Greece: Popular Unity - Tasks, programme and perspectives

Here we provide an analysis of Popular Unity’s first steps, its programmatic statement and the political tasks facing the party. This was written before the recent Greek elections, in which the party failed to win any MPs, but its criticisms of the party programme and methods remains valid.

Popular Unity is the political continuation of the left wing of SYRIZA, after the effective dissolution of the party structures by the group around Tsipras. As a party, it has brought together not only the different left groups of the old left-wing SYRIZA, but also a substantial part of the most active left militants that were organized within the party, or that supported it in recent years. It has also attracted some militants of the extra-parliamentary Left that responded to the party’s call for a broad anti-Memorandum Left  front.

Popular Unity is a very young political organization. It was formed in haste under the pressure of early elections which were announced primarily in order to undermine the party’s existence and its impact. The approach of the ruling class and the media has been either hostile or outright hysterical. At the same time, a widespread climate of frustration and confusion prevails amongst the broad masses—a result of the open betrayal on the part of the leadership of SYRIZA who signed the Memorandum. Despite all these obstacles, Popular Unity is becoming a point of reference for hundreds of thousands of workers and youth.

Given the political vacuum created by the rapid degeneration of SYRIZA into a bourgeois party, coupled with the sterile, sectarian policy of the leadership of the Communist Party, Popular Unity has the potential to become a political tool for recasting and tempering a force of thousands of fighters—fighters who pioneered the movement of the revolutionary “OXI” of the 5th of July. By becoming such a political tool, it can build the necessary foundations to express the aspirations and demands of all those who braved the blackmail of the ruling class and supported the “OXI”—the millions of radicalised workers and youth of Greece.

Having said that, one cannot say that the existence of the necessary objective conditions alone will result in Popular Unity becoming the party that the workers and young people who supported “OXI” need.  As history has shown, the role played by the mass left parties, and their development, is ultimately determined by “subjective” factors. These factors are none other than the political programme, the general political line, tactics, methods of organization and actions of the party.

The freshest and yet most revealing example which highlights the vital need for these “subjective” factors is that of SYRIZA—the “political womb” of Popular Unity. Developing a deep understanding of the lessons of the degeneration is the most critical and urgent task not only for the left-wing activists who are now looking to Popular Unity, but also for the party as a whole.

Lessons of the degeneration of SYRIZA

The social-democratic/reformist nature of the programme, politics, tactics and methods of the leadership of SYRIZA was the determining factor which—in the objective conditions of relentless pressure from the ruling class and imperialism—resulted in overt betrayal and extreme bourgeois degeneration.

The political programme of SYRIZA - in all its recent versions from the election programme of 2012, the founding congress Theses of 2013, the Thessaloniki programme of 2014, to the Programmatic Government Statements of 2015 - although it included important and necessary radical measures, was built on the idea that in a period of deep capitalist crisis the life of the masses could be improved via reforms agreed in negotiations with the bourgeoisie and the imperialist lenders, without having to overthrow the political and economic power of capital.

This structural/reformist nature of the programme is not only to be found in a few phrases here and there in the texts. It was rooted deeply in the collective consciousness of the party for years, and in this way it disoriented, confused, and miseducated its cadres, members and supporters. This meant that when the “tough” reality of capitalism exposed these reformist illusions, the party was not equipped to change course and adopt the necessary alternative programme to solve the crisis. The result was that the treacherous compromise of the Tsipras leadership quickly escalated and came to dominate the party, resulting in the complete abandonment of its programme.

Thus, the first essential lesson that Popular Unity must draw from the experience of the degeneration of SYRIZA is the need for a decisive break with reformism and the adoption of a political programme that places no trust in capitalism or attempts to beautify it, but that challenges it and aims to overthrow it. What is required is an anti-capitalist programme, fighting for socialism, such as the one adopted and defended by the Communist Tendency since its founding, and which was the subject of taunting on the part of all sorts of careerists and reformists who accused it of being supposedly “maximalist” and “unrealistic.” The transformation of these “realistic” left-wingers and so-called “Marxists” into loyal apologists of the Memoranda is the most eloquent proof of the correctness of the programme of the Communist Tendency—a genuine Marxist programme!

A direct reflection of the disastrous social-democratic/reformist nature of SYRIZA’s programme was the general political line and tactics of the leadership that stemmed from the idea of class collaboration. The stubborn refusal to take the only possible route for the elimination of the Memoranda, that is, a revolutionary rupture with capital and the Troika, led them to start looking for “progressive” imperialist allies and possible collaboration with “anti-Memorandum” bourgeois parties such as ANEL. When it became evident that under capitalism there exist neither anti-neoliberal imperialists nor anti-Memorandum Greek capitalists, Tsipras’s group naturally ended up governing together with all the parties of capital and behaving as a subordinate partner to all the imperialists lenders.

The second important political lesson that Popular Unity can draw from the degeneration of SYRIZA is the need to adopt a class line in politics and tactics. This is a line, on the one hand, of irreconcilable struggle against the ruling class and its imperialist patrons, without seeking supposedly “progressive”, “patriotic”, or “anti-Memorandum” allies within its ranks, and on the other hand, of constantly seeking to build a united front with the mass political expressions of the working class—at both the national and international level—which would promote the vital need for class unity in the struggle for a radical, revolutionary change in society, in Greece and internationally.

The methods adopted by SYRIZA—both within the party and during its intervention in the struggles of the working class—also offer valuable lessons. Genuine party democracy—an absolutely necessary means of reaching the best possible decisions and ensuring the party’s vitality—was absent throughout all the stages of  SYRIZA’s evolution. Initially, when SYRIZA was still a federation comprised of different tendencies and organisations, all serious political decisions were taken by the appointed Secretariat. Decisions were made without asking the opinion of thousands of independent fighters, i.e., members of the party who did not belong to a tendency or specific component of SYRIZA. In addition, the necessary democratic procedures involving conferences and congresses, with delegates elected from the ranks, were not respected in the decision making process. In the final stage of the evolution of SYRIZA into a single party, the powerful party bureaucrats of the old “Synaspismos”—who were preparing for government, and then formed one after January 25—imposed fully the methods of a loose electoral apparatus, characterised by improper functioning of the party organs and transferring decision making powers to the small group around the party leader. The most extreme and cruel examples of these procedures were the repeated inner-party “coups” that took place in recent months.

This emphasis on bureaucratic and organizational methods, together with the rapid “social-democratisation” of the party, created a force that was distant from the real class struggle. Instead of attracting, it repelled the best fighters, and became a pole of attraction for all sorts of aspiring careerists and bureaucrats.

The organisational methods and the forms of action, as well as the internal state of SYRIZA, should therefore serve as examples of what Popular Unity should avoid. This is even more important if we consider that a section of the new party’s leading cadres were involved in the old party apparatus, and therefore have been trained and affected by the old, established bureaucratic methods and practices. The new party must respect the basic rules of party democracy, with the right of party militants to actively organise to elect, control and recall the leadership, and to decide democratically in the context of a free and democratic debate on all key political issues (such as the programme and the general political line), together with the guaranteed right of tendencies to exist. At the same time, we must recruit the best fighters of the labour movement and youth into the party, while there should be no room for careerist and bureaucratic elements.

The political character of the programmatic statement

The announcement of the programmatic statement of Popular Unity was met with mixed reactions and comments. The main criticism from members or tendencies that have adhered to the new party, focuses on the method by which this programme was formulated. It is undoubtedly true that the statement was elaborated and decided by a narrow circle of leaders without involving the ranks. Popular Unity was faced with a very critical political battle in the elections before it was even able to set up structures where collective democratic processes could take place. This created a real obstacle to the proper conduct of democratic debate in the elaboration of programmatic positions.

Therefore, the main focus for every left militant in Popular Unity, in the discussion of programmatic positions, is not to accept the hurried and unprofessional procedures that have inevitably been adopted up till now. Immediately after the electoral battle, proper collective procedures for political discussion amongst all members of the new party should be set up. This should allow for the completion, improvement or decisive changes in programmatic demands - if this is deemed necessary - by the majority of party members.

The demands raised in the programme were to be expected, as Popular Unity is basically the continuation of the left wing of SYRIZA, and it is therefore only natural that its programme should reflect that of the left wing of SYRIZA. This programme stems from the political nature of left reformism, which is characterized by calling for left reforms within the economy and the state—even very radical ones in some cases—but without considering as its primary, direct and timely task the conquest of power by the working class and the setting in motion of the socialist transformation of society.

The programmatic demands that left reformism defends—both in its social democratic and its Stalinist versions—is always based on “intermediate” stages, before the workers take power and before the socialist transformation of society, often referred to as “popular” or “democratic.” Both these adjectives are to be found in the description of such intermediate stages in the programmatic statement of Popular Unity, which also refers to “true democracy” and “people’s power.” The need to replace today’s false, bourgeois democracy with a true workers’ democracy is not mentioned, and socialism is only referred to as a “perspective.”

Scientific socialism - and its great founding revolutionaries and theoreticians, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky - refutes the very concept of left reformism, and argues that before the working class takes power and sets in motion the socialist transformation of society, there can be no intermediate stage. Even the most consistent attempt to implement such left, radical reforms brings the working class into a direct conflict with the bourgeoisie and its power. This therefore poses the task to the workers to carry out a revolutionary transformation of society, which would not allow for the narrow limits of an impossible intermediate stage.

Credit must be given to the leadership of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), which, although with a delay of several decades, removed the idea of an intermediate (“anti-imperialist, democratic anti-monopolist”) stage  from the official party programme, an idea which had been deeply rooted in the Stalinist tradition. This confirmed the correctness of genuine revolutionary Marxism, as embodied in the Trotskyist criticism of the traditional Stalinist policy. From a Marxist point of view, this rejection of the intermediate stage from the programme of the Communist Party is an important political conquest, from which Popular Unity should learn. Unfortunately, the central idea in the new party’s programme lags “behind” the position of the KKE, and remains fixed on the traditional line of a left-reformist intermediate stage.

That is why it is a serious mistake to describe the programme in the party statement as a “transitional programme.” According to the standards of the programmatic documents that founded the Communist International, and in reference to the Marxist definition given by Trotsky, the transitional programme is one that connects elementary class demands with the task of the conquest of power by the proletariat and the beginning of the socialist reorganization of society. This is not what we find in the programme of Popular Unity. This programme is not “transitional”, but an “intermediate-stage” programme.

Therefore, what any conscious and left militant must defend during the debate on the programme—which needs to take place within Popular Unity very soon—is a Marxist revision of the main lines of the programme. What is required is to replace the unrealistic, intermediate “democratic and popular” stage with workers’ democracy and the need for the socialist transformation of society.

Necessary additions to the programme

The programme includes a series of demands which we, as Communists, consider to be absolutely necessary. We not only support these demands, but we are determined to fight in the “front line” for their dissemination and conquest. Such are the demands contained in the sections, “The immediate measures to avoid the social disaster”, “Economic reconstruction and cultural renaissance” and “Democracy everywhere, Power to the people.”

However, in order for this programme to be realistic, it needs to be relevant to economic and social reality. It should be based on the notion that—in the current context of the historical impasse of capitalism—a firm and true achievement of any progressive labour reform and of all the demands contained in the programme, cannot take place without the conquest of power by the working class and without establishing a nationalised, centrally and democratically planned economy. Thus, all the demands in the programme need to be supplemented by others which can create a living bridge connecting to the task of taking power and beginning the socialist transformation.

The question of the debt deserves a special mention. Being the main symptom of the crisis, it needs to be addressed clearly. While the programme correctly poses the question of the suspension of payments, it only refers tentatively to the “aim of totally cancelling most of the debt.” The correct and most straightforward position would be the unilateral cancellation of  the debt. This is the only real conclusion we can draw on this, as it is necessary to state clearly that the debt is predatory and parasitical. What is required is a prompt and effective solution that will remove this burden from the shoulders of the working people—who have been suffering the most draconian destruction of their living standards in the name of that debt.

Demands to solve the major current problem of the working class, mass unemployment, are also lacking from the “Immediate Measures.” A sliding scale of working hours, i.e. a reduction in working hours without loss of pay, would allow all people able to work to find a job, and should be a basic demand in the programme. The aim of this demand is to act as a bridge towards the beginning of the socialist transformation, as it helps the working class to understand that the problem of unemployment cannot be tackled effectively without a centralised, democratically planned, nationalised economy.

On the question of labour, and generally people's incomes, i.e., wages, pensions, and benefits, it is not sufficient to say on this question—as we see in the programme—that they will be “supported” and even “dependent on their growth rates.” What needs to be said here is that wages will be maintained at a level sufficient to ensure a decent living standard—based on specific estimates by the mass workers’ organizations—demands that would be binding for the government. Additionally—and especially since a technically forced return to a national currency would inevitably cause inflationary pressures—wages should be set to automatically increase, following increases in consumer prices. This would act as a bridge linking consciousness with the necessity for workers’ power, since no bourgeois government could address the issue of income in this way.

The need for workers’ control is also absent from the section on “Economic reconstruction.” Workers’ control is barely mentioned when, in fact, it should be one of the main “pillars” of the programme. Workers’ control should be explicitly emphasized as a vital tool in uncovering the parasitic and wasteful nature of the capitalist system, but also because it is necessary for the education of the working class in the democratic management of the economy. Representative bodies of the working class are elected and revocable committees made up of workers who should then establish a nationwide workers’ control committee with decision-making powers—in conferences of different economic sectors and of the national economy as a whole.

It is also necessary to clarify the concept of companies of “strategic importance” that are proposed for nationalisation and which are considered as “locomotives” of the economy. In order to gain social control of the economy and plan according to the needs of the workers, we will have to claim ownership not only of the banks and former public sector companies (the ex-“DECO”), but all large enterprises in industry, trade, services, agricultural production, and all foreign trade, by imposing a state monopoly. There can be no development that will benefit society if we do not nationalise, for example, the large pharmaceutical industries, food and beverages, oil refining, basic metals, chemicals, cement and building materials, plastics, telecommunications, large commercial chains, etc.

Important also are the additions and changes that will be made on the question of the state. In the section, “Democracy Everywhere, Power to The People,” “the radical transformation of the state” is mistakenly posed as a central demand. According to the fundamental Marxist understanding of the bourgeois state, the basic political task of the working class is not any kind of “transformation” of this state, but its overthrow and replacement with a new power that will be exercised by the workers themselves through the instruments that will come out of the class and political struggle.

As a bridge towards this aim, to the existing correct demands raised in this section should be added demands such as the democratic overhauling of the army and security forces under the control of the workers’ mass organizations, smashing bureaucracy through the election and right of recall of all state officials, and by linking their salaries to that of a skilled worker. In order for the slogan “Democracy everywhere” to acquire real content, we should formulate demands that will help to impose workers’ control in production and the economy. We should call for an administrative regime in nationalised businesses that will simultaneously include the workers in each workplace, mass workers’ and people’s organizations, and the elected government, as a practical step towards establishing a model of a democratically planned economy.

The correct demand of the need for a new constitution, through a constituent National Assembly, should also include the constitutional recognition of a nationalised, centrally and democratically planned economy, and of the democratic institutions of a new state power of the working people, as were briefly mentioned above. The central point in the proposed programme of Popular Unity today - since no structures of working class power have emerged through the struggle of the working masses as yet - should be a call for the election of a government of workers’ parties that would implement a socialist programme.

The national currency, internationalism and the EU

A key element in the programmatic statement is the transition to a national currency. The inevitable and obvious issuing of a national currency, which would be a necessary measure to end monetary dependence on the ECB, is a technical matter which should be subordinate to the core anticapitalist/socialist demands of the programme, but in this document it occupies a place disproportionate to its importance. Of course, this is no accident. It reflects the view that has been expressed by the main leaders of Popular Unity for years, that the introduction of the euro was a determining cause of the crisis, and that the immediate return to a national currency, in combination with some progressive and radical measures, could have a positive effect on the economy and the living standards of the working masses.

The differing view of the Communist Tendency on this issue has also been repeatedly explained and analyzed. The crisis in Greece is the result of the structural contradictions of capitalism and of the present international phase of its historic impasse. The euro is not a determining cause for the emergence of the crisis. Conversely, the existence of a strong single currency was an advantage for the European, but also for Greek capitalism, which extended growth for a whole period. The nonexistence of national currencies in the core of the European Union prevented a cycle of competitive currency devaluations, which could have then plunged the economy into a deeper recession immediately after the crisis of 2008. Having said that, however, European capitalism cannot avoid recession, nor the increased competition between the different European national bourgeoisies, that will inevitably threaten, as has already begun, the cohesion of the Eurozone and the very existence of the euro.

The programmatic statement correctly states that “we are not nostalgic for the capitalist Greek drachma”, but it should be complemented with an explanation that explains that it is capitalism itself that is responsible for the crisis, rather than the common European currency, and that the main aim of Popular Unity is a socialist Greece, and not a capitalist Greece with another national currency. As long as this clear position is not included in the programme of Popular Unity, it creates the assumption that it defends a nonexistent, alternative “currency” solution on the basis of capitalism, even if in conjunction with the attempt to take certain radical measures. But these radical measures will be under the constant threat of being undermined by the bourgeoisie, who will continue to hold power over the economy and the state.

This impression is strengthened by the ideas contained in the statement that the issuing of a national currency may contribute “to the strengthening of exports, the reduction and the gradual substitution of imports with domestic products” and “to strengthen the productive base of the country.” This position is wrong, as the only solution that can really aid the planning of exports, the regulation of exports and imports for social benefit, and the overall strengthening of production is not a national currency, but the state monopoly of foreign trade and the planning of the economy, based on the nationalisation of the commanding heights. These are the key points that should be highlighted in the economic programme of the party, and not their technical supplement, a national currency.

This emphasis on the importance of the national currency is certainly a sign that reflects a particular ideological and political trend. This is the idea of patriotism, albeit in its left version, that flows from the political traditions of Stalinism. But Marxism, with the typical representative in this matter, Lenin himself, dealt with these ideas long ago. Lenin explains that patriotism for the working class is progressive only when the “homeland” becomes socialist. But even in this case, patriotism should be aimed against the interests of hostile capitalist states but at the same time not against the interests of the workers of those states. It should be subordinate to the cause of the international victory of socialism and to the interests of the international proletariat as a whole. Therefore, in accordance with genuine Marxism, the truly progressive and supreme political task of the working class is always proletarian internationalism, not patriotism.

The emphasis on the importance of the national currency is linked to the demand for “national independence.” This demand, traditionally at the heart of left patriotism, permeates the programmatic statement. It pose in a mistaken manner the real task of throwing off imperialist oppression and exploitation, which, with the help of the debt and the Memoranda, has acquired in Greece elements of colonialism. But this task cannot be achieved within the framework of Greek capitalism, where the Greek ruling class is not only inseparable from Western imperialism, but is itself imperialist on a regional level. It can be achieved only through the conquest of power by the working class, as part of the struggle for the overthrow of international capitalism.

Also, the emphasis on the importance of a national currency reflects a trend to identify the socialist perspective and development on a national road. But just as the struggle against capitalism has an international character, because of the common interests that connect the world working class, so too has the building of socialism. As demonstrated by the collapse of the USSR and the other deformed workers' states, this is an international task. Due to the high degree of interconnectedness of the global economy and the development through the world market of an international division of labour imposed on all “national” economies, it would require the cooperation of many workers’ socialist states through federal structures, based on a joint planning of the productive forces.

Thus the internationalism that Marxists defend against the mistaken ideas of left patriotism is not just a “nice idea,” but expresses a class, economic, and political necessity to develop the essential basis for the development of socialism. From this point of view the section “For an Equal Place for Greece in the Modern World,” should be redrafted and essentially supplemented with the clarification that a capitalist Greece in today’s capitalist world cannot have any kind of “equality” that would be beneficial for the people. The correct slogan for the “creation of a pan-European movement on the basis of common goals that express the common interests of working people, despite their nationality” should be complemented with the slogan, “For the Socialist Unites States of Europe,” as the only progressive alternative solution to the existing reactionary capitalist union.

At the same time, exiting this capitalist EU should be emphasized clearly a political duty, on the basis that the EU, since its very founding, and due to its nature, is a reactionary organization that serves the interests of European capital. As such, the claim that the EU is an organization that has been subjected to a “reactionary transformation” over the years, and also the fact that the party has avoided supporting a future referendum on the question of Greece’s participation in it, without mentioning what the position of Popular Unity would be, is a mistake and should be reviewed.

Coalition or Party?

Popular Unity was created hurriedly, and forced to throw itself prematurely into an important election campaign. In these circumstances it is natural that its collective decision-making procedures have not yet been fully put in place. The programmatic statement mentions that Popular Unity is not a party, but a front of organisations, groups and militants. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the experience of SYRIZA, which started off as a political front and through the rise of its influence was transformed into a unified party, the bringing together of Popular Unity in unified organizational structures is already on the “agenda.” This is even more true if we take into consideration that Popular Unity has started to become a reference point for thousands of activists who are neither part of, nor supporters of any of the organisations/tendencies that form it.

The Communist Tendency, as it did consistently in SYRIZA, supports the existence of a unified party structure on the basis of widespread intra-party democracy, where every tendency will be recognized, as the most democratic, most useful, and most effective way of mass organizing. The method of federation of big and small organisations can be effective during election campaigns or during struggles on specific issues. However, it proves problematic in everyday, systematic political interventions in the movements of the working class, and it can substitute the need for a unified mass working class party that will have the necessary—Marxist, in our opinion, of course—programme and the necessary political line and method of action. If Popular Unity becomes a permanent federation of different organisations, it will tend to follow all the bad traditions of SYRIZA. The thousands of activists who wish to become active politically to support its programme will remain constantly without any political rights. Decisions will be taken by informal, appointed committees, through the undemocratic method of “consensus.” Within this framework, in practice, the stronger organisations will be pushed to “buy out” the smaller ones, which results in forcing the smaller organisations to seek privileged relations with the dominant party apparatus in order to stay alive, rather than testing their ideas in a unified, mass organised base.  

Naturally, this unified party structure—always on the basis of the widest intra-party democracy and of the guaranteed right to form tendencies—cannot be imposed on the allied organisations. Living experience will provide a solution here. Those who wish to coexist within a unified party structure, which will decide the party line through majorities and minorities, can and should do so. The ones that do not wish to do so can remain within the framework of an alliance with the sole purpose of election campaigning or collective action on specific issues. From this perspective, at least all of the tendencies that come from SYRIZA and have worked within a unified party structure in the last two and a half years have no reason to abstain from a new, unified left party.

The important election campaign and perspectives

However, what is of foremost importance today is not a discussion on the structural format of Popular Unity. It is necessary for Popular Unity to win the forthcoming important election campaign. The best way to do this is the self-organisation of the left activists. The organisation of local assembly meetings in the neighbourhoods and workplaces and the election of organising committees through them is the only way for the thousands of Left activists to make this election campaign theirs and to put down deep roots for the new party.

These assembly meetings should hold discussions beyond the organisation of the election campaign. They should discuss the programmatic statement as well, making democratic decisions on suggestions that could change or complement it. These discussions could be the basis for the necessary debate that will follow the elections. At the same time, these assembly meetings should be able to suggest parliamentary candidates to the Central Committee for the ballot papers. The Central Committee should then consider those suggestions thoroughly.

Up until now, the election campaign of Popular Unity has correctly been focused on representing politically the overwhelming majority of the “OXI” vote of 5th July, which would help the working people in realizing the real power relation between them and the bourgeoisie. However, it is of the utmost importance that this campaign focus on pointing out the unrealistic nature of the promises made by the traditional bourgeois parties and SYRIZA that the living standards of the working class can improve within the memoranda and capitalism. It should also focus on defending the path of rupture with the Memorandum and capitalism, for the victory of socialism in Greece and Europe through the struggles of the working class and youth. Identifying Popular Unity with the anti-capitalist/socialist path, the only truly alternative path, is the best way to fight back against the propaganda of the bourgeoisie that portrays Popular Unity as “the party of the drachma.”

An important question in the election campaign, but also in Popular Unity’s general defence of the interests of the working class and the cause of the socialist transformation of society, is its political stance towards the KKE (the Communist Party). Any exaggerated or aggressive rhetoric on the part of the leadership of the KKE, who consistently maintain a sectarian approach towards Popular Unity, should not provoke the party to respond likewise. Popular Unity should defend honestly, consistently and concretely unity and joint action between the two mass left parties. The proposal for a left, socialist Popular Unity coalition with the Communist Party may not appear to be possible today, but it is absolutely correct and necessary on a political and class basis for the working people. Inevitably, it will assume importance and will gain the support of the masses at a later stage, once we see the inevitable total collapse of SYRIZA’s influence on the basis of its carrying out austerity in the coming period.

The objective possibilities and perspectives facing Popular Unity are significant. Whatever the election result will be on 20th September, through the rapid exposure of the reactionary policy of the leadership of SYRIZA as a result of its eventual participation in a coalition with the bourgeois parties, Popular Unity will tend to become, together with the KKE, the natural political point of reference of the rapidly growing political radicalisation.

In these conditions, a correct revolutionary Marxist orientation is of critical importance for the working class and the youth. The Communist Tendency, armed with a patient defence of the ideas and the programme of scientific socialism, will strive to contribute to this task, fighting at the same time in the “front lines” to strengthen Popular Unity and to raise its voice and actions in society.

(4/9/2015)