Nueva Pagina Web

Nos mudamos a una nueva y mejor pagina
Te esperamos en

miércoles, 13 de junio de 2012



Dear comrades from EEK and the CRFI:

In the last meeting of our Central Committee we decided to write this letter after discussion about Greek situation and, in particular, about Savas Michael-Matsas´ article, which was published in the last Prensa Obrera, on 3rd June.

We want to tell EEK comrades, theirs Central Committee and all the CRFI our concern about you could not stand to the election and because the front with Antarsya could not be formed. Thus, the EEK runs the serious risk of not intervening in this huge political struggle are the Greek elections.

In this situation, we guess that your political poses could be three:

A) Vote for Syriza
B) Vote for Antarsya
C) Not voting / Blank vote

These are the same possibilities that are arguing the whole left-wing parties in the world, if we exclude to vote stalinist KKE.

Among the organizations who claim part of the Fourth International, the International Comunist League (ICL), the Spartacists, is the only one who called to vote KKE[1]. The argument is that the KKE calls to break out European Union and the euro. The ICL, in his statement calling to vote KKE merely criticize the slogan of "people power" of the KKE. But the call to vote KKE for its position on the EU and the euro is a farce because it ignored that Stalinism poses this to join a sector of the Greek bourgeoisie that wants to devalue Greek currency against the workers (as occurred in Argentina in 2002). However, the most important thing is that the Spartacist position is outside of the class struggle in Greece:  KKE is not part of the front of the mass mobilizations from 2008 to now. By contrast, they attacked and boycotted them.

Under this, we want you to know our consideration of what we believe the revolutionaries must choose in this election.


As Tendencia Piquetera Revolucionaria (TPR), we do believe that the fundamental question to be answered is which political landscape would open with the triumph of Syriza.

While half the world wonders if Syriza or New Democracy will triumph, we consider it a cheat reasoning subordinate to this polarization because it is not true that Syriza express those who oppose the setting for two simple reasons:

1. Nobody says he seeks their votes between the left but on the contrary, Tsipras moves rapidly towards right and is looking for a thousand and one ways to agree with imperialism.

2. In this sense, to our knowledge, Syriza never sat to discuss with the EEK any political settlement. Therefore, the support of EEK would be a gratuitous act of political dissolution.

So the question to which we want to decide is whether workers prefer to be defeated at the hands of New Democracy or betrayed into the hands of Syriza.
While the whole world left quickly enlists in the “anti-fit” ranks of Syriza, on the contrary, we order our intervention on that is not true that Tsipras express a rupture with the bourgeoisie, far from it.


And in that way, the most important is that Syriza does not pose, neither in its original program nor in which its leaders are willing to "update" to "calm" the imperialism, a break with the EU or the euro. In fact, the supposed progressive point of their program (the rejection of the Memorandum), a position that does not necessarily lead to a breaking point with the capitalist system, is already being called into question. This is recognized by several organizations that are claimed to be part of the Fourth International.

For example, an OKDE-Spartacus militant (the Greek section of the United Secretariat that integrates Antarsya), Manos Skoufoglou, said: "Syriza seems to start to succumb - even preach - that the unilateral rejection of the memorandum would produce international isolation"[2].

Someone could say it is a biased argument because it is a left-USFI militant, someone who will not vote for Syriza. However, Alan Woods’ trend, although is within Syriza also notes the right turn of the coalition. Obviously, Woods and his organization (Marxistiki Foni, which means Marxist Voice), which are globally integrated to Chávez, Kirchner, Lula and the English Labour Party do not see this turn as a reason to a revolutionary break with Tsipras. This is simply because Woods states the expropriation of capital ... in the framework of the European Union and the euro zone. But it is significant that they also indicate that Syriza´s leadership is reviewing the original program of the coalition[3]. For example, Woods criticizes current leaders of Syriza to abandon the "historical claim regarding the 35-hour work week" or the slogan of nationalization of banks (replaced in interventions in the media with "public control" on the banks).

As we can see, Syriza´s program was always a reformist program. Yet the direction of Syriza is concerned about "aggiornare" it as much as possible. Moreover, Syriza is roaming the offices of the major powers seeking to gain the confidence of imperialism and to demonstrate that the "updating" of the coalition program can be modified again and again as the Troika request.
In this way "[Tsipras] has taken the unexpected step of "explaining" his policies with representatives from each of the G20 countries stationed in Athens" (The Guardian, 6/6)[4]. In the midst of a fierce media campaign of attacks against supporters of Tsipras, intended to pressure to thereby force them to accept a compromise with imperialism, shift is clearly seen in progress. "There is a clear change of strategy by Syriza", veteran commentator Nikos Evangelatos told Flash radio. (...)Yiannis Dragazakis, the leftist MP widely credited with drawing up the coalition's economic program, went as far as saying that Syriza's fiscal policies were not only "flexible" but would take into account "daily reality”. “We [in Syriza] are not talking about unilateral actions", he said referring to fears that, if in power, the party would automatically revoke the bailout accord. "On the contrary, we recognize that we have an institutional inter-dependence in the European Union and as such we don't speak about unilateral actions but about renegotiating everything – except if we are forced to act unilaterally" (Idem).

Under these circumstances, therefore, it is criminal that the left which states to vote Syriza, by the rejection of the Memorandum formally held by the coalition, do not realize (or will not to do it) that Syriza´s leadership is actually giving up this pose while negotiating with the EU and imperialism. This is shown even in the article of Jorge Altamira published in Prensa Obrera (Workers Press), which reports that the deputy Rena Dourou, in an interview with Le Monde stated that "we will take good care of unilateral action that could lead to sanctions" ("The struggle between the IMF and Syriza ", 31/5)[5].

Therefore, voting Syriza does not mean breaking with the EU and the euro, but to continue in this area, and at the same time even does not imply the rejection of the Memorandum, despite the rejection of the Memorandum is formally Syriza badge. So, Rena Dourou and the entire leadership of Syriza talks about the "flexibility" of theirs program. In any case, a possible rejection of the Memorandum, as part of compromise with imperialism that is drawing Tsipras, will not have a progressive content but will be a trap for the working class and a change of orientation for the bourgeoisie with another fist bump (renegotiate the rescue, as discussed below).

Therefore it is necessary to put the next point in the foreground: voting Syriza is voting for the payment of external debt of Greece! That is, voting for Syriza is not against the Troika or against the austerity.


The struggle of EEK, the CRFI and the revolutionary left has always been for non-payment of external debt. Antarsya itself, a centrist, anti-capitalist formation, has at least ambiguous formulation "repudiation of the debt, debt cancellation and suspension of payments"[6] which is defended by some of his tendencies as non-payment of external debt in a more radical way.

Syriza program, however, it is assumed, posed moratorium on foreign debt[7], meaning that from the beginning Syriza is against the anti-imperialist struggle for non-payment of external debt and limited to state payments suspension. But now Syriza´s leaders seek to seduce imperialism in order to access the government of the bourgeois state. So they abandon their own reformist program to say openly that they will pay the debt without any pretense.
This was unequivocally portrayed by an imperialist newspaper, the Financial Times itself!:

“George Stathakis, one of the party’s four chief economists, said in an interview (…) A Syriza government, Mr Stathakis told the FT, would honour all the country’s foreign debts – except those incurred to pay for German military equipment, which have been the subject of various scandals.
“We are willing to make any agreement, any compromise, as long as it is viable,” he said.”

“Mr Tsipras, the party’s 37-year-old leader, is trying to overcome doubts that he can offer more than just defiance to angry voters and prove that he can be trusted to govern.”(FT, 1/6)[8]

The British weekly The Economist offers the same assessment about Syriza triumph: if they win, they will negotiate with the EU. “Mr Tsipras would have to form a coalition and would be constrained by his partners. (…) Even a Syriza victory will thus probably lead in the first place to negotiations.” (The Economist, 9/06).[9]

Specifically: in its economic platform[10] Syriza propose to adjust the debt accumulated so far to growth (such as Kirchner coupon tied to the GDP), and suspend interest payments ... until the economy recovers.


This shift of Syriza, as part of their previous reformist politics, is no accident: it has a historical root.

The present political situation is an extraordinary opportunity to force KKE pay for their counterrevolutionary policy towards mobilizations (and in Greek history itself). KKE was hit in last elections and it may replace in the left if it wants to survive.

Tsipras knows this and that’s why he calls KKE to a political front. However, the slogan "government of the left" at his hands is not to destroy stalinist reaction but to challenge the monopoly of the Stalinist traitor and pro-capitalist legacy. Syriza convenes the KKE to present themselves as a 'party of order'. Syriza comes from the Euro-communism, so it is a split that looked right out of Moscow's control for integration with Western bourgeois democracy, as demonstrated by the PCI of Enrico Berlinguer.

Besides that, the KKE is not part of the front of the protests, but is the “strike gym” bureaucracy. Syriza was on the front of the protests while at the same time their party leadership was part of the reformist trade union bureaucracy. Therefore, the binding of Syriza and the KKE means the union of the union bureaucracy against the workers.

But if Syriza expressed dissatisfaction with the bailout and austerity plan of the Troika by the pose of reject Memorandum, after meetings with the PASOK and New Democracy, and now directly with the G-20 itself, where Tsipras and company seek to temper the spirits of the Greek and world bourgeoisie demonstrating that its program is "flexible" and that they will not raise "excuses" for "sanctions", then is clear that voting them is to throw dust in the eyes of the masses and to avoid preparing them for a struggle against Syriza, which is willing to develop the leftist management of capital by the Popular Front, the last resort of the bourgeoisie against the proletarian revolution.

It was confirmed so, the right-wing character of Euro-communism, and far from having solved positively that heritage, Syriza contains it in a new way. The euro-communism was born with his back towards the Soviet Union (not just the bureaucracy but also the workers' state as such) and embracing the cause of the Maastricht Treaty.

Voting Syriza would, therefore, imply a new pose about euro-communism, characterizing it as a rupture that, finally, was progressive against Stalinism.


Almost all the revisionism of the IV International is falling to Tsipras. The Morenist LIT and lambertists have already issued their declarations also pro-Syriza. 60 years later the breakdown of the Fourth International, the euro-communist Tsipras could be sadly famous for the reunification under its aegis of most of the organizations that claim themselves to be Trotskyists worldwide.

Even the healysts of English WRP, who support the dictatorship of Al-Assad, published an article reproducing Tsipras statements which promised "a new Europe based on solidarity, equality and justice", without demarcation[11]. So, the healysts of WRP vote shamefully for Syriza. As we shall see, Tsipras is looking for a political bloc with Hollande, who is against Al-Assad ... and stands for the invasion in Syria! Finally, the healysts of WRP are not concerned about the consistency, and succumb to the popular front.

In the same area, place the UIT-CI, which is dedicated to publishing on its website "news" about Greek elections, where extols Syriza as a force "that promises to overthrow the credit agreements with the FMI, end the social cuts and renegotiate the country's debt, even if this results in the output of the euro and return to its own currency"[12]. And even an "interview" where a deputy (of the minority of Syriza) says the same[13]. The UIT-CI publishes all without demarcate, but not in charge of it. We call Miguel Sorans and his comrades to openly call vote for Syriza to clarify the position that the UIT-CI has (and does not want to say). We have already seen in the French election the end of this kind of UIT-CI’s political contraband such as its note "Goodbye Sarkozy"[14], equivalent to a vote trailing (not assumed) for the PS and Hollande. The UIT-CI must assume that they are following the same policy as their ex comrades of the MST, now integrated into the direction of the United Secretariat (who also vote Syriza).

Even this poses of the centrist or just reformist s who call themselves Trotskyists, allows Stalinism to attack Trotskyism for supporting Syriza and compromise with the EU, presenting Stalinism as a left opposition. [15]
The two options shuffled by the self-proclaimed Trotskyist left to vote Syriza are as follows.

There is one left who believes that a Syriza government would be able to open a break with the bourgeoisie, and therefore a transition to a workers government. This hypothesis (completely speculative and fanciful) is the one that develops Taëffe the CWI (the Greek section is Xekinima, which forms an integral part of Syriza).

They say: "Pro-worker policies would predictably cause screams of outrage from the bosses in Greece and the EU. They would probably quickly kick Greece out of the eurozone. Ejected from the euro, a workers’ government would need to carry out an emergency programme (...)A workers’ government in Greece would link up with the workers’ movement in other crisis ridden euro-zone countries, like Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, to break the diktat of the Troika, the bosses’ EU and capitalism. These countries could form a confederation on a socialist basis (...)"[16].

In relation with the objective nature of the measures of a Syriza´s government, these meditations (like Xekinima and CWI ones) have nothing to do with what are discussing the major imperialist media and Tsipras own.

He especially travelled to Berlin to make clear its willingness to negotiate with Merkel:

"We all have a duty to prevent a catastrophe", he said. "The possibility of the dissolution of the euro zone is not a temporary storm, it would be a historic, very negative development for the entire world.

"If Syriza wins the election on June 17, it won't mean we will leave the euro, on the contrary it offers a big chance for us to save the euro. If the austerity continues, Greece will need a third bailout in a few months, and a further debt restructuring, and that could enforce a return to the national currency.
"We are proposing a way to save the euro. Our possible election victory offers the prospect of stabilizing Europe, not causing more instability as feared," Tsipras added.

"There is only one path for Europe -- implementing our strategy," he said, speaking in Greek through an interpreter. "Mrs. Merkel recently said -- and I agree with her -- that if one country leaves the euro zone, the next day the financial markets will seek out other countries to evict. And there are countries that have much bigger deficits than Greece, such as Italy with €2 trillion in debts."

"Issues the left had formulated a long time ago are now being discussed at the level of the G8, such as euro bonds and direct loans from the European Central Bank," said Tsipras, referring to Saturday's meeting of the group of eight leading economies at Camp David. "The fact that the G8 is talking about it is a big victory for the people of Europe" (Tsipras says Berlin must back down on austerity, Der Spiegel, 22/05[17]).

And not only that. Tsipras, in an interview with German newspaper describe as futile the expectative of minority organizations of the coalition that believe in an eventual break with the euro (as Taëffe own supporters) and completely unabashed advocates of the Social Democratic Hollande. All this, when Hollande is suggesting that UN should organize the military invasion of Siria. Literaly, Tsipras said that "Hollande is clearly a great white hope for us" ('It's in Europe's Interest to Lift the Austerity Diktat', Der Spiegel, 28/5).[18]

Would Taëffe believe that the "socialist society" is in the hands of the French Socialist Party, which wants to invade Syria? We reject this position outright. And also flatly reject the subjectivist thesis (SU´s and own Altamira´s one) that a Tsipras´ government, for raising the issue of a "left government" would be progressive. Since seeks to negotiate with Merkel and align itself with Hollande, wont develop the revolutionary consciousness, but it will hamper it. Both options involve ultimately (by the error of their basis), integrate Syriza or vote for it. On the contrary, throughout the previous argument, we reject both theses, and understand that it is legitimate to require Syriza that meets every expectation that the masses can take it, but putting us previously in a field previously.


Aware of the implications of the political problem, Jorge Altamira, leader of the Partido Obrero (PO) and the CRFI, in an interview contrasts with other balance: "Currently they are not Eurocommunist, they have turn-left"[19]. And yet, in the same interview, he signed a blank check with respect to its main campaign promise: "I am convinced that if Syriza comes to power, they will nullify the memorandum."

So Altamira, as the main reference of CRFI, uses all his political authority to defend the thesis that the Euro-communism, somehow, could be reformed and turned left. How does he explain this?

"Sinaspismos, led by young leader Alexis Tsipras made ​​an alliance with another group and formed Syriza is the Radical Left Front, which has 2 things that are very interesting for a left militant. The first is that they say the Memorandum (similar to the agreements with the IMF in our countries), will be nullified by the government. No reductions in wages, pensions, no layoffs, nothing at all"(ibid.).

Basically, what Altamira is saying is that Tsipras and the Euro-Communists turn left because in 2004 made ​​an alliance with DEA (a split of cliffismo), environmentalists and left KEDA (a group expelled from KKE). And therefore Syriza is no longer euro-communist. Meanwhile, Altamira falls into a brutal sham, because he recognizes that Tsipras supports the petition of Eurobonds launched by Hollande. Really, an entire mess.

And unfortunately, as in politics there is no vacuum, the Popular Front illusions of Altamira in Syriza place the Workers Party (Partido Obrero)  and the CRFI virtually in the same political camp that the direction of the mandelist Unified Secretariat, Alan Woods, and Peter Taëffe.

The EEK has in its hands the opportunity to defend the program of the Fourth International and fight Syriza, or succumb as it is doing Altamira, standing on the ground of these revisionist organizations. In turn has also a duty to give an international arguing around the positions of PO on Greece: otherwise, the EEK shall be defined as a national-Trotskyist organization that is built with its back to the CRFI and non-defending its own program. Or, on the contrary, EEK would adhere to the Popular Front illusions in Syriza as Altamira.

Altamira said in the interview that Syriza leaders "have turned left" and he is "convinced" that they will "override" the Memorandum. His thesis, unlike the supporters of Taëffe, is related more to the direction of mandelism. The SU, in his polemic against OKDE-Spartakus says that opposition to the austerity policies "can indeed correspond to the level of consciousness present while constituting a breaking point making it possible for a transitory dynamic to start up"[20]. This second thesis is subjective, whereby beyond the specific content of the government, through the popular front, the working class would strengthen their confidence and thus be better prepared for the revolution. This widely negates the paralyzing function of the popular front.

Only Altamira, which explicitly does not take its own policy, maintains a cowardly silence on this point. We challenge the Workers Party (Partido Obrero), that if Altamira is "convinced" that Syriza will "override" the memorandum, he should call to vote them publicly and be responsible on that.
His current position is an absolute revision of the characterizations of the CRFI on Greece and its own previous elaborations on the issue of Euro-communism. In this sense is an absolute capitulation to Syriza. Objectively, Syriza defends euro-communist tradition, what is even clearer when he refuses to break with the EU and the euro zone.

 VII. ALTAMIRA AND "the Revolutionary Left Heterogeneity." ALTAMIRA embellishes the ANTI-CAPITALIST centrism and STANDS FOR EEK DISSOLUTION IN Antarsya

EEK comrades, you have to realize that since the anticapitalist turn of PO, Altamira is militating against EEK: therefore, recently wrote in the note "Greece: a government of the 'radical left'", "the revolutionary left must take advantage of the revolutionary program, not to justify isolation, but, above overall, to break marginality and became a political actor (17/5)[21]". Altamira criticizes EEK by "sectarian" without saying it while qualify a program as "revolutionary" when it fails to develop the political experience of the masses. That is, their statements really are a school of opportunism and duplicity.

In fact, in the same note says: "This is the picture, as discussed, must face the revolutionary left in Greece, which on May 6th, reaches 1.4% of the votes valid summing their fractions, but with 3% in June, if linked, could have about a dozen representatives in parliament, given the radicalization taking place in the country. The challenge for the Left is to overcome the marginalization and become a national reference in a prerevolutionary situation. The difficulty the left faces is not only its heterogeneity. The front Antarsya integrates different fractions of Trotskyism and an old left split of the Communist Party; the EEK is the party that represents the CRFI, and there are other Trotskyists and Maoists groups. This revolutionary left [ie, he certifies all them as revolutionary without further thought and suggests, in fact, that are equal to EEK and all could be in the CRFI – N. R] faces the challenge of developing a suitable characterization for a situation that is completely new and complex. For reasons of simplicity, we would say that faces the danger of an opportunistic approach, as would be a support -even 'with critics'- to Syriza, on behalf of "a struggle against the austerity." Also faces the danger of being sectarian, which would be characterizing Syriza as an expression of replacement of the old political system."

Even to close the note "The struggle between the IMF and Syriza" Jorge Altamira sits the following conclusion: "It is about defending the prospect of a government of left versus right one [ALTAMIRA IS PROPOSING US VOTE SYRIZA AND MILITATE ITS CAMPAIGN!!!], denouncing the character, or strategic limitations of that left´s program, support or undermine that government. With these clarifications and distinctions, the electoral victory of the Left in Greece represent a breakthrough in the political situation of the masses and would expand the scope for the revolutionary left [THAT IS THE ARRIVAL OF A POPULAR FRONT FOR THE POWER TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE EU IS A STEP FOWARD FOR THE LEFT AND THE WORKERS!!!] "(Workers Press, 31/05).

Altamira is sitting their positions against the Trotskyist doctrine, against the findings of the class struggle in Greece, Europe and worldwide. Hints of the right-turn of Altamira and the Workers Party in his paper have already been registered, for example, by the centrist PTS and FT-CI, which seeks to develop in Greece assimilating the OKDE-Ergatiki Pali (articles of them were published in PTS newspaper).

The PTS charged to Altamira for stating (in the Workers Pres. 1224) that "under these conditions, more than ever, to defend a 'government of all the left', against the alternative right" and even notes that "pose of "leftist government" looks similar to other poses made by the current "morenists" (Worker Truth, No. 478, 7/6)[22]. The imposture of PTS is obvious because they do not call to vote anyone (it fits Antarsya because they does not delimit from them), while attacking the CRFI with factionalism. But theirs perception of the damage such a policy can inflict to CRFI and EEK worth as a warning.


We emphasize that this is not about saying that you cannot vote for a candidate bourgeois or petty bourgeois. The problem is if the vote for the candidate that is going to betray, is on account of the development of a historically progressive movement or, if doing so, we dig the grave of the mass movement.
We vote for Evo because it was historically based on a progressive movement: it posed the nationalization of hydrocarbons, hitting against imperialism, and that rested on the mobilization of the oppressed masses in Bolivia. It was a vote of class struggle, not of class conciliation. Imperialism recorded so and this is fundamental.
There is interested at this point the contrast between the valuation of the imperialist media about Tsipras (seen above) and about Evo Morales at the time.
In the note of "International Worker No. 4" titled "We call for a vote for Evo Morales and the MAS," the organ of the CRFI now virtually extinct, it was said: “All Latin America anxiously awaits the results of the Bolivian elections and the United States even more so. Last November 20, the New York Times Magazine dedicated several pages to the possibility of a victory for the MAS. The author of the long article (“Che's Second Coming?”) quotes from the start the position on Bolivia of the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Rogelio (Roger) Pardo-Maurer, one of those second to Rumsfeld, on the occasion of a recent conference at the Hudson Institute. In the opinion of this Pentagon official, “You have a revolution going on in Bolivia, a revolution that potentially could have consequences as far-reaching as the Cuban revolution of 1959.” What is now happening in Bolivia, he specified even further, “could have repercussions in Latin America and elsewhere that you could be dealing with for the rest of your lives (...) this urban rage and ethnic resentments have combined into a force that is seeking to change Bolivia[23]”. While, on the contrary, Tsipras argues that his government will not take shelter in the class struggle, but will seek "social cohesion[24]".   
In conclusion: Tsipras is a specialist in crushing the radical left who is seeking the blessing of the G20. Coincidentally, he especially appreciated the support of BRICS. No need to remember that Lula, before taking office, went through all the imperialist forums possible to convince them that he "could govern". Those who call to vote Syriza in the name of fighting against the austerity (however, we reiterate, when the own Syriza’s head is giving up this) transform the fight against the austerity in an historical task which would open the door towards a transitional government when, obviously, it is not this way at all. When a revolutionary votes for a bourgeois or petty bourgeois nationalist, he does because it expresses in a deformed way, the historically necessary task that this nationalist poses he will perform (and we as socialists plan to achieve).
We vote for Evo because we want to rival the liberal bourgeoisie in the struggle for the agrarian and anti-imperialist revolution. We voted for Evo to contest the masses through an anti-imperialist united front. It was about defeating imperialism and creating better conditions to fight for our program. So, the analogy with Syriza has nonsense because voting Tsipras doesn’t arises from a United Front Workers but a popular front, that is, the crushing and demoralization of the working class with a view to close the Greek’s pre-revolutionary situation.
That’s why, unlike the case of Evo, voting for Syriza would be voting against our program. Our program is the revolutionary break with the EU and the euro area, non-payment of external debt and the expropriation of capital under a government of workers. We must vote an option that helps us to develop our program. We can’t vote something that hinders ours own program. That’s why we propose to vote the anti-capitalist centrism and to put on a united front against the front-populist left.
Even more: the EEK should target all militants who consider themselves workers, socialists, revolutionaries, in Syriza, and call them to break with the coalition. All honest militants in Syriza should take political conclusions that flow from the "upgrade" program being made by their leaders to gain the sympathy of imperialism. We say to them: there is no struggle for a revolutionary outcome for Greece without breaking with the EU and the euro zone for non-payment of external debt and the expropriation of capital: it is necessary to fight for a workers' government. Tsipras is not towards this objective and is not mediation in this regard. He is his denial because he doesn’t assume relying on the mobilization of the masses and breaking with the bourgeoisie but as part of a betrayal of their own program and in accordance with imperialist capital.
The defense of revolutionary politics for CRFI should draw as a fundamental objective denunciation of the Popular Front and the prospect of freeing the working class politically
IX. GREECE AND THE TOPICALITY OF TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM: as revolutionary as it can be, granted the non-revolutionary policies of the working-class parties"

By this way, to state a fair policy we have to take into account not only the struggle between the parties but the class struggle in all its expressions. That is, in which specific balance of forces we are and what are the tasks posed to the working class before, during and after the election. So for us it is not a minor issue to characterize whether these elections take place in a revolutionary situation, pre-revolutionary or capitalist stability.

On this point, it is striking that most of the Trotskyist forces who vote to Syriza say that the situation is revolutionary. This is not a minor detail because the specific feature of a revolutionary situation is that the whole proletariat develops independent historical action, ie the problem of taking power on their hands. The development of a revolutionary situation effectively, therefore, does not lies in the objective catastrophic character of the economy or in the disorientation of the capitalist class but if what defines socialism or barbarism is the conscious intervention of the masses organized their own struggle organizations and their workers parties ahead.

So it is no casual that those who characterize the Greek situation as revolutionary stand, one way or another, with the idea that a Syriza government is a disorted expression of the dispute of the masses against the bourgeoisie and at least raise a better way for the struggle for a workers' government.

By contrast, those who, as we, say that the situation is pre-revolutionary do not to have the aim to deny the actually revolutionary potential of the Greek political situation but to emphasize that we cannot claim direct ascent to the struggle for power ignoring the necessary socialist political struggle to emancipate the working class of the pro-imperialist reformism influence and anti-capitalist centrism to structure it in their own dual power organizations and its own revolutionary party.

On the one hand it is true that, at least since the popular rebellion in late 2008, Greek workers have shown great initiative. However, it is also true that the vast majority of episodes this enormous popular initiative was regulated by the union bureaucracy. This way, workers could not develop measures of general strike more than two days long. The trend that prevailed, therefore, was not to the general strike (much less the uprising), but the “strike gym” under the leadership of the KKE and SYRIZA.

Specifically, we get to Greek elections after that demonstrations and general strikes were defeated one after another. The union bureaucracy linked to Syriza and the KKE has an enormous responsibility at this point. During 2010, within 10 month, the Greek bourgeoisie imposed cuts up to 25% in wages and pensions: the 8 general strikes failed to defeat this brutal offensive of the bourgeoisie.

Moreover, the bourgeoisie is incapable of structuring their own government by parliamentary methods but they achieve to agree a "technical government" with the support of imperialist capital and behind the popular will. The fact that capitalist class still has the ability to structure a anti-democratic leaning out over the state apparatus (even came to consider the possibility of a military coup) shows that, ultimately, the bourgeoisie has not been divided yet into two antagonistic projects proposing the division of the above which allows the revolutionary intervention of the people.

Finally, the economic landscape is catastrophic. "The unemployment rate in Greece, on the other hand, last November reached 20.9%. The number of unemployed exceeded for the first time in the last ten years a million people (1,029,587 people) twice at the start of the Greek bailout. Especially serious is the situation among young people, where almost half of people between 15 and 24 are unemployed, more than doubled over the past four years" (data published by the Hellenic Institute of Statistics - ELSTAT)[25].

However, the factory ocuppy movement is just beginning to develop. There is no organized movement of unemployed, not like “movimiento piquetero” in Argentina but at least the committees of unemployed in Spain.

And indeed, Syriza´s program (which is probably going to be voted by a great part of the working class in the coming elections) is in no way anti-capitalist neither even statist, but Tsipras states that "for bankrupt companies, our government bet on the following self-management models that emerged in Argentina after the 2001 crisis”[26]. So, not only implement the Kirchnerist program in the field of foreign debt but also against the occupations of factories.

Our position therefore is that the revolutionary situation does not fall from heaven (spontaneity) or is derived automatically from the struggle for the most felt claims (anti-capitalism that rejects the struggle for a workers' government) but necessarily require a conscious policy of preparing it  by a socialist party agitation.

As Trotsky said: “The chief obstacle in the path of transforming the prerevolutionary into a revolutionary state is the opportunist character of proletarian leadership: its petty bourgeois cowardice before the big bourgeoisie” (“The Transitional Program”, 1938). Or, which is the same, the situation is “as revolutionary as it can be, granted the non-revolutionary policies of the working-class parties” (“Whither France?, 1936”).

In 2011, the workers demonstrations impacted in a greater way on the political regime in 2010. However, it wasn´t enough to transform the situation into revolutionary.

Last year, the political crisis accelerated and struggle hit there. Papandreou's resignation, the formation of coalition government, the resignation of several MP´s per block, the resignation of Finance Minister two days after the general strike on June 15th, and even the announcement (then removed) of the referendum about the bailout  and austerity program of the EU in November are the most several points of this process.

But we need to say that neither in 2011 strikes raised directly political claims nor outlined a power pose but always limited to a defensive claim against the austerity measures without jeopardizing the continuity of the government parties. It is true that all media agree in emphasizing that "no one believes in politicians" but popular discontent is not channelled through a systematic socialist agitation. The songs aiming "all of them must go" and even the pronouncements of "workers power" exist (as noted in several articles by the EEK) but them are not part of a systematic campaign to transform the unions from economic organs into organisms of the proletarian revolution. That is the central task to be addressed by the revolutionaries to achieve the transition program not as a mere instrument of propaganda for internal consumption but a program of action for trade unions and all the Greek working class.

X. Tpr’s slogans are:

For all the above, the question to be asked is: Would the government of Syriza be the prelude to the proletarian revolution?

We say, NO! The most likely come after Syriza (and Tsipras government) are an Ebert and a Noske.

Any further, according to Skoufoglou, in the recent pogrom perpetrated against immigrants in Patras, the reaction of the mayor was to “ask for more police patrols against illegal immigrants” and he “had Syriza’s support!" ("The pendulum", 3/6). As we can see, an openly counterrevolutionary pose, accomplices with the fascist attack. This way, we want to insist that Syriza’s government (an so, as minimum KKE’s one too, by the necessity to having the seats required) wouldn’t be a worker’s government but a government from the same syndical bureaucracy who hold back demonstrations and call them off systematically. So, it isn’t about a “workers government” as proposed Lenin to England on “Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder” (1920) neither about a worker’s government as well as Sajonia and Turinjia’s one (an hypothesis of co-government with German’s socialdemocracy for a short time as the training and the immediate step before of proletarian revolution). On the other side, we’re talking about the co-government between Stalinists and ex-Stalinists, democratizing and pro-imperialists, to the state’s front-populist management against workers.

As said IV Congress of the III International’s resolutions (1922): “The most elementary tasks of a workers’ government must be to arm the proletariat, disarm the bourgeois counter-revolutionary organizations, bringing control over production, shift the main burden of taxation onto the propertied classes and break the resistance of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.

Such a worker’s government is possible only if it is born out of the struggle of the masses and is supported by combative workers’ organizations formed by the most oppressed sections of workers at grassroots level. However, even a workers’ government that comes about through an alignment of parliamentary forces, i.e., a government of purely parliamentary origin, can give rise to an upsurge of the revolutionary workers’ movement. It is obvious that the formation of a genuine workers’ government, and the continued existence of any such government committed to revolutionary politics, must lead to a bitter struggle with the bourgeoisie or even to civil war. The mere attempt by the proletariat to form such a workers’ government will from its very first days come up against extremely strong resistance from the bourgeoisie. The slogan of a workers’ government therefore has the potential to rally the proletarians and unleash revolutionary struggle.

In certain circumstances, Communists must declare themselves ready to form a workers’ government with non-Communist workers’ parties and workers’ organizations. However, they should do so only if there are guarantees that the workers’ government will conduct a real struggle against the bourgeoisie of the kind already outlined.”

That’s why, while trade union’s bureaucracy arrives to the government back of and against workers class’s independent armament and mobilization, it’ll be posed what Trotsky said on “Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay” (1940): “Does this mean that in the epoch of imperialism independent trade unions are generally impossible? It would be fundamentally incorrect to pose the question this way. Impossible are the independent or semi-independent reformist trade unions. Wholly possible are revolutionary trade unions which not only are not stockholders of imperialist policy but which set as their task the direct overthrow of the rule of capitalism. In the epoch of imperialist decay the trade unions can be really independent only to the extent that they are conscious of being, in action, the organs of proletarian revolution. In this sense, the program of transitional demands adopted by the last congress of the Fourth International is not only the program for the activity of the party but in its fundamental features it is the program for the activity of the trade unions”.

Therefore, the central task is to delegitimize Syriza to the masses (NO CONFIANCE ON SYRIZA!), by our agitation attack setting’s parties (ALL OF THEM MUST GO!) and “VERSUS THE AUSTERITY PROGRAM AND FASCIST’S PROVOCATIONS” fight inside trades unions and every masses organism so station themselves as leaders projecting them onto the politic crisis through an historical independent action “WE MUST FIGHT FOR DOBLE POWER ORGANISMS, AUTO-DEFENCE COMMITTEES, BREAKING WITH THE EUROPE UNION AND FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT”.  

Dealing with political pose on French elections in the Workers Press, this was not clear enough. In those pages, the NPA and its crisis were furiously attacked, and the Front de Gauche and Mélenchon were described as rising left ... without actually characterize that what was rising, was the popular front, breaking and against the left. So, nothing good can reap the CRFI in France or anywhere else. Such position only serves to thrive in the margins of the Front de Gauche.
Specifically, the Front de Gauche is the electoral representation of the union bureaucracy of the PC, which from their positions in the CGT systematically boycotted the huge fight against the increase in the retirement age in 2010. This organization is led by a former senator who formed his own PS party (the Parti de Gauche), Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The NPA's anti-capitalism could not overcome the policy of the union bureaucracy of the CGT in 2010, and so limited to defending the "labor unity" without disputing the leadership through a campaign for a general strike.
The Front de Gauche had a clear policy: drowning in political terms the movement to capitalize on their electoral diversion. Looking ahead to 2012 election, the NPA party suffered a severe crisis with an exodus of members to the FG and large percentage of the organization stating that they should dissolve within the FG. But as seen, this does not prove that the left stands up (what Altamira says). On the contrary, it warns about insuperable boundaries of anti-capitalism, and that if it does not turn to revolutionary positions, cannot avoid its dissolution after the reformist and becames unable to advocate for fighters against state regimentation and capitalist cooptation. That´s why voting Mélenchon, as claimed by many leaders and members of NPA, became in the second round in a vote by the imperialist Hollande.
This has to draw the attention of the entire membership of the CRFI: not only Workers Party but also of EEK. The popular front in France was not a vehicle to the workers consciousness advance, or a driver to develop the left-wing. It is a factor of political demoralization and grief. Mélenchon is not the rise of the left. Mélenchon is the rise of the Popular Front and the bankruptcy of the left. The last and decisive factor in this situation is the absence of a revolutionary party in France.

About Antarsya, as we had warned in the Letter to the XX Workers Party’s (PO) Congress[27], it arises in parallel with the NPA. It‘s part of the Unified Secretary’s policy, that a few year ago pushes the policy of anti-capitalists parties and extensive fronts. These anti-capitalists formations facing the pressure of the global crisis, regarding their centrism, brakes up.

A year ago, a Worker Press´ chronic about “The IX EEK’s Congress”, explained that “the named “Bases Syndicates Coordinator” becomes more and more in a common side for an approach between the centrists front Antarsya and the reformists from Syriza, joined with syndical bureaucracy from the GSEE and Adedy” (29/9/11)[28]. Now, Antarsya, as well as the NPA, is in crisis, as it is shown by Savas’s chronic of the Tariq Alí’s intervention in a festival of NAR and Antarsya, where’s explained that a sector wanted to capitulate towards Tsipras and the other one wanted to vote Antarsya. Their actual presentation is like a sort of “moral reserve of the radical left” who’s going to “support good things ant critic bad ones from Syriza”, but at least most of the front, isn´t conceived to present themselves as an alternative and a revolutionary left opposition to Tsipras.

Antarsya’s crisis, in our eyes, is not less, as is well known that the direction of the SU is calling to vote for Syriza while its Greek section argues against this and repudiates the attitude of the direction of the SU (François Sabado, Michael Lowy, etc.). The direction of mandelism is very used to the game of trends and organizational duplicity, hidden under the veil of "socialist democracy". While attacking the OKDE-Spartakus by "sectarian", published a declaration that was not previously consulted with that organization, which is the official section in the country. In fact, what happens is that since several years ago, another organization, Kokkino Prasino Diktyo (Red) has US observer status in Greece... but not as a member of Antarsya, but Syriza (Red is a rupture of DEA, an organization expelled from the Greek cliffism in 2001, DEA is also within Syriza). Now that leadership has decided to change the US pose with arms and baggage into the field of Tsipras to abandon OKDE-Spartakus and Antarsya to their fate, the only reality is that the direction of US is already building against Antarsya in Greece, through Red. Their policy is not just a moral support from abroad.

Militants from OKDE-Spartakus must conclude what follows from all this: anti-capitalism, spread by Mandelist leadership, being opposed to the prospect of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leads to capitulation to the popular front, because it seeks to erase the limits between reform and revolution. Thus, even the US didn’t become a vehicle for the OKDE-Spartakus and Red fight together in Antarsya. By contrast, anti-capitalism served to US leadership rudeness to OKDE-Spartakus and destroys his own political project (broad anti-capitalist fronts) under a stranger political project (the reformist Syriza). The EEK has to fight to make this conclusion clear and to OKDE-Spartakus break up with the US.

It is likely that, because of its centrist nature inherent to its anti-capitalism, in front of the advance of Syriza to Antarsya, they finish as badly as the NPA. But there is something that must be clear: they raise the break with the European Union and the euro, from the left (not like the KKE) and they are part of the front of the demonstrations, which is progressive. Therefore, even Antarsya is somehow in the left of the NPA and is in an area of dispute with Syriza. For just one example, while Syriza has a counterrevolutionary policy of complicity with the pogrom of Patras, Antarsya organizes immigrants. Syriza, as a force in the process of integration to the state threatens to destroy it whole or in part.

EEK, as a revolutionary force has a duty to challenge the Antarsya’s militancy that defends the raise of rupture with the euro, although Antarsya does not militate for worker’s government. This means that their program is different from Syriza. They are not revolutionary nor reformist. Again and again, they are centrist, unlike what said Jorge Altamira, who reviewed the historical CRFI characterizations, recently calling them "revolutionary left" (in the note quoted above, "Greece: a government of 'left radical'").

Despite the progressive role of Antarsya against Syriza, the fields must be clearly defined. EEK militants should flatly reject any characterization that equals Antarsya with his own party. The equalization of revolutionary militancy of the CRFI with revisionist forces of Trotskyism as cliffism or mandelismo cannot be tolerated, because it leads to political dissolution. Antarsya (as a centrist force) plays the role of preventing potentially revolutionary militants come to EEK. To sweep this obstacle, the EEK needs clarity and not confusion. To characterize Antarsya as "revolutionary left" has a more hidden political intention which is to beautify the front-populist left. Just as presenting PTS (FT-CI) and Socialist Left (Izquierda Socialista, UIT-CI) as revolutionaries served Altamira to characterize Pino Solanas and Luis Juez as "a force that is and oscillates in the center" (Public Meeting of Left Front’s Youth, 8/6[29]). What Jorge suggests, but still is not encouraged to say, is that Syriza is centrist left. A total sham disarms revolutionary militants.

Therefore: Which is the policy we have to have against anti-capitalist centrism? To win the leftist anti-capitalism that doesn’t want to be a tributary of the popular front, we have to go to battle with our program, explaining that the anti-capitalism leads to the outbreak (which is being processed right now). In this way, we understand that we must vote for Antarsya and exploit the anti-EU positions to fight for revolutionary break with the euro.

On this point (the question of elections), a fact that we find meaningful is the presentation of the financial argument by the EEK, which prevented them from running on the election. We think this argument is odd, given that did not involve any international campaign (although we understand that you conducted one in Greece) for funds in the case of an intervention in the elections on the more important pre-revolutionary situation in the world. Anyway, this is a huge failure for CRFI, in line with the settlement of International Worker. All of this will surely have serious consequences in the struggle for political independence of Greek working class. All the CRFI militant sections must discuss urgently a balance of this complete political failure, which firstly is the failure of the CRFI’s International Secretary as its political direction.
In conclusion, our political position is that you should have accepted the front with Antarsya though you could not sign as an independent or equal. This is because the EEK is much smaller and the last election showed that Antarsya got a much larger number of votes, in proportion. We would do the same here in relation to the Left Front in Argentina. You should have been favored the program that had been agreed originally. According to you, it includes the point of a workers´ government, for example. To achieve that, Antarsya´s campaign by the workers' government would involve a practice challenge to anti-capitalism because, as we know, the only real program is the one militated, not what is written. If the campaign included that point was a valuable political conquest of EEK against centrism and a tool to separate the working masses of Syriza, ie, the popular front.
By the way, whether or not the EEK call to vote Antarsya, as we want, the EEK Central Committee should draw a negative balance of its own political leadership of the organization for failing to make the front with Antarsya. Basically, because you will be calling the EEK militancy to vote Antarsya for a reduced program and without any EEK candidate, when you could be voting for Antarsya by a much better program and including your own candidates.
On this point, it corresponds too to EEK’s members and to all CRFI to request an open debate into the Greek section and also internationally, to make a balance about EEK’s direction acting, by throwing away the opportunity of the front with Antarsya, and obviously, to discuss publicly with Jorge Altamira and PO’s leadership their political poses in favor of Syriza. It can’t go unnoticed that CRFI doesn’t have a position to the further election in Greek. Eventually, EEK and PO, as every CRFI’s parties, can have different positions. But CRFI has the task to have a debate and face public positions, fixing it own pose. If not, it’ll dissolve.
From the Tendencia Piquetera Revolucionaria (TPR), at current conditions, without making the front, and having the only option to choose about the three possibilities that we explained before, we call to the EEK to vote Antarsya, making an independent campaign, delimited, with your own leaflets.
Voting for Syriza is not an option for revolutionaries, as the Syriza popular front character is shown when neither the EEK nor nothing on the left of Syriza was ever called to join it (while New Democracy calls to smaller groups on the right). It shows that Syriza is very clear who want to be with (KKE) and with who wants nothing to do at all.

No voting for Syriza and voting for Antarsya opens the prospect to the EEK development fetching Antarsya´s base which does not want to vote for Syriza. That is to prevent anti-capitalist Antarsya follow a course of dissolution as those right-wing militants NPA whom ended voting Mélenchon and then Hollande.
At the same time, no vote would deny that, given the massive cooptation Syriza operates and will operate in the mass movement, anti-capitalism Antarsya express an anti-EU pose, which is on the left of Eurocommunism pro-EU. Syriza’s vote is to demoralize workers and open the way to the right-wing and even fascism. Vote and fight for delimiting Antarsya to dispute the direction of a centrist formation to lead a part into the revolutionary field.
The conclusion is simple: if Savas Matsas and the EEK do not consider the task (or fail) to lead Antarsya, then Antarsya will end up being lead by Syriza and Tsipras.
Revolutionary greetings,
Central Committee of the Tendencia Piquetera Revolucionaria (TPR)
Sunday June 10th, 2012

[1] “Vote KKE! No vote Syriza!”, ICL (5/6)
[3] “The battle for a Left government: eight weaknesses that we ought to correct”
Written by the Editorial Board of the magazine ‘Marxistiki Foni’, 29/5
[8] “Syriza aims to renegotiate Greek bailout” (Joshua Chaffin y Kerin Hope)
[15] Statement of the CC of KKE: "Between two tough battles" (23/5)
[16] For a Left government! For anti-austerity, pro-worker, socialist policies!”, Nikos Anastasiades y Niall Mulholland,
[19] “The European process refutes those who say that ‘crisis is always there, but in the end the right-wing wins’”, interview with Jorge Altamira, by Mario Hernandez
[20] Exchange between the FI Bureau and OKDE-Spartakus” (6/6)
[22] “The revolutionaries and the question of 'left government'”, Claudia Cinatti

1 comentario:

  1. Dear Comrades

    you really need to study again the Left Wing communism, an infantile disorder. see our position on our website