The last three days of negotiations and conducts under the Greek President Karolos Papoulias, after E. Venizelos of PASOK surrendered his mandate at Saturday 12th, have led to critical developments in the Greek crisis and the attempt to find a governmental solution. Some of them make a comic impression, but this does not prevent them from being potentially very dangerous for the Greek people. Yet the overall result, the failure to form a government and calling of new elections to be held in June may, under certain conditions, offer a real hope to the Greek people.

An “ecumenical government”?

President Papoulias, himself a conservative politician coming from PASOK, concentrated initially his efforts to the formation of an “ecumenical government” supported by PASOK, New Democracy, Democratic Left and SYRIZA. At the Sunday meeting of the three political leaders, Samaras, Venizelos and Tsipras (Kouvelis was not present), he showed an unofficial and unsigned (!) note by Lukas Papadimos, the former Prime Minister, who made a very pessimistic presentation of the economic situation, predicting the collapse of the Greek state and an inability to fulfill its obligations during June.

This was utilized to press for a government with the participation of SYRIZA as well as the three other parties as a “national need”. PASOK and New Democracy posed as willing to accept even a left government formed by SYRIZA and the Democratic Left, to which they would lend support without participating. However, such a government would in fact make SYRIZA a hostage to the other parties, since New Democracy and PASOK alone have 149 seats in Parliament, and the Democratic Left is much closer to them than to SYRIZA.

This attempt failed due to SYRIZA’s well-founded negative stance, a position also taken by Panos Kammenos of the Independent Greeks, who declared he could not accept an informal paper as a basis to take political decisions.
It became thus clear that there was no real prospect of an “ecumenical government” being formed. After this, the efforts of the presidency turned to the formation of a non-political, technocratic government of the Monti type, which was proposed by the New Democracy leader, A. Samaras. Forming such a government would mean a further break from democratic rules and procedures than that made by the former Papadimos government. Moreover, in the severe situation facing Greece, it would definitely result in a total failure, since there is not the dimmest prospect of stabilizing it in a technocratic way even temporarily, as in Italy.
This attempt also failed due to the insistence of the Democratic Left that it would not consent to any solution unless SYRIZA also lend it support, which SYRIZA refused to do.

The Sunday events gave a chance to Samaras, Venizelos and Kouvelis (those three had a joint meeting before the President later at ?onday evening) to accuse SYRIZA for taking an irresponsible and irreconcilable stance, not in accord with the grave situation and the will of the people. However hearing such accusations from the spokesmen of the former two big parties, who had been stuck for decades to an arrogant one-party administration, makes an ironic impression.
In fact, arrogance characterized the stance of the two ruling parties, which, despite their modest phraseology, were insisting on a solution prolonging their domination. Their hidden intention was to draw SYRIZA to a kind of government that would differ only insignificantly from the past memorandum governments. In this way they would make SYRIZA pay for the failure to get out of the crisis and, most importantly, avoid the “dangerous” prospect of a further radicalization and increasing protests by the people, of which recent elections gave much promise. The Democratic Left reproduced these claims as a result of its “ministerialism”, aiding in fact the reactionary plans with a left oratory.

All three parties, PASOK, New Democracy and the Democratic Left, were totally unwilling to form a government without SYRIZA, based on their sole support. They judged correctly that if they proceeded this way, the government would not stand long and their parties would face annihilation in any new elections.

A government of the right?

After the prospects of a ND-PASOK-DL-SYRIZA government had faded, attention shifted suddenly during Monday to the possibility of forming a government supported by New Democracy, PASOK and the Independent Greeks of Panos Kammenos. This in fact would be a government of the right, like the former Papadimos one, with the Independent Greeks taking the part of LAOS. It would be even weaker, since it would possess a much slimmer majority in a more severe situation.
The formation of such a government would clearly be more difficult than the ND-PASOK-DL one, since Kammenos in the pre-election period took a much harder “anti-memorandum” stance than the Democratic Left. He supported an immediate and unilateral denunciation of the memorandum, as compared to the “renegotiation” and “gradual disengagement” of Kouvelis. Kammenos formulated 7 conditions in order to take part in a government, which repeated the demand for unilateral denunciation, coupled with the nationalization of the Central Bank of Greece, the demand for a debt audit and some other points which the two former big parties had avoided for years and were not really ready to accept. Moreover, Kammenos would evidently have a great problem in justifying to his voters such a dramatic turn, and judging from the fate of LAOS and the fact that his newly founded party lacks any tradition and firm mass support, he would run an obvious danger of being smashed in next elections, perhaps after some months. This explains why the prospect of the right government had not appeared in former discussions and was not considered realistic by most commentators.

However Kammenos left open the question of such a government during his visit to president Papoulias, calling it an “ecumenical” one. Later on both Samaras and Venizelos consented to discussing the Kammenos 7 points, a fact indicative of the severe pressure exerted by the European Union for the formation of a government and avoidance of new elections. Kammenos agreed to visit President Papoulias today in the morning, to be supposedly presented with the official information he was asking about the economic situation. There were even rumors about the position of Prime Minister in the designed government being taken by Vasilios Markezinis, the son of Spyros Markezinis (a reactionary politician who became Prime Minister in the Papadopoulos junta in 1973) and an ardent nationalist reactionary himself.

Things began to become more interesting, however, when the Presidency made public the minutes of Papoulias’ talks with the political leaders. It was revealed that, together with his 7 conditions, Kammenos had delivered to the President a paper referring to the possible governmental scenarios which differed significantly from his official and open proposals.
Kammenos had categorically refused he was taking part in any secret negotiations, insisting that the Independent Greeks are making everything in daylight. This paper clearly exposed his lie, revealing the decay of the political establishment. Kammenos reacted to the publication of the minutes by saying that this paper was not knowingly delivered by him to the President, not denying thus its authenticity but implying it was not official and got accidentally mixed with his 7 point proposals, offering at the same time an alternative explanation that it could had been fabricated. Yet the whole thing exposed him severely and will definitely cost him politically. The immediate result was the cancelation of his private encounter with President Papoulias today, which in effect meant the failure of the right government prospect as well.

It should not be left unmentioned, by the way, that a part of the establishment media, not the mainline ones but those which already support the ultra-right, pressed Kammenos strongly to avoid consenting to any government, on whatever conditions it were to be formed. This includes the right, completely yellow “Extra 3 Chanel” and the notorious populist journalist George Tragas. It seems that these circles, pondering on the lack of cooperation within the left, already consider that a further aggravation of the crisis in the next few months will help in the long run the ultra-right. Kammenos, who enjoyed much of their support, had to appear at Monday night in Tragas’ TV news , to excuse himself clumsily for his vacillations.

KKE leadership hardens its sectarian, adventurist stance

Throughout the whole course of events, KKE retained its ultra-sectarian stance, repeating its position that a left government would be equally harmful to the people as a government of the right. Aleka Papariga, the KKE General Secretary, restated this at a KKE mass gathering held in Athens at the Pedion Areos Square at Monday.
However, A. Papariga’s statements at her Sunday meeting with President Papoulias are the most indicative, allowing everyone to form an idea about the real content of the KKE position, which in fact directly serves the Greek ruling classes. During her discussion with the President, Papariga did not only limit herself to denouncing as a “demagogy” the prospect of a left government. Surpassing anything else the KKE had said until then, she even went so far as to urge for a direct legitimization of Mihaloliakos, the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party leader.

During the discussion, President Papoulias, mentioning the former example of the cooperation between KKE and the other left forces in 1989, set Papariga the question:
“Didn’t you consider the idea to make a similar coalition?”

Papariga’s answer to that was:
“Not now. This is a different phase, another question, another object. It cannot be compared. We are facing now a crisis and a crisis cannot be overcome by funny things”.
Why coalitions can be formed only in good occasions and not in times of crisis and why a coalition with SYRIZA would be by definition “funny” was the secret of the KKE General Secretary, which she did not consider appropriate to reveal to the Greek people.

Sensing the absurdity of her assertions, Papariga went on to recall hypocritically the heroic example of Dimitris Christoulas, the same Christoulas which the KKE scorned when he committed suicide at Syntagma, presenting him as a coward and avoiding mention his message and even his name in “Rizospastis”, the official KKE organ.
“Had we decided, having become crazy – which luckily we are not –”, Papariga declared, “and said such things to the people, that we will form a government and solve their problems, I would prefer – I say – to go like Christoulas, to go to commit suicide at Syntagma with a gun”. The reason she would do that, she explained, is that those who propose such things “are fooling the people” and that “with the people at home waiting for things to be fixed by others” no real change can be made. Why a left government would have people stay at home and not call them to actively take part in the struggle to change things, was again the secret of A. Papariga.

Papariga kept her biggest show however for the end, when the problem of whether Mihaloliakos would take part at the Tuesday political leaders’ council under the President came up. All other leaders, including Samaras of New Democracy and even Kammenos, had excluded that possibility. Papariga surprised the President by stating that she would not only readily accept Mihaloliakos’ participation, but even him standing beside her at the meeting.

She said that she would not like it, of course, but “I cannot say “I do not sit [with him]”. If it becomes necessary, we will all sit together. What can we do?” Papariga mentioned that KKE party members urged her not to take part if Mihaloliakos was called, but declared that she did not consider it her duty to protest, as Tsipras and Kouvelis had already done, because Golden Dawn was voted by the people. If she took such a stance, she added, the result would be “to strengthen them [the neo-Nazis]. You cannot exclude them”.

This Papariga statement was in fact a monument of political naivety and servility to reaction. The Golden Dawn party is largely based on its para-state organization and connections with security forces. It may have gained a success in recent elections, but the big majority of the Greek people are still antifascist, understanding that the neo-Nazi gangs represent a threat to democracy and to their political freedoms. To call for accepting Mihaloliakos at the leaders’ council, as Papariga urged, means in fact to offer Mihaloliakos democratic credit, and help the neo-Nazis gain acceptance from a bigger part of the people.
Papariga not only failed to understand this, but was so naive as to relate to the President the answer she gave to the party members who urged her to avoid Mihaloliakos. “I told them “Well, guys, we will be side by side, if the President puts me near him [i.e. Mihaloliakos] what will I say, that I do not sit?””
To which President Papoulias commented with just one word: “Lovely!”

Papoulias is a former left who had taken part in the National Resistance movement and posed as progressive, before offering his services to the system. He is moreover a clever person. He could not fail therefore to notice the glaring contradiction in Papariga’s position, on the one hand declaring that she will not take part in a left government in order not to betray the people, and on the other hand accepting readily to stand side by side with Mihaloliakos, if the President said so. This was in fact the meaning of his comment.

All this goes to reveal the stance of the KKE leadership as a reactionary stance, which directly aids the system close its holes and even openly helps the ultra-right. Let us mention by the way that Papariga eventually did not take part in the Tuesday council of political leaders, perhaps in protest for not calling Mihaloliakos as well…

The final act

The final act of the present episode of the Greek drama took place at the meeting held before President Papoulias at 2 o’clock today, Tuesday 15th. All leaders of parliamentary parties participated, except, as already mentioned, Mihaloliakos of the Golden Dawn and Papariga of the KKE. The meeting failed to reach an agreement on forming a government, along any of the lines proposed during these last days. This means that the country is heading towards new elections. They will take part in June, being open to a variety of regroupings and results, although a further strengthening of SYRIZA is considered very probable. The former governing parties, together with the Democratic Left will try to blame SYRIZA for the failure to form a government, thus reducing its dynamic; while SYRIZA will counter that it justly refused to become part of the memorandum front. Clearly, strong dilemmas will be put to the people, which means that smaller parties, especially strongly defeated ones like PASOK and, objectively, KKE, will find it difficult to repeat their results of the May 6th elections.

Irrespective of the new elections result, though, it has become patently clear that the Greek crisis is deepening and there is no easy way out. Greece has a long tradition of dictatorships during the 20th century, including those of Pangalos (1925), Metaxas (1936) and the colonels led by Papadopoulos (1967). Comments are appearing already in the foreign press that this might be also the outcome of the present anomaly. However, these comments are made with the obvious aim to terrorize the people and affirm that the only possible way for Greece is prolonging the austerity policies, as many leading European politicians asserted during the last two days. In fact, the ruling classes are not yet ready to impose a dictatorial solution, which is made more difficult by international conditions as well as the radicalization of the Greek people towards the left.

Odds are that during the following months a chance for the formation of a government of the left will appear. This government, the concrete form of which, the parties participating, etc., cannot be foreseen now, will not have an easy task to solve. In the best case, it may help Greece avoid passing the worst part of Argentina’s experience in 2001 and find a way out of this crisis with the least cost by mobilizing the people. But a left government might also come after a bankruptcy and as a result of the country’s passing from a bloody unrest and turmoil. It is the task of responsible radical left forces in Greece to do everything they can to channel things towards the first direction but also be ready for the second.
The establishment of a left government in Greece could be the sign for a broader radicalization in other European countries as well. The fear with which the ruling classes react to this prospect makes clear it is a valid prospect, which may not lead to a direct overthrow of capitalism, but will mean a big step forward.

If however the government of the left fails to materialize or be followed properly, then all kinds of dangers from the ultra-right and the right will become intensified. The future of Greece will darken and the left upsurge in Europe will receive a lesser impetus. In this respect, exposing and defeating the adventurist stance of the KKE leadership is perhaps the most urgent task of the Greek left. For if this stance persists the possibilities of a left government will be drastically reduced or even nullified.

*Christos Kefalis is editor of the Greek journal “Marxist Thought”.

The parliamentary elections of May 6 have produced a sensational result, opening a new chapter in the political history of Greece. It will have important repercussions on the European political situation as well.
The result shows a clear polarisation between left and right and a break-up of the hitherto ruling political forces, the Pan-Hellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) and New Democracy, the so-called “two party system” that has dominated Greek political life since 1974.

The two traditional parties, pillars of neoliberal policies, lost more than half of their previous vote. Combined they now have the support of just 32% of the electorate, compared to 77% in the 2009 elections. New Democracy dropped from 33% in 2009 to 19%, whilePASOK has sunk even more dramatically, from 44% to 13%, losing more than 2 million votes.

This was punishment for their reactionary austerity “memorandum” policies, which they implemented in cooperation with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. These policies led to vast impoverishment for the majority of the people and mass unemployment officially already at 23%, resulting in a plethora of suicides by desperate men and women.

The vote for the broad left rose from a modest 12% in 2009 to an impressive 35.5% — 17% for SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left), 8.5% for the Communist Party (KKE), 1.2% for the anti-capitalist left party ANTARSYA, 6.1% for the moderate Democratic Left and 2.9% for the Greens. However, the prospect of a left government is doubtful since the KKE, an ultra-Stalinist party, ruled out beforehand any cooperation with “opportunists”,by which it means all other left parties except from itself. Moreover, the Democratic Left and the Greens are moderate centre-left parties that do not differ radically from PASOK. Even so, the collective result of the three radical left parties, SYRIZA, the KKE and ANTARSYA, was an impressive 26.5%.

Ultra-right

The other significant feature of the May 6 elections is the abrupt rise of the ultra-right, jumping together to an astonishing 20.5% of the vote. Formerly represented by just one party, LAOS, which scored a modest 6% three years ago, the ultra-right’s three major parties — the Independent Greeks, LAOS and the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn — gained respectively 10.6%, 2.9% and 7% of the vote. LAOS paid for its support for the government, falling short from the required 3% to enter the parliament.
However, the 7% achieved by Golden Dawn, an openly neo-Nazi and racist anti-immigrant party, is shocking. It is the first time that such a party has entered parliament with mass support in Greece, famous for its resistance movement against the Nazis in 1941-45.

This result had been anticipated by left activists and publications, including Marxist Thought, which devoted its entire last issue to the problem of fascism, neo-fascism and the new ultra-right. There was a mass mobilisation by left organisations during the last three weeks of the election calling attention to the danger of the neo-Nazi gangs. However this proved largely ineffective, as the far right has gained a foothold during the last few years in degraded neighbourhoods and among the unemployed youth. The KKE not only is doing absolutely nothing to fight the ultra-right but gives shelter to nationalists like the notorious journalist Liana Kanelli; it even went so far as to welcome Golden Dawn representatives at the Halyvourgiki strike through the local workers’ union it controls.

It is true that the ultra-right gathered together “only” 20.5%, in comparison to the radical left’s 26.5%. However, it more than tripled its forces, while the radical left“only” doubled theirs.

‘Extremes’
The ensuing balance of forces coming out of the elections has been interpreted by conservative media commentators as an illogical expression of anger, pushing people to the “extremes”.According to this reading, people were carried away by the false promises of demagogues, promises that are impossible to fulfill. The correct path, they argue, would have been to foster the reactionary “reforms” that would eventually overcome the crisis through development, higher productivity and an improvement of democracy. Dora Bakogianni, the leader of the ultra-neoliberal (and misnamed) Democratic Alliance, which failed to enter parliament by a narrow margin, has many times argued this.

This type of argument has a double purpose. On the one hand, it attempts to equate the ultra-right menace and the prospect of left-wing change as two complementary facets of the problem facing Greece, presenting the radical left also as a danger and denying beforehand that there can be any positive radical left solution to Greece’s crisis. On the other hand it seeks to embellish the corrupt Greek parliamentary system and present the parties of the establishment as the guarantors of stability and improvement, when in fact they are the cause of the problem.

In Greece the corruption of leading politicians and public officials is extremely widespread and of enormous proportions; but practically none are ever punished. Anger at this political decay is one of the main reasons for the rise of the ultra-right and neo-Nazism. Yet, we are urged now to believe that the very forces that produced this situation can magically lead the country out of the crisis, by following recipes that have made the crisis so deep. In fact, when reactionary politicians like Bakogianni are talking about “improving productivity” they only mean more lay-offs and new rounds of wage cuts in the public and private sectors, thus making the existing bad situation even more desperate for the majority.

SYRIZA

SYRIZA has successfully countered this, by proposing the formation of a government of the left. This attracted much support from the people. The charismatic personality of its president, Alexis Tsipras, played a part. The KKE and ANTARSYA failed to make an equivalent impression.

The KKE insisted on an ultra-sectarian policy, calling for a front to be formed for the direct overthrow of the system by “popular power”, connecting every fight for bettering the sad lot of the people with this prospect and denying harshly that anything could be done before establishing “popular power”. This meant condemning itself to passivity and a bureaucratic break with reality under the deceptive guise of fighting for the revolution.

ANTARSYA had a much better approach and has played a vital role in the fight against the Golden Dawn neo-Nazis. Yet it paid for its lack of strong links with the people and its inability to cooperate with other left forces. This it failed to do not only with SYRIZA, with which it has a number of programmatic differences, but even with the Front of Solidarity and Overthrow, a small radical left formation led by Alekos Alavanos, a former eminent SYRIZA leader who broke with SYRIZA but remained largely out of these elections.

The KKE has accused SYRIZA of being opportunist and spreading illusions among the people by proposing a government of the left, since such a government would be no better than the existing ones. Aleka Papariga, the dogmatist general secretary of the KKE, even went so far as to suggest that taking part in such a government would mean betraying the people for some ministerial “chairs” and stated that the KKE would not give a vote of confidence to it, should it be formed in parliament. The KKE’s political analysis after the elections was that the rise in support for SYRIZA signifies an attempt by the system to thwart the radicalisation of the people and channel it into a path acceptable to the ruling class. Moreover, Papariga bluntly refused to meet with Tsipras following the elections to discuss forming a left government.

KKE dogmatism

All this and the assertion of the KKE leadership that no change at all can be achieved in a parliamentary way is highly sectarian dogmatism. Of course socialism cannot ultimately be established via parliament, to achieve that a revolution by the people is needed. Yet the experience of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela shows that with the support of a mass movement big radical changes can be initiated using the parliament as a lever; there is no real reason why this should, in principle, not be possible for Greece.

Real problems however start from this point on. To enforce such a radical change with the help of a left government based on a parliamentary majority, a mass front is needed, which would lend support to the project. This is all the more essential in Greece, in order to be able to withstand the strong pressure by foreign lenders, European governments and imperialist institutions. However, neither such a majority nor such a front exists presently. And while the numbers might make a government of the left abstractly possible at a later stage, it is not at all certain that it will materialise.

The KKE stance is the main reason for that. This KKE has the support of a significant part of the industrial working class, fighting elements that would strengthen and cement the proposed front.

The KKE, after a break in 1991, for two decades has followed an increasingly Stalinist course. It has not only recently rehabilitated Nikos Zahariadis, the authoritarian and cynical Stalinist general secretary of the KKE (1931-56), but also presents Stalin as one of the greatest of all Marxists, accepts the validity of the Moscow show trials and continues to accuse Trotsky, Bukharin and the other Bolshevik leaders of being agents of the Gestapo. A number of hardline Stalinist pseudo-theorists like politburo members Makis Mailis and Stefanos Loukas have formed a circle directing the party’s inner political and ideological life, thus lowering the political level of its members and making it vulnerable to all kinds of careerists and opportunists. Alekos Halvatzis, son of Spyros Halvatzis, KKE spokesperson in parliament, left the KKE a couple of years ago accusing the Papariga leadership of having filled the party with“stowaways”.

The KKE has repudiated the revolutions of the Arab Spring and the great movements of the“indignados” in Greece and Europe as being suspect, perhaps even guided by organs of the imperialist secret services. Instead of taking part in such movements, it calls on the people to unite in KKE-fabricated “fronts” that are directed from above and have little connection with the people.

Recently it went so far as to ignore the dramatic suicide of 77-year-old Dimitris Christoulas, who shot himself at Syntagma and left a moving message to the younger generation, urging them to fight against the corrupt rulers. Christoulas was a member of the “indignados” movement, so Rizospastis, the official organ of the KKE, in the few lines it devoted to the incident, did not even mention his name (calling him “the 77-year-old man”) and shamelessly censored his message. Rizospastis even hurled the accusation that his action was in the interests of the ruling class, which wants the people to commit suicide.

Left unity

SYRIZA, on the other hand, is a coalition of various groups, including Marxists, Trotskyists, Maoists, left and moderate reformists, greens and a number of other tendencies. The party has a genuinely democratic character and this variety of views contributes to its liveliness, as a centre of discussion and production of ideas. However, in the grave situation facing Greece, it could also prove a problem by preventing at a critical moment a unified stance on crucial questions on which the various components hold different views. For the moment, of course, the electoral success strengthens the unity of the party, but this cannot hold indefinitely.

The KKE, with its usual fanaticism, seems to “bet” on the possibility that a balancing of views will not be possible in SYRIZA and, after a probable failure to set up a left government or pursue it properly if it is established, the Greek people might turn to them. Such a hope can be sustained by the fact that SYRIZA does not have strong bonds with the masses that came over to it in the May 6 elections, and its foothold is not in the industrial working class but mainly among civil servants and the youth. It is a vain hope however; if SYRIZA fails to cope with the difficulties, chaos will be universal, and in such a situation the ultra-right and not the KKE will be the force most likely to benefit.

Challenge to austerity

The SYRIZA victory coincided with the victory of the Socialist Party’s Francois Hollande in France. It should be made clear that these are two events of an entirely different character. Hollande’s success, even if he has gained the support of many left voters, signifies just a shift of policy within the ruling class and its parties. It may lead to some partial changes and adjustments, a somewhat different tone and orientation, but it will leave the general foundations of European policies untouched. The popular turn to SYRIZA in Greece, however, has a potential to challenge the very foundations of austerity policies and the domination of the markets. It may serve as an example, especially if it is successful, for other countries facing similar problems, like Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland, and instigate a general and real European movement to the left.

The ruling European elites are fully conscious of this and have reacted nervously, either by intervening shamelessly before the elections to dictate the result, or by simply stating that the country’s obligations, signed by the previous government, must be fulfilled. Their fears are certainly justified, especially if a widespread shift to the radical left takes place in Europe. However, the really urgent question is: how will SYRIZA cope with the intensified pressure in the following months and what will it strive for and be able to achieve at a time when the reactionary forces remain stronger in Europe as a whole?

SYRIZA aims to rescind the “Memorandum” and renegotiate the debt, which will include cancelling a large part of it as odious. It also demands a three-year suspension of debt obligations, which would provide important relief, if achieved. SYRIZA’s aims include nationalising a number of banks, heavier taxation of the rich and restoring the people’s living standards. SYRIZA leader Tsipras has proposed a five-point program which concretises this.

Leave the euro?

Some left forces, including ANTARSYA, argue that this is not enough and that a unilateral repudiation of debt will be needed, which will mean that the country will have to leave the euro and return to its national currency. This position is also largely held by the Left Current, a significant component of SYRIZA headed by its parliamentary spokesperson Panagiotis Lafazanis, while a number of influential Greek economists, like Kostas Lapavitsas, have also argued this.

Significantly, the KKE connects the cancellation of debt to its “popular power” slogan, considering it to be impossible under parliamentary conditions. This, of course, is an absurdity, since repudiation of debt is a reform that concerns the system of distribution leaving untouched the capitalist system of production as such. Thus it is perfectly conceivable under capitalism, as a number of examples show (Ecuador, Russia).

The difficulty with unilateral repudiation of debt is that, although being in the long run most beneficial to the people, it will cause in its initial stages significant problems and disorganisation. To minimise this, and avoid an experience like that of Argentina in 2001, it is essential that the majority of the people are convinced of its necessity and that it is pursued in an orderly way by a left government that is determined and conscious of its aims.

This means that, while the European left is still on the defensive, the attempt to implement the “compromising” program of SYRIZA and reach an agreement with the EU should be made. If, as is quite possible, the neoliberal EU elites refuse to make any real and significant concessions, then this could convince the Greek people of the necessity of more radical steps. It would be ideal if this course coincides will a general revival of mass movements in Europe, especially in Europe’s south, leading to a “European Spring”.

This prospect is not as remote as it may seem. The ruling classes in Greece and Europe are taking it seriously and making preparations to face the challenge it will pose to their system. The recent rise of the ultra-right in Greece, openly supported by a part of the mass media, some capitalist circles and parts of the state security machine, is a part of this.

The breakup of the Greek political system has been compared in this respect with the downfall of the Weimar Republic in Germany and it is true that there is a number of striking analogies. Under a similar situation of deep economic crisis, mass unemployment and poverty, came the bankruptcy not only of the former leading political parties but of the parliamentary system as well. The Papadimos government was important in this regard, as it signified a first step away from normal democratic government, towards technocratic-bureaucratic administration reminiscent in many ways of the Brüning government in Weimar.

The program of the newly created Independent Greeks party, headed by Panos Kammenos (a former New Democracy minister), contains a number of even more dangerous reactionary points, combining an ultra-privatisation plan with proposals for appointing the chiefs of police and the army ministers of security and national defence respectively. This is clearly a Bonapartist plan, which would threaten the foundations of bourgeois democracy and of the labour movement. For the time being such measures are supported only by Kammenos’ party and those to the right to it, LAOS and Golden Dawn. But it is not to be excluded that, as the crisis intensifies, the traditional capitalist parties, PASOK and New Democracy, or certain groups within them, might turn in similar directions.

Stalemate

The May 6 elections have produced a stalemate. PASOK and New Democracy together have just 149 seats; a parliamentary majority requires 151. Even if they achieve this, such a government would be weak and without authority. One possibility is a government being formed between PASOK, New Democracy and the Democratic Left, which would produce a majority with 168 seats. Democratic Left has wisely excluded this possibility as it would identify itself with the big parties condemned by the people.
The broad left on the other hand cannot form a majority even with all its disunited components. The possibility of forming a “government of national unity” supported by a broad spectrum of forces except the ultra-right, as proposed by PASOK and New Democracy leaders, is also excluded since it would mean the involvement of the left in memorandum policies.

Therefore, Greece is heading almost inevitably for new elections, which will likely take place sometime in mid-June 2012. New elections have the potential to provoke a further impressive restructuring of the political scene.

SYRIZA’s tactics will be to unite around it the other left forces, including those that failed to enter parliament (the KKE of course has declared that it is against unity under all conditions). That includes not only the Greens and ANTARSYA, but possibly some other groups that broke from PASOK, such as the small (and fairly conservative) Social Agreement party. SYRIZA may also draw more votes from the KKE and improve its performance in the rural areas, which voted more conservatively than the big cities (SYRIZA got more than 20% of the vote in Athens but much less in the countryside). If all this materialises, SYRIZA will almost certainly come first and take advantage of the 50 seat-bonus that the illogical electoral law grants the first-placed party. This could augment its parliamentary force from 52 seats now to some 120, facilitating greatly the formation of a left government.

However, the ruling-class parties have also some options for countering this. New Democracy might be able to unite with two small ultra-neoliberal parties, Bakogianni’s Democratic Alliance and Stefanos Manos’ (a big capitalist) Action party, which together won a respectable 5% of the vote on May 6. Alternatively, it is possible that the two ultra-neoliberal parties might unite on their own, ensuring representation in parliament but not preventing SYRIZA from coming first.
There is also the possibility of mass desertions of New Democracy and PASOK voters to the far-right“Independent Greeks” party, which poses as patriotic and populist, claiming to defend the interests of the people. Certain sections of the ruling class and capitalist media, which still support the traditional parties, may decide to move towards Kammenos as their only viable representative. However, there is a 7% difference in favour of SYRIZA now, so such movement would have to be very pronounced in order for the Independent Greeks to take the lead. A convergence between the Independent Greeks and Golden Dawn is not very likely, since the Independent Greeks’ leadership takes pains to dissociate itself from Nazism. It will be very interesting though to see the results for Golden Dawn in any new elections.

One thing is certain. After the next elections, the hour of truth will come for Greece. It will also be the hour of truth for the Greek radical left. Developments will show if it is able to unite, withstand the enormous pressures the EU authorities will apply and open up a new progressive way for Greece and a window of hope for the rest of Europe.

Postscript

May 11, 2012– Developments are rapid here in Greece, so that the situation changes abruptly and forecasts prove wrong or inexact in just a few hours.

After E. Venizelos, the PASOK leader, took the mandate from President Papoulias to attempt to form a government, he met with Fotis Kouvelis, the leader of Democratic Left. Kouvelis proposed forming an “ecumenical government” for the limited purpose of supposedly renegotiating the Memorandum. Such a government would hold office until the 2014 European parliament elections. Venizelos reacted positively to this, saying that it practically coincides with PASOK’s proposal for a government of “national salvation”.

So it seems that for the first time there is a real prospect of a government being formed after the stalemate of the last few days.

This government will in fact be a New Democracy-PASOK-Democratic Left government, which Kouvelis himself had excluded just a few days ago. SYRIZA almost certainly will not take part in it, nor will the other parties represented in the Greek parliament. However, for obvious reasons of legitimisation, the three parties will try to make it appear as something different, perhaps by appointing Kouvelis as prime minister and limiting or even wholly avoiding the participation of PASOK and New Democracy.
If this prospect materialises it will be a flagrant violation of the will of the people, as expressed in the elections. Its real aim will be to continue the Memorandum policies, albeit in a slightly different manner, by extracting a few rather insignificant concessions from the European Union and make it appear as a great achievement. It will be based mainly on the two former ruling parties that were condemned for their policies and represents just 37% of the total vote.

SYRIZA’s Alexis Tsipras has justly called this plan an attempt by PASOK and New Democracy to find a “left Karatzaferis” – referring to Giorgos Karatzaferis, the leader of the ultra-right LAOS party, who had supported the former Papadimos government– and his party failed to enter the new parliament for that reason. The plan to establish such a government shows how horrified the ruling circles are of the prospect of new elections, which might give a clear victory to SYRIZA and the left (some polls having already shown an increase of the support for SYRIZA after the election, to 25%). It is also a sign of how much European Union governments and institutions are worried about the prospect of a left government in Greece, strongly applying pressure behind the scene for this kind of solution.

Even if it is established, such a government will be patently weak and will not have any real prospect of solving the grave problems facing Greece.

Christos Kefalis is editor of the Greek journal Marxist Thought.

Socialist Resistance editorial statement May 13^th 2012.

Socialist Resistance strongly welcomes the stunning vote achieved by Syriza in the Greek elections which put it second in the poll on a solidly anti-austerity platform. It is a vote which has shaken the Greek and European ruling classes and has opened up the possibility of Syriza emerging as the biggest single party in the new elections next month.

We also strongly support Syriza’s five demands which are an action programme for a united fight against austerity. They include the rejection of austerity and the bailout conditions imposed in March by the Troika. They call for a moratorium on debt payments and an international commission to audit the Greek debt, together with vigorous debt write-offs. They also call for taxing the rich, a radical redistribution of income and wealth, nationalisation of the banks, and a new industrial policy to rejuvenate the manufacturing sector. These measures exclude any deals with pro-austerity parties and are what are needed to begin the fight-back against the ravages of austerity – though more stress on green solutions would make it stronger.

There is, however, a serious problem, in the face of another election, which cannot be avoided. That is the issue of the unity of the Greek left. Before the election Syriza was the only organisation to call for the most obvious thing – a united anti-austerity platform and for a united anti-austerity government if the left won. Now the situation is even worse. In the upcoming election both the KKE and Antarsya (though the KKE more stridently) have already said that they will not only stand their own candidates but will give no support to, or would ‘not prop up’ a Syriza-led government if it were elected! This, they say, is because Syriza’s platform is not a full revolutionary programme. But a more extensive programme is something that must be discussed and developed as the struggle advances and should not to be counterposed to the immediate needs of the struggle as it unfolds today.

This is a very dangerous situation. We could see an anti-austerity government either denied office – and the austerity continue with all its consequences – or opposed once taking office by other sections of the left! We therefore make the strongest possible appeal to all sections of the Greek left to unite behind Syriza in the upcoming elections and to unite behind a Syriza-led anti-austerity government if it is elected. This is exactly the reason for building broad organisations like Syriza – in order to unite the working class in this kind of situation.

Despite Syriza’s continued rise in the polls it should not it be assumed that victory in the next election is certain for the left. The EU élites have already made it clear that they will not only make the next election a referendum on the euro but that a second anti-austerity vote would mean the expulsion of Greece from the euro. Massive pressure is going to be applied to reinforce this ultimatum between now and election day.

It is very important that this ultimatum is rejected and the austerity offensive opposed. Syriza has made it clear that whilst it is not calling for exit from the euro, if this is the consequence of defeating the austerity drive, because of the actions of the EU élites, then so be it. It is the same with the debt, for which the Greek workers should take no responsibility. In order to advocate debt repudiation effectively you have to be prepared for expulsion from the Eurozone as a probable consequence. This approach needs to be strongly up-front in the election campaign if the electorate is to be armed against the threats and ultimatums it will be facing.

The struggle of the Greek working class is a struggle for the workers’ movement across Europe. Add your signature to the statement of solidarity with the people of Greece backed by trade union leaders, members of Parliament and campaigners which can be found on the Coalition of Resistance website.

Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party, has come out well on top in a series of attempts by David Cameron, Prime Minister at
Westminster, to outplay him over the question of when and how Scotland should
vote on independence.

Salmond’s SNP stormed to a remarkable victory in the elections for the Scottish
Parliament last May, winning 45 per cent of the vote and taking 69 seats (53% -
there are 129 seats overall) under an electoral system designed to prevent them
ever taking an absolute majority. He has demonstrated what an able politician he is
to people across Britain – many of whom have not followed what he has done in
Scotland itself.

The referendum on Scottish independence will take place in the autumn of 2014, and
those of us that support a yes vote have a great deal of work to do to secure a majority
at that moment. One of the reasons that this will be a steep hill to climb is that, as the exit polls made clear, many who voted for the SNP last May did not do so on the basis of support for independence. Rather, they saw the SNP as being to the left of the other main parties on offer – the Tories, the Lib Dems and also Scottish Labour. They supported policies such as free prescription charges, free care for the elderly and no tuition fees for Scottish students.

Another reason pro-independence forces have a battle on our hands is that ranged
against us are not only those parties and the majority of the media, but the resources of the British state, fully committed to maintaining the union. The new leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Johann Lamont, addressing the party’s conference in Dundee at the
beginning of March, tried to put the memory of their humiliating defeat behind her, that night in May when the SNP took seat after seat in parts of Scotland that Labour has for ever considered its territory by right. She told delegates that the problem had been that they looked “tired and complacent”.

But the essence of her speech was more of the same: focus on attacking the SNP,
try to portray Scottish Labour as more radical but not by adopting any radical
policies. She will head up the party’s anti-independence campaign herself, while
welcoming support from Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown.

A further difficulty is that sections of the left on both sides of the border stubbornly
fail to recognise that the break up of the British state through a “Yes” vote
for Scottish independence is both the democratic right of the people of Scotland
and in the interests of workers on both sides of the border. The fight to remove
Trident from the lochs of Scotland, for example, will surely strengthen the antinuclear
movement across Britain.

The political debate about Scotland’s future could be used by the left across
Britain to expose the reality of where real power resides in the state under which
we live. For example, the Crown Powers which allowed the British-Crown-appointed
Governor General to remove the Prime Minister of Australia Gough Whitlam in
1975 were not apparent to most people most of the time.

And of course a debate on the benefits of the break up of the British state
strengthens the hand of the new leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood, who is much
clearer than her predecessors have been about the need to have this debate for
Wales as well.

It is true that the people of Scotland have yet to be convinced in their majority
that independence is in their interests. However, it is also clear that the argument
of MP George Robertson in 1997 – advanced against arch-unionist Tam Dalyell
– that Labour should support a “yes” vote in the devolution referendum, as this would
undermine support for independence, was completely mistaken.

Rather, the fact that Holyrood has control of a number of decision-making powers
has highlighted those over which it has no control – such as defence – even more
sharply. At the same time, the fact that Scotland has in its majority voted well
to the left of the electorate in England, has deepened the alienation that people
feel from politicians based in remote Westminster.

But the other reason why the campaign for a yes vote in the independence
referendum is not yet won is that the SNP itself, the majority party in Holyrood, puts
Vote ‘yes’ for Scottish independence forward a view of an independent Scotland
which is lacking in a vision that one can have confidence will galvanise a majority
behind it.

On the level of the economy, they are tied up in knots by the contradictions of their own longstanding policy positions. Historically, the position of the SNP was for an independent Scotland in Europe – and for taking Scotland into the Euro as part of this. The White Paper “Your Scotland Your voice” published in November 2009 put it like this:
“Scotland would continue to operate within the sterling system until a decision to join
the Euro by the people of Scotland in a referendum when the economic conditions
were right.”

But this has been thrown into disarray by the depth of the crisis in the Eurozone, so
that while this policy has not been formally reversed, Scottish Finance Secretary
John Swinney said in January that he couldn’t envisage the economic conditions
being correct for the euro “for some considerable time”.

This creates a problem for a leadership, which rightly argues: “even under full
devolution…. it would be difficult to devolve monetary policy effectively while
Scotland remained part of the United Kingdom, as a common currency is a
feature of a unified state.” (Your Scotland Your voice).

In fact, an economy tied to the monetary policy determined by the Bank of England
would be independence light, rather than a fight for independence max that stands the
best chance of winning a majority of the Scottish electorate. Instead, there should
be a policy that an independent Scotland would need to create its own currency,
controlled by its own central bank.

Salmond and the SNP also propose to keep the monarchy as head of a new Scottish state, putting forward a miserable neo-colonialism with all that entails, rather than to establish a Scottish republic for the 21st century. The Scottish Socialist Party put it like this: “The Scottish Socialist Party….. believes in sweeping away the remnants of feudalism, inherited power and class privilege which the monarchy symbolises. We believe
that neither the 300-year old Union of Parliaments, nor the 400 year old Union of
Crowns meet Scotland’s needs in the new world of the 21st century”.

These are just two of the key areas in which the SNP are unlikely to rally the millions
that will be needed to win an independence referendum. And this is no accident – the
SNP believe that they can win by cuddling up to business interests in Scotland –
exemplified by Donald Trump and his golf courses and bible-bashing reactionaries,
such as Stagecoach’s Brian Souter.

From this point of view, while socialists in Scotland need to play a part in the
Independence Convention alongside the SNP – not least to have dialogue with
those in the party, who may well become increasingly critical of their leadership for
their feeble answers on some of these questions – more is required. The proindependence
forces with a radical vision of a Scotland for the 21st century, need to find a way of coming together in a vibrant campaign that can win the hearts and minds of the majority in Scotland as the debate opens up in the run up to 2014.

And at the same time, pro-independence forces south of the border need to explain
why the left across Britain should argue for a yes vote as well.

John McDonell MP told the press launch in Westminster that the message of “Give us a climate Job” was one that made perfect sense in answer to the Coalition’s message of austerity. He was joined by Labour GLA member Murad Qureshi, Graham Peterson from UCU, Peter Colville from Occupy London and Rebecca from UKYCC along with a lively group of climate and trade union activists who plan to set up “Climate Jobs Centres” in 25 cities and towns across Scotland, Wales and England over the next forthnight.
The campaign will bring the message that we can cut emissions and unemployment at the same time if we invest in climate jobs – a win win situation for working people – not to mention for the growing numbers of young people being thrown on the scrap heap by the reactionary and callous policies of the Tory-led coalition

Find out whether the caravan is coming to your area if you dont already know… Raise the issue in your trade union – and if possible make us a donation – take copies of the excellent pamphlet to see
and click on tabs for caravan and events to see more

Scotland: Why socialists should back independence
WEDNESDAY 30 MAY, 7.30pm
Indian YMCA, 41 Fitzroy Square, W1T 6AQ
(Warren Street tube)
Speakers:
Gregor Gall, author of Tommy Sheridan: A Political Biography, and The Political Economy of Scotland: Red Scotland?
and Terry Conway, Socialist Resistance. (Read Terry’s article Vote “yes” for Scottish independence here.)

Yes to independence!  No to austerity!

Why socialists should support the fight for Scottish independence
At the beginning of this year, we saw a ratcheting up of the debate about Scotland’s future. David Cameron tried to wrong foot Scotland’s First Minister, the Scottish National Party’s Alex Salmond, and failed miserably. Unionist bile has been whipped up by politicians from all the Westminster based parties. But opinion polls indicate that support for independence is growing.

The left in Britain needs to discuss again the Scottish national question. Socialist Resistance has supported the Scottish Socialist Party and the fight for self determination for Scotland.

Socialist Resistance believes that independence for Scotland is a progressive demand. Scotland would be economically, politically, culturally and socially better off making its own decisions and standing on its own two feet. The fight for independence involves confronting powerful vested interests at the heart of the British capitalism.

Socialist Resistance supports the fight for independence for Scotland and against austerity. A progressive independent Scotland would strengthen the anti-capitalist movement throughout Britain. And a Scotland that was independent would weaken Britain as a major imperialist power, something that should be welcomed.

Following a meeting with President Karolos Papoulias, who delivered the mandate to Tsipras, the 38-year-old politician said that «this is a historic moment for the left and a great challenge for me."

Addressing the press from Parliament later and before embarking on a string of meetings with party and union leaders, Tsipras rejected the efforts of New Democracy and third-placed PASOK for a so-called «national salvation government,» saying that a coalition of conservative and centrist forces would be a government «for the salvation of the memorandum» and would violate the mandate of the people, who have, «rejected the bailout agreement with their vote."

Tsipras challenged the two parties, who have ruled Greece for the past three decades but suffered a crushing defeat at the May 6 polls, to rescind their letters of guarantee to creditors saying that Greece would abide in full to the terms of the bailout deal, «if they truly regret what they have done to the Greek people."

On his upcoming talks to explore whether he will be able to form a majority coalition with parties of the left and parties representing environmental concerns, the head of SYRIZA — which gleaned 16.78 percent at the ballot box and won 52 seats in the 300-seat Parliament — laid out the five points that will be the focus of discussions:

* The immediate cancellation of all impending measures that will impoverish Greeks further, such as cuts to pensions and salaries.

* The immediate cancellation of all impending measures that undermine fundamental workers’ rights, such as the abolition of collective labor agreements.

* The immediate abolition of a law granting MPs immunity from prosecution, reform of the electoral law and a general overhaul of the political system.

* An investigation into Greek banks, and the immediate publication of the audit performed on the Greek banking sector by BlackRock.

* The setting up of an international auditing committee to investigate the causes of Greece’s public deficit, with a moratorium on all debt servicing until the findings of the audit are published.

"We are not indifferent to whether the country will be governed or not, but we are primarily concerned with the direction in which the country will be governed and whether the people’s mandate will be respected,» Tsipras said.

The SYRIZA leader is expected to meet first with Fotis Kouvelis from Democratic Left (which received 6.1 percent of the vote and 19 seats) and then with Ecologist Greens (2.93 percent; no seats) representative Ioanna Kontouli and Social Pact (0.96 percent; no seats) president Louka Katseli. Earlier he spoke on the telephone with Greek Communist Party leader Aleka Papariga who rejected a face-to-face meeting.

Tsipras has indicated that he will use the full three days at his disposal to talk with all the party leaders, including those of New Democracy and PASOK, but barring Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn).

Labour was clearly the big winner in the local elections last Thursday. Although in London celebrity politics, along with a nasty personalized campaign by the Evening Standard, and divisions within Labour, created a win for Boris Johnson, both the Tory and the Lib Dem parties took a drubbing across the country giving the Lib Dems the worst result in their history. This is clearly a part of shift to the left and towards an anti-austerity stance, which is evident elsewhere in Europe. This is the case in Greece, France and Spain in particular though in Greece – though in Greece there is also the rise of the far right.

Labour gains were strong in England, Scotland, and Wales. Labour gained control of 32 councils and won 823 additional seats, though on a low turnout given the situation. It won councils in the North of England and in the West Midlands, included Birmingham. In the Tory dominated South it won Southampton and Plymouth and then Great Yarmouth in the East. In Scotland Labour was back on the map. It fought off the SNP challenge in Glasgow and captured Edinburgh. In Wales Labour took control of ten councils including Cardiff and Swansea. The Lib Dems in particular took a drubbing in Scotland and Wales. In Edinburgh they lost to an environmentalist dressed as a penguin.

In the local elections a year ago it was very different. Although the Lib Dems took a battering then to a similar degree the Tories held on to their South of England support and even made some modest gains. This time it was the coalition government itself, both the Tories and Lib Dems, which were in the frame and took the hit

Coalition mouthpieces are claiming that it is just a case of mid-term blues. But it is clear that something deeper has happened. Just a month ago the Tories were still defying political gravity despite ramming through massive cuts and austerity. In recent weeks this has changed. The wheels have been coming off the coalition and Labour increasing its support.

Most of the Tories don’t believe the mid-term rubbish anyway. There is already a backlash against Cameron from the Tory right demanding a shift to the right if they are to keep their seats at the general election with a much harder stand against Europe, House of Lords reform, gay marriage and environmentalism. Cameron is reported to be planning a fight back to “stop the Tories descending into civil war”

The reasons for the shift to Labour in the elections are clear enough. It was the blatant reward the rich budget, the slide into double-dip recession, the Leveson inquiry over corrupt relations with Murdoch with suspicion creeping closer to Cameron himself, Tory MPs defending Murdoch to the hilt, and the bizarre petrol shambles where they were so keen to take on a unions that they lost touch with reality. All this has led to a growing conviction that this is a government of ‘posh boys’ who are out of touch, increasingly out of their depth, and increasingly incompetent. The claim that ‘we are all in this together has looked more empty and cynical by the day. Faced with this situation most working class voters saw a vote for Labour, despite its chronic weaknesses, as the best way to hit back.

The Greens had a good result. They increased their vote and their number of councillors by 12 (8 in England and 4 in Scotland) which they describe as ‘steady progress’. As far as the hard right is concerned UKIP increased its vote to an average of 13% where they stood although this failed to translate into seats. The BNP lost all their existing seats and failed to win any new ones.
In London it is clear that people voted different ways for mayor and for the Assembly. Many of those who voted Johnson for mayor went on to vote Labour for the Assembly. As a result Labour won four additional seats in the Assembly making it the biggest single party. Labour trounced the Tories in the list vote getting 41.1% to the Tories 32%. Two of Johnson’s closest allies, including the deputy mayor, lost their seats. The Lib Dems lost one of the three seats they held.

The Greens did well in both ballots, easily maintained their two Assembly seats, and Jenny Jones scored a landmark 98,913 votes for Mayor. Caroline Allen polling 29677 in the North East constituency and came third in front of the Lib Dems. Barbara Raymond for Greenwich and Lewisham People Before Profit scored a very respectable 6,873 votes (5.2%) on the constituency list. The hard right, however, got nowhere in London. UKIP made no impact and the BNP lost their Assembly seat.

For the left, nation-wide, there were mixed results. The big gain was five Respect councillors elected in Bradford following George Galloway’s spectacular victory ousting the council leader in the process. Michael Lavallette who stood as an independent won his seat back in Preston which he lost last year.
In Walsall, Peter Smith, for the Walsall Democratic Labour Party, who had also lost his seat in 2011, shot up from 34% of the vote in 2011 to 45.8% this year to win his seat back. Jim Bollan was re-elected as SSP councillor in West Dunbartonshire. Tom Woodcock, standing as Cambridge Socialist, polled a very good 18%. On the other hand Dave Nellist lost his seat in Coventry (standing as Socialist Alternative) after many years on the council – which is a substantial loss to the left.

TUSC struggled to make an impact other than where the local candidate had a personal record of struggle to draw on. In this regard Maxime Bowler polled 14.1% in Sheffield, George Tapp 18.7% in Salford, and Brendan Tyrrell 18.3% in Halewood. Socialist Party veteran Tony Mulhearn polled an excellent 4.73% for Liverpool mayor, beating the Tory candidate.

The lesson for the left, after a showing which fell far short of the possibilities of the situation, was once again very clear. Winning votes requires more than a name on a ballot paper. It means left unity. It means a record of struggle, or a militant reputation, which people can relate to. And even where this exists, as it does with many candidates including Respect, consolidating this means building a pluralist party which can carry such gains forward for the long term – not win them one year and lose then the next.

For Respect there are two immediate challenges. The first is whether its new group of councillors can give a lead to councillors across the country as far as fighting the cuts is concerned – where there is currently a dire situation. The second is whether it can turn towards the wider movement and maximise the opportunity it is opening up. As we argued when George Galloway was elected, there is an urgent need to involve the unions, and the wider left, in the way forward in terms of working class representation. Respect is in a unique position to take an initiative on this.

Then there is the struggle against the cuts itself. These results are a clarion call to step up the struggle against the cuts at every level possible. The coalition government are not only in disarray but they are continuing with the cuts at full force. Now is the time to step up the fight against the cuts starting with the strike this week. This is the time to build CoR and the projects it is building.

Finally it is important note that another Cameron flagship policy, localism, a part of the ‘big society’ agenda, took a probably terminal battering last Thursday as well. This was Cameron’s much vaunted campaign for directly elected mayors – his so-called “Boris in every city” policy. It was a cynical move to use populism and celebrity to try to elect Tory mayors in cities which elected Labour councils. This bit the proverbial dust, however, when referendums went down to No votes in eight of the nine cities where ballots took place. Only Bristol voted to create an elected mayor and Doncaster to retain theirs.

It was the final blow it what was a very bad day for the coalition government. It is the job of the left and of the workers movement to make sure that they do not recover from it.

BY JEFF MACKLER
Few revolutionaries, past or present, have devoted their entire adult lives to the socialist cause as full-timers. Gerry Foley was one of them. He died unexpectedly on April 21 in San Cristóbal de las Casas, in the mountains of Chiapas, Mexico’s poorest state.

Gerry spent 50 years fighting—at near poverty wages—to free humanity from every form of capitalist barbarity, oppression, and exploitation. He did it with a twinkle in his eye and with an engaging passion for all things human—and thoroughly enjoyed every moment.

Gerry was 73. He died less than a week after moving from his semi-retirement residence in Mérida, Mexico, to San Cristóbal, perhaps from the exertion of moving his enormous collection of books into his newly rented home.His friend Pete, on the scene at the time, told us that Gerry had just left a social event in the large communal area of his apartment complex, where he was chatting with some young people. He returned to his apartment extremely short of breath, immediately collapsed to the ground, and died a few minutes later, likely of a heart attack.

Gerry was among Socialist Action’s most dedicated and talented comrades. Those who knew him will immediately recall his generous spirit, depth of knowledge and analysis, brilliance of exposition, love of life in all its diversity, and enduring friendship.

Gerry not only read in about 90 languages; he was fluent in more than a dozen, often serving as translator whenever his skills were required. His uncommon language facility was matched by a deep understanding of the history and culture of each nationality whose language he had mastered. Books were Gerry’s sole prized possessions. He had a collection of perhaps 10,000 scattered from California to Alabama to Mexico.

Gerry, fluent in Gaelic, was likely among the most informed revolutionaries on Irish history and politics. The Irish struggle for liberation, no matter the setbacks, was never far from his consciousness. Perhaps the socialist cause of the renowned Irish Marxist and Republican, James Connolly—among his heroes—appropriately expressed Gerry’s credo almost 100 years later. Connolly observed that “a real socialist movement can only be born of struggle, of uncompromising affirmation of the faith that is in us. Such a movement infallibly gathers to it every element of rebellion and progress, and in the midst of the storm and stress of struggle solidifies into a real revolutionary force.” In his own talks, Gerry expressed similar sentiments many times.

Gerry spent over a year in Ireland working with the Irish comrades, including Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, Northern Ireland’s fiery socialist leader and the youngest woman elected to the British parliament. As a professional journalist writing articles for the world Trotskyist press, Gerry’s insights into Irish politics served to inform the revolutionary politics of a generation of political activists.
Decades later, in 1997, Gerry headed the San Francisco-based Committee to Free Roisin McAliskey, Bernadette’s daughter, who was imprisoned and tortured by British authorities as she and her supporters worldwide defeated a German government-initiated deportation effort based on trumped-up charges of involvement in terrorist activities. Then pregnant, Roisin finally won her freedom but not before being forced to have her baby, while in chains, in a filthy British prison facility. Bernadette, who had won the broad respect of U.S. Black liberation activists decades earlier when she gave to the Black Panther Party the “Keys to San Francisco” (awarded to her by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors out of respect for her membership in the British parliament), joined Gerry at mass rallies in defense of her daughter.

During his speeches, and on virtually any subject, tears often came to Gerry’s eyes as he inserted an Irish reference into his discourse. The Irish struggle for self-determination, the longest in world history, lasting more than 700 years and still uncompleted, was ingrained in Gerry’s consciousness. And if you gave him the opportunity, Gerry would happily recount every major event of those 700 years.

No comrade could match Gerry’s deep understanding of the national
question—the struggle of oppressed people and nations for self-determination, dignity, and freedom. He was a champion of all oppressed peoples and despised their oppressors with great passion.

Gerry’s articles have appeared in socialist periodicals around the world. We will soon be publishing a list of many of them. His spirit and dedication to socialist revolution and to building the Leninist party, the prerequisite instrument for bringing it into being, lives in our party and in its comrades. In his semi-retirement, Gerry remained an honorary member of Socialist Action’s Political Committee, often finding time to join its deliberations via Skype and taking an occasional assignment. He hoped to attend the Socialist Action National Convention in August.

How Gerry became a Trotskyist
In autumn 1960, after graduating from American University in Washington, D.C., Gerry began graduate school at Indiana University (IU), in its Russian and East European Institute. There he met a fellow graduate student in Russian literature, George Shriver, who discussed political issues with him from a Trotskyist position. That same autumn 1960, fate had brought George and Ellen Shriver to IU from the Boston area, where they had been founding members of the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) earlier in the year. The YSA was the fraternal youth group of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the main Trotskyist organization in the United States at the time. As a result of joint work with George, Ellen, and other Trotskyists in defense of the Cuban Revolution, Gerry joined the Trotskyist movement.

After George, Ellen, and Gerry had left IU, a strong YSA chapter remained behind them. When in 1963 the chapter invited YSA National Organization Secretary LeRoy McCrae to speak on the Black liberation struggle, an Indiana McCarthyite witch-hunting prosecutor, Thomas Hoadley, saw an opportunity to implement an obscure and reactionary anti-communist law. Three YSA members on campus were indicted on charges of  “conspiracy to overthrow the state of Indiana by force and violence.” Gerry actively participated in this important defense effort, soon to become a national and successful campaign for “The Bloomington Three,” Ralph Levitt, Tom Morgan, and Jim Bingham.

After years of effort by the YSA and SWP the law was declared unconstitutional, an important civil liberties victory for the entire socialist movement and for all others who understood the importance of organizing broad defense campaigns for victims of capitalist persecution.

Gerry defended political prisoners in the U.S. and around the world. He was always among the first to sign up to defend capitalism’s victims everywhere and was often involved in their defense committees. In San Francisco, he was a leader in defense of Iranian political prisoners and a participant in the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

In autumn 1962, Gerry moved on to further graduate study at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, where he was an activist in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, also initiated by the SWP and YSA. Soon afterwards, the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis brought the threat of worldwide nuclear war, when the Kennedy administration mobilized the U.S. Navy to confront Soviet ships headed for Cuba with nuclear missiles. The Cubans, who in April 1961 had defeated a U.S.-sponsored invasion at the Bay of Pigs, sought Russian missiles to ensure against another such U.S.-backed invasion.

Gerry was active in Cuba’s defense, selling the SWP’s newspaper, The Militant, and supporting Cuba’s right to defend itself from imperialist attack. And he helped to found a YSA chapter at Madison. Soon, Gerry moved to New York City, where he joined the SWP and did a short stint as a social worker while becoming a member of the newly formed and militant social workers’ union. “I didn’t do too well by city standards,” Gerry told me at that time,” because as I saw it, it was my job to get around all the bureaucratic restrictive provisions of the law and make sure that all my clients got on welfare and received the maximum funding possible.”

A few years later, Gerry applied for a job as translator with the United Nations. He filled out an application requiring that he list the names and number of languages that he could translate. He listed 25. Later, his disbelieving interviewer asked Gerry what he meant by 2.5 languages. Gerry replied that the figure was 25, whereupon the interviewer immediately sent for a bevy of language specialists from several UN departments to verify Gerry’s claim. Gerry passed with ease and was surprised that he was offered the job on the spot, but with one condition. The UN had a rule that each member nation had the right to challenge its own nationals before their applications could be approved.
Gerry was eventually notified that the U.S. government had vetoed his application. But the outraged staffer who so informed Gerry surreptitiously included Gerry’s uncensored FBI file with the UN’s letter of rejection. Gerry told me that it had recorded virtually every YSA and SWP meeting he ever attended, every party position he held, every public meeting he attended, and his every landlord’s name and address. Thus, in those pre-Freedom of Information Act days, still in the McCarthy era, Gerry inadvertently became perhaps the first American to see his unexpurgated FBI file. He took some pride in that.

Revolutionary journalist

Gerry soon became a full-time staffer for the SWP, working under the direction of Joseph Hansen in the production of what was then one of the finest weekly revolutionary news magazines in the world, Intercontinental Press (IP). It was Hansen, Leon Trotsky’s secretary during Trotsky’s exile in Mexico, who mentored Gerry in the critical necessity of accuracy in reporting, depth of research, source checking, and clear and careful formulations to explain the SWP’s then revolutionary politics. At that time, IP was the official periodical of the Fourth International (FI), the world revolutionary socialist organization with which the SWP maintained fraternal relations. Reactionary U.S. legislation prevented the party’s formal affiliation, as it does with Socialist Action today.

Gerry remained on the SWP staff for some 17 years, writing for all its publications, with his articles often reprinted by FI sections. His journalistic assignments took him to Portugal, where he covered the 1974-75 revolution, which overthrew the fascist Salazar dictatorship. He also traveled as a reporter to Iran, when in 1979 a revolutionary wave swept from power the U.S.-backed and installed Shah of Iran and opened the door wider than ever to a socialist transformation. In both cases and in all other instances where Gerry’s knowledge, reporting, and language skills took him to far-off places to cover revolutionary developments, Gerry collaborated with the FI groups in those countries, which were active in the mass mobilizations.

Gerry left the SWP in 1980 to take a staff position on the FI’s new publication, International Viewpoint (IV). He remained in Paris on this assignment for more than a decade. His departure from the SWP, which expelled Gerry retroactively, stemmed from his opposition to the bureaucratic and cult-like practices of SWP National Secretary Jack Barnes, who, along with a compliant new “leadership team,” engineered the SWP’s rejection of its Trotskyist heritage. This was accompanied by the expulsion of hundreds of its most dedicated comrades, including many of the SWP’s founding members from 1938. Many of these comrades soon after formed Socialist Action.

Relocated in Paris, Gerry was a staff writer, translator, and often a speaker for IV at conferences and conventions of FI sections. He authored hundreds of articles covering critical events in world politics and joined the French section of the FI, the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR).

Beginning in the late 1980s, Gerry’s mastery of Slavic and other Eastern European languages, and his keen interest in the mass movements in the USSR and Eastern Europe that challenged Stalinist rule, allowed him to author scores of articles that provided great insight into the revolutionary developments in these countries—especially the critical struggle of the USSR’s oppressed nationalities.

Gerry’s assessment of the importance of these developments coincided with Socialist Action’s. For the first time in decades the possibility of building Trotskyist parties in Eastern Europe and the disintegrating USSR had real and immediate potential. He supported Socialist Action’s efforts to send Trotskyist delegations to Eastern Europe and the USSR as well as our contributions to the building of a Trotskyist party in Poland, including the translation into Polish of some important works by Trotsky.

In the early 1990s, Gerry returned to the U.S. to work full time for Socialist Action as the International Editor of our newspaper. Typical of Gerry, however, before leaving IV, he insisted that we underwrite his proposal that he visit Hungary for three weeks so he could “learn the language” and more effectively follow events in that country.

Back in the U.S, Gerry was immediately co-opted to Socialist Action’s Political Committee, where his knowledge of Eastern Europe and the recent events in the USSR contributed greatly to the depth of coverage in our press.Socialist Action newspaper’s coverage of revolutionary developments in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Ireland were remarkable in their detail and analysis, often from first-hand sources or direct participation in the unfolding events.

Gerry eagerly took on assignments around the world. Following the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico, he visited San Cristóbal, Ocosingo, and other cities that the Zapatistas had temporarily occupied, to learn first hand of their impact and to meet with their representatives.

An incident related to the Zapatista rebellion comes to mind that highlights Gerry’s desire to directly connect with the people whose struggles he embraced. I visited San Cristóbal to try to meet with the Zapatistas and to observe their negotiations with the Mexican government, which temporarily ended their first uprising in 1994. Before I left for Mexico, Gerry asked me to bring him back a dictionary of the language of the indigenous people. At the time, such an effort was the last thing on my mind. But by coincidence, during a press conference following the negotiations, a fellow walking through the aisles was hawking just such a dictionary, and I thought that I would bring it back to San Francisco to surprise Gerry with my ability to make good on his essentially eccentric request.
I gleefully handed Gerry the dictionary upon my return, and he quickly opened it. In a moment, with perhaps a tiny hint of disdain, Gerry said, “This dictionary is Tzotzil. I need to begin with the major indigenous root language, Nahuatl. It won’t do me much good.” Vintage Gerry! I am sure that comrades who knew him have thousands of similar anecdotes highlighting Gerry’s magnificent eccentricities.
Gerry Foley touched the lives of revolutionaries around the world, including comrades from other socialist currents that do not share our politics, program, and traditions. Socialist Action has received condolences from many comrades outside our movement, comrades who might have differences with us on important political questions but who respected Gerry’s diligence in presenting our ideas and who benefited from the material that only his skills and experience could provide.

Gerry was one of a kind. To know him was to be enriched in myriad ways. He lives on in our deeds and dedication to the revolutionary cause and program that he championed for a lifetime.

The possible victory of François Hollande, the candidate of the Parti Socialiste, in the second round of the presidential elections on Sunday 6^th May will break this neo-liberal axis. This eventuality was reflected by the lack of “confidence” on the stock exchange with a drop in the value of shares on the Monday after the first round. Of course Hollande will pursue a “left-wing” austerity package, by for example agreeing to the new European Union “golden rule” of a balanced budget being incorporated into each national constitution. But his raising the need for a renegotiation of EU treaties towards growth through investment and increasing the top rate of income tax to 75% has been sufficient to make the ruling class across Europe nervous.

The biggest winners of this round of the election has been the left, stretching from the PS (Parti Socialiste) to the far left, which has risen from 13.3 million (36.4%) votes at the last presidential election in 2007 to 15.7million (43.7%) this year. The PS only gained 770,000 votes. The rest of the increase went to the left opposed to neo-liberalism and austerity which obtained a total of nearly 4.6millions votes (12.81%).

The Front de Gauche with its candidate Jean-Luc Mélanchon won 3,984,822 votes (11,10%). The NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-Capitaliste) obtained 411,160 (1,15%) and Lutte Ouvrière 202,548 (0,56%). Mélanchon left the PS to form the Parti de Gauche, in November 2008, and then formed a coalition of the Parti de Gauche with the PCF (Parti Communiste) named the Front de Gauche. He is now the first candidate to the left of the PS to score over 10% since 1981 when the PCF candidate, George Marchais, obtained 15.3%.

The outgoing President Sarkozy was the biggest loser in the first round of the presidential elections in France on Sunday 22^nd April. He has a huge job to recover the 1.8million voters who deserted him since the last election in 2007, many to the Front National. He came second with 9,753,629 votes (27,18%), just behind the Parti Socialiste candidate, Francois Hollande, who won 10,272,705 votes (28,63%). Marine Le Pen was able to re-establish the FN as a “respectable” party of the far right with 6,421,426votes (17.9%).

Although the FN scored its highest vote on its own this year, the combined vote of the far right in 2002 was 19.1% if the votes of the FN dissident Bruno Megret (2.3%) are added to those of Jean-Marie Le Pen (16.9%). This year, the FN comes close to Sarkozy’s score in four out of the 23 regions. For example in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Sarkozy won 23.62% while Le Pen got 23,29%. At a local level, the FN also scored well in small industrial towns such as around Marseille where the council is in the hands of the PS or the PCF, coming first with shares of the vote above 30%. For example in Marignane, the FN gets 34.84%. Sarkozy is now deliberately courting the votes of the far right FN by stating that he has heard their message, and that he will take up issues such as immigration and security, national identity and islam, the arrogance of financial institutions and will fight against the “dilution of the nation within globalisation”! This right turn is needed if he is to seduce over 80% of the FN voters which he needs to win, something unlikely as the Marine Le Pen has denounced the main parties, and especially Sarkozy’s UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) as corrupt. Her strategy is to cause the disintegration of the UMP so as to win over its supporters and drag the political spectrum to the right.

The high score of the FN was underestimated in opinion polls in the run-up to the election. However, it should not come as a huge surprise as the FN scored 14.4% in 1988, 15% in 1995 and 16.9% in 2002 when le Pen went into the second round against Chirac. The FN now has an intervention to win over systematically working class voters by leafleting factory gates and housing estates, denouncing the European Union and globalisation, and arguing that there should be French jobs for French workers in France. Studies reveal that the FN now has the support of 29% of blue-collar workers, the highest of any party, just in front of the PS who has the support of 28%!

The campaign of Mélanchon has had a big impact and has inspired hundreds of thousands. The meetings of the Front de Gauche were huge: 120,000 in Paris and Marseille, 70,000 in Toulouse and 23,000 in Lille. The programme for the election, “People First” sold over 400,000 copies. Mélanchon stated at under 5% in the opinion polls and went up to 17%, and hoped to beat Le Pen. The main message of the campaign was that people should not pay for a crisis that is not of their making. The proposals included a maximum wage, forbidding redundancies for economic reasons, a real 35 hour week, retirement at 60, rejection of EU directives and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. But combined with these policies, were abstract appeals to the French republican tradition, for a constituent assembly and to “take the power”, a slogan which featured on his posters.

The strategy of Mélanchon’s the campaign was to win over workers who have been seduced by the FN because, as in Britain, the traditional parties of the left and the right all support austerity, but also to pressurise Hollande to adopt a more left wing position. It may well be that the score was not as high as anticipated, as many voted for Francois Hollande in the first round to stop Marine Le Pen getting into the second round as her father was able to do in 2002. But as mentioned previously, he did get the highest vote of a candidate to the left of the PS for over 30 years. Mélanchon stated that he would not join a PS government and would always choose to be on the side of the social movement rather than that of government. But this is not the message which comes from the PCF, the main component of the Front de Gauche. The PCF argues that the task is to build a left-wing majority in Parliament which would include the largest number possible of MPs from the Front de Gauche, obviously implying support for a PS government. The record of the PCF and the Parti de Gauche has been to participate with the PS in the running of many councils and regions, and as such have administered programmes of cuts and privatisation in public services.

The campaign of the NPA was to put up front the need for the working class not to pay for the crisis, to remain independent of the PS and to prepare for the struggles ahead. The NPA’s score was disappointing compared to that of Olivier Besancenot (4.3% in 2002 and 4.1% in 2007). The NPA’s candidate, Philippe Poutou, a Ford car worker, was able to get a good media coverage towards the end of the election campaign and get across the message of the need for a unity in the struggle against austerity, whether of the right or the left. The decision of the NPA to present a candidate was controversial inside the party. A minority opposed that decision, and some leading members publicly called for a vote for Mélanchon and argue for a political recomposition with forces on the left of the PS.

If Hollande wins the second on Sunday 6^th May, the political landscape may begin to shift to the left across Europe. In Greece, parliamentary elections also take place on Sunday 6^th May and the anti-austerity left is at 40% in opinion polls. In Ireland, a referendum on the EU fiscal compact is due to take place on the 31^st May. Support for the compact is slim and Sinn Fein, which is calling for a No vote, is in second in opinion polls. In the Netherlands, the government collapsed when the far-right Freedom Party left in protest at austerity measures. In Britain, voting takes place on Thursday 3^rd May for council and the London Mayor. It may well be that we are now entering a new political cycle in which parties opposed to the Merkel/Sarkozy/Cameron hard austerity measures are winning in elections. A defeat for this axis of austerity can only give confidence to the left, the trade-unions and the social movement to organise and go back on the offensive against austerity of the left or of the right.