Πέμπτη, 5 Δεκεμβρίου 2013


OF 21st CENTURY[1]
(Fight for the territorial integrity, national survival  
and Direct Democracy)

By Kostas Lampos (PhD)[2]

1.                       Greece as a universal dimension and as a diachronic ‘bone of contention’
Greece, as a geopolitical dimension, has always presented a particular strategic significance for
each of the Great Powers that were claiming a hegemonic role in the wider area[3] [of Eurasia], a role that Greece itself played for a relatively long period during Antiquity. The primary determining factors of that geostrategic significance of Greece were, and still remain, [the fact that]:
·             Greece is in the crossroad between North-South and West-Orient and whoever controls that crossroad simultaneously controls the wider area [of Eurasia] and the wealth that is being produced and distributed in that wider area.
·             Greece has enormous amounts of mineral wealth and valuable metals that are known since Antiquity – in which petrol and natural gas have been added lately – [and] the control of them has a vital significance for the forces that claim global hegemony, especially nowadays where the identifiable deposits of central Eurasia[4] are dangerously depleted.
·             Greece, as a distinguishably beautiful area of the planet with a continuous history of thousands of years and as the unquestionable cradle of sciences, arts and the civilization of “man is the measure of all things” (Protagoras) instead of profit-making barbarism, presents a [unique] interest and its control adds prestige to each barbarian or “civilized” conqueror.
The current global crisis of the twilight of capitalism constitutes one more factor that we should bear in mind in our effort to understand the so called “Greek crisis” and the austerity policy that was imposed to Greece by the European creditors, the “partners of the European Union and the Eurozone” and the North American “allies” and rulers of the International Monetary Fund and NATO.
But, let’s start, once more, from the beginning. The goal of the hegemons and the wannabe hegemons or co-hegemons was and still remains stable; the control of the area and primarily of Greece-as-crossroad and in addition, most recently, of Greece-as-a-privileged oil plot.
The consequence of this geostrategic position of Greece has always been and remains an ongoing conflict between the prospective rulers, which takes the form of a permanent Greek Civil War, which is supplied with controlled political exponents, with technical and financial support from the courts of the concerned major powers, starting from the Persians, the Romans, the Venetians, the Turks, the Germans, the British, the Americans and now again by the Germans and the Americans. Constant foreign intervention and the civil war conflict resulted in the almost incessant political instability, which in turn did not allow a cumulative economic growth. On the contrary, it was accompanied by successive major disasters in the infrastructure of the economy and by frequent movements of large populations which had as a result the continuous dependence and subjugation of Greece.
The question was whom will overhaul and in which fashion will such a control be reserved, that is to say, how? The [question] of whom is being derived between the EU and the USA, separately or in cooperation, without underestimating of course the ambitions of Russia and China to play a hegemonic, locally or globally, role. The [question] of how was not treated under the ambiguously one-dimensional tactics of “Butter stat Kanonen” (Butter or Canons), but with the flexible tactics of “Butter as well as Canons”. The success of that tactics was exemplar because, under the subscription of their “willing” collaborators of the Greek government, the hegemons loaded the country with overwhelming and abusive loans and because both sides that were signing these loans for the purchase of useless armaments and Defence Systems or for the “facilitation” of luxurious product imports from the capitalist metropolises; hence, both sides were aware of the fact that the Greek people didn’t know and didn’t approve these loans and, moreover, these loans were not serving the actual needs of the Greek people.
    In this way, the conquest of Greece via bankruptcy took the form of Memorandums, new loans and harsh austerity instead of “treaties of surrender” as in war defeats. The consequences of the involvements were equally destructive for the economy of the country and Greek society as with those of a destructive military defeat. The overcoming of these destructions and this new and permanent enslaving defeat presupposes a modern Social and National Liberation Front and a new long-standing resistance that overcomes ideologies, personalities, [political] parties and the parliament and acts in the field of new institutions and structures that gradually formulate the new society of equality within the society of inequality which we want to change. The Greek people, mythicized as Hercules, was always achieving in respective conditions to overcome the crises and to retrieve the road towards the direction of “man is the measure of all things”. Furthermore, the Greek people was always achieving to reweave the destroyed social web and to give new dimensions and perspectives in humanity’s visions for a better world. And it will happen this time again, no matter how difficult it may be, whatever sacrifices may be needed.

2.                       In our days, the question is not an unattainable “better” capitalism, but an attainable, necessary and unavoidably better world

The pro-memorandum conquerors pursue new accomplished facts and anticipate the subordination of the Greek people to their programs and their goals, in the contexts of a loot-capitalism that is controlled at a metropolitan level, a politically castrated parliament and a corrupted party system which doesn’t negate capitalism and paternalism essentially but, on the contrary, promises to the Capital a “better” management of public affairs by misguiding the electorate with the promotion in the foreground of “new incorruptible personalities” and “radical left parties”. The result is, to a lesser or greater extent, the mistrust of the Greek people towards the bourgeois parliament, the challenging of the capitalist system as a whole and the disallowance of delegation of the exclusive responsibility of government formation to a single political party. In parallel, the Greek people do not stand with folded arms. On the contrary, they participate by hundreds of thousands in demonstrations in public squares and streets and posit daily the issue of the alternative from the capitalist crisis as an exit from capitalism through the tendency of Direct Democracy in the sense – and under the perspective – of Classless Society.
When this movement of Direct Democracy, a) was treated as a nightmare by the “ruling class” and b) faced the shameless hostility of the totality of the system of power and the chokingly harassing “friendship” of various social-democratic and other “left” authoritative parties, then it decided to retreat from the public squares but not to disappear in general, as many would want to argue. Nowadays, we come in contact with it in the form of thousands of collectivities that either reappropriate the abandoned public or private spaces and act as institutions of social solidarity, political counter-information, culture and art, or promote direct socialization, that is to say, the cellular action of democratic, self-organized, solidaire and even non-monetary social economy that de-commodities human relations by acting outside and against the capitalist market. Moreover, we come in contact with it as a re-localization in the form of eco-communities that re-conceptualize the relations and the forms of social cohabitation without hierarchically organized power structures[5]. Lastly, we come in contact with it as laboratories of social and scientific experimentation that are expanded from the field of research to:
a) the implementation of independence in the section of energy-use[6],
b) the liberation of software,
c) 3D printing,
d) the socialization of Internet for the liberation of information and
e) free communications,
and many other forms of intervention that aim to the extension of the spectrum of free and common goods, actions that change in a fundamental and at the same time peaceful way, the relations of production and hence the social relations and structure.
Of course, the parliamentary system defames these new social movements when it cannot control and destroy them under the guidance of police enforcement. It seems that the forces of Labour, Science and Culture, more and more, gradually realize that these social movements should be protected from the totality of the system and party paternalism, in order to function as catalysts that transform the chemistry of the morbid individualist Ego into chemistry of the social, united, powerful and liberational Us/We, in the contexts of which the Ego is being brought to fruition as a social and individual Self that makes useless the religious, political, entrepreneurial, football-club and other identities which are alien to the real interests of the society of the working classes. In the 21st century, the liberation of the forces of Labour, Science and Culture from the dehumanized and disastrous capitalism is possible, necessary and unavoidable if it will be assigned by these forces themselves and if they won’t delegate it one more time to contractors and mediators. Every other option of salvation by “messiah leaders”, political parties – “rescuers” or “left governments” that promise a better and “respectable” capitalism and “good” global hegemons is nothing but a new illusion that still holds Prometheus Bound and grounded into the rocks in order to feed the vultures of capital with his continuously renewed nutrient liver.

3.                       The promise for a “left management” of capitalism is a fraud and a chimera.

In the 20th century, many believed that the soviet model of state capitalism,  as it was formulated in the end by the soviet nomenclature – with Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin as its architects –, was constituting the alternative against actually existing capitalism. Until the second betrayal of the October Revolution took place, as a peaceful passage from “actually existing socialism” to real, existing and manic capitalism of the so called “free market”, and as a result the discussion for the Humanist Socialism under the form of Direct Democracy and under the content of Classless Society started to revitalize, as the only and necessary solution against the intensified contradiction between the advanced forces of production and the backward capitalist relations of production. Every political proposal that could not or did not want to overcome the conservatism of the neo-classical economic proposition and the neoliberal political solutions on the one hand, and the ideologies of Second, Third and Fourth International on the other, is a trap for the forces of Labour, Science and Culture, even if it’s hidden under the labels of an allegedly “orthodox”, “radical” and “revolutionary” left. And, of course, things don’t change even if every political proposal – like the aforementioned – wears a black, green, pink or red anticapitalist cloak, because the only genuine anticapitalist proposal is that of the forces of Labour, Science and Culture that, in the place of actually existing capitalism, want, are able and know how to construct the Society of Equals, that is to say, the Classless Society upon the basis of common ownership and social self-management and nothing less from that.
After the dramatic and continuous failures of the two ruling parties (PASOK and ND), the party apparatus Coalition for a Radical Left (SYRIZA) appeared as the parameter of plenty left organizations which were the fragments of the serial disintegrations that occurred in the erstwhile potent, dogmatic and pro-soviet Communist Party of Greece (KKE) that which, with its disastrous policy, imposed the Yalta Agreement upon a people which – through their anti-fascist and social-liberational resistance – used to occupy 95% of the country. KKE contends itself with a symbolic parliamentary presence without contesting the political power neither with parliamentary nor with revolutionary means, as it just waits for the people to gain the power and then transfer it to itself. SYRIZA on the contrary aims to claim the political power with the usage of parliamentary procedures. Among the multitude of SYRIZA Coalition’s components, some were, according to their statement, oriented towards Direct Democracy (the most prominent being Manolis Glezos’ Active Citizens Movement). SYRIZA – as a multilingual federation of political organizations – gradually obtained a powerful access inside the universities thanks to the powerful presence of its members to the academic status quo of the country (due to their relations with the Panhellenic Socialist Movement and especially the “Simitis’s” faction) and achieved in a relatively short period – and under the assistance of some mass media that support the regime – to manifest an “anti-dogmatic” left and neokeynesian social-democratic face and with that face achieved to coil behind it an important part of Greek society. In its effort to increase its influence upon Greek society and without being capable (or, perhaps without wanting) to express the left of the 21st century, namely the humanist left of Direct Democracy, it copied and pasted the PASOK; but SYRIZA, in their effort to gain influence in the middle class (i.e. small entrepreneurs, low level industrialists and the general conservative middle class part of society) copied and pasted the greedy for power, neoliberal, decadent and bankrupt PASOK and as a result it has stuck in second place with regard to the preferences of the electorate body. However, it knows very well the fashion in which it could climb in the first place and performs as many compromises that are necessary for that, strengthening its ties with the European and global hegemonies. So, recently, SYRIZA did whatever the system suggested for the political management of capitalism and thus it did two steps backwards by abolishing the autonomy of the components of the Coalition that actually had created SYRIZA and transformed itself into a classic bourgeois political party that is hierarchically organized and divided between professional executives and members-fans; however, SYRIZA didn’t achieve until now to muzzle every internal voice of its components. By adopting actually, for purely electoral reasons, all of the requests and slogans of the social cancers, that is to say the powerful and vulgar guilds that disorientate the society from its own vision, it automatically lost its political autonomy by tumbling into an apolitique  populism and by promising things that under capitalist conditions are impossible – something that characterizes all the bourgeois political parties. This demagoguery accompanied by attempts to impose the so-called 'democratic centralism' in order to contain internal party democracy has reached such a point that forced the veteran leftist fighter, Manolis Glezos, to disagree with the mutation of SYRIZA into an elitist club, ie a leading party, and even to confess publicly that SYRIZA has not yet convinced itself about where its going to find the money to fulfill its political program[7].
All these indicate that SYRIZA chose to be a bourgeois leftist party in a bourgeois parliament and not a social catalyst for a left society that chooses to exceed the capitalist system on a path of direct democratic reconstruction  of the institutions, and the economic and social structures that will guarantee social self-management and classless society.
A characteristic example of SYRIZA’s bilinguity is the contradiction among its leading executives – where in their face various rallies of organized party (and, of course, extra-party) forces are expressed – with regard to the top issue that concerns the relation of Greece with the European Union and the Eurozone. Thus, the official position of SYRIZA that is being expressed by Tsipras is that “Greece will not leave and must not leave the Eurozone. The exit of Greece from Eurozone will not be detrimental only for Greece, but dangerous for the EU itself”[8]. The same opinion is expressed by the economic mastermind of SYRIZA Giannis Dragasakis who considers, under the current circumstances, the withdrawal of the country from the Eurozone and the return to – the former national currency of Greece – the Drachma[9] as something disastrous; on the contrary, the so called “Left Platform”, under the guidance of Panagiotis Lafazanis, claims that the exit of Greece from the EU and the Eurozone would be beneficial for the country and, therefore, the return to the Drachma would be also beneficial[10]. Of course, the obscurity and the multilingualism may add some voters in favour of the party of the loyal opposition, but the question remains for SYRIZA: which one out of SYRIZA’s plenty proposals for each issue will be implemented when SYRIZA will form a government and how will this occur without compromises and political partnerships with other parties, without the loss of the trust of the electorate and without a political breakup.
[SYRIZA], in its formally social-democratic program[11], criticizes strictly the superstructure, that is the political, and only on skin deep level the socio-economic system of Capital and, moreover, talks about a political[12] change and not a social one; and when they talk about direct democracy, it is not perceived as social self-management and classless society, but as a decorative supplement of representative democracy[13]. They also talk about socialism: “For us, socialism is … inextricably connected with democracy; democracy not merely in the formal sense, but always essentially; indirect democracy that is based on representation but also direct democracy under the active participation of everyone”[14]. SYRIZA, as a faded social-democracy, attempts to have the whole cake and eat it too but this is something that concerns either demagogues or illusionists in kindergartens.
Usually, they refuse the validity of the Memorandums, they also curse but not refuse the validity of capitalism and it is more than obvious that the leading nucleus of SYRIZA does not ignore that capitalism produces memorandums and not vice versa, and, as a result, one cannot abolish capitalism by simple abolishing or by renegotiating the memorandums. But SYRIZA doesn’t seem to be disturbed by capitalism and what is at stake for them is the “defeat of the policy of memorandums and a governmental change[15], that is to say, to replace the government. Without a solid political plan for an anticapitalistic and direct democratic social reconstruction, but with a bourgeois and strictly verbalistic leftist radicalism, struggles for the climbing, under parliamentary means, to the political power in order to provide Capitalism with a “left government” or even a grand coalition government together with the right-wing party New Democracy (ND)[16], something that will have the cost of popular legitimization due to the fact that the people will be treated simply as a bunch of voters behind the options of one or another hegemon of the area. The leading nucleus and the authoritative apparatus of SYRIZA – and, of course, not their voters – ignore or simply don’t care that a policy like this may throw the country into the embrace of Americanism[17] once more (a process that signals a new disaster for Greece), that which, since the distribution of the western Balkans to Germany after the NATOic dissolution of Yugoslavia, seems to pursue the role of Gauleiter for Greece in the eastern Balkans, something that will finalize the American control over them. SYRIZA also desires to ignore that Americanism, accompanied by Neogermanism[18], doesn’t care for the abolishment of memorandums but for the destabilization and the dissolution of the EU, because there is a fear that sooner or later the European peoples will achieve to free themselves from Americanism, Neogermanism and the reactionary directorate of the EU and will transform the EU from “Europe of Capital” to “Europe of the Peoples” which will be based on Social Justice and Direct Democracy; hence, things will acquire a different dynamics and will follow the road of the definitive global overthrow of capitalism.
Under these conditions, such a political party will rise into the position of “government formation” through the same rules that every bourgeois party does, that is, only when the grand economic interests will certify that they won’t face any problems, and will be forced to govern or co-govern against the society and through an alliance with the traditional collaborators of Capital – even with New Democracy as some of the leading executives of SYRIZA mention. So, SYRIZA, after its contribution to the system with some services of relief from social pressure and of legitimization of the policies for a “better” capitalism, will become useless or even annoying to the system and will be treated like the neoliberal PASOK by the system as well as the voters. But, such a development will signal a new punch to the popular movement and those who think that a new defeat of the popular movement could constitute a new “revolutionary” opportunity for the popular movement are wrong. On the contrary, the possible outcome of this process would be the eviction of the popular movement due to this new “tactical mistake” by the bourgeois and the petty-bourgeois left and the control of the country by a few domestic Neo-Nazi, New World Order and NATOic fascist forces.
In the historical unfolding of bourgeois parliamentarism it has been proved that the dominant economic power and the respective “protecting power” create new parties, lift them into political “power” to do the dirty work and once they are used up, then the “protecting powers” traduce and disband them by forming military juntas in order to gain some time and re-construct new parties through the demolition materials so that the game of the misdirection of the peoples will continue to be played. This story, that is being repeated as a misfortune of the forces of Labour, Science and Culture, should become a lesson for them in order to undertake their historical role as the liberators of themselves and, simultaneously, to stop waiting for their liberation from bourgeois parliaments and authoritative “avant-garde” parties.
The 21st century offers all the objective conditions for the direct-democratic liberation of Labour, Science and Culture, as a result of the struggle and sacrifices of thousands of previous generations that is crystallized in modern sciences and technologies. In this historical process the meaning and content of the Social movement and the Left will be constantly redefined. From the bourgeois, social-democratic left of neoliberal capitalism and the dogmatic Third and Fourth International left of state monopoly capitalism, societies begin to move towards social and humanistic direct democracy left as a final answer against the fascism, imperialism and any form of class-oriented, exploitative, inhumane and destructive power.
4.                        From the “Left avant-gardes” of 19th and 20th century to the society of the Left of 21st century
Across from the plummet of the capitalist system and its political representatives, the social forces of Labour, Science and Culture reorientate, reconstitute themselves and attempt to formulate the necessary public space and to trigger a new fruitful public debate. Those who, individually or collectively, participate in this debate are various social networks and collectives, citizens which are politically oriented towards an anti-parliamentary Left, people that are discontented from the so-called Left and the progressive parties, neomarxists, neocommunists, situationists and “council communists”, “anarcho-autonomists”, anarchists and antiauthoritarians that struggle for an abstract democracy or for “anarchy” and “libertarian communism”; all of the aforementioned have in mind a certain figure of direct democracy. In parallel to the debate, the participants strive – under a series of multiform and multileveled collective activities – to implement a small-scale direct democracy by whatever means through their experiences and the knowledge they acquire through them and, as a result, they try to change the topic of the social dialogue, slowly but surely, in favour of direct democracy by moving from the abstract to the definite and from the conceptualization of Direct Democracy to specific democratic forms of action and cohabitation.
The relation of those social movements and forces with the so-called central-left (PASOK, DIMAR) and Left (KKE, ANTARSYA) parties and as well as with SYRIZA is a relation of rivalry because there is absolute cosmotheoretical and, hence, programmatic objection that leads to a “mouse – mousetrap” relation in which some of the inexperienced actors (movements and networks) become victims of their own good faith approach to the political parties that consciously make an effort to consume them in their ranks. But the majority of the political actors that constitute the aforementioned new social movements, which are experienced actors to some extent, appear in a continuous polemics with SYRIZA's politics and with the party's “mechanisms of planning”. They perceive SYRIZA's “mechanisms of coordination” as structures that manipulate the content of the new social movements and that downgrade them into the levels of a foyer for the recruitment of voters. This is the only way that SYRIZA could be nominated as the “Left manager of Capital”. It should be considered as a fact that a foreseen rise of SYRIZA into the given structures of power, the polemics between SYRIZA and the social movements will culminate till the complete unravelling of SYRIZA's bourgeois character. Such an involvement might lead to the strengthening of the new social movements and the tendencies that promote the dialogue for direct democracy will increase, both quantitatively and qualitatively, into a higher level of collective planning and actions that will open the perspectives for a local, regional and global solidarity and cooperation; this is essential because direct democracy does not have many possibilities of success at a local (in the strict sense) or even at a national level. It must be realised that Direct Democracy is the expression of social solidarity and equality at a local level and the realisation of the ecumenicality of humankind and human civilisation.
Some voices that consider the alliance between these social movements and SYRIZA as necessary or even propose the construction of the Party of Social Movements – or, the Party of Direct Democracy[19] – are either naïve or suspicious because such an option will lead the new social movements to a commitment of a political suicide due to the fact that their historical role has nothing to do with the political game of bourgeois parliamentarism. On the contrary, their role needs to remain autonomous towards a struggle for the leftization of society and against the leftization of capital. The current historical circumstances do not demand “improvement policies” but a definitive and a universal repeal of the decadent capitalist system; they demand, in addition, the abolition of the backward relations of production and the development of new relations that will be equivalent to the advanced forces of productions which, in the present era of 21st century, are capable of establishing social equality, Direct Democracy and Classless Society. The struggle for Direct Democracy is not a “speed race” for the seizure of power under the ideological hegemony of bourgeois democracy but, on the contrary, it is a “marathon race” for the moral, ideological, political and operational disarmament of the capitalist system, that is to say, it is a struggle for the maturation of the majority of the people that live in contemporary societies towards social self-management and classless society and, as a result, the subversion of every form of power.
5.                        From Class-Based Social Inequality to Classless Social Equality
The heroic story of the National Liberation Front (EAM), which achieved, qualitatively speaking, the leftization of the Greek people at a great extent, was not only caused by the patriotism of the Greek people against the fascists and Nazi occupiers. Anyone who knows the history of national resistance of Greece probably should know the crucial role of EAM’s “Code Poseidon” [20], which was the code name for the “Instructions for Popular Self-Administration and for Popular Justice” that abolished every form of local governance and cancelled every state-centered or occupational command by designating the Local Assembly of the People into the sovereign political unit of each local society. It was exactly this new revolutionary perception for social self-management and direct democracy that started – with self-organization, expropriation of large property and self-administration of the Communities – in a small mountain village of the municipality of Evritania around 1942 and, thereafter, it was quickly developed in the whole country and boosted EAM and ELAS’s resistance leading to the gradual liberation of most of the Greek territory from the German Occupation. The internal sabotage of EAM by its leadership and therefore by KKE, was the swan song of resistance which, although it defeated the foreign occupiers, due to the compromises and the subordination of its leadership to the Yalta Agreement (1945), was defeated by the internal occupiers and therefore paved the road for the degradation of Greece into another U.S. protectorate.
This reference to history took place in order to give a definite answer to those which, by ignorance or self-interest, question the existence of popular political consciousness and treat societies as a sheep drove (as “the masses”) that allegedly don’t have class and revolutionary consciousness and that, as a result, they need shepherds or wise avant-gardes in order to gain their liberty. Given that contemporary conditions start to look like those of the Nazi occupation, and, in addition to the progressively evolved removal of the people from the parliamentary system and the parallel pursuit of solutions outside the capitalist system, it may be rightful to anticipate an explosion of the popular consciousness towards a new leap onwards for a better world, the world of social equality and direct democracy. The Future does not exist until we create it but it is also known that history is moving in the direction of the “arrow of time”[21], due to the compression of the solid social bulk of the forces of Labour, Science and Culture, slowly and even sometimes with manoeuvres and steps backwards but in the end surely, beginning from the Past towards the Future, from the actually existing situation of our times towards a better situation and from the anti-human and disastrous capitalism towards classless democracy[22] and Universal Humanism. In this sense, a better world is being born by making the old one useless. It is the world of the spiritually, ideologically, intellectually, politically, organizationally and functionally self-emancipated forces of Labour, Science and Culture; it is the world of social equality. Let’s open our eyes and let’s admire this new world. Let’s use our hands in order to construct it, complete it and make it truly ours once and for all.
The conclusion is that, as history teaches that as there is no individual salvation in capitalism, so there can be no salvation for a single country in conditions of imperialist globalization, hence the struggle can only be collective and international. In the 21st century, the first word gradually stops to belong to the economic elites and their parliaments, as well as the petty bourgeois 'left' parties and passes on to the independent forces of Labour, Science and Culture, which become more progressive against the institutions, the structures and all the functions of the capitalist productive model and its’ supporting bourgeois political system. Until the completion of this historical process, in which the classless so-called “utopia” is, objectively and subjectively, a necessary, feasible and inevitable fact, a lot can happen and Greece, Europe, and Humanity still have much to suffer until they realise that the degradation that capitalism brings to humanity must be overcome and the simultaneous building of a direct democracy within the context of a classless society are essential steps towards an ecumenical humanist culture[23].

[1] I would like to thank Thanos Georgilas for coordination, Nikolaos Gkimpiritis for translating from Greek and Dimitris-Nicolas Lampos for editing of this text.
[2] prodial21@gmail.com
[3] Lambos Kostas D., Abhängigkeit und fortgeschritene Unterentwicklung dargestellt am Beispiel der Landwirtschaft Griechenlands, RITA G: FISCHER VERLAG, Frankfzrt am Main 1981, Lampos Kostas, Dependency, advanced underdevelopment and agricultural economy of Greece, ECHMI publication, Athens 1983.
[4] For the meaning and the importance of Eurasia, see, Brzezinski Zbignew, The Big Chessboard, LIVANIS publications, Athens 1998 & Brzezinski Zbignew, The Choice, LIVANIS publications, Athens 2005
[5] Kolempas Giorgos. Localisation. From universal to local. An ecological world is possible (Antigone Publications, Thessaloniki 2009).
[6] See, Lampos Kostas. Who’s afraid hydrogen? The hydrogen revolution, the free energy and liberation of humanity from fossil fuels and capitalist barbarism (NISSIDES Publication, Thessaloniki 2013). See also Rifkin Jeremy The hydrogen economy. The creation of the global energy net and the redistribution of authority in Earth. The next great financial revolt (LIVANIS Publication, Athens 2003).
[7] See statements of Manolis Glezos in the daily print and electronic media from 5-10/11/13.
[8] Alexis Tsipras, speaking at a round table held at the University of Austin in Texas, United States of America, on "can save the Euro and Europe? , See daily printed and electronic press on 5 and 6 November 2013.
[9] «I want to be clear. Return to drachma under the E.U., with existing correlations, from the working classes view; it means continuation of the hard frugality with other means». Dragasakis Giannis Drachma means brutal frugality with other means, at:  http://tvxs.gr/news/ellada/gdragasakis-draxmi-simainei-agria-litotita-me-alla-mesa
[10] See Karalis Spyros, Lafazanis Amendments for the leftwing turn of SYRIZA, in: ELEFTHEROTYPIA newspaper, Friday July 12 2013.
[11] «It’s a program that laying the groundwork for the reform of political system» (and obviously not the overthrow of the capitalist system), referred into Founding Declaration of SYRIZA, and also into the Political Decision of the Congress of SYRIZA, July 2013.
[12] «SYRIZA is here to organize the democratic subversion of the political system and the structure that support it, for the opening the road to a Leftwing government», referred a.b.
[13] « A number of issues of jurisdiction and must be left to the responsibility of stakeholders under direct democracy, while the direct involvement ... control institutions, the practice and institutions of representative democracy», stated ibid.
[14] Referred a. b.
[15] A. b.
[16] According to statements of SYRIZA M.of P. Petros Tatsopoulos, see newspaper PROTO THEMA, of 08.07.2013.
[17] See, Lampos Kostas, Americanism and globalization. Economy of fear and decadence, PAPAZISIS publication, Athens 2009.
[18] Lampos Kostas, Neogermanismus: Der neue Albtraum Europas? (Der Dekalog der Griechen), in: http://lefthumanism.blogspot.gr/2012/02/normal-0-false-false-false.html and Neogermanism. The new nightmare of Europe? (The Decalogue of Greeks), POLITES magazine, issues 35/February 2012 and 36/March 2012.
[19] There are already around forty controversial and Person movements, organizations and parties 'leadership', which directly or indirectly on direct democracy, but cut off from society and rivals such as the end result turns out to be negative.
[20] Tsouparopoulos Thanasis. The people’s democracy institutions of the National Resistance, GLAROS publication, Athens 1989, Manolis Glezos, National Resistance 1940-1945, volumes 2, STOHASTIS publication, Athens 2009 & Mpeikos Georgoulas, The people’s authority in liberated Greece, THEMELIO, Athens 1979, volumes 2.
[21] Prigogine Ilya, The laws of chaos, Travlos publication, Athens 2003 and Prigogine Ilya and Stengers Isabel, Order in from the chaos. The new dialog of man of Nature, KEDROS publication, Athens 1986.
[22] See on, Lampos Kostas, Classless Democracy and Ecumanical Humanism during 21st century, in: Direct Democracy at 21st century, NISSIDES publication, Thessaloniki 2013. See also, Lampos Kostas, Capitalist barbarism or Classless Democracy?, at Festival of Direct Democracy, Thessaloniki 2013, http://www.anixneuseis.gr/?p=75155 και http://tvxs.gr/news/egrapsan-eipan/kapitalistiki-barbarotita-i-ataksiki-dimokratia-toy-kosta-lampoy
[23] See Lampos Kostas, Direct Democracy and Classless Society, NISSIDES publication, Thessaloniki 2012.

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου