We’re having two posts on the Greek elections tonight, since the media accounts are so slanted as to merit discussion. The notion that a democratically elected government would put broad social interest over continued, self-destructive sacrifices to financiers and their allies in European governments is so threatening that a large swathe of media outlets seem almost to take visceral offense at the idea. Editors and writers are thus serving as vocal enforcers of keeping the Overton Window locked in its present, far right position.
As Christopher D. Rogers said in comments yesterday:
What the “fuck” does the BBC coverage of the Greek election think it is doing and what bloody Orwellian-double speak western world am I living in?
Before you think one’s language inappropriate please consider this. In its coverage of the momentous events presently taking place in Greece, our bloody wonderful, alleged impartial, BCC reporters are calling Syriza “the radical left Party”. You heard it here folks, Syriza, that 40 years ago would have been to the right of the then UK’s Labour Party, is now a “radical left” organisation, with all the undertones that go with the word “radical.”
Having read quite a lot of Yanis Varoufakis’s output over the past 12 months, I’d hardly call Yanis a radical, nor for that matter would I call Mr. Tsipras radical for those of you who would like to contrast the Syriza election promises with the 1983 Labour Party manifesto that Michael Foot went to the country with, and which Roy Hattersley, who with Neil Kinnock, started the rot to infect that once proud leftwing organisation, referred too as the “longest suicide note ever written. By the way, in 1983 the actual left of the Labour Party wanted our country outside of the then EEC, they wanted to rid our nation of nuclear weapons and turn back the clock on four years of huge social upheaval caused by Thatcher and her monetarist economic prescriptions, what we call today “neoliberalism”.
Whilst I’ve yet to reach 50, in my humble opinion as someone who embodies many principles of the actual left, Syriza is not hot bed of radicalism, and yet the Uk media, much of the European media and obviously your US media are making out that Syriza are a threat not only to Europe, but no doubt the world – which I actually only hope is right, for at long last it seems people are awakening and coming out of the shadows to see the world for what it is and those legacy parties, be they left or right, for what they are. Corporate whores no less.
Needless to say, the BBC is not alone in trying to depict Syriza as extremist:
It is also important to remember that the effort to depict neoliberalism as centrist and traditional social democratic positions as radical reflects the weight of money, and is at odds with the weight of popular opinion. As Richard Kline pointed out:
Let’s dispense with several basic misconceptions regarding why progressives are presently so unsuccessful.
“Progressive goals are not popular.” Even with the systematically distorted polling data of the present, this is demonstrably untrue. Inexpensive health care, progressive taxation, educational scholarship funding, curtailment of foreign wars, environmental protection among others never fail to command majority support. It is difficult to think of a major progressive policy which commands less than a plurality. This situation is one reason for the lazy reliance upon electioneering by progressives, they know that their issues are popular, in principle at least. Rather childishly, they just want a show of hands then, as if that is what goes on really in elections.
One of Kline’s big messages is that why American progressives are so ineffective is that they see their cause as moral and just, and want to win converts. They are, for the most part, deeply uncomfortable with power. Per Kline: ” Thus, they don’t frame what they engage in as a fight but rather as a debate.” His view is that the times progressives have been effective is when they are teamed up with radicals, which are groups with real economic or social grievances.
So one reason for the overwrought reaction to Syriza is that a group that on the surface is merely progressive, in terms of its goals, may (stress may) be prepared to behave like radicals (in terms of their actions) precisely due to the humanitarian crisis that the Troika has inflicted on Greece. It’s remarkable that European technocrats didn’t anticipate that grinding down a population would lead to a broad-based, democratic pushback, and they seem genuinely surprised that Syriza has gotten this far, even in the face of heavy-handed efforts to scare Greek voters.
Bill Black provides a deep dive into the US version of the anti-Syriza messaging, and how it ties into a Washington Consensus crafted heavily by the likes of Pete Peterson. And the real danger in Europe, at least to the hyperventilating members of the elites, is that the Syriza success has increased the popularity of anti-austerity parties in the rest of Europe.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives
The Wall Street Journal and the New York Time’s eurozone reporters, who share the same unshakable devotion to TINA and austerity as the Murdochized WSJ news staff have been thrown into a panic by Syriza’s electoral successes in Greece.
Both papers are freaked out, as are the Germans, about the potential for Greece to spark a wave of rejections of the troika’s infliction of austerity in a manner similar to how the infliction of self-destructive austerity programs pursuant to the Washington Consensus’ demands led to the “lost decade” and the democratic election of what is now over a dozen Latin American candidates running on anti-austerity platforms. The Washington Consensus was drafted and named by an economist at Pete Peterson’s International Institute. Peterson is a Wall Street billionaire whose mission is causing debt and deficit hysteria and plugging the joys of austerity and unraveling the safety nets. His greatest goal is privatizing Social Security – producing hundreds of billions in additional fees for Wall Street.
The NYT predicted that:
A Syriza victory would lift the hopes of euroskeptic parties elsewhere in Europe, especially in Spain, where the left-leaning, anti-austerity Podemos party, not yet a year old, is already drawing 20 percent support in national opinion polls. The leader of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias, joined Mr. Tsipras this week during Syriza’s final campaign rally.
The WSJ makes a similar point to explain the significance of Syriza’s electoral success.
A Syriza victory would also be closely watched by other antiausterity parties in Europe—on the left and the right—that have been gaining ground in the past year. In Europe-wide parliamentary elections last spring, voters fed up with years of cutbacks, rising unemployment and a shrinking social state, strongly backed new and fringe antiestablishment parties such as France’s National Front and Spain’s newly created Podemos party in a reaction to Europe’s old guard.
Pete Peterson Brings Latin America’s Lost Decade to Europe
The NYT responded by citing quoting as its one non-partisan economic commentator on Syriza’s win – a Peterson institute economist! Yes, the people that crafted the Washington Consensus and claimed U.S. fiscal stimulus would produce hyper-inflation and who praised Germany’s austerity policies were presented by the NYT as the impartial experts on austerity – with no explanation of any of this history.
“[Alexis Tsipras, Syriza’s leader] is campaigning on change and the end of austerity,” said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, who argues that Mr. Tsipras must move toward a more centrist stance if he hopes to revive the economy and keep Greece solvent.
“If he can pull that off, that will be the best possible outcome for Greece and for Europe, because it would show that these protest movements ultimately recognize reality, which is that they are in the euro, and they have to play by the rules,” he added.”
The NYT did not bother to explain what the Peterson economist meant by the phrase “they have to play by the rules.” He means that Greece must continue to follow draconian austerity under the eurozone’s oxymoronic “Stability and Growth Pact” that has caused massive instability and crippled growth because it requires the economic malpractice of responding to a Great Recession by forcing Greece, Spain, and Italy into Great Depressions.
As I have explained many times, Greece’s current Great Depression is more severe and long-lasting than its Great Depression 80 years ago. Under the plan the troika successfully extorted prior Greek leaders to adopt he will be forced to further tighten the austerity screws for at least another five years. When the Peterson economist says that he hopes Tsipras “move[s] toward a more centrist stance” he means he hopes Tsirpras betrays all of his campaign promises and adopts austerity.
The NYT Thinks its Redemptive for Poor Greeks to Suffer
But it gets better, for Peterson’s economist says that if Syriza betrays the promises it made to the people of Greece and instead embraces austerity it will “revive the economy and keep Greece solvent.” Austerity has forced Greece into a Great Depression – the opposite of “reviv[ing] the economy.” A sovereign government is not a corporation and doesn’t (and can’t) use GAAP accounting. It is not “insolvent” because it has debts. It that is the definition, then austerity has not and will not make Greece “solvent.”
The Peterson economist then ends on an even worse note. He implicitly defines “reality” as requiring brutal austerity. He excludes fiscal stimulus, even though – as Paul Krugman (and many folks like us have tried to explain for many years – the great majority of economists think responding to a Great Recession with austerity constitutes economic malpractice.
The NYT also throws in its near constant meme that the Greeks aren’t mature and ready to “sacrifice” enough to get better. They still believe in the medical myth that you need to bleed a patient to help him recover. Embracing austerity constitutes pointless masochism that delays rather than speeds recovery from a Great Recession – suffering inflicted primarily on the poor and the sick, but the NYT loves to blame poor Greeks.
Continuing economic weakness has stirred a populist backlash as more voters grow fed up with policies that demand sacrifice.
Opposing austerity is not immoral, weak, or “populist.” It is good economics and humane – a win-win.
The WSJ Claims Austerity Helped the Greeks Economy (by ignoring the Great Depression)
The WSJ doesn’t need one of Peterson’s economists to match the NYT’s mendacity. In the midst of a purported news story (not an opinion piece) the WSJ states the following as if it were undisputed fact.
Since first seeking a bailout in 2010, Greece has undertaken a broad sweep of economic overhauls and cutbacks that have helped mend its public finances and nudged the economy back to growth following six years of deep recession. Those cutbacks have come at a cost: Some 25% of Greeks remain jobless, while a quarter of households live close to the poverty line.
It is a clumsy attempt at mendacity given that the facts in the second sentence render risible the fiction foisted in the first sentence. Austerity has not “nudged the economy back to growth following six years of deep recession.” Austerity threw an economy in a deep recession into a gratuitous Great Depression. But for austerity, Greece could have begun a robust recovery four years ago.
There are at the time I write this two WSJ articles about the Greek election and the second one also has a clunker that is unintentionally hilarious.
And if Syriza refuses to meet those terms: Will Merkel blink?
No. German leaders fear that funding a Greece that refuses to reform would be the death knell of the eurozone. Other debtor countries could conclude that they could blackmail Berlin, refuse to cut their deficits or overhaul their economies, and still get German taxpayers’ money.
Where to start?
- The horribly designed euro, a design Germany insisted on, austerity, which Germany insisted on, and a horribly designed ECB, which Germany insisted on, will be the “death knell of the eurozone” if Prime Minister Merkel continues those policies.
- Germany has repeatedly used the troika, the bond vigilantes, and the desperation of peoples in crisis to “blackmail” nations throughout the eurozone – and German politicians have then proceeded to mock and excoriate the Greeks when they succumbed to that blackmail.
- The economic policies Syriza supports are economically sensible – they will speed the eurozone’s recovery and eventually be highly beneficial to the German people
- The economic policies Merkel has blackmailed the eurozone leaders into inflicting on their own peoples constitute economic malpractice. They slow the recovery and cause immense human misery that serves no purpose.
- Troubled debt renegotiations occur thousands of times every day because we learned hundreds of years ago that once a debtor has been pushed to the point of default with no prospect for relief it makes sense to let the debtor make a fresh start
- The ECB can shoehorn the euro into becoming a quasi-sovereign currency for the eurozone if the concern is “German taxpayers.” The German courts might try to block it, but if the alternative is a new, even deeper crisis they may allow the ECB to do what needs to be done. The ECB has repeatedly had to evolve beyond its original German design in order to prevent the eurozone’s collapse.
30 comments
Comments are closed.
I’m giving up on the MSM for coverage. This is typical.
“Teen revolutionary” blah blah blah (see folks, he’s been trouble from the start) “Youngest ever political leader” waffle waffle waffle (he clearly doesn’t know what he’s doing) “Tie-hater” (tie hater ? tie hater ??? Jeeze…) “Che Guevara fanatic” (as if we’ve not made him out to be scary enough) “Austerity opponent” (supposed to be not something you should bring up in polite conversation I guess) “Good thing or bad thing?” (after all that knocking copy, I wonder if we’re allowed to be in any doubt)
“Needless to say, the BBC is not alone in trying to depict Syriza as extremist”
Certainly not, and the Telegraph has outdone them with the most absurd headline I’ve seen yet. Laughed out loud when I read this:
“The Flat From Where Greece’s Che Guevara Is Planning Europe’s Downfall”
Which then goes on to describe the the apartment building of Tsipras, the new Che Guevava as, ” Mr Tsipras lives with his wife and two children in a flat in a seven-storey apartment block which looks onto a patch of waste ground strewn with rubbish and occupied by two abandoned cottages.
At the end of the street, walls are sprayed with graffiti, a pile of old scaffolding has been dumped in a patch of overgrown grass and a broken television lies on the pavement.”
Propaganda much?
I’m surprised they didn’t mention the horns growing out the top of his head and the pointy tail, too.
No doubt The Sun will show a photograph of that on their page 3.
I generally agree with this editorial. However, unless this is a rare case of uncorrected Wikipedia vandalism, Syriza names ITSELF the “Coalition of the Radical Left”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Radical_Left
By policy, is Syriza actually a center-left social democratic party, like Canada’s NDP? If that is the case, the actually right-wing Corporate Media like BBC/etc should earnestly report this, instead of their right-wing neoliberal editorial/propaganda disguised as “straight reporting”. But on the specific narrow issue of BBC calling Syriza what Syriza calls itself, I can’t fault the BBC for that.
Jacobin interviewed Stathis Kouvelakis, a member of Syriza’s central committee and a leading member of its Left Platform.
There is a sizable left contingent within Syriza, but it still is a minority. That said, there is also a “left part of the majority” which split away from the right-wing of the party. The right-wing of Syriza is the party that Tsipras comes from – Synaspismós – whose full name translates into “Coalition of Left, of Movements and Ecology”, also known as “Left Unity”.
Depending how you look at it, Syriza is divided into either two or three political currents:
• Left Platform – leftists (anti-euro, anti-capitalist, pro-nationalization, anti-imperialist, in favor of social mobilization, against centralization of power in the leadership)
• Left Unity – divided into pro-euro leftists (Left Left Unity) and pro-euro social democrats (Right Left Unity)
Tsipras and the main economists within the party, Giannis Dragasakis and George Stathakis, are part of Syriza’s pro-euro right-wing. The right-wing of Syriza, however, is obviously different than the right-wing of other Greek political parties or the right-wing of U.S. politics.
Συνασπισμός (coalition )Ριζοσπαστικής (radical) Αριστεράς (left), translates to “radical left coalition”. When the new norm is as extreme as is now isn’t anything opposing that norm”radical” ?
John Milios, Chief Economist for the Syriza Part’s Economic Policy Committee, is a self confessed marxist, leaning to the French type : “I never had any affiliation with Soviet Marxism” , quote from a Guaridan article.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/syriza-john-milios-greece-eurozone
And an antidote, a bit of Greek culture ‘ Erotokritos’ an epic romance written in 1713 by Vitsentzos Kornaros performed here by 77 different artists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcpoGuC44Ck#t=374
posted earlier in the day and yet seems to have dissappeared, dlete if duplicated.
While I agree with the characterization of Peterson’s debt fear mongering, I find it quite amusing that one of the sharpest critics of Europe’s austerity inside the establishment has been Adam Posen, aka the president of the Peterson Institute.
This from a Reuters photo caption of Tsipras rejoicing victory:
The head of radical leftist Syriza party Alexis Tsipras speaks to supporters after winning the elections in Athens January 25, 2015.
CREDIT: REUTERS/MARKO DJURICA
Of course “conservative” is depicted in the media both here and abroad as mainstream, solid and upstanding, intelligent, in touch with reality. Liberal and left wing remain adjectives that depict lazy, mooching wackos — thanks to Ronald Reagan and his wordsmiths. The reality is, what’s actually radical is the neoliberal theology that enables banksters and corrupt, fear-mongering politicians to cram austerity down the throats of the people, robbing them and their children of their future, while enriching the few at the top and legitimizing their greed. The majority in Greece have shown they are mainstream, not radical, far left or far right.
Nicely put. Paraphrasing Orwell, telling the truth in a time of universal deceit is a radical act. Never has “perception management” in the fabrication of an extremist consensus, the neoliberal Washington Consensus, been carried to such a level of cult mind control. As predicted by Orwell, Western media’s deliberate manipulation of language has carried the manufacture of consent well beyond the crude propaganda of old-school Soviet media, but I believe Obama is the linchpin to the adoption of this big lie on a global scale. That will be his shining legacy, for which, in this life, he will be richly rewarded.
I certainly hope Tsipras lives up to its promise and prevails over the vast army arrayed against it. And I hope it is contagious.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Alexis, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?
The kleptocrats will push back very hard at any threat of the re-emergence of social democracy in Europe. If Tsipras shows any determination to actually serve the people, and not the banksters, this demonization will escalate and become very ugly indeed.
I liked this piece from the Guardian :
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/syriza-uk-left-labour
“Syriza stood up to the money men – the UK left must do the same” – Zoe Williams
( As must the US left. Oh , right , I forgot – we don’t have one. I wish the Progressive Caucus would grow a pair , split off from the Dems , and start a new party – something with “radical” in the name , just to make their intent perfectly clear. They’d blow away the money parties in 2016 if they started campaigning soon – like right now. )
Better yet, drop the “radical” and “left” self descriptions and call it the anti-Goldman, anti-bailout, anti-Wall Street, anti-centralization, anti-TBTF party and then we can really make some progress. Don’t you realize that a lot of people who think they are libertarian or conservative are also on board with the key points of the agenda? Why alienate them?
X1000!
Yves et al,
A few points I’d like to add to my “rant” this morning Hong Kong time, one I’m surprised has appeared here, but one worthy of dialogue.
I’m fully aware that I’m now a political dinosaur and that the left-of-centre ground I’ve stood upon for most of my life I’ve never veered from, as such one is often distressed at witnessing the ever onwards march to the right of our elites and despicable coverage in the MSM that opponents of this move have heaped upon them, we are either lepers, terrorists or in want of urgent medical attention, this despite the fact that the beliefs we adhere too were mainstream only one generation ago.
Having been hard pressed myself to finish up work for matters I’m actually working on, I’d not really been exposed these past three weeks to the bile heaped on Syriza in the media, although, as most on the boards are aware, we witnessed the full onslaught of the combined media/ British ruling elite against Scottish independence less than 6 months ago – we have a pattern, and yet to question these rampant biases and outright lies we ourselves are both abused and disenfranchised – not acceptable in any social democracy I’m afraid, and I still just consider Europe a social democracy, this I’m afraid I cannot apply to the USA anymore.
However, I had hoped our Scots peers would have voted in favour of interdependence and throw a grenade into the cozy bubble of Westminster and the City of London – it was not to be. Hence, and without sounding daft, I’m galvanised by yesterdays greek result, for despite all the fear mongering from the Euro elite, fully endorsed by a media unable to raise simple questions, I was galvanised that in a modern Western European democrat the centre-left forces managed to gain a more than 40% vote, despite the best efforts of our masters to prevent this outcome, obviously with the help of a supine BBC and European print media.
So, whilst I was disappointed by the september outcome, which itself was a miracle, I’m overjoyed at long last that we may be witnessing the very beginning of the end of the neoliberal project that threatens our liberty, our communities and our planet. However, lets not get carried away, but I can instruct you all today anti-neoliberal forces are coalescing for real and learned much from Syriza’s success in Greece. It’s a small victory, but victory nonetheless for common sense and decency, and for that I thank the Greek people.
One thing that I have noticed through out my time in politics either as an activist or insider is that everyone accepts that Corporate news is the mainstream media. When you give something that is so clearly biased that position of power you are fighting a hopeless battle. Instead of facing off against the corporate media you are going against mainstream ideas which we all know are not mainstream at all but radical social theories that devalue life. If instead, we all started to call the “mainstream” media the Corporate Media we may be able to get casual observes to see an inherent bias in the news.
If I tell a friend that this story is MSM propaganda they need to trust that I am right about these policies. I can not detail EU economic policy so they may go with the authority figure. Most of us who read and even post on this blog can not convince someone that this frame is wrong in a clear and concise manner (2-5 minute discussion). However if I can convince them that the mainstream media is corporate bullshit meant to enrich the 1% then I may not have to go into details about EU austerity and instead get them to distrust that media source and perhaps read Bill Black.
After all, I am going to have to parrot most of his writing to convince them anyway. :)
Agreed. I like this second “rant,” too. You aren’t a political dinosaur. You want to see political dinosaurs? Watch the U.S. Congress. It’s T. Cruz Rex fighing with Nancy P. Stegasaurus.
This is a bit fairer http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/greece-shows-what-can-happen-when-young-revolt-against-corrupt-elites
I noticed on Huffington Post Saturday that the definition of “radical” was opposition to austerity. That goodness for a liberal media.
The way they sold this whole neoliberal time-shares scheme was a farce. It has turned out to be Germany’s revenge for the debacle that was the Versailles Treaty. They finally figured out that banks are much more effective than invading armies at extracting wealth from others. I wish Greece could tell the Troika to “Kiss my Drachma” and seize the ill gotten gains of the Greek oligarchy nestled in their Swiss bank accounts and use that to nest egg Greece’s deliverance.
As always, I’m going to harp on the racial aspect of the Americano-Anglo-Germano consensus, since racism has had such a strong showing in the culture of each of these nations: From the AAG point of view, we are dealing with excitable (radical), irrational (leftist) people (who form coalitions). If it weren’t that Americans like to go on shopping sprees, and the English like to retire there, we’d likely be preparing to bomb the undeserving brown people of Greece (and Spain and Italy). Look at a map of Cyprus: The UK still has huge military bases there–a former colony still treated as such. So I await for more analysis from the chattering class of the emotionality of the Greeks (oh, and their laziness).
‘ … progressive taxation … curtailment of foreign wars … among others never fail to command majority support.’
Progressive taxation enables war. Consider the pattern: (1) Lincoln introduces the first U.S. income tax to finance the War Between the States; (2) Wilson brings back the income tax (this time with backing from a questionably enacted constitutional amendment) to finance WW I; (3) Progressive marginal rates are driven to record confiscatory extremes in WW II.
There is only one welfare-warfare state. It will care for you and educate you, until you are old enough to fight for
the MICfreedom.…revisionist history glowing bright!
Not only the mainstream media is a problem; it’s everywhere. Someone on a Dutch forum was almost foaming at the mouth, stating that Greece must pay back the loans. He was not really happy when I noted that the parties, offering said loans, should have been more careful. It takes two to tango, but he was having none of it.
Also, a lot of people still seem to think that QE benefits the Southern EU countries; “they can continue to siphon money from the Northern EU”. Ehm, the (central) banksters (and their accomplices, the politicians) are our enemy.
I was pleased to see that a CBC headline says:
“Greece election: Eurozone strikes conciliatory note over Greek debt
Markets remain calm and euro strengthens after election of anti-austerity Syriza party”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/greece-election-eurozone-strikes-conciliatory-note-over-greek-debt-1.2931761
NYT and WSJ try to put Syriza and Podemos in the same bag as Frente Nacional. Absurd, but will american readers be deceived?
I don’t mean to be snotty, but my hunch is that the US readers who conflate Syriza and Podemos with Le Pen’s National Front movement probably don’t know what any of those mean, anyway.
The Guardian and Real News Network have some outstanding, thoughtful reporting. They’re really delving into this election as a social phenomenon, and it’s fascinating to follow.
If — and it’s a mighty big ‘if’ — I’m reading the proverbial ‘tea leaves’ accurately, what we’re seeing in Greece is how the media’s focus on ‘horserace politics’: poll numbers, legislative totals, ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, is missing a far larger, more interesting, and much tougher story about social change.
The ‘horserace’ political reporting is also missing the fascinating implications for economic structures, political legitimacy, and politics in an era of social networks. We get b.s. about whether or not Tsipris wears ties (!), and nothing about the network of food kitchens that helped nurture Syriza.
So Black is one of those who think the Euro is bad to the bone.
this emphasis on it being Germany’s fault is a recurring theme; given the recentness of WWII and the German occupations, it has to resonate politically – it certainly does in Greece. What about France, and most of the rest of the EU? It’s probably a major reason Britain isn’t in the Euro.
What most people seem to be confused about is that the Syriza victory is a massive success in terms of class-struggle electoral politics in Europe, and signals the potential for class struggle politics to the electoral arena, while *at the same time* Syriza’s main goals are both domestically left-social democratic (higher wages, reversing privatization) and in terms of the EU very much pragmatic about renegotiating debt service. While Syriza was not campaigning for immediate nationalization of the means of production this nonetheless signals a possible real upsurge for the left in Europe and an opening for even more radical ideas and parties to gain currency again. Syriza is not the end but rather the beginning.
You are right, but only if Syriza can pull this off, which is not a sure thing.
In addition to international creditors there are domestic enemies and a complete state apparatus that will work against it. I have no doubt that many bureaucrats will even try to sabotage whatever the party is up to, not to mention possible traps that involve women and money.
So, Syriza have a historic responsibility that requires both intellectual agility and relentless hard work, staying vigilant all the time. If they fail, I am afraid, the real left will not have another chance for generations to come. I think they are fully aware of that responsibility.