Tariq Ali: Syriza Is Not Doing Enough for Greece
Thursday, 02 July 2015 00:00 By Michael Nevradakis, Truthout | Interview
Alexis Tsipras, leader of the Syriza party, giving a pre-election speech on
May 21, 2014 in Thessaloniki, Greece. (Photo: Ververidis Vasilis /
Shutterstock.com)
As negotiations between Greece's Syriza-led government and the "troika"
unfolded, Truthout spoke with world-renowned author and analyst Tariq Ali.
In this interview, Ali discusses the first months of the Syriza-led
government in Greece, explains why he believes that Syriza has not done
enough to stand up to the demands of the troika, and shares his own proposal
for a referendum that would directly place the issue of Greece's eurozone
membership on the table.
Michael Nevradakis: There was a great deal of hope regarding Syriza's
promises to reject economic austerity. You had expressed optimism in Syriza
prior to the Greek elections, but you have since adopted a more critical
stance toward Syriza. How do you evaluate its first months in office?
Tariq Ali: Everyone was hoping that they would be able to do much more. I am
perfectly aware of how difficult the situation is and would be for any party
of the left that won an election in any country in Europe today, because
they confront powerful and strong enemies who do not wish to have any
radical model of politics and economics succeed, or even move two steps
forward. They would rather destroy it, whatever the cost. And I think that
is what the EU [European Union] and, of course, the German leadership, which
is the strongest player in the EU, as well as the United States, are
attempting to do. The United States plays a "soft cop" or a "less hard cop,"
and the Germans are playing the "hard cop," and they're the ones who are
essentially formulating policies. I say this so that there's no
misunderstanding. We know what the problems are; we know that there's a big
campaign against Syriza within the EU. The way they've been spoken to, the
way their leaders have been addressed is nothing short of disgusting.
"I SEE IT AS THE LEFT'S INTERNATIONALIST DUTY TOWARDS GREECE AND OTHER
COUNTRIES TO BREAK THE LINK AND SAY THAT WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS
EUROPE."
So, why am I critical? My criticism is basically that they should have known
that this would be the response of Europe. They've wasted too much time, in
my opinion, traveling all over Europe and meeting politicians and prime
ministers who never were on their side in the first place, who in many
cases, [President François] Hollande in France, for example, campaigned
against them. And the notion that they could split off, if they really
believed it, it was crazy, that they could split off some of the EU
countries from the Germans. It didn't happen! It was very unlikely this
would happen, and even the countries who are facing the wrath of the EU and
doing their bidding, they were even more critical - the Portuguese, the
Irish - because they've capitulated.
Now, what could have been done, and what I've argued should have been done,
is that the Syriza government should have come back from the first round of
negotiations and told the people. Now, they said we can't do this because
these are confidential meetings, but hell, these are not confidential
meetings, because the Financial Times and other newspapers in Europe and
elsewhere know exactly what happened. They're getting leaks, and our side
hasn't been getting leaks at all. So that was a problem, that they didn't
come home and tell the people what was really going on.
A second problem, an even greater one, was that they attempted to pretend
that they were making progress. This was not the case. There was very little
progress made. And today, we are now at the crossroads in Greece, I fear. I
don't think they're going to get their demands, so the choice now is
capitulate, surrender, or default and fight back. And they have weakened
themselves if they're going to be forced into doing the latter, by not
telling people what has been going on for the last few months, and that is
my big criticism and deep worry about the situation in Greece.
Prior to the referendum, Syriza, in its first months in office, had proposed
the continuation of much of the previous austerity measures, and had stated
that lenders like the IMF and the European Central Bank would be repaid in
full. Meanwhile the country's privatization program has continued in
earnest. What do you make of these actions and these continued policies?
I disagree with them very strongly, especially the privatizations, which
people hate. It's a way to make money by using the crisis in Greece, and it
was attacked by Syriza during the election campaign and they pledged that
they wouldn't do it. [Greek Finance Minister Yanis] Varoufakis, who I know
slightly, is an intelligent economist but not a great politician, and
effectively, he thinks in an extremely narrow-minded way. No strategic
vision, which is very sad.
I don't agree with any of these measures taken, which you pointed out, and
the appointment of this ex-Pasok hackette to the IMF. I think it's a case in
point. I think what they're trying to do is move to the center, trying to
show people, "look, we're doing our best, we're nice, moderate people, but
still they're crushing us." I don't think anybody has any doubt about what
they're trying to prove inside Greece itself, but the situation now is such
that you can't play these games any longer. You have to choose. Surrender if
you want, but people will know that. You can say that this was the only
compromise solution we could get, but if it's basically caving in to the
demands of the EU elite, then it is a surrender, and it's a very, very
dangerous move because what it then shows the rest of Europe is "don't
bother participating in elections, nothing you can do is going to change
anything." And that then affects other radical groups in the Mediterranean
region and elsewhere. So I, of course, am not at all happy about this.
After over five years of austerity in Greece and in other crisis-stricken
countries in Europe, it is evident to many that these policies are not
working, at least for the economies and people of these countries. In your
opinion, why is there such a continued insistence on the part of the
European Union, the German government and the other so-called institutions
to continue pushing further austerity?
I think the reason is political, because no serious economist, or someone
who I regard as serious, and I mean bourgeoisie economists, are saying that
this is going to work. In fact, many of them, the Americans particularly,
but not just the Americans, even some of the economists in the Financial
Times, are saying that this is not going to work at all, that it is proving
disastrous, and that a new course is needed. But it's easy to say and it's
correct, but a new course, seriously pursued, would challenge the
fundamentals of neoliberal economists, because what the opponents are
proposing is effectively a form of Keynesianism, center Keynesians or
left-wing Keynesianism. And for them to permit this would be to accept a
defeat, and what they're frightened about is that it would open up a new
space for movements and radical currents, which would challenge them, and
they're not prepared to do that.
Secondly, they don't care. These are politicians and bankers who effectively
are keen on one thing, which is preserving and maintaining the level of
profits. They don't care a damn if people suffer. The 20th century world has
changed very drastically in this new century, and they feel no reason, they
don't feel threatened by anyone. So unless there was a revolutionary
upheaval or semi-revolutionary upheaval or political insurrections, they
will carry on like this. This is why Greece is so important. The Syriza
government, it's not too late still, should have said to the people of
Greece, "These are the choices on offer, and we're going to push a
referendum and there will be one question: Should we stay in the eurozone at
any cost?" That's the question you need. If the people say no, if the
eurozone and the politicians who control the euro make impossible demands,
then you have the right to leave. [The people of Greece] have to be told
very clearly, "These are the choices, and we were elected to fight against
what is being offered, and we've ended up not in a good position, but now
this is what we are proposing to do." The Europeans seem pretty confident
that Greece will capitulate, meaning if you look at the German press and the
French press, they don't think there's going to be too much resistance, and
that will create a crisis in countries of the south, and in Syriza.
In your view, what has the impact of IMF involvement in countries and
economies around the world been historically? Has any country, to your
knowledge, been able to return to prosperity or to emerge out of an economic
crisis with the policies that the IMF has prescribed?
No. On the contrary, it's put these countries in an even worse crisis; it's
heightened disparities in wealth, especially since the advent of neoliberal
economics, it has led to the virtual destruction of the social
infrastructure of many, many countries in different parts of the globe. The
only continent where they were resisted after having their way for many
decades is South America. First the Argentineans reneged on the debt and
reached an agreement to pay a tiny proportion of it. The Venezuelans
effectively pushed through a political insurrection by the ballot box, and
elected a leadership which destroyed, politically, the coalition parties
that had backed the IMF demands. Likewise Bolivia, likewise Ecuador, to a
certain extent. The Latin American continent, South America, has succeeded
in doing this. It has not happened anywhere in Europe.
The IMF's function is to defend economic orthodoxy, like Keynesianism as it
was in the 40s, 50s, 60s and to a certain extent in the early 70s, or if the
overall conception of what needs to be done changes in Washington and then a
new consensus is established that says that the way forward is
neoliberalism, privatizations, the entry of private capital into the most
hallowed domains of social provision, then that is what they push. They
never do anything that is in the interests of the countries to whom they're
lending money. Greece is a case in point.
We've seen recently the electoral victory of the conservatives in the United
Kingdom and their ambivalence toward the European Union; we've seen the rise
of far-right parties in much of Europe; we've seen also the EU's harsh
stance on the immigration issue, and of course, its continued inflexibility
when it comes to Greece and other crisis-hit countries when it comes to the
austerity measures being enforced. What do you believe the future of the
so-called "European Dream" will be, and do you believe that the EU even has
a future?
Well, the big problem is the left, by and large all over Europe, is very
confused on this issue in my opinion, which is one reason why people are
going to the far-right parties in some countries: I feel that while we're
all internationalists, and while a radical European Union or a social union
that helps each other is something very desirable, what we have got instead
is a shameful financialization of capital for defending exclusively the
interests of the wealthy and of punishing those who try and break out from
the system, and using the euro to effectively create a system, a neocolonial
system, where lots of small countries have no sovereignty at all.
The Balkan states minus Serbia, which has not yet been allowed in, are very
indicative of this crisis. Ireland is, Portugal is, to a certain extent some
of the less "important" countries are now themselves under huge pressure to
privatize and to push through what they laughably called "reforms," but what
they really are talking about is regressive measures to take more and more
rights, social rights, away from the working class and from the less
privileged sections of the population, in the interests of the bankers and
the hedge fund owners and the billionaires.
"THE ONLY SERIOUS CHOICE THAT WE HAVE IS TO DEFAULT AND TO CREATE A NEW
CURRENCY FOR INSIDE GREECE, WHILE RETAINING THE EURO AS THE TRADING
CURRENCY."
This is what the European Union has become: a machine to enhance the grip of
capital over politics, and as a result, democracy itself is now under threat
and the European Union, in my view, has become a deeply reactionary
institution. This is now very clear, and they're scared of allowing people
to vote. This is very interesting. A Guardian columnist who used to work for
Le Monde the other day said, "the danger of having a referendum in Britain
is that the French might demand one too." Well, the French did demand one on
the constitution and rejected it, despite the fact that the entire media was
in favor of it. So we will see what happens.
My own opinion is that I certainly will not be voting in favor of the
European Union. I mean, I think for anyone on the left to do this, given
that we now have a record of how this union has functioned, what this union
is, a total lack of democracy in it, and effectively power is exercised by
three or four countries, why should we tolerate this any longer? I see it as
the left's internationalist duty towards Greece and other countries to break
the link and say that we are not in favor of this Europe. That is what I
think the left should do.
As far as the European Union itself is concerned, if you look at how the
Germans have dealt with Greece, my feeling is they want Greece out, and
they're not that bothered if the British electorate votes to quit Europe.
I'm not sure that that will happen, by the way, but they're not bothered
because they can still carry on doing economic deals on another level and,
at the same time, it will give them the opportunity to restructure the
union, which will probably reduce the standing, even more, of the small
countries who were flooded into the European Union, with the US and UK
backing, to prevent the Germans from getting too strong. So what's going on
now, I think, is that there is a great deal of discussion and debate within
the German elite as to what is the best way to restructure the European
Union, so they're not that bothered. That's my reading of the situation.
You mentioned your proposal for a referendum being held in Greece regarding
the issue of staying within the eurozone or departing from the eurozone.
What else do you believe Greece should do in order to get out of the crisis
and this cycle of austerity, and what do you believe the Greek people should
do to hold their government accountable?
I think it's very clear now that the demands being put on Greece by the EU
and the IMF are unacceptable, and I think that the Greek leadership, [Prime
Minister Alexis] Tsipras in particular, should broadcast to the nation,
should travel the country telling people this is what's going on, this is
how far we've been prepared to go; he can use that weakness in a sense; this
is how far we've been prepared to go; they won't accept it and they want to
crush it. So, the only choice now that we have, serious choice, is to
default and to create a new currency for inside Greece, while retaining the
euro as the trading currency. That is what we're about to do and we need
your support to do this. Now, I don't know whether this is going to happen.
They might be forced to do it in the worst possible circumstances without
any preparation at all, but we shall see.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
MICHAEL NEVRADAKIS
Michael Nevradakis is a Ph.D. student in media studies at the University of
Texas at Austin and a US Fulbright Scholar presently based in Athens,
Greece. Michael is also the host of Dialogos Radio, a weekly radio program
featuring interviews and coverage of current events in Greece.
RELATED STORIES
Tariq Ali on the Rise of the "Extreme Center"
By Kyung Jin Lee, National Radio Project | Report
Tariq Ali: The Claim That Democracy Is Tied to Capitalism Is a Lie
By Mark Karlin, Truthout | Interview
Syriza: Lies, Broken Promises and Prolonged Austerity
By Michael Nevradakis, Truthout | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Tariq Ali: Syriza Is Not Doing Enough for Greece
Thursday, 02 July 2015 00:00 By Michael Nevradakis, Truthout | Interview
font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
Alexis Tsipras, leader of the Syriza party, giving a pre-election
speech on May 21, 2014 in Thessaloniki, Greece. (Photo: Ververidis Vasilis /
Shutterstock.com)
As negotiations between Greece's Syriza-led government and the
"troika" unfolded, Truthout spoke with world-renowned author and analyst
Tariq Ali. In this interview, Ali discusses the first months of the
Syriza-led government in Greece, explains why he believes that Syriza has
not done enough to stand up to the demands of the troika, and shares his own
proposal for a referendum that would directly place the issue of Greece's
eurozone membership on the table.
Michael Nevradakis: There was a great deal of hope regarding Syriza's
promises to reject economic austerity. You had expressed optimism in Syriza
prior to the Greek elections, but you have since adopted a more critical
stance toward Syriza. How do you evaluate its first months in office?
Tariq Ali: Everyone was hoping that they would be able to do much more. I am
perfectly aware of how difficult the situation is and would be for any party
of the left that won an election in any country in Europe today, because
they confront powerful and strong enemies who do not wish to have any
radical model of politics and economics succeed, or even move two steps
forward. They would rather destroy it, whatever the cost. And I think that
is what the EU [European Union] and, of course, the German leadership, which
is the strongest player in the EU, as well as the United States, are
attempting to do. The United States plays a "soft cop" or a "less hard cop,"
and the Germans are playing the "hard cop," and they're the ones who are
essentially formulating policies. I say this so that there's no
misunderstanding. We know what the problems are; we know that there's a big
campaign against Syriza within the EU. The way they've been spoken to, the
way their leaders have been addressed is nothing short of disgusting.
"I see it as the left's internationalist duty towards Greece and other
countries to break the link and say that we are not in favor of this
Europe."
So, why am I critical? My criticism is basically that they should have known
that this would be the response of Europe. They've wasted too much time, in
my opinion, traveling all over Europe and meeting politicians and prime
ministers who never were on their side in the first place, who in many
cases, [President François] Hollande in France, for example, campaigned
against them. And the notion that they could split off, if they really
believed it, it was crazy, that they could split off some of the EU
countries from the Germans. It didn't happen! It was very unlikely this
would happen, and even the countries who are facing the wrath of the EU and
doing their bidding, they were even more critical - the Portuguese, the
Irish - because they've capitulated.
Now, what could have been done, and what I've argued should have been done,
is that the Syriza government should have come back from the first round of
negotiations and told the people. Now, they said we can't do this because
these are confidential meetings, but hell, these are not confidential
meetings, because the Financial Times and other newspapers in Europe and
elsewhere know exactly what happened. They're getting leaks, and our side
hasn't been getting leaks at all. So that was a problem, that they didn't
come home and tell the people what was really going on.
A second problem, an even greater one, was that they attempted to pretend
that they were making progress. This was not the case. There was very little
progress made. And today, we are now at the crossroads in Greece, I fear. I
don't think they're going to get their demands, so the choice now is
capitulate, surrender, or default and fight back. And they have weakened
themselves if they're going to be forced into doing the latter, by not
telling people what has been going on for the last few months, and that is
my big criticism and deep worry about the situation in Greece.
Prior to the referendum, Syriza, in its first months in office, had proposed
the continuation of much of the previous austerity measures, and had stated
that lenders like the IMF and the European Central Bank would be repaid in
full. Meanwhile the country's privatization program has continued in
earnest. What do you make of these actions and these continued policies?
I disagree with them very strongly, especially the privatizations, which
people hate. It's a way to make money by using the crisis in Greece, and it
was attacked by Syriza during the election campaign and they pledged that
they wouldn't do it. [Greek Finance Minister Yanis] Varoufakis, who I know
slightly, is an intelligent economist but not a great politician, and
effectively, he thinks in an extremely narrow-minded way. No strategic
vision, which is very sad.
I don't agree with any of these measures taken, which you pointed out, and
the appointment of this ex-Pasok hackette to the IMF. I think it's a case in
point. I think what they're trying to do is move to the center, trying to
show people, "look, we're doing our best, we're nice, moderate people, but
still they're crushing us." I don't think anybody has any doubt about what
they're trying to prove inside Greece itself, but the situation now is such
that you can't play these games any longer. You have to choose. Surrender if
you want, but people will know that. You can say that this was the only
compromise solution we could get, but if it's basically caving in to the
demands of the EU elite, then it is a surrender, and it's a very, very
dangerous move because what it then shows the rest of Europe is "don't
bother participating in elections, nothing you can do is going to change
anything." And that then affects other radical groups in the Mediterranean
region and elsewhere. So I, of course, am not at all happy about this.
After over five years of austerity in Greece and in other crisis-stricken
countries in Europe, it is evident to many that these policies are not
working, at least for the economies and people of these countries. In your
opinion, why is there such a continued insistence on the part of the
European Union, the German government and the other so-called institutions
to continue pushing further austerity?
I think the reason is political, because no serious economist, or someone
who I regard as serious, and I mean bourgeoisie economists, are saying that
this is going to work. In fact, many of them, the Americans particularly,
but not just the Americans, even some of the economists in the Financial
Times, are saying that this is not going to work at all, that it is proving
disastrous, and that a new course is needed. But it's easy to say and it's
correct, but a new course, seriously pursued, would challenge the
fundamentals of neoliberal economists, because what the opponents are
proposing is effectively a form of Keynesianism, center Keynesians or
left-wing Keynesianism. And for them to permit this would be to accept a
defeat, and what they're frightened about is that it would open up a new
space for movements and radical currents, which would challenge them, and
they're not prepared to do that.
Secondly, they don't care. These are politicians and bankers who effectively
are keen on one thing, which is preserving and maintaining the level of
profits. They don't care a damn if people suffer. The 20th century world has
changed very drastically in this new century, and they feel no reason, they
don't feel threatened by anyone. So unless there was a revolutionary
upheaval or semi-revolutionary upheaval or political insurrections, they
will carry on like this. This is why Greece is so important. The Syriza
government, it's not too late still, should have said to the people of
Greece, "These are the choices on offer, and we're going to push a
referendum and there will be one question: Should we stay in the eurozone at
any cost?" That's the question you need. If the people say no, if the
eurozone and the politicians who control the euro make impossible demands,
then you have the right to leave. [The people of Greece] have to be told
very clearly, "These are the choices, and we were elected to fight against
what is being offered, and we've ended up not in a good position, but now
this is what we are proposing to do." The Europeans seem pretty confident
that Greece will capitulate, meaning if you look at the German press and the
French press, they don't think there's going to be too much resistance, and
that will create a crisis in countries of the south, and in Syriza.
In your view, what has the impact of IMF involvement in countries and
economies around the world been historically? Has any country, to your
knowledge, been able to return to prosperity or to emerge out of an economic
crisis with the policies that the IMF has prescribed?
No. On the contrary, it's put these countries in an even worse crisis; it's
heightened disparities in wealth, especially since the advent of neoliberal
economics, it has led to the virtual destruction of the social
infrastructure of many, many countries in different parts of the globe. The
only continent where they were resisted after having their way for many
decades is South America. First the Argentineans reneged on the debt and
reached an agreement to pay a tiny proportion of it. The Venezuelans
effectively pushed through a political insurrection by the ballot box, and
elected a leadership which destroyed, politically, the coalition parties
that had backed the IMF demands. Likewise Bolivia, likewise Ecuador, to a
certain extent. The Latin American continent, South America, has succeeded
in doing this. It has not happened anywhere in Europe.
The IMF's function is to defend economic orthodoxy, like Keynesianism as it
was in the 40s, 50s, 60s and to a certain extent in the early 70s, or if the
overall conception of what needs to be done changes in Washington and then a
new consensus is established that says that the way forward is
neoliberalism, privatizations, the entry of private capital into the most
hallowed domains of social provision, then that is what they push. They
never do anything that is in the interests of the countries to whom they're
lending money. Greece is a case in point.
We've seen recently the electoral victory of the conservatives in the United
Kingdom and their ambivalence toward the European Union; we've seen the rise
of far-right parties in much of Europe; we've seen also the EU's harsh
stance on the immigration issue, and of course, its continued inflexibility
when it comes to Greece and other crisis-hit countries when it comes to the
austerity measures being enforced. What do you believe the future of the
so-called "European Dream" will be, and do you believe that the EU even has
a future?
Well, the big problem is the left, by and large all over Europe, is very
confused on this issue in my opinion, which is one reason why people are
going to the far-right parties in some countries: I feel that while we're
all internationalists, and while a radical European Union or a social union
that helps each other is something very desirable, what we have got instead
is a shameful financialization of capital for defending exclusively the
interests of the wealthy and of punishing those who try and break out from
the system, and using the euro to effectively create a system, a neocolonial
system, where lots of small countries have no sovereignty at all.
The Balkan states minus Serbia, which has not yet been allowed in, are very
indicative of this crisis. Ireland is, Portugal is, to a certain extent some
of the less "important" countries are now themselves under huge pressure to
privatize and to push through what they laughably called "reforms," but what
they really are talking about is regressive measures to take more and more
rights, social rights, away from the working class and from the less
privileged sections of the population, in the interests of the bankers and
the hedge fund owners and the billionaires.
"The only serious choice that we have is to default and to create a new
currency for inside Greece, while retaining the euro as the trading
currency."
This is what the European Union has become: a machine to enhance the grip of
capital over politics, and as a result, democracy itself is now under threat
and the European Union, in my view, has become a deeply reactionary
institution. This is now very clear, and they're scared of allowing people
to vote. This is very interesting. A Guardian columnist who used to work for
Le Monde the other day said, "the danger of having a referendum in Britain
is that the French might demand one too." Well, the French did demand one on
the constitution and rejected it, despite the fact that the entire media was
in favor of it. So we will see what happens.
My own opinion is that I certainly will not be voting in favor of the
European Union. I mean, I think for anyone on the left to do this, given
that we now have a record of how this union has functioned, what this union
is, a total lack of democracy in it, and effectively power is exercised by
three or four countries, why should we tolerate this any longer? I see it as
the left's internationalist duty towards Greece and other countries to break
the link and say that we are not in favor of this Europe. That is what I
think the left should do.
As far as the European Union itself is concerned, if you look at how the
Germans have dealt with Greece, my feeling is they want Greece out, and
they're not that bothered if the British electorate votes to quit Europe.
I'm not sure that that will happen, by the way, but they're not bothered
because they can still carry on doing economic deals on another level and,
at the same time, it will give them the opportunity to restructure the
union, which will probably reduce the standing, even more, of the small
countries who were flooded into the European Union, with the US and UK
backing, to prevent the Germans from getting too strong. So what's going on
now, I think, is that there is a great deal of discussion and debate within
the German elite as to what is the best way to restructure the European
Union, so they're not that bothered. That's my reading of the situation.
You mentioned your proposal for a referendum being held in Greece regarding
the issue of staying within the eurozone or departing from the eurozone.
What else do you believe Greece should do in order to get out of the crisis
and this cycle of austerity, and what do you believe the Greek people should
do to hold their government accountable?
I think it's very clear now that the demands being put on Greece by the EU
and the IMF are unacceptable, and I think that the Greek leadership, [Prime
Minister Alexis] Tsipras in particular, should broadcast to the nation,
should travel the country telling people this is what's going on, this is
how far we've been prepared to go; he can use that weakness in a sense; this
is how far we've been prepared to go; they won't accept it and they want to
crush it. So, the only choice now that we have, serious choice, is to
default and to create a new currency for inside Greece, while retaining the
euro as the trading currency. That is what we're about to do and we need
your support to do this. Now, I don't know whether this is going to happen.
They might be forced to do it in the worst possible circumstances without
any preparation at all, but we shall see.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Michael Nevradakis
Michael Nevradakis is a Ph.D. student in media studies at the University of
Texas at Austin and a US Fulbright Scholar presently based in Athens,
Greece. Michael is also the host of Dialogos Radio, a weekly radio program
featuring interviews and coverage of current events in Greece.
Related Stories
Tariq Ali on the Rise of the "Extreme Center"
By Kyung Jin Lee, National Radio Project | ReportTariq Ali: The Claim That
Democracy Is Tied to Capitalism Is a Lie
By Mark Karlin, Truthout | InterviewSyriza: Lies, Broken Promises and
Prolonged Austerity
By Michael Nevradakis, Truthout | Op-Ed
Show Comments