Greek MP Costas Lapavitsas on the economic barriers ahead for Syriza and the challenges of eurozone exit.
...
Concretely, we’re talking about rationing, aren’t we?
Yes, we’re talking about a process of rationing.
...
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/lapa ... it-syriza/
Let’s talk a little bit about Varoufakis to the extent that you can. Of course, there’s been enormous media babble around Varoufakis, around his personality, his style, and so on. And there’s also been some serious pieces about him, by Michael Roberts for example, called “More Erratic than Marxist.” First of all, what sort of role did Varoufakis play on the Greek left prior to the election of Syriza?
I know that there’s been a lot of pieces on Varoufakis and his lifestyle and what he stands for, and I don’t really want to comment on that. This is for others to do. Not now — possibly later (the impact it has had on politics and so on.)
As for whether he’s a Marxist or a radical or so on, I would recommend more discerning judgement in the use of the term “Marxist,” particularly by people who make a name for themselves as Marxists because they use certain words and they talk a lot about Marxism, whereas the substance of their analysis is the most pedestrian economic and politics that one can imagine. So greater restraint in calling or not calling people “Marxist,” please. This is no longer university amphitheater politics — this is real, okay?
So Varoufakis himself: I’ve known Varoufakis for a long time as an economist, of course. I don’t think you can call him a man of the Left in the sense of the radical or certainly not the revolutionary left, not in the sense that we would recognize in this country, but he is certainly a man who belongs to the left of center.
He’s always been that. He’s always been heterodox and critical in his economics. He’s always been a man who has rejected neoclassical economics and neoclassical theory in his work. And he’s always been ready to come up with policy advice which was outside the box and ready to think about alternative paths.
These are all pluses, in my book. However, when you look at his trajectory, you have to recognize that he was also an adviser to the government of George Papandreou, which was the first government that introduced the bailout policies in Greece, and he remained associated with them for a significant length of time. So in that sense, I don’t think you can call him a man of the Left in any systematic way.
Diadochos έγραψε:Καρφώνει άσχημα το ΒαρουφάκηLet’s talk a little bit about Varoufakis to the extent that you can. Of course, there’s been enormous media babble around Varoufakis, around his personality, his style, and so on. And there’s also been some serious pieces about him, by Michael Roberts for example, called “More Erratic than Marxist.” First of all, what sort of role did Varoufakis play on the Greek left prior to the election of Syriza?
I know that there’s been a lot of pieces on Varoufakis and his lifestyle and what he stands for, and I don’t really want to comment on that. This is for others to do. Not now — possibly later (the impact it has had on politics and so on.)
As for whether he’s a Marxist or a radical or so on, I would recommend more discerning judgement in the use of the term “Marxist,” particularly by people who make a name for themselves as Marxists because they use certain words and they talk a lot about Marxism, whereas the substance of their analysis is the most pedestrian economic and politics that one can imagine. So greater restraint in calling or not calling people “Marxist,” please. This is no longer university amphitheater politics — this is real, okay?
So Varoufakis himself: I’ve known Varoufakis for a long time as an economist, of course. I don’t think you can call him a man of the Left in the sense of the radical or certainly not the revolutionary left, not in the sense that we would recognize in this country, but he is certainly a man who belongs to the left of center.
He’s always been that. He’s always been heterodox and critical in his economics. He’s always been a man who has rejected neoclassical economics and neoclassical theory in his work. And he’s always been ready to come up with policy advice which was outside the box and ready to think about alternative paths.
These are all pluses, in my book. However, when you look at his trajectory, you have to recognize that he was also an adviser to the government of George Papandreou, which was the first government that introduced the bailout policies in Greece, and he remained associated with them for a significant length of time. So in that sense, I don’t think you can call him a man of the Left in any systematic way.
Let’s talk about seeing them off then! You’ve published a book with Heiner Flassbeck that goes through the various steps that you see would be necessary for an alternative to the current strategy. There also are some questions I have about those steps, and people have also sent me questions. Some of the objections are pretty obvious. But presumably the most urgent step would be capital controls, which are compatible also with membership in the EU?
I firmly believe that the negotiations in February would have had a different result not only if the government had been aware of the trap but had also been prepared to take action to not fall into it. Negotiations have a very different outcome if the other side realizes that you’ve got an alternative in your hands and you’re determined to follow it if need be.
That you can press the nuclear button if you want to?
That’s it! That’s a very important point. Because, if you tell them that you’re not prepared to press the nuclear button, as you say, then obviously you weaken yourself enormously.
Diego έγραψε:Βασικά η ρητορική του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ ήταν επαμφοτερίζουσα ήδη λίγο πριν τις εκλογές:
Diadochos έγραψε:Και ο Παναγιωτακόπουλος στο πασοκ, αλήθειες έλεγε, αλλά αυτό δεν τον κάνει λιγότερο μπαγαπόντη πασόκο. Για τον Λαπαβίτσα βέβεια είναι νωρίς για να πει κάποιος κάτι τέτοιο. Αν συνεχίσει να λέει αυτά που σωστά λέει και στο μέλλον, αλλά παράλληλα παραμείνει σε κόμμα που κυβερνάει και εφαρμόζει μνημίνιο, θα πρόκειται περί μπαγαπόντη.
Κράζει και για το ότι πήγαν στην διαπραγμάτευση του Γιούρογκρουπ χωρίς κανένα όπλο στα χέρια τους, χωρίς Plan B, με αποτέλεσμα να στηθούν στα τέσσερα:Let’s talk about seeing them off then! You’ve published a book with Heiner Flassbeck that goes through the various steps that you see would be necessary for an alternative to the current strategy. There also are some questions I have about those steps, and people have also sent me questions. Some of the objections are pretty obvious. But presumably the most urgent step would be capital controls, which are compatible also with membership in the EU?
I firmly believe that the negotiations in February would have had a different result not only if the government had been aware of the trap but had also been prepared to take action to not fall into it. Negotiations have a very different outcome if the other side realizes that you’ve got an alternative in your hands and you’re determined to follow it if need be.
That you can press the nuclear button if you want to?
That’s it! That’s a very important point. Because, if you tell them that you’re not prepared to press the nuclear button, as you say, then obviously you weaken yourself enormously.
Diego έγραψε:Βασικά η ρητορική του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ ήταν επαμφοτερίζουσα ήδη λίγο πριν τις εκλογές: Μιλαγε πως θα σκισει το μνημονιο αλλα παραλληλα θα εκανε μεταρρυθμισεις με ισοσκελισμενο προυπολογισμο. Και κανεις δεν βρεθηκε τοτε να ρωτησει σε τι ακριβως θα διεφερε το δευτερο σκελος απο το μνημονιο.
Diadochos έγραψε:Diego έγραψε:Βασικά η ρητορική του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ ήταν επαμφοτερίζουσα ήδη λίγο πριν τις εκλογές:
Αυτά που λέει ο Λαπαβίτσας δεν είναι επίσημη ρητορική του σύριζα. Εδώ εκφράζει προσωπικές απόψεις, μειοψηφικές, τέτοιες που δεν έχει κανείς στο περιβάλλον εξουσίας του Τσίπρα. Η ρητορική του σύριζα είναι δεν μπορούμε να σκεφτούμε την ζωή έξω απο την Ε.Ε. και το Ευρώ.
