in Syriza who voted against the > bill, who are the ones to be thinking these issues through, not people who > think they are very smart on the other side of the world. > > > All of the things they are now doing they are doing of their own free > will, and must be "forced" to take the rap. There is no "constructive > criticism" of betrayal! > > Whatever. There can be plenty of constructive criticism of Syriza’s course > over the last 5 months, I’ve never been part of the “no criticism” brigade, > but no, sorry, I still think Syriza is a big party with lots of great > cadres and the support of the masses, who were given few real world > choices, and so I think discussion, including criticism, is still more > useful if conducted in a comradely way (eg, in the way Zoe > Konstantinopoulou does). > > Some are saying the opposite of you, that what’s done is done, now we only > have to think of the future struggles and not worry about critiquing what > has occurred and why. I disagree. Of course, the main issue now is the > future struggle, as I said in the very post you attacked. But we also learn > nothing if we don’t engage in sensible discussion about what failed and > why. In my opinion, the best discussion we are having is about the actual > real world possibilities of an orderly, socialist-oriented grexit,with some > excellent articles being sent to the list about possible alternatives. This > discussion is useful for both critiquing the past and for the struggles of > the future. > > Far more useful than learning from you that “there is no constructive > criticism of betrayal.” > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
