The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

An Initial Assessment of Angela Merkel’s Legacy

In 2021, Germany will vote for its first new Chancellor since 2005. A look at 16 years of Merkel governments


25/07/2021


In 2005 Angela Merkel became the Chancellor of the German Federal Republic. She went on to keep the Chancellorship for 16 years, her long stint ends in her fourth term this year. Merkel is smarter, likely more compassionate and likeable, than her peers. In Germany think of Merz, Seehofer, Schäuble; or in the UK Blair, Cameron, May, and (gulp) Johnson. None would have uttered ‘Wir schaffen das’, or taken in about 1.2 million Syrian refugees in 2015-16. It is quite true that Germany’s employers needed cheap workers, and yes, several retreats were made from initial promises. Even so her stance was rare amongst capitalist rulers. It is possible to believe her sincerity when she explains what COVID means, or when she commiserates with victims of flooding.

However Merkel was Chancellor for 16 years, and socialists ask: “What did her leadership do for workers in Germany and world-wide?” In this stark assessment Merkel emerges much as other bourgeois politicians. Ultimately she served her own class and its profits. After a short biographical recap, two policy components are discussed: domestic effects on the working class and foreign policy.

Short biographical note and the foundation for Merkel’s chancellorship

Merkel was raised in the ‘German Democratic Republic’ (GDR). She became a quantum chemist, but rapidly moved into politics. As the GDR fell in November 1989 she joined ‘Democratic Awakening.’ This merged with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which quickly joined the West German CDU, with the agreement of the CDU sister party partner in Bavaria the Christian Social Union (CSU). As a smart candidate from the former East, Merkel was spotted early. She signaled support of labour legislation reform, and a pro-USA policy. Labour reforms had already been initiated by the ‘Red-Green’ (1998-2005) coalition government between the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green Party. However Chancellor Gerhard Schroder had opposed the Iraq war of USA imperialism.

Elections in 2005 very narrowly favoured the CDU/CSU versus the SPD-Greens. The ensuing impasse was solved by a ‘Grand Coalition’ between the CDU/CSU and the SPD, making Merkel Chancellor. For Merkel coalitions remained necessary, although in her second term (2009-2013), she partnered with the liberal-conservative ‘Free Democratic Party’ (FDP).

Helmut Kohl’s task had been to bring East Germany into a reunified Germany. Not only did that prevent a further drain on Grermany’s funds that had gone to the GDR, but it provided more cheap workers. Merkel’s task started with completing the transition of Germany into a modern neo-Liberal state. That also meant to economically make West and East Germany truly one state. But what is ‘Neo-liberalism’? As exemplified in polices of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, it is simply an unfettered capitalism. As signified by the commonly associated word ‘deregulation’. More precisely it can be stated as:

“A theory of political economic practices that proposes that human wellbeing can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade.” 1

This was not introduced in one fell swoop in Germany, and it was initially resisted. Likely because Kohl’s CDU-FDP government would have been unable to face down organised working class protest. It would take an SPD government to bring it into play.

“While deregulation went full swing in the Anglo-Saxon world (Reaganomics, Thatcherism), it was initially adopted half-heartedly in West Germany, after the Kohl government (1982– 98) had replaced the SPD-FDP coalition (1969– 82). The CDU-FDP coalition with Chancellor Kohl implemented only some of the Deregulation Commission’s proposals. Incisive labour market reforms had to wait for the next government, Gerhard Schröder’s SPD-Greens coalition.” 2

Merkel’s tasks were eased by her SPD predecessor, then her coalition partner. As a good Social Democrat, Schroeder did his part: pushing through the ‘Agenda 2010’ Hartz ‘reforms’ (regressions is a better word I think). Briefly this consisted of increasing part-time contracts; eroding workers committees; lower salaries for agency labour performing the same work; raising ages of retirement and reducing pensions and easing the way for a privatized pension system; reducing ‘allowed’ periods of unemployment from 36 months to 12 months; lowering of thresholds for firing; etc. 3 Recall that Peter Hartz, head of Human Resources at VW, closely advised Schroeder in this. 2 Despite massive rank and file protests, the regressions were rammed through. This pre-history allowed Merkel to avoid confrontations with organised labour – this was her foundation. So what did Merkel do?

1) Merkel’s Policies directly affecting German workers

Let’s start from where German capitalists would, namely corporate profits. These had faltered between 2017-2019, as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Figure 1) 4.

It is true that profits differ by capitalist sectors, and German banking capital lags behind profits of big non-financial corporations. 2 However by 2021 all corporate profits (regardless of sector) were back to pre-COVID levels (Figure 2 5)

Meanwhile taxes on corporate profits (Figure 3 7) remained extraordinarily low (red line Germany) as compared to the average for OECD countries (black line). In fact the ‘Wealth Tax’ was abolished in 1997.6

But as Figure 1 shows, profits had faltered for Germany. Unsurprisingly therefore, even as new elections loom, Marcus Soder (Bavarian CSU) projects new tax cuts:

“Tax cuts are at the heart of our tax policy… That is clearly reflected in our joint election manifesto.” 8

So in summary, although profits had faltered, they were only lightly touched by tax. But how had these profits been made in the first place? Squeezing labour ensured labour productivity outstripped wages (Figure 4 9) – the gap in essence being profit:

The concerted attack on workers wages in Germany, is seen by the steady fall in the ‘labour share’ of the GDP 10 since 2000 (Figure 5 11):

This fall in worker wages accompanied the increase of work precarity and insecurity. Recall the Hartz Reforms/Regressions. They started the process that Merkel put into their meaningful effect – namely:

“labour law changes facilitated greater use of fixed-term employment contracts, part-time work, and agency work, while at the same time relaxing employment protection legislation, reducing unemployment benefits, lowering reasonableness criteria for job offers, and introducing so-called ‘mini jobs’ not liable to social security contributions. These opened the door to wide-reaching exemptions from labour standards and promoted the rise of precarious work. The overall aims of these labour market deregulation measures were to weaken union power on the one hand and to strengthen employer control over employment contracts and working conditions on the other.” 15

The net effect of all this was to increase inequity. Figure 6 12, shows the Gini coefficient over the years 1991 to 2016. Note: If the Gini is 1.0 there is complete inequity; and a value of zero represents complete equity.

So the rich got richer and the poor poorer. Some argue that the Gini seriously underestimates degrees of inequity. But it is relatively easy to understand. 13 Germany stands 15th of 35 OECD countries in its Gini.

Recall one of Merkel’s goals was to reunify Germany. This mandated wages in the East come closer to the depressed wages of the West. Indeed this has happened, but inequity remains such that former East Germany still has lower disposable income:

“In 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, per-capita disposable income was €19,909 per year in the former East Germany… By comparison, disposable income in the former West Germany was €23,283 a year… Put another way, people in the former East Germany earned 86% the after-tax income of their West German counterparts in 2017“ 14

Reflecting the disparity between former West and former East Germany is the continued outdated infrastructure in the East shown vividly in Figure 7 13. Here the total productivity of former East Germany was only 75% of that in the West:

Unsurprisingly, the mean unemployment rate in former East pre-COVID 2019 was 6.9% vs 2.8% in the West, a gap of 4.1%. But better than 2000 when the gap was 10%.

So inequity between West and East has narrowed, but is far from eliminated. The goal of equity is complicated by COVID. The OECD predicts it will take Germany 1.75 years to return to pre-COVID levels of employment will be versus 4 years in the UK and USA. 15

Naturally all this was associated with even weaker trade union structures in former East Germany than in former West. Workers in the East were told by their trade unions to join the Western unions, which however did not support them in the ensuing Eastern deindustrialization. 16 Many works councils (consisting of trade union representatives and company representatives) have either been dismissed or transformed more into ‘co-managers’. 15 The implications of all this on the growth of the fascists of the AfD are clear.

And yet, despite all of Merkel’s success on their behalf, it is all too predictable that capitalists will ‘find it necessary’ to make it even harder for workers. One signpost is the cross-country comparison on labour productivity where Germany lags. It is behind 11 OECD countries – including the USA – which itself is only in 8th place (Figure 8 17).

In summary: Merkel ensured Germany removed significant protections for workers (under Hartz) to keep profits at high rates. Since it is likely the ruling class will want to boost Germany’s competitiveness, things will only get worse for workers. In turn without broad front and left party formations, the AfD will likely only grow.

There is one large elephant in the domestic room – the environmental catastrophe. This will require far more detail than space allows here. But it is appropriate to recall that spurred by the Fukushima disaster, and then under pressure from below, Merkel did halt nuclear development in Germany. Yet this is much diminished by her slow moves on coal-mining and lignite mining in Germany; and her support of the car industry against calls for CO2 emission reduction. 18 While the last nuclear plant is scheduled to end production in 2022, the last coal-fired plant ends production only by 2038.

2) How has Merkel protected German Capital in Foreign Policy?

In foreign policy Merkel’s problem was complex. She had to repair bridges to the USA, broken by Schroder, but after Obama she was faced by Trump. That forced the EU to shore itself against Trumpite protectionism. At the same time Merkel tried to steer Germany’s independent role as the dominant nation even within the EU itself. Finally China was a close trading partner. Hence Merkel resisted USA attempts (under both Trump and Biden) to shut down trade with China. She has been unable to fully reconcile all this, and her class will have to play that game further.

Starting at the EU, obviously Germany is a major fiscal force within the EU. However it’s influence is resisted by the other members (even France), her close ally:

“In 2017, Germany was the largest net contributor to the European Union budget (Euros 12.8 billion), providing substantially more funding than either France (Euro 5 billion) or Great Britain (Euros 7.3 billion)… effectively purchasing German influence in supranational governance… (but) Germany’s role is contested, resisted, and delegitimized by a range of actors in European affairs. The cooperative mechanisms successive German governments attempted to build were, in important ways, doomed projects including the failure of the European Union to create institutions by which future sovereign debt crises might be averted as well as Germany’s attempt to foster and promote shared norms across Europe”. 19

German capital physically expanded production plants into the former Comecon countries. But at the same time it wielded its fiscal power, to devastating effects. Germany reaped enormous profits in granting Greece enormous debts, knowing it could not repay them, then later demanding full restitution. 20

However this had pushbacks. Such a callous act warned ‘Europe’ against German might. It was to allay such anxieties that Germany enabled massive COVID cash injections by EU to member states. Italy for instance would have been severely affected otherwise. Moreover, Germany went soft on disseminating COVID vaccination prior to full EU dispersion of vaccine. That even though German capital was instrumental in developing the BioNTech-Pfizer RNA vaccine. So the EU relationship that Germany had wanted to dominate as its own vehicle, is not such a push-over.

Finally Germany is far more favourably disposed to both Russia and China, than either many of her EU partners or the USA. In particular, German trade with China had become crucial for Merkel to protect:

“Ms. Merkel is a firm believer in engagement with China, Germany’s most important trading partner. More than 212 billion euros worth of goods — over $250 billion — were bought and sold between the two in 2020, according to German government figures. Before Mr. Biden took office, she pushed ahead with a new investment deal between the European Union and China that still needs ratifying by the European Parliament. Before they even get to China, however, there is Russia and the thorny issue of Nord Stream 2, a natural gas pipeline that will run directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea from Russia. The project is bitterly opposed by Mr. Biden and Congress — along with several of Germany’s European partners — but Ms. Merkel and her government firmly support it.” 21

“In 2020, trade between the two countries was more than 212 billion euros – more than between China and the UK, France, and Italy combined. Germany’s major automakers Volkswagen, Daimler, and BMW generate significant profits in China, and Volkswagen alone accounts for almost 20 percent of China’s passenger vehicle market.” 22

In Summary: In the dynamic of 21st century capitalism, under Merkel Germany has tried to ride several horses. But the increasingly tense race between USA and Chinese imperialism, will likely force Merkel’s heirs to be clearer about opposing US imperialism. Call me a pessimist, but I cannot see how a new inter-imperialist war is going to be avoided over the next 20 years. Unless that is by such intense climate change that the Anthropecene era literally burns itself out.

Conclusion

In my view, the main thing to take away is that Merkel has battled hard to preserve Germany capitalism. That she is far more insightful than her politician peers explains her ability to convey (and I believe truly feel) a genuine compassion for people.

Her science background also explains how she can convincingly and effectively explain the realities of COVID to a lay audience. The subsequent swings of policy on COVID I think are tied to the chain of the USA booby-trap of the Basic Law. At the end of WWII, this was laid down in the new constitution for West Germany, after the division of Germany by the Western imperialists. This meant a perpetual divide between Länder and the Federal State.

In addition, Merkel employed a large staff of women advisers and policy gurus. Undoubtedly most of the avalanche of books on her will highlight all these characteristics. But I suspect most will not acknowledge her class solidarity with the German capitalist class.

Who and what will follow her act? If indeed the task will be to sharpen German competitiveness more by paring working class wages and living conditions, an SPD knife is on the cards. Neither Cum-ex or Wirecard scandals will impede Olaf Scholz if the ruling class decide he has the sharpest knife. If it needs green-washing, there are suitable parties, despite cries of plagiarism.

However still unclear to me, is where Die LINKE will fall. It has been tempted by coalition politics before, but the coalitions rejected it. What will happen in 2021?

Footnotes

1 David Harvey, ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism”; Oxford University Press 2005; p. 2.

2 Walther Müller-Jentsch; ‘The German Model Of Conflictual Partnership Is Still Alive’; In: “Walther Müller-Jentsch, Britta Rehder, Sidney A. Rothstein & Tobias Schulze-Cleven (2020) Debating Lessons from Germany After the Social Democratic Century, German Politics, 29:3, 522-543

3 Oliver Nachtwey, ‘Germany’s Hidden Crisis Social Decline in the Heart of Europe,” Verso London 2018; chapter 3

4 Benjamin Braun &Richard Deeg (2020) Strong Firms, Weak Banks: The Financial Consequences of Germany’s Export-Led Growth Model, German Politics, 29:3, 358-381

5 Bundesbank data graphed by Trading Economics

6 Jan Behringer, Nikolaus Kowall, Thomas Theobald & Till van Treeck (2020). ‘Inequality in Germany: A Macroeconomic Perspective’, German Politics, 29:3, 479-497

7Compiled by OECD from: Revenue Statistics

8 Laurenz Gehrke,‘Armin Laschet’s tax comments divide German conservatives’; ‘Politico’; July 14, 2021

9 Figure generated at ‘The OECD Productivity Statistics Database’ website; Report for 2000-2019; section Labour income and productivity

10 US Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017

11 Ricardo Barradas; ‘Financialization and Neoliberalism and the Fall in the Labor Share: A Panel Data Econometric Analysis for the European Union Countries’; Review of Radical Political Economics; 2019, Vol. 51(3) 383-417

12 https://www.gut-leben-in-deutschland.de/indicators/income/gini-coefficient-income/

13 Jan Behringer, Nikolaus Kowall, Thomas Theobald & Till van Treeck (2020), ‘Inequality in Germany: A Macroeconomic Perspective, German Politics, 29:3, 479-497

14 John Gramlich; East Germany has narrowed economic gap with West Germany since fall of communism, but still lags’ Nov 6 2019; Pew Research Center;

15 OECD; Jobs, A Slow Rebound; 2021

16 Walther Müller-Jentsch; ‘The German Model Of Conflictual Partnership Is Still Alive’; In: “Walther Müller-Jentsch, Britta Rehder, Sidney A. Rothstein & Tobias Schulze-Cleven (2020) Debating Lessons from Germany After the Social Democratic Century, German Politics, 29:3, 522-543

17 OECD; 2019 Report Labour Productivity

18 Ellen Thalman, Julian Wettengel, The story of “Climate Chancellor” Angela Merkel Clean Energy Wire; 07 May 2021

19 Luke B. Wood, ‘German Hegemony? The Federal Republic Of Germany In Post Coldwar European Affairs’; German Politics And Society, Issue 133 Vol. 37, No. 4 (Winter 2019): 95–108.

20 Hari Kumar, ‘The Greek Debt Crisis: A misnomer for the European Imperialist Crisis; August 22, 2015; ‘The Red Phoenix’’

21 Melissa Eddy, ‘Legacy and Policy Mix as Merkel Takes a Bow in Washington’; New York Times 14 July 2021.

22 Torrey Taussig; What is Angela Merkel’s legacy on engagement with China?; American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; July 2, 2021

Jack and Jill tumble, and Esther Bejarano RIP

Victor Grossman’s Berlin Bulletins 192 and 193


23/07/2021


“Jack and Jill climbed up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after.”

It wasn’t exactly like the nursery rhyme, but somehow there were similarities. Only this hill is the job as German chancellor after the September elections – with Angela Merkel going into retirement.

The co-chair of the Greens party, not Jack but Robert Habeck, had allegedly dreamed of that job for ages – and in the past few years, the polls showed his party climbing incredibly. By this April, long after leaving the traditional second force in Germany, the Social Democrats (SPD), choking in its dust, the Greens suddenly achieved the amazing feat of moving into first place, overtaking – by one point – the perpetually victorious “Christian Union” twosome (in Bavaria it is a separate sister). That pail of political water really seemed within his reach – until two things happened.

The Jill this time was Annalena Baerbock, his co-chair. At the party confab, conducted mostly virtually, she pushed him aside with one graceful hand, delivered one of her wonderfully bright, personalized speeches, full of hope for a giant upset, and became the party’s contender for that chancellor job!

But alack and alas, she, like Jill, came a-tumble. It seems that, after legally receiving a Christmas gift of 24,000 euros from her party, she somehow neglected to report it in her tax returns. No big deal, some might think, but after the scandals about Christian Democrats (CDU) nobly enriching themselves when purchasing face-masks, and two far bigger scandals hanging over the head of the Social Democrats’ chancellor candidate Scholz (currently still Finance Minister), the squeaky clean reputation of the Greens had been a major asset. No longer! And then it was discovered that Baerbock had also made minor embellishments in her vita so that it seemed she had completed courses and held offices which she hadn’t. Oh gracious – that too!

It was already too late to switch back to Robert Habeck. So it was contended that minor transgressions like that would hardly be noticed if people were not out to get her for political reasons. That was probably true, but didn’t help a bit. And to cap it off, while she and the party were sweating hard to diminish the damage, an expert (in Austria!), obviously on the lookout, found that an election-time book she had published about her life and mission included hunks of text copied from other sources – without labelling them as such! It had not, she insisted, been plagiarism to get a diploma, and everyone gathers facts elsewhere for their books, right? And so on! But then again, when another politician was caught at plagiarism some years ago, Green indignation had been boundless.

.
The result in the opinion polls; the Greens had briefly edged ahead of the Merkel CDU in April, 28% to 27%. Now in July they were thirteen points behind (18% to 31.5%). That was really tumbling!

Some might feel sad or sympathetic; she is such a pleasant, happy candidate! But such feelings are misplaced. Both Frau Baerbock and Herr Habeck head a party whose position has long centered on “a hard course towards Russia,“ now also against China, and while many German business and political leaders, including Merkel, want to complete the Baltic Sea pipeline and achieve a détente with Russia, Baerbock and Habeck kowtow to US frackers and Washington’s gung-ho Cold Warriors.

Habeck visited front lines in the Ukraine in May, decked out in steel helmet and armored vest, and urged an end to Germany’s official policy: no weapons to conflict areas. For some Social Democrats and Christian Union leaders, Habeck had gone too far! There are also Green members who still oppose the leaders’ support for buying armed drones, pushing confrontation and sending troops to foreign wars!

But despite occasional doubts, the main parties all approve more aggressive armaments, avowedly “for security and defence” but equipped to land in every corner of the world – or join in blasting any country to bits, abilities they simulate in annual manoeuvres along Russian borders.

Only one party in the Bundestag says “No” – and has voted “No” every time! That is the LINKE!

But it also faces problems, big ones. Not like the others; concealing bribery, plagiarism or manipulation, but rather how to reach the right audiences with convincing arguments. Its ratings, long at about 10-11 % and in the eastern former GDR states over 20%, have dipped dangerously in the east and nationally as low as 7-8%, on some days 6%. That’s close; if less than 5% of the voters mark the LINKE on their ballots, ending its Bundestag caucus, its voice would be reduced to a faint whisper and the fragile peace movement further weakened – despite silent approval by a majority.

An important cause of the fall in ratings is disagreement among its leaders, avidly stressed by the media. Again a main question – though largely theoretical because of its weak poll numbers: what compromises would the LINKE accept in order to join a government on the federal level with the Greens and Social Democrats? Those two insist: Never with the LINKE unless it says yes to armed Bundeswehr deployment in countries like Afghanistan and Mali (only for “good causes” of course”!). And it must support NATO and its military buildup.

Some of the LINKE say “OK. Compromises are sometimes necessary in politics.“ Others respond: “If we give way on our key principles, how are we different from the others? What good are we?” The rift represents a basic division; all sides agree on fighting for a higher minimum wage, the return to a pension age of 65 (not 67 or worse) and genuine taxes on the filthy rich, now piling up fortunes higher than ever. But some add: While doing so, we must never lose sight of our basic goal, the only genuine solution to all the dangerous arming and hoarding; we must win people in a long struggle toward achieving ownership of the banks and factories, with no private profits taken away from those who do the work. The taboo word here begins with a big S. Bernie dared to utter it. But it is too big for some, even in the LINKE.

To make things worse, another rift developed. Sahra Wagenknecht, by now the best known LINKE with regular commentaries in the media, wrote a book calling many LINKE people and Greens “an academic crowd” who pay too much attention to separate groups (or identities) with debates about “gender” classification, environment, or protecting minority groups. This means, her argument goes, that they have lost touch with working people. A few truths may be mixed in here, but her substantive argument is not true. A main recent activity of the LINKE has been fighting rent increases and demanding the socialisation of housing owned by the worst real estate giants.

Sahra also hints that workers of German background have to face wage pressures due to all-too-open doors to immigrants and refugees. Some saw here an enticement to workers now voting for the racist Alternative for Germany (AfD) to return to the LINKE fold. Was that really desirable? Or risky? There were a few angry demands for her expulsion. Others said such quarrels, shortly before crucial elections, seemed suicidal.

The LINKE had elected a duo in the fight for the chancellor job (since chances of winning the lead were non-existent). One, Dietmar Bartsch, a leader in the Bundestag caucus, belonged to the less militant wing of the party, but was male and East German, thus keeping the traditional balance. The other, a new co-chair of the party from western Hesse, was Janine Wissler, a keen young fighter. In a sharp back-and-forth TV interview she stressed that the LINKE must stick to principles which mattered more than any possible (and currently hardly likely) hope for a government cabinet seat. The LINKE should fight hard on current issues but must keep its eyes on future goals, she said, and despite differences, including those with Wagenknecht, must stick together in a united battle to stay in the Bundestag, not just the needed 5% but aiming at 10%. And it must keep up its fight for peace!

Wissler proved as adept a speaker as the Green’s Baerbock and seemed, for me at least, far more genuine. Will she, and her well-spoken but cooler, less militant East German partner lead in a success story, new strength, with no awful tumbles? We will know after September 26.

A HAPPY WARRIOR + ESTHER BEJARANO + PRESENTE

She was all of 96 years, yet Esther Bejarano’s death hits hard, leaving a painful gap in Germany’s anti-fascist scene. Until the final weeks of her long life she was a fighter, speaking, singing and passing the good word along – especially to young people.

Her life almost ended when she was herself young, 19, horribly, after being crammed into a cattle car with other Jewish Germans on a final route to Auschwitz. Unlike most of her family she survived, thanks to her ability to play the piano and please some Kultur-lover among the killers. ”Can you play the accordeon too?” Yes, she lied, and picked up the basics quickly enough to be included in the “girl orchestra” used to calm and deceive in-coming trainloads of human beings, thus avoiding incidents on the way to the gas chambers. It was a nasty job but enabled her to survive until, after escaping the guards on a forced “death march” at war’s end, she was rescued by Red Army and US army units.

Edith went to what was still Palestine. I can add a personal note here. I was lucky enough, as a Harvard delegate, to go to the first World Youth Festival in Prague in 1947. At the Palestine evening we saw a chic uniformed Zionist dance and song group organized by the Jewish Agency. And the Ron Workers Chorus, a leftist group, no uniforms, singing leftist songs, both Jewish and Arab like the singers. The Festival asked both to perform on one evening in one place. But after the Jewish Agency group finished and the Ron chorus was ready to begin, all lights in the huge opera house went out. A minute later they were back – and a cloud of leaflets with a Zionist message floated down from the top gallery. Only then was the chorus able to sing, with Esther. So I saw and heard her 74 years ago!

She got married, had children, but was not happy. As she wrote: “My husband and I could not stand Israeli politics. It was a catastrophe… Life was difficult because we did not agree with the terrible things that were done to the Palestinians.”

In 1960 she and her family made the dramatic move back to Germany, to Hamburg. But she had not forgotten her earlier suffering. She never ceased combatting fascism and former Nazis wherever they showed their heads. In West Germany in the 1960s that still meant virtually every walk of life, right up to Chancellor Kurt Kiesinger (1966-1969) and President Heinrich Lübke (1959-1969).

She founded a German branch of the Auschwitz Committee in her living room and became honorary president of the Association of Victims of the Nazis, on occasion braving water cannons to stop neo-Nazi parades. She was active in peace demonstrations and supported Cuba against the blockade.

After 1988 she joined her son, her daughter and young Turkish-German musicians in groups playing modernized international songs, Jewish songs, and new political songs for all the good causes, including the rights of Palestinians to conduct their boycott campaign. In countless schools she used her story to oppose the many inroads of the fascists, and her last action was to join in urging that May 8th, the day of victory over the Nazis, be made a national holiday.

Most media and many politicians voiced their praise and mourning – after almost totally ignoring her in life and attacking and trying to squelch organizations she was active in, as an avowed Communist. They stressed how she had always fought anti-Semitism. She had indeed, ceaselessly, but not in the way they use the term, labelling everyone an anti-Semite who criticizes Israeli government policies, its settlements, occupation, repression, its missile and drone attacks. Her opposition to this and her clearly leftist views and actions have gone almost unmentioned by officialdom and its media. But not by the thousands who attended the funeral ceremony, who had loved her, fought at her side, enjoyed her music – and would greatly miss her.

Anti-Capitalism in Europe 2001-2021

Twenty years since the G8 protests in Genoa: What did we achieve then? Where are we now?


21/07/2021


Prelude: The Battle of Seattle

30 November 1999 was a historic day. Between 60,000 and 100,000 demonstrators shut down the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Seattle. The demonstration was not huge – certainly not compared to what followed. But Seattle was able to inspire an international movement and bring together different groups which had previously been divided.

As one protestor explained

“You’ve got people here from all over. You’ve got labor, you’ve got environmentalists, you’ve got teachers, you’ve got children, you’ve got coalitions between people of color and, you know, mainstream white Americans. You’ve got middle-class, you’ve got working poor, you’ve got poor. You’ve got everybody out here, because this hurts people. This is bad for people. It’s bad for our jobs here. It’s bad for the people over there. ”

This unity was reflected in the slogan “Teamsters and Turtles together at last”. The Teamsters were trade unionists, who had a large block on the protest. Turtles were ecological activists. Finally, a protest had managed to unite different groups which all suffered under the capitalist system. A new term became popular which had previously belonged exclusively to the radical left – that of “anti-capitalism”.

Seattle was important because of what it followed. Throughout the 1980s, the largest Western powers had been ruled by authoritarian right wing governments – Reagan-Bush (1981-93) in the US, Thatcher-Major (1979-97) in Britain, and Kohl (1982-98) in Germany. Strange as it may seem now, the elections of Bill Clinton in 1993, Tony Blair in 1997 and Gerhard Schröder in 1998 were accompanied by wild hopes of a new socially liberal future. But these hopes were soon dashed.

In April 1998, Schröder and Blair released a paper announcing the “Third Way”, a programme of neoliberalism made palatable by some moderate reforms. After 20 years of aggressive Monetarism, and continual defeats of the Left, Clinton, Schröder and Blair were seen by many as the best that we could hope for. In this sense, the outpouring of anger on the streets of Seattle – and later Genoa – was a significant break from the old consensus politics.

Dress rehearsals in Prague and Gothenburg

I want to argue that Genoa marks the moment when anti-capitalist politics came to Europe. But it was not the first attempt. In the aftermath of Seattle, many people in Europe were looking for something of their own. Two mobilisations helped feed these aspirations.

In September 2000, the International Monetary Fun (IMF) met in Prague. Despite massive police violence, demonstrations caused the summit to end early. The police estimated 5,000 demonstrators, although the figure given in Wikipedia is now 12,000. This was obviously no mass protest, but it gave a vision of what could be possible.

In June 2001, the EU met in Gothenburg, Sweden at a summit attended by US president George W. Bush. This time between 25,000 and 50,000 demonstrators turned up. Tony Blair reacted by saying that it was “an outrage that peaceful demonstrations had turned into ‘thuggery’”. A momentum was clearly growing.

As the number of protestors increased, so did the scale of police violence. Three protestors were shot, one of whom was critically wounded. In the end surgeons saved his life, but for those of us watching on the sidelines there was a feeling both that a momentous movement was forming, and that the reaction of the state was becoming increasingly lethal.

The road to Genoa

This was the prelude to the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001. I was living in Stuttgart at the time, from which there was no organised transport that I knew of. Fortunately, in the week before the summit I was in Britain visiting family. I booked a place on the 500-seat train organised by the new anti-capitalist group Globalise Resistance.

It was touch-and-go whether this train would get to travel. After a Times article labelled it an “anarchist express”, it was cancelled by the French government and only reinstated about 12 hours before we needed to be in Dover for the ferry. This reinstatement was the direct result of the threat of action of French trade unionists – showing that Teamsters and turtles were also uniting in Europe.

As we pulled out of the station, someone announced that former Tory MP Jeffrey Archer had been jailed for perjury. A cheer poured through the train to set us on our way. As we went through France, veterans of Prague and Gothenberg told us about the new conditions and how to prepare ourselves against the intensified police violence.

We learned about “affinity groups” – not so large that anyone would be forgotten, but large enough to split into two if some of the group wanted to advance towards a confrontation while others preferred to hold back. Whatever happened, you always checked that everyone in the group was safe, and no-one was ever left on their own. We also learned how to deal with tear gas and doused bandannas in lemon juice to create makeshift face masks.

We arrived in Genoa to witness a city at war. Police had erected a huge wall around the conference centre that was going to host the G8. We were not allowed anywhere near the city centre. Nonetheless, we stumbled through the chaos, joining and losing the various demonstrations which were criss-crossing the city before we found our camp.

A rumour circulated that a demonstrator had died. It was later confirmed that the 23-year old Genovese student Carlo Guiliani had indeed been killed by the police. Everyone was shocked.

It is moments like this that define whether a movement goes forwards or backwards. After the police violence at Prague and Gothenburg, there was a serious danger that most people who were not seasoned activists would be just too scared to take part. Stand up Fausto Bertinotti.

Fausto Bertinotti intervenes

Bertinotti was the leader of Rifondazione Comunista, a left-wing split from the old Communist Party that had thrown itself into the anti-capitalist movement. We didn’t know it at the time, but Bertinotti was interviewed on a Friday evening news show and used his platform to urge anyone who was watching to abandon their plans and come up to Genoa. The police could not be allowed to murder demonstrators with impunity.

The next day – 21 July 2001 – was tense. As the demo set off, we saw large groups of armed police, obviously up for a fight. We shouted at them “Assassini, Assassini!” – “Murderers, Murderers!”, but they looked scary. They had killed once, and looked ready to kill again.

The demo carried on through the old city in the baking heat and it gradually dawned on us that we weren’t alone. It wasn’t just the locals, cheering us from their windows and offering practical help – throwing down bottles of water and food. We looked around to see that 300,000 people were demonstrating with us. Bertinotti’s call to action had worked.

After the demo, I wandered out to try to find the station. Friends had booked a holiday in Crete, and I was due to join them. But the police were retaking control of the streets and we were warned not to go out on our own. Later on, the Carabinieri were to break into the school which was the headquarters of the Genoa Social Forum, where many activists were sleeping.

Jonathan Neale reports what happened in his book ‘You are G8, we are 6 Billion’

“Hundreds of them [police] charged into the school chanting ‘You’re the Black Bloc and we’ve come to kill you.'”

But I had no choice. I nervously took my large bag and found the station. When I got there, I was met by tens of thousands of singing demonstrators who had had taken over the station. I later learned that the rail unions had organised that everyone would be travelling for free. After a lot of confusion, I got the train to Venice and then the ferry down to Crete.

What happened next

I returned to Germany to find that a strange collection of esoterics, teachers and old 1968’lers had decided to set up a Stuttgart branch of ATTAC, the anti-capitalist organisation. I joined the planning group, and we planned a foundation meeting for 14 September. Three days before the meeting, the Twin Towers were attacked, and we assumed that no-one would turn up.

Instead, the opposite happened. We had booked a room for 50 people in the cellar of the trade union hall, expecting maybe 30. In the end, we were 150. Most had the same story: something momentous has happened, and they didn’t want to face it alone. We heard several stories of whole branches of the increasingly neoliberal and pro-war Greens resigning and joining ATTAC.

Although ATTAC was formally a single issue campaign – for the Tobin tax on speculation – from the very beginning, ATTAC Stuttgart was wedded to the anti-war movement. At an early meeting, I suggested that we set up a working group on globalisation and war. In the spirit of ATTAC, someone said – if that’s what you want, go and organise it. I called a meeting for anyone who was interested at the end of the meeting. One person turned up.

But we were on our way. Before long, our group was meeting every two weeks, with 20-30 people at each meeting. The average age of participants was probably under 20, and I was clearly the oldest member. At every meeting, someone from the group led a political discussion. We were also a permanent presence at the growing number of demonstrations against war and capitalism.

A new global movement

The international movement which had coalesced around Genoa decided to meet again. A European Social Forum was called in Florence in November 2002. The model was the World Social Forums which had been organised since January 2001 in Porto Alegre, Brazil. We sent a significant delegation from our young group from Stuttgart, who loved it, despite being asked to sleep in a former abattoir.

The meetings were fascinating, but the best one was not in the programme. One evening, various anti-war activists got together to call an international day of action on 15 February, 2003 against the coming Iraq war. At the end of the conference, one million people marched through Florence (population 400,000) against war and globalisation.

The wave of activity was inspirational, but also a challenge. The German anti-war movement was much less developed than its equivalents in other countries. We came up with the idea of the ATTAC Friedenstour (peace tour) – a series of about 25 public meetings in three weeks with international speakers, calling on people to come to the demonstration on 15 February.

The penultimate meeting in Stuttgart had 400 people cramming into the same trade union hall where everything started – but this time in the largest room. That night, we signed up hundreds of people for 15 February. We would send 20 buses to the 500,000 strong demo in Berlin, even though 50,000 attended a hastily-organised demo in Stuttgart on the same day.

The European Social Forums continued for a while – in Paris in 2003, in London in 2004 and then in Athens, Malmö and Istanbul. Pehaps our last big show of strength was in Heiligendamm, Germany, in 2007. An estimated 80,000 people joined the protests against the G8 summit. A significant new presence was die LINKE, a new anti-capitalist party.

For all the problems that die LINKE has encountered (and been responsible for) since, it was a genuine product of the movement against globalisation, war and capitalism. The new formation of the Left resulted in the birth of other new parties like Podemos, SYRIZA and La France Insoumise, as well as social democratic realignments around Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders.

Was it all worth it?

Heiligendamm ended the phase that started in Genoa in 2001, but it wasn’t the end of the anti-capitalist movement. Four years later, three different continents experienced a new wave of activism – from the Arab Spring in North Africa, through the Occupation of the Squares in Spain to Occupy Wall Street in the US. These movements were separate to the previous anti-capitalist movements, but they had learned much from their predecessors.

Twenty years on, it’s easy to be negative. Conservatives have been in government since 2010 in the UK, since 2017 in France and since 2005 in Germany. The low level of trade union struggle does not help. And yet we can draw a number of positives. We have recently seen a number of mobilisations based on self-activity, organised by groups as diverse as Fridays for Future, #MeToo and Black Lives Matter. Most recently, we have seen massive demonstrations for Palestine.

The last 20 years have also seen the emergence of mass movements and of socialist parties, for which millions of people have been prepared to vote. We can argue about how central elections should be in our strategy, and about the lessons from SYRIZA and Podemos’s experience in government, but these votes are a sign of a new mass audience for the ideas of anti-capitalism.

Every movement stands on the shoulders of the giants that preceded it. Genoa was a significant event in the re-formation of the anti-capitalist Left in Europe and beyond. It was a movement that didn’t get everything right, but it was one that we ignore today at our peril.

Genoa threw a stone in the water of resistance, and the ripples continue. In 2001, Guy Taylor was in charge of the Globalise Resistance mobilisation. This week, he told me: “there are a number of young activists in London who have been in touch with me asking for texts and talks about the anti-capitalist movement – something that gives me great hope.”

The fight goes on.

Many thanks to John Mullen, Julie Niederhauser and Guy Taylor for comments on an earlier draft of this article

Mary Wollstonecraft – A Fearless Radical in Her Life and Thought

How the French Revolution Radicalised the Pioneering Fighter for Women’s Rights


20/07/2021

Mary Wollstonecraft, author of The Vindication of the Rights of Women, is often referred to as the “Mother of Feminism”. Her life was both short, eventful, and controversial. She died a painful death, aged only 38, from post-natal complications, shortly after the birth of her second daughter, Mary. This left her newly married husband, William Godwin, himself a well-known leading radical, to bring up three-year-old Fanny, Wollstonecraft’s daughter from a previous relationship, and the baby Mary, who later became famous as the author of Frankenstein.

Wollstonecraft was born on a farm somewhere between London and Epping Forest. She grew up, the second of six children, on farms in Epping Forest, Wales and Yorkshire, with an alcoholic father and a mother whom Mary tried to protect from the father’s abuse. Her early education came from six years at Day Schools whilst the family was in Yorkshire, and from growing up on different farms and playing sports with her brothers.

One of the people who stimulated Mary, “a wild, but animated and aspiring girl of sixteen”, to develop her writing skills was Frances Blood, who lived in Newington Butts, whom she had met during one of the family’s stays in London. According to Godwin’s Memoirs of Mary Wollstonecraft, “Fanny undertook to be her instructor” and after meeting Fanny “..…a connection more memorable originated about this time, between Mary and a person of her own sex, for whom she contracted a friendship so fervent, as for years to have constituted the ruling passion of her mind”.

Wollstonecraft decided at the age of 16 to become independent and earn her own living. She started out on the traditional route for middle-class women at the time, by becoming a companion to a Mrs. Dawn in Bath but left the position to go home to care for her mother until her death. Wollstonecraft then moved to Waltham Green in Fulham to be closer to Fanny. The two of them then set up a Day School, first in Islington, then in Newington Green, along with Mary’s two sisters. The school became unviable when Wollstonecraft followed Fanny to Portugal to support her through an illness.

Sadly, Fanny died in childbirth, leaving Mary bereft of the close friend she loved, admired and learned so much from. Ten years later, in a subsequent publication, Letters from Sweden, Norway and Denmark, Wollstonecraft wrote: “I cannot without a thrill of delight, recollect views I have seen, which are not to be forgotten, nor looks I have felt in every nerve, which I shall never more meet. The grave has closed over a dear friend, the friend of my youth; still she is present with me, and I hear her soft voice warbling as I stray over the heath.”

In Islington, in an environment of radical thinkers, Wollstonecraft got to know the Radical preacher Dr. Richard Price, a fervent supporter of both the American and French revolutions. Wollstonecraft became a writer, critic and intellectual, self-taught and through the support and influence of the radical circles she was introduced to by the publisher Joseph Johnson. She mixed with Thomas Paine, best known for his Rights of Man and whose pamphlet Common Sense influenced the American revolution; Joseph Priestley, chemist and radical; the poet and artist William Blake, who illustrated her Stories from Real Life (an education manual for children commissioned by Joseph Johnson) as well as William Godwin and the Swiss painter, Henry Fuseli. William Roscoe, from Liverpool and a supporter of the abolition of slavery, commissioned the less well-known and atypical portrait of Wollstonecraft (possibly by John Williamson) in which she is depicted dressed and posing in the style of a French intellectual (See the head of this article).

During her life in France in 1792, Wollstonecraft became friends with leaders of the French Revolution as well as a group of international writers and artists. She dedicated A Vindication of the Rights of Women to Talleyrand, one of the early leaders in the French Revolution. She had an unwavering belief in God and in the power of Reason and Science to bring about positive social change and improvements. Her stint as governess to the two daughters of Lord and Lady Roxborough in Ireland taught her to abhor the ways of the aristocracy in general, particularly those of aristocratic women, who appeared to prefer their fawning dogs to their own children.

The French Revolution in particular had a profound impact on Wollstonecraft. When Edmund Burke attacked the French Revolution in his Reflections on the French Revolution, Wollstonecraft wrote a reply A Vindication of the Rights of Men published in 1790 by Joseph Johnson. This was a precursor to her famous work A Vindication of the Rights of Women, also published by Johnson in 1792. This makes Wollstonecraft, as Miriam Kramnick puts it, “not so much the inheritor of a feminist tradition as she is the writer of its manifesto”.

Wollstonecraft develops a wide range of arguments in A Vindication of the Rights of Women, but her central argument is that women should be educated equally alongside men in order that they could develop the power of reason throughout their lives. She was not a revolutionary intent on overthrowing English society or the family, although she railed against, poverty, inequality and the role of property.

Rather, Wollstonecraft wanted to see a transformation in men and women, with women to be treated as fully independent human beings and not be brought up to be the sexual playthings of men. Marriage should be based on friendship and autonomy, not on the subordination of women to men. She loathed the hypocrisy attached to the concept of “the fallen woman”, opposed asylums and Magdalens (institutions set up to contain women who got pregnant outside of marriage or who worked as prostitutes) and believed no woman should have to give herself to a man she did not love and desire. She opposed licentiousness in men, arguing for real sexual passion informed by respect.

Her arguments are directed at middle-class women, and men, where she believed change might most easily be wrought, with education playing a key role. She advocated a system of co-education based on developing physical strength as well as the mind and stimulating a spirit of enquiry. Children should play outside and not be subject to physical punishment. Women should be educated to be economically independent, to be physicians as well as nurses, and to take up other occupations. Training in human anatomy and medicine would help women to better care for their families. Wollstonecraft’s vision of female beauty was based on women developing their physical strength, in contrast to the vision of the simpering, weak and pale sex-object cultivated in her day.

Two years after A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Wollstonecraft wrote An Historical and Moral View of the Origin and Progress of the French Revolution in part based on her own personal observations. Wollstonecraft had in fact ‘fled’ to France to try to break her attraction to the Swiss painter Henry Fuseli, whose wife turned down a proposal for a ‘ménage à trois’.

In Paris, Wollstonecraft met and fell in love with an American, Gilbert Imlay. They lived happily in Neuilly for several months and Imlay was the father to Wollstonecraft’s first daughter — named Fanny in recognition of her lost friend. Wollstonecraft got a certificate from the American authorities identifying her as Mrs Imlay in order to gain protection after the decision of the National Convention in 1793 to expel all British subjects. However, Wollstonecraft was never actually married to Imlay.

The relationship became unworkable when Imlay headed off on business trips that included embarking on other relationships. Her letters to Imlay make painful reading as she wrestled with attempting to break the relationship with the man she was passionately in love with, the father of her daughter, but who she ultimately discovered, was living with someone else. One day she was full of resolve to break with him entirely, the next she was desperately trying to get them back together again, to the extent of proposing that she, Imlay and his lover all live under the same roof.

The experience of attempting to maintain this relationship, twice brought her to the brink of suicide. The first time, Imlay rescued her after she attempted overdosing on laudanum. The second time, she jumped from Putney Bridge but was pulled unconscious from the Thames by fishermen. In the end she succeeded in making the necessary break with Imlay to build a life for herself and her daughter.

Wollstonecraft was appalled by the extent of the bloodshed during the reign of Terror in the French Revolution. Nevertheless, she argued that perhaps it was necessary to rid society of all the evils of oppression. An Historical and Moral View of the Origin and Progress of the French Revolution is interesting for several reasons. She was concerned “to trace the springs and secret mechanism, which have put in motion a revolution, the most important that has been recorded in the annals of man.”

She captures the oppression of the peasantry, having to bear the parasitic burden of 60,000 of the nobility, a 100,000 strong standing army, 200,000 clergy who took 25 per cent of the produce of France, 60,000 monks and 50,000 tax collectors. She saw the revolution as a movement of the people: “who were slaves and dwarfs, bursting their shackles and rising in stature, suddenly appeared with the dignity and pretensions of human beings.”

It was the people, who by successive approximations, assessed the moves by the forces round the King, Louis XVI, to draw in the European powers to support the restoration of feudalism. And it was the masses, men, women and children who organised the defences in Paris, mingled with the standing army, won soldiers to their side and who played the decisive role in the capture of the Bastille, that symbol of reaction whose cannons had been turned on revolutionary Paris.

In May 1795, Wollstonecraft, undertook a trip to Scandinavia with her baby Fanny. She was hoping to resolve some business problems for Imlay and thus help repair the breach in their relationship. She wrote regular letters to an imaginary lover (presumably Imlay), later published as Letters Written During a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Godwin, who had not been impressed on his initial meetings with Wollstonecraft, wrote “If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me the book.” The Letters made a deep impression on the Romantic poets.

Although not widely read, The Letters, are among the best of Wollstonecraft’s writings. She describes vividly the countryside she travelled through, as well as the walks and rides she took. Her love and appreciation of the beauty of the scenery is everywhere combined with down-to-earth details such as the stench from the use of herring as fertiliser in Denmark. She gives succinct résumés of the way of life of different communities, noting differences in wealth and poverty.

About Sweden she writes:

“In fact, the situation of servants in every respect, particularly that of the women, shows how far the Swedes are from having a just conception of rational equality. They are not termed slaves; yet a man may strike a man with impunity because he pays him wages, though these wages are so low that necessity must teach them to pilfer, whilst servility renders them false and boorish. Still the men stand up for the dignity of man by oppressing women. The most menial, and even laborious offices, are therefore left to these poor drudges. Much of this I have seen.”

Her observations of the economic and political structures of Sweden, Norway and Denmark led her to conclude that the small farms that underpinned the economy of Norway meant that it was the freest community with the mildest of laws. “The distribution of property into small farms produces a degree of equality which I have seldom seen elsewhere; and the rich being all merchants, who are obliged to divide their fortune amongst their children, the boys always receiving twice as much as the girls, property has a chance of accumulating till overgrowing wealth destroys the balance of liberty.”

Along the way there are personal reflections on commerce and greed, revised opinions about the superior level of culture of the French compared with those who lived in northern climes, her love for her daughter Fanny and the delight she took in her presence, alongside her fears for the kind of world Fanny would face when she grew up:

“You know that, as a female, I am particularly attached to her; I feel more than a mother’s fondness and anxiety when I reflect on the dependent and oppressed state of her sex. I dread lest she should be forced to sacrifice her heart to her principles, or principles to her heart. With trembling hand, I shall cultivate sensibility and cherish delicacy of sentiment, lest, whilst I lend fresh blushes to the rose, I sharpen the thorns that will wound the breast I would fain guard; I dread to unfold her mind, lest it should render her unfit for the world she is to inhabit. Hapless woman! What a fate is thine!”

An intrepid and imposing traveller, Wollstonecraft was able to persuade captains of ships to do her bidding, from putting her ashore where she wished, to rescuing travellers on a French boat in distress.

A short time after her return to London, Wollstonecraft embarked on a romantic relationship with William Godwin, a partnership that brought them both great pleasure. Society was becoming increasingly conservative during a reactionary backlash against the French Revolution and the repression unleashed against the Radical reformers by Pitt’s government. Miriam Kramnick writes:
“….. Pitt’s repression was irresistible. The Treasonable Practices Act broadened the definition of treason, the Seditious Meetings Act made it illegal to gather for a lecture without a law officer present, and in 1798, Habeas Corpus was suspended.”

So Godwin and Wollstonecraft married when Wollstonecraft became pregnant in order to ensure that she would not be cut out of their social circles. Since both agreed that two people in a relationship should remain autonomous, instead of the woman becoming one person with the man, they set up house together, but Godwin retained a flat several doors down in Somers Town where he would often spend the day on his own work. They enjoyed trips out as a family, with Godwin developing a close relationship with little Fanny, but allowed themselves the right to enjoy mixed company on their own.

Wollstonecraft’s standing as a writer and public figure has undergone many changes. After William Godwin’s biography revealed that she had not been married when her first daughter was born, her social reputation was seriously tarnished, whilst her reputation as a Radical was increasingly a disadvantage, associated as she was with the Jacobin leadership of the French Revolution, the likes of Robespierre and Terror.

She was remembered by the followers of Robert Owen and writers such as George Elliot and Elizabeth Barrett Browning but disowned by the Suffragettes. In the early twentieth century, the American anarchist Emma Goldman saw Wollstonecraft as “a pioneer of modern womanhood”. In 1959, the Fawcett Society laid a wreath at Wollstonecraft’s grave and leading feminists Kate Millett and Germaine Greer both hailed The Vindication as an important work.

More recently, Wollstonecraft’s relationship with Fanny Blood has been seen as an example of ‘the love that cannot speak its name.’ Wollstonecraft’s novel Mary, A Fiction “has been claimed by lesbian literary history” and her portrait by John Williamson has been included in the LGBT – Pride and Prejudice Project in the Museum of Liverpool. Unaccountably, most of the original correspondence between Fanny Blood and Wollstonecraft has disappeared.

Wollstonecraft wrote two novels, Mary, A Fiction, written in 1788, and the unfinished Maria or The Wrongs of Women published posthumously in 1798. Mary, A Fiction is a complex novel of two relationships, one between two women, Ann and Mary, the other between the same woman, Mary, and a man, Henry. Mary had been married off to a man she loathed so both relationships with Fanny and Henry transgressed contemporary social norms. The novel reflects Wollstonecraft’s own relationship and love and friendship for Fanny Blood and, perhaps too, a bisexuality in her desire for a relationship with the painter Henry Fuseli, and possibly his wife too.

Maria or The Wrongs of Women explores the nature of contemporary marriage where women were treated as the property of their husbands. It centres on the life of a woman trapped in a marriage she is unable to escape, whose husband’s sole interest is in her potential wealth and has her committed to an asylum when she attempts to escape his control. The novel also highlights the fate of the poorest women in society, through depicting a woman born as an illegitimate child, who is treated as an outcast and only survives through a combination of backbreaking work as a servant, washerwoman, prostitution and stealing.

Ashley Tauchert, in an essay about the two novels says:

“I will read Wollstonecraft’s Fiction for modalities of female-embodied same-sex desire expressed through figures of disavowal. I will argue that what this Fiction offers is a female-embodied character whose desire is encoded as masculine. Following Teresa de Lauretis I suggest that this masculine encoding is, in turn, one of the disavowed signs of female-embodied same-sex desire.”

It is impossible in this short article to capture fully the unique qualities of this extraordinary critic, philosopher, writer, sparkling conversationalist and fearless radical thinker, but I hope I have conveyed something of her singularity and ignited an interest in her work. Wollstonecraft was a trenchant critic of the society of her day and the conditions of women’s lives.

She showed the way oppression shaped women’s lives in different classes in the eighteenth century. In her own life choices, she transgressed the boundaries of sexual mores and gender roles. She has rightly become a feminist and lesbian icon, and the depth and range of her analysis and vision are still relevant for those of us fighting women’s oppression today.

Further Reading

Finding Permission to Narrate

Palestinian Activism and Political Censorship in Post-Holocaust Berlin

The Question of German Guilt
 
The Holocaust against the Jews of Europe is internationally recognized as a modern genocide that changed the world. It is a universal moral paradigm in democratic societies and its remembrance continues to have a significant impact on world politics and international law. The importance of remembering and “working through” the Holocaust is, of course, particularly acute in contemporary Germany. Here the historical responsibility and “a primal scene of guilt and shame” for the crimes committed against the Jews by the National-Socialist regime have become the core around which German national identifications are organized. Indeed, in the book “The Question of German Guilt” published two years after the end of the war, German psychologist Karl Jaspers maintained that:
“We Germans are indeed obliged without exception to understand clearly the question of our guilt…The way we answer it will be decisive for our present approach to the world and to ourselves. What comes out of it has to create the essential basis of what will in future be the German soul and the fundamental trait of our German self-consciousness”.
German foreign policy officials were acutely conscious that “the world will carefully watch the new Germany and one of the tests by which it will be judged and allowed reintegration into the ranks of “civilized nations” will be its attitude towards the Jews and how it treats them”. “Stigma management”, then, became Germany’s main occupation, leading to what Nolte has referred to as a “theatre of remembrance”. In which the memory of the Holocaust became reified into a “ritualized narrative”. It became both totemic and taboo- and turned into a political function of legitimacy, authority and social transformation.
 
According to Sznaider, one of the primary attempts to embody and attain a “proper” attitude towards Jews has been Germany’s official policy of defending the legitimacy of the state of Israel. This entity became officially recognized as the legitimate representative of all Jews. Inspired by a compelling moral obligation as well as to wishing to “bring Germany out of the Ghetto completely and forever”, Konrad Adenuaer, first chancellor of the Federal Republic of West Germany) insisted on establishing a treaty of reparations with Israel. This culminated in the Luxembourg Agreement (1952) in which the Federal Republic promised to pay the state of Israel 3 billion German marks in commodities and services, including reparations, loans, gifts, technical services, trained personnel and even military aid .
 
After German unification in 1990, an attempt to forge a positive national identity on the basis of “non-negotiable” support for the security and the “right to exist” of the state of Israel was made. This was a commitment that according to Dochartaigh has no parallel, remained an important aspect of the official German solution to history. In 2008, Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel declared the “safety of Israel” as part of Germany’s raison d’état before the Knesset on the occasion of Israel’s 60th birthday. On Palestine, official German voices were silent.
 
Disavowal and the Externalization of Anti-Semitism
 
Apart from the violence and oppression inherent in forms of silencing and disremembering, the problem with disavowed or “not properly dealt with” histories, is that they can become lethal in new ways and in new spaces. This constitutes what Derrida has referred to as a “haunting” in which unspoken memories function as ghosts that can suddenly (re-)surface, leading to the past’s uncanny interruption in the present.
 
Indeed, in Germany, the positioning of the Shoah as the standard for what should never happen again, leads not solely to a refusal to properly address the past. It also leads to a refusal to address and acknowledge contemporary forms of violent exclusio one of which is the normalization of Islamophobic attitudes in the name of fighting anti-Semitism. The mechanisms described above allow Germany to depict itself as a “new and revitalized country”, a Germany that has fully liberated itself from any racist and anti-democratic tendencies that survived from its Nazi past. Indeed, Holocaust commemoration and the fight against those hidden aspects now regard as outmoded, disgraceful and therefore shameful, are transformed into an element of “German pride”. The former shameful aspects of German identity are displaced, projected and exteriorized outside the German body. Now “tolerance” is ethnicized as a uniquely German civilizational attribute, driving a wedge between a “revitalized, redeemed, color-blind, post-racial” Germany and its Other. That is the immigrant, minority and particularly Muslim populations who have not yet come to terms with their supposed inherent anti-Semitic attitudes anchored in geopolitical conflict. Ozyurek notes how a public discourse now dominates in Germany on the Muslim “importation” of anti-Semitism into Germany which has “come to terms with its own anti-Semitism”. In the current German history and identity, the haunting of Europe’s silent racializations continues to place ‘Others’ outside limits of the new, inclusive community. Similar to the workings of “homonationalism” and “femonationalism”, in which the alleged sexual freedom of queers and women is juxtaposed to the alleged oppression of these groups among the Muslim Other, anti-Semitism has become a convenient way of projecting blame onto the “Muslim Other” for complex social issues that might blemish the mainstream’s self-image.
 
As a classic form of psychoanalytic disavowal, the charge of anti-Semitism becomes a strong projection of the history of violent exclusion and racism onto the bodies of “outsiders” – “I accuse you of doing what I am afraid I might be doing myself”- generating an environment in which Germans obsessively scrutinize and censure other alleged bearers of the inheritance they wish to obliterate, demanding a continuous proliferation of technologies for evaluating deviations from and perversions of it. The development of instruments of surveillance –increasingly targeting very specific groups of people– for securing compliance with the order of obedience to hegemonic memory, then, is one way in which the past becomes “lethal” in new ways and in new places.
 
Political Censorship
 
According to an anonymous academic in Germany, who wished to remain anonymous for exactly these reasons, a disciplinary communications apparatus now exists in Germany, in which the accusation of anti-Semitism places everyone, particularly those critical of Israeli policies, under general suspicion and in which there is a system of punishment for those who try to divert from hegemonic narrations. In fulfilling the fight against the harrowing inheritance of antisemitism and the construction of instruments securing compliance with the “ritualized narrative” of the Holocaust, a new political framework was gradually created step by step in Germany between 2017 and 2020. In 2017, the German federal government adopted a new extended definition of anti-Semitism, in which anti-Zionism, and thus criticism of Israel, became equated with anti-Semitism. The definition reads:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews that can express itself as hatred towards Jews. Antisemitism is directed in word and deed against Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, as well as against Jewish community and religious institutions. Manifestations of antisemitism can also be directed against the State of Israel”.
In January 2018, the post of Federal Commissioner of anti-Semitism was established after which thirteen federal states followed with the appointment of their own antisemitism commissioners. Meanwhile, the growing and considerably larger number of Islamophobic and other non-anti-Semitics hate-crimes continued to receive no specific attention. In May 2019, the German Bundestag passed a BDS resolution with the objective of “resolutely opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) in the fight against anti- Semitism”. Without providing any evidence, the resolution declared that “the model of argumentation and the methods of the BDS movement are anti-Semitic”). Bot, a German legal scholar, argues that the strategy to suppress BDS campaigns by means of the law exemplifies an instrumentalization of law that is fundamentally at odds with the rule of law and should therefore be critically scrutinized.
 
Anamnestic Solidarity in Berlin
 
One place where one can witness productive attempts to construct a counter-public of memory between Israelis and Palestinians is Berlin, where activists, despite the restraining impulses of German official policy and discourse, have organized to exert collective force to create conditions for transformation and emancipation. It is profoundly ironic that these initiatives are taking place in Berlin, the former seat of Nazi power and in many ways the place to which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict traces its violent origins.
Berlin is known as Germany’s most multicultural city, in which the vibrant and lively boroughs of Kreuzberg and Neukölln in particular constitute popular hubs for young artists and intellectuals around the world. Berlin is home to the largest Palestinian community in Europe and the neighborhoods of Kreuzberg and Neukölln have often been referred to by Palestinians as “the biggest ‘Palestinian Refugee Camps’ outside of the Middle East”. Berlin also houses one of Europe’s largest Israeli diaspora communities, mostly consisting of young, creative and politically left-leaning individuals for whom the progressive climate in Berlin is highly appealing.
 
Atshan & Galor illustrate that, while official German state discourse has demonstrated a commitment to Israel and largely excluded Palestinians, German actors at the individual and grassroots level in Berlin seem to be a lot more critical and are increasingly acknowledging the importance of Palestinian narratives and experiences. Indeed, at the intersection of the German government and Berlin’s civil society, there are a number of organizations, movements, and activist groups that are directly concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Additionally, a committed community of Israelis has developed in Berlin who are critical of their government and who have levered their voices in a number of activist groups to engage Palestinian partners and advocate for Israeli-Palestinian solidarity. Because of physical segregation, these kinds of engagements are largely untenable in Israel-Palestine, while they become real opportunities for peace and co-existence in places where the physical divides are broken down. In Berlin, then, there is a movement towards mutual recognition among Germans, Israelis and Palestinian, ultimately leading to a more nuanced public discourse and more multidirectional, rather than competitive deliberations, allowing Palestinians to demonstrate that they are not just so many of a million refugees living in Germany, but that are there because they have a past that is inherently rooted in a largely disavowed part of German history. In this way, remembrance can be an act of hope, a moral act of redemption and a struggle for justice and decolonization.
Further reading
  • Abu-Lughod, L.; A.H Sa’Di. 2007. Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Atshan, S and K. Galor. 2020. The moral triangle: Germans, Israelis, Palestinians. London: Duke University Press.
  • Bashir, B and A. Goldberg. 2019. The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Nur-Masala, N. 2012. The Palestinian Nakba: Decolonizing History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory. London: Zed Books.
  • Said, E. 1979. The Question of Palestine. New York: Vintage Books.
  • Rothberg, M. 2009. Multidirectional Memory: Remembering the Holocaust in the age of Decolonization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.