ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Survey, International Socialism (1st series), No.53, October-December 1972, pp.11-13.
Originally from Socialist Revolution, May-June 1972
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
The attempt by the junta and its ‘loyal’ opposition to move towards ‘normalisaton’ in Greece has suffered its first defeat at the hands of the emerging mass movement. When the student demonstrations in May threatened to spread to the workers, the junta was forced to put an end to the ‘liberal climate’ that it had so patiently tried to cultivate. It had to revert to open terror in its attempt to root out the most militant elements and to intimidate the rest. The government took a hard line on matters like the ‘kidnapping’ of the liberal professor Mangaki by the German government, and handed out an exemplary penal sentence to the Secretary of the Greek CP Partsalidi. Following this it closed the openings which had been an element of the liberalisation by sending into exile the leaders of the EKIN (pro Common Market pressure group) and finally by mobilising the full repressive apparatus of the state (widespread arrests and torture, taking 2,000 students through the police headquarters etc.). In this way the atmosphere of ‘social peace’ which the junta was trying to pass off as a sign that it was moving towards a re-establishment of ‘democratic freedoms’ was broken.
The section of the right wing politicians who were having talks with the government, in desperation issued repeated pleas to all concerned not to jeopardise the mutual understanding, not to forget that above everything else, that the situation must not become ‘hard’ again. The ‘liberal’ opposition is well aware that if it is to continue its game of expressing the interests of monopoly capital in Greece, it must find new and more effective ways of patronising any moves against the junta, while at the same time continuing the discussions for liberalisation. Meanwhile both sections of the reformist CP try to show that this is another development of the polarisation between the people and the junta, so as to continue with the well-worn formula of ‘broad unity’ which would assure the movement (with every guarantee of course) a position of honour on the rump of bourgeois politicians.
However loudly they declare their opposition to the junta and however often they are praised by the reformist CPs, the middle-class opposition is unable to hide that the normalisation under the ’68 constitution which it is so zealously pursuing as against the junta’s reluctance to put it into practice, is nothing other than the dictatorship of capital over the masses.
The introduction of the junta’s constitution of ’68, which is demanded by the right, the centre and the left, has reached such a stage that they are arguing over who was its true inspiration. The CP, which is unable to claim such an honour, is of course not very happy but recognises some ‘democratic perspectives’ in this area – so that it has come to demanding ‘free elections under the ’68 constitution’. A constitutional expert in the theoretical journal of the CP, for example, after outlining the various tests a party would have to go through to operate under the ’68 constitution, gives the opinion that the CP would, ‘in some form or other’, be able to put itself within the law, so as to be able, gradually of course, to challenge it! In fact the junta’s constitution of ’68 removes the last vestige of pretence that the provisions in the constitutions apply to all, irrespective of class.
For the Working Masses: it forbids them having their own political organisations; it allows unions only as a government department towards which requests are made; strikes are forbidden, as well as anything resembling a strike – even slowing down the speed of production; demonstrations are forbidden; meetings are allowed only when they are called by the bourgeois organisations and political parties; the constitution institutionalises all the necessary repressive organisation to uphold these edicts, giving the power to punish first and to bring to trial later.
For Capital: it guarantees political parties whose reason for foundation would be to work on the problems facing monopoly capital. Whoever does not want to serve the capitalists’ interests is precluded from official political life by the Constitutional Courts. Whoever cannot fulfil the requirements of the constitution is also excluded; it allows freedom of speech only for the press which popularises the aims and programmes of monopoly capital; it strengthens the state bureaucracy at the expense of the legislature so as to ensure the continuity of the programmes over and above changes in the politicians; finally, it establishes the military bureaucracy as the final guarantor of the proper application of the repressive measures against the working class, as well as the correct behaviour of the various political parties. In a few words, the constitution of ’68 seeks to suppress and atomise the movement of the exploited in the most systematic and final way. And at the same time it tries to define the framework within which political arguments can take place, putting dangerous political weapons out of bounds. The political supremacy goes to the technocrats while the army watches over all to chastise any misdemeanours.
The need to stifle any kind of reactions in the working class, the peasants and other oppressed masses, as well as the reorganisation of the political institutions through which the capitalist class exercises its power, is dictated by the expansionist politics which monopoly capital is pursuing in Greece, as well as internationally. In its attempts to overcome its crisis, it needs new fields to exploit or better ways to intensify exploitation. In Europe this process is taking place within the framework of an expanding EEC and Greek monopoly capital is obliged to subordinate its plans to this. Specifically, monopoly capital in Greece, which has traditionally been shipping and banking capital, has to increase exploitation in industry (larger units – takeovers and concentration – intensification of productivity – specialising and training the labour force), and to pass from indirect to direct control of agricultural production and commerce. This it would achieve by destroying (expropriating) small scale producers – establishing large-scale farming concerns, and concentrating the commercial outlets. It needs to drive off the land thousands of peasants, who would be forced to become workers in industry either through immigration abroad (Germany) or internal migration to the industrial zones. As for those remaining, they would work at the large agricultural concerns which would concentrate the land in their hands. Monopoly capital also needs to concentrate commerce, especially that dealing with agricultural products, establish export monopolies for fruit and to monopolise the processing of other products. It needs more ‘incentives’ (i.e. profits guaranteed by the state) to carry out the concentration of industry, the greater state investments for the training of the labour force and the ‘storage’ of specialised immigrant labour in housing near the industrial estates. It needs a state machinery able to service all these needs. These are the reasons why the junta is pursuing its policy of expropriation of the small agricultural producers by cancellation of minimum prices, increasing the interest rates, and fines by the Agricultural bank for arrears and non-payment of loans. It is readjusting the taxation system at the expense of the workers and in favour of capital (consumer taxes on the one hand and rebates for "development" on the other); it is restructuring the education system, and reorganising the state machinery (decentralisation, and strengthening by specialists) etc, etc.
And because these aims do not emanate from the reactionary and obscurantist nature of the junta but from the needs of monopoly capital, of them (agricultural reorganisation, ecucational restructuring, rapid industrial development) are also the aims of the ‘liberal’ opposition. The economic policy of the junta is geared to serve those needs on an everyday basis. All the guaranteed profits which are offered through the many government concessions, financing, subsidies, investments, and grants have to be satisfied from state funds. This requires the increase of state income: through the increase of taxation, fines, automatic wage withholding etc., in effect through the direct reduction of the wage packet; through increased public borrowing. As the public debt rises, the Bank of Greece prints huge amounts of bank notes, in this way boosting inflation, which is explained away through periodic attacks by senior ministers against profiteering!; through greater external borrowing. The two responsible ministers have chalked up many a success in this area. Of course the debt servicing is also increasing, thus worsening the balance of payments, and the measures which are in consequence imposed by international capital to maintain the ‘monetary stability’ – i.e., ability to pay debt services regularly – mean more blows at the wage packets. For example, the forced devaluation of the drachma against the European currencies gave a huge boost to inflation.
Side by side with the increase in exploitation through wage cuts, comes the intensification of work. Under the ‘protection’ of the junta, redundancies cannot be resisted, the eight-hour day is constantly violated and increased industrial accidents indicate the worsening conditions at work. The opposition’s criticism of all these measures of the junta is always in accordance with the gravity reserved for matters concerning the economy. Successes are applauded, improvements are suggested and any clumsy measures, like the unconcealed granting of privileges to the shipowners, are criticised on the grounds that they provoke the feelings of the people. All measures taken to improve the conditions of exploitation are a matter for ‘scientific debate’ over and above political wrangling. In this way, these measures are transferred into state organs (like the committee on prices and incomes) on which serve, side by side with the junta’s appointees, the Greek CBI, the Exporters’ Council, university professors, specialists, technocrats, etc, removed from the daily political squabbles.
Parallel to the measures taken to ensure the right conditions for the development and entrenchment of big business in production, the process of consolidating the political domination of the monopoly business section is taking place. This domination was characterised in the pre-junta period by an alliance with the merchant and small-scale industrial middle-class. Such an alliance, which was necessary for the development of monopoly capital, has now become superfluous.
The attack against the small agricultural producer and the concentration of commerce not only makes valueless but undermines the possibility of the former electoral pacts whereby the local grain merchant represented the peasants. Similarly, attack against small manufacturing industry entails breaking the patriarchal relations between the owner and his workers. The big business class is forced to create its own institutions to bolster its political control: political parties of ‘principle’ are now needed; the university must stop producing men of letters (lawyers, philologists and theologians), who were of use in a social structure which is now being reshaped. Instead what are needed now are management cadres directly tied to the system of exploitation of the working class (economists, sociologists, managers), men who are capable of consolidating the economic and ideological domination of big business. Indeed, this is why the newly created regional ministers – gauleiters for the monopolies – are so useful and effective in dealing with the potentially explosive mixture of ruined peasants, destitute agricultural workers and unemployed immigrant and industrial workers which is beginning to build up around the provincial capitals.
The tempo of this many-sided attack by big business is determined by the development of the class struggle. Every time the mass movement shows itself, the bankruptcy of the old institutions is exposed while the setting up of the new is prevented. The result is that the ruling class is left hanging on, being able to rely only on violence to suppress the contradictions of the capitalist system, instead of being able to defuse them. On the other hand, the developments in the form of exploitation strengthen the mass movement by throwing together formerly disunited elements, bring workers close to peasants and students close to workers. This is the problem with which both junta and opposition are faced in their search for normalisation. The talks on normalisation are based on their common desire to find, during the period of transition, a way to make steady progress towards the commonly accepted aims. The agreement, however, stops there. On the method of achieving this steady progress, the junta and the liberal opposition stand diametrically opposed. The junta points to the experiences of the period ‘63-’67, when the movement was becoming increasingly politicised, was putting forward new demands and forms of struggle, and in this way managing to thwart all the moves of the bourgeoisie towards reorganisation. The decision of the junta is therefore that it must attack without hesitation and dissolve all and any expressions of the mass movement. For the junta, liberalisation means loosening the restrictions on the bourgeois political parties, but not on the workers. As far as mobilisation of the workers is concerned, it prefers to rely on police activity and has no illusions about the possibility of integrating them, which is what the opposition proposes.
The liberal opposition is posing as the supporter of the mass movement in its struggle for political freedom, in this way attempting to channel the spontaneous outbursts into organisations which are under its control and to use them for its own ends – namely, as pressure on the junta, and as proof of its own strength, i.e., its ability to influence the masses. To this end, it argues for democratic co-operatives, moves to break up the small producers in agriculture to set up large-scale enterprises, democratic student societies so that the student can participate in the rationalisation of the process of specialisation of education and selection, free trade unions for the purpose of raising the productivity of labour. For this reason, the opposition is struggling to add to the traditional ideological armoury of the ruling class (anti-communism, fatherland, religion, family and loyalty to a football team) the concept of ‘democratic economic development’. So, in reality, the terms of the debate between the junta and the opposition are how to stem the workers’ movement. The more capitalist measures are put into practice, the more acute become the conditions of everyday class struggle – in the factory, on the land and at the schools. Students, workers and peasants are coming increasingly into open confrontation with the junta’s oppression. The student outbursts in April and May were only a beginning.
With every step forward by the mass movement, with every new clash, the manoeuvre towards normalisation will be jeopardised, the arguments in the ruling class will sharpen, and the crisis of bourgeois control will become deeper.
ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 24.6.2008