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 response, 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 lent 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 Μonday 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.

The two traditional parties, pillars of the neoliberal policies, lost more than half of their previous vote. Combined together, they make now just a 32% of the electorate, in comparison to 77% they had scored in the 2009 elections. New Democracy has dropped from 33% in 2009 to 19%, while PASOK has sunk even more dramatically from 44% to 13%, losing more than 2.000.000 votes. This was the punishment for their reactionary “Memorandum” policies, which they followed in cooperation with the European Union and the IMF. These policies led to a vast impoverishment of the majority of the people and a mass unemployment officially already at 23%, resulting even to a plethora of suicides by desperate men and women.

The vote of the broad left rose from a modest 12% in 2009 to an impressive 35.5% (17% for SYRIZA, 8.5% for KKE, 1.2% for the anticapitalist left party ANTARSYA and some 6.1% for the Democratic Left and 2.9% for the Greens). However the prospect of a left government is made problematic since the KKE (Communist Party of Greece) is an ultra-Stalinist party, denying beforehand any cooperation with “opportunists”, which it considers to be all other left parties except from itself. Moreover, the Democratic Left and the Greens are moderate center-left parties, which do not differ radically from PASOK and have supported until lately a rather conservative agenda. Even so, the collective result of the three radical left parties, SYRIZA, KKE and ANTARSYA, an impressive 26.5%, makes it possible to have some real hope for the future.

The other significant feature of the elections is the abrupt rise of the ultra-right, jumping together to an astonishing 20.5%. Formerly represented by just one party, LAOS, which had scored a modest 6% 3 years ago, the ultra-right now was able to present three major parties, Independent Greeks, LAOS, and the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, which took respectively 10.6%, 2.9% and 7%. LAOS paid for its support of the Papadimos government, holding office during the last months in Greece to implement the austerity programs of the Troika, falling just short from the required 3% to enter the parliament.

However, the shocking 7% achieved by Golden Dawn, an openly neo-Nazi and racist anti-immigrant party, marks perhaps more than anything else the result of the Greek elections. It is the first time such a party not only enters the parliament but gains mass support, which the Nazis lacked during the whole political history of Greece, famous for its resistance movement in 1941-45.

This result had been anticipated by left activists and publicists, between others by our group in Marxist Thought, which devoted its whole last issue to the problem of fascism, neo-fascism, and the new ultra-right. There was a mass mobilization by left organizations during the last three weeks calling the attention of the people to the danger of the neo-Nazi gangs. However, all this proved largely ineffective, as they have gained hold during the last years in degraded neighborhoods and within the unemployed youth. The stance of the Stalinist KKE, which not only is doing absolutely nothing to fight the ultra-right but gives shelter to nationalists like the notorious journalist Liana Kanelli, and even went so far as to welcome the Golden Dawn representatives at the Halyvourgiki strike through the local workers’ union it controls, added largely to the problem.

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

The ensuing situation has been utilized by conservative commentators of the media and the Press, to interpret the result as an illogical expression of anger, pushing to extremes, against the demands of logic and caution. According to this reading, people were carried away by the false promises of demagogues, which are impossible to fulfill. The correct way would have been to foster the reactionary “reforms” that would eventually lead to an overcoming of the crisis through development and higher productivity and an improvement of democracy. Dora Bakogianni, the leader of the ultra neo-liberal (and falsely called so) Democratic Alliance, which failed to enter the Parliament by a narrow margin, has many times argued so in the most clear cut way.

This type of argument has in fact a double purpose. On the one hand, it attempts to equate in a tricky way the ultra-right menace and the prospect of left change as two complementary facets of the problem facing Greece, thus presenting the left as a danger too and denying beforehand there can be any radical positive solution. And on the other hand it seeks to embellish the corrupted Greek parliamentary system and make the parties of the establishment look like a guarantee for stability and improvement, while they are in fact the cause of the problem and of the ultra-right menace too. In Greece, corruption of leading politicians and public officials has been extremely widespread, taking enormous proportions with practically no one of them being ever punished. This decay has been one of the main causes that facilitated the rise of ultra-right and neo-Nazism. Yet, we are urged now to believe that these very forces that produced this situation have the magic clue to lead the country out of the crisis, and this by following the recipes that made it so deep. In fact, when reactionary politicians like Bakogianni are talking about “improving productivity” they only mean more layoffs and a new lowering of wages in the public and private sectors, thus making the existing bad situation even more desperate.

SYRIZA has countered these stereotypes in a successful way, by proposing the formation of a government of the left, which attracted much support from the people. The charismatic personality of its president, Alexis Tsipras, played a part in this too. Other radical left parties like KKE and ANTARSYA failed to make an equivalent impression. The KKE insisted on an ultra-sectarian policy, calling for the establishment of a front for the direct overthrow of the system by a “popular power”, connecting every fight for a bettering of the sad lot of the people with this prospect and denying harshly that anything could be done before establishing the “popular power.” This in fact meant condemning itself to passivity and a bureaucratic break with reality under the deceptive guise of fighting for the revolution, as has so often been the case with Stalinism. ANTARSYA had a much better approach and has played a vital role in the fight against the Golden Dawn neo-Nazis during the last years. Yet it paid for its lack of strong bonds 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 FSO (Front of Solidarity and Overthrow), a small radical left formation led by Alekos Alavanos, a former eminent SYRIZA leader who broke with SYRIZA and kept largely aside in these elections.

The KKE has been accusing SYRIZA for being opportunistic and spreading illusions to 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, has even gone so far as to suggest that taking part in such a government would mean to betray the people for some ministerial “chairs” and state that the KKE would give no vote of confidence to it, should it appear before the Greek Parliament. Their political estimate after the elections was that the rise of support for SYRIZA signifies an attempt by the system to thwart the radicalization of the people and channel it to roads acceptable to the ruling classes. Moreover, Papariga has plainly refused even to meet A. Tsipras who took yesterday the mandate to form a government, after A. Samaras, the New Democracy leader, failed to do so and resigned his mandate.

All this however 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 be finally established in a parliamentary way, to achieve that a revolution by the people is needed. Yet the experience of Chavez in Venezuela shows that with the support of a mass movement big radical changes can be initiated using the parliament as a lever, and there is no real reason that this should be in principle impossible 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 will lend support to the whole project. This is all the more essential in Greece, to be able to withstand the strong pressure by foreign lenders and the European governments and imperialist institutions. However, neither such a majority, nor a front exists presently. And while numbers might make the government of the left abstractly possible at a later stage, it is not at all certain that it will materialize.

The KKE stance is the main problem to that. This party has the support of a significant part of the industrial working class, the fighting elements of which would strengthen and cement the proposed front. However, the KKE, after a break in 1991, has followed for two decades an increasingly Stalinist course. This has gone to the length of not only rehabilitating recently Nikos Zahariadis, the authoritarian and cynical Stalinist General Secretary of the KKE in 1931-56, but also presenting Stalin as one of the greatest of all Marxists, accepting the validity of the Moscow trials and adopting the accusations that Trotsky, Bukharin, and the other Bolshevik leaders were agents of the Gestapo. A number of hard 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 level of its members and making it vulnerable to all kinds of careerists and opportunists.

The KKE has repudiated the revolutions of the Arab Spring and the great movements of the “indignados” in Greece and Europe as being suspect and perhaps even guided by organs of the imperialistic secret services, refusing to take part in them. Instead of that it calls the people to unite in party fabricated “fronts” that are directed from above and have little connection with the people. Recently it has gone so far as to ignore the dramatic suicide of Dimitris Christoulas, a 77 year old man who shot himself at Syntagma and left a moving message to the younger generation, urging it to fight against the corrupt rulers. Christoulas was a member of the “indignados” movement and 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, reaching even the point off hurling accusations at him that his action was in the interests of the ruling classes, who want the people to commit suicide. Alekos Halvatzis, the son of Spyros Halvatzis, the KKE spokesman in the parliament, left the KKE one or two years ago, accusing the Papariga leadership of having filled the party with “stowaways.”

The SYRIZA is on the other hand a coalition of various groups including Marxists, Trotskyites, Maoists, left and moderate reformists, greens, and a number of other tendencies. The party has a genuinely democratic character and this variety of views lends it liveliness, as a center 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 be sure to hold indefinitely in the future.

The KKE, with its usual fanaticism, seems likely to “bet” on the possibility that a balancing of views will not be possible in SYRIZA and after a probable failure of the attempt to set up a left government or pursue it properly in case it is established, in the not very remote future 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 present elections, and its foothold is not in the working class but mainly in civil servants and the youth. It is a vain hope though in the sense that if SYRIZA fails to cope with the difficulties, chaos will be made universal, and in such a situation the ultra-right and not the KKE will be the one most likely to benefit.

The SYRIZA victory has coincided with the victory of Francois Hollande in France. Yet, it should be made clear, 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 classes 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 turn to SYRIZA in Greece however has a potential to challenge the very foundations of the 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, as represented by Merkel, Schäuble, Barroso, etc, 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 in the case that a broader movement to the radical left takes place in Europe. However the really urgent question is: how will SYRIZA cope with their intensified pressure during the following months and what it will strive and be able to achieve at a moment the reactionary forces still remain stronger in Europe as a whole?

SYRIZA’s program aims at a denouncement of the “Memorandum” and a re-negotiation of debt, which will include cancelling a large part of it as odious. It also claims a 3-year period of suspension of debt obligations, which would be an important relief step, if achieved. SYRIZA aims at nationalizing a number of banks, heavier taxation of the rich and improving the situation of the people, to a restoration of their former living standards. After having received the mandate, Tsipras proposed a 5-point program which is a concretization of this.

Other left forces like ANTARSYA argue, however, 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 zone and return to its national currency. This position is largely held also by the Left Current, a significant component of SYRIZA headed by its parliamentary spokesman Panagiotis Lafazanis, while a number of influential Greek economists, like Kostas Lapavitsas, have also argued this way. Significantly, the KKE connects the cancelation of debt too with the “popular power” slogan, considering it to be impossible under parliamentary conditions. This, of course, is an absurdity since the 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, etc.).

The difficulty with the 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 disorganization. To minimize this and avoid an experience like that of Argentina in 2001, it is essential that the majority of the people are convinced for its necessity and it is pursued in an ordered 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 it is quite possible, the neoliberal EU elites refuse to make any real and significant concessions, then this could convince the Greek people for the necessity of more radical steps. Prospectively, it will 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,” like the Arab one.

This prospect is not so 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 media, capitalist circles, and 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 and it is true that there is a number of striking analogies. Under a similar situation of deep economic crisis, mass unemployment, and poverty, we attend the bankruptcy not only of the formerly 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-privatization plan with proposals of appointing the chiefs of police and the army ministers of security and national defense respectively. This is clearly a Bonapartist plan, which would open up a threat to the very foundations of bourgeois democracy and of the labor movement. For the time being, such measures are supported only by the Kammenos party and those even more to the right (LAOS, Golden Dawn). It is not to be excluded that as the crisis intensifies, the more traditional parties, PASOK and New Democracy, or at least certain groups within them, might turn to similar directions.

The May 6th elections had the important consequence of producing a stalemate, not allowing the formation of any viable government. PASOK and New Democracy together have 149 seats, which do not give the needed parliamentary majority of 151. But even if they possessed this, forming a government would be out of question since it would be weak and without authority. This excludes also the possibility of a government being formed by these two parties together the Democratic Left, which would indeed possess a majority of 168 seats. Democratic Left has wisely excluded this possibility, as it would mean to identify itself with the two formerly big parties which were condemned by the people. The broad left on the other hand cannot form a majority, even if we count together all its disunited components. The possibility of forming a “national government” 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 simply mean to involve the left in the memorandum policies.

Greece is heading therefore almost inevitably to new elections, which will take place somewhere in the middle of June. These 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, which failed to enter the parliament (KKE of course has declared it is against unity under all conditions). That includes not only the Greens and ANTARSYA, but possibly some other groups that broke from PASOK like the small (and farily conservative) “Social Agreement” party. SYRIZA may also draw votes from KKE and improve its performance in the agrarian areas, which voted more conservative than the big cities (SYRIZA got more than 20% of the vote in Athens but much less in the countryside). If all this materializes, SYRIZA will almost certainly come first and take advantage of the 50 seats bonus the illogical electoral law grants the first 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 some prospects of countering this. The New Democracy party might be able to unite with the two small ultra-neoliberal parties, Bakogianni’s Democratic Alliance and Action of Stefanos Manos (a Greek big capitalist), which gathered together a respectable 5% of the electorate. Should such a regrouping be achieved, then first place in the coming elections will be a very open issue. However, A. Samaras, the New Democracy leader, is not in good terms with the leaders of the other two parties, so it will be rather difficult to happen (although the New Democracy leader has already made the proposal). Alternatively, it is quite possible that the two ultra-neoliberal parties will make a joint appearance, but this, while ensuring their representation in the new parliament, would not stop SYRIZA from coming first.

There is also a possibility of mass desertions of New Democracy and PASOK voters towards the “Independent Greeks” party, which poses as a patriotic and popular right, defending the interests of the people. This might take big proportions if certain sections of the ruling classes and media, who still supported the traditional parties, decide to move towards Kammenos as their only viable representative. However, there is a 7% difference in favor of SYRIZA now, so this movement would have to be very pronounced to enable 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 what will be the result of Golden Dawn in these 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.

Update

Developments are running fast here in Greece, so that the situation changes abruptly and forecasts may prove wrong or inexact in just a few hours.

After E. Venizelos, the PASOK leader, took the mandate from President Papoulias this day, he had a meeting with Fotis Kouvelis, the leader of the Democratic Left. In it, there was a proposal by Kouvelis of forming an “Ecumenical government” of so-called limited purpose, which will supposedly renegotiate the Memorandum and hold office until the 2014 European parliament elections. Venizelos reacted positively to that, 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 days.

This government will in fact be the 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, as will also be the case with the other parties represented in the Greek parliament. However, for obvious reasons of legitimization, 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 materializes, 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 also signify a further step towards political anomaly, as it will be based mainly in the two formerly ruling parties condemned for their policies and will represent just 37% of the total vote.

Alexis Tsipras has justly called this plan an attempt by PASOK and New Democracy to find a “left Karatzaferis” – comparing thus Kouvelis with Giorgos Karatzaferis, the leader of the ultra-right LAOS, who had supported, with PASOK and New Democracy, the former Papadimos government, his party failing to enter the new parliament for that reason. The plan to establish such a government shows how horrified the ruling circles are from the prospect of a new election 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 the level of 25%). It is also a sign of how much the European Union governments and institutions are worried from the prospect of a left government in Greece and strongly press behind the scene for this kind of solution.

It remains to be seen if during the meeting of the Political Leaders with President Papoulias, which the constitution provides for as an attempt to form a government when the circle of mandates ends, it will become possible to reach this solution. The meeting will take place at most after 3 days, if Venizelos exhausts the duration of his mandate. Even if it is established, however, such a government will be patently weak and will not have any real prospect of solving the grave problems of Greece. It is doubtful therefore – although not impossible – if the three parties will take the risk of appointing it and coming to a total failure which will be blamed upon them after a few months.

The symbolic dimension is indeed central in science fiction. Moreover, its symbolism does not draw from the past, as in the case of myth, but turns to the future, which it attempts to predict and foreshadow. Yet, while in apologetic movies symbolism is realized in an irrational way, covering or distorting social contradictions in order to foist biased and fallacious conclusions on the spectator, in progressive creations it fulfills a realistic function of revealing and emphasizing contradictions, which elevates to a sense of the totality and awakens consciousness.

Following this second road, Carpenter, a talented, independent director who has given us a number of significant films, is able in “They live” to represent in exemplary fashion the process of neo-conservative barbarization in American society as well as the dynamic of its revolutionary overthrow. And while he possesses an element of conscious approach – he himself has compared his strange aliens to republicans – his sharp intuition results in lending the movie a much deeper problematic than his conscious intentions.

Virtual reality

Nada, Carpenter’s hero, is a simple worker, a builder immersed in the American dream. His words in one of the first scenes, “I believe in America and follow the rules. I’m waiting for my chance”, sum up the illusions of the majority of American workers. What he ignores is that the yuppies and “successful” people he encounters in the streets are not what they seem. In fact, they are aliens who have come from a distant world and are plotting to gain control of our planet. The road of success is thus open only to those humans that are recruited by them and consent to become their docile organs.

Nada will become aware of this when he is hired in a construction plant and gets in touch with the rebel forces fighting the aliens. After an attack of the police, he will accidentally discover in a garbage heap the special glasses with the help of which it is only possible to perceive the ugly aliens. These creatures seem completely alike ordinary humans when one looks at them with a bare eye. However, when observed with the glasses, they transform to zombies, with a hideous, black face, just as in fact they inwardly are.

Yet the glasses have another, still more important function. Thanks to them, the multicolored virtual reality around us becomes white-black and the process of subjugation and brain washing, through which the aliens keep humans in ignorance and obedience, is revealed. When the hero puts them on, he is thunderstruck to see “Come to the Caribbean”, with the much promising, seductive top models, turn into a two-colored bill, “Reproduce”. “We are creating a transparent computing environment” becomes “Submit”. He is encircled with commands from all sides: “No independent thought”, “Consume”, “Watch TV”, “Buy”, “Stay asleep”, “Do not question authority”. As for dollar, it is a white paper with a black stamp imprinted on it: “This is your God”.

With this extremely clever trick, Carpenter is able to bring to light the true nature of the ruling elite, which is symbolically presented as a clan of aliens. Besides the rulers and politicians – almost never appearing in the scene, except for a brief but significant snapshot, when the hero sees a politician delivering a TV speech and then, wearing the glasses, the man turns to an alien appearing under the signboard “Obey” – the zombies include businessmen, policemen, bored petty-bourgeois and people of the star system. Even more cleverly, their headquarters is placed at Channel 54 (an allusion perhaps to the infamous Studio 54, the well known Manhattan yuppie disco of the eighties), a typical mass media corporation, through the antenna of which they come to earth and return to their far away planet, a clear hint at the role played by the media in general brain washing.

The role of the media

The channel controls heavily the information allowed to the people. Sporadically, the illegal channel of the rebels appears on the screen, only to be lost in the noise interfered by the aliens. The speaker, an orator with a somewhat fanatic look, zealously castigates the devilish rulers: “The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices… They have made us indifferent, to ourselves, to others, we are focused only on our own gain. That is their primary method of survival. Keep us asleep, keep us selfish, keep us sedated… More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery”.

Through a number of such epigrammatic phrases, a bit schematic but illuminating as well, the creator depicts the essence of the social conditions. Yet, apart from its direct message, the movie unfolds in a second, deeper level, developing the dynamics of the struggle between the oppressors and the rebels.

When Nada realizes what is really happening, he decides to take law into his hands. He rushes into a bank and starts shooting the zombies. The aliens locate him soon, but he manages to escape and finds refuge in Holly’s house, who proves to be a highly standing executive of Channel 54. Ignorant of what is really happening, she violently defenestrates him when she finds a chance, and Nada returns in terrible plight to his workplace. There he meets Frank, his Negro friend, and attempts to enlighten him about the reasons of his strange behavior, which has resulted in him being presented by the media as a criminal and his persecution by the authorities. However, although eager to help him with some hardly saved money, Frank resists and declines his exhortations to wear the glasses. Their conversation is very revealing:

Frank: “I don’t want to see anything. I have a family and children.”

Nada: “I’m trying to save you, you and your family.”

Frank: “You did not save your own…”

Nada: “Put on the glasses. I do not want to fight with you.”

Frank: “I do not want to get in trouble.”

In the overall symbolism of the work, the heroes are not so much acting as individuals, but rather as embodiments of social groups. If Nada represents the conscious vanguard, Frank is the backward, still naive worker, who tries to hold himself aloof, in the hope that he will avoid all problems:

Nada: “You are a worker. Come to see the revolution.”

Frank: “Give it up, friend. This does not concern you or me. I want to keep my job. Do the same.”

Nada: “The white line is in the middle of the road. You are in danger.”

There follows a long scene of tough beating, when Nada reaches the point of almost killing his friend in order to force him wear the glasses. A scene with a deep meaning: the vanguard must show an iron will, in order to make the whole class accept the truth, after a process that will be both difficult and painful. Bleeding heavily, the two friends make up and fraternize again when Frank sees the deeper reality through the glasses. “They came here for profits. Many people sell themselves and get promotions. New houses. Money”, Nada explains.

The ascent of the aliens is ably depicted. In all places, banks, police, mass media, we see normal humans and aliens – honest people and scoundrels – coexisting, without the last being perceived by the first. Yet the aliens are methodically advancing and strengthening their domination and power.

Finally, the two heroes, using a special device of the zombies, will penetrate their headquarters and find themselves in front of a gathering of the newly rich. “In a few years”, the speaker prophesies, “the whole planet will be under our domination. Profits are huge. The capital of all us present here increased last year by 39%. The terrorist network was obliterated” (this last remark refers to the extermination of most rebels after a police attack in their refuge).

When Nada and Frank start shooting the guards in order to get inside the forbidden area of Channel 54, one of the rascals attempts to dissuade them: “Believe me, they know what they are doing. You are making a big mistake. It is only business. There are no countries any more. The planet belongs to them. Is profit bad? They will give us money. We sell ourselves every day. I will go with the winners”. They are ready to shoot him as well, but he manages to escape by using a special watch-like device, permitting the aliens to disappear.

An excellent finish

The last scene sums up the meaning of the movie. The two friends ascend to the sundeck of the building, aiming to destroy the antenna making the aliens appear as ordinary human beings. Holly, who meanwhile has learned the truth about the aliens and met once the hero in the underground movement leads them, yet events prove that, while she is not one of the aliens (when seen with the glasses, she appears human), she in fact belongs psychically to them. She shoots Frank and threatens Nada from behind with her gun, precisely when he is ready to destroy the machine. “Do not do it. You can not win”. Initially he is taken by surprise, but manages to draw a gun from the back of his trousers and shoots her dead. In the end the hero is himself killed by guardsmen in a security helicopter flying over the roof, but only after he succeeds in destroying the antenna. In this way the aliens become uncovered. In the comic epilogue we watch the Oscar winners as zombies now being interviewed without knowing they have been revealed (“all this sex, all this violence” one of them protests hypocritically) and a zombie-yuppie wondering in front of his girlfriend staring at him with disgust: “What is the problem, baby?”

The expressive and attractive Holly is in fact the embodiment of the American dream, of the hero’s illusions that he can satisfy his human needs within the capitalist system. Only after killing her, thus liberating himself form illusion, he will therefore be able to accomplish his mission. And his loss immediately after this displays a tough but authentic realism. The vanguard sacrifices itself, bearing the difficulties of the struggle, but due to its efforts and self-sacrifice it becomes possible to open the eyes of the people.

With this scene “We live” is elevated from the level of an acute polemic to that of a masterpiece. If instead Carpenter had given a different solution – making his heroes triumph in a happy end or even allowing them to be killed by the aliens only and not Holly, the artistic result would be significantly inferior. For Holly does not only personify Nada’s illusions, but also his inward uncertainty. Her phrase, “You cannot win”, sums up the essence of dominant ideology, its ability to create confusion and passivity, by continually corrupting human minds and consciences. Had this moment been ignored, the work would lose in strength and persuasiveness, because the most crucial question would remain unanswered: is the working class able to overcome this pernicious influence?

The truly amazing thing is that while other symbolisms, like the comparison of the aliens with republicans, are made consciously by the creator, the peak of the movie comes intuitively, without a clear comprehension of its meaning. Thus, Carpenter himself in his interviews failed to give the above interpretation, moving in the circle of Christian sacrifice ideas and other metaphysical notions with which he is preoccupied in other movies.

Reactionary and misconceived criticisms

Needless to say, reactionary commentators, sensing the significance of the movie as a devastating critique of their beloved capitalist system, have made every attempt to bury and discredit it. Making it worse, even progressive commentators have sometimes failed to appreciate the meaning of critical scenes and details.

Limiting ourselves to just a few examples, Mike Clark of USA Today is of the opinion “They live dies around the time Carpenter allows 10 minutes of gratuitous Piper-David eye-gouging, an apparent bone to wrestling fans. Forget the amusing premise; a full crate of magic glasses couldn’t make this a bearable movie”. A similar view is echoed by Peter Stack of San Francisco Chronicle: “Typical of some of the absurd moments in this film is a long drawn-out fist fight between the hero and Frank, who almost kill each other because Frank is too proud to try on the magic dark glasses. It is completely stupid.”

Even more hostile is Richard Harrington of the Washington Post: “Even for sci-fi, the creatures-walk-among-us plot of “They Live” is so old it ought to be carbon-dated. Oh, sure, director John Carpenter trots out the heavy artillery of sociological context and political implication, but you don’t have to get deep down to realize he hasn’t a clue what to do with it, or the talent to bring it to life… The plot for They Live is full of black holes, the acting is wretched, the effects are second-rate. In fact, the whole thing is so preposterous it makes “V” look like “Masterpiece Theatre.”

These unjust and scornful remarks are easily understandable. Their motives lie in the reactionary commentators’ sense that they themselves are the zombies so acutely exposed and satirized in the movie. It is this feeling of those who not only do not understand, but do not wish to understand that stirs their indignant contempt and not any concern to show some real shortcomings of the film, which, if existent, are definitely of secondary nature.

Passing to a more objective critic, G. MacReady, praising the critique of capitalism, also considers that from the moment Nada takes law into his hands “Carpenter fails to make much of the movie… Meg Foster’s character is almost totally irrelevant and extraneous. She serves no purpose. The prolonged fight scene between Nada and Frank is supposed to be funny, but simply isn’t. It just feels odd”. Similar complains have been expressed by others, finding Nada’s character too rough and his remarks, like the one in the bank shooting scene – “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass and I’m all out of bubblegum” – excessively crude (in fact Roddy Piper, whom Carpenter appropriately selected for Nada’s role, is a wrestler and no actor at all).

In fact, these are the vital innovations introduced by Carpenter, who based himself on Roy Nelson’s small novel Eight o’ Clock in the Morning. Such innovations, having a deep, if hidden, meaning, are feasible only to a great, inspired creator, and Carpenter depicts the workers in a realistic way, as they truly are in capitalist society, which prevents them from acquiring any kind of subtle taste.

Asked if his approach is somehow related with Marxism, Carpenter answered in the negative. Nevertheless, They Live does not cease to be perhaps the Marxist movie par excellence in the history of the seventh art. Even if it appeared 20 years ago, it does not cease to be topical and will remain so until the social evils it so graphically and skillfully depicts will be removed through social transformation.