Syriza
- This topic has 255 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
With friends like this who requires enemies.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/17/currency-scheme-1930s-save-greek-economy-eurozone-crisisGeorge "Just print the money" Monibot, the money crank nowAnybody read about this stamp scrip, first i have heard of it ?
You beat me to it ! Silvio Gesell's "stamp scrip" idea is mentioned in this article in the Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1254-february-2009/cooking-books-1-free-money-everyoneBasically, he proposed that money should devalue the longer it was held as cash and not spent. This, as a way of encouraging people to spend. It might work (it's not based on a fallacy about the nature of money). Some local currencies have adopted it (I don't know what my souvenir Stroud Pound must be worth now).Gesell has a sort of place in working-class history as he was Finance Minister in the ill-fated 1919 Munich Soviet .
Here (I hope) is Jim Callaghan's famous speech at the burial of the Keynesian idea that a government could spend its way out of a crisis:http://tiny.cc/mmh3tx I don't know if it has been translated into Greek so Alexis Tsipras can use it in a year or so's time.
The job of Marxists is to save capitalism:http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/18/yanis-varoufakis-how-i-became-an-erratic-marxist
stuartw2112 wrote:The job of Marxists is to save capitalism:http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/18/yanis-varoufakis-how-i-became-an-erratic-marxistMarxists or leftwingers ? Marx did not call himself a Marxist
Very interesting and revealing, this speech dating from 2013 of the person who is now Greece's Minister of Finance. For those who won't read the whole article here's a couple of key passages:
Quote:Yet my aim here is to offer a window into my view of a repugnant European capitalism whose implosion, despite its many ills, should be avoided at all costs. It is a confession intended to convince radicals that we have a contradictory mission: to arrest the freefall of European capitalism in order to buy the time we need to formulate its alternative.Quote:If this means that it is we, the suitably erratic Marxists, who must try to save European capitalism from itself, so be it. Not out of love for European capitalism, for the eurozone, for Brussels, or for the European Central Bank, but just because we want to minimise the unnecessary human toll from this crisisIt's the same argument he put forward in his blog in April 2012 already quoted on this thread.At least he's honest about what he has since been given a chance to try to do.
I didn't realise when I posted it that it was based on an old speech. What impressed me was the intellectual content – he's obviously no fool – and as Adam says, the honesty. He's obviously one of the good guys, and maybe you are right – perhaps the Fellowship For Socialism really can't use the power of the Ring, I mean, the State, to achieve genuine peace. But his argument for doing so, like Boromir's, is pretty compelling.
I've been reading the Morning Star this week (to see if they've published a letter we sent them) and have been surprised at their negative attitude towards Syriza. There's a letter protesting against this in today's issue. Apparently, the Morning Star, which is closely associated with the CPB, is echoing the views of the Greek Communist Party, the KKE, which is also hostile to Syriza. It wants Greece to withdraw from the EU (and so the euro). Which of course is what the CPB wants the UK to do too. But an "independent" state-capitalist siege economy wouldn't make things any better for workers in Greece. In fact it would probably make things even worse.Incidentally, in the elections the KKE also increased its vote and representation in parliament.
Yes, I guess this is "the worse, the better" kind of argument than Varoufakis crticises in his article. Syriza and a majority of the Greek people want to stay in the EU, and this seems very sensible to me. Will the SPGB call for an "in" vote in any "in/out" referendum? I know it won't, but it should! Cheers
Again Stuart i think this relates to the experience of the Scottish Referendum i keep harping back to. Some members expressed the thought we should have recommended a No if we were pushed to choose one or the other, but others ( a minority view, i judged it to be) thought the Yes optimism and the popular engagement they created meant we should have went with them. What was clear was the abstentionists of the anarchists and the spoil the ballot-paper of the SPGB were totally insignificant and at odds with any section of the vote which was reflected in the result. For sure it could be said to have been a victory for the nationalists…the unionist and separatists, as some on Libcom declare being the reason why 90% joined in the process,(making a lie of the cliched slogans of anarchism and the third who don't want to vote) but i fear that is a bit simplistic in my opinion. My discussions with the Yes people led me to believe that they were not voting for their wee bit hill and glen as the Flower of Scotland puts it. Many knew it was romantic nonsense but were rather hoping that by localising politics they were going to have more influence…a contradictory and forlorn hope, i know, just look at the town council voting to see how utopian such an aspiration was…but as i said…people i talked with thought it would lead to a more participartory inclusive politics. ..the beginning of a positive change Likewise, those in the No camp i talked to were not voting for the British union and the status quo but held instead out for a wider class solidarity …internationalism…recognising that links went beyond borders as did the class struggle….(even to be parochial, they recognised that families crossed borders) Maybe i talked to the wrong type of people and got a mistaken impression. I don't think i did. If the EU referendum comes, i hope we do have something that people can relate to much more and in our approach that we do touch upon their real hopes…that we actually acurately detect what those are …and try to distinguish that both the In and Out will be voting for something much more than what the debate on simple economic advantages and material benefits will be focussed upon by the media and mainstream parties…Something in their attitudes and feelings and consciousness that is tangible that we as socialist can articulate. (I think i might go and read some Billy Bragg and refresh myself about his left patriotism conmbined with internationalism and see if we can appeal to both the In and Out on class unity and make them question why they are being forced into this dilemma of In or Out)…As i keep saying these days on a lot of questions i don't have the answer but then i don't think others do , as well…but it is from raising those issues amongst ourselves that we learn something.
ON the hope I will not be censored or blocked from posting here (as has happened) I would likecv to comment on the information supplied by Allan. I realise "internationalism" is a key feature of policy here and this word was used in connection with the above comments on the SCottish referendum by the no campainers. I will put simple facts = Glasgow -WEst Dumbartonshire-Dundee and I think North Lanarkshire voted Yes . What have those areas all in common ==Abject Poverty as someone who has lived in Glasgow and Clydebank and was the poorest in my street I know how it felt .THe people voting No were those middle class /rich and also the "wee fearties " believing all the 2 years of lies from WEstminster who wouldnt kniow the truth if they tripped over it inthe road . It amounted to if we voted yes Scotland woukld break away from Enfgland and sink into the North SEa -sadlly many Scots believed it THe East of Scotland Edinburgh etc dont see the same levels of poverty as in the WEst or it is more hidden -poverty -what poverty !! THis is a "we are all right so there !! Its total hypocracy No inreality the yes vote was for social democracy while Cameron is fully privatising the NHS -not happen in SCotland ? all they will do is reduce the SCottish grant which they have already done and force Hollyrood intio a no win situaltion and then blame the sNP for WEstminsters connivance as they are doindcart this very moment =New Labour are blaiming Holyrood when its Westminster thats behind it. Will you post this ?? if not well that says it all and then goodbye.
I was for Yes, for some of the reasons articulated here, but I switched to No on the basis of economic and political realism, as expressed nowhere better than here: http://kenmacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/an-argument-against-scottish.html
I don't want to derail this thread with re-living the Referendum but try and keep it related to hopes and spirations of people, hence my comparisonSyriza for instance are viewd by some as a practical response to austerity and the Troika, as is Podemos …but don't they also reflect and express greater things…a spirit of rebellion…"Go on…Git It Up Yis"…as some in the Scot Referendum Yes camp voted …to upset the prevailing order…an act of revolt and little thought for any potential consequences…something Syriza are now having to face up to having assumed the responsibility of government I think ALB and i touched on a topic that we have not fully explored on this thread but mentioned in the Weekly Worker letters…of Syriza declining to use their electoral advantage to form a government , refusing to take office and its poisoned chalice and giving the overtly pro-capitalists the challenge of ruling without a majority and in the face of an active opposition in parliament as well as out of it. This would require a total re-think of conventional politics by the voters and a new role for a political party to adapt to…plus just a whole question of constitutional democracy being challeneged…to refer to yet another current thread on the forum on the related question of parliamentary power..
Stuart I base realism on actual actions not words and the fact that the SNP is being voted in by a majority of sCots thats realism not wishful thinking . I know you would rather they voted for the Socialist Party but they dont thats a fact . Who then is at least to more of a degree than other political parties with a realistic chance of being voted in in SCotland has policies of help for the poor against the privatation of the nHS -removal of Trident from the Holy LOch ans Faslane – WEstminster are now opening up more nuke sub v bases in the WESt coast .THeyb wil be cutting the SCottish block grant even more to make us comply with total neo -con privatisation and who will they blame =Holyrood to slyly con the SCots again.
duncan lucas wrote:Stuart I base realism on actual actions not words and the fact that the SNP is being voted in by a majority of sCots thats realism not wishful thinking . I know you would rather they voted for the Socialist Party but they dont thats a fact .duncan, I'd tell your fellow workers that voting 'No' is voting for shit with sugar on it, and voting 'Yes' is voting for shit with honey on it.And after the vote, either winner will withdraw the sweetener, and force them to eat shit.The answer is not to eat shit, and become a socialist.If your fellow workers are determined to eat shit, you can't prevent them, and can only try to provide an alternative, that might one day become a palatable alternative to shit, for them.That's 'realism' and 'fact', for them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.