Monday, February 6, 2017

The nature of SYRIZA and why it is supported by the bourgeoisie

Photo credit: IDC.
Source: Rizospastis / Translation: In Defense of Communism.

The identification of SYRIZA's political positioning requires first of all the clarification of the relationship between bourgeois politics and the opportunist (political) stream. In respect to its class substance, the opportunist political line is a bourgeois political line, but as it is manifested within the lines of the labour movement. While it is a policy which supports the strategic objectives of the capital in economy and politics, it appears with a socialist cloak and slogans. The fact that the opportunist perceptions objectively have a common "core" with the bourgeois ideology and politics is expressed both in the occasional convergences between opportunist and bourgeois parties as well as in the convertion of opportunist parties into parties of bourgeois governance, especially in times when this is necessary of capitalism.

When an opportunist party is called to manage the general interests of the bourgeois class from governmental posts, then it de facto becomes subject to a series of political, ideological and organisational adjustments that are characterized by the retreat of its opportunist elements and references without, of course, meaning that these do not continue to be utilized for the entrapment of popular forces in the bourgeois pursuits.

The above have been expressed also in SYRIZA's history. The "backbone" of today's SYRIZA comes from the "Coalition of the Left and Progess" which was formed when the namesake coalition of parties was converted in 1991 into a distinct political body, with the accession of many members and cadres who left the KKE. In the following years, the Coalition (Synaspismos) and since 2004, the SYRIZA party (which began as an electoral alliance of opportunist parties), constituted the major body of opportunism in Greece. As such it acted in open confrontation with the KKE, while it was on the side of bourgeois stratetic options, e.g. the vote in favor of the Maastrict Treaty, participation in the nationalist rallies for the "Macedonian Issue", enthusiasm for the counter-revolutionary overthrows of the period 1989-1991, support of social enterprises.

The long-term transformation of the bourgeois political system on the territory of the deep capitalist crisis reserved for SYRIZA new tasks in the case of defending capitalism, through its "upgrading" into a party of bourgeois governance. This fact imposed a series of adjustments at all levels (conversion of SYRIZA into a single party which attracted PASOK members, adaptation of its ideological references, etc) in order to be able to perform adequately in its new role. The "violent maturation" of SYRIZA- according to the words of its own members- towards the route to governance and the first period of it, consists a result of its gradual transformation from an opportunist to a bourgeois social-democratic governance party, which, nonetheless, maintains its opportunist characteristics for the sake of extracting popular consent to antipeople politics.

The bourgeoisie in Greece as well as internationally timely foresaw the benefits of SYRIZA's utilization to ensure the smooth governmental rotation in conditions of economic crisis, popular mobilizations and relative "depreciation" of the old bourgeois parties. SYRIZA's opportunism, the open mockery of the popular strata, the mass spreading of illusions about pro-people consolidation of capitalism were appreciated (by the bourgeois class). These expectations of the bourgeoisie, alongside with the assurances of SYRIZA to the domestic and international bourgeoisie (e.g. visit in the US, speeches at "Brookings", "Forum Como", at the Federation of Greek industries (SEV), etc) led to its emergence in governance.

After taking over the government, the antipeople measures which were imposed, the management of the crisis in favor of the capital, accelerated the adjustments within SYRIZA. A product of these adjustments was the more open support of capital's strategic choices, the abolition of any pro-people slogans, the glorification of entepreneurship, the passage from the anti-memorandum rhetoric to the position that the implementation of the memorandums is a prerequisite in order to open the way for people's prosperity; while, recently, the appeals to other bourgeois political forces for convergence and consensus in the antipeople strategy condense. The above, of course, prove that the dividing lines within the bourgeois camp (e.g. pro-memorandum- antimemorandum) are very subtle.