A Greek drama
General strikes & political ferment
THREE 24-HOUR general strikes have rocked Greece in
recent months: on 12 December 2007, 13 February and 19 March 2008. Anger
has erupted at attacks on state pension provision and corruption at the
top of the political establishment. Each strike wave has increased in
intensity, each general strike involving two to three million workers –
out of a population just over eleven million. Pressure is piling onto
the neo-liberal, ‘centre-right’ New Democracy government, led by prime
minister, Kostas Karamanlis, which hangs by a thread with a majority of
only one MP.
On Wednesday 12 December, mainstream media reported
over 100,000 demonstrating in the capital, Athens, with more than 20,000
on the streets of Salonika. There were massive strikes and demos in all
major cities, on a scale not been seen for many years.
The private and public sectors came to a standstill.
Schools, universities, hospitals, telecoms, the state electricity
company, Olympic Airways, banks, ports, boats, construction, cement
companies, mines, and textile workers, all took strike action. The only
things that moved during the protest hours were the trains and metro –
to take workers and youth to the demonstrations. Then they stopped too.
The Greek trade union confederations in the private
and public sectors, GSEE and ADEDY, had called the action as a matter of
routine, one of the usual ‘general strikes’ called to let off steam.
What they had done, in reality, was ignite the explosive anger of the
working class and youth as the government’s plans to launch these latest
attacks became increasingly clear.
On Wednesday 13 February, workers, pensioners and
youth came out for the second time in a general strike. Up to 50,000
rallied in Athens, with demos in 63 other towns. On top of the pensions
attack – which initially targets the new generation of young workers and
those in the private sector (see box) – the government also plans to
sell off Olympic Airways, and to privatise the public electricity
company and the ports in Piraeus and Salonika.
The anger was magnified by numerous corruption and
sex scandals involving establishment politicians. Working-class people
hear on a daily basis about tens of millions of euros exchanging hands
at the same time as they suffer from rising inflation and unemployment,
as well as continual attacks on their living standards and rights. Soon
after the December strikes, the labour minister responsible for the
pensions bill was sacked. And around the same time, another MP was
forced to go ‘independent’ as a result of another scandal, reducing New
Democracy’s formal majority to one MP.
Incredibly, polls indicated that the former
social-democratic party, PASOK (Panhellenic Socialist Movement), was
losing support even faster than the ruling party. These two bourgeois
parties were registering no more than 50% combined support – a few years
ago they were on 80%. In contrast, the ‘Communist’ Party (KKE) and
SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left) together were on more than 20% –
in the early 1990s, they had around 7% combined. SYRIZA made the biggest
gains, up to 10%, compared to 3% three years previously.
Again, on Wednesday 19 March, Greece experienced one
of the greatest general strikes in its history, the culmination of three
weeks of industrial action. Around 150,000 demonstrated in Athens. The
following day, the bill on pensions going through parliament was met
with mass protest rallies. Some strikes continued into 21 March, but the
previous three weeks had seen one sector of workers after another out on
strike.
Dockers were among the first to take industrial
action, including strikes and a three-month work-to-rule. There were
violent clashes with police ‘special forces’ in the big ports of Pireas
and Salonika. Bin workers came out all over Greece, striking for 13
working days.
State electricity company workers struck for 18
working days, causing daily nationwide power cuts. The management took
the union federation to court, the judges ruling that the strike must
end and that the federation should not call any future strikes on the
issue of pension cuts. But the strike continued. Nonetheless, the ruling
encouraged other bosses to take legal action. However, advocates and
lawyers went on strike from 17 March to 20 March and the courts ceased
to function!
Bank workers struck for a week. Mass media workers
were involved in several 48-hour strikes, while telecoms, bus, metro and
tram workers took a number of 24-hour strikes.
Government propaganda failed to turn public opinion
against the strikers: 85% want the pension bill scrapped. SYRIZA, which
won 5% of the vote in the last general election in September 2007, shot
up to over 15% in opinion polls. The ruling capitalist class fears that
the two-party system it has relied on for decades is now in real danger.
The Greek pension scheme swindle
THE GOVERNMENT plans to raise the retirement age
to 65 years and cut pensions by up to one third. Currently, a worker
who has completed 35 years in work, and paid into the social insurance
funds, can retire at 58. Also, mothers in their mid-40s who have
dependents have the choice of taking early retirement. These will no
longer be possible. Industrial workers who work under particularly bad
or dangerous conditions, and those on early pensions because of
serious health problems, will have their cases ‘reassessed’. Through a
farcical ‘voluntarily’ work scheme, by lowering pensions the
government will force workers to work up to 68 years old.
Two thirds of all pensioners in Greece (1.6
million) receive less than €580 per month, already a starvation
income. Over the years, better-off sections of the working class
developed supplementary pension funds because of the low level of the
state pension. In this way, they could get pensions of between
€1,000-€1,300 – still a very modest amount. Now the government wants
to cut these by up to 44% and to use the money to pay the deficits of
the ‘poor’ funds.
Successive PASOK and New Democracy governments
have blamed demographic changes – that the population is becoming
older and pension and health funds cannot respond. Of course,
demographic changes put pressure on pension provision, but the main
reason for the deficits is that they have been looted in the past, and
continue to be so, by Greek capitalists.
Between the mid-1950s and mid-1980s the funds
were, by law, handed over to the central bank, which then lent them
with next-to-zero interest rates to industrialists and ship owners,
supposedly to help develop the economy. At that time, inflation in
Greece was running between 20-25% annually. With the interest rate at
around 0% the funds quickly vanished. In this way, €83 billion (in
today’s prices), around 40% of current gross domestic product (GDP),
was ‘lost’ – stolen and handed over to the capitalists.
The government has been required since 2002 to
supply 1% of GDP annually to support the social security system. But
it doesn’t! As a result, the Greek state is the greatest debtor to the
funds, owing around €12.4 billion. Many private-sector employers
follow the government’s example, yet none has ever been arrested or
punished. This affects an estimated 1.1 million workers, close to one
third of the labour force, and costs the pension and health funds an
average of €5.4 billion every year. On top of all this, hundreds of
millions of euros have been lost through stock exchange ‘investment’
scams.
The Institute of Labour of the Trade Union
Confederation estimates that, if all the wealth of the pension and
health funds had remained intact, there would be enough to pay a
pension of €1,000 per month to every Greek worker. Also, by cutting
back pensions and health services, ever larger numbers of people are
forced to go to private insurance companies and hospitals.
Historic opportunity for the Greek left
Over the last year, Xekinima (CWI Greece) has been
discussing its participation in SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left),
which was set up in 2004. SYRIZA’s growth has dealt a blow against the
two-party dominance of New Democracy and PASOK and has been greeted
enthusiastically by workers and young people, radicalised by the current
mass strike waves. Below is an edited transcript of a speech to a
national meeting of SYRIZA (14-16 March) by ANDROS PAYIATSOS, general
secretary of Xekinima.
"DEAR COMRADES, I’D like to give sincere greetings
from my organisation that has openly and clearly moved towards SYRIZA in
recent months. As many of you know, Xekinima is in a period of internal
discussion about participating in SYRIZA. This process started ten
months ago when Xekinima began to draw the conclusion that the only
serious political developments on the left, with the real potential and
perspective of having an impact on society and the mass movement, are
visible in SYRIZA.
As a result, Xekinima called in the last election
for a vote for SYRIZA. This was an important change as, previously, we
had called for ‘a vote for left parties’ in general. These new
conclusions still need to be transformed into resolutions at the next
conference of Xekinima, set for the beginning of June.
We are here today to share our enthusiasm with you
about the big steps forward on the left, and the rapid rise in the echo
SYRIZA finds in society. The strong blow, which the two-party system has
had to accept, has panicked the two parties of capital, New Democracy
and PASOK. For the first time in two decades the left has returned to
the stage and is sending society a strong message: to offer resistance,
that the battle has not been lost, and that policies can be overturned
and circumstances can change.
The soaring support for the left and SYRIZA in
recent polls strengthens, in an indirect but clear way, the morale of
ordinary people. It gives workers a perspective of being able to fight
against capitalist policies. They are beginning to recreate a vision of
an alternative society, which was ‘lost’ in the last period. This vision
is, in our opinion, totally necessary to give the workers’ movement a
perspective, to raise its morale and aims, and to win objectives. All
these developments change the conditions of class struggle in favour of
the workers’ movement, youth and ordinary layers of the population.
At the same time, this enthusiasm is accompanied by
the problems which many speakers have raised at this conference. These
problems concern the feeling of responsibility and duty. The
responsibility for winning 3% [in the 2004 elections] or even 5% [in
2007] is really small compared to the responsibility for the 17-18% seen
in recent opinion polls.
Questions raised
THERE ARE questions about SYRIZA, not only among the
people who are active in the movement, but also in the broad layers of
the population. Firstly, will SYRIZA maintain its percentages in the
polls or will it decline again? The second question is much more
important: if SYRIZA can maintain its support, will we finally have
something really new, or will it make the same mistakes again that the
traditional parties of the left made in the past?
And when we talk about mistakes we need to know what
we mean. The huge positive traditions of the left have been mentioned at
this conference, and justifiably so. The example of the EAM [National
Liberation Front – the KKE-controlled resistance movement during the
second world war against fascist occupation] and others, the heroism of
the left and so on. However, to be clear and draw the right conclusions,
we need the full picture of the history of the left.
On one side we have EAM and ELAS [National
Liberation Army, EAM’s armed wing] and, on the other, we have Varkiza
[where in February 1945, EAM/ELAS agreed a ceasefire with British troops
and the armed Greek rightwing, handing over its weapons]. On one side we
have Aris Velouchiotis [leader of the partisans of ELAS who resisted the
disarming] and, on the other side, those who drove Aris into desperation
and suicide, ie the leadership of the KKE and Zachariadis [KKE leader]
in particular. On one side we have the Polytechnic [scene of the 1973
student uprising against the then military dictatorship] and, on the
other side, we have the governments of PASOK who built on the tradition
of the Polytechnic only to betray everything they stood for and abandon
the socialist ideas that inspired the working class in the 1970s.
These were not mistakes, they were betrayals! The
fights, the victims and the heroism characterised the mass movement of
the ordinary layers of the population. The betrayals characterised the
leadership of these movements. In our opinion, this idea has to
penetrate the consciousness, especially of the young generation, which
is mistrustful, as has been said by other speakers. It is mistrustful
with justification: fortunately, the youth is mistrustful of today's
leadership. At the same time, we all understand that mistrust alone is
not enough. The lessons must be drawn! The past betrayals must not
happen again. What do we do about that? How do we guard against new
mistakes and new betrayals?
We have the opinion that SYRIZA should have high
targets. The possibilities of strengthening the left and left ideas
exist and are, from an objective view, unlimited. The question is: will
the left in general and SYRIZA in particular use these possibilities?
The answer is ‘yes’, but only under certain conditions. In particular,
we have to focus the discussion on what are the conditions for success
of the next steps.
Deepening the move to the left
FOR US, THE first condition is that the moves to the
left that were shown in Synaspismos [Coalition of the Left of Movements
and Ecology] in the last two to three years, and which were reflected in
SYRIZA, not only have to go further, but also have to be deepened and
consolidated. The reason SYRIZA was able to use the objective
opportunities of the crisis in the system – an economic, social and
political crisis – and the reason why the percentages for SYRIZA have
soared are the moves to the left of Synaspismos and SYRIZA in the last
period. Without that, the upswing in the left was impossible and
unthinkable.
Most of you would agree to what I have just said.
But this proposal to deepen the move to the left should not be seen as
an easy process. The stronger SYRIZA becomes, the stronger will be the
pressure pushing it to the right or into joining a centre-left
government. There is not enough time to develop this issue but we want
to emphasise, comrades, that this pressure should not be underestimated.
This pressure will come from the bourgeoisie. It
will be suffocating. It will come from the mass media, from PASOK, and
even from the ‘public opinion’ that is influenced by the mass media and
the bourgeois institutions. The pressure will also come from inside
Synaspismos and from other parties in SYRIZA. If SYRIZA underestimates
the dimensions and the complexity of the pressure, it will fall into the
trap and gamble away an historic opportunity.
New formations
WE WOULD STRENGTHEN this argument by pointing to
examples from recent European and worldwide experience. Some people may
say that the reference to past decades is a past far removed from today
and has a doubtful meaning. But let’s see which way the parties of the
left took in the last two decades. In yesterday’s discussion, I had the
impression that some of the comrades who spoke adopted the attitude of
avoiding a real and honest discussion on problems characterising the new
left formations, in Europe and internationally, wanting to sweep them
under the carpet.
In the last 15 years there have been a lot of
examples of ‘new formations’ on the left, particularly in Europe, but
also worldwide. One of them is Rifondazione Comunista. This party
inspired great movements in the past period. It brought millions of
people on to the streets and helped to strengthen the morale of the
movement in the whole of Europe.
Where does Rifondazione stand today? It couldn’t
resist the temptation of seeking ministerial seats in the Prodi
government. It became jointly responsible for implementing neo-liberal
policies. The results, 20 months later, are that the menace of
Berlusconi threatens to come back and Rifondazione finds itself in a
deep internal crisis.
This is not a mistake. The leadership of
Rifondazione stabbed a knife into the body of the Italian left, the
Italian movement, the European left and the European movement. Nothing
less! We have a responsibility to make this clear to the Greek movement.
We have to explain who is responsible for it. At the same time, we must
understand why. When and/or what will it mean if the parties on the left
repeat this sad history?
The Socialist Party in the Netherlands and Die Linke
[The Left] in Germany were given yesterday as good examples to follow
and as a counterweight to the ‘Italian problems’. We cannot agree with
this. The leadership of the SP in the Netherlands says publicly ‘yes’ to
participating in a coalition government with the Dutch Labour Party. How
can this be seen as positive? Die Linke in Germany doesn’t only say yes
[to participation in coalition governments], it also does it already on
the level of some of the federal states, many of which are far bigger
than Greece!
A characteristic example is the regional government
in Berlin. There, Die Linke is together with the Social Democrats in a
government coalition that implements neo-liberal policies. Today, Die
Linke is getting 14% in opinion polls. If it were invited tomorrow to go
into a government coalition on a national level, there is no doubt about
which kind of policy it would support.
Which way did these formations go after the initial
euphoria? They moved to the right, almost without exception. And this
paved the way for a split in some formations, like Respect in Britain
last year. Or some of them disappeared, after some internal degenerate
conflicts, like the SSP [Scottish Socialist Party] in Scotland.
The experiences of these old and new formations
raise the following questions: how can SYRIZA avoid this path? How can
we avoid this way? The aims and intentions are good. This is without any
doubt. But are good intentions enough?
Political proposals & programme
THE FIRST STEP to assure the future of this ‘new
left’ building up in Greece – up to a certain point (an absolute
guarantee is not achievable) – is its political proposals, its
programme, if it is called on to take governmental responsibilities.
This issue is not abstract. If a political formation achieves 17-18%
support, the question will certainly be asked: ‘What will it do when it
is called to govern?’ On this question, the left cannot answer: ‘This
doesn’t bother me’, or ‘this question is not important at the moment’.
The left has to put its proposals very clearly.
The left also can’t say that ‘the proposals we make
today must reflect the movement and its intensity’ or things like this.
That is not enough. The movements cannot develop without political
demands that come from the left. Both the movement and the left are
linked together. If one of them is missing, the other one is in danger
of becoming undermined.
In principle and in general the political proposals
of the left, and of SYRIZA in particular, have to be presented openly
before society. In this way they arm the members and supporters of
SYRIZA politically and become the property of the mass movement. If the
ideas of the left are not abstract but become concrete proposals and a
programme for the mass movement of the working class, then the way for
big changes is opened up. As a second point, the proposals have to be
posed to the others on the left, particularly the KKE, to call them to
united action on the basis of such a working-class programme.
Such a programme is also the best way to answer the
pseudo-left and false appeals for ‘unity’ by the PASOK leadership. If
these ideas become concrete, if this programme is in the service of the
interests of the working class, then PASOK will forget its unity appeals
and go on the offensive. It will reveal its real character as a party of
the bourgeoisie, and people still supporting PASOK will see through its
bluff.
Basic programme points
THUS THE CENTRAL issue is the programme, a programme
in the interests of the working class. The whole of SYRIZA and all its
components more or less agree to the following points: a drastic
increase of wages and pensions; a 35-hour week, seven-hour day, five-day
week; stop the flexibilisation of work; for permanent working contracts;
in defence of social insurance, removing all anti-insurance laws from
previous years; for mass investment in the public health and education
systems; and many more issues like racism, gender equality,
environmental questions and so on.
But, immediately, a number of crucial issues come
up. Does any one of you, comrades, believe that capital or the EU will
accept such a policy without hard conflicts? This won’t be the case.
This leads us to the next question. Is SYRIZA prepared for such
conflicts? We go further. Will SYRIZA, if it is called to take power, go
on and renationalise the privatised companies? Will it nationalise all
strategic economic units that are controlled by the 50 families that
dominate the economy, so that the economy works for people’s needs and
not for the profit of big capital? Will SYRIZA introduce a totally
different model of administration, with accountable and removable
administrations in all public companies, without special high wages or
privileges, and develop an administration of a majority which is made up
of workers’ representatives who can be recalled at any time?
If the left wants to remain true to its principles
and proclamations, then everything that I have mentioned is necessary.
But all of this means a frontal conflict with domestic and foreign
capital. I ask you again comrades: is SYRIZA prepared for this conflict?
No, it isn’t. Not today. But the discussion has just
started. And this is really important, a discussion that concerns the
programmatic make-up of SYRIZA. This allows SYRIZA to prepare itself. In
this way it can prepare for its historical contribution. If this is not
done it cannot develop, and we will see the repetition of the big losses
and disappointments of the past.
The explosive growth of SYRIZA puts before it heavy
responsibilities and puts it under strong pressure, from the
bourgeoisie, PASOK, the mass media and so on. But also under the
pressure of society and the workers’ movement.
The only way to deal with the pressure of the ruling
class and the positive pressure of the movement is to answer two
decisive questions.
First, to give the proposals for a ‘new left
government’ of the country – already raised by Alekos Alavanos [leader
of SYRIZA’s parliamentary group] – a content that is concrete, practical
and understandable to ordinary layers of the population. This content
has to transform the programme into a tool and a guide for how to act.
Second, in the same way, content has to be given to
the words ‘socialism with freedom and democracy’ in a concrete and
practical manner, understandable to the large masses of the population.
We repeat that this slogan has to become a programme of how to act.
Only in this way can we prepare for the big
struggles that will come. Only in this way can the left prepare for the
future. Only in this way can SYRIZA enact social transformation and open
up new ways. Only in this way can the cynicism caused by past defeats
and disappointments be ended. Only in this way can the left
internationally, from Europe to Latin America, be given an example to
follow."
SYRIZA: a glossary
SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left) is led
by Alekos Alavanos and was launched in January 2004 in time for
legislative elections in which it won 3.1% of the vote. Alavanos was
elected an MEP in 1981 for the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), and
later as a Synaspismos MEP (elected 1989, 1994 and 1999), an MP since
2004 and Synaspismos president 2004-08.
SYRIZA is made up of the following organisations:
Synaspismos (SYN – Coalition of the Left of
Movements and Ecology): Founded in 1991 out of an electoral
coalition in which sections of the KKE and the Greek Left (EAR –
successor to the Euro-communist KKE-Interior) were the largest
components. Alexis Tsipras was elected party president at the congress
in February this year, replacing Alavanos who resigned in order to
deal mainly with SYRIZA.
Renewing Communist Ecological Left (AKOA): A
left split from the KKE-Interior, with about 350 members and a
well-known weekly newspaper selling up to 2,000 copies per week.
Internationalist Workers’ Left (DEA): A
split-off from the Socialist Workers Party of Greece (SEK) in 2001,
with around 300 members, mainly in Athens.
Kokkino (Red): Split from DEA in 2004, with
around 100 members.
Movement for the United in Action Left (KEDA):
Formed from a split from the KKE in the early 2000s, including Yiannis
Theonas (former KKE MEP) and Mitsos Koslopoulos (former secretary
general of the General Confederation of Greek Workers and former
president of the KKE parliamentary group, who subsequently left KEDA’s
leadership and became inactive in May 2007). KEDA retains a presence
in some trade unions.
Active Citizens: Led by Manolis Glezos, who
brought down the Nazi flag from the Acropolis during the occupation of
Athens and raised the Greek flag in its place.
Other independent left individuals.
Communist Organisation of Greece (KOE): One of
the Maoist groups which broke from their traditions and entered the
Greek social forum, with about 1,000 members. Worked with SYRIZA since
2004 and formally joined in June 2007.
Ecological Intervention: Joined SYRIZA in
August 2007.
Democratic Social Movement (DIKKI): A split
from the former social-democratic PASOK in the mid-1990s, whose
members call themselves ‘patriotic socialists’. After a long and
unfruitful collaboration with the KKE, DIKKI approached SYRIZA in
August 2007, joining in March 2008.
Formed in 2004, SYRIZA made no inroads in the
general elections in the beginning of that year, increasing support
for Synaspismos by a negligible 0.1% (to 3.1%). This caused an
immediate crisis.
Synaspismos broke away and SYRIZA was dissolved.
Synaspismos went into an alliance with DIKKI, hoping to gain support
from PASOK voters, but the result in the euro-elections of the same
year was again one of stagnation.
This time the crisis broke inside Synaspismos: its
president was forced to resign and was replaced by the more left-wing,
Alekos Alavanos. The programme adopted at the congress was a move to
the left, raising the need to rebuild SYRIZA.
SYRIZA was relaunched, officially, in June 2007,
adopting an anti-neoliberal programme, which mentions socialism
explicitly.
In the previous period, Alavanos had become a
prominent personality on the left as the main opposition to government
policies. Under his presidency Synaspismos/SYRIZA took part in the
struggles that were developing to a much greater extent than ever
before. SYRIZA’s support for the education struggles was of decisive
importance – the KKE and PASOK were initially against the university
students’ struggle. SYRIZA was advancing at a time when PASOK, under
the leadership of George Papandreou, was in deep crisis.
The turning point for SYRIZA came in the summer of
2007. It won 5% in the elections of September 2007, the KKE 8%.
The failure of PASOK to win caused a massive
crisis in its ranks, giving an additional push to SYRIZA – by January
2008 its support in opinion polls rose to over 10%.
In February, Alavanos stepped down as president of
Synaspismos, proposing Alexis Tsipras, a 33-year-old member to take
the post. Tsipras was elected with 70% of the vote of the congress,
supported by the leftwing of the party. This renewal pushed up support
in the polls to 17-18%. Alavanos took over the leadership of SYRIZA’s
parliamentary group.
Papandreou reestablished his control of PASOK at
its latest congress, and is attempting to move to the left. He has
even been seen on picket lines and demos. PASOK is openly calling on
SYRIZA to agree on a future coalition government programme. The
rightwing of Synaspismos, which controls the majority of its MPs,
wants to join PASOK in government.
The result of the September 2007 general election
gave 152 parliamentary seats to New Democracy, 102 to the Panhellenic
Socialist Movement (PASOK), 22 to the KKE, 14 to SYRIZA, and 10 to the
Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS – right-wing, nationalist populist).
Since then, however, the New Democracy majority has been reduced to
one seat as a result of sex and corruption scandals. Despite this it
has been able to continue in government and apply its neo-liberal
policies. The main reason for this is the unwillingness of the trade
union leaders to fight battles to the end, which inevitably would mean
bringing the government down, in line with the feelings of the
majority of activists in the working-class movement.
|