Die Linke: Rotten politics and rotten terms
This weekend’s elections will be a test for Die Linke, argues Ben Lewis, especially when it comes to the coalition-making that will follow. (Originally published in the Weekly Worker)
As Germany prepares to go to the polls on September 22, there are enormous issues that confront both Europe’s most important power and the continent as a whole. Given Germany’s dominance of institutions such as the European Central Bank, the commission and so on, there is a sense in which the outcome could have more of an impact on the populations of Spain, Greece or Portugal than their own national elections, especially in light of the EU’s recent attempts to ‘delegitimise’ elected governments not intent on fulfilling its demands.
Yet, as is so typical of bourgeois politics in this particular period, there appears to exist a kind of inverse relationship between the seriousness of the political matters at hand and the level at which these problems are addressed in political discourse, campaigning and the media. Even in the more serious sections of the German media, the parties’ battle for hearts and minds has hitherto been characterised more by silly gaffes than by serious strategic debate and ideas. In public at least, Eurobonds, the possibility of a banking union or the role of Germany in Europe have thus taken a back seat to things like the ‘Stinkefinger incident’ (Social Democrat Peer Steinbrück pictured sticking up his middle finger on the cover of a leading magazine), infighting within the Free Democratic Party that is currently governing in coalition with Merkel’s Conservatives, or the Green Party’s suggestion that Germans should enjoy a meat-free ‘veggie day’ once a week.
Common agenda
It is hard to tell what exactly lies behind this Politikverdrossenheit, this voter apathy and indifference towards the political process in times of such upheaval and change across Europe. It may reflect the simple fact that there appears to be very little to choose between the two forerunners for office – the CDU and SPD – and their preferred coalition partners. Fundamentally, both major parties are agreed on the need for austerity in the form of low wages, ‘labour flexibility’ and increasingly harsh sanctions against the unemployed.
Indeed, the foundations for this contemporary ‘common sense’ agenda were laid by the SPD (and the Green Party) in the form of the neoliberal ‘Agenda 2010’, of which Merkel’s proposals are a mere continuation. It says everything about the current outlook of the SPD that Peer Steinbrück, its putative replacement for chancellor Angela Merkel, was one of the chief architects of Agenda 2010, alongside Gerhard Schröder, the German, and ever so slightly less self-serving, version of Tony Blair. The SPD has even attempted to market its ‘vision’ for Germany under the title of … you guessed it, ‘Agenda 2020’. Wow.
Chancellor Merkel, the continental queen of austerity, remains popular. This is in part thanks to the hard yards put in by Schröder and Steinbrück in imposing Agenda 2010 on the trade unions. The organised working class has by and large passively endured Merkel’s austerity agenda, including the freeze on wages and living standards that, or so it is claimed, lies behind the exports-based German economic ‘recovery’. However fragile this may be, and however much it has come at the expense of the peripheral countries of the EU, it is undoubtedly true that, as of yet, austerity has hit nowhere near as hard as in Greece, Portugal or Spain. Merkel has thus had a relatively easy ride.
There is also very little between the parties when it comes to imposing austerity abroad – ie, across the euro zone – despite the hollow exchange between Merkel and Steinbrück on this very matter in their recent televised debate (the latter labelled Merkel’s strategy “disastrous”, whereupon Merkel pointed out that the SPD had voted for it from the outset).
The German electorate is probably all too aware of the fact that, in the possible absence of a clear outcome, the two main parties may even end up being forced into a ‘grand coalition’ anyway, as they were in 2005. This outcome would certainly upset their supporters and not come without certain costs to both. Yet, as we draw closer to September 22 with things still tight, that possibility is starting to be broached in the German media.
After all, last Sunday’s Bavarian results have highlighted how this most boring of elections might just have us all glued to our television screens. Hopefully presaging the fate of the Liberal Democrats on these shores, the German ‘liberal’ FDP, upon whom Merkel depends for the moment, took a hammering, receiving barely 3% of the vote. This may reflect some of the ‘particularities’ of Bavaria, not least the near dominance of the Christian Social Union. Yet if the miserable showing of the FDP, which has stumbled from internal crisis to internal crisis, is replicated on a national scale, then the party would not even make it past the (extremely undemocratic, purportedly anti-totalitarian) 5% hurdle to win representation in the Bundestag. Would this happen, then it would be bad news for Merkel.
Should it not make 5% of the vote, then the FDP could join such luminaries of the electoral process as the rightwing, anti-EU Alternative For Germany (AFG) and the Pirate Party. However, AFG appears not to have been very successful in seeking to pinch votes from CDU rightists disgruntled with bailing out so-called ‘lazy Greeks’ when there is the alternative of returning to the halcyon days of the Deutschmark. Even the Pirate Party, once hailed by some as a glorious example of the supposedly ‘new’ politics in the age of Facebook and the 160-character sound bite, appears to have hit the rocks.
Tolerate
What of the other parties? It is to the tried and tested Green Party that the SPD is turning for a loyal government partner. When pressed on the matter of a ‘grand coalition’, leading Social Democrat Sigmar Gabriel retorted: “We are fighting for red-green – nothing else.”
The fate of the Green Party should be of interest to the left, in that it underlines how there is nothing like the lure of office to undermine both the principles and supporter base of a petty bourgeois party. It may have taken Joschka Fischer, former leading Green Party parliamentarian, just over 30 years to be transformed from a leather-jacket-sporting ‘68er’ clashing with police into the foreign minister overseeing the bombing of Kosova, but the Green Party’s fate was sealed much more quickly. The Greens’ claim to uphold environmentalism, peace, social justice and other nice things evaporated into thin air when they first sat on a ministerial chair.
They may be the most successful Green Party in Europe, but their credibility as a force for any kind of serious change has been irreparably damaged. As Joachim Jachnow argues in New Left Review, “The Greens may still play king (or queen)-maker in Berlin. There was a time when that prospect might have caused anxiety in Washington, but the Greens are the American embassy’s favourite German party nowadays. And why not? The Green Party has reduced the struggle for radical reform to the small change of ‘organic’ and ‘fair trade’ consumerism. The harmless memory of a dissident past now serves as a inexhaustible source of legitimacy, not just for their own actions, but for German power and the state apparatus itself”.1
Plagued by the ‘veggie scandal’ and now by accusations of paedophilia against its leader, Jürgen Trittin,2 the party is losing more and more support – so much so that it is now polling between one and two points below the left party, Die Linke. Its predicted 10% share of the vote could, in circumstances where both the preferred coalitions of the SPD and the CDU proves to be arithmetically impossible, and where government pretenders are looking for help onto the throne, turn out to be an important player.
Can Die Linke go the way of the Greens? It has always insisted that there are “red holding lines” that will determine whether it plays a part in coalition government or not. Yet that is far removed from any kind of commitment to fundamentally changing the system. Instead of utilising its share of the vote to expose the pro-capitalism of the SPD and the Greens, several leaders of Die Linke are making it rather obvious that these “holding lines” are both flimsy and not particularly red.
In a recent interview with the Berliner Zeitung, Die Linke co-chair Bernd Riexinger extended a conciliatory hand to the Greens and the SPD: “If there is a majority against Merkel then I will not rule out any option.” There is now talk of ‘tolerating’ a red-green government – ie, voting with the SPD and Greens to form a government and elect a chancellor, but not becoming part of that government. Riexinger is certainly not asking a lot in exchange: “a minimum wage, fair pensions, social security, an end to cuts in social services – that would be the minimum programme of a government that we would support”.3 Quite aside from the obvious shortcomings and lack of ambition involved in such a strategy (all of the major parties, with the possible exception of the FDP, now see the need for a minimum wage), Riexinger’s memory appears to be short: in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Berlin, so-called ‘red-red’ local government alliances between the SPD and Die Linke’s forerunner, the Linkspartei, did little other than provide ‘left’ cover for “cuts in social services”.
Gregor Gysi, leader of Die Linke’s parliamentary fraction, went even further. He rejected SPD/ Green Party accusations of being an “unreliable government partner”, stating: “If it came down to it, we would be more disciplined than the SPD.”4 Fear not, capital! Riexinger’s co-chair, Katja Kipping, who has been regarded as being on the left of the party, and whose election was seen as an embrace of the ‘social movements’, simply repeated the conditions outlined by Riexinger, adding only the need to stop German combat missions abroad. The fact that she also assured her readers that “ministerial posts are not decisive for us” and that “we do not merely want to avoid the worst, but to change something” does nothing to obviate the absolute dead-end strategy of the left administering the capitalist state5.
Anti-capitalism
Only the most naive should be surprised by these developments. Some of Die Linke’s demands for a (paltry) minimum wage of €10 an hour, a ‘Robin Hood tax’, a basic pension and so on, together with its level of support, political ‘breadth’ and Sunday school nods in the direction of “democratic socialism in the 21st century”, will certainly have excited many an advocate of ‘broad anti-capitalist parties’. Yet Die Linke’s pro-capitalist, social democratic outlook has been obvious for quite some time.
Die Linke’s 30,000-word programme6 is a fudge of epic proportions. Vague platitudes and generalities substitute for clear politics and principles. The odd ‘anti-capitalist’ bone is thrown to the left of the party, but the main question – under what conditions Die Linke would enter a government – is consciously, studiously, cynically tip-toed around.
Nothing more could really have been expected. Die Linke resulted from the coming together of a section of the former ruling ‘official’ Communist Party in the German Democratic Republic and a split in the middle ranks of Germany’s trade union movement in the west, which in part came as a response to the Schröder ‘reforms’ outlined above. It did, however, provide an opportunity for revolutionaries to fight within it for working class independence and Marxism.
Yet, both in Germany and abroad, most of left has simply tailed the reformist outlook of Die Linke, sowed a whole number of illusions in the nature of the party and held it up as some kind of a ‘model’ to which 21st century revolutionaries must aspire. Take Marx 21, the group within Die Linke dominated by the German section of the Socialist Workers Party’s International Socialist Tendency. Marx 21, whose members now have become Die Linke MPs and have served as loyal lieutenants in the party’s bureaucracy, have fawned over the allegedly “clear anti-capitalist character” of Die Linke’s programme.7Excuse me? Moreover, according to Wladek Flakin, the coalitionist fever spreads far beyond the leadership of Die Linke. Apparently, Janine Wissler of Marx 21 has argued that forming a government would be OK “if the terms are right.”8
Taken abstractly, of course, there is nothing wrong with such an approach. There would be no problem in forming a government based on a clear commitment to dismantle the German capitalist state. Moreover, if the SPD could be convinced to join a government based on the arming of the masses, the abolition of the standing army, the socialisation of production and so on, then any serious revolutionary would be mad to dismiss such “terms”. Yet this is Germany September 2013, not June 1920. The terms, as things stand, are wrong. Die Linke’s election material has made it patently clear that it is not out to win a majority for the revolutionary transformation of society.9
It goes without saying that all communists and partisans of our class should call for the biggest possible vote for Die Linke this weekend. A big vote for a party of the ‘left’, however fuzzily defined and strategically forlorn, can provide some cause for hope across Europe. Yet in calling for such a vote it would be criminal for us to remain silent about the true nature of the project, about the reality behind the purportedly ‘anti-capitalist’ rhetoric and about the current leftwing fantasy of joining capitalist governments as some kind of ‘step towards’ socialism and human liberation.
Whatever the result of Sunday’s election and the governmental forces that crystallise as a result, for those of us involved in the discussions around the outlook of Left Unity and the fight for a principled political alternative in Britain and beyond, Die Linke should serve as a warning, not a model. Fudge and compromise are invariably in the interests of the right.
Notes
1. J Jachnow, ‘What’s become of the German greens?’ New Left Review May-June 2013.
2. The allegations refer to a manifesto written by Trittin over 30 years ago. As I have not seen the pamphlet, it is unclear whether it simply called for the abolition of the age of consent or actually, as claimed by newspapers like The Daily Telegraph, sought to “legalise paedophilia”, which is, of course, a different matter altogether.
3. Riexinger would also like to see Germany’s trade unions “moderate” such discussions between the SPD, the Green Party and Die Linke: www.berliner-zeitung.de/bundestagswahl-2013/ bundestagswahl-2013-linke-an-rot-gruen–merkel-gemeinsam-stuerzen,20889098,24133766.html.
4. www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/koalition-nach-der-bundestagswahl-2013-gregor-gysi-fordert-riesenruck-von-der-spd-um-rot-rot-gruen-moeglich-zu-machen/8621644.html.
6. Now available in English at www.die-linke.de/ fileadmin/download/dokumente/englisch_die_ linke_programm_erfurt.pdf.
7. http://marx21.de/content/view/1549/32. For similar illusions closer to home, see the International Socialist Network’s amendments to the Left Party Platform’s proposals for the founding conference of Left Unity in November, which talk of how parties like Die Linke have, “at their very best”, “shown that anti-capitalist political parties are possible”: http://internationalsocialistnetwork. org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/organisation/ left-unity/233-proposed-draft-amendments-to-left-unity-platforms.
8. However, comrade Flakin does not provide a reference for this quote. His article makes some very good points against running a capitalist government, but his call for an active boycott of the elections amounts to rather absurd leftist posturing. Seewww.klassegegenklasse.org/ klassenkampf-oder-regierungsbeteiligung.
9. A recent Die Linke election poster cries out: ‘Revolution? No, just in touch with the times’ – and then proceeds to list a series of the economic demands I have discussed in this article: www.neues-deutschland.de/weiteres/ fotogalerie/?sid=530#0.
31 comments
31 responses to “Die Linke: Rotten politics and rotten terms”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
Saturday 17th May: National Demonstration: Nakba 77
Free Palestine: End the Genocide
12 noon – central London
More details here
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
In short Die Linke is not pure enough for our miniscule ‘CPGB’.
No, that is not what the article says, Mikems. Switch your brain on, read it again, then address the criticisms that have been made.
The “Die Linke model” is a good one for getting a few Left-faking opportunists nice salaries as MP’s and maybe even ministers, but real resistance against the Austerity Offensive and a determined confrontation with the structures and “logic” of capitalism ? No.
The blatant opportunism of Die Linke, and the day by day rightward retreat of Syriza in Greece, should sound a very real warning siren for those of us who want to build Left Unity into a genuinely radical Left resistance party of the working class, that keeping Left Unity on a firm, uncompromising, radical Left path will be a permanent struggle.
Maybe we should stop citing either Die Linke or Syriza in our articles as any sort of “inspirational model” ?
I’ve seen people from this group in action many times. They aren’t here to help.
I get the sense that most of those involved in Left Unity, including those who are longstanding, dedicated members of small Communist groups, genuinely want Left Unity to succeed in breaking the mould, or rather, two moulds: the mould of current British politics and the mould of previous Left wing initiatives. I do, though, wish discussions could be conducted in less confrontational terms. It puts off potential supporters and suggests we are not ready to build a better society.
This is not the first piece in which other Left parties are denounced for compromises and alliances. The implication is that we should settle for nothing less than an across-the-board, sweeping and revolutionary implementation of a set platform.
Yet, Left Unity, as the name suggests, is a broad church appealing to disillusioned Labour supporters, Greens, anarchists, mutualists, utopian socialists, and others, as well as Communists of various schools. It is this that offers the hope that Left Unity can be more than a short-lived forum for sectarian argument. Compromise, learning to work together, is going to be a fact of life, and thank goodness for that.
We aren’t here to help making left careerist dreams come true, Mikems – that is correct.
In any event, you haven’t addressed a single point the article is making. Now that isn’t helpful.
I don’t think criticising other groups, when your own consists of a couple of dozen purists is the way forward.
I’m sorry if I have upset anyone with my comments, but my heart sank when I saw this article.
They attack the left, that’s waht they do, and they call themselves ‘communists’.
However, I do notice that you have no problem in attacking the views of other groups – if you dislike them. Their criticisms, after all, flow from their views (it would be a bit funny if they didn’t). Why is it OK for you to criticise those you disagree with, but not others?
As usual, its a left-right thing. Those on the left are fair game for vitriol, those (relatively) on the right are treated with kid gloves. That’s how it works in society in general at the moment, and it looks like that is a problem we have to overcome here also.
If Left Unity is to mean anything more than anti-left demonology and echoing wider prejudices against the working class movement itself, then we have to create a different political culture. Why take political disagreement and make into a heresy? How does that build Left Unity?
This is appalling and if indicative of significant voices in Left Unity spells the death knell before we even have begun.
It is representative of the pomposity of sectiins of the English Left. The fake CPGB have existed for around 30 years, have never numbered more than around 50 members, have absolutely zero base in any community, and are an utterly marginal part of a fairly marginal Far Left in this country.
Die Linke may have their faults, and worth debating with well-informed commentary, but the total absence of the startling failure of the author’s politics despiute all the hard work deserve at least a mention. Die Linke, Syriza, Left Bloc, Dutch Socialist Party, Front de Gauche, and more have achieved electoral gains, popular support, genuine bases in communities which the Far Left in this country have come not a million miles of matching. The old excuse for the total absence of an electoral breakthrough of the sort Die Linke have achieved used to be the absence of PR but at LOndon, Scots, Welsh, Euro elections PR is used, still no breakthrough anywhwere close to Die Linke’s achievements.Zero recognition of this stunning failure deserves at least a mention, some kind of explanation, wihout anything of this sort the words are hot air, thats all.
The Weekly Worker (sic0 provides ample space for useless articles of this sort. Let them publish them, they’re past masters at hot air, quite what value such a piece, and others like them, are to Left Unity is entirely beyond me.
Mark P
The CPGB is a ‘fake’ CPGB not least because Mark Perryman’s eurocommunist pals helped to liquidate the real thing in 1991. It’s worth mentioning that they’ve been trying to forge a broad left party for over 20 years now. But their sole political achievement remains Blairism and New Labour – if we go by Perryman’s definition of success, this one certainly constitutes a triumph.
Which brings us to his defence of Die Linke. Yes, it has had some degree of electoral/popular success. Everybody is aware of this, nobody is disputing it. Given that its (post-Stalinist and Social-Democratic) constituent parts already had vast support bases when Die Linke was forged, this is perhaps unsurprising. Ditto Front de Gauche, Left Bloc, Syriza, et al.
The question that the article poses is: what does the working class gain from relative electoral successes when formations like Die Linke are prepared to make serious compromises with capital? The answer is easy: absolutely nothing. In Berlin, where Die Linke was part of local government, it provided a ‘left’ cover for cuts. My friends in that city remember that time mainly for rents going up exponentially while Die Linke politicians offered apologetic soundbites. Suffice to say, they will not vote for them again.
This is what unprincipled ‘broad left’ parties achieve when in government: they assure careerists a nice salary while spreading disillusionment in left politics. Many of the most downtrodden have switched their support to the NPD, a far right (neo-Nazi) party, or have stopped bothering with politics altogether.
As Ben Lewis writes, it does not have to be that way – it’s a question on what terms you are entering government. Why Die Linke does not, nay, cannot live up to its anti-capitalist pretences in its present form and how we could avoid its mistakes is well worth discussing. But that would require the likes of Mark Perryman to address this issue seriously instead of attempting to shoot the messenger.
Upon request, I am prepared to provide countless examples the careerist slickness and downright rottenness of Die Linke’s leadership. Just ask.
Maciej,
‘CPGB’ disagrees with Left Unity’s approach and says it will do nothing for the working class.
Can I just ask what on earth you are doing here, telling us that?
Can I ask why you think that blunt disagreement means the critic should not be here? What price ‘Left Unity’ then?
This was posted by Phil Butland in reply: Someone I know has already posted this article, which I find both highly sectarian and riddled with errors. Here some of them:
“It is hard to tell what exactly lies behind this Politikverdrossenheit, this voter apathy and indifference towards the political process in times of such upheaval and change across Europe.” No it isn’t. In fact it’s so easy to list some of the reasons (relative economic stability, no real difference between the four “main” parties – although die LINKE are currently running third) that the author manages just that.
“It is to the tried and tested Green Party that the SPD is turning for a loyal government partner.” No it isn’t. At the very least since choosing Peer Steinbrück as Chancellor candidate (ie for months) the SPD has been looking for a coalition with the CDU, whatever people like Gabriel (who is cutting a very marginal figure) may say.
“accusations of paedophilia against its leader, Jürgen Trittin,” There are no accusations of paedophilia against Trittin. The accusations (from the Springer press) are that he supported a paper calling for the lowering of the age of consent. Despite the implication in the article there is NO suggestion that Trittin was a paedophile.
“Die Linke … could, in circumstances where both the preferred coalitions of the SPD and the CDU proves to be arithmetically impossible, and where government pretenders are looking for help onto the throne, turn out to be an important player.” Well, except for the fact that (1) the preferred coalition of the SPD is with the CDU (and the CDU can live with this), and no part of die LINKE is prepared to enter a coalition with the SPD without an abolition of Hartz IV and a promise to stop sending German troops abroad. Gregor Gysi (who had been most often accused of wanting a coalition) reiterated this in his speech in Berlin today.
“There is now talk of ‘tolerating’ a red-green government – ie, voting with the SPD and Greens to form a government and elect a chancellor, but not becoming part of that government” Erm, what is the problem with this ? Apart of course for the fact that it won’t happen because the SPD would prefer to join with the CDU? People want rid of Merkel. Die LINKE shouldn’t take part in a neoliberal government, but it should test the SDP and Greens in practise.
“Riexinger’s co-chair, Katja Kipping, who has been regarded as being on the left of the party” Really? By whom? No-one I know. She has always been regarded as a centrist, as willing to take on the leftv wing as the centre. She is certainly way to the right of Riexinger.
“adding only the need to stop German combat missions abroad.” Only? The SPD and Greens have reiterated that they will not stop German combat missions abroad, and have supported pretty much every one since Kosovo.
“Die Linke’s demands for a (paltry) minimum wage of €10 an hour” Hmmm. Paltry. There is currently no living wage in Germany. The SPD and Greens are half-heartedly calling for a minimum wage of €8.50. A minimum wage of €10 wouldn’t be the revolution, but it would be a real gain for millions of German workers.
[in die LINKEs programme] “the main question – under what conditions Die Linke would enter a government – is consciously, studiously, cynically tip-toed around.” No it isn’t. In the programme there is an explicit list of the conditions with which die LINKE would enter a government. Conditions which the SPD and Greens would immediately reject.
“Marx 21, the group within Die Linke dominated by the German section of the Socialist Workers Party’s International Socialist Tendency.” There is no section of the IST in Germany
“according to Wladek Flakin, the coalitionist fever spreads far beyond the leadership of Die Linke. Apparently, Janine Wissler of Marx 21 has argued that forming a government would be OK “if the terms are right. [However, comrade Flakin does not provide a reference for this quote.]” The first rule of journalist school is never make secondary quotes without providing evidence. There Is no evidence because either the statement is made up, or the terms are terms which the SPD and Greens would never accept (the “Red lines”) and is therefore just making a point that is the opposite to what is suggested.
Well said Phil Butland ( I confess to knowing the man slightly and that he has spent quite a few years now in Germany active in both Marx 21 and Die LInke. Hopefulyl PHil and others in Die Linke are aware that the website for left unity is open to anyone from die Linke who wishes to respond at length. Ben Lewis and the CPGB have a well- defined project of demanding commitment to ‘revolutionary transformation’ and denouncing even their allies of two weeks previously within Left Unity’s so-called ‘socialist platform’ for failing to endorse their programme. The critical point is that they would in effect prefer a CDU/SDP government than support Die LInke itself giving critical support to (if not joining) a Red-Red-Green coalition which could possibly deliver significant gains for ordinary workers. Ultra-left posturing is precisely what the left unity project for most of us is trying to escape.
“The critical point is that they would in effect prefer a CDU/SDP government than support Die LInke itself giving critical support to (if not joining) a Red-Red-Green coalition which could possibly deliver significant gains for ordinary workers.”
I’m not a supporter of the CPGB, but I doubt they would ‘prefer’ a CDU/SDP government. Why in earth would they do that? That is typical response of reformists to left-wing criticism – accuse the critics of wanting the most right-wing forces to win. Its a feeble way to debate, either when Bush uses it (you are either for us or against us), or when left opportunists use it.
So is that your project, a coalition with Labour and the Greens for government?
Which ministry would you like to have? “Defence” perhaps? Then like Joshka Fischer, you could use your ‘Green’ and ‘Far Left’ credentials to fight in the latest imperialist venture – the next Afghanistan, or whatever. Greens in government with the SPD meant participation in Afghanistan. And Italy’s Rifondazione did exactly the same thing in their coalition with Prodi’s PDS – supported troops in Afghanistan.
Looks like we have a Blairoid wing forming up in Left Unity, ready to garner the workers’ blood for the next imperialist atrocity. And such a government would quickly capitulate and implement austerity at home as well. The main beneficiaries of popular fronts are the fascists, as history shows. Including the Lib Lab pact in Britain, the most recent example here.
I doubt if that is what Ken Loach had in mind when he called for a discussion on forming a new left party as an alternative to New Labour. Or many of those who endorsed that call either. “Lets have a coalition with New Labour or the SPD a la Schroeder and Fischer?” “Lets have a popular front.” No thanks, that is not the independence of the working class, that is burying the independence of the working class.
And by the way, the meeting of the Socialist Platform I attended passed all but one of the CPGB’s amendments to the platform – and the one that failed only did so by one single vote.
Pity about the manoeuvre by people who should know better, and may live to regret their actions, that rendered those votes academic and ‘indicative’ by a last minute change in the agenda. They tragically damaged their own credibility and reputations by doing this, and may well have damaged the SP to boot. But they did not damage those who opposed them on this, whether CPGB or non-CPGB. They only harmed themselves. Which is a shame, because they are pretty worthwhile people who have made a big mistake.
But as a point of fact, the CPGB’s amendments were certainly not ‘rejected’ by that meeting, that is the opposite of the truth.
Ha. Game set and match. Well done.
Though we do still need to be on our guard against that tempting slide to ‘realistic, practical, best-we-can-get’ reformism.
By the way – big thanks to the administrators (James) for sorting out my computer difficulties – allowing me back on to this site to comment away from home!! Cheers. I owe you a pint
Hi Pete
>Ben Lewis and the CPGB have a well- defined project of demanding commitment to ‘revolutionary transformation’
Correct.
>denouncing even their allies of two weeks previously within Left Unity’s so-called ‘socialist platform’ for failing to endorse their programme.
Wrong. This wasn’t about our (draft) programme, which we never presented to the Socialist Platform. It was about a few amendments to the Socialist Platform, which were meant to clarify that our ultimate goal is general human freedom in a classless, stateless society – not just some benign socialist state.
Socialism is a transitional stage to communism, not an end in itself. If people wish to fudge the difference, that’s up to them – but we will point it out.
Our draft programme states:
“No country, no party, no trade union, no leader, no section of the working class takes precedence over the world revolution.”
I hope you’ll understand that universal human liberation takes precedence over the hurt feelings of individual left leaders, let alone career politicians in Die Linke.
>Red-Red-Green coalition which could possibly deliver significant gains for ordinary workers
The last red-green coalition brought the first foreign military ventures since WW2 – because of Germany’s ‘special historic duty’ to fight dictators, of course – and neoliberal reforms on the domestic front.
Local red-red coalitions have not translated into any gains for ordinary workers whatsoever – on the contrary.
We greatly respect the commitment of communists working within the confines of Die Linke and putting up with all the difficulties coming their way. No doubt we would do the same, arguing for communist politics instead of keeping our heads down.
`Over at the gathering of Die Linke – the leftwing party made up of the remnants of the former East German Communist party, West German socialists and former SPD members disgruntled with their party’s move to the centre – celebrations were in full swing, despite a drop in support of around 3%… Initial polls suggested it had secured just over 8% of the vote, a fraction of a percentage point more than the Greens.’
The neo-Stalinist centrists of Die Linke have failed to kick on and are now in fatal decline. Good. They offered an initial ideological variation to what all the others were offering but without programme abstraction and platitudes become less attractive and there is nothing to build on. The difference between them and the others disappears. Die Link will perish as must any `political’ party that has no politics.
Blast from the past:
“For 10 long years, the ‘red-red’ government coalition of SPD and Die Linke ran the German capital. It closed down nurseries, cut benefits and privatised 120,000 council flats.
Die Linke voted to part-privatise the Berlin tram system, campaigned against national wage parity for public sector workers (who still earn considerably less in the east) and spoke out against efforts to bring the company that supplies Berlin with water back into public ownership.
It also helped to privatise a part of the main Berlin hospital – leading to worse working conditions and lower wages.”
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/882/die-linke-booted-out
Significant gains for ordinary workers indeed.
As a Communist and a revolutionary (and I am being genuine, not wanting to sound like a delusional ranter) I was interested in Left Unity but this ‘holier than thou’ approach isn’t really beneficial. Let’s look at where Die Linke went wrong and others but the comments on this site just get more ridiculous and typical ‘socialists’ who fail to create coherent understanding of the present without dogma. Many on the left are seeking to end this inward looking self obsession without compromising their core principles and those groups involved in the People’s Assembly from the beginning (CPB,Counterfire,Greens,etc) are taking steps to creating 21st century socialism and genuine plurality, democracy, cooperation and progress. Left Unity appears too divided to get anywhere with all this petty squabbling. Stop arguing about reform or revolution, those with a better understanding realise the two can be a combined movement. This group seems to be getting more sectarian everyday. I wish you all the best but the future of left unity and more are the People’s Assemblies.
Just a couple of questions as a bit of an outsider:
Who are this ‘miniscule’ CPGB? I’ve only ever heard of the Communist Party of Britain who seem alright but then it seems there are a billion little communist parties and even more cultish ‘socialist parties
What is this ‘Baton Rouge’ talking about ‘neo-stalinsist centrists’ I thought Die Linke where a left wing party? that doesn’t make sense
What has this got to do with the sodding tories and labour party who act the same way?
Dave Brown
Hi Dave
Thanks for saying nice things about the CPB. We’re not actively engaged in Left “Unity” as but speaking personally, it seems a worthwhile project. Unlike many of the small left “parties” “provisional committees” etc, we are an actually party, registered with the electoral commission, with published accounts and more importantly, actual members (about 1000). After this Left Party is founded local branches of the CP will undoubtedly actively work with local Left Party groups. But we aren’t going to dissolve ourselves and join a new party, and as such it isn’t our place to interfere with the founding of your party by putting up a “platform” as some sort of front.
Hi Dave
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll point you to our FAQ’s, which address your questions, as well as the objections of some other posters:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/about-the-cpgb/faq
You don’t seem to stand for what you say. You ,fake CPGB (choosing my words carefully now) don’t join the CPB (who still seem the most sane I’ve come across) and appear to have amazing expectations that don’t ring true of the world around me. What working class are you talking about? A ‘provisional committee’ isn’t a party is it? Sorry but it just seems a bit odd. You seeem to be against all cliques but yourselves and this goes for others. Still interested in Left Unity though. Hoping for the best but this seems like competing pre-existing cliques not people coming together. Please don’t be ‘left unity’ but only of Left Unity don’t dismiss the rest of us non ‘super-duper-socialists who reckon they are correct on everything’. This attack on a left wing party in Germany doesn’t seem very productive but other parts of this site seem a bit more productive
Hi Dave
You haven’t read it very attentively.
>”You ,fake CPGB (choosing my words carefully now) don’t join the CPB”
The link I’ve posted says, “We would join any serious revolutionary organisation, and fully accept their discipline, were we satisfied that we could fight openly amongst the membership and the broader movement for our political orientation.”
>”What working class are you talking about?”
The one that makes up the majority of the world’s population.
>”A ‘provisional committee’ isn’t a party is it?”
We don’t claim it is. Read it again.
“Super-duper-socialists who reckon they are correct on everything”
We don’t. It was wrong of our older members to defend the eastern bloc countries as ‘socialist’ in the past. To err is human, but to forgive divine.
As for Die Linke, we don’t accept your view that left wing parties are above criticism – especially when they act like capitalist parties in government.
Best,
Maciej
My point was you seem to be doing the opposite of what you say and i have read it. It just seems a bit out of touch
You’re expectations of the working class don’t seem to be concerning issues that affect us people who are being messed around by governments and just want help and are sick of bloody politicians who haven’t done owt except help themselves
The reason you seem to feel correct about everything is your dismissals of everything else – I looked at the rest of your website
You should be critical but not dismissive
as I said earlier just a bit odd
but with labour actually saying they are gonna help they’ve got my vote until something concrete comes out of here. no offence to anyone wishing you all the best
Dave Brown
Hi Nick Jonz,
Thanks for your criticism. As you may or may not know, we in the CPGB are in the almost unique position on Britain’s far left of having the facility for readers to write in letters to express disagreement, point out any errors/misunderstandings etc. I would urge comrade Butland to do so too. Yet let’s take a look at these so-called ‘errors’, one by one:
1. “It is hard to tell what exactly lies behind this Politikverdrossenheit, this voter apathy and indifference towards the political process in times of such upheaval and change across Europe.” No it isn’t. In fact it’s so easy to list some of the reasons (relative economic stability, no real difference between the four “main” parties – although die LINKE are currently running third) that the author manages just that.
— Well, exactly, I go on to discuss some of those factors in detail. I simply vouched the point in those terms because I did not want to say that these were the ‘definitive’ reasons: there may be other factors at hand, such as the nature of the election campaign itself (which I am not really in much of a position to judge), the potential of a revival of German ‘feel good’ nationalism or even something more general about European politics at this particular point in time (the secular decline of political organisations, trade unions etc)
“It is to the tried and tested Green Party that the SPD is turning for a loyal government partner.” No it isn’t. At the very least since choosing Peer Steinbrück as Chancellor candidate (ie for months) the SPD has been looking for a coalition with the CDU, whatever people like Gabriel (who is cutting a very marginal figure) may say.
—- I would not deny for a second that there are conflicting approaches within the SPD and, as I detail in my article, the choice of Steinbrueck as the SPD candidate, given his ‘Agenda 2010’ background, was significant in this regard. Yet look at the reaction of many leading SPD people to both the poor result and the possibility of having to make up a majority for Merkel. As to Gabriel’s ‘marginal’ role in the SPD, I don’t think that a frontrunner for party leader or somebody who seems to be pivotal to the possibility of a grand coalition can be described as ‘marginal’.
“accusations of paedophilia against its leader, Jürgen Trittin,” There are no accusations of paedophilia against Trittin. The accusations (from the Springer press) are that he supported a paper calling for the lowering of the age of consent. Despite the implication in the article there is NO suggestion that Trittin was a paedophile.
—- Had our scrupulous comrade taken the time to read the footnote attached to this section of the article, he would have seen the following: “The allegations refer to a manifesto written by Trittin over 30 years ago. As I have not seen the pamphlet, it is unclear whether it simply called for the abolition of the age of consent or actually, as claimed by newspapers like The Daily Telegraph, sought to “legalise paedophilia”, which is, of course, a different matter altogether.” I agree that ‘accusations of legalising paedophilia’ would have been a better formulation, however.
“Die Linke … could, in circumstances where both the preferred coalitions of the SPD and the CDU proves to be arithmetically impossible, and where government pretenders are looking for help onto the throne, turn out to be an important player.”
Well, except for the fact that (1) the preferred coalition of the SPD is with the CDU (and the CDU can live with this), and no part of die LINKE is prepared to enter a coalition with the SPD without an abolition of Hartz IV and a promise to stop sending German troops abroad. Gregor Gysi (who had been most often accused of wanting a coalition) reiterated this in his speech in Berlin today.
—- Well yes. I discuss this in the piece. What I am arguing is that although it is tactically justified to say: ‘we would form a government with you if …’, the *terms* being put forward (see the title of the piece) are “rotten” and extremely compromised, pro-capitalist and so on.
“There is now talk of ‘tolerating’ a red-green government – ie, voting with the SPD and Greens to form a government and elect a chancellor, but not becoming part of that government” Erm, what is the problem with this? ? Apart of course for the fact that it won’t happen because the SPD would prefer to join with the CDU? People want rid of Merkel. Die LINKE shouldn’t take part in a neoliberal government, but it should test the SDP and Greens in practise.
—- “The problem with this” is (related to the above) that you then have a position where ‘the left’ is justifying, excusing, helping to power a *pro-capitalist* government that will undoubtedly cut German living standards to the bone. We should not nod along such viciously anti-working class forces, should we? Or is this to be seen as part of some grand strategy for socialism?
“Riexinger’s co-chair, Katja Kipping, who has been regarded as being on the left of the party” Really? By whom? No-one I know. She has always been regarded as a centrist, as willing to take on the leftv wing as the centre. She is certainly way to the right of Riexinger.
“adding only the need to stop German combat missions abroad.” Only? The SPD and Greens have reiterated that they will not stop German combat missions abroad, and have supported pretty much every one since Kosovo.
— “Only” in the sense that such a ‘condition’, in isolation, is not what I would see as a basic condition for government. Read the (original) Erfurt programme, for example, for the approach of classical Marxism towards the armed forces and so on.
“Die Linke’s demands for a (paltry) minimum wage of €10 an hour” Hmmm. Paltry. There is currently no living wage in Germany. The SPD and Greens are half-heartedly calling for a minimum wage of €8.50. A minimum wage of €10 wouldn’t be the revolution, but it would be a real gain for millions of German workers.
—- This is not a ‘factual’ error but one of a differing interpretation. I think that 10 euros an hour is a paltry wage, not a living wage, which would be much higher. Of course, a minimum wage would would be a welcome step forward and help to strengthen our class. Yet I think that the role of a programme is to challenge the logic of capital by presenting demands based on human need.
[in die LINKEs programme] “the main question – under what conditions Die Linke would enter a government – is consciously, studiously, cynically tip-toed around.” No it isn’t. In the programme there is an explicit list of the conditions with which die LINKE would enter a government. Conditions which the SPD and Greens would immediately reject.
I disagree with this assessment on a number of levels. There are indeed (very limited, pro-capitalist) conditions outlined (some of which would be OK to other parties, like the minimum wage issue) but they are not clearly set out in one section of the document, and even if they were they are fudged and completely insufficient, with key differences papered over.
Here is what I wrote on the programme in 2011: “There are passages where it is almost possible to trace the compositing that has taken place between the different factions, as well as places where compromises have been arrived at over specific formulations. This has produced the pervading ambiguity. For example, Die Linke is ‘fighting for a change in direction of politics, which opens up the way to a fundamental transformation of society that overcomes capitalism’ (p5). The ‘realo’ wing would interpret this as implying a long period of coalition government alongside the SPD and maybe the Greens, which, by some twisted, reformist logic, would pave the way for a new, higher society at some indefinite point in the future. On the other hand, the left will surely stress the ‘fundamental transformation of society” rather than the short-term “change in direction of politics’. That is what I am alluding to.
“Marx 21, the group within Die Linke dominated by the German section of the Socialist Workers Party’s International Socialist Tendency.” There is no section of the IST in Germany
—- Interesting. What about members of Marx 21 who retain organisational affinity with the British SWP?
“according to Wladek Flakin, the coalitionist fever spreads far beyond the leadership of Die Linke. Apparently, Janine Wissler of Marx 21 has argued that forming a government would be OK “if the terms are right. [However, comrade Flakin does not provide a reference for this quote.]” The first rule of journalist school is never make secondary quotes without providing evidence. There Is no evidence because either the statement is made up, or the terms are terms which the SPD and Greens would never accept (the “Red lines”) and is therefore just making a point that is the opposite to what is suggested.
—- After being prompted, Wladek Flakin has provided a link to the quote: http://www.seiten.faz-archiv.de/faz/20130730/fr1201307303961170.html – if this is a distortion on the part of the FAZ then I am happy to be corrected, as is he.
Somebody perhaps more cynical than me may believe that this (largely misplaced and rather peeved) pedantry may simply be an attempt to distract from the genuine *strategic questions* at hand. Marx 21 seems to be unwilling to come out and criticise the fact that leading members of Die Linke are revealing their ambitions to run capitalism, this time not on a local level but nationally. My take, and that of classical Marxism, is that we socialists should argue that workers’ parties should only come to power when there is a clear possibility of carrying out the minimum programme of workers’ power, democratic majority rule and the opening of the transition to human freedom. This is, in my opinion, why the fate of Die Linke should be of interest to those of us thinking about a genuinely anti-capitalist, that is to say consistently democratic, political partyist alternative.
All the best
Ben
Replying to Ian Donovan : you say I ‘have no problem attacking other groups’.
Would you care to support that allegation with some evidence, please?
Also : ‘Can I ask why you think that blunt disagreement means the critic should not be here? What price ‘Left Unity’ then’
Because they aren’t here to help Left Unity, they are here to disrupt us.
A few points tov this very important debate.
The Left party has various factions.There is a left wing that does support socialism.
However it is a valid point that Syriza,left party and socialist party netherlands contain many right wing moving elements.
The left wing of the german left party should adopt a socialist programme of public ownership of the major capitalist monopolies and no co-operation whatsoever with the corporate fascist SPD.
Kevin O’Connor
Islington left unity
Socialist platform supporter
The main thing about Die Linke is that they are managing to recapture key ideas about wealth distribution, anti war, environment, investment in housing and job creation. Of course none if this is perfect and reforms can be lost (look at the NHS and how it has been sold off) but we need to win millions to shift ideas in modern society. It has not been easy and Die Linke have massive internal debate and struggles- but they unite where it matters. Something the Left needs to learn. We do not have political representation against the neo-liberal agenda and we are losing battle after battle. Left Unity is a start- regroup- focus on some key ideas and start to popularise them. Campaign for them- not just at elections though- we need popular protest too.