Re: [Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * OK, my two cents. I’ve largely kept out of this for most of the year, not out of any grand illusions in the Tsipras-Varoufakis leadership (really, Synaspismos was always reformist to its very bones, but it was the momentum of the split within Synaspismos, the left becoming the core of Syriza and the right becoming the disgusting sect Dimar, that seemed to offer hope), but more from the good old anti-sectarian viewpoint. I am very sympathetic to the idea that Syriza was negotiating between an almost impossible rock and hard place, and given that I wouldn’t have wanted to be in their place, I felt that premature bouts of righteous criticism coming from those of us far far away from the action was not just pointless but presumptious and posturing in the circumstances. That said, my sympathies have always been with the arguments put forward by the Left Tendency, by people like Kouvelakis and groups like DEA. My main difference with groups in the West supporting them, such as DEA’s ISO/Salt allies, was, for the reasons above, I thought there was little point in shouting it loud, and I guess I gave some more credit than they did to Tsipras in particular as a kind of honest radical left “reformist”, for want of a better word. Faced with what is unquestionably outright capitulation in the face of our momentous class victory on July 5, it seems to me the only road we can now support is the road of “rupture” and grexit combined with rapid bank nationalisation and more thorough capital controls. I don’t mean to say that is going to be easy. But for those non-economists among us, we are faced with some very highly qualified left economic experts saying a grexit would be very difficult but still feasible (I take it as a given that we are talking about grexit with a clear class direction), and others saying it would be impossibly catastrophic. Perhaps what we need is good hard discussion about this real issue, rather than mere denunciations of betrayal, no matter how justified they may seem. If it is correct that “socialist-oriented grexit” is just feasible, then I can’t see how it can’t be better than the starving masses being driven further into impossible austerity, at least eventually, and no worse in the short term. It may be off the table if Syriza splits and the right wing tries to implement the memorandum in alliance with Pasok/ND/Potami, but if so the struggle led by the Syriza left and the working masses would be the only salvation. If it is correct that any kind of grexit is impossible and catastrophic, then perhaps the arguments being put forward by Hans Ehrbar here are the best that can be said in the circumstances. But in that case, the Syriza leadership is not blameless for the disaster: 1. If there is nothing left in Greek banks, and so bank nationalisation nationalises air, and so there really is no short-term alternative to capitulation, then frankly the elementary democratic measures of bank nationalisation (done by plenty of ordinary capitalist governments) and rigorous capital controls should have been implemented much earlier. 2. If a grexit is ultimately necessary in order for an elected left government just to carry out its most minimum program it was elected on – and it seems obvious that it is – then Syriza should have been both carefully preparing for the option behind the scenes, and having a frank public debate with the Greek people about it. If Greece at this moment is economically, institutionally and politically unprepared for grexit, then part of the reason is that the Syriza leadership apparently believed its own spin; of course, they were right to try to negotiate with the troika to the bitter end, to try to get the best possible short-term deal, and to demonstrate to the Greek people that they were trying to fulfil their contradictory mandate (ending austerity and staying in Eurozone). Given class reality, however, it was always extremely unlikely that this double mandate could be achieved (only massive pressure by the European working classes could have done this, and let’s face it, it didn’t happen). Surely, if Tsipras-Varoufakis understood this class reality, they would have combined the necessary tactic of honest negotiations with realistic political/economic preparation for the (likely) second option. On the other hand, if they honestly believed they could talk good sense into the EU/IMF blood-suckers, then I guess they wouldn’t prepare – as seems to be what happened. Likewise, with the referendum: it is quite true that it didn’t give an *explicit* mandate for Syriza to leave the Eurozone
Re: [Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * Tsipras: “We are confronted with crucial decisions. We got a mandate to bring a better deal than the ultimatum that the Eurogroup gave us, but we weren't given a mandate to take Greece out of the eurozone,” So this is the crux of the matter. What Tsipras refuses to see is that the #OXI was a no to more austerity in general, not one particular version of it. Oxi was a rejection of the whole process of humiliation over the last 5 months of negotiation with the troika the last 5 years of economic barbarity. Moreover the referendum was one of the most stunning working class votes for decades - not to recognise and build on that is criminal. Tsipras was at last honest to the electorate in the week leading up to the referendum. Now he should say that the troika makes it impossible to both oppose austerity stay in the eurozone. Tsipras can try and sell his version of austerity - but when his administration sends the police to smash up the next round of anti-austerity protests, he is objectively the class enemy. Thats not some form of abuse but just the reality when you join forces with ND Pasok remnants to impose a new round of austerity privatisation The Left platform has effectively split but whether it stays to try and overthrow the centrists, or it looks to make a new formation with Anatarsya - the heart of the street movement (I have no hope for the KKE) remains to be seen _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * On 11/07/2015 09:51 πμ, Anthony Hartin via Marxism wrote: The Left platform has effectively split but whether it stays to try and overthrow the centrists, or it looks to make a new formation with Anatarsya - the heart of the street movement (I have no hope for the KKE) remains to be seen Yet it is a pitiable harvest for the comrades of the revolutionary left inside Syriza. DEA, for example, has spent 15 years inside SYRIZA to obtain just two negative votes against a (parliamentary) Coup d'état which transformed the 61,3% of the working class NO to a parliamentary majority of 88,7% in favor of YES on the same question. The irony of the history is that the SYRIZA government is about to be the first so far left government to fall because of its OWN Coup d'état! JA _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * ioannis aposperites wrote: ... The irony of the history is that the SYRIZA government is about to be the first so far left government to fall because of its OWN Coup d'état! The other great irony is that it may be the troika itself which prevents Tsipras selling out despite all his efforts. As Varoufakis argues, the Germans want to crucify Greece to serve as a lesson of discipline to the French From the Frankfurter Allgemeine: ' The EU, IMF and ECB are “cautiously positive”, says the report but they want any new bailout programme to contain “structural benchmarks, milestones and quantitative benchmarks” for the future. And the reforms are not enough to meet primary surplus targets given the “significant deterioration in macroeconomic and financial conditions. ' _ 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
[Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * Not sure if Andrew Pollack is misreading Paul Mason, but to me, Paul Mason made sense. Here is my own take on it. I do understand why the Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone. The Euro has strong symbolic value for the unity of the European people. The possibility to travel without having to go through customs and without having to go to the currency exchange window is a great unifying experience for the ordinary person. (1) What was the point of the Referendum? I think the referendum should be taken at face value. Tsipras needed to know whether the Greek masses were willing to accept the conditions of the Institutions. This would make a difference for further negotiations. I don't think he expected to lose, but he assumed that there was a good probability he might lose. He needed the referendum exactly because he did not know whether the answer would be yes or no. In case of a yes vote, others would continue the negotiations. I think the no vote was an expression of confidence, that the Greeks knew that their government was doing the best they could to fulfill their electoral mandate. (2) Why did Varoufakis resign? Again I think the official story is basically correct. After the resounding no vote, Tsipras expected that the Institutions would see themselves forced to make more concessions. And as an ice breaker, Tsipras sacrificed Varoufakis in order to get the negotiations going again. Not because Varoufakis did something wrong, but because Varoufakis knew too much; he embarrassed the negotiators on the other side by being the better economist. Varoufakis showed to the whole world that the negotiaions were not about economics but about power. His latest Guardian op-ed http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/10/germany-greek-pain-debt-relief-grexit is another proof of a much more penetrating insight into the process and history than available from the other negotiators. (3) Now the important thing is the reaction of the Institutions to the Referendum and to Tsipras's good-will gesture of withdrawing Varoufakis. Their reaction was: nothing. Not a single conciliatory gesture, instead they insisted on the deadlock before the referendum and said it is up to the Greeks. This ultimate intransigence showed their disdain for democracy and also showed that they did not want Greece in the Euro zone any more. Perhaps Merkel had maneuvered herself into a position where she was not able to make concessions any more, or perhaps---Varoufakis is not the only one to say this about Schauble---Schauble had not been negotiating in good faith, he wanted the negotiations to fail. (4) What did Tsipras do when he, and everybody else, saw the true position of the Institutions? He saw the expulsion of Greece coming and he did not want it blamed on Syriza. He did not have the mandate to leave the Euro, and I think it is also strategically wrong for socialists to voluntarily leave the Euro or the EU, they should push the envelope and do as much as they can do inside the Euro and EU. Therefore he made an offer giving the Institutions all they wanted, in order to see if under these conditions the Institutions would grant Greece a reduction or re-structuring of the debt in such a way that this austerity would have at least a chance of success. (5) Did Tsipras's gambit pay off? Der Spiegel, which until yesterday preached how the collapse of the Greek economy is the fault of the Greeks, who were demanding too much, is suddenly full of revelations how much pressure the US was exerting on Merkel to give the Greeks a break. This give Merkel a face-saving way out: she does not have to cave to the lazy Greeks but she has to respect the will of the US. So I think there is a good chance Greece will stay in the Euro, but this is not at all certain. Here are the two possibilities as I see them: If Greece remains in the Eurozone at the cost of further austerity measures, then this is the loss of one skirmish but not of the war. Syriza tried to get the best outcome possible while respecting the will of the voters to stay within the Eurozone. Syriza did not betray the voters. They tried everything possible to carry out the mandate of the voters and were defeated because the enemy was stronger or more ruthless than they, and because their own mandate, eliminating austerity while staying in the Eurozone, was somewhat contradictory. And the struggle continues. Despite the fact that they were forced to accede to austerity demands in the end, their honorable and courageous battle and their respect for democracy will encourage the voters in Spain, Ireland and elsewhere to vote for their own left
[Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * Sheldon writes: And respect for democracy by pissing on the NO vote? WTF??? Can you spell 'Orwell'? The institutions, the troika, was pissing on the NO vote, by not reconsidering their hard line, their insistence that Greece follows their rules just for the principle of it. On the contrary, they tightened the noose on the Greek banks. This forced Syriza to re-think their negotiation strategy. Syriza themselves were not pissing on the no vote. They involved their constituents in the process as much as they could, by organizing the referendum. This is why I am saying they have respect for democracy. They did not have to call the referendum. But it is not in their power to bring about a positive outcome because of the No vote if they are stonewalled by the troika. Yes, Syriza had a choice: either staying in the Eurozone with austerity impositions, or quitting the Euro. They chose staying in the Eurozone. This has the strategic advantages I described. Besides, this was something for which they got support from the IMF. there is a good chance there will be some debt restructuring. Quitting the Eurozone without preparation would have been an invitation for Golden Dawn, and I don't think it would have led Spain and others to emulate Syriza. On the contrary. It would have been a deterrent for others to follow Syriza's path. That is why Schauble wanted them to quit the Eurozone. And preparing for a Grexit would have undermined Syriza's negotiations and would have been against their mandate. The Greek voters did not want to leave the Eurozone. I think Syriza's policies are defensible, they pretty much got out of the situation as much as they could have. This is just one skirmish, more is to follow, and both the Greek voters and Syriza are learning a lot from this. H.E. _ 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
[Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * Sheldon writes: There is more honor in quitting than in being fired. I don't think the membership in the Eurozone should be compared with a wage labor relationship. Despite its systemic flaws, the eurozone is an attempt to fully implement the European Union, a unity of nations. Getting kicked out of the eurozone because one tries to turn it into a more democratic institution is in my view more honorable than quitting the eurozone. It shows more solidarity with the other nations which the euro monetary policy is putting under pressure. Syriza did not get everything they wanted, but they created quite a stir everywhere in the world. Quitting after such an auspicious beginning indicates that one is not willing to endure the long-haul struggle. H.E. _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: This is just one skirmish, more is to follow, and both the Greek voters and Syriza are learning a lot from this. Alas, I think Hans’ apologia for the wholesale capitulation of the Tsipras leadership - the culmination of a five month negotiation with the troika which was more fiasco thsn “skirmish - will be echoed by a majority of Syriza supporters and parliamentarians, including some hitherto identified with the party left. They will loyally and dutifully close ranks behind the party and its leadership and current direction, consoling themselves, like Hans, that the retreat from the party program is really, somehow, an advance. A substantial minority, however, will draw a more honest balance sheet of the government’s record to date and recognize that it does represent an advance over the preceding New Democracy administration on the key issues. Neither has secured significant debt relief; both have acquiesced to demands for labour market “reforms” designed to weaken the unions; both accept rigid fiscal “targets” to constrain government spending and job creation; both accept major increases in consumption taxes; both accept further cuts to pension benefits, etc. It is undeniably the case that the balance of forces has been overwhelmingly weighted against Syriza and tiny, embattled Greece. But the Syriza leadership full well understood this when it vied for governmental power, and its disillusioned and embittered supporters may be forgiven for asking: “If the objective circumstances simply don’t allow a left wing party to effect any meaningful change and, in fact, lead to further economic deterioration and erosion of living standards, what is the point of electing it in the first place”? _ 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
[Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * Sheldon writes: There is more honor in quitting than in being fired. I don't think the membership in the Eurozone should be compared with a wage labor relationship. Despite its systemic flaws, the eurozone is an attempt to fully implement the European Union, a unity of nations. Getting kicked out of the eurozone because one tries to turn it into a more democratic institution is in my view more honorable than quitting the eurozone. It shows more solidarity with the other nations which the euro monetary policy is putting under pressure. Syriza did not get everything they wanted, but they created quite a stir everywhere in the world. Quitting after such an auspicious beginning indicates that one is not willing to endure the long-haul struggle. H.E. _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * I think the no vote was an expression of confidence, that the Greeks knew that their government was doing the best they could to fulfill their electoral mandate. No, it was not. It was a rejection of the Troika's austerity demands According to reliable news reports, both Tsipras and the referendum's wording underscored that. If the Institutions do not accept Syriza's offer, then it will be clear to all that Greece did not leave the Eurozone voluntarily but was kicked out. There is more honor in quitting than in being fired. Despite the fact that they were forced to accede to austerity demands in the end, their honorable and courageous battle and their respect for democracy will encourage the voters in Spain, Ireland and elsewhere to vote for their own left parties. They were not forced to accede - there were alternatives within a Grexit maneuver that would make Greece survivable for the masses. We've seen here on this forum links to articles by economists both Greek and American as to how this would be possible. And respect for democracy by pissing on the NO vote? WTF??? Can you spell 'Orwell'? Coming up next...Tzipras invites Golden Dawn into the government. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:05 PM, he5513--- via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: 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. * Not sure if Andrew Pollack is misreading Paul Mason, but to me, Paul Mason made sense. Here is my own take on it. I do understand why the Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone. The Euro has strong symbolic value for the unity of the European people. The possibility to travel without having to go through customs and without having to go to the currency exchange window is a great unifying experience for the ordinary person. (1) What was the point of the Referendum? I think the referendum should be taken at face value. Tsipras needed to know whether the Greek masses were willing to accept the conditions of the Institutions. This would make a difference for further negotiations. I don't think he expected to lose, but he assumed that there was a good probability he might lose. He needed the referendum exactly because he did not know whether the answer would be yes or no. In case of a yes vote, others would continue the negotiations. I think the no vote was an expression of confidence, that the Greeks knew that their government was doing the best they could to fulfill their electoral mandate. (2) Why did Varoufakis resign? Again I think the official story is basically correct. After the resounding no vote, Tsipras expected that the Institutions would see themselves forced to make more concessions. And as an ice breaker, Tsipras sacrificed Varoufakis in order to get the negotiations going again. Not because Varoufakis did something wrong, but because Varoufakis knew too much; he embarrassed the negotiators on the other side by being the better economist. Varoufakis showed to the whole world that the negotiaions were not about economics but about power. His latest Guardian op-ed http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/10/germany-greek-pain-debt-relief-grexit is another proof of a much more penetrating insight into the process and history than available from the other negotiators. (3) Now the important thing is the reaction of the Institutions to the Referendum and to Tsipras's good-will gesture of withdrawing Varoufakis. Their reaction was: nothing. Not a single conciliatory gesture, instead they insisted on the deadlock before the referendum and said it is up to the Greeks. This ultimate intransigence showed their disdain for democracy and also showed that they did not want Greece in the Euro zone any more. Perhaps Merkel had maneuvered herself into a position where she was not able to make concessions any more, or perhaps---Varoufakis is not the only one to say this about Schauble---Schauble had not been negotiating in good faith, he wanted the negotiations to fail. (4) What did Tsipras do when he, and everybody else, saw the true position of the Institutions? He saw the expulsion of Greece coming and he did not want it blamed on Syriza. He did not have the mandate to leave the Euro, and I think it is also strategically wrong for socialists to voluntarily leave the Euro or the EU, they should push the envelope and do as much as they can do inside
Re: [Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: This is just one skirmish, more is to follow, and both the Greek voters and Syriza are learning a lot from this. Alas, I think Hans’ apologia for the wholesale capitulation of the Tsipras leadership - the culmination of a five month negotiation with the troika which was more fiasco thsn “skirmish - will be echoed by a majority of Syriza supporters and parliamentarians, including some hitherto identified with the party left. They will loyally and dutifully close ranks behind the party and its leadership and current direction, consoling themselves, like Hans, that the retreat from the party program is really, somehow, an advance. A substantial minority, however, will draw a more honest balance sheet of the government’s record to date and recognize that it does not represent an advance over the preceding New Democracy administration on the key issues. Neither has secured significant debt relief; both have acquiesced to demands for labour market “reforms” designed to weaken the unions; both accept rigid fiscal “targets” to constrain government spending and job creation; both accept major increases in consumption taxes; both accept further cuts to pension benefits, etc. It is undeniably the case that the balance of forces has been overwhelmingly weighted against Syriza and tiny, embattled Greece. But the Syriza leadership full well understood this when it vied for governmental power, and its disillusioned and embittered supporters may be forgiven for asking: “If the objective circumstances simply don’t allow a left wing party to effect any meaningful change and, in fact, lead to further economic deterioration and erosion of living standards, what is the point of electing it in the first place”? _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * Columns like this are why I don't read Paul Mason. I remember months ago reading something by him (don't remember the issue, but that really doesn't matter) and saying to myself, this guy's just a half-smart, not-too-radical commentator, why waste my time? But it's a damned shame his self-satisfied support for the wisdom of Tsipras can be so misleading in a crisis like this. (If someone can convince me I'm misreading his column I'm all ears.) On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Dayne Goodwin via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: 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. * What was the point of Tsipras referendum? by Paul Mason Channel 4 News blog, England, July 10 http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/4131/4131 The new Greek government proposals, published late last night are clearly based on those submitted by Jean Claude Juncker last Thursday, before the referendum. It’s left many Greeks frustrated, asking: what was the point of the referendum? It’s left many foreign observers saying the same. Here are the most obvious answers: First, the Greek government’s hope that a referendum mandate would allow swift negotiations with their creditors, and relaxation of terms, did not materialise. Instead a renewed ultimatum materialised. If they can’t meet it, the ECB and EU will collapse the Greek banking system and throw them out of the Eurozone. Indeed, one of the main “achievements” of the referendum was to flush out that clear threat, from politicians who had never admitted it before. The Greek government has no mandate to leave the Euro, as the 61% vote No last Sunday was clearly won as a “stay in and fight” mandate. Secondly, the deal makes no economic sense without debt relief. The referendum, combined with US pressure, seems to have prompted key European voices, including Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk, [to] accede in principle to the need for debt reprofiling – which is a sneaky way of writing off debts. Thirdly, it is still redistributive on balance. Syriza can still sell this as a very different programme from those previously designed by the conservative led coalition. 29% corporation tax is one example. However it does make concessions on pensions and on VAT on the islands, which currently enjoy a discount. Fourth, it is the work of Euclid Tsakalatos. Tsakalatos, as I’ve been explaining since mid-January, is existentially committed to two things: Euro membership and the use of government to foster widespread modernisation and social change. He wants to stay in power – not lose it to a government of “technocrats”. Fifth, the deal comes with a request for a loan to make Greece’s debt repayments over the next three years. If someone else pays your debts for three years, that is a very fiscally beneficial thing, and leaves Greece with money to spend it did not have. Most importantly, this is not a done deal. If it gets through the Greek parliament and is then thrown back into the Greeks’ faces it will solidify and prepare Greek society for Grexit. It will most likely prompt a few resignations from Syriza, but I am told the Left Platform in Syriza will mainly accept it. But getting it through parliament is not the problem. Getting it through the EU is the problem – and it’s left many Greeks still predicting this is the last gamble before Grexit. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com _ 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
[Marxism] Paul Mason What was the point of Tsipras referendum?
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. * Not sure if Andrew Pollack is misreading Paul Mason, but to me, Paul Mason made sense. Here is my own take on it. I do understand why the Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone. The Euro has strong symbolic value for the unity of the European people. The possibility to travel without having to go through customs and without having to go to the currency exchange window is a great unifying experience for the ordinary person. (1) What was the point of the Referendum? I think the referendum should be taken at face value. Tsipras needed to know whether the Greek masses were willing to accept the conditions of the Institutions. This would make a difference for further negotiations. I don't think he expected to lose, but he assumed that there was a good probability he might lose. He needed the referendum exactly because he did not know whether the answer would be yes or no. In case of a yes vote, others would continue the negotiations. I think the no vote was an expression of confidence, that the Greeks knew that their government was doing the best they could to fulfill their electoral mandate. (2) Why did Varoufakis resign? Again I think the official story is basically correct. After the resounding no vote, Tsipras expected that the Institutions would see themselves forced to make more concessions. And as an ice breaker, Tsipras sacrificed Varoufakis in order to get the negotiations going again. Not because Varoufakis did something wrong, but because Varoufakis knew too much; he embarrassed the negotiators on the other side by being the better economist. Varoufakis showed to the whole world that the negotiaions were not about economics but about power. His latest Guardian op-ed http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/10/germany-greek-pain-debt-relief-grexit is another proof of a much more penetrating insight into the process and history than available from the other negotiators. (3) Now the important thing is the reaction of the Institutions to the Referendum and to Tsipras's good-will gesture of withdrawing Varoufakis. Their reaction was: nothing. Not a single conciliatory gesture, instead they insisted on the deadlock before the referendum and said it is up to the Greeks. This ultimate intransigence showed their disdain for democracy and also showed that they did not want Greece in the Euro zone any more. Perhaps Merkel had maneuvered herself into a position where she was not able to make concessions any more, or perhaps---Varoufakis is not the only one to say this about Schauble---Schauble had not been negotiating in good faith, he wanted the negotiations to fail. (4) What did Tsipras do when he, and everybody else, saw the true position of the Institutions? He saw the expulsion of Greece coming and he did not want it blamed on Syriza. He did not have the mandate to leave the Euro, and I think it is also strategically wrong for socialists to voluntarily leave the Euro or the EU, they should push the envelope and do as much as they can do inside the Euro and EU. Therefore he made an offer giving the Institutions all they wanted, in order to see if under these conditions the Institutions would grant Greece a reduction or re-structuring of the debt in such a way that this austerity would have at least a chance of success. (5) Did Tsipras's gambit pay off? Der Spiegel, which until yesterday preached how the collapse of the Greek economy is the fault of the Greeks, who were demanding too much, is suddenly full of revelations how much pressure the US was exerting on Merkel to give the Greeks a break. This give Merkel a face-saving way out: she does not have to cave to the lazy Greeks but she has to respect the will of the US. So I think there is a good chance Greece will stay in the Euro, but this is not at all certain. Here are the two possibilities as I see them: If Greece remains in the Eurozone at the cost of further austerity measures, then this is the loss of one skirmish but not of the war. Syriza tried to get the best outcome possible while respecting the will of the voters to stay within the Eurozone. Syriza did not betray the voters. They tried everything possible to carry out the mandate of the voters and were defeated because the enemy was stronger or more ruthless than they, and because their own mandate, eliminating austerity while staying in the Eurozone, was somewhat contradictory. And the struggle continues. Despite the fact that they were forced to accede to austerity demands in the end, their honorable and courageous battle and their respect for democracy will encourage the voters in Spain, Ireland and elsewhere to vote for their own left
