Greece—What Democracy?
We are of course concerned that the already limited trade union and democratic rights of workers in Greece have been suppressed. But an awful lot of nonsense is talked about “democracy” in Greece.
Of course, most of this came from the Left Wing, so many of whom are highly selective in their denunciation of dictatorships, and whose names appear monotonously and inevitably at such times on numerous petitions, motions and letters to the press.
On the Right, too, there were protests. In a letter to The Times of 10 May Sir John Foster, Conservative M.P. for Northwich, wrote:
. . . it must be a matter of anxiety that these reprehensible features, such as the death penalty for political crimes, which were abolished by Article 18 (of the Greek Constitution) are now restored.
It would be interesting to know why these take-overs, of which there have been so many in recent years, always produce the same reaction. It is predictable that a government which comes out of a coup will clamp down hard, because for a time it is bound to feel itself insecure. And all the protesters are in favour of firm government, aren’t they?
Apart from this, all the protests overlook a basic, important question. What sort of “democracy” is it which can overwhelmed by a coup?
A set up which deserves the name democratic is not just a matter of people going to vote at specified times, though this is important. It also entails free access to information, and a conscious participation in the organising of society.
At the moment, what is called democracy consists of a politically apathetic working class occasionally having a say in which type of private property government shall run the coercive state machine of capitalism for the next few years.
Even by the standards of political activity in this country, the “democracy” in Greece was a very frail flower, with roots unnourished by working class enlightenment It is not surprising that it was so vulnerable.
The Common Market
It was no surprise that Harold Wilson described the British application to join the Common Market as a “great turning point in history.” Politicians, especially politicians like Wilson, are fond of such phrases; they know that while the working class have their attention focussed on the horizons of history they are not likely to be worrying so much about their immediate problems like frozen wages.
Of course Wilson is not interested in fundamental changes in history; a turning point from capitalism to Socialism would be altogether too great for him.
His business is to manage the affairs of the British capitalist class as a whole, and it necessary to sacrifice some industries in the interests of others.
This will probably be one result, if Britain joins Europe. Wilson expects British agriculture to suffer; “Undoubtedly,” he said, “the community's policy will create problems for some of our smaller farmers.” But he also hopes for an “. . . enormous and growing market for our own more sophisticated and technological products. . . .”
This rosy picture of Europe as an ever-expanding market takes no account of the fact that the countries already in the EEC are by no means free of economic troubles.
West Germany, for example, has just come through a sombre winter in which, although it was not as bad as many observers were expecting a few months back, unemploymfent rose from 216,000 in November last to 673,600 in February this year, falling to 501,303 in April.
The Common Market cannot solve capitalism's built-in contradictions. Neither can it ease the problems of the working class. Whether it causes a rise in the cost of living, whether it is Wilson's great occasion or Michael Foot's disaster, the workers in this country will not need long to discover what their counterparts on the Continent have had to face.
It will make no difference to them at all.
Election Results
In both local and Parliamentary by-elections, the Labour Party is taking a hammering. It was apt comment on the present government, that their policies should be responsible for losing the apparently impregnable fortress of Inner London to the Tories, after over thirty years of Labour rule.
Whatever excuses may be offered, the fact is that the voters were all expressing an opinion on Harold Wilson’s heaven.
They don’t like it.
They were also telling the world what they think of Labour's promises.
They don't believe them.
Labour said, in October 1964 and again in March 1966, that they would bring in an era of dynamic expansion; it was all a simple matter of planning. In the event they brought industrial stagnation, unemployment, the wage freeze.
In the GLC election they said they would guide us onto “The Best Way” — to get more homes, to get out of traffic chaos, to have more fun.
The voters did not think these promises were any more likely to be kept than those of 1964 and 1966, and there was no reason for them to do so.
The Labour Party are exposed as a political fraud, all over the country and at all levels of political control. The tragedy, though, is that the voters have turned from them to another, equally discredited and futile, party of capitalism.
The Tories make the same sort of promises as Labour, and their record of breaking their word is as bad. Presumably, when the inevitable disillusionment comes, the voters will turn back to the Labour Party once more.
This is what is called the swing of the pendulum. But watching a pendulum incessantly swinging can bring on something like hypnosis. It is time the workers came out of their trance.
1 comment:
That's from the June 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard done and dusted.
Post a Comment