Greece: A Vote for All of Us

Greece has voted decisively to reject the latest demands from the European Union for austerity economics.

The Hellenic people have today dealt a huge blow for all Europeans against the corporate interests that over the last 8 years have foisted the political choice of austerity economics across the Continent. The 60%-plus vote to reject the latest demands for massive cuts in public services and welfare to the poorest represents a major victory in the struggle to reverse the "mainstream" view that the monetarism first adopted by Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s should be the default form of orthodox economics. It is a massive vote of confidence in the Syriza government and the stewardship of Prime Minister Tsipras and Finance Minister Varoufakis, but it leaves huge questions for them to tackle in terms of next steps. For although Greece has spoken loudly and clearly, the anti-democratic forces in the European Central Bank and the IMF, backed by the neoliberalism of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, are unlikely to deviate from their obsession with reducing the public sector and increasing the wealth of the rich across the Eurozone. The economics of austerity will not go quietly or quickly.

This is a particularly pernicious form of political economy - it holds that balanced budgets are key for governments, whose involvement in society should rarely extend beyond basic policing and the military (although in practice it actually extends to providing subsidies and  handouts to the big corporations that fund our political masters, either via bailouts viz the banking system or "private finance initiatives" and outsourcing of services such as health and education at criminally high costs to the taxpayer).

Syriza's Varoufakis and Tsipras

 In this scenario, there is a fetish about reducing the deficit even when sucking money (and demand) out of a becalmed economy will simply lead to a downward spiral with huge costs to the lives of ordinary people. Its proponents however claim that, in the long-run, a harmonious equilibrium of supply and demand will be reached - although this is somewhat incredulously to be determined by the mystical invisible hand of the market rather than any socially-conscious intervention by humans. We are to serve economics, it seems, not the other way round.

The counterpoise to this - the investment-led approach of Keynesian economics - is somewhat more humane (albeit not necessarily an exclusively socialist response). It sees social objectives, primarily the minimisation of unemployment, as a key objective. Here, Governments will borrow or even just print new money to keep demand going in the economy, keeping activity moving so that people stay in work - this reduces the cost of out of work welfare and increases tax take, so that in time, if useful, the deficit can be reduced or eliminated without ruining the lives of ordinary people. As Keynes said of those who would leave things for the market to somehow work things out in the longrun, "In the long run, we are all dead." Economics should serve society; social objectives should be their sole purpose, not the enrichment of an ever -smaller circle of owners and shareholders.

However, the neoliberal elite who came to dominate our political landscape as well as the economy during and since the 1980s have made several key changes that undermine the potential for investment-led economics. They removed many of the controls on money and globalised the movement of capital; and they gave banks the right to create new money out of nothing - a ludicrous and highly dangerous arrangement that led to the 2008 crisis and continues to this day.

And into the midst of this, although Britain is outside it, the Eurozone came into being and countries like Greece surrendered their economic and monetary independence to the European Central Bank. This now determines the economic policies not only of Greece but in effect all Eurozone states. And with its decisions in the hands of austerity-obsessed bankers whose sole objective has been to increase the power and wealth of the elite, the social needs of the poor in Greece, or Spain or even Germany have been of no concern. Hence their belief that Greece should cut and cut and cut and simply keep on bleeding.

In this context, we have seen Greece previously be forced to accept an unelected Prime Minister to impose the diktats of the ECB on its people. This was being openly contemplated again in Berlin last week as Merkel and her gang felt bullish about a Yes vote in the referendum cutting the legs from under the elected Syriza government. This is the same mindset that reportedly led to some bankers allegedly opening a book on whether or not there might be a military coup d'etat to "solve" their problems with the irritant of democratically elected Greek politicians not going along with inflicting ever more misery on their people.

Greece has said no to the austerity that is at the cold heart of Europe now. But the only real option for the Hellenic democracy is to now leave the Eurozone as quickly as possible. With the drachma restored, they would be free to adopt an investment-led recovery, restore their battered public services and revive their economy. In doing this, they would be leading the way for democratic forces across Europe to rise and turn our fractured societies away from the austerity that has left Britons to choose between heating and eating, Spaniards to watch their health services crumble and youth unemployment soar, and Greeks to see their country unravel around them, their young and their rich taking flight abroad.

For some of us on the progressive left in Britain, until now reluctant supporters of the European Union as at least some form of minimal defence against the corporatocracy, the treatment of Greece (and of Portugal, Spain and Italy) demands we revisit our views ahead of the British referendum. The Europe we seek, one that puts people and planet before the profit of big companies and the demands of our elite, is not on offer.

It may feel uncomfortable to be on the same side of the fence as the likes of UKIP, but is it any easier standing alongside the three pro-EU, pro-TTIP, pro-austerity parties coalesced under David Cameron? At the very least, the debate must be had - why should any progressive wish us to remain part of this "ever closer union" that would willingly, even enthusiastically, destroy one of its own? Can this project be saved from itself? How do we get a social Europe genuinely on the agenda? Or do we need to break away to come back together in something more constructive and sustainable?

The No vote for the Hellenes is no negative result. It is a terrifying but optimistic vote that says society must be for everyone. That the collective need, the common good, must come before the apologists of robber-capitalism who hold power in the boardroom, banks and Cabinet offices in capitals across the European Union (including London). It is a line in the sand, but will need to be the first of many.

It is a vote for a future that is about people, not profits.

From the birthplace of democracy, it is a vote for all of us.

Athens was the birthplace of European democracy: this ballot said "No" to Themistocles in a vote 2,400 years ago.

A Spectre is Haunting Europe...

...the spectre of anti-austerity.

The last week has seen major democratic challenges at the ballot box to the neoliberal parties of austerity economics across Europe.

In Britain, the two Coalition parties went down in flames at a series of electoral contests covering local councils and the Mayor of London and other cities - in London, the Lib Dem wing of the government ended up in fourth place, behind the Green Party, for both the Mayor and the Assembly elections. And although Tory Boris Johnson was elected, it was in the end by a much tighter margin than predicted and after a campaign distinguished by distinguishing himself from the Tory Government. At the other end of England, in Liverpool, the Conservative Party trailed in seventh place, behind parties like the Greens, Trade Unions & Socialist Coalition and the independent Liberal Party (as well as their Lib Dem allies). Meanwhile across the country, swathes of Conservative and Lib Dem councillors were felled by an anti-government revolt that saw big gains for the Labour Party but also for a range of smaller groups like the Greens, UKIP and Respect, as well as the SNP in Scotland.

Then, in France, the Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande was elected President, defeating the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy on an anti-austerity programme committed to renegotiating the fiscal treaty of the neoliberal, cuts-obsessed EU and taxing the rich. In the first round of the election, nearly 3 out of 4 voters supported candidates opposed to austerity measures.

The Drachma marked Greece's sovereignty - then and now?

And then today, the Greek people firmly rejected the German-led takeover of their country by the Central European Bank, voting in its place for a wide range of right and left wing parties opposed to the slash-and-burn methods of the international banking community. These austerity measures have dictated a dreadful scything of Hellenic public services to pay for a combination of dodgy bank dealing by Goldman Sachs early in the last decade and tax evasion by the rich elite. An early exit from the Eurozone beckons, the clearest and most logical route for Greeks to regain control of their country from Gauleiter Papademos, Merkel's Minister without Mercy, who has been squeezing the Greek state to death for the sake of the bankers.

Italy has followed suit, with a big swing to the left in local elections yesterday as well, and even in Merkel's own backyard, a federal election held today would be unlikely to return her to power. The response of the bankers and market traders, previously secure with the "public will pay" promises of the conservative regimes that had dominated much of Europe, has been predictably negative as their ill-gotten gains come under scrutiny once again.

So what happens now? The People have spoken - austerity is rejected as the ever-decreasing circle that it is. Like the old medieval cure of bleeding the humours out of people, austerity saps the capacity of national economies to ever recover, putting the short-term gain of speculators ahead of community and national needs. But a simple return to Keynesian reflation probably won't work in a world where increasing resource scarcity and environmental damage militate against continuous growth.

The challenge now has to be to get economies moving again to create jobs, but also to distribute wealth fairly. Hollande may make a good case for the first, but unless the Left in France keep the pressure on him, there may be less attention paid to the second, promised tax increases aside. Syriza, the new second party of Greece (typically still described by the BBC as a fringe party!), argues for a wider social change in terms of ownership of resources as well as fiscal reflation and progressive taxation. It is a coalition of green and socialist groups, so its programme is undoubtedly more radical than the French Socialists, but the latter would do well to read it.

The crash of 2008 led to many on the left making bold statements to the prevailing right wing that there could be no return to business as usual. No disagreement there - but it holds for the left as much as for the right. Reflationary economics based on massive public spending programmes, like the Green New Deal put forward in the UK, have a role to play, but only in part. Keynesian economics are still the economics of capitalism - social democrats have long assumed the possibility of continued growth creating enough to keep everyone happy and in that respect, historically, they have often delivered. Except that in terms of where we are now with the resources available to humanity and the urgent need for sustainable economics, more of the same anti-austerity economics will work only marginally better than austerity - and will leave plenty of scope for capitalist speculators to play havoc with any recovery.

So although Syriza may, just possibly, lead Greece out of the Euro and back to the drachma, the rest of Europe would do well to consider the wider range of proposals coming from red-green alliances around the Continent - and end to austerity yes; but an end to inequality too. This way, slowing and even ending the obsession with growth can still lead to better living standards, to a more sustainable economics and to happier lives for people and communities throughout Europe and across the planet itself.


Previous posts : Athens and Austerity - a Hymn to the Goddess of Democracy
                         The Greek Myths

From Austerity Nut dot com - click here

"Why don't they start with the bankers?"

The British Government has announced its programme of cuts in public spending today. Carefully crafting a wide range of substantial reductions in spending so that the average cuts per Government department come in at 19% over four years rather than Labour's planned 20%, the Con Dems betray the essential unity of the three main parties around a monetarist, free market agenda. Their little school boyish prank may make waves in the Westminster Village, a bit like waving condoms about in a Prefects' Room, but the impact on a wide range of poor and vulnerable citizens will be even worse than feared, with £7 billions more than expected off disability payments - £50 per week taken from people on Incapacity Benefit for more than 12 months - and a 50% reduction in the social housing budget. At the same time, precisely nothing is done to tackle the massive tax evasion and corporate tax exemptions that plague Britain.

So amidst the gloom, it was good to see this video (below) of Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP railing passionately against the cuts as socially damaging and economically illiterate - worsening the crisis of the deficit rather than tackling it. Clearly angered by the Chancellor's approach, she calls for action on investment in sustainable jobs and action against tax evasion. Government led spending on a range of activities such as improving public transport and developing renewable energy would pay dividends in a multiplicity of ways - generating jobs and tax revenue, cutting the deficit, reducing our dependence on foreign energy and cutting our carbon emissions.

This type of Keynesian economic theory,on which the "Green New Deal" is based, used to be the economic orthodoxy that worked for a coherent society. By contrast, Monetarist theory adopted by right wingers in the 1970s onwards changed that - placing economic objectives above social ones and seeking to reduce government involvement in the economy and socirty as a whole. As Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor, explained on BBC Radio 4 last night, "I wasn't much bothered about damaging solidarity and social cohesion." All he was bothered about was creating space for tax cuts for the wealthy and a chance to flog off the national assets.

As the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats contemplate the biggest sale of public assets ever, as well as cutting deep into the welfare state, the Con Dem regime is emerging as one of the most avowedly ideological governments in British history, rolling back the shrinking public sector further than Mrs Thatcher ever dared imagine.

At least, hearing Caroline Lucas' speech, there is clearly a voice in Parliament showing that there IS an alternative to an agenda that turns citizens into numbers and shuts its eyes to real human suffering. Let's hope it keeps getting louder. And heard.