The betrayal of SYRIZA

Although the article posted below is somewhat dated, it´s still very relevant since Tsipras has sold out the Greek people and surrendered themselves to their creditors. Once again it becomes evident that capitalism cannot be reformed from the inside out. 

Short after the convincing election victory of Syriza in Greece last January, it seemed that for some this new political party really represented the ability to achieve a social revolution through the ballot boxes. These people were truly convinced that Syriza would be able to reform capitalism from the inside out in a democratic manner.    

However, after several weeks of negotiations Syriza has already betrayed the trust of its support. Yanis Varoufakis already put all his beautiful electoral promises aside and is now insisting on a continuation of the austerity policy, Greece its relations with the European Union and of the negotiations with its creditors. The complete surrender of Syriza to the Troika last week, reminds us once more that these kind of reformist thesis are nothing more than misleading illusions. Capitalism simply cannot be reformed from the inside out.      

It is impossible to use the political channels of the bourgeoisie to get into power and then try to make an end to austerity within this bourgeois dictatorship. Syriza doesn´t have any power outside the constitutional validity of the bourgeoisie. Now the Troika is tightening the screws, Syriza has no other choice than to follow the path paved by its predecessor PASOK. It’s the unwillingness to finally break with the reformism of its bourgeois ideology, which makes Syriza completely ineffectual to seriously challenge capitalism.      

Despite the betrayal of the reformist politics of political parties such as Syriza, it still finds much support in great segments of the left movement. Of course the cosmopolitan dogma which rejects socialism in one country at all costs leaves no other possibility than reformism: This because a truly revolutionary break of Greece from EU imperialism will inevitably lead to socialism in one country. Therefore the only thing these cosmopolitans have to offer is walking the reformist path, in the vain hope that in the future similar small steps would be made by other countries on a global scale, which at some point miraculously will turn into a global insurgency. It’s clear that these kind of irrational cosmopolitan dogmas are not going to save the Greek people from the crisis. Therefore the Greek people can only benefit from a revolutionary nationalism, which is the only thing able to liberate them from the iron grip of EU imperialism.    

Syriza now has become the executing power of the policy imposed by the Troika to the Greek people and fulfills a clear contra-revolutionary role. Again it seems the reformist ideologues behind the left facade mainly pursue a neoliberal agenda. However, not all is lost. If the electoral victory of Syriza shows us one thing, it’s the fact that anti-capitalist themes find broad sentiments among the Greek people. Hopefully this complete surrender of Syriza to the Troika, will lead towards a new awareness among the working masses that no real revolutionary subversion can be realized through democratic reforms inside a bourgeois dictatorship. Capitalism cannot be reformed from the inside out, only the complete elimination of the capitalist system can bring forth such a revolutionary subversion.  

Against Western decadence - The concept of Eurasia

Today the term 'Eurasia' seems to arise again. Although the movement has been familiar with this concept for a longer period of time, and has propagated it here and there, it was recently used by the Russian president Putin. Deservedly? 

An exploration through the past of this idea will make clear what this concept means and to what degree national-revolutionaries can benefit from it. 


The origin of the 'Eurasian' idea 

Russia always had trouble being recognized as a European country by the West. In his time Tsar Peter the Great (1672-1725) already fought for a place for Russia in Europe. However, time after time the West judged that Russia in basis would be 'Asian' and therefore could not be a part of Europe. The term 'Eurasia' would arise much later, around 1921.

When the October revolution of 1917 eradicated old feudal Russia, dozens of petit-bourgeois intellectuals (ethnologists, linguists, historians, theologians, philosophers, jurists, etc.) went in exile to foreign countries as a part of the Eurasian movement. (Their theoretical enchiridion was bundled under the title “Der Aufbruch nach Osten”). To understand the concept of Eurasia we first need to look to one of the pioneers of this movement.  Nikolaj Trubetzkoj, a linguist born in 1890, was one of its founders (read his many times cited work "Europa und die Menschheit").

If we pick up the links of the West to Peter the Great and his recognition of Russia, we grasp the spirit of the Eurasian idea. In his East-orientation, Trubetzkoj suggests it was not the Kyev-Russian which founded the Russian empire, but the Mongol empire of Dzjengis Khan, and the preceding period the Tartars ruled. It was they who defined the meaning of 'Russia'. Primal-father Khan would have realized the territorial unity for the sovereign territory "Eurasia".

The "civilized' West that considered itself superior and tried to dominate non-European peoples, had to be fought with its own developed cultural aspects, the own conscious backwardness had to develop itself forward. East and West needed to measure themselves to each other.    

The future of Russia was not meant as world leader, but that of a vanguard against Europe. This was only possible if Russia hooked on to the liberation movements of the colonial peoples, thus disconnecting itself from the European oppressor, with which Russia had nothing in common.

The conservative author Konstantin Leontjew (1831-1891) can be considered another founder of the Eurasian idea with his position in regard of the Slavs, who's Russian culture needed to be protected against Europe by a clear border (a real wall) between East and West.

The most important difference between the Eurasian ideas and those of Leontjew, is that the latter didn't really reject European culture, but merely its bourgeoisation and democratization, which followed after the French revolution. For Leontjew the old feudal aristocratic Europe was still the greatest example.

The later Eurasian movement saw the civil war, the revolution and the fall of the Tsar as positive developments. They did not entirely reject the Bolshevists, nor the ideas of the uprising Italian fascism. Both were seen as positive developments because of the anti-parliamentary and anti-democratic thoughts.

However, an important obstruction for the Eurasian movement remained the glorification of the own nation under fascism and the imitation of the Western bourgeois culture in the shape of the proletarian culture amongst the Bolshevists. Therefore the "Eurasianists" always wanted to exterminate the ruling Bolshevik Party in the Soviet Union; the hegemony of Marxism had to be replaced by that of Eurasia.

The dead of Trubetzkoj in 1938 led to the disintegration of the Eurasian movement. (He died after a fatal interrogatory by the Gestapo because of the putative criticism on the racial laws of the Nazi’s after the 'Anschluss' of Austria).



The development of the contemporary Eurasian idea

It would take more than 50 years before the Eurasian idea experienced a renaissance. The collapse of the Soviet Union during the Gorbatsjov-era heralded a new phase in the search for a new Russian identity. This identity was formulated by Alexander Dugin (born in 1962), a renewed Eurasian idea. These far right ideas seem to miss the mark with their 'Third Way' concept.  

The most important difference between the original concept and that of Dugin is once more a disagreement about the defining of East and West.

Where the original Eurasianists held an isolationist approach, the new Eurasianists have an expansionist agenda. Between West- and East-Europa "only hostility, hatred, ruthless struggle with or without rules, the struggle for the destruction until the last drop of blood, exists. Between them lie mountains of corpses... Who will have the last word? .... This the war will decide, the 'Father of all things', says Elementy, a magazine associated with Dugin.

The difference between the old and the new idea is that Dugin wants to start an offensive of conquest from the East towards the West, whereas the classic Eurasian idea wanted to liberate itself from the West to live independently next to it.

Today also Putin speaks of Eurasia, be it with an even bigger emphasis on the Great-Russian thought. Putin´s concept of Eurasia is a Russian nationalist idea, a greater Russia. It’s not about a united Asia of peoples and its shared (and Dugins) worldview. It’s only about a reaction of might, not a heterogeneous Eastern block against the EU and USA.  

Although we national-revolutionaries don't feel much relationship with the new Eurasian concept, we certainly must see the classical concept of Eurasia as an ally. This because:

1) It represents an anti-parliamentary and anti-Tsarist ideology;

2) It defends isolationism against the bourgeois West and wants to unite the peoples of Asia;

3) (Again) it supports Russia in a liberation struggle against European oppression

4) It wants a revolution which is not specifically party-bolshevist nor specifically fascist;

5) Of course next to this, the chauvinist ideas of Dugin and Putin in regard of a Russian imperia need to be rejected.

So if such a Eurasian movement is developing in Russia or abroad, it would do well by searching a close cooperation with the workers movement, to rid itself of its (petit-) bourgeois roots in order to become truly revolutionary.

Then the national-revolutionaries will join them in the Eastern camp and help them against the bourgeois democracy and the imperialist West as its brothers of arms!

Political analysis in regard to the Greek situation - What will happen after the peoples' referendum?

The Greek government of the national bourgeoisie, SYRIZA, is on the brink of being strangled by the Dictate of Brussels, with the BRD (Merkel and Schaüble) as the main conductor in trying to remove Tsipras and Varoufakis from the political arena, in order to install a new government of puppets that will quickly give way to the demands of Brussels.    

The imperialist forces have decided to no longer "negotiate" (we cannot say there have ever been real negotiations between Brussels and Athens) with the government of Tsipras until Sunday, and to await the outcome of the referendum SYRIZA has submitted to the people, regarding the reforms and loans of the EU. (A referendum everybody gives his own contents to. 'Yes' would mean an acceptance of the reforms, a stay in the EU and/or a resignation of the government. 'No' would mean new negotiations, out of the Euro or even out of the EU).    

However, the situation of SYRIZA has become so hopeless and has lost much credibility. Look at the former (failed) consent of Tsipras to reform the pension system for the purpose of Brussels, be it spread out over a longer period to ease the pain for the Greek population. Or the direct call for new loans after the Greeks failed to meet the repayment period to Brussels.    

Of course Tsipras and Varoufakis could not agree with all demands, even in the former government of Samaras there was no acceptance of certain points. If SYRIZA decided to honour these demands then this would mean the end of their reign (this was also the reason why Varoufakis recently walked away during the "negotiations").

But what if Varoufakis holds his word and resigns as Minister of Finance if the majority of the people votes 'yes' at the referendum?

And what if the government-Tsipras collapses?    

Then finally there will be revolutionary perspectives in sight: a fallen government, a desperate population, civil war conditions, the Dictate of Brussels which finds its equal in the (armed) Greek (=national) proletariat.

This is what we need to make happen! This is the path towards revolution!

But what will Golden Dawn, the police and the army do (in regards of the Junta history of the country)?  

Golden Dawn already gave the advice to vote 'no' during the referendum together with SYRIZA. Here again we witness a front of "left" and "right" against the hated Dictates of national oppression (just as in the Weimar period - When communists and Nazi’s both attacked the Dictate of Versailles for the liberation of the German people).

Can Golden Dawn present itself as the last alternative to liberate Greece? It still does have a clean slate if it comes to political governing.

Or do they take more radical measures (armature)? They still have contacts in police and military. What will the lower ranks do, which stand close to the people, against the higher ranks which are loyal to the State (see Portugal 1974)?

Even the US nervously stands at the sidelines: with an eventual Grexit the Western geopolitical position will be compromised by Eastern forces. Think about Putin’s energy-deal with Tsipras and the Chinese interests in the ports of Piraeus.  

However, one thing is certain. The government of Tsipras has forfeited its chances to pose a credible alternative for the Euro crisis. Greek capitalism can no longer be saved and more radical forces will fill up the vacuum (everything Varoufakis didn't hope).

Because, as we said before, the main tendency in this Greek tragedy still remains:

AFTER SYRIZA WE WILL COME!  

The Netherlands: A totalitarian Control-State?

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither and will eventually lose both" 
- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

On a daily basis the Dutch people are confronted with disturbing stories in the system-media (in the newspapers, on the internet, the radio and television) about the threat of left- and right-extremism, Islamic fundamentalism and/or wars between motorcycle clubs. The people seem to live in a constant climate of fear. At the same time we witness a tendency in which our government evermore intrudes in the freedom and privacy of citizens. It becomes apparent that this security-police has taken Orwellian forms, from the recent NSA scandal, which revealed that 1,8 million Dutch citizens were tapped by the intelligence services of the USA. Apparently this is completely normal according to our government. The government no longer seems to trust its own citizens.   

   

The attacks of 9/11 had a great impact on the Western world. To combat 'terrorism' the then prevailing ideas about civil liberties were thrown overboard very quickly by the Western governments. Freedoms that were fought for by our ancestors for centuries, many of whom paid for it with their freedom or life, are completely demolished at a rapid pace. One such comprehensive control of civilians as it is today has never been seen before in the entire human history - not under Nero, Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. Fundamental rights and privacy laws are massively reduced; police and secret services get an increasingly free rein and security cameras are placed next to each road. With this the feast of freedom seems to have definitively ended.

This development is getting worse because of the complete apathy of the Western peoples, who seem to accept this curtailment of their liberties as some kind of 'historical faith'. The people are scared. In ancient times 'terror' was already a State-practice, which was rendered legitimate by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes. It served to keep the people afraid and thus submissive. Also during the French revolution 'terror' was used as a state-doctrine against the contra-revolutionaries. Later on the term was used mostly in a critical sense, for example in its references to Stalinism and Hitlerism. However, these days this seems to have turned around. Nowadays 'terror' (terrorism) is seen as a phenomenon which is based on the individual and which threatens the State. As a result, the State fights terror from some kind of legal self-defense and thus can never be guilty of terror itself. With this the 'War on terror' (terrorism), that was proclaimed by the Western world, got a kind of universal legitimacy that justifies almost any act, conflict or war the West commits. However these days our nation is not threatened by 'terrorism', but by the willingness of our people to let themselves be intimidated by 'terror', in an attempt of our governments to use this to impose authoritarian structures that will rob us from our freedom and privacy.      

"Safety" has become the new slogan in the political debate. The State suggests that the government needs to know as much as possible about its citizens to protect them as efficiently as possible. However, we seem to forget that 'safety' is not feasible because no risk can be excluded. It is more likely that you will die by a traffic accident than by a terrorist attack. However it’s in the human nature to be more afraid for the unlikely than for the likely. We are most afraid for the things that rarely or never happen. This is probably a good thing if we want to cope with life. So our feeling of insecurity is separate from real threats. Here in the West it is more likely to die by a plane crash, than to get killed as a result of a terrorist attack. This means the climate of fear in our country simply is not rational. The daily calls of terror stand in the way of a rational debate about the sense and nonsense of the proposed countermeasures, which should safeguard our 'security'.  

The question any sane person should ask themselves is: How valid are the tools of counter-terrorism? Are these measures suitable to achieve the desired objective? Are grid investigations (profiling of large groups of citizens), biometric passports, video surveillance, the massive use of wiretapping and other violations of fundamental rights that affect millions of innocent civilians, legitimate means against terrorism? Or does this defeat the purpose? It is totally unclear where these drastic infringements on privacy should result in. While the State applies more and more control options against its own civilians, the terrorist threat only seems to get bigger and bigger.

Until now no demonstrable terrorist attack is prevented on the basis of the heightened security laws. On the other hand many of the implemented measures have proved inadequate in preventing terrorism. So it seems the State is not defending itself against terrorist disaster, but against its own citizens. Previously one was innocent until the contrary was proven; now more and more we see a situation in which everybody is guilty until proven otherwise. From a so-called 'preventive' strategy the government treats all people as potentially dangerous and appropriates itself the right to act accordingly (control, observation, and general suspicion). While our constitution demands that individual citizens are as little damaged by State-interventions as possible, prevention-politics demands gathering as much abstract information on individual citizens as possible. Slowly but surely our rule of Law is changing into a true control-State, in which the doings of every citizen are controlled and monitored by the government.        


The image of a totalitarian control-State that George Orwell painted in his well-known book '1984' seems to have become a harsh reality. The control delusion of the State has long ago left the ground of the struggle against terrorism and now aims at all aspects of our daily lives; social relations, taxes, consumer behaviour and healthcare. Counter-terrorism has become a sharp sword in the hands of "model citizens" who want to submit the entire community to their conformity. Behind the security policy of the State we see an ever further blurring of the borders between politics, justice, police, military, private security and the security industry; it will not be long before the control-State will arise. We exchange our personal freedom for the doubtful and empty promise of 'security'. If we don't resist now it will be too late. Once the totalitarian state is completed any protest will be repressed. Fight now, while it’s still not too late!