Anti-Colonial Alert
Go back
Feature Articles Global Capital & Crisis

The Unknown Greek Communist Party and the Debt Crisis

By Captain

The Unknown Greek Communist Party and the Debt Crisis

In the flames of the Greek debt crisis, two left-wing forces - Coalition of the Radical Left - Progressive Alliance(Syriza) and the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) - have chosen very different directions. Syriza, which made history with its anti-austerity rhetoric, groveled to the EU and accepted harsher bailout conditions after winning a referendum, while the KKE stuck to its revolutionary principles, refusing to compromise with the bourgeoisie and calling for a complete break from the EU’s chains. Instead of the usual confrontation between a revolutionary party and a ruling party, this is more of a tug-of-war between betrayal and persistence. Both sides represent forces that are more advanced than their predecessors (and much more advanced than the EU and NATO), but the deep waters of practice are a gaping chasm that makes it difficult to bridge the gap between all those groups that have compromised on absolutes and those that have refused to do so. This article will tear open the gory truth of Syriza’s compromise, analyze its disastrous consequences, delve into KKE’s political practices in elections and referendums, and reveal the historical functions of these political practices from the usual Leninist perspective, in the hope of providing practical references on this side.

European Debt Crisis in Brief: Greece’s Collapse and the Left’s Choice

In 2010, the European debt crisis swept through Greece. The economy collapsed, unemployment skyrocketed to 28%, poverty spread, and society was in turmoil. In the midst of these ruins, Syriza emerged in the 2015 elections, raising the flag of anti-austerity and promising to restore Greece’s economic sovereignty.

On July 5, 2015, the Tsipras government initiated a referendum in which the Greek people overwhelmingly rejected the bailout conditions from EU and the IMF by a margin of 60% to 40%. Syriza and the Prime Minister himself publicly supported the “No” vote, and thousands of “No” supporters gathering for a large demonstration - the result of the referendum was already set before the vote. The country experienced a brief but intense period of polarization, caught in a ‘No’ vs. ‘Yes’ dilemma. However, only a few weeks later, Syriza signed an even harsher bailout agreement, bleeding public spending and effective investment, and extracting hard-earned tax money from the people. The troika and the German and French capitalists laughed, and neoliberalism proved itself once again. Tsipras himself rejected tens of thousands of votes from the party and the public with his own vote, completely shattering the reformist mask of the radical-left coalition, which had steadfastly resisted austerity.

KKE and the referendum drama

At the parliamentary session on June 27, the ruling Radical Left Alliance rejected the proposal of the Greek Communist Party to submit the following questions to the judgment of the Greek people in a referendum:

As mentioned in my previous paper, “The Greek Crisis: The Euro-American Debt Trap”, the Greek government is now in a position to make a decision on its own.

As my previous paper, “The Greek Crisis: The Euro-American Debt Trap,” explains. If the Radical Left Alliance’s will is to fight to the bitter end, to break away from the eurozone and from the EU and NATO defense system, then it is not a good idea to do so. If the desire of the Radical Left is to break away from the eurozone and from the EU and NATO defense system and face sanctions, then a referendum led by the Radical Left would provide at least effective political capital.

Then a referendum led by the radical left will provide little effective political capital - this euphoria is not the end, or even the beginning, of the end, and Greece will be in deep water. Greece will move into deep water and become a nail in the coffin of resistance to the hegemony of global capitalism. And yet, under the direction of the Radical Left Alliance, it became a whole movement.

However, under the guidance of the Radical Left Alliance, it became the end, not the beginning, of the whole movement. Indeed, the rejection of June 27th shows that even if the Radical Left had chosen to take advantage of the situation, it would not have been able to do so. In fact, the rejection on June 27 shows that even if the Radical Left chose to continue negotiations using the referendum’s popular mandate, their own prepared proposals were still abysmal. Their own prepared proposals are still abysmal. It was never their intention to take over the proletarian oppressed that they claimed in the election. From the very beginning of their campaign, they never wanted to occupy the position of the oppressed proletariat that they claimed in the election. From the very first day of their campaign, Plath and his supporters never even considered the possibility of fulfilling their promise. From the very first day of their campaign, Gonzales and his supporters have never considered following their own promises of resistance. In this imperative, whatever the choice of the ruling party, Greek society is bound to be flooded with a large number of people who will not be able to stand up for themselves, but who will not be able to stand up for themselves.

The betrayed laborers and unemployed youth. Their countries are in chaos under the manipulation of American, British, French and German capital; they have lost their jobs, their dignity of existence, and they have been labeled by the nationals of the “higher” members of the European Union as the assholes of the European economy; they chose to put up a strong resistance in the referendum, but no matter whether the government chooses to continue the negotiations or to capitulate, they will not be able to keep anything, and even their joys and sorrows have become a tool of political manipulation for the bourgeois government. Even their joys and sorrows have become tools for political maneuvering by the bourgeois government. At this point, it was the communists who stepped forward. The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) maintained its traditional position in the 2015 Greek government elections, emphasizing anti-European Union and anti-austerity policies, and advocating a socialist revolution led by the working class. According to the election results, KKE’s share of the vote was around 5-6% in the September 2015 elections, in line with its historical performance. Like their other European counterparts, they participated in the parliamentary elections to expose the failures of the bourgeoisie, but instead of pursuing reforms within the parliament, they focused on revolutionary goals. However, at such a critical juncture in history,radical positions have often limited alliances with wider popular movements, particularly in the ‘No’ campaign led by the Radical Left Alliance. In the July 5, 2015 referendum, KKE took a unique position, criticizing either the “Yes” or “No” option. In fact, both would result in Greece continuing to accept the austerity policies of the EU and the IMF. Dimitris Koutroubas, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Greek Communist Party, stated: “Our people are being asked to take part in a referendum, and the difference between yes and no is only superficial. Both yes and no mean accepting a new memorandum of measures against the people, which is probably the worst we have seen so far. Both Yes and No will bring new torture and tragedy to the people. Both Yes and No mean anti-worker, anti-people measures. The referendum is an excuse to reach a new memorandum agreement at the expense of the Greek people.

The “ magic hand ” in the big game: purity

Subsequent developments have proved KKE’s prediction of a compromise with the radical left to be correct. What KKE seized upon was the natural upper limit and contradiction of the reformism of the Radical Left League, and in this way it underlined the unique position of KKE itself as an alternative - a revolutionary that is not assimilated to the bourgeois agenda. The KKE will not succumb to any form of blackmail, to any false dilemma created by the “troika”, the government or other bourgeois parties. At every stage of the negotiations, the Greek Communist Party reiterated its insistence that it was impossible to form a left-wing government within the bourgeois state - the exact opposite of the experiment of the Radical Left Alliance. The party’s general secretary, Dimitris Koutroubas, said in a speech:

The Greek Communist Party has only one goal: to bring the working class to power so that we can have a better life and the people can be rich. The proposals of the Greek Communist Party are all geared towards the realization of this goal and are based on this criterion. Not on the basis of what the economy can afford. Because this is a capitalist economy, under any management or government, there will be crises, unemployment and poverty. Sensitive analysts can easily see that there is a problem here that Western socialist parties cannot avoid, and that is that on life-and-death issues, the chief theorists and leaders keep retreating to a safe field where they can’t go wrong in the studios of Marxism.

Yes, the economy at hand is a capitalist economy, so whatever we do is futile! When the predicted end comes, they will be unable to do anything but watch the dignity of the proletariat’s existence fall into the dustbin of history along with this lowly capitalist economy that does not deserve to soil the hands of Marxist theorists, or become a fuel for extreme right-wing populism. The reality is that, as some analysts who have recognized this trend have argued, Greek Communism pays a greater price for its sectarianism than for its radicalism. The KKE is not only opposed to acting together with other left-wing political forces, but in recent years it has also been at odds with broader popular movements. This can be seen in the KKE intellectuals’ pessimistic assessment of mass events such as the Plaza Movement, where they do not try to be present at the scene and grasp even a small part of the masses that are spontaneously radicalizing; rather, they stop at the spectatorship because of the elusive connection to the “capitalist machine” behind these movements. What’s more, party theorists, who should be mobilizing their own reflexivity and actively acting as a nucleus of cohesion for the masses, attribute the “chaos” of the Constitutional Square movement to the political enemies of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party and the Radical Left Alliance. This is a perfect excuse for inaction. No matter if the movement is carried out on the field or on paper, even if it tries to build a bridge between the current proletarian misery and the distant Greek revolution, the intellectuals of the KKE will at least fight for the right to interpret the movement in the Constitutional Square as the trigger of the contradiction; if at this time the movement is led to the point where its historical significance is nullified and even the movement itself is dominated by the neo-Nazis, then the members of the KKE should feel ashamed of themselves and how could they talk about the “chaos”? Why would they be so ashamed to comment on the movement as a neutralizer afterwards?

Looking back at the KKE’s path, the KKE has gained a great deal of popularity in the space where it is allowed to operate, relying on this strategy of maintaining complete purity. But just like in a game of Go, KKE, who chose “or” in the Yes/No referendum, failed to become a credible left-wing opposition, and did not take advantage of the opportunity to mobilize the Greek masses, who were beginning to be radicalized by the policy of compromise. In doing so, it has blatantly thrown away an excellent historical opportunity.

At a time when the legitimacy of the Radical Left League, which opted for compromises and reforms, was being questioned, the popularity of its leaders was at its lowest ebb, and the political structure, along with the apparatus of the state, had become a worthless piece of junk, the last thing a political organization claiming to realize communism and the right of the proletariat to a future of survival and development, should have done was to hunker down in the “purity” and “legitimacy” of its political structure, and to take advantage of this opportunity to mobilize the Greek masses that had begun to be radicalized by the policy of compromises. The last thing a political organization should do is to hermit itself within the confines of the limited space of “purity” and “legality”. This judgment does not need to be proved, it should be an instinct in the genes of a communist party.