it is meant as a friendly critique between what are actually allies. just as a hint to think a little further.

in the text, there's talk of destabilizing the rule of capital, of escalation and such, but some things seem to stay in the same forms that have always characterized the classical left, and that made up the core of its inability and harmlessness.

why strikes, occupations, demonstrations "until they take back the stability programme" when directly before there's talk of overthrowing "the stability programme and the policies of the government, the eu, and capital"? overthrow capital or its policies? or maybe really just the stability programme in it's current form, while in the end we are still fucked anyways? why should you stop "when they take back the stability programme"? wasn't there "let's fight to the end" in the title?

why ask for higher wages when you call yourself anticapitalist and labour is the basic source of the generation of capital?

would you really just want the capitalists to get just a little less and spread a little more among the masses, and by that help to co-opt any kind of resistance that could develope a perspective of actually overcoming the economic relations that keep us tied in this pale world of commodities, of dulling work, of debt, of segregation and so on. The strategy of demanding please not to cut this or that social programme or to raise the spillout of money at another place reaffirms the powers in place, the ones that control massive ressources of capital and who run the state that keeps the economic relations in place while pretending to represent the people.

why just strike when there's re-appropriation? capital, in the end, depends on the acceptance of private property. it is a right on paper that allows people to possess the equivalent of the results, or the command over, of massive amounts of human labour. like every system of rule, capitalism depends on the at least passive consent of those that are being ruled. but its souvereignity is nothing if people stop to accept the main principle that continues to keep the same mechanisms in power.

when you demand higher wages, you stay in the dominant system of thought, and law. you accept in the very beginning of your struggle that it will end before it has reached any point of really posing a threat to the existing order.

rather, higher wages and the end of the stability programme could be what the government or capital throws at people's feet, hoping that they may accept it, when they'd actually start to re-appropriate, to take or occupy and communize whatever is at their feet already, negating the order of property. then there's fear in the eyes of the ruling.

the people might chose to accept the wages or whatever this time, keep some of what they communized, and rest before the next wave. or they might choose to laugh at the managers faces and keep on going.

but if you demand that they may please not be so cruel, give you a little more of the cake, you know it's just crumbs but some more would be a start – you are telling them from the beginning that you affirm their supremacy, that the networks of power will not be touched, or even replaced, but that you might disturb them until… "until they take back the stability programme"? who's anticapitalist here?

do you really think nationalizing "the banks and the big companies that fail" is realistic in the current situation, or that it would change the general situation? the state has the core function to organize the generalized interest of capital owners, it would only do such a thing if it is in the collective interest of the "ruling class", even if some of them may have personal disadvantages from it, to stabilize the situation and to sooth unrest among the people.

but maybe people can go beyond remaining in this obedient position.