Log in

View Full Version : Left Party in Berlin supports Israeli war on Gaza



Wanted Man
27th January 2009, 20:34
World Socialist Web Site

http://www.wsws.org/images/logo.png (http://www.wsws.org/index.shtml) wsws.org Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

Left Party in Berlin supports Israeli war on Gaza

By Hendrik Paul and Peter Schwarz
15 January 2009


The chairman of the Left Party in Berlin, Klaus Lederer, has come out publicly in support of the Israeli war against Gaza. He spoke last Sunday at a demonstration that unconditionally backed the military assault on the Palestinian population.


The pro-Israel demonstration had been called by Jewish organizations in Berlin and coincided with similar events in Munich and Frankfurt. The rally in Berlin was planned in response to a number of anti-war demonstrations that had taken place in Germany one day previously. Around 40,000 had taken part in the various anti-war protests.



For their part, the pro-war demonstrations organised by those supporting the Israeli military attracted only a few thousand—in the main full-time politicians and functionaries of various organisations. Those taking part in the rallies held banners calling for solidarity with Israel, reading: "Israel has a right to defend itself!" and "We need victory!"


The official appeal for the Berlin demonstration expressly defended the brutal military assault by the Israeli army on the inhabitants of Gaza, stating, "Israel's self-defence is legitimate and not a crime!" It then justified the enormous suffering of the 1.5 million Palestinian civilians in Gaza with the cynical remark that the "terrorists of Hamas" were using "human beings as shields" and thereby made "civilian victims inevitable." Hamas had "begun this conflict" and bears "responsibility for the suffering on both sides," the appeal declared.


The appeal concluded by demanding: "The Islamist dictatorship of the terrorist organisation Hamas must be permanently terminated!" thereby implicitly backing the extermination of Hamas leaders and members by the Israeli army.


Shortly after the Israeli invasion of Gaza, German chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) had proffered her unconditional support for Israel. But this was not enough for the organizers of the Berlin rally. They described Germany as an "active player in the conflict" and in particular criticised Germany's trade with Iran. According to the appeal, this meant that Germany was financing Iran and, via Iran, ultimately the Hamas movement.



Despite the hysterical tone of the appeal, all of the political parties represented in the Berlin Senate sent prominent representatives to the demonstration. Speaking on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) was the leader of the party's parliamentary fraction, Frank Henkel. The Free Democratic Party (FDP) sent its regional chairman, Markus Löning.


Parliamental group leader Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig spoke for the Green Party, while the president of the state parliament, Walter Momper, was sent by the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Representing the Left Party was its regional chairman, Klaus Lederer.


Christian Democrat Henkel and the free-marketeer Löning won applause from the crowd for their pledges of unconditional support for Israel. Löning justified his support for the savage intervention of the Israeli army with the argument: "Freedom of opinion prevails in Israel and that distinguishes Israel from all of its neighbours." He deliberately refrained from mentioning that the Israeli army has established strict censorship over the war and—in contravention of a number of legal decisions—categorically refuses to allow independent journalists to enter the war area.


The representatives of the SPD and the Greens, Momper and Eichstädt-Bohlig, also lined up fully behind Israel and repeated the chorus of claims that Hamas was responsible for the war. However, when they timidly raised the suggestion of a negotiated solution, the belligerent pro-Israel crowd responded with an outburst of catcalls and booing. In fact, the representative of the Greens was barely able to continue her contribution after she asserted that the Palestinian population should have the right to exist and declared, "Israel cannot win this war morally!"


There was a very different reception, however, for the representative of the Left Party. His speech was interrupted on several occasions by applause and cries of jubilation. He obviously struck a chord with the assembled crowd when he accused all opponents of the war on Gaza of being anti-Semitic.



He had decided to come to the demonstration, Lederer declared, because in his opinion, "The brutal and bitter conflict in the Gaza Strip and in the south of Israel should not be used by anybody in our country to foment anti-Semitism." While not mentioning any names, his message the day after widespread protests against the attack on Gaza was unmistakable: any criticism of the Israeli government and its army is anti-Semitic and must be rejected.


In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the criminal actions of the Israeli government and its claim to be acting on behalf of all Jews—and not criticism of its politics—that encourages anti-Semitism. In Israel itself and around the world many Jews look upon the Israeli onslaught on Gaza with a mixture of abhorrence and anger and reject the policies of the Israeli government.


Lederer addressed the warmongering participants at the Berlin rally as "dear friends." Like all the other speakers, he ignored the prehistory of the war—the expulsion and decades-long suppression of the Palestinians—and declared the Kassam missiles fired by Hamas to be the root cause of the war. "Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies the firing of shells and rockets on populated areas of the civilian population, on [the Israeli areas] of Ashdod, Beer Sheva and Ashkelon," he said. "For me that is the starting point of any discussion in our country with respect to such demonstrations."


Lederer said nothing about the massive destruction of the populated areas in the Gaza Strip. He did not mention the desperation of the Palestinian population, which has no means to defend itself and lacks any escape route from the murderous advance of the Israeli military. Nor did he say a word about the disproportionate strength of the Israeli army, which has resulted in 100 Palestinian deaths for every Israeli fatality.



Instead Lederer wept crocodile tears over the suffering of the civilian population and held Hamas responsible. "No matter how highly developed the weapon systems used," he said, "irrespective of who leads the war, the disaster hits first and foremost the civilian population, not least because the hostage-taking of the civilian population belongs to the nature of modern war. And this is precisely the case in the asymmetrical conflict strategy, which Hamas is pursuing."


The appearance of a high-ranking functionary of the Left Party on a pro-war demonstration marks a further lurch to the right by this organisation. Since its foundation, the Left Party had—at least verbally—largely dissociated itself from the foreign policy of the federal government and had rejected the intervention by the German army in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Now in response to the Middle East conflict it has swung over to the official line of German foreign policy, in a similar manner to the Green Party 10 years ago.


A decade ago, in exchange for their seats in the federal government coalition, the Greens ditched their pacifist stance and supported the NATO war against Yugoslavia. They have since evolved into one of the most virulent supporters of German militarism.


The chairman of the federal Left Party parliamentary faction, Gregor Gysi, had set in motion the party's new course last spring when he made a memorable speech calling for a reorientation of political line with regard to Israel. He rejected the term "imperialistic" in characterising Israeli policy and called upon "the left" to acknowledge the right of existence of the state of Israel.


Lederer has now gone a step further by supporting Israel's vicious attack on the Palestinians. The fact that he does not stand alone is demonstrated by the absence of official representatives of the Left Party on the anti-war demonstrations the previous day.



Lederer is not a political nonentity. He is the chairman of the party in the only German state where the Left Party has shared government responsibility for the past eight years. In Berlin the Left Party, in coalition with the SPD, has demonstrated its loyalty to the bourgeois state and implemented social cuts far more draconian than those carried out in any other German state.


As the current economic and social crisis intensifies, the Left Party is now preparing to take up government responsibility at a federal level. To this end, it is required to adopt the fundamental pillars of German foreign policy, including unconditional support for Israel. The present war in Gaza has made it impossible for the Left Party to sit on the fence. It has to show its colours. It has now done so in the person of Klaus Lederer and his appearance on the pro-Israeli demonstration last Sunday.






About the WSWS (http://www.wsws.org/about.shtml) | Contact Us | (http://www.wsws.org/wsws/dd-formmailer/dd-formmailer.php)Privacy Statement (http://www.wsws.org/privacy.shtml) | Top of page (http://www.wsws.org/tools/index.php?page=print&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsws.org %2Farticles%2F2009%2Fjan2009%2Fleft-j15.shtml#)
Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/left-j15.shtml

Charles Xavier
27th January 2009, 20:47
Disgusting.

L.J.Solidarity
27th January 2009, 21:11
Unfortunately, the elements that are trying to push the Left Party along the same road to pseudo-left liberalism the Greens took in the 80s and 90s are firmly in control of the party in the East German states where it performs strongly in the elections. The federal leaders also don't really help, Gysi's stance is explained in the article and Oskar Lafontaine is a socialist just as long as nobody offers him participation in a coalition government. However, most of the rank-and-file members hold much more leftist positions and also opposed the Gaza war. Unfortunately, it just doesn't show at the party congresses and people like Gysi or Lederer are re-elected over and over again.

Zurdito
27th January 2009, 21:21
classic social chauvinism and a logical extension of their reformist politics.

Woland
27th January 2009, 21:28
Die Linke....uh they make me sad.

Angry Young Man
28th January 2009, 01:33
Makes me fucking sick. I'd previously placed trust (not support, btw) in die Linke. Christ when even conservative voices start to oppose Israel's actions, this fucking happens.

Louis Pio
28th January 2009, 01:57
Unfortunately, the elements that are trying to push the Left Party along the same road to pseudo-left liberalism the Greens took in the 80s and 90s are firmly in control of the party in the East German states

Indeed, I never understood however why CWI wouldn't work in that part of the country to at least try to change it. For all the reformist and proimperialist crap it is still the only place of yet were Die Linke has a mass base.

GPDP
28th January 2009, 05:05
Hahahahaha, this is a joke, right?

Right!?

...

:(

Fuck Die Linke.

chebol
28th January 2009, 09:47
I'd really caution people against knee-jerk, immature, sectarian responses like the above "fuck die linke", especially when you know little about how the party works (and how it doesn't for that matter).

The WSWS/ ICFI are constantly out to "prove" the treachery and uselessness of everyone bar themselves (not that they do an awful lot), so their analysis is worth taking with a grain of salt.

With regards to the Berlin incident, it is indeed fucked, but it does not represent the position of Die Linke, who have consistently criticised Israel's slaughter in Gaza (albeit with a timid finger-wag at Hamas too).

The issue L.J.Solidarity identified needs to be looked at closely, rather than jumping to all kinds of ridiculous conclusions. There are indeed forces in Die Linke trying to push/ hold Die Linke to the right, and there are some forces trying to *change* (and I emphasise this point) Die Linke's position to outright support for Israel (Gysi being among them).

But (on the second count) they have not done so!! The Berlin incident should be a warning sign, but it's not proof of the failure of Die Linke by any means. As anyone from the CWI (or who has been following their group - the SAV - work in Die Linke) will know, Berlin has been a particularly ugly terrain for left regroupment with Die Linke in government alongside the SPD and carrying out neoliberal reforms.

While the "rightwing" of the ex-PDS are firmly in control of Die Linke, and Lafontaine's radical rhetoric is almost certainly skin-deep, the growth of this party is a watershed for German left politics, and the left generally should be paying closer attention than the "analysis" of one crazy sect (who in Australia gave their preferences to the right-wing government in last year's federal election. Hypocrisy much?).

There are a number of radical platforms in Die Linke, including the Anticapitalist Left, the Emancipatory Left and the Socialist Left (and for you ex-stalinists out there, the Communist Platform), as well as a number of Trotskyist groups (who are involved in some of these platforms). This includes the CWI, IST and FI, all of whom are playing leading roles in the party.

The challenge for the *real* left is to educate, recruit (both to themselves AND to Die Linke - which has nearly 80,000 members, over 60,000 of whom are ex-PDS) from the layers of radical youth, militant unionists and disenfranchised SPD and Greens supporters, and try to build a genuine extra-parliamentary force. And possibly winning Die Linke to better politics in the process, defeating the left-zionist and left-social-democratis forces that would make Die Linke a mini-SPD.

There is *NO* chance of doing that from outside Die Linke. It really *IS* the vanguard party of Germany at the moment (even with all of its dangerous contradictions). It is still the only party opposing German troops in Afghanistan (and anywhere else for that matter). And it is openly criticising and challenging not only neoliberalism, but capitalism itself. That such a challenge is still far too weak is clear. But the potential Die Linke presents the left far outweighs - at least so far - the problems.

Die Linke is full of what the cynical capitalist, faced with a crisis, would call "opportunities". That is, challenges, but very meaningful ones (for once!) that the left has to learn to overcome.

Oh, and Teis, Die Linke also has a strong base in NRW, and Saarland (due to Lafontaine). There are also decent bases in Hamburg, Bremen and northern Bavaria, The politics of Die Linke in the west (ex-WASG) also tends to be better than in the east, where the old PDS-ers still reign supreme.

RaiseYourVoice
28th January 2009, 10:40
Ok i read chebols post and was like, yeah they are some good people in die Linke, not doubt about that. Untill i came across this:


There is *NO* chance of doing that from outside Die Linke. It really *IS* the vanguard party of Germany at the moment (even with all of its dangerous contradictions). It is still the only party opposing German troops in Afghanistan (and anywhere else for that matter). And it is openly criticising and challenging not only neoliberalism, but capitalism itself. That such a challenge is still far too weak is clear. But the potential Die Linke presents the left far outweighs - at least so far - the problems.No, no and no. Die Linke is certainly not a place for revolutionary politics. Its a place for internal fights and wasting time. I have yet to meet a branch of die linke (or linksjugend for that matter) that is actually working for a working class struggle outside their party.

Die Linke is most certainly NOT a vanguard party. It doesn't want to be a working class party either. Their version of "democratic socialism" is a totally vague concept of a reformist party. Is has nothing to do with a revolutionary analysis of breaking with the capitalist system. The fact that yes right now they are the best option in parliament does certainly not make them a revolutionary party.

Die Linke cannot even gain a base of working class support, or become a vanguard party because they dont even have an ideological line. In some cities die Linke is a completly reformist party (as in Berlin), in some cities it is down right anti-german, and in some it only exists on paper. What die Linke is gaining from at the moment is not being a party that is strictly defending the interessts of the working class, but still the frustration of many from the agend 2010 and the social cuts by the SPD and Green Party.

A party without a clear ideological line, being more of a collection of those who feel left out, can only direct the protest in reformist ways. Die Linke has NO revolutionary concept of how to work in parliaments, no programm of how to work in work places etc. They are actually trying to get in coalitions wherever they can (see hessen as an example that it is certainly not only in the east). Thus leading to the same "compromises" as in Berlin.

Die Neue Zeit
28th January 2009, 14:10
Ok i read chebols post and was like, yeah they are some good people in die Linke, not doubt about that. Untill i came across this:


There is *NO* chance of doing that from outside Die Linke. It really *IS* the vanguard party of Germany at the moment (even with all of its dangerous contradictions). It is still the only party opposing German troops in Afghanistan (and anywhere else for that matter). And it is openly criticising and challenging not only neoliberalism, but capitalism itself. That such a challenge is still far too weak is clear. But the potential Die Linke presents the left far outweighs - at least so far - the problems.

No, no and no. Die Linke is certainly not a place for revolutionary politics. Its a place for internal fights and wasting time. I have yet to meet a branch of die linke (or linksjugend for that matter) that is actually working for a working class struggle outside their party.

Die Linke is most certainly NOT a vanguard party. It doesn't want to be a working class party either. Their version of "democratic socialism" is a totally vague concept of a reformist party. Is has nothing to do with a revolutionary analysis of breaking with the capitalist system. The fact that yes right now they are the best option in parliament does certainly not make them a revolutionary party.

Die Linke cannot even gain a base of working class support, or become a vanguard party because they dont even have an ideological line.

Not a "vanguard" party by your definition, but certainly one by the standards of young Erfurtian revolutionaries like Lenin in Russia:

Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html)
Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (USPD) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabh-ngige-sozialdemokratische-t95038/index.html)

"As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)" (Lars Lih)

GX.
28th January 2009, 21:49
I'm a bit confused by the language of that article. Does Lederer have the party's backing on this or is he speaking without their consent? Does his position have a significant base of support in the party?

Die Neue Zeit
29th January 2009, 00:39
Lederer is just expressing his personal opinion, which doesn't have a lot of support in the party as a whole.

Zurdito
29th January 2009, 03:25
Lederer is just expressing his personal opinion, which doesn't have a lot of support in the party as a whole.

well he is the chairman in the Left Party in Berlin so his positions are not personal, and if the party membership wants to retain any credibility they should vote to expel him immediately. Or are you for "freedom of criticism"?

regarding the "early Lenin": what is the point of applying the same logic to a situation when social democracy was playing a progressive role and breaking with workers subordination to bourgeois aprties, to today. considering that social demcoracy had acheived hegemony amongst the working class by the 20's in most advanced countries, and used this position to betray it?

It doesn't seem like a very worthwile comparison.

Die Neue Zeit
29th January 2009, 03:44
Well he is the chairman in the Left Party in Berlin so his positions are not personal, and if the party membership wants to retain any credibility they should vote to expel him immediately. Or are you for "freedom of criticism"?

From my (albeit limited) knowledge, the Left Party has no programmatic position on the Middle East, though. If he's saying his position so that he can make it into a programmatic one without going through the proper party channels, then by all means he should be removed from his position.




Regarding the "early Lenin": what is the point of applying the same logic to a situation when social democracy was playing a progressive role and breaking with workers subordination to bourgeois parties, to today, considering that social democracy had achieved hegemony amongst the working class by the 20's in most advanced countries, and used this position to betray it?

It doesn't seem like a very worthwile comparison.

Come on, Zurdito! You have read both of my works (and that Lih quote, if you recall, starts the CSR critique of classical social democracy), and both of them call for an explicitly Class-Strugglist Social Labour organization (and by no means is Die Linke such, relegating that term to a mere question at the end of its "Key Programmatic Points"). Using Mao's fuzzy math: class strugglism weeds out 90% of "reformists" (including the "identity politics" of the "New Left") and at most 20% of "revolutionaries" (propagandists of the deed, hooligans, lifestylists, etc.).

Wakizashi the Bolshevik
29th January 2009, 16:30
Disgusting indeed, what a moron that chairman is.

Zurdito
29th January 2009, 16:49
From my (albeit limited) knowledge, the Left Party has no programmatic position on the Middle East, though. If he's saying his position so that he can make it into a programmatic one without going through the proper party channels, then by all means he should be removed from his position.

Well this is a point for any socialist forces in Die Linke to sort out, isn't it. I think that not having a programme on the Middle East allows reactionaries to use the organisation with impunity. If socialists in Die Linke want to prove that view wrong they need to find a solution to stop scum like this using their resources and their activism to get in power (as Die Linke is in Berlin, a position it has used to attack workers, for example bus drivers last autumn) - either by driving reactionaries like this one out of the leadership (and party, but let's at least agree on leadership), or, if they cannot win the party over to that line, opposing it as a reactionary force spreading chaunvinism in the working class.






Come on, Zurdito! You have read both of my works (and that Lih quote, if you recall, starts the CSR critique of classical social democracy), and both of them call for an explicitly Class-Strugglist Social Labour organization (and by no means is Die Linke such, relegating that term to a mere question at the end of its "Key Programmatic Points"). Using Mao's fuzzy math: class strugglism weeds out 90% of "reformists" (including the "identity politics" of the "New Left") and at most 20% of "revolutionaries" (propagandists of the deed, hooligans, lifestylists, etc.).

In my experience, creating a genuinely leninist party based on bridging the working class vanguard today to socialism, and fighting for the working class to move towards the leadership of the vanguard, tends to exclude such people. However I am not so much worried about who to exclude, but rather who to include - the most advanced sectors of the working class (and not to sacrifice the political education of them as leaders, for the sake of a "mass audience", which the opportunists always waste anyway).

Die Neue Zeit
30th January 2009, 01:11
Well this is a point for any socialist forces in Die Linke to sort out, isn't it. I think that not having a programme on the Middle East allows reactionaries to use the organisation with impunity. If socialists in Die Linke want to prove that view wrong they need to find a solution to stop scum like this using their resources and their activism to get in power (as Die Linke is in Berlin, a position it has used to attack workers, for example bus drivers last autumn) - either by driving reactionaries like this one out of the leadership (and party, but let's at least agree on leadership), or, if they cannot win the party over to that line, opposing it as a reactionary force spreading chaunvinism in the working class.

I do agree on the "leadership" part for sure. :)



Come on, Zurdito! You have read both of my works (and that Lih quote, if you recall, starts the CSR critique of classical social democracy), and both of them call for an explicitly Class-Strugglist Social Labour organization (and by no means is Die Linke such, relegating that term to a mere question at the end of its "Key Programmatic Points"). Using Mao's fuzzy math: class strugglism weeds out 90% of "reformists" (including the "identity politics" of the "New Left") and at most 20% of "revolutionaries" (propagandists of the deed, hooligans, lifestylists, etc.).

In my experience, creating a genuinely leninist party based on bridging the working class vanguard today to socialism, and fighting for the working class to move towards the leadership of the vanguard, tends to exclude such people. However I am not so much worried about who to exclude, but rather who to include - the most advanced sectors of the working class (and not to sacrifice the political education of them as leaders, for the sake of a "mass audience", which the opportunists always waste anyway).

You can't organize the whole of the vanguard without being a mass party (hence the then-Marxist SPD and also the USPD, no matter the former's blatant underemphasis on class struggle). "Genuinely Leninist," in my interpretation, refers to Lenin's mistake in not reproaching that substitutionist-and-scab Zinoviev more thoroughly in his Comintern politics. Also, given your remarks on proletarianization, it would be crucial for this "Kautskyan" party to have a workers-only membership, which Kautsky fought for against Vollmar and even Bebel (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-labour-t97028/index.html).

As for the "mass audience," I am just as turned off by New Left "identity politics" as you are. :)

Die Neue Zeit
7th February 2009, 18:52
I would like to ask: when this year is the Left party holding its congress/conference?

Wakizashi the Bolshevik
8th February 2009, 21:11
Sure it is a left party, other than in name?

Rjevan
8th February 2009, 22:19
I would like to ask: when this year is the Left party holding its congress/conference?
As far as I know on February 28th is an European congress in Essen and on June 20th they hold their "Bundesparteitag" in Potsdam.
Anyway, it's sad to hear news like these, another party which is deleted from my list.

L.J.Solidarity
8th February 2009, 23:22
Sure it is a left party, other than in name?
Eastern state organisations and most federal commitee members+MPs: No
Most rankf&file members: Yes

zapatista
28th February 2009, 11:15
This almost made me throw up.

Die Neue Zeit
1st March 2009, 04:26
So, any news on what transpired in Essen today?

Rjevan
1st March 2009, 16:34
Lothar Bisky was elected as top candidate for the European election with 93,4% of the votes.

From the "Zeit-Online":
He assured that "Die Linke" is anything but opposed to the European Union and that they don't want to abolish EU but they want to overcome the "economic nantionalism and act European". He criticised that the "High priests of neo-liberalism" in Berlin and Brussels present themselves as "crisis managers of a crisis they created themselves".
...
He also defended the "No" to the Treaties of Lisbon which would have commited the EU to military armament and therefore "turns the basic idea of European integration upside down".
...
"Die Linke" accuses the EU of military armament, economical exploitation, building social rifts and destroying the environment. They demand appointment of a European economic government.
...
On the other hand, Christiane Reimann, delegate of the party, earned great applause for saying that the EU is only an "imperialistic block" and a place for "class struggle from above"
...
While some party members equalise EU and capitalism and are in favour of abolishing EU, chairman of the fraction of Saxony-Anhalt, Wulf Gallert, states: "We need the EU to tame capitalism."

Oskar Lafontain, chairman of "Die Linke", stated that this time now is as important for our future as WW II or the fall of the Berlin wall.
He said that both events gave the FRG the chance to build a real democracy, because a democratic society with absoultism in its economy can't work. But these chances were lost, now the FRG has a new chance.
He demanded regulations on the financial markets in Europe which include the banning of
1.) hedge funds
2.) special purpose entities
3.) tax havens
4.) securitisation

sources:
"Die Zeit-Online" (http://www.zeit.de/online/2009/10/Linke-Parteitag-Essen-Europa?page=1) (German)
"Die Linke: Aktuell" (http://die-linke.de/) (German)

Speech by Oskar Lafontaine (http://die-linke.de/partei/organe/parteitage/europaparteitag_2009/reden/europa_braucht_eine_starke_linke/) (with audio but, who would have thought that, German ;))

Die Neue Zeit
1st March 2009, 16:36
So is Bisky still sharing the chairmanship of the party with Lafontaine, or has the former surrendered to the latter's fame?

Rjevan
1st March 2009, 21:14
No, as far as I know he's still sharing the chairmanship with Lafontaine. At least I heard/read nothing different.

L.J.Solidarity
2nd March 2009, 01:12
The congress is considered a victory for genuine leftist/socialist forces within the party by socialist and bourgeois media alike in Germany, as the two most right-wing/liberal MEPs (Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann and Andre Brie) both attempted to be re-elected despite not having been proposed by the party leadership and were defeated, while well-known peace activist Tobias Pflüger did likewise and succeeded in gaining a safe position on the list.
However, there will still be several members of fds (the most right-wing faction of the party) in the next european parliament, so I guess we can call Essen a moderate success rather than a great victory.

Die Neue Zeit
20th March 2009, 05:33
http://www.scottishleftreview.org/li/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=223&Itemid=1

I am surprised to hear Oskar Lafontaine going much further left than "Scandinavian socialists" did during the post-war "social-democratic" consensus:


"Contrary to the ideology of privatisation preached by the spokesmen of neoliberalism," Lafontaine says "we safeguard the idea of a public economy under democratic control. We advocate a mixed economy where private enterprises, by far the majority, exist side by side with nationalised enterprises. Above all, enterprises which meet society's fundamental needs of existence - the energy sector, for example, or the banking sector insofar as it is indispensable to the functioning of all the economy - must be nationalised."

If only Professor Michael Hudson would lecture Mr. Lafontaine on economic rent (http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-economic-rent-t103272/index.html). At least then the latter's arguments would be even more solid!