On June 21 and 22, five anti-capitalist organisations in Greece (Anametrisi, APO, DEA, Metavasi, and Xekinima) hosted a two-day event entitled “The Experience of 2010–15: For the Left That We Need Today.”
The following text is comrade Andros Payiatsos’ contribution to the final session of the event, “On the kind of Left that We Need Today” on behalf of Xekinima (ISp section in Greece).
[Read the balance sheet for the event here and Xekinima’s contribution on Left-wing governments here]
Good evening, comrades.
I would like to start by expressing my agreement with the general political observations and perspectives developed by fellow comrades in this discussion, and other speakers in the previous sessions.
Let me just say that we are living in an era which, had someone tried to predict and describe a few decades ago, would have seemed completely out of time and place. We are living in a time of barbarism, “paranoia”, and “madness”. People are being exterminated in the most cynical ways, as in Palestine. Wars are being launched with incredible ease, like the US bombings of Iran in the past 24 hours. The environment is being destroyed by the recklessly irresponsible actions of the powerful… the list is endless.
Crisis of the Left
We are living through the deepest crisis since the interwar period – a fact acknowledged even by analysts of the ruling class. This crisis is economic, social, political, environmental, etc.
But at the same time we are witnessing a huge crisis of the Left — not only the Left in general, i.e, the reformist Left in its various forms, but also the “anti-capitalist” or “Marxist” Left. How can this be explained?
As Marxists, we expect that in conditions of crisis we can win to our ideas large sections of the working class and the oppressed layers, and in this way move forward in the direction of the great social upheavals, ruptures, and revolutions that can lay the basis for the alternative society that we aim to build. But instead of this, “our” Left is in crisis. This is happening in an epoch when the mass movements internationally, have not been unfavourable to us, quite the opposite. It’s not just the events of 2010–15 in Southern Europe that we in Greece experienced so intensely; it’s not just the Arab Spring of 2011, which has already been mentioned by other speakers; it’s also many more movements and upheavals, since then. For example, in 2019 we saw the biggest wave of international uprisings since the Second World War: the numbers of people in struggle appear to have surpassed even those of 1968 globally, with major social explosions and revolutionary events in at least 35 countries.
And yet the Left is in crisis. Why?
There is one basic explanation: the Left is unable to respond to the tasks at hand. The reformist Left cannot do so for the obvious reason: it is reformist and as such assimilated to the system. However, the “anti-capitalist” or “revolutionary” Left is also failing to grasp the issues, seize the opportunities, and offer a clear perspective. This is the only general factor that can provide an explanation for the crisis of the various trends of the Left.
Here, in this discussion, drawing on the lessons of the previous period, we are trying to take the bold step of bringing together five or six –or more– organisations in an effort to fill, as much as possible, the huge vacuum that exists in the Left.
Two Historic Defeats
Apart from the subjective weaknesses of the Left, we must also have in mind two important historical events –milestones of the past few decades– that shape the conditions we operate in today and reinforce our current difficulties in being able to move forward at least as fast as we’d like.
We have suffered two major defeats of historical proportions. The first was the capitalist restoration in the Eastern Bloc.
This represented a very serious setback for the mass movements and caused enormous confusion worldwide about the meaning of “the Left”, of “Marxism”, “Socialism”, “Communism”, etc. It ushered in a harsh decade – the 1990s.
In the 2000s the mass movements entered a period of recovery and counter-offensive, filled with optimism and high expectations, but then the global crisis of 2007-8-9 (2010 in Greece) struck. According to bourgeois economists and not just our own analysis, it was the most severe crisis since 1929.
Important movements emerged after the 2010 crisis, but they were defeated – this was the second factor which undermines the confidence of the mass movements and the Left today. These defeats occurred both on the trade union level and on the political level. In Greece, we have a very clear picture of how this happened.
After the defeat on the level of the trade union struggles, working class people turned to the political level. In Greece, they turned to SYRIZA; and internationally, similar developments occurred with parties of the “new Left|. But the working class masses were betrayed. In some respects, a political defeat is even more serious than a defeat on the trade union front.
In this period, we also had the Arab revolutions… we all saw how they ended.
We paid the price for these defeats when they happened, and we are still paying it today.
We know that the mass movements will recover, and go once again on the offensive, because both history and logic point in that direction. But we cannot predict when and how. We also know, of course, that defeats tend to delay this recovery.
No “Vision” By The Left
The crisis of the Left runs deep. The “vision” of an alternative society has disappeared from the field.
Before the collapse of Stalinism, there were no left-wing organisations –not even of the most moderate, reformist, social-democratic character– that didn’t refer to socialism in one way or another. This was all the more true for the “anti-capitalist” and “revolutionary” Left. Today, however, such references have vanished.
The vision of an alternative socialist society has disappeared from the horizon. We need to bring it back. That is one of our fundamental tasks.
The second major issue raised in the previous three sessions is the lack of cooperation among left-wing forces that should be working together. There is no real concept of a “United Front”.
The issue of cooperation — the United Front
The issue of cooperation, of “unity in action” –which is the basis of the United Front– is of crucial importance. The need for joint action is not just obvious in today’s context. People are openly saying: “We need to see cooperation between the Left. Why doesn’t the Left collaborate? At last, get serious…” This is true both in Greece and internationally: “…Get serious. Work together.”
This mood in the working-class masses is not a new phenomenon. The texts of the Communist International, which several speakers have already referenced, make it clear that there has always been a great need and desire for cooperation between political and other organisations of the labour movement at all levels. Politically, this is related to issues such as left-wing governments, as well as everyday struggles over wages, the eight-hour workday, health, education, etc etc.
The Bolsheviks and the Communist International, of the time of Lenin and Trotsky and before the rise of Stalinism, referred to what we call the United Front with the phrase: “the Tactic of the United Workers’ Front.” I want to emphasise the first and third words.
Thus, the United Front (UF) is essentially a tactic; and it concerns only the working class and workers’ organisations – it has nothing to do with organisations, groups, or bodies connected to the ruling class.
The United Front becomes a strategy only under one condition: the establishment of soviets –the organs of power of the working class and the masses– which represent the highest expression of the UF. These soviets might go by different names depending on the country and its traditions: workers’ councils, people’s councils, coordinating committees of struggle, and so on. The name is secondary. What matters is that they function as organs of power for the working class and other oppressed layers. In this context, the UF is no longer a tactic – it becomes a strategy. Unfortunately, of course, we are still far from that point today.
It is also worth noting that, for Marxists, a left-wing government (in the sense of a reformist government, even of the most radical character) that emerges under certain conditions and from the developments of the class struggle is not a strategic goal. Rather, it is an objective reality to which the revolutionary Left must adapt its tactical options – if and when such a government arises.
The strategic goal remains workers’ power and soviets, or workers’ and people’s councils — organs of popular power.
Can We Succeed?
The political vacuum is huge – we all know it and acknowledge it. We need to see what we can do in order to fill it? The question on everyone’s mind is: “Can we make it?”
Let me give an example that shows what is possible. There are more examples, including from the international level, but I will only focus on one for reasons of time.
In the local elections of October 2023, the anti-capitalist Left –including those of us here and many others– was forced to collaborate. This happened because of the law introduced by the New Democracy government that imposed a 3% minimum threshold for electing a councilor.
What was the result?
Over 6% in Athens, almost 6% in Thessaloniki, 9% in Sykies in Greater Thessaloniki… Of the fifteen municipalities where the anti-capitalist Left ran united formations, I believe the lowest result was 4.5%.
This result is historic – it marks a turning point for the Anticapitalist Left. However, instead of understanding this and building on it, the anticapitalist Left continues, for the most part, to live in its own world. Many of the groups that collaborated in joint electoral lists at that time, reverted to the old sectarian conflicts and are now in crisis.
Still, we must recognize the importance of this development, highlight it, and build upon it.
Thus, our initiative has set itself the following goal: to initially create something sizeable and therefore visible, that we can gradually build upon and develop further. So, what are the basic conditions, in our opinion, necessary to achieve this goal?
1. For a clear anticapitalist profile and programme
If we want to achieve our goal of creating a mass left-wing force capable, of rupture and social transformation, a task which is revolutionary and not one that passes through parliamentary procedures, then we must first clarify our political identity/profile and programme.
We need a clear anti-capitalist profile – one that speaks plainly and clearly and avoids vague ideas.
Alongside this, we need a Transitional Programme. Our programme must connect the many small and big problems of daily life –ranging from wages or local parks to education, healthcare, war, etc– with the goal of system change.
Previous speakers have already referred to some of the central elements of the Transitional Programme. These include:
- nationalisation of the banking system and commanding heights of the economy;
- workers’ control and management – in essence, laying the basis for the institutions of workers’ and popular power;
- application of capital controls and state control over foreign trade;
- prepare for a clash with the EU and exit from the eurozone;
- last but not least, internationalism: the struggle alongside workers in the EU and beyond, for a different Europe and an alternative, socialist (or communist) world – because this task cannot be completed on a national basis.
2. For a fighting involvement in the mass movements, for the United Front
We must be active on all fronts: trade union, youth, anti-fascist, anti-sexist, anti-racist, environmental, both in national and local movements. We must be at the forefront of these struggles and take the initiative wherever possible. We also need to make proposals – both in terms of demands and on how they can be won.
Our initiatives cannot truly have a militant character unless they are combined with the concept and practice of the United Front, as already discussed.
References to the classics and examples from the Communist International aside, the collapse of the KKE in 2012 –when it rejected SYRIZA’s proposal for a left-wing government– the crisis facing ANTARSYA, mainly because it reduces the United Front to a cooperation among like-minded “revolutionaries”, and the outcome of the 2023 local elections that I mentioned earlier, all demonstrate that the United Front tactic is absolutely crucial in order to achieve our goals.
3. Democracy in the Left and the Movements
The issue of internal democracy in the Left is a “painful” story in Greece and internationally.
The Left has suffered –and continues to suffer– from deeply problematic traditions in this field. And I’m not just talking about those who settle political disagreements with their fists – we’ve got a few in Greece, as you know!
In the Left that we want to build, each component part must be free to express their own views –as well as the collective ones– within society and within the mass movements. There must be equality among organisations, and consensus must be sought in collective decision-making.
The Assembly (common meeting of all members of all organisations plus “non-aligned” individuals) is a key institution in the structure we are trying to create. But it does not solve the problem of democracy by itself, it does not automatically guarantee democracy.
At the same time, respect for the democracy of the movements is essential.
In general, we need democratic discussion – without restrictions, without tricks, without fueling divisive crises when this or that organisation disagrees with collective decisions. The views of organisations and individuals must be respected, and discussion must be conducted in a spirit of comradeship.
4. Federal or Assembly Structure?
There is a discussion about whether what we want to build should be based on a “federal structure” or an “assembly structure”.
In our view, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The structure must be assembly-based, allowing individuals and organised collectives to express their opinions and participate in decision-making. At the same time, it must also be federal. Nobody should demand of any organisation that it dissolves itself in the name of building the common initiative.
5. Independence of the Component Parts
I believe this point is already clear from what has been said above.
6. Open to Society – i.e., to “Unaffiliated” people
This must be a conscious priority for us, because it will determine the project’s success or failure. Beyond the five organisations represented here –or the six or seven that may emerge in the near future– we must be able to engage with broad layers of society that are not part of any organised collective. Our success will be judged largely on this front.
We have the political tools and weapons to achieve this. However, we must keep in mind that “unaligned” (not belonging to an organisation) individuals who join our initiative must be given a voice and a role – the right to participate in decision-making and to be represented in our coordinating bodies.
In Conclusion
New large-scale movements are inevitable – just as new political formations that reflect these movements are also inevitable.
However, any organisation or formation that emerges without a clear anti-capitalist character and programme will be “absorbed” by the system and eventually degenerate.
That is why we must protect what we have begun. Under certain conditions, we can play a catalytic role in social and broader political processes. But to do so, we need a concrete plan, and clarity regarding our core goals and methods; we need patience –which is absolutely essential– together with optimism.
