A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) Greece, anarkismo.net: The strategy of flattery by Antonis Drakonakis (gr) [machine translation]

Date Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:27:00 +0300


SYRIZA: The strategy of flattery and the end of the movements ---- Article by Antonis Drakonakis, as can be read in the Political Review "Social Anarchism" of the Koursal Publishing Houses. ---- SYRIZA: the strategy of flattery and the end of the movements ---- Party and electoral base ---- We are not social democrats[...]. Social democracy is capitalism with a polite faculty. It is based on the same production relationships, in the same system of values. The goal is not to abolish human exploitation by man, but to ease class divisions to preserve the system, to consolidate monopoly and imperialist capitalism. That is why the marginal changes promoted by social democracy, changes aimed at concealing the contradictions and weaknesses of the system, are not steps towards socialism, but rather measures to derail[...]. And something that should not be forgotten: social-democratic experiments are feasible in the metropolitan centers of capitalism where there are possibilities for 'kindly masks'. In dependent peripheral countries such as Greece, Such margins do not exist. - Andreas Papandreou, 1975[1]

At the same wavelength of the views that want SYRIZA to be the new PASOK, it would not be absurd to wait for statements like that of Papandreou by Mr Tsipras' lips, nevertheless that never happened. As much as a (tangled) minority of SYRIZA tries to spurn the word "capitalism" (and therefore the anti-capitalist word) into the modern terminology of the party, SYRIZA is trembling; instead, he prefers to talk about "neoliberalism" At the same time that it officially deals with capital on the corridors of the Greek Industrialists Association (BSE) corridors. Thus, SYRIZA's inability to articulate, albeit elementarily, a serious anti-capitalist reason, proves that he fears to reach even the levels of Papandreou's "revolutionary" rhetoric,

SYRIZA can not become the new PASOK, at least not at all levels, and not only because its leader is scared to ideologically exaggerate his speech, as Mr. Papandreou did, but because the former does not have the purse Of the second. Papandreou's social democracy, a revolutionary and demagogic nature, was based on a state-run treasury to redeem the social consciousness; it inspired the "hungry" crowds, replacing the books and social struggles. Based on state money "gifts", generalized flattery, cheap patriotism, and falsified radical speech, PASOK of '81 has been able to secure social consensus and, by extension, the country's governance for a long time.
Correspondingly, with exactly the same recipe but without a drachma in the fund, SYRIZA seeks to occupy the state apparatus. But even if he can inspire pre-election, he does not have the "than" to hold his voters afterwards.

What SYRIZA does not understand or does not understand is that the gap between party and voter, which characterizes each separate political structure such as a party - the lack of an organic relationship between the body and society - is restored either by revolutionary change or by money . In the case of an aspiring social democracy (PASOK '81, SYRIZA now), the second one is supposed. As much as SYRIZA calls on its voters to actively support and support the struggle for the rebirth of the country, this audience is still largely electoral, so far away from the social struggles, separated from the Life and work and alienated from the heteronomy of social reality. It can not, therefore, be transformed from one day into another, into an active crowd, Inspired by the "radical" proposals of a new sic political force, at a time when this power does not even have truly radical ideas that could possibly have given rise to a movement but appeals for painless bites in the body of a rising capitalism. The SYRIZE of 1,655,086 votes is neither a mind-boggling movement; on the contrary, it could be described as an electoral "anti-movement".

If out of the 26% (June 2012) of SYRIZA, we deduct 4.5% of the period before 2012, there is a 21.5% left, which is only a fairly acquired electoral commodity bought with flattery and "stigmatizing". But on what basis do we unite? SYRIZA answers: a) national unity; b) unity of the progressive forces of the place. The second may not be a matter of particular concern, but as far as the first is concerned, it is interesting to stand for a moment and consider the universality of the patriotic rhetoric in politics in Greece:

There were, of course, and (left) minorities[in Greece], who supported their own claims of dominance in internationalist ideologies, but for that reason they could never have wider influence - and whenever they exercised it was because Have adopted patriotic or national slogans.[2]

Talking with members who have been in the party since the Coalition, we will hear that Tsipras and the party executives obviously are not naive; they do not ideologically support any national unity at the expense of a progressive-left social rally; but how else can you get a government If you do not acquire an elementary, patriotic rhetoric? From this, the central strategic pillar, on which the new SYRIZA was structured in all the thematic fields: "all in the midst" and we see clearly, is clear.

After 26% time was pressing and the party found itself in front of two choices; or it would maintain an autonomous left-wing profile, keeping distances from the center-left dynasty or becoming the most "unruly" part of it, and thus a party of power . Of course, he chose the second: the diminishing of political conflicts (ideology), the ideological truce under the weight of the anti-monk slave (see flirting with Independent Greeks), the formation of a government image (absorption of PASOK's "pure" , Statements of legality in the EU and cheap patriotism with a young profile.

With these terpitias, a party that, until recently, expressed - indeed, a truly progressive (and to that extent) part of Greek society (though with no internal rallying), decided to express them all. It took the risk of building a political structure with atrophic trunk and big head; a political struggle that attempts to engage in the same body, governmental and kinematic profile; but we are not in Nicaragua of the Sandinista.

In short, what we want to demonstrate is that SYRIZA is based on a lean electoral base - and rather there will remain - that will betray it at the first opportunity. This is because, on the one hand, it does not come from any massive kinematic force (movement) experienced on the road and social struggles, and because it does not have the possibility to buy its electorate body (distribution of state money), by building a clientele A mechanism - but PASOK - that can rally the base in the name of the "tampaker".

SYRIZA voters are a population of creditors who, as soon as they see their claims collapse, will withdraw credit. The petty bourgeois impatience for change, based on denial of personal involvement in the social struggle, is blind and witty; not interested in the color of the Messiah, as long as it appears as a messiah and does not understand his requests for patience; he wishes prosperity here and now, otherwise Changes ballot paper.

Electoral populations like these can not rally around a political body on the basis of social solidarity and common ideals; initially, because they do not have, at least in their revolutionary version, either of the two. Solidarity and the ideal, it does not have either a class sign or a holistic, value-based question. The overwhelming majority of parliamentary parties' voters perceive solidarity as charity and ideals as relativistic existential wishes.

This, of course, does not mean that the Greek people are not characterized by the element of solidarity; it is simply that solidarity in the present form can not be ideologicalised in the liberation direction. For all of this, we are of course not blaming the responsibility solely on the voters themselves; on the contrary, we perceive the alienating dynamics of the division of labor and the hegemonic mechanisms (Gramsci) with which the capitalist state is mashing up the average human mind.

The snapping of a political force like SYRIZA with purely electoral terms strengthens the dimension of party and voter; it makes it even more evident, the lack of an organic relationship between SYRIZA and its electoral base. It is enough to look at Dawn's sales, the number of his youth, the size of his blocks on the road, or, better yet, how easily he mobilizes his world; and we recall that we are talking about a party of 1.5 million votes.[3]

SYRIZA has little to do with the real dimension of social struggles (as in their exaltation) and that is the dry truth. Apart from some active citizens participating in the neighborhood assemblies of their neighborhood and some doctors, lawyers working in social clinics and legal support groups (without of course underestimating the two), SYRIZA does not have any remarkable experience or know-how , In the bottom-up construction of social struggles; it is no coincidence that it has unlearned any idea and practice that has developed within the anti-authoritarian space in recent years.

However, self-organization is not found in any internal process or party practice, at the same time that the concept of social self-organization has become its flag, while the violent and confrontational repertoires of Kerateas and Skouries are accepted in SYRIZA's rhetoric When his press office condemns violence and claims to undermine social struggles. Whoever has the slightest sense, understands that without the social antiquity and the extreme forms of resistance of the inhabitants of Lavreotikos and Halkidiki, which drove the struggle and made it known throughout Greece, these movements would have been diminished. "The stones, the molotovs and the arson have no place in the popular mobilizations, they have no effect and they stop the struggle" - yes,
In spite of the theoretical harassment and despite repeated attempts by SYRIZA to ideologically control the newly emerging social movements, every effort fails miserably; on the contrary, it proves to be able to draw spectacularly the political surplus of cinematic action in general, of course in the context of the electoral , Perceptual capacity of the average viewer.

The end of the movements

There were forces - mainly of the anarchist - within the movements, which in their effort to impose their own perceptions and practices in the movements, ultra-ideologize and over-politicize local struggles, creating the conditions for their de-isolation and thereby undermining the successful outcome of these struggles. The political confrontation with these perceptions and practices, which consider any association of structures of direct and indirect democracy and any request addressed to the competent (governmental) institutions, in the first place against the struggles, is decisive for the local movements to continue to have a broad social dimension and To shape victory conditions.[5]

When a left party, which has been nurtured for years in the opposition, is suddenly housed in government seats, it faces a series of contradictions; one of them is its relation to social movements.[6]

This contradiction arises from the very nature of the movements that, for the most part, are directed at the authorities. In this regard, we are considering the case of radical movements, with demands that are in line with the struggle of a left-wing political force (eg, Squires, Keratea) and not, for example, a movement against the erection of mosques in Athens.

Being in the position of the government, SYRIZA is automatically transformed into a receiver of the protest and the demands of a movement. Thus, by the propelling power of kinematic action, it appears as a passive decision maker. It is, therefore, potentially in the face of a remarkable existential issue: if it sparks or backs a movement that turns to the government is like complaining to itself. If, again, it immediately meets the demands of a movement, then it means that the movement stops automatically; it stops the kinematic action.

So is the question: how can a kinematic force, supposedly SYRIZA, be a detonator of popular claims and movements when it takes over the reins of the state? How can a force that stands solidly in the local movements be supported by the government? It would be at least funny to see a SYRIZA government sending its executives next to the struggling residents of a region to support their struggle as a means of pressure to the government. So we answer quickly and clearly:

The government is in structural conflict with a movement regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with the content of his claims, because it already threatens to ontological level; standing, ie, competitive in the very essence of the social movement that is extra-institutional character. A government can only support a movement, except to unload it - albeit through negotiation - and turn it into a non-kinematic pressure group.

There are no institutional "movements", ie cells of collective action and mobilization within the institutional (government, state, administrative, etc.) field. The only relationship of a movement with the institutions is either either a possible support of its extra-institutional action by institutional actors (eg the mayor) or the auxiliary-instrumental use of the institutional path (eg appeals to the Council of State). The "movement," then, is and will remain an extra-institutional collective form of struggle for the oppressed.

A government has two choices to a newly emerging movement; or to meet its demands or to collide with it. There is no middle-class solution; either it collides with it, opens another front, meets all or part of its demands, stops it altogether, or temporarily suspends it.

Let's take a look at these options, against the backdrop of the mobilizations against the Scourge mines. A possible SYRIZA government could not, of course, (if it wants to become a surgeon) rather than turn against the claims of "El dorado gold" and block its work from above, satisfying the demands of the mines movement. Obviously, this would automatically mean the end of the struggle of the inhabitants of Halkidiki; the state (SYRIZA) would receive the credit from the once-fought local society and everything would be solved through the institutional path. Let us assume, now, that this tactic is continuing for some time; let us suppose, for example, that SYRIZA manages to construct a government that is corrupt and trustworthy in its "radical" profile, at least for the first time.

We would have the complete depreciation of kinematic action as a repertoire of action and, at the same time, the establishment of a tactical, direct appeal to the government's negotiating bodies on the part of the citizens. And now you will ask: but why should there be movements if the government is condescending? Is kinematic action an end in itself?

Certainly, to the extent that it radicalizes and educates society in a culture of resistance, militancy and self-organization; to the extent that the instinct of the rebellion (Bakunin) keeps alive and impregnates a people with political consciousness[7](the necessary other half of class consciousness Which, in their union, give us revolutionary consciousness); to the extent, finally, that a people through the kinematic action are accustomed to resisting, creating a tradition-this time-kinematic, a "custom" of resistance.

Kinematic action and the instinct of the rebellion should not be treated as an occasion but as proof of the vitality of a society; collective action and rebellion, that is, demonstrate that a society is alive.[8]Still, they keep the flame of the insurgency outlook on the international level; they therefore maintain the internationalist dimension of the social struggle and the project of social liberation. In contrast, for example, in the struggling Scandinavian countries, collective action is moving at zero levels; the social lull of the north can by no means say that it contributes in particular to the prospect of creating a European or more international, Subversive movement. What can the Netherlands or Denmark add to the struggle of rebels around the world?

Continuing our response, we would like to note that a period may be characterized by government conscientiousness (eg probably the first SYRIZA governance period), but years pass and one period succeeds the other. PASOK's early years of government were characterized by a deep consensus on popular claims, but a few years later, the state again showed its true form. Those who are willing to invest once more in his polite mask will do so; the anarchists will continue to stare at the story and the truth.

In governing the left, movements will be promoted by the state as potential means of struggle against the next government or, even worse, perhaps undermined by conservative and ultra-right-opposing forces. Self-organized popular assemblies will be set up with the blessing of the state, they will organize "public dialogues" and not mobilizations, and they will not create any "Forbidden castle"[9]; instead, they will meet in the councils' halls and act as collective bodies Self-education on state propaganda.

What to do;

In the case that a left-wing government like SYRIZA follows a consensus-oriented strategy (at least in the beginning), it means that radical kinematic action in Greece automatically becomes a recession or even a permanent inhibition. A governmental strategy of satisfaction and co-operation with the movements will automatically mean the elimination of the movements in their generation or, even worse, their preventive extinction before they even break out.

Self-organization, self-management and direct democracy will be linked to popular consciousness with the state, and even in their most unpolluted, counter-revolutionary form; the social revolutionary struggle will once again take a few steps backwards. The state's conscious state of dynamism will be surrounded by a left-progressive-kimono cloak, and any movement of state arbitrariness will be "charged" to the broader radical forces.

For all this and for thousands of other reasons, the position of the anarchists in a possible SYRIZA government must be stable and immovable. No retreat, no consensus and no tolerance to the state and its prospective managers. Self-organization, labor self-management, social solidarity, and the class struggle against capital and its army are not made with state funding and smiles in every direction but through struggles, conflicts and deprivations; not within an eternal expectation of global Revolution, but not the retreat of petty bourgeois impatience for a certain change.

Notes:
[1]Interview in the newspaper The News, 3.11.75 by Papandreou A., For a Socialist Society, Athens, Ed. Ed., 1977, pp. 45-46.
[2]Kondylis P., The Decline of Urban Culture, Athens, Themes, 2007, p. 31.
[3]Looking at the SYRIZA model as a whole, we will find that it is quite different from the well-known European left-wing forces of our day. It has little influence on the trade union and its forces on the road do not exceed the dynamics of ANTARSYA. It is well off, for example, from both the Spanish Left Coalition (IU) and the French Communist Party (PCF), both of which have a strong presence in the trade union field. See, Izquierd Unida (the largest power of the coalition is known since the time of the civilian Spanish Communist Party - PCE) and Parti Communiste Francais. The trade unions close to the two parties are CCOO (Comisiones Obreras) in Spain and CGT (Confederation Generale Du Travail) in France, respectively.
[4]Typically, before the arson on February 15, 2013, the issue was buried by the media, while the solidarity marches in Athens and Thessaloniki (June 2012) numbered a few hundred. Following the arson and dimensions of the issue, two massive solidarity trades with thousands of people took place in Athens (12 March 2013) and Thessaloniki (9 March 2013). More than 10,000 people participated in the course of Thessaloniki.
[5]Position papers of the 6th SYN Youth Congress, Chapter 2 - "City Movements and Ecological Structures", http://archive-gr.com/page/1903877/2013-04-22/http://ww. .d = 714. In this paragraph, SYN youth obviously confuses the anarchist space with the KKE (at least as far as the first part is concerned). So if the abovementioned writing is not a product of fallacy, we would please the youth to give us the example of a local struggle that was alienated by the undermining dynamics of the anarchist space.
[6]There are also social movements that do not necessarily address the authorities. In the non-text, however, we refer to social movements with a political dimension, to what they are turning to the authorities to meet their demands. See, Neveu E., The Sociology of Social Movements, Athens, Savvas, 2010.
[7]Bakunin M., Marxism, Freedom and State, at anthostoukakou.blogspot.gr/2012/07/1.html.
[8]"[...]a people who, under any pretext, may suffer tyranny, necessarily lose finally the savior's habit of rebellion, even the very instinct of the insurrection," Bakunin, to himself.
[9]The competing political hangout "Inferno Castro" was an improvised site that served as a center of struggle for the inhabitants of Keratea during the mobilizations against the landfill.

Related Link: http://koursal.wordpress.com

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30470
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center