On Jul 18, 2015, at 11:43 PM, nathan tankus <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> If I were on the position of being a Syriza MP forced to vote on this deal I 
> would have voted for it. I would have also spent the last six months fighting 
> the party to make a real plan for exiting the Euro, but given that that 
> didn't happen I would have voted for it.
> 
> 
> People misunderstand TINA. TINA doesn't say you need a plan to provide an 
> alternative to austerity and structural reform, TINA says there is no 
> alternative en toto. In their vision it is literally impossible to create an 
> alternative. 
> 
> What I'm saying is that they haven't worked to create an alternative, that 
> doesn't mean there isn't an alternative- it means there isn't an alternative 
> at this historical moment. This is a huge failure and was not inevitable. it 
> is one we need to correct, if not for Greece then for the rest of Europe's 
> periphery. 
> 
> I think it's cowardly to not develop a viable exit plan and then vote against 
> the horrible austerity and complete capitulation on offer. You’re essentially 
> taking the political benefit of not ultimately being the one making the 
> decision without the political cost of how this impacts real people.  

1. The Syriza government should have resigned and gone back into opposition to 
continue the struggle against austerity, rather than itself imposing a new 
round of austerity on the Greek people in concert with its enemies. There are 
people who regard themselves as “revolutionaries” who never considered this as 
an alternative and get very agitated when it is presented to them. 

2. As we know, the Greek popular classes voted Syriza into office precisely 
because they wanted an end to austerityThey massively reaffirmed this decision, 
despite the breakdown of five months of negotiations and threat of dire 
consequences from the troika, in the May 5th referendum.

4. Had the Greeks voted to submit to the austerity measures demanded by the 
troika, the government would then arguably have been obliged to approach the 
troika to resume negotiations on the basis of the creditors’ final offer. 
Instead, the government abruptly turned against the democratic mandate it was 
given to reject the austerity measures and handed the heads of its people to 
their enemies on a platter.

5. Nathan and others would not for an instant tolerate such an act by a trade 
union leadership, even one self-described and regarded by others as “militant’ 
or “progressive”. When a membership roundly rejects a final offer from an 
employer and demonstrates it is prepared to continue the struggle even in the 
face of great risk, it is considered an act of betrayal for the leadership to 
then turn around in short order and sign an agreement which is even worse than 
the one the members rejected. Unfortunately in such cases, open rebellion by a 
majority of the membership does not necessarily follow; it more typically 
result in discouragement and continued loyalty to a leadership “which must know 
better”, characteristic of large organizations.

6. The Syriza leadership is effectively transforming the party into a new 
Pasok. It’s justifications for bowing to the troika are indistinguishable from 
those offered by the previous governing social democratic party or, for that 
matter, from the last right-centre New Democracy government. Significantly, the 
Syriza leadership has distanced itself from the left wing of the party, which 
has acted consistent with the Syriza program and the democratic will expressed 
by the Greek people. Instead, Tsipras et al have made common cause with the 
domestic and foreign enemies of the Syriza program and Greek democracy.

7. If the Syriza leadership had resigned, there would not be this debate on 
this list, or, more importantly, in Greece and elsewhere on the European left 
because the issue (or fear) of an immediate exit from the eurozone would be off 
the table. There would be instead a united Syriza able to fulfill Nathan’s hope 
of preparing a Plan B while in opposition. In any case, the threat of Grexit 
has always been overblown. It’s been mainly a weapon placed in the hands of the 
troika by the Tsipras leadership which publicly signalled its terror of that 
outcome from the beginning. It’s doubtful the eurozone leaders would have 
followed through on the threat even if Syriza declined to capitulate to their 
demands. The Schauble tendency in the eurozone is still very much in a 
minority; German exporters and banks have benefited enormously from the 
currency union; there are legal impediments to expelling a member; and the 
eurozone majority doesn’t want a Grexit to set an example down the road for 
Spain, Italy, France, and the smaller indebted countries.



  





_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to