Hamburg Elections Likely to Strengthen Germany's Far Left

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No clear winner is expected in the Hamburg state elections on Sunday, Feb. 24. But the emergence of the Left party as a political force to be seriously reckoned with is already causing turbulence in German politics.
Incumbent Mayor Ole von Beust of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democratic (SPD) candidate Michael Naumann, a former federal culture secretary, are squaring off in the race to head up Hamburg's Senate.

But polls show neither of the city-state's biggest parties can count on bringing home the lion's share of the votes on Sunday or even have enough support to form a majority government with their preferred political partners.

Instead, the Left party -- a relative newcomer on the German political scene -- may be on its way to a third-place finish, ahead of the Greens and the free-market liberal FDP.

"Without us it would be deadly boring in [Hamburg's parliament]," said top Left party politician Gregor Gysi at an election rally in the port city on Wednesday.

full article:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3141543,00.html

Germans, do these "far left" parties actually represent working-class politics and a real opposition to the liberal bourgeois establishment?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The bitter truth is that I'd be all for "entry" into the Left party across the Atlantic than for the dufus, not-even-social-democratic "New Democratic" Party here. At least the Left party might be receptive of the social-proletocratic need for the "merger" between socialism and the workers' movement.

[Herman]

"Die Linke" is borrowing many tactics which we in the SP use. That's why they're beginning to arise as a threat against the SDP and the CDU. :)

[BobKKKindle$]

Die Linke took 6.5% of the vote. If this trend continues, the SPD will be forced to accept Die Linke as a coalition partner or alter its policies in order to prevent further voter defections. The result in Hamburg is important because die Linke has previously been accussed of only having support in the former DDR - Hamburg is one of the west's most important financial centres, and so the result shows that Germans across the country are fed up with the policies of the SPD - in particular their acceptance of welfare reform which has reduced access to important services - and are looking for an electoral alternative.

However, we should also be aware that Die Linke is not yet a revolutionary party - it is composed of many different factions, including left-social-democrats, and so we also need to focus on working within the party to make sure the revolutionary faction is able to secure control and win over members from the reformist groups within the party.



At least the Left party might be receptive of the social-proletocratic need for the "merger" between socialism and the workers' movement.


What is that even suppossed to mean? You have a bad habit of trying to push your own perception of Socialism in every thread without offerring any explanation of what your terms (which seem to have made up) mean.

[chebol]

"Die Linke" is borrowing many tactics which we in the SP use. That's why they're beginning to arise as a threat against the SDP and the CDU.

Are they? Are they actually taking the advice of SAV? Or are they using tactics that are the common knowledge of the left?

There remain a lot of problems within Die Linke, and the parliamentarist faction (which is keen on more coalitions with the SPD) is still too strong, threatening outcomes like in Berlin. Interestingly, much of this support is from the old PDS, rather than the WASG types, although I imagine a lot of the ex-SPDers in the west are open too it also. The problem in the west is that there are "rivers of blood" with the SPD over Lafontaine's split, which actually might become a temporary blessing in disguise for the revolutionary left in Die Linke (and hence Die Linke as a whole).

[RaiseYourVoice]

Germans, do these "far left" parties actually represent working-class politics and a real opposition to the liberal bourgeois establishment?

No, in Berlin we have a "Red-Red" parliament (SPD and Linke) and they are clearly anti-working class. They increase repression (especially surveilance, but berlin also has one of the most brutal cop units in germany), they cut down on civil servants wages, are pro privatisation.

The chance of "die Linke" is really in the opposition. They put long forgotten topics to the media again like:

- ALL troops out of afganistan (all other parties just decide wether or not to increase the amount of troops)
- Away with the social cuts
- Away with study, school fees
etc.

Effectivly the "Linke" could make good use of the parliament as what it is, a show. They could use their time in the media to give the working class movement a voice.

That is what happens at best though. And it sadly seems unlikely, they try to push into coatlitions, in which they as a small partner can change nothing even if they wanted to.

Another positive side effect was that members of the SDAJ (socialist german workers youth) and the DKP (german communist party) are / were able to candidate on the list of "die Linke" and by that get into parlament for in exchange gathering votes for them. That way we finnaly have communist in german state parliaments again, which grants us money, members who are paid for political work, time in the media etc. etc.
A strong setback for that was that following to an anti-communist campaign by mainstream media our comrade c. wegner was kicked out of the "linke" fraction in the parliament of lower saxony. Also they cancelled their support for the "rosa luxemburg conference" in berlin.

We cant and wont stop that cooperation for now though, because the "linke" is very diverse. Frustrated social democrats, unions officials, SAV members, Communists, Anarchists, Chaotic idiots, reformists, nationalists etc.

So in the end in my opinion its a chance, but far from worth betting our hopes on. More then the "linke" itself, the potential they are starting to activate is interessting. surveys say (if to be trusted is left open) that the majority of germans is against the war in afganistan, against social cuts, for all the big strikes the recently happened etc. on top of that real strikes happen again. (e.g. the train workers strike) and workers in those strikes start to radicalize.

So "die Linke" is an expression and at the same time a support for a movement that feels the offensive of the capital and feels the personal need to resist. this isnt a revolution but its better then what we had since 18 years.



--------------

For the SAV and "linke"
I know at least of some communal unions of the SAV and the WASG in the west. That is though not something i would appreciate since i have good reasons to not think too highly of the SAV.

And about those tactics they borrow from the SP i would like to know more. Since at least in munich, they dont seem to have much of a tactic.

[chebol]

re the SAV, I was being a little cynical. Of course, if CWI comrades can come upwith anything, I'd gladly believe it. Maybe.

As for the DKP, well the recent comments by Wegner about the Stasi didn't help anyone on the left much. But you're largely correct on the problem of Die Linke.

Still, it remains one of the most exciting and promising developments anywhere in the world. And requires the utmost attention by those of us who are on the left - both for failures and successes.

[RaiseYourVoice]

As for the DKP, well the recent comments by Wegner about the Stasi didn't help anyone on the left muchcomment? she only said that a revolutionary state has to have some kind of secret service to protect itself from reactionary elements in society.
liking the stasi is only what was said about her

[chebol]

While I recognise that the media in Germany is on a crusade against Die Linke, where EVERYTHING is dragged out of context and distorted, what Wegner said was more than you just suggested - which is why she was kisked out of Die Linke. These are the facts, regardless of whether I agree with her or not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is that even suppossed to mean? You have a bad habit of trying to push your own perception of Socialism in every thread without offerring any explanation of what your terms (which seem to have made up) mean.

http://proletarism.com/

In the beginning, "social democracy" was coined by the founders of the German Social-Democratic Party. Karl Kautsky added that the original social democracy was the "union of the labor movement and socialism."

In 1914, the "great betrayal" took place. Various "Social-Democratic" parties voted for participation in the war. In 1917, Lenin, being disgusted at this, proposed that the name be changed to "Communist."

Years later, that was hijacked by the Marxist-Leninists who suppressed workers' rights in regards to independent organization (by "Marxist-Leninists," I mean "Stalinists" in Trotskyist language).

http://theredbeacon.wordpress.com/key-ideas/


Ben Seattle and Alex agree that the terms “communism,” “socialism,” and related terms like “dictatorship of the proletariat” have been completely soiled by the failures of the USSR and other “communist” regimes. While we must be able to explain what these words actually meant in context to those who ask, it is important for the Left to stop using these terms in actual practice.

The precedent for this came from Lenin in 1914. The original name for the Marxist party in Russia was “Social-Democracy.” However, in 1914, there was a split amongst the party over World War I. The act of certain party members supporting Russia’s involvement in the imperialist World War has been dubbed “The Great Betrayal of 1914.”

Lenin felt that this act had permanently soiled the name of “Social-Democracy,” and that continuing to use it would confuse the masses and turn them off. So he left the name to the reformists and imperialists, and it is now a synonymn for reformism (i.e. the belief that capitalism can be “fixed” by “saviors” within the bourgeois government). Instead, Lenin began to use the name “communism,” the term that had been used in Marx’s day.

Now, the various betrayals of Marxism in the past have soiled the terms “communism” and “socialism” in a similar fashion, and Alex and Ben believe that they should be dropped in favor of new terms. For example, the Russian Marxist party “Party of the Proletarian Dictatorship” uses the term “Proletarism.” However, they still use the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” as opposed to “workers’ rule” or the like, and it is still an “-ism.” It is likely that a new name will have to arise for the Left to be successful.

And hence my very simple solution:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rescuing-lenin-leninists-t70028/index.html


Some comrades have invented a new word with Greek and Roman origins that effectively combines "workers' democracy" without translation problems associated with the Germanic word "worker" (rabochii in Russian).

The bonus is that "social proletocracy" is superior to even the original, non-reformist "social democracy" (because of the class emphasis of the former).

I should also add that "proletocracy" is synonymous with "dictatorship of the proletariat." :)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wegner said "I think that when one builds a new societal form, then one needs such an organ because one has to protect oneself from other forces, reactionary forces, that look for opportunities to weaken a state from the inside. ... the construction of the Wall was, in any case, a measure taken to prevent West Germans from continuing to come into East Germany."

What she said is to a large extent true. It's a shame that so many "leftists" are ready to jump all over her in the name of legitimizing themselves in the eyes of the capitalists and their media.

[RaiseYourVoice]

While I recognise that the media in Germany is on a crusade against Die Linke, where EVERYTHING is dragged out of context and distorted, what Wegner said was more than you just suggested - which is why she was kisked out of Die Linke. These are the facts, regardless of whether I agree with her or not.
did you see the interview?

[chebol]

No I didn't, but read it in German.

As it happens, I managed to conflate the Stasi reference (interpolated by the media) with the actual quote, which was a mistake (although a very easy one, once you read the quote). My German has become rusty again (too long in Aus-Land), and that may have infected it.

My point about Wegner's statements stands however. NHIA provides the relevant quote from Wegner, that the media has made a meal out of, and it remains problematic.

The wall was NOT built to keep Wessies out. Pure and simple. It was primarily made to keep Ossies in. Not admitting that - indeed, defending the lie peddled for so long by arguing the opposite - raises all kinds of problems, especially when you tie it to talk of security organisations. Nor should it be rebuilt, or used flippantly to make a point when you are an elected member of a far left organisation.

One problem which the left as a whole faces is the challenge of not letting the stick bend too far in our apologetics for the very real crimes of the stalinist regimes. It smacks of self-flagellation.

Another problem is the opposite - the romantic, illogic, and irrational support of the stalinist extremes on the basis that they at least opposed capitalism, and were somehow "justified". Ostalgia mein arsch.

The DKP is not immune from this last defect, and Wegner not least. When the capitalist media is hunting you down find every foot put wrong, speaking out in favour of the Wall, for odious reasons, in the same sentence as defending a secret service (and noone but the most naiive would not make the link to the Stasi, even if she didn't say it) is just plain stupid.

It jeopardises a lot of work that has been done to dissociate Die Linke from the excesses of Stalinism and avoid the tarred brush of the SED, etc. Die Linke is simply to vulnerable politically, too unformed ideologically and organisationally, at the moment, to sustain the necessary discussion the issues raised entail.

Whether or not a secret service should exist, and what form it should take, under socialism, at the stage that Die Linke is at, really ought to remain just that, a secret (or better yet, just ignore it), rather than a free kick to the right wing. [And yes, there WOULD need to be a form of defence against capitalist intrusion. But that's not a tactically intelligent thing to be raising, in that way, in the current climate.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So let's be opportunists then, yea?

While we're at it, let's change our name to 'People's Democratic Party' and put away our red flags. You better get rid of that Fidel avatar too, or someone might fight out. We're not strong enough to defend Cuba yet..

Come on brother, that is just ridiculous.

The wall served different purposes, but it can't be denied that it was partly there to prevent counterrevolutionaries and other agents from coming in, and for regulating things like shopping in the subsidized fixed-price stores by people from the West who were getting paid much more (due to the nature of the economy, etc.). Let's not pretend like the imperialists weren't right there in the FDR waiting to move in at any second.

I'm not saying it was a great idea or should be duplicated, but let's put it in historic perspective. Surely that's better than letting the capitalist lies float around unchallenged. And surely that "looks better" than refusing to answer questions or being dishonest!

Forget about being "respectable" as "elected officials" in a bourgeois government. The only good that does is as a platform... if you don't want to use it for that, what makes you different from any other reformist?

[chebol]

I'm not talking about being an opportunist, my-oh-so-ultra comrade. I'm talking about using your brain. Tactics, in a word.

Die Linke is still vulnerable to a lot of things - both internal and external. Not least, the fact that there ARE opportunist layers (upon layers) in Die Linke who are already using examples like this to push the radicals to one side or out. There is NOWHERE near the cohesion (even in action) of the real left within Die Linke necessary to pull of what we would normally regard as an appropriate response to bourgeois distortions and lies.

Die Linke is a strange beast, and one that could easily fall entirely back into the morass of electoralist, opportunist politics. (Some even argue that it IS). It could also, however, be made into something considerably more important for the class struggle in Germany, and beyond. But to do that requires more than the usual rhetorical flourishes that the far-left has gotten so used to.

There are many effetive ways of deflecting those kind of questions (about security, etc) into arguments for foreign aid, anti-war, pacifism, welcoming refugees, etc. The bourgeois media asks those questions because it knows what answer it wants. Do we give it to them? Or do we turn their question into an argument for socialism?

And I happen to remember the Wall, which most people on this board probably don't. It was one of the more formative things in my political life, and, no, the main reason was to keep people IN. Obviously people were being encouraged to leave by the West, but that doesn't excuse it.

Take Cuba, for example. Should Cuba build a wall around it to stop people leaving?

The eeconomic argument was - and remains, bogus. We also, comrade, need to avoid letting the Stalinist lies float around unchallenged too.

And to emphasise - I was not arguing about any need to look like "respectable" bourgeaois politicians. I was talking about not giving the fuckers a free kick. If you can't differentiate, then you shouldn't be having this argument.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Germany hit by a series of major job cut announcements (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080302/ts_afp/germanyindustrycuts;_ylt=AmiLdAW00koI3La_0aFbzxV0b BAF)


by Isabelle Le Page
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

Several German industrial heavyweights have unveiled shock combinations of strong earnings and sharp job cuts, feeding widening discontent amid a landmark tax fraud scandal.

One after another, automobile parts group Continental announced 3,800 job cuts, followed by Siemens with 6,800, Henkel with 3,000 and BMW with 8,100, all within the space of a week.

The figures were read across the nation and given added resonance by the fact that company results in general have been strong, allowing groups like Bayer on Thursday, following Daimler a day earlier, to justify increasing their bosses pay by 27 and 68 percent, respectively.

"It is not possible for a company to make (profit) margins of 20 percent and large-scale personnel reductions at the same time," Social Democrat spokesman for economic affairs Rainer Wend told public television ZDF.

Net profit at BMW jumped by almost 80 percent at BMW last year, while at Henkel, the maker of Persil detergent, it gained eight percent.

Results at Siemens were multiplied more than eight times, though that was in large part owing to one-off gains from the sale of a subsidiary.

After the Finnish mobile telephone maker Nokia raised howls of protest by announcing in January it would close its plant in the city of Bochum, the cuts have pushed trade unions and some politicians beyond the breaking point.

"Wanting to simply reduce the workforce is not a sustainable concept for the future," said Werner Neugebauer, head of the IG Metall trade union chapter in Bavaria regarding BMW management.

The latest wave of cuts will also affect the job market. A continued fall in unemployment announced on Thursday could be slowed as a result, said Klaus Zimmermann, head of the research institute DIW.

But strong demand for workers and the number, close to one million, of vacant posts, according to the national employment agency, offers hope to those who will lose their jobs, as long as they can satisfy the company's needs.

"It's the global trend. There are always job eliminations, but also hirings, and we hope the hirings will continue to dominate," Zimmermann said.

As businesses complained about a lack of skilled labour, in particular a serious lack of engineers, it was time to "to think in the long term about giving workers more skills" rather than eliminating them, the deputy head of the conservative CDU parliamentary group, Michael Meister, told the Berliner Zeitung.

The debate over cold-hearted capitalism is not new. Shareholders have been given priority over staff for several years by virtue of a "shareholder value" concept now in force in a majority of companies.

The increase in dividends accorded by companies listed on the DAX index of blue-chip shares is an illustration of the new policies.

But it takes on another dimension as the country is rocked by an unprecedented tax fraud scandal.

Klaus Zumwinkel, former head of logistics group Deutsche Post and a prominant business leader, was the first to be targeted, and quickly resigned his post.

German justice officials suspect Zumwinkel of having failed to pay around a million euros in taxes.

His fall further tarnished the reputation of the industrial elite.

Following the discovery of a kick-back system at the industrial group Siemens and a corruption affair at the auto giant Volkswagen, several business leaders have been forced to resign in the past couple of years.