Those Greek election results… June 17, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, The Left.trackback
That’s some set of exit polls that can be found. And they vary fairly widely too. The Guardian has a pretty useful rolling blog on it.
EDIT, and here from Gearóid a suggestion for another useful site.
I can’t read the outcome at all, and it’d be useful to know what the view inside Greece is. But, one way or another SYRIZA has done remarkably well all things considered and looks set to be a vital element of the Greek politics from here on in (assuming it can retain coherence and the disparate nature of SYRIZA may tell against it heavily from here on in). PASOK’s Fianna Fáil-like descent (albeit worse, going into the low teens) continues apace. KKE may slightly improved its position on last time.
Golden Dawn appears to have held onto much of its vote. Democratic Left likewise.
With left alternatives to both left and right of SYRIZA it’s difficult to see how it could have shifted much leftward, or indeed rightward in order to pick up support. But there’s a further interesting dynamic here in the way that New Democracy has consolidated its vote.
Excellent site for following the election: http://www.igraphics.gr/en/multimedia/2012/06/elections2012b
That’s fantastic, thanks Gearóid.
Seems to echo our recent referendum, with urban areas mostly rejecting austerity while rural areas largely cling to the status quo. I guess that makes Crete the Donegal of Greece!
Except that only 3 urban constituencies rejected the Fiscal Compact, as against 2 rural.
And the 3 constituencies with the strongest support for the referendum were … yep, all urban.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IkKZSIWnfqc/T8-gF17EhII/AAAAAAAAAY4/hqu5RCPEmt4/s1600/2012+European+Fiscal+Compact.png
Fair point Bartley, I should’ve said working class rather than urban- naturally affluent South Dublin can be relied to support the EU no matter what, and indeed Athens seems to be diverse in its voting patterns. But I still think it’s an interesting comparison.
KKE vote down by almost 50%, now behind the fascists and Democratic Left. The class have given them a severe reprimand for their sectarianism, will they heed it though? I think there will be some serious ructions in the KKE over this.
The biggest surprise for me is the persistence of the fascist vote. I really expected it to take a big hit after the antics of the last few weeks.
Whatever about the differences in electoral politics I really hope the left, that is the supporters of SYRIZA, KKE and ANTARSYA, can form some sort of united front against the fascists.
yeah, the latest figures are not good for KKE.
Interesting how quickly the narrative changed on foot of exit polling and the ‘official’ exit poll.
The KKE were well aware of their likely result in this election:
“The KKE is swimming against the current of false hopes which is being fostered by Syriza, and the party is aware that this may affect its electoral results.
But the KKE is a party with principles, a consistent party “for all seasons” which will fight persistently for the people in the front line of the struggle. It will continue to fight this fight whatever the result on June 17.”
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/120199
No ructions likely there whatsoever.
LATC: There has already been rucktions in the KKE over May’s results. They’ve also been getting flak from some CP’s aligned to the European Left Party for their sectarianism.
We’ll see.
I’m fairly sure you’re well aware Neil that the European Left Party is a major divide among the CPs, and that criticisms between those on different sides of that debate are far from anything new, as the KKE’s own website more than amply demonstrates from long before the elections. The KKE line has been clear and consistent during the crisis in regards to these types of questions. It’s also clear that Syriza’s vote comes from pro-EU, pro-Euro voters, who are unlikely to move to the KKE, and who have sought a non-PASOK party that embraces these values. The shift in language from tearing up the “bailout” agreement to re-negotiating it mentioned here recently is unsurprising.
Ah now, Garibaldy, that spinning is a bit too obvious.
SYRIZA seem to have taken close to half of the KKE’s votes, as well as a whole bunch of votes from PASOK and smaller numbers from Antarsya, the DL etc. Presumably you aren’t seriously telling us that all those former KKE voters were actually “pro-EU, pro-Euro voters” all along?
And still less that these people who were voting for the KKE as little as six weeks ago would be “unlikely to move to the KKE”?
I did indeed accidentally leave out a phrase along the lines of the vast majority of Syriza’s new votes or most of Syriza’s new votes.
It’s a rather important phrase to “leave out”! And even then, it will be a close run thing, give that SYRIZA seem to have picked up close to half of their “new votes” from the KKE and Antarsya.
If the KKE are putting out arguments along the lines of yours above, I’m afraid it would have to be dismissed as self-serving nonsense. The shift in voters towards SYRIZA cuts across attitudes to the EU and the Euro. It’s not a recomposition of pro-EU voters in a new bloc, but rather the creation of a anti-memorandum bloc, including people with just about every attitude to the EU.
Funnily enough Mark, I’m capable of coming to my own conclusions about matters, instead of waiting for a line to be handed out from Athens or wherever else. I’ve no idea what the KKE is saying, although I expect a statement will materialise in English in a day or two. My comment of course reflected the new votes Syriza has added in this year, rather than just this election. Syriza seems to have added about 10 percent since May, when it added something like 12 percent. If we take that 22 percent or so growth during 2012, about 1/4 of it potentially comes from the KKE vote. The rest overwhelmingly clearly comes from voters who want a party that opposes austerity but promises they can remain within the EU and the Eurozone on the same basis as before. The KKE position is that this is to promise the impossible. Which is what Merkel et al have been saying too. I guess we won’t have to find out now whether that is in fact the case.
You seem to have missed the “if” in my comment, Garibaldy.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that you came up with by yourself, but I still that your analysis is misleading. Firstly, even taking your numbers at face value, if a quarter of the new SYRIZA voters come from the KKE and another percent from Antarsya, that alone would mean that people were coalescing around SYRIZA for reasons other than misguided EUphilia. We are talking here about a substantial section of the SYRIZA vote here.
But actually, we have some more evidence to go on because Greeks were polled recently about their attitude to the Euro. And while a majority were pro-Euro, more than two thirds of SYRIZA voters opposed remaining in the Euro if doing so is contingent on accepting the memorandum conditions. That is, while there are substantial numbers of SYRIZA voters who are pro-Euro, alongside voters coming from the KKE and Antarsya who are likely to be anti-Euro, for the majority of their vote it is a secondary question, as compared with the memorandum, bailout and austerity. Many of them might well prefer to stay in the Euro, but if forced to choose, their choice is pretty clear.
The growth in the SYRIZA vote represents the creation of a mostly working class, mostly young, mostly urban, anti-austerity bloc. Those voters split all over the place on other issues.
I don’t see that the figures you quote, especially given the qualification in the italics, conflicts with what I’ve said. Namely that a large majority of Syriza’s new voters are most likely people who want to remain within the Euro and within the EU, but who do not want to accept the conditions of the “bailout”. And Syriza has explicitly offered this. So Syriza isn’t splitting them, even if opinion polls are.
The figures quoted, along with SYRIZA’s ability to take almost half of the KKE vote and almost three quarters of the Antarsya vote, fairly strongly indicate that what’s going on is not primarily about a pro-EU vote coalescing, but about an anti-austerity left vote coalescing, regardless of views on the Euro and the EU.
I actually agree with the KKE that the SYRIZA leadership’s stance on the Euro is incorrect. The non-Synaspismos sections of SYRIZA tend to be closer to the KKE’s view than that of the Syn leadership.
I think it’s obvious that whether the vote would mean exiting the Euro or not has been a major issue in these elections. I don’t see how the fact that Syriza explicitly said that it would remain within the Euro can be anything other than central to its enormous growth in votes. Syriza certainly thought it was important enough to say it repeatedly.
With all due respect, that’s a rather silly statement, LATC.
The KKE, despite its famous discipline and equally famous insularity, is a mass party and will not be immune to dissent, disagreement and conflict in circumstances like these. There will inevitably be many members of that party who will be bewildered or angry about the course the party has taken and the votes that course has resulted in. The KKE has had huge faction fights before, so it isn’t as if there’s something about the party’s culture which makes that unthinkable.
Now it may be that the leadership’s attempt to batten down the hatches and prepare the membership for an electoral shoeing will succeed in dampening down dissent. But ultimately, KKE members aren’t automatons and quite a lot of them will be wondering if, for instance, it was really such a bright idea to run an election campaign based primarily on attacking SYRIZA as sell out bastards.
it may be that the leadership’s attempt to batten down the hatches and prepare the membership for an electoral shoeing will succeed in dampening down dissent
I hope you don’t mix your drinks like you mix your metaphors.
To be honest, ejh, my drink mixing skills are even worse. If it goes beyond adding tonic to gin, I’m likely to produce something undrinkable.
Paul Murphy MEP is in Greece at the moment, as one of the international guests campaigning for SYRIZA. He has been blogging in some detail about his experiences and also posting to Twitter. He gives as close to a SYRIZA insider’s view as an English speaker is likely to get at the moment.
https://twitter.com/#!/paulmurphymep
His blog posts are on politico.ie
How does an English speaker campaign in Greece?
For the most part, it seems to involve giving speeches at rallies and speaking at press conferences, in both cases with the aid of an interpreter. SYRIZA invited over public representatives from a range of left wing formations from around the world, presumably in a bid to demonstrate that there are many people in other countries who oppose the memorandum, bailout and austerity.
Other than that, a lot of younger Greeks speak English. Paul’s blog posts give a fairly thorough account of what he’s been up to over there.
I noticed, by the way, that the Communist Party of France also had some representatives over speaking at SYRIZA events, which is an interesting development in that it seems to indicated that some of the European Communist Parties prefer SYRIZA to the KKE.
Back to the question of the European Left Party. Nothing new or surprising here.
The existence of disagreements within what’s left of the European CPs over these questions isn’t new or surprising, you are quite right. But as far as I’m aware, Western European CPs openly campaigning against another Western European CP is a new and at least moderately surprising development.
Speaking of spin, I do so enjoy your descriptions of the current-day CPs, as though they were across the globe in the same state as they are in these islands. “what’s left of the European CPs” is a classic example. We are talking in this case about two parties with mass membership and fairly serious electoral support that all far-left parties in these islands can only dream of. And it’s hardly like that support hasn’t come through continued attraction of numbers of young people that again people here can only dream of.
Getting a bit touchy there, Garibaldy.
It’s hardly a contentious statement that most Western European Communist Parties are shadows of their former selves and the PCF, which was once the largest party in France, is no exception despite its participation in the successful Front de Gauche. In fact, it’s a statement of the bleeding obvious which in no way rests upon an inference that the left here is massive.
Now, getting back to the point, are you aware of Western European Communist Parties openly campaigning for another party against the local Communist Party anywhere else recently?
Amused more than anything else, like when you were talking about thankfully being in a world where Stalinist dinosaurs no longer roam the earth around the same time the revolution in Nepal was happening.
I’m certainly aware that for many years, certain CPs have been working more closely with non-CP forces in other countries with whom they are part of the same European party. What is that if not saying that people should vote for the non-CP parties? I’d have to see whether the French CP people were campaigning, or speaking at events. They may be the same in effect, but it wouldn’t be the first time that members of the ELP went to speak at events in foreign countries organised in other countries I’m sure.
I’m not actually sure what they were doing in Greece apart from speaking at SYRIZA events, but I’m pretty certain that SYRIZA were wheeling out their international guests to offer support, and it’s pretty revealing that they weren’t over there speaking on KKE platforms.
As for the ELP thing, that’s a fair point.
Or maybe the PCF would have turned up at KKE events if the KKE had invited them?
And maybe more interesting is the alignment of Paul Murphy with the more “reformist” part of the European left?
Dilettante:
You should ask Paul about the different political strands in the GUE/NGL group some time. You’d probably be surprised by the people he most often votes along the same lines as.
Paul has visited the KKE offices in Greece too, by the way. And he is pretty openly critical of elements of the SYRIZA programme.
Here we go, a statement from “the members and cadres of the KKE” criticising strategy of the leadership, it’s dated May 28.
http://blog.stigalaria.org/15116/
I don’t know if anyone else saw Aleka Papariga concession speech tonight? She spent most of her time blaming Syriza for the KKE losing votes and then went into this weird side track predicting Greece would be in a war after the US elections! I am not making this up.
Now it might that Mark is correct and the KKE leadership will manage to damp down dissent but that’s not a sure thing.
I’m not sure what value we can place on that given the fact it’s anonymous, and we don’t know how many people it’s supposed to represent, what their roles within the KKE are supposed to be etc. I’m sure there would be some within the KKE who would suspect it to be a hoax.
As for the remark about a war. Isn’t that clearly a reference to Greece’s continuing membership of NATO and the fact that preparations for war against Syria are clearly under way? There have been statements about that on the KKE website. And I don’t think the idea that NATO might attack Syria as it did Libya is far-fetched in the least.
We must gird our respective loins for this upcoming imperialist led conflagaration which will see the conflict spread throughout all of Syria, spill into neighboring countries and see the civilian population subjected to an extraordinarily heinuous (spelling?) bombing campaign which would dwarf the current bombing campaign to which they are currently and righteously subjected to.
” …righteously subjected to ” – the problem with satire is that it can be misinterpreted.
I have to say that if I were supporting a leftwing party who, during a period of mass radicalisation, saw their support drop by a half to two-thirds when it ought to be going up, I would seriously consider the idea that they had fucked the dog.
KKE assessment of the election result:
http://inter.kke.gr/News/news2012/2012-06-18-dilosi-gg/
You have to laugh sometimes at the brazenness of the KKE, you really do.
This is Aleka Papariga’s take on Syriza’s line on the Euro: “It made many assurances to the ruling class and the foreign powers that Greece will remain in the euro at all costs.”
There’s a few problems with that statement starting out with the fact that it’s a lie.
There is much that is wrong with SYRIZA’s line (or more correctly the leadership of Synaspismos’s and Tsipris’s line) on the Euro. However, it’s quite clear SYRIZA have NOT given “many assurances” that Greece will remain in the Euro “at all costs”. Why else was there was an enormous propaganda campaign in Greece and internationally against SYRIZA? It’s also the reason the Greek bosses and international finance capital breathed a sigh of relief when New Democracy emerged as the largest party. If Syriza had given assurances they would stay in the Euro “at all costs” then what are we to make of Tsipris’s frequent statement rejecting austerity? Surely staying in the Euro “at all costs” means accepting the terms of the memorandum? Now the KKE might say they don’t believe this rhetoric, which is fine, but that’s a long way from saying SYRIZA have in fact given assurance they will stay in the Euro “at all costs”.
It takes a certain amount of arrogance and wilful self-delusion to tell such a transparent porky and expect no one to notice. It also exposes a certain amount of insecurity in one’s political ideas.
Fundamentally what this lie illustrates once again, is that the KKE see’s no material difference between New Democracy, PASOK or SYRIZA simply because SYRIZA does not conform to the KKE’s program.
SYRIZA’s message on the Euro is confused, there’s no question of that. But people who fancy themselves as Marxists should be able to recognise it is a mix progressive views (a willingness to reject austerity and the memorandum) and illusory (the idea this can be done within the confines of the Euro). They should also be able to recognise that this message gained a resonance within the working class and poor.
In those circumstances the correct course is to try and find some common ground on what was progressive, i.e the rejection of austerity while still continuing to criticise that which is illusory.
The KKE make no attempt to do anything like this. It’s the KKE’s way or the highway.
That is the very essence of sectarianism, a big section of the working class smelled it a mile away (including a significant portion of KKE voters) and the KKE were punished accordingly.
The KKE seems to think now that elections are finished for the time being it can exapnd it’s influence through struggles in the communities and the workplaces. Maybe it will, but elections are the lowest forms of class struggle. A big section of the class is clearly outside the orbit of the KKE. Successful mass struggle is all about coalition building and if the recent elections are anything to go by that’s not an area of speciality for the KKE.
Ah – the wages of sectarianism.
I’d say in the short term it’s a good result for vulture capitalists and debt slavers. The EU has turned itself into a mechanism for diverting as many resources as possible to feeding these insatiable packs of predators. Rich pickings from privatisation and controlled (if possible) social collapse in Greece will follow rapidly.
In the slightly longer term perhaps a strong opposition on the streets, the disappearance of Pasok when it goes into government with ND (c.f. Irish Greens and Labour) and a default within the structures of the Eurozone may serve the 99% of Europe better than a SYRIZA-led government.
That Hollande can govern without needing support from the left is not an encouraging sign for a significant change in policy in Europe.
I am amused at the Morning Star supporting the KKE. The Morning Star is effectively in an entryist faction in the British Labour Party. The CPI is another question. Can you imagine it criticising Sinn Fein in the terms that the KKE criticise Syrizia.
The European CPs are in 2 factions. The KKE, the CPI, WPI and Portoguese are in a sort of left Stalinist bloc. The PCF goes in for left alliances to bolster it chances of joining a SP led government.
http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/syriza-preparing-for-power/
The above practically calls for support for Syriza.
The challenge for Syriza and indeed the KKE is to provide leadership against further Troika cuts. The far left should continue to push for a United Front.
I started writing about the use of the phrase “Stalinist” and how it adds nothing to a conversation. Then I gave up. What a total watse of time and effort.
LATC: I think you can take it as read that nobody here thinks the tag “Stalinist” on a political party means that party is in favour of Gulags, a repressive secret police state etc.
Like Trotskyism there are certain political ideas that are characteristic of political parties that align themselves with ideas that have their genesis from Stalin’s rule in the USSR.
In those cases I think the term “Stalinist” is a useful political short hand, in much the same way, “Trotskyist” or it’s ugly cousins “Trotskyite” or “Trot” do.
@ Neilcaff:
I find the word cunt a particularly useful shorthand as well.
Unfortunately, the shorthand it expresses is not one that lends itself to insight or elucidation.
The way ‘stalinist’ is used by yourself is pretty much the same shorthand.
And you know it.
Classy.
Save the faux shock for the afternoon tea ladies , Neil. you know what you’re saying with Stalinist.
By the way, faux shock is quite the fashion these days, in Michigan.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120618/NEWS06/206180391/-Vagina-Monologues-to-be-performed-on-Capitol-steps-in-Lansing?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p
Thanks for the condescening reply Neil. Clearly we’re not talking about gulags. My point is that far from being a useful shorthand is it in fact a divisive and unhelpful shorthand that tags the accuser as much as if not more than the accusee. What hope for united fronts when the linguistic behaviour demonstrates an inability to go beyond preconceived prejudice.
LATC: I work with loads of people in the trade unions who are quite happy to call me a Trot to my face. It doesn’t bother me. I would prefer if they didn’t but I know Trot doesn’t necessarily mean for them what it means to me.
You should take the same approach.
I wasn’t trying to be condescending to you. Apologies if I came across that way.
Alphaville: Not shocked at all, far from it.
Neil, ok, I probably reacted to misinterpreted tone in your reply. I don’t think equating the adjectives Trotskyist with Stalinist is valid whatsoever. If you can show me any official documents of the WP, or opinions expressed by supporters, that are explicitly based directly on Stalin’s utterances I’d be quite surprised. Whereas one does tend to hear reference to Trotsky’s works from those groups which are part of that legacy. It you want to use a convenient shorthand then perhaps in future you could pick on one which is less polarising?
LATC – this thread probably isn’t the place for this discussion, which we’ve had in some detail before. But at this point you know that whether or not you think that Trotskyists are wrong in their use of the term Stalinist, they are not simply displaying prejudice or using it as a contentless insult. They are using it as a term for political movements which share a whole series of political positions, descended from the pro-Stalin side of a split in the international communist movement. You don’t have to agree with that analysis, of course.
Getting back to Jim’s point, he does hit upon something important.- a division between former “Moscow line” parties in Europe between a more radical (and also a generally more sectarian) wing around the KKE and the PCP, and, as I understand it also the Czechs, and on the other hand a more social democratic wing including the French and Spanish CPs. I’m less sure than Jim about the WPI being aligned clearly with the first bloc, because it isn’t as if WP material is particularly critical of the “softer” parties either. Perhaps you could shed some light on this?
Mark, and if I used the phrases Taig or Hun or Paki or Arse-bandit or whatever I’d also be using the words as a hostile shorthand for a whole load of precooked and misplaced prejudices, but it’s still an unhelpful distillation isn’t it, and it would reflect more on me as the person using the phrase than it would on the subject of the attack. I’m certainly not trivialising the historical and political differences, but at some point it the language becomes important and I’m not sure what good it serves anyone to harp on with the out-dated descriptions. And I can’t help you with any WP critique of the PCF etc., it hasn’t cropped up as a subject for discussion within the WP since I got involved.
LATC, that’s a ridiculous comparison and you know it.
On the more relevant point, I wasn’t really expecting you to point out Look Left articles having a pop at the orientation of the more social democratic CPs. I was more hoping if you could explain if the WP sees itself as being particularly aligned with parties like the KKE and PCP as opposed to the PCF and PCE.
Not a ridiculous comparison at all. It’s a small step from the inane mention of the DPRK in connection with the WP which was happening at the drop of a hat here until quite recently, it simply poisons the discussion in the same way it would to attempt to discuss same sex marraige with someone you’ve just labelled an arse bandit. Do you really fail to recognise that fact? I suspect not and that it suits you to pretend innocence.
That’s truly a bizarre point of view LATC. “Arse bandit” is a homophobic slur. Stalinist is a political characterisation. I can only conclude that you are being disingenuous in claiming not to see a difference.
Further, there is no prejudice, or ignorance, involved in characterising movements which are descended from the Stalinist side of a split in the communist movement, which support some or all of the Stalinist regimes and which still espouse the core distinctive political position of Stalinism as “Stalinist”. You don’t have to agree with that analysis – but it is also disingenuous for you to pretend that it is just prejudice when you have repeatedly had the analysis explained to you here.
On the North Korea issue, I agree with you that people were trolling here by raising the support of the Workers Party for the North Korean regime on each and every occasion when the Workers Party was mentioned. But they were trolling because they were constantly introducing a completely extraneous issue to conversations in an attempt to derail those discussions. Not because it is wrong or illegitimate to criticise the Workers Party’s quite insane stance on North Korea! When a subject arises to which the Workers Party’s support of North Korea is to some degree or other relevant, it is not trolling to raise the issue.
When we are discussing the behavour of the KKE and its relationship to the rest of the Greek left, its rather baroque Third Period style Stalinism is not only relevant, it’s of pretty basic importance if we want to understand what they are doing and why.
“Stalinist is a political characterisation.”
It is a hostile political characterisation, where the word hostile is central.
The CPs and WPs in question do not describe themselves as Stalinist. No more that FG describe themselves as Blueshirts. But we on the Left are happy to use that description for FG because it suits our purpose to emphasise a part of their lineage which we know will alienate people from them. It is loaded language.
Your failure to acknowledge the hostility is simply dishonest.
The problem is that Stallinist is both a political characterisation and a term of abuse, in much the same way as Trotskyist is (and worse again Trotskyite). And given that offence is as much about how a term is perceived by people then it makes sense perhaps to avoid the egregious use, or to ensure when one uses it that it’s absolutely clear how one is using it. In any case the case that contemporary parties outside of a certain state whose name we dare not speak are ‘Stalinist’ in any functional sense is very hard to take entirely seriously – not least because there’s an whole history subsequent to Stalinism in the USSR where the regime did change quite significantly (and the parties supporting it ether rhetorically or otherwise changed in a wide variety of ways and took varied different directions).
Yes, of course, “Stalinist” implies negative things about the politics of the party so characterised.
But a Fine Gaeler would have a much better case for arguing that the Blueshirt term is unfair, given that Fine Gael no longer espouse the politics of Blueshirtism and have not for decades. While the parties characterised as “Stalinist” by Trotskyists still espouse the distinctive core political positions of Stalinism. Parties which have a Stalinist history but which have since abandoned those politics are not so characterised. Despite this, I don’t think that a Fine Gaeler objecting to the term Blueshirt would get much of a hearing from most of us.
WbS:
That Stalinism is quite a broad term, encompassing quite a number of parties and regimes with differing politics at differing times, in no way invalidates the term. Any more than the term Capitalism is undermined by the fact that present day Sweden, Pinochet’s Chile and Regency England all fall under its embrace.
I agree that it can be used as a general purpose swear word, but nobody in this discussion has been using it as such. Stalinism refers to a political movement (or set of overlapping political movements), with a distinctive set of core political postions and a shared ideological history. This particular argument started with Jim’s description of the PCP, KKE and WP forming a kind of “left Stalinist” bloc. That’s certainly open to question at least in so far as it is rather unclear that the WP are particularly aligned to the KKE and PCP over other Communist Parties in the first place. But it is not an indiscriminate swear word to talk about the KKE and PCP as “left Stalinists”! In fact, the term captures quite a bit about what is distinctive about them in the context of Western European CPs.
That is true, it is a broad term, but… you’ve used it fairly indiscriminately on this site over the years to encompass pretty much all parties that were at one point CP, all parties that were sympathetic and so on. And yet the experience and orientation of those parties are so diverse, and particularly in the last quarter century as to make me wonder on some levels how they could possibly be more similar to each other than to other parties (it reminds me a bit of the Socialist Party in the Netherlands which in 1971 when it was founded was Maoist and overtly M-L but now is clearly not. Change occurs).
In a way I don’t think we need to resort to analyses about left Stalinism, or the German experience in the 1920s and 30s re the KPD – though there are ironies in the position of the KKE and in truth its not shy of trying to make linkages with Stalin. But that strikes me as largely cosmetic, and the KKE approach seems to me to be borne out of a number of fairly obvious inter-related dynamics, the collapse of the USSR/Eastern bloc in 1989-1991, the experience of government before and after (IIRC) that time, the detaching of its euro-communist wing, the local conditions in the Greek polity (influenced by an history of vicious repression of the left from the war onwards). It seems to me in such a context that a party like the KKE seeking legitimation and validation would more than likely tilt towards a very hard edged political identity to distinguish itself from a fairly vibrant alternative left current (now exemplified by the likes of SYRIZA and others) and also from PASOK further to the right. In a way this seems to me to be more psychological than political though of course its intrinsically political. And I also suspect that the roots of it may be in terms of cadres deep enough but clearly in terms of generalised support not so much (ejh’s point earlier makes a lot of sense). I’d also find it lamentable that they accuse SYRIZA of being opportunist, but again I chalk that down to their own experience. What’s ironic is that SYRIZA hasn’t gone for coalition government with right parties but stepped back. Good move on their part and one that makes the KKEs antipathy and charges of opportunism seem inapposite.
you’ve used it fairly indiscriminately on this site over the years to encompass pretty much all parties that were at one point CP, all parties that were sympathetic and so on.
I don’t think that this is quite accurate. The Dutch Socialist Party, to use your example, have their origins in a Stalinist (Maoist) group, but they have pretty much entirely rejected those politics and are now an almost archetypal left social democratic party. The CPGB/Weekly Worker has its origins as an aggressively Stalinist faction of the old CPGB, but they don’t share any of the core distinctive political positions of Stalinism today, so it simply wouldn’t make any sense to categorise them as such. Similarly, when the old Communist Party of New Zealand adopted the politics of the British SWP.
The history is important in providing context, but the groups I refer to as Stalinist still today hold to political positions like socialism in one country, the popular front, support for some or all of the old Stalinist regimes, the stages theory and so on. That most all of them share a direct organisational link to the Stalinist side of the 1920s split in the world communist movement is very much secondary. As is the fact that a few of them are still fans of Stalin personally. If a group with that heritage abandons those politics (as quite a few have) I wouldn’t argue in favour of categorising them as Stalinist – that really would be using the term as a content free insult.
On the issue of the KKE:
I actually agree that there are quite understandable psychological reasons for KKE members to be counterproductive hostile to SYRIZA, but I don’t think that the key explanations for their line are psychological. The KPD, for instance, had even better psychological reasons to be hostile to the SPD, but I don’t think that really explains their approach during the Third Period, or at least it doesn’t explain it absent a discussion of things like their underlying politics and their relationship to the USSR. I think it’s actually fairer to the KKE to put their political line in a political rather than primarily psychological context.
I also think it’s worth noting how unusual the KKE’s line is by comparison with other present day Communist Parties, almost all of which, at least in Europe, have been firmly sucked into the orbit of larger social democratic parties. Including in countries where there are “fairly vibrant” other far left currents, like France.
I don’t think that this is quite accurate. The Dutch Socialist Party, to use your example, have their origins in a Stalinist (Maoist) group, but they have pretty much entirely rejected those politics and are now an almost archetypal left social democratic party. The CPGB/Weekly Worker has its origins as an aggressively Stalinist faction of the old CPGB, but they don’t share any of the core distinctive political positions of Stalinism today, so it simply wouldn’t make any sense to categorise them as such. Similarly, when the old Communist Party of New Zealand adopted the politics of the British SWP.
That’s sort of my point (re the Dutch Party and others). Change is possible. The CPs themselves underwent radical change after Stalin’s death (and arguably there was a significant decentralisation in the wake of it as the ultra-Stalinists tended to cleave away into M-Ls and as others members went over to the Trotskyist left). Their reaction to Stalinism was in some respects as marked as that of Trotskyism. And we still can see the fall out. I’m also not sure that this has to be programattic change – or not entirely. Culture changes (see below) can be as if not more important.
The history is important in providing context, but the groups I refer to as Stalinist still today hold to political positions like socialism in one country, the popular front, support for some or all of the old Stalinist regimes, the stages theory and so on. That most all of them share a direct organisational link to the Stalinist side of the 1920s split in the world communist movement is very much secondary. As is the fact that a few of them are still fans of Stalin personally. If a group with that heritage abandons those politics (as quite a few have) I wouldn’t argue in favour of categorising them as Stalinist – that really would be using the term as a content free insult.
I’m always reminded when you bring out that list of what Splintered Sunrise once said, that the key to political groups on the left (and presumably elsewhere) is often not their formal programme but their internal culture (I paraphrase). Functionally all those positions seem now to be used or not used by so-called Stalinist Party. The KKE itself doesn’t seem to hold with the Popular Front. There are parties such as the RSP in Australia which couldn’t be described as Stalinist which have a stages theory (and by the way, in all my time in the WP I never once heard of stages theory as a part of party theory and I’d wonder how broadly it was adopted by others). Socialism in one country strikes me as a bit meaningless in the context of no USSR. And probably in the context of how revolutionary contexts would occur internationally. But again, I wonder if you’re not reifying that which doesn’t need to be reified. Or to put it another way you’re looking at what were regarded by at one time Stalinist parties as policies rather than absolute principles, and that they tended towards a sort of pragmatism over them (or opportunism if one prefers). You’re right entirely, there are fans of Stalin, but these seem to me to be a fairly atomised crew at this stage. The KKE makes something of a meal of that, but one would wonder how deeply held it is.
Just thinking about culture, I’m reminded of the WP which in culture long after it had jettisoned significant aspects (but never all) of its Republican politics remained intrinsically a movement identifiable as coming from a Republican context. Part of that was the military aspect, but it goes beyond that.
I actually agree that there are quite understandable psychological reasons for KKE members to be counterproductive hostile to SYRIZA, but I don’t think that the key explanations for their line are psychological. The KPD, for instance, had even better psychological reasons to be hostile to the SPD, but I don’t think that really explains their approach during the Third Period, or at least it doesn’t explain it absent a discussion of things like their underlying politics and their relationship to the USSR. I think it’s actually fairer to the KKE to put their political line in a political rather than primarily psychological context.
I’d have thought that the 1930s situation re the KPD and SPD relationship can be explained by one thing. Then there was a Stalin and a Comintern which was directing matters, if not day to day, strategically and often tactically. Clearly in 2012 that is no longer the case. In fairness to the KPD their memory of the post WWI period and the actions of the SPD no doubt exacerbated hostility and antagonism. But I find the KKE’s antagonism very artificial. One can as easily see them arguing the opposite case. In that sense I think it’s roots stem from something other than the purely political (albeit I agree there’s a political aspect to it).
I also think it’s worth noting how unusual the KKE’s line is by comparison with other present day Communist Parties, almost all of which, at least in Europe, have been firmly sucked into the orbit of larger social democratic parties. Including in countries where there are “fairly vibrant” other far left currents, like France.
Absolutely. Again I think of the KKE’s absolute antagonism even to a Popular Front.
Change is possible.
Yes, I agree. It is open to any and all of the Stalinist parties to abandon Stalinism as quite a number already have. And if they do so, I’ve certainly got no interest in holding their history against them.
the key to political groups on the left (and presumably elsewhere) is often not their formal programme but their internal culture
I’m certainly not saying that the formal politics of an organisation tell you everything you need to know about that organisation. But they are significant.
The PCF and KKE are both Stalinist parties, but they are at distant poles of the Stalinist spectrum and while their Stalinism is important, there are also other important things to look at. There are right and left variants of Stalin, more openly reformist and more subjectively revolutionary, Maoist, Hoxhaist, etc. I am not saying that all Stalinist organisations are the same, any more than all capitalist parties are the same or all reformist parties are the same. There is a lot of room for difference.
The various political positions I mentioned are the key political points where Stalin and his followers “innovated”, which is to say, where they moved away from Marxist views as previously understood. They are the political ideas which they share, across that Stalinist spectrum, and which are not shared by other Marxists and which indeed are fundamentally opposed to Marxism.
On a couple of other points you raise:
The KKE are currently opposed to the Popular Front, but they used to favour it and have replaced it with the equally Stalinist approach of the Third Period. They still hold to all of the other distinctive political positions of Stalinism.
The Workers Party’s particular version of the stages theory is most apparent in its schema for progress in Northern Ireland. First there must be a bill of rights and an end to sectarianism within Northern Ireland. Then the struggle for a united Ireland. Then the struggle for socialism. Three distinct stages.
The point you make about the KKE’s hostility being relatively artificial is, I think, pretty important. I think that they are well capable of changing attitude very quickly – unfortunately I tend to think that if they do it might well be back to the cross-class Popular Front.
Mark, can you point me to the WP document that outlines that stages theory? Thanks.
The process of adopting and developing the stages theory is covered in some detail in both Swan’s book and the Lost Revolution. As far as I know, the WP have never repudiated it – perhaps, with your no doubt superior access to WP documents, you can point us to their abandonment of this theory?
No time at moment to answer this in detail, but the WP point raises problems.
Firstly that schema was adopted in essence in the mid to late 1960s long before the WP or OSF was clearly even ‘Marxist’, or inflected in any serious sense by Stalinist/post-Stalinist thinking.
Moreover this schema was acceptable to a significant number of proto-Trotskyist members (many of whom went onto PD etc) and tellingly to someone like Gerry Foley.
Which rather suggests that one man’s stages theory might be another man’s transitional demands.
@ Jim:
“The challenge for Syriza and indeed the KKE is to provide leadership against further Troika cuts. The far left should continue to push for a United Front.”
Syriza needs to provide leadership against further Troika cuts because they’ve been doing what exactly up to now?
Maybe you should email them, JIm. I’m sure they’d be fascinated to learn how to conduct properly a mass campaign to oppose troika cuts from a keyboard warrior of the leafy suburbs of Dublin such as yourself.
You could give them your decades of experience of meetings in upstairs pubs with the standing population of a phone booth, soaked with an analytical sophistication that would make Eamon Dunphy the living embodiment of Wittgenstein in comparison.
You could give them lessons in photocopying and stencilling, and calling people you don’t like “stalinist”, and how you once give the NLF in Vietnam your “qualified” support.
Dont forget to tell them that the way to win over the working class is to patronise the living shit out of them with the marbled tones of a moneyed background, and to stand back and watch as they realise that “bluddy Storelinist” actually refers to people.
Syriza needs you Jim. Greece needs you. They need to know that the bluddy Storelinists are to blame.
Sheesh, some one got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning!
There seems to be a bit of a one-person effort to derail this discussion by someone who found Jim’s quite mild and reasonable comments infuriating. I suggest that not following this person into a distracting row is probably the best option.
Jim’s point about the unlikeliness of parties like the CPI or CPB ever taking the sort of attitude towards Sinn Fein or the British Labour Party which they applaud the KKE taking towards SYRIZA, who whatever their faults are a great deal more left wing and radical than either SF or the BLP, is well made.
It’s worth noting that, far from preaching to SYRIZA or the KKE from afar, Jim is essentially echoing views on the need for cooperation on the Greek left which are also found amongst sections of that left, including some of the components of SYRIZA.
For what it is worth I support Syriza and it is with regret that we do not have such a party in Ireland. I hope that the ULA eventually garners such support. I admire the Greek workingclass resistance. I feel that whatever concessions we have got here were won on the streets of Athens.And I believe that similar resistance across Erope might stand a chance of ending this continuous depression.
I feel that united action across Europe is needed if we are to stand a chance.
In Ireland the limited forces of the left need to cooperate. It is a matter of regret that all the left in Ireland did not join in the ULA alliance and in some cases did not even have a discussion on joining.
In Greece a Syriza/KKE front would have won the extra 50 seats. I don’t know if the far left alliance would have made the difference. A pity.
I prefer meetings in attics. Basements are usually damp.
‘Mark, can you point me to the WP document that outlines that stages theory? Thanks.’
The Irish Industrial Revolution.
Mark said this:
“The Workers Party’s particular version of the stages theory is most apparent in its schema for progress in Northern Ireland. First there must be a bill of rights and an end to sectarianism within Northern Ireland. Then the struggle for a united Ireland. Then the struggle for socialism. Three distinct stages.”
The Irish Industrial Revolution – leaving aside the question of its status for the sake of argument – says this
“The national question for this party has nothing to do with the setting up of ‘Independent’ Ulsters and neither is it confined simply to the removal of British troops. These are symbols not substance. For us the national question can only be formulated as peace among the divided working class in the two states so as to allow a united Irish working class to conduct democratic and militant struggle for the creation of an Irish industrial revolution in all Ireland and the overthrow of Anglo-American Imperialism, and ultimately the construction of an Irish Workers’ Republic.”
That seems to me to be much more flexible than the schema Mark suggests is WP policy.
Garibaldy, that outlines a stages theory pretty clearly. Of course it’s more nuanced than my two sentence summary: It would want to be really.
Actually, if we’re counting, there are more sentences in your summary than in that quote. I believe the sentiment in that quote can be summed up as the following: peace, work, democracy and class politics (not actually intended as being in order of either chronology or importance of course).
The point here of course is not whether there is or isn’t some form of stages theory. The point is whether you are ascribing a certain set of principles and political beliefs to the WP because it fits your schema of what constitutes Stalinism without bothering to check whether it’s the case or not.
The point here of course is not whether there is or isn’t some form of stages theory.
No I think you’ll find that’s exactly the point here.
I think that marks the first time this millenium I’ve come across the term “stages theory”.
Ejh: We should petition Aleka Papariga to award you one on the KKE’s spare ‘Hero of the Soviet Union’ medals for this remarkable achievement.
I suspect ejh would throw that back at you given his own political provenance…
Anyhow – in the great wide world outside the factions – Yannis Varoufakis points out that after the Irish and the Greek votes, there is even motivation for the German government to budge from it’s mercantalist/nationalistic ‘riding’ of the collapsing euro. The start of a nationalist Hobbesian war of all against all within Europe.
I think Merkel genuinely believes she ride out the storm until the Bundeselections in 2013. I also think she is very wrong. I also think there is a scenario going about where Germany (or more precisely German capitalism) does well out of the rubble of a disunited Europe.
The capacity for self-delusion in the ruling classes seems as wide and as deep as that of their mouthpieces in the meeja.
s/even/even less/