Die Linke booted out (Berlin elections)

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004545



After 10 years, the German left party has been voted out of the Berlin city coalition government, reports Tina Becker. But instead of criticisms of its participation there are calls for a show of false 'unity' to win back support

There was only one winner in the September 18 regional elections in Berlin: Die Piratenpartei (Pirate Party). At its first electoral outing in Berlin, it achieved a surprising 8.9% of the vote and will send 15 representatives to the regional parliament.

When it was formed in 2006, it concentrated almost exclusively on its opposition to the campaign of the powerful music industry against ‘piracy’ on the internet (hence the name). Initially, it did not expand its programme much beyond demands for ‘web freedom’ and its opposition to ongoing attempts by the German government to censor internet content deemed terrorist, pornographic or illegal in some other sense.

But in 2009, the group made the decision to become more serious, expand its programme beyond the internet and take part in elections. With considerable success: the membership exploded from a few hundred to 12,000. Its campaign in Berlin made the other parties look old and washed out. Die Piratenpartei members created their own election placards at home, demanding for example, ‘Privatise religion!’ The call for the separation of church and state went hand in hand with the demand to make it easier to organise referendums and for the end of ‘state secrets’.

Those elected have pledged to write a daily blog about their experiences in parliament, promising to publicise all of the city’s contracts and other material deemed ‘secret’. According to pollsters, the Pirates took tens of thousands of votes from the established parties: 17,000 from the Greens, 14,000 from the Social Democrats (SPD) and 13,000 from Die Linke. Interestingly, they also managed to bring on board 23,000 previous non-voters.

Of course, the group does not have a rounded or viable programme - and, of course, it is not a socialist organisation. It does not even see itself as a left party, stating: “We are outside that straight line that goes from the extreme left to the right”. But it was certainly regarded as a breath of fresh air in the muggy political atmosphere of Berlin.

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.

Naturally, the SPD was punished for its role in mismanaging the city: its vote dropped by 2.5%, although it remains the largest party. It will probably continue to govern, either with the Greens or the Conservatives (CDU) - negotiations are still ongoing. Die Linke, however, received a bigger slap: after its 2001 high of 22.3% and the 13.4% achieved in 2006, it is now down to 11.5%. The party’s whole election campaign was perceived as a desperate attempt to cling onto government. There was not even a hint of self-criticism of some of the unpopular measures it oversaw.

Add to that a few silly mistakes and you have an electoral catastrophe. For example, one of Die Linke’s main election posters railed against rising rents. But two weeks before the election, tens of thousands of council tenants received demands for steep rent increases. The bourgeois press had a field day.

Bourgeois government

Many members of Die Linke are highly critical of the actions of their Berlin comrades while in government. Unfortunately though, participation in bourgeois government is now hardly disputed by anybody in the party.

A confused, opportunistic argument is put forward by Sozialistische Linke, the party platform dominated by Marx 21 (the Socialist Workers Party’s German section, which used to be called Linksruck). In its analysis of the elections it writes that “since 2006, Berlin Die Linke has made good progress in government”. It criticises only a couple of policy decisions, as well as the fact that prospective candidates critical of those decisions were not “given good seats on the party’s electoral list” (and why exactly should the majority do that?).

Sozialistische Linke continues: “We fight for Die Linke to be successful in government or in opposition, depending on the political circumstances.” In its typically obscure way it concludes: “This also means we need to criticise any praxis in government or opposition that has not been up to scratch.” The Marx 21 comrades have a lot to lose and therefore choose their words carefully: a couple of their members were elected to the German Bundestag in 2009 and dozens more work as parliamentary aides.

And Antikapitalistische Linke (which is dominated by the soft Stalinist Kommunistische Plattform around the charismatic Sahra Wagenknecht) mainly criticises the fact that comrades in Berlin “did not act according to national policy”, particularly over water. No word about the problem of government participation itself.

For our part, we believe that working class parties should never take up seats in a bourgeois government. Once they can convince a majority of the working class of their ideas, we are in a qualitative different situation. We would seek to form a government in order to carry out our minimum programme in full and begin to put into practice measures outlined in the maximum programme. But Die Linke is a long way away from that.

Just like in Berlin, the party has overseen draconian cuts and closures in the regional governments of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg. And how could it be any different? In government, Die Linke has been forced to manage capitalism, which especially in this period of crisis means cuts, cuts and cuts again.

Eurobonds

Thanks to its powerful export industry, Germany seems to be coming through the economic crisis as the best of a bad lot. There is regularly talk of an “upswing”. But scratch the surface and a very different picture emerges. For example, while the official unemployment figure currently stands at 7% (2.9 million), there are another 4.2 million people in Germany who are officially classified as unterbeschäftigt (underemployed). In other words, another 10% of the workforce scrape by in precarious temporary jobs, have been sent onto training courses by the state or are forced to take up one of the hated ‘one euro jobs’, where the long-term unemployed are forced to work for €1 an hour or risk losing their benefits.

The situation in the east is worse still. In Berlin, 13.3% are currently unemployed. There are no official figures for underemployment there, but one can guess. Real wages have been going downhill for years and many employers have used the crisis to squeeze the most out of their workers: collective wage agreements are being cancelled by the employers at an alarming rate.

Why don’t the unions fight back? “It feels like we are only here to manage decline,” one trade union activist in Die Linke told me. Many people desperately cling on to their job - even if it is being casualised. There is very little fighting spirit on display - better a temporary job than none at all. The German unions are being broken. It is not happening as dramatically as under Margaret Thatcher in Britain, but it is no less effective.

It is no surprise then that many people feel that Germany should not have to bail out the Greek economy. The leading German tabloid Bild-Zeitung has run headline after headline railing against the increasing size of what is known in Germany as the Euro-Rettungsschirm (emergency parachute). According to a survey conducted by Die Welt, 66% of Germans are against another Greek bailout if they have to pay.

Die Linke quite rightly opposes the proposed package: “It will only save the banks, insurance companies and hedge funds,” says Klaus Ernst, chair of the party. The German export surplus has helped to create those massive debts in the rest of Europe and therefore “Germany is partially to blame for the crisis”.

The bourgeois leaders, however, are quite aware that they must act. They do not have a solution to the crisis, of course. But they know that the crumbling economies of Portugal, Greece and Italy will drag Germany down with them if nothing is done. Although the SPD will vote for the package in the Bundestag next week, it has been pushing for the introduction of Eurobonds, managed by a new euro zone treasury. Chancellor Angela Merkel seemed to flirt with the idea for a while. But the CDU now firmly rejects the idea of “socialising the debts of the other countries”. (in reality, that has long been happening).

Eurobonds cannot rescue capitalism in decline either, though they at least are an attempt at more rationality. The European Union and the Euro logically point the way towards more European-wide cooperation. That does not mean socialists should actively call for the introduction of Eurobonds, as, for example, the leadership of Die Linke now does. They are not an alternative to the rescue package, as the comrades seem to imply. As if those bonds would not be used mainly to “save the banks, insurance companies and hedge funds”.

Clearly, the Keynesian answers put forward by Die Linke’s leadership need to be challenged. Instead, we need our own vision for a united Europe. We have to wrest the project of European unity away from the bankers, bosses and bureaucrats and push for our own vision of a Europe from below.

‘Lack of unity’

Of course, not everybody in Die Linke agrees with the leadership’s support for Eurobonds. And there are plenty of other debates going on in the organisation.

For example, the party is in the middle of discussing the draft of a new party programme, which will be voted on at a conference in Erfurt at the end of October. Key areas of disagreement are: how to deal with the experience of ‘real existing socialism’ (especially East Germany), Keynesianism, the deployment of German soldiers abroad and the circumstances in which Die Linke can participate in government. But these differences are not properly debated in the party. In effect, they are played out in the distorted arena of the bourgeois media.

For a start, there is no actual space for it. Die Linke still does not have its own newspaper - or any other forum in which these huge disagreements could be discussed. It is a big plus that political platforms are allowed to freely operate (attempts by the leadership to abolish them a few years ago were soundly defeated) and they have been issuing statements on many of the disputed issues. Debates over the political direction of the party are also taking place locally in the branches, of course. And undoubtedly, the Erfurt conference will also see interesting contributions. In my experience, some of them will be clear and to the point, a few more will be deliberately murky and most of them will be just confused. But this is quite different from the healthy culture of open debate that is so desperately needed in Die Linke - and in the rest of the left, for that matter.

A few weeks before the Berlin elections, the party sent a birthday card to “our dear comrade” Fidel Castro, in which it praises “the gains of socialist Cuba, which has set an example for so many peoples all over the world”, without a single critical word. The card was signed by party leaders Gesine Lötzsch and Klaus Ernst - digitally, as it turned out. While Lötzsch (who is from East Germany) defended the wording she didn’t write, the Bavarian trade unionist Ernst distanced himself in embarrassment, calling the card “a mistake”. How the card got into the public domain is anybody’s guess.

Then there was the ‘Mauerbau-Skandal’ surrounding three Die Linke members in the regional parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. After a discussion about the building of the Berlin wall, all parliamentarians stood up to remember the victims that were killed when trying to flee East Germany - apart from the three Die Linke members. They were trying to protest against the “blanket demonisation” of East Germany - but, of course, they simply came over as a bunch of sad, left-over Stalinists (which they probably are).

Much of the Berlin election campaign was overshadowed by these ‘scandals’. This has led the left and the right to conclude that the bad results were mainly due to the “lack of unity” within the party and the “internal power fights” - not the unpopularity of the Berlin government. Ironically, the membership is strangely ‘united’ in that analysis (though the right blames the left for it and vice versa).

Unfortunately, this has led many comrades to draw the conclusion that less debate in Die Linke is needed and that those critical of the majority should shut up and rally behind the leadership. At the press conference after the Berlin count, Klaus Ernst mused that “a party where there seems to be infighting is not attractive. We have not been seen as a united organisation, because we didn’t always talk about each other in a positive way. The party leadership is united in this: we need to stop the infighting.” Sozialistische Linke too calls on all members to “fight for the joint goals of Die Linke and not publicly argue about internal party issues”.

In our view, the opposite is true. Die Linke urgently needs a publication where the different views can be openly debated, before the working class. Without such clarity, it will be impossible to defeat the right.

[Kiev Communard]

At last ! The hypocritical pseudo-leftists of Die Linke who cooperated with the SPD in destroying welfare services and working-class security got their just reward. It is always better when the open reactionaries lead the capitalist government - they are easier to denounce and fight than spineless reformists.

[Iron Felix]

Thanks for the interesting article Die Neue Zeit.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

DNZ: wouldn't Die Linke be exactly the kind of party to implement your European reforms?

But yeah, good article.

[Obs]

What does "soft Stalinist" mean, exactly?

[piet11111]

It is always better when the open reactionaries lead the capitalist government - they are easier to denounce and fight than spineless reformists.

The problem with that is that the reformists could try and rehabilitate themselves by claiming that they would have "spread the pain" more evenly.

With Die Linke fully exposed and the open reactionary's in opposition then we can make a clear argument against bourgeois democracy.

This is why i am so pissed to see the dutch labour party and the socialist party in opposition because i fully expected them to screw us over just as much as the liberals.

[Q]

The problem with that is that the reformists could try and rehabilitate themselves by claiming that they would have "spread the pain" more evenly.

With Die Linke fully exposed and the open reactionary's in opposition then we can make a clear argument against bourgeois democracy.

This is why i am so pissed to see the dutch labour party and the socialist party in opposition because i fully expected them to screw us over just as much as the liberals.

The problem, as we see in the Netherlands, is that when the "left" is in government, it often gives way for the right to gain popularity.

This is incidentally why the far left needs to get its act together and not shy away from electoral tactics.

[Delenda Carthago]

Parties like DieLinke or Blocko in Portugal have no answers for today's working class.While EU is collapsing and demands more and more cuts, they ask for more Europe. This is a perfect example of what an opportunist party is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ: wouldn't Die Linke be exactly the kind of party to implement your European reforms?

But yeah, good article.

If it were to reject coalitionism, then perhaps, and even then with grassroots class pressure. They're definitely to the left of Labourism historically.


Parties like DieLinke or Blocko in Portugal have no answers for today's working class.While EU is collapsing and demands more and more cuts, they ask for more Europe. This is a perfect example of what an opportunist party is.

If anything else, Die Linke hasn't "asked for more Europe" enough. Eurobonds are nowhere near the kind of political integration and public financial monopoly the European working class needs.

[Seth]

Of course, reformism is just more of the same. I just lost faith in social democracy, liberalism, and all that stuff.

[Delenda Carthago]

If anything else, Die Linke hasn't "asked for more Europe" enough. Eurobonds are nowhere near the kind of political integration and public financial monopoly the European working class needs.
Thats what our Prime Minister tells us too, but noone thinks of him as a really socialist. Stick to that line and you ll be struggling to get NPD numbers pretty soon.

[DaringMehring]

It is a good article except the double-talk about parliament.



For our part, we believe that working class parties should never take up seats in a bourgeois government.


Ok.



Once they can convince a majority of the working class of their ideas, we are in a qualitative different situation. We would seek to form a government in order to carry out our minimum programme in full and begin to put into practice measures outlined in the maximum programme.


Huh?

So... we shouldn't take seats, unless we can win?

You're going to swoop in suddenly, from 0 to 51%?

And then, use the bourgeois government to institute your program?

It sounds ludicrous.

Damn right socialists embarrass themselves in the bourgeois government. From the Militant in the 80s in Liverpool, to Die Linke in Berlin, to every other example. But it doesn't seem like this article draws the right lesson.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ No, the DOTP is "the government" that the CPGB refers to for the implementation of the minimum program, all of which is also the DOTP.

[Q]

It is a good article except the double-talk about parliament.



Ok.



Huh?

So... we shouldn't take seats, unless we can win?

You're going to swoop in suddenly, from 0 to 51%?

And then, use the bourgeois government to institute your program?

It sounds ludicrous.

Damn right socialists embarrass themselves in the bourgeois government. From the Militant in the 80s in Liverpool, to Die Linke in Berlin, to every other example. But it doesn't seem like this article draws the right lesson.

In addition to DNZ I would say that the article said that communists shouldn't take seats in government. It says nothing about building an opposition. So, the point is really about arguing against coalitions and for a permanent opposition.

[Tommy4ever]

What does "soft Stalinist" mean, exactly?

Brezhnevism.

[Le Socialiste]

The absolute hypocrisy that runs through these so-called "leftist" parties is to be expected given their position within the framework of bourgeois parliamentarism. They have no intention of furthering the demands of the working-class, because they are ultimately beholden to private capital and the state. Instead of taking up the "mantle" of the class struggle (which is a bullshit approach - unless it is the mass of the working-class doing so) these parties offer themselves up as the guarantors and defenders of austerity. It will take a comlete break with every single one of these parties - and the abandonment of those who advocate participation in the bourgeois political process (i.e. elections, seats in government, etc.) - for the working-class to discover its own potential for revolutionary action. The struggle takes place outside of the petty quibbles of capitalistic democracy and its parties.


The problem, as we see in the Netherlands, is that when the "left" is in government, it often gives way for the right to gain popularity.

This is incidentally why the far left needs to get its act together and not shy away from electoral tactics.

This fixation on "electoral tactics" is what stalled the genuine efforts of the far left in the first place. It channelled the anger and disillusionment of the class-conscious into less threatening methods of action, effectively diverting the attention of the working-class away from their struggle. It has achieved little more than being yet another chain thrown across the path of the people's efforts towards communism. You cannot reform the state into socialism and its own subsequent dismantlement; at best, a party can raise awareness - but that's it. It can only fulfill a part of what is needed to bring full consciousness to the proletariat, and even then its results have been historically tragic.

[W1N5T0N]

Die Linke : Marxist Leninists with the occasional stalinist leaning...
I think on the day the wall was built, the anniversary, they said stuff like
"thanks for 28 years of free education, free healthcare and this and that and bla."

Sadly, they did not point out the prohibition of free speech, free love, human rights and all THAT stuff under the fucking SED.

I really dont like them, whatever they call themself.

:ninja:

[Delenda Carthago]

Brezhnevism.
How is these two connected?

[Q]

This fixation on "electoral tactics" is what stalled the genuine efforts of the far left in the first place. It channelled the anger and disillusionment of the class-conscious into less threatening methods of action, effectively diverting the attention of the working-class away from their struggle. It has achieved little more than being yet another chain thrown across the path of the people's efforts towards communism. You cannot reform the state into socialism and its own subsequent dismantlement; at best, a party can raise awareness - but that's it. It can only fulfill a part of what is needed to bring full consciousness to the proletariat, and even then its results have been historically tragic.

I think you're missing the point, comrade. Elections are one of the few moments when society as a whole is electrified in a political sense. People discuss politics, which is exactly what we want to do too. Participating in elections then is a moment to wage propaganda for our programme, or in other words giving our answer to how we want to run society (radical democracy, class power and all that).

If we do happen to get elected, the point is to use that position to make demands that are in the interest of the working class, attack the government and all other parties for their pro-capitalist programmes and use the media attention for example as a podium for communist ideas.

I agree with you that the state cannot be reformed. It should be part of our propaganda exactly to undermine its authority and to instate our own class hegemony in the place of the current capitalist state apparatus.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^^^ No, the DOTP is "the government" that the CPGB refers to for the implementation of the minimum program, all of which is also the DOTP.

A left-of-labour party elected into a bourgeois government, to implement Social Democratic reforms, is NOT the DotP. :thumbdown:

[Q]

A left-of-labour party elected into a bourgeois government, to implement Social Democratic reforms, is NOT the DotP. :thumbdown:

To quote a little (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hypothesis-change-world-t161297/index.html) to show where DNZ is coming from:


The view of Marx and Engels - whether it was right or wrong is debatable - was that if the democratic demands in their totality were won, that would amount to the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the replacement of the political rule of the bourgeoisie with the political rule of the working class. The working class then proceeds to reorganise society. The economic initiatives it takes and how it goes about reorganising society are a matter of tactics, but the first step is to replace the political rule of the bourgeoisie with that of the working class.
So, the minimum programme has nothing to do with social-democratic reforms, but is about bringing the working class to power by its own struggle for complete democracy and, therefore, its own political hegemony. In other words, the DotP.

[Dimmu]

Good good.. Not really much difference between center-right and center-left parties in Europe.

[Le Socialiste]

I think you're missing the point, comrade. Elections are one of the few moments when society as a whole is electrified in a political sense. People discuss politics, which is exactly what we want to do too. Participating in elections then is a moment to wage propaganda for our programme, or in other words giving our answer to how we want to run society (radical democracy, class power and all that).

But it's electrification over an electoral process that doesn't care for the interests of the broader working-class. It's theater, well-orchestrated theater. The interests of the upper-classes and the state will always override those of the general public. Elections within a bourgeois parliamentary system serve the sole purpose of instilling in the people the belief that they have a say in their government's direction. If we want to discuss politics, we should do so outside of a governmental framework that serves to largely alienate the people from their "democracy". There are many ways to get our word out there, but I don't believe it useful as an electoral tactic. Especially not today, when nearly every single "left" party has been exposed for being contributors to the defense of capitalism and private interests - interests that aren't those of the working-class.


If we do happen to get elected, the point is to use that position to make demands that are in the interest of the working class, attack the government and all other parties for their pro-capitalist programmes and use the media attention for example as a podium for communist ideas.

But why must we do these things within the system? Would it not be more beneficial to agitate outside of the very symbols of "business as usual" (for lack of a better term) and to reach out to the people on a platform that defends their gains and intends to continue the fight of the struggle?


I agree with you that the state cannot be reformed. It should be part of our propaganda exactly to undermine its authority and to instate our own class hegemony in the place of the current capitalist state apparatus.

If I were someone new to revolutionary leftism, and I saw a party that considered itself an adherent of said leftism, I would be left scratching my head at "In order to undermine the structures and symbols of authority, we must become a part of it". It just comes across as opportunistic. I'm not accusing you of being opportunistic (far from it), I just think what you're saying sounds all too much like it. If we are to undermine the authority of the state for the sake of furthering the broader struggle of the proletariat it must be done outside the regular channels of "electoral agitation".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So why don't you consider mass spoilage campaigns?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Damn right socialists embarrass themselves in the bourgeois government. From the Militant in the 80s in Liverpool, to Die Linke in Berlin, to every other example.
Die Linke got dumped for implementing cuts - please outline what cuts the socialist council in Liverpool implemented.

Die Linke was dumped by the votes of working class people - the socialist council in Liverpool was removed by capitalist courts.

Die Linke in Berlin thought they could manage capitalism better - the socialist council in Liverpool knew it couldn't and attempted to mobilise mass opposition to the Tories.

[DaringMehring]

Listen to your own comments.


Die Linke in Berlin thought they could manage capitalism better - the socialist council in Liverpool knew it couldn't and attempted to mobilise mass opposition to the Tories.

They knew they couldn't manage capitalism better --
So they took control of a segment of capitalist government --
Then tried to mobilize opposition to one of the bourgeois Parties.

You know what "mobilize opposition to one of the bourgeois Parties" sounds like? Something a bourgeois Party would do. Something the CPUSA would do. Not something a socialist would do. What about opposition to capitalism!

Taking control of something you know you can't manage? So you can share in its toxic process, which you cannot change? So you can be the face of it?

The whole thing reeked, and look at the result. It was a disaster. CWI likes to mythologize the time they were almost able to be opportunistic, but that only says bad things about them, not good things about their actions. I wouldn't call them Trotskyists at all.

The Spartacist League's article on non-participation in executive positions in the bourgeois government is a good analysis, not that I'm a member of that deeply flawed group.

[DaringMehring]

To quote a little (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hypothesis-change-world-t161297/index.html) to show where DNZ is coming from:


So, the minimum programme has nothing to do with social-democratic reforms, but is about bringing the working class to power by its own struggle for complete democracy and, therefore, its own political hegemony. In other words, the DotP.

So the DotP can come from winning positions in bourgeois parliament, winning "democratic demands" via the bourgeois democracy until eventually society is "fully democratic."

You know, this is the position of the CPUSA.

And its bullshit. As long as capital exists, there is no possibility for winning "full democracy" because capital is inherently anti-democratic.

The position has more in common with Ya Democracia Real, Fix Congress First, and other petit bourgeois radical reform movements, than a Marxist view of class forces and class power.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To quote a little (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hypothesis-change-world-t161297/index.html) to show where DNZ is coming from:


So, the minimum programme has nothing to do with social-democratic reforms, but is about bringing the working class to power by its own struggle for complete democracy and, therefore, its own political hegemony. In other words, the DotP.

The working class, upon reaching a certain level of class consciousness, will not 'democratically demand' reforms, it will most un-democratically demand power, in extra-class terms. The working class is only democratic in its intra-class relations, it does not (and thus we do not) need to play silly willies with bourgeois electoral politics. As i've said before, bourgeois political involvement should be utilised, but not in order to win, but for propaganda terms only, if we are talking about a revolutionary Socialist involvement.

It is quite clear, then, that in the context you quote Marx and Engels, they were wrong. But that's not hugely surprising, since the time they were living in pre-dated the turncoats of the Social Democratic and Labour Parties who sold out for power.

[Crux]

^^^ So why don't you consider mass spoilage campaigns?
Probably because Social-proletocracy isn't that popular outside of DNZ-land.

[Threetune]

I think that the opinions of this writer are relevant to this discussion. I have highlighted (Bolded) parts I think are of interest to work I am doing. Enjoy this is brilliant
V. I. Lenin

Letter to Sylvia Pankhurst[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm#fw01)


Written: 28 August, 1919
First Published: September 1919; Published according to the manuscript
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 561-566
Translated: George Hanna
Transcription/HTML Markup: David Walters & Robert Cymbala
Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org (http://www.marx.org)) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (http://www.marxists.org/admin/legal/fdl.htm)

To Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, London
August 28, 1919
Dear Comrade,

I received your letter of July 16, 1919, only yesterday. I am extremely grateful to you for the information about Britain and will try to fulfil your request, i.e., reply to your question.
I have no doubt at all that many workers who are among the best, most honest and sincerely revolutionary members of the proletariat are enemies of parliamentarism and of any participation in Parliament. The older capitalist culture and bourgeois democracy in any country, the more understandable this is, since the bourgeoisie in old parliamentary countries has excellently mastered the art of hypocrisy and of fooling the people in a thousand ways, passing off bourgeois parliamentarism as “democracy in general” or as “pure democracy” and so on, cunningly concealing the million threads which bind Parliament to the stock exchange and the capitalists, utilising a venal mercenary press and exercising the power of money, the power of capital in every way.

There is no doubt that the Communist International and the Communist Parties of the various countries would be making an irreparable mistake if they repulsed those workers who stand for Soviet power, but who are against participation in the parliamentary struggle. If we take the problem in its general form, theoretically, then it is this very programme, i.e., the struggle for Soviet power, for the Soviet republic, which is able to unite, and today must certainly unite, all sincere, honest revolutionaries from among the workers. Very many anarchist workers are now becoming sincere supporters of Soviet power, and that being so, it proves them to be our best comrades and friends, the best of revolutionaries, who have been enemies of Marxism only through misunderstanding, or, more correctly, not through misunderstanding but because the official socialism prevailing in the epoch of the Second International (1889-1914) betrayed Marxism, lapsed into opportunism, perverted Marx’s revolutionary teachings in general and his teachings on the lessons of the Paris Commune of 1871 in particular. I have written in detail about this in my book The State and Revolution and will therefore not dwell further on the problem.


What if in a certain country those who are Communists by their convictions and their readiness to carry on revolutionary work, sincere partisans of Soviet power (the “Soviet system”, as non-Russians sometimes call it), cannot unite owing to disagreement over participation in Parliament?

I should consider such disagreement immaterial at present, since the struggle for Soviet power is the political struggle of the proletariat in its highest, most class-conscious, most revolutionary form. It is better to be with the revolutionary workers when they are mistaken over some partial or secondary question than with the “official” socialists or Social-Democrats, if the latter are not sincere, firm revolutionaries, and are unwilling or unable to conduct revolutionary work among the working masses, but pursue correct tactics in regard to that partial question. And the question of parliamentarism is now a partial, secondary question. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were, in my opinion, correct when they defended participation in the elections to the German bourgeois parliament, to the constituent National Assembly, at the January 1919 Conference of the Spartacists in Berlin, against the majority at the Conference.[2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm#fw02) But, of course, they were still more correct when they preferred remaining with the Communist Party, which was making a partial mistake, to siding with the direct traitors to socialism, like Scheidemann and his party, or with those servile souls, doctrinaires, cowards, spineless accomplices of the bourgeoisie, and reformists in practice, such as Kautsky, Haase, Däumig and all this “party” of German “Independents”.


I am personally convinced that to renounce participation in the parliamentary elections is a mistake on the part of the revolutionary workers of Britain, but better to make that mistake than to delay the formation of a big workers’ Communist Party in Britain out of all the trends and elements, listed by you, which sympathise with Bolshevism and sincerely support the Soviet Republic. If, for example, among the B.S.P. (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/b/r.htm#british-socialist-party) there were sincere Bolsheviks who refused, because of differences over participation in Parliament, to merge at once in a Communist Party with trends 4, 6 and 7, then these Bolsheviks, in my opinion, would be making a mistake a thousand times greater than the mistaken refusal to participate in elections to the British bourgeois parliament. In saying this I naturally assume that trends 4, 6 and 7, taken together, are really connected with the mass of the workers, and are not merely small intellectual groups, as is often the case in Britain. In this respect particular importance probably attaches to the Workers Committees and Shop Stewards, [These words are in English in the original.—Editor] which, one should imagine, are closely connected with the masses.


Unbreakable ties with the mass of the workers, the ability to agitate unceasingly among them, to participate in every strike, to respond to every demand of the masses—this is the chief thing for a Communist Party, especially in such a country as Britain, where until now (as incidentally is the case in all imperialist countries) participation in the socialist movement, and the labour movement generally, has been confined chiefly to a thin top crust of workers, the labour aristocracy, most of whom are thoroughly and hopelessly spoiled by reformism and are held back by bourgeois and imperialist prejudices. Without a struggle against this stratum, without the destruction of every trace of its prestige among the workers, without convincing the masses of the utter bourgeois corruption of this stratum, there can be no question of a serious communist workers’ movement. This applies to Britain, France, America and Germany.


Those working-class revolutionaries who make parliamentarism the centre of their attacks are quite right inasmuch as these attacks serve to express their denial in principle of bourgeois parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy. Soviet power, the Soviet republic—this is what the workers’ revolution has put in place of bourgeois democracy, this is the form of transition from capitalism to socialism, the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And criticism of parliamentarism is not only legitimate and necessary, as giving the case for the transition to Soviet power, but is quite correct, as being the recognition of the historically conditional and limited character of parliamentarism, its connection with capitalism and capitalism alone, of its progressive character as compared with the Middle Ages, and of its reactionary character as compared with Soviet power.


But the critics of parliamentarism in Europe and America, when they are anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists, are very often wrong insofar as they reject all participation in elections and parliamentary activity. Here they simply show their lack of revolutionary experience. We Russians, who have lived through two great revolutions in the twentieth century, are well aware what importance parliamentarism can have, and actually does have during a revolutionary period in general and in the very midst of a revolution in particular. Bourgeois parliaments must be abolished and replaced by Soviet bodies. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt now, after the experience of Russia, Hungary, Germany and other countries, that this absolutely must take place during a proletarian revolution.


Therefore, systematically to prepare the working masses for this, to explain to them in advance the importance of Soviet power, to conduct propaganda and agitation for it—all this is the absolute duty of the worker who wants to be a revolutionary in deeds. But we Russians fulfilled that task, operating in the parliamentary arena, too. In the tsarist, fake, landowners’ Duma our representatives knew how to carry on revolutionary and republican propaganda. In just the same way Soviet propaganda can and must be carried on in and from within bourgeois parliaments.

Perhaps that will not be easy to achieve at once in this or that parliamentary country. But that is another question. Steps must be taken to ensure that these correct tactics are mastered by the revolutionary workers in all countries. And if the workers’ party is really revolutionary, if it is really a workers’ party (that is, connected with the masses, with the majority of the working people, with the rank and file of the proletariat and not merely with its top crust), if it is really a party, i.e., a firmly, effectively knit organisation of the revolutionary vanguard, which knows how to carry on revolutionary work among the masses by all possible means, then such a party will surely be able to keep its own parliamentarians in hand, to make of them real revolutionary propagandists, such as Karl Liebknecht was, and not opportunists, not those who corrupt the proletariat with bourgeois methods, bourgeois customs, bourgeois ideas or bourgeois poverty of ideas.


If that failed to be achieved in Britain at once, if, in addition, no union of the supporters of Soviet power proved possible in Britain because of a difference over parliamentarism and only because of that, then I should consider a good step forward to complete unity the immediate formation of two Communist Parties, i.e., two parties which stand for the transition from bourgeois parliamentarism to Soviet power. Let one of these parties recognise participation in the bourgeois parliament, and the other reject it; this disagreement is now so immaterial that the most reasonable thing would be not to split over it. But even the joint existence of two such parties would be immense progress as compared with the present situation, would most likely be a transition to complete unity and the speedy victory of communism.


Soviet power in Russia has not only shown by the experience of almost two years that the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible even in a peasant country and is capable, by creating a strong army (the best proof that organisation and order prevail), of holding out in unbelievably, exceptionally difficult conditions.


Soviet power has done more: it has already achieved a moral victory throughout the world, for the working masses everywhere, although they get only tiny fragments of the truth about Soviet power, although they hear thousands and millions of false reports about Soviet power, are already in favour of Soviet power. It is already understood by the proletariat of the whole world that this power is the power of the working people, that it alone is salvation from capitalism, from the yoke of capital, from wars between the imperialists, that it leads to lasting peace.
That is why defeats of individual Soviet republics by the imperialists are possible, but it is impossible to conquer the world Soviet movement of the proletariat.

With communist greetings,
N. Lenin


P.S.—The following cutting from the Russian press will give you an example of our information about Britain:
“London, 25.8 (via Beloostrov). The London correspondent of the Copenhagen paper Berlingske Tidende wires on August 3rd concerning the Bolshevik movement in Britain: “The strikes which have occurred in the last few days and the recent revelations have shaken the confidence of the British in the immunity of their country to Bolshevism. At present the press is vigorously discussing this question, and the government is making every effort to establish that a “conspiracy” has existed for quite a long time and has had for its aim neither more nor less than the overthrow of the existing system. The British police have arrested a revolutionary bureau which, according to the press had both money and arms at its disposal.

The Times publishes the contents of certain documents found on the arrested men. They contain a complete revolutionary programme, according to which the entire bourgeoisie are to be disarmed; arms and ammunition are to be obtained for Soviets of Workers’ and Red Army Deputies and a Red Army formed; all government posts are to be filled by workers. Furthermore, it was planned to set up a revolutionary tribunal for political criminals and persons guilty of cruelly treating prisoners. All foodstuffs were to be confiscated. Parliament and other organs of public government were to be dissolved and revolutionary Soviets created in their place. The working day was to be lowered to six hours and the minimum weekly wage raised to £7. All state and other debts were to be annulled. All banks, industrial and commercial enterprises and means of transport were to be declared nationalised.”

If this is true, then I must offer the British imperialists and capitalists, in the shape of their organ, the richest newspaper in the world, The Times, my respectful gratitude and thanks for their excellent propaganda in behalf of Bolshevism. Carry on in the same spirit, gentlemen of The Times, you are splendidly leading Britain to the victory of Bolshevism!

Threetune says

in 2011 can you lot start getting partisan in this class struggle, use your innate skills instead of trying to be crap left intellectuals. And do read more Lenin.

[Per Levy]

Die Linke : Marxist Leninists with the occasional stalinist leaning...

thats totally bullshit, die linke is a social democratic party not a stalinist/marxist-leninist one. it has some communists in its ranks but they dont matter much.


I think on the day the wall was built, the anniversary, they said stuff like
"thanks for 28 years of free education, free healthcare and this and that and bla."

they didnt, a left-wing newspaper, called "junge welt", with "ostalgie" said those things.


Sadly, they did not point out the prohibition of free speech, free love, human rights and all THAT stuff under the fucking SED.

actually die linke did that quite ofton.


I really dont like them, whatever they call themself.

:ninja:

well at least one thing we can agree on, im not a fan of die linke even though i vote for them in elections(i wouldnt have in the berlin election though). and just one advice, winston, inform yourself before you make comments like the ones above.

[Le Socialiste]

Threetune says

in 2011 can you lot start getting partisan in this class struggle, use your innate skills instead of trying to be crap left intellectuals.Le Socialiste says:

In 2011 can you understand that today's official party-oriented "Left" is nothing more than a mass grouping of opportunistic capitalists posing as the defenders of the working-class?


And do read more Lenin.

I have - I'm not impressed.

[Dire Helix]

Die Linke : Marxist Leninists with the occasional stalinist leaning...
I think on the day the wall was built, the anniversary, they said stuff like
"thanks for 28 years of free education, free healthcare and this and that and bla."

Sadly, they did not point out the prohibition of free speech, free love, human rights and all THAT stuff under the fucking SED.

I really dont like them, whatever they call themself.

:ninja:

This post really cracked me up for some reason. Free education and health care? - Blah blah, who cares about that!? Free love? - Now we are talking!
Them petty bourgeois leftists and their screwed up priorities.

And for your information, Die Linke never misses an opportunity to denounce GDR, which is apparently your idea of what a Marxist party(which Die Linke isn`t anyway) should be doing instead of attacking capitalism and putting forward a revolutionary alternative to it.

[Threetune]

Le Socialiste says:

In 2011 can you understand that today's official party-oriented "Left" is nothing more than a mass grouping of opportunistic capitalists posing as the defenders of the working-class?



I have - I'm not impressed.






Ye what did you read by Lenin and what are you not impressed by? Please be specific, others my want to be informed by your deep understanding.
:laugh:

[Threetune]

You Know You Can!

Are you mad, ignorant or illiterate or just middle class types who can’t be labled because of your stunningly wonderful individual personal reactionary pro-NATO personalities?

Wradically labelled and reformist of course.


Shhhhh lets bomb Libya.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So the DotP can come from winning positions in bourgeois parliament, winning "democratic demands" via the bourgeois democracy until eventually society is "fully democratic."

Hell no! I didn't say that, Q didn't say that, and the article didn't say that!

What are some requirements needed for a DOTP? Median skilled workers' wages for public officials, full recallability, class-strugglist assembly and association by the workers, workers militias, etc.


Probably because Social-proletocracy isn't that popular outside of DNZ-land.

Mass spoilage campaigns are a form of political expression. It's something not considered by those gunning for cheap election gimmicks or politically lazy abstentions.


As i've said before, bourgeois political involvement should be utilised, but not in order to win, but for propaganda terms only, if we are talking about a revolutionary Socialist involvement.

You should read DeLeonist material on pure opposition tactics in bourgeois parliaments. I like them, too.

I like the whole range of mass spoilage campaigns, pure opposition tactics, mass civil disobedience, etc.

[Crux]

Hell no! I didn't say that, Q didn't say that, and the article didn't say that!

What are some requirements needed for a DOTP? Median skilled workers' wages for public officials, full recallability, class-strugglist assembly and association by the workers, workers militias, etc.



Mass spoilage campaigns are a form of political expression. It's something not considered by those gunning for cheap election gimmicks or politically lazy abstentions.



You should read DeLeonist material on pure opposition tactics in bourgeois parliaments. I like them, too.

I like the whole range of mass spoilage campaigns, pure opposition tactics, mass civil disobedience, etc.
How nice. And how utterly irrelevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's less irrelevant than the CWI's activism in Die Linke.

[Delenda Carthago]

This post really cracked me up for some reason. Free education and health care? - Blah blah, who cares about that!? Free love? - Now we are talking!
Them petty bourgeois leftists and their screwed up priorities.

And for your information, Die Linke never misses an opportunity to denounce GDR, which is apparently your idea of what a Marxist party(which Die Linke isn`t anyway) should be doing instead of attacking capitalism and putting forward a revolutionary alternative to it.
Actually, thats exactly what a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist party should be doing. The fact that they are an opportunistic sold out arrangement, dont mean that GDR is something to defend.

PS. What the fuck is "piratenpartei"? I heard that they got many DieLinke votes and that they ask for... direct democracy and free weed! :bored: Seems like germans have made no conclusions so far...

[Per Levy]

PS. What the fuck is "piratenpartei"? I heard that they got many DieLinke votes and that they ask for... direct democracy and free weed! :bored: Seems like germans have made no conclusions so far...

as far as i can gather they're a left liberal party. they are for the liberalization of the internet and pro civil liberties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Parties_International


The party strives to reform laws regarding copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) and patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patents). The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right to privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy), both on the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) and res extensa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_extensa) (physical life), and the transparency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28behavior%29) of state administration.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Parties_International#cite_note-2)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ In other words, what the FDP used to be.

[Q]

^^^ In other words, what the FDP used to be.

When was this?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Before the 1980s. Neither the SPD nor the CDU could govern without the FDP as a junior partner.

[Crux]

It's less irrelevant than the CWI's activism in Die Linke.
That's quite funny for a delusion of grandeur. The NRW section of Die Linke just come out in unsion with a left oppisitional statement, at the behest of SAV. As for your "relelvance" eh let's not go there again. I could post the SAV statement of the Berlin elections if anyone want but alas it's in german.

[Le Socialiste]

Ye what did you read by Lenin and what are you not impressed by? Please be specific, others my want to be informed by your deep understanding.
:laugh:


I find it kind of amusing that you're response to my post is one of dismissal. I don't have to justify my post with the number of works I have read by Lenin, but I will say that I have read various "essentials" which serve as compilations of most of his major and minor writings. My lack of praise when it comes to Lenin is rooted in my disdain for those who treat his (or any other major revolutionary fighter or theorist's) words as scripture. You know, the ones who respond to nearly every thread with "Lenin says..." and post massive excerpts from his works that only serve to clog up the thread rather than contribute to it. Now, if one were to post said excerpt and provide their own add. analysis and theory as it pertains to the OP - as a complement to Lenin's words - I wouldn't have a problem. I never claimed to have a "deep understanding" of Lenin's theories, I merely said I wasn't altogether blown away by them. To suggest otherwise contributes little to the debate.



You Know You Can!

Are you mad, ignorant or illiterate or just middle class types who can’t be labled because of your stunningly wonderful individual personal reactionary pro-NATO personalities?

Wradically labelled and reformist of course.


Shhhhh lets bomb Libya.


First of all, who are you addressing here? Second, who has displayed any of the above qualities you've listed in this thread? You'd be better advised to quit relying on generalizations that aren't pertinent to the discussion as outlined by the OP (and to stop using generalizations altogether).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You should read DeLeonist material on pure opposition tactics in bourgeois parliaments. I like them, too.

I like the whole range of mass spoilage campaigns, pure opposition tactics, mass civil disobedience, etc.

Would love to read DeLeonist material on that stuff but it sounds utterly boring, I have more to do in my life than sit around and create my own party program for the party in my mind.

And besides, whatever the latest non-existent 'ism' it is that you like, I much just prefer revolution. The idea's been around for 150 years, I don't think we really need to make it too complicated yah.:thumbup:

[A Marxist Historian]

Die Linke got dumped for implementing cuts - please outline what cuts the socialist council in Liverpool implemented.

Die Linke was dumped by the votes of working class people - the socialist council in Liverpool was removed by capitalist courts.

Die Linke in Berlin thought they could manage capitalism better - the socialist council in Liverpool knew it couldn't and attempted to mobilise mass opposition to the Tories.

Ah yes, our defender of the sad fiasco of the Militant in Liverpool strikes again.

Well, this will be discussed on another thread, but I finally managed to get hold of the Liverpool Black Caucus's brilliant evisceration of the "colour blind" policies vs. the black community of Liverpool the Militant carried out when in office. This very serious academic study is hard to find in America, easy in Britain I would think.

And, for those who remember the thread where JRG and his cothinkers were denouncing me for quoting the "Workers Liberty" group on the Militant calling the cops on the Liverpool Black Caucus, claiming that they made that up out of thin air and nobody even made that claim before, well, it's right there on page seven of the Black Caucus book about the Militant in Liverpool. The fact that the Militant and CWI never answered this charge, or even mentioned it, in their fervent assaults on the Black Caucus, surely must mean that it is true.

As I noticed last month when looking over the historiography, most scholars seem to regard this book as the definitive treatment. And rightly so, it's an excellent piece of work, thoroughly documented and well argued.

Haven't finished it yet, but so far at least I am impressed, should be required reading for anybody interested in Liverpool or black liberation or the Militant/CWI etc.

It is *not* what I was afraid it would be, an anti-working class black nationalist polemic. Rather, the authors are Laborite black social democrats, less economically militant and radical-talking than the CWI or the Militant back in the 1980s, but with an entirely sensible attitude to racial issues, certainly vastly superior to that of the CWI.

Punctures all the heated and racially-charged CWI slanders against them very well.

"The Racial politics of Militant in Liverpool: the blackcommunity's struggle for participation in local politics 1980-1986," Liverpool : Merseyside Area Profile Group and Runnymede Trust, ©1986.

Brits, check it out!

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

What does that have to do with Die Linke? :confused:

[syndicat]

After Die Linke's repressive actions against the FAU during the Babylon Cinema struggle, all I can say is "good riddance" to Die Linke.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That depends on the party section, doesn't it? The likes of Bärbel Beuermann and Wolfgang Zimmermann should be commended.