The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

Navalny and Putin – Is there a good guy here?

Who does Alexei Navalny represent?


01/02/2021

Introduction

Who does Alexei Navalny represent? Certainly, he has admirable courage and is determined to challenge the oligarchy of Vladimir Putin. A clear view of his links to Western capitalism, however, shows that he is no hero of the working classes of Russia. In reality, the current battle pits the Putin class of ‘Siloviki’ (the so-called ‘strong-men’) oligarchs against Navalny, who is a flag bearer of Western capitalism. Sad to say, there are no simple heroes here. Despite this, Navalny has roused a large portion of people to see through Putinism, and that movement should be supported by socialists. To understand the current events, we must review how we got here.

The creation of a Russian oligarchy from the corpses of Soviet socialist enterprises

Ever since the 1917 Bolshevik socialist revolution in Russia, those wanting a capitalist ‘reform’ repeatedly tried to turn the clock back. The adoption of a market economy within the USSR was first espoused by Nikolay Akekaeyevich Voznesenskyin 1947 in a book that anticipated the ‘reforms’ of Nikita Khrushchev:

“His (Voznesensky’s — Ed.) economic theories . . . anticipated by a decade the actual changes in the structure of the Soviet economy that were introduced during 1957-60”. [1]

The changes that Vosnosensky called for took place under the new leadership of the state formed by Khrushchev. It did away with any semblance of a planned economy:

“From 1955.. revisionist economists like Evsei Liberman were writing in Soviet economic journals of the ‘necessity’ of freeing the economy from ‘excessive’ centralised direction and giving greater freedom to the directors of enterprises to decide what and how much the enterprises in their charge should produce:

“These shortcomings in economic management should be eliminated . . . by developing the economic initiative and independence of enterprises”. [2]

The purpose was to institute a new regulator of production – profit:

“Production will be subordinated to changes in profits”. [3]

Yet if under Khrushchev, the profit motive was resurrected in the former USSR, it still took time to undermine people’s support of the Soviet state. The final dismantling of the former socialist state occurred under President Gorbachev. Gorbachev oversaw the ongoing steady erosion of central controls and allowed state-owned enterprises to regulate themselves. Following these changes, living conditions deteriorated for the people. Still, Boris Yeltsin and others leaders wanted faster changes to an unmitigated open capitalism. Gorbachev was elbowed aside, and resigned as Soviet President saying “My life’s work has been accomplished’. [4]

As Roy Medvedev says:

“The new rulers of the Russian federation introduced a political program that mounted to a ‘revolution from above’, whose aim was to transform the so-called socialist system of former Soviet Russia into a liberal capitalist system. President Boris Yeltsin … carried out extensive measures to eliminate state owned industry and privatize the entire economic infrastructure” [5]

Yeltsin, behind Gorbachev’s back, had already engineered the formal liquidation of the USSR into the so-called new ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’, which he signed into effect in the Belavezha Accord of 1991. Now the final bars to a profit making society were removed as Boris Yeltsin ushered in key changes.

As the ‘Independent’ reported in 1982:

“The removal of price control and subsidies decreed by the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, is intended to accelerate the transition to a market economy. . . .The price reform abolishes all state controls on many consumer goods and services. . . . Millions of Russians will be condemned to unknown poverty overnight There is little hope that catastrophe can be avoided “. [6]

Together with his Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin sold off the state. All citizens were to receive an anonymous voucher for “an equal share” of the country’s industrial enterprises. This was supposed to total ten thousand roubles – said the new President. [7] but under a rapid inflation that set in, that value fell dramatically. In any case people were not being paid. These vouchers ended up being sold for survival. As the mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov put it:

“Privatisation was like a drunkard in the street selling his belongings for a pittance”.

In swooped those with even a little cash and bought up the vouchers to possess the former enterprises. Yeltsin and Gaidar were guided by an influx of USA and Western ‘economists’ such as Jeffrey Sachs. [8] This is how the oligarchy in Russia was created. It was to be exemplified by the oil and gas magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky (1963-) whose power was to be broken by Putin.

2. Where was Putin in all this?

Vladimir Putin (1952-) was the Chief of the KGB in Dresden during the late days of the GDR. It is likely that in the GDR’s final days Putin was involved in moving cash stores of the Stasi into the West. [9] Nevertheless, after the GDR’s collapse, Putin returned to Russia, supposedly resigning from the KGB in 1991. He emerged as a politician in St Petersburg in 1994. In 1997 he was appointed by President Yeltsin as deputy chief of the presidential staff. By 1998 he had become Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB. By 1999 he was appointed as acting Prime Minister by President Yeltsin, whose resignation led to Putin becoming Acting President. There should be no illusions that Putin had any sympathy for socialism or communism. He said in an interview:

“the Bolsheviks “destroyed what glues, molds the people of civilized countries – market relationships. They destroyed the market, emerging capitalism. The only thing that they did to keep the country together within common borders – was a barb wire.” [10]

The main theme to grasp is that two factions of the Russian ruling class emerged clearly at this time. By this time the disintegration of the Russian state economy and industry was apparent. A rising mood of the people against the ‘Oligarchs’ was also being felt. By now the apparent opening of the Russian state to Western capital was obvious.

The first capitalist grouping was manifestly aligned with Western capitalism. Its’ clearest representative was the multi-billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who had formed the Yukos oil giant. He had fervently bought up state issued vouchers and used them to buy major components of the oil and petrochemical industry at fire sale prices. The gas industry was not broken up into small pieces, but was kept intact, becoming the privately owned Gazprom. That formed the economic nidus of the second and opposing faction of capitalists, a Russian national capitalist class. This was first headed up by Viktor Chernomyrdin, and then later by Putin himself. This group swept up smaller residues of the oil industry into firms smaller than Yukos, but still sizeable – such as Rosneftgaz which produced more than 60% of the crude oil output. [11]

3. Various phases of the Battle between Russian national capitalists (Putin-ites) and the pro-Western representatives (Khodorkovsky and Navalny)

Putin rapidly surrounded himself with the so-called Siloviki (‘strong men’ or so-called KGB Inc.) led by Igor Sechin. These men had no interest in selling Russia to the West, instead wanting to keep Russian capital, to be used for dubious purposes, for example helping Bassar al-Assad of Syria. As Putin’s former chief economics advisor Andrei Illarionov put it:

“Their ideology is the so-called ‘nash-ism‘ [ours-ism].. For ‘us’ common laws are not applicable. Another element of their corporativist state and nash-ism is the widespread use of force and violence in various forms towards opponents and ‘the others’.” [12]

The first target they went after was the section of the oligarchs who were the entry point for foreign capitalists into the Russian economy. This especially applied to Khodorkovsky, who had been lauded by ‘Business Week’. Khodorkovsky had appointed prominent Westerners to the board of Yukos including Henry Kissinger and David Owen, and was paying dividends to non-Russians. Khodorkovsky openly flaunted his course:

“We now have a lot of American shareholders in Yukos. In Russia we are a sort of poster-child company, a symbol of where the Russian economy and business culture is headed.”

Khodorkovsky looked unstoppable. Yukos Oil was on the point of an 50-50 partnership with ExxonMobil in 2003. Of additional irritation to Putin, Khodorkovsky had also started a movement in social life as well, which was called ‘Open Russia Foundation’ in 2001, modelled on George Soros’ ‘Open Society’.Putin abruptly broke Yukos by first imprisoning the executives including Khodorkovsky and seizing corporate assets. While pretending to be ‘anti-oligarchy,’ Putin enriched and formed his own clique. While Khodorkovsky was released into exile after 10 years, the faction that he represented had suffered a major setback.

Does all this remind one of Alexei Anatolievich Navalny (1976-)? Perhaps it should. For Navalny is the second wave of Western capitalists’ attempted break into Russia. Of Navalny, Khodorkovsky is on record as saying “We are allies“. [13]

Navalny started his career as a lawyer before studying finance in Moscow and Yale. Rapidly becoming an oppositionist, Navalny regularly organises demonstrations against corruption and Putin. Now according to Wikipedia he has ‘more than six million Youtube subscribers and more than two million Twitter followers.’ In 2000 he joined the Russian United Democratic Party Yabloko. Again, just like his predecessor he formed a social movement, but this time with perhaps more of a directly political edge – ‘The People” Movement’, and also the ‘Movement Against Illegal Immigration‘ (MAII) and Great Russia, to form a new coalition, the Russian National Movement. In 2012, Navalny attempted to form a new party, ‘The People’s Alliance’. He has stood for elections several times under severely hampered circumstances and has widely published about Putin’s corruption

“In a June survey by the Levada Center, a non-governmental research organization, he was named the most inspiring public person in Russia other than Putin.”[14]

All his above activity faced legal obstructions from the Putin state. But in addition there was physical intimidation and harassment. This escalated to the heights of an assault on his eye in 2017; and then with the almost-successful chemical poisoning with Novichuk last year. Two factors prevented Navalny’s death: the pilot of the plane unexpectedly made an emergency landing, which allowed doctors at the Russian hospital to administer an unexpected antidote (atropine). The subsequent removal to Berlin where the diagnosis was confirmed would not otherwise have been possible.

Putin’s administration has a sizeable track record of using such means to dispose of its enemies, beginning with the 2006 Alexander Litvinenko murder. We will not detail these here. Naturally, just as the Skripal poisoning was disputed, so too has the Navalny poisoning. Pro-Putinites insist that both poisonings were ‘false flags’. One account even purports that Navlany self-adminstered the poison. I will not dignify these reports by citing them, they are easy enough to find on google. The spin these acolytes of Putin will take now that a major movement is on the move in Russia, against Putin, can be imagined.

Where the current situation will lead

Navlany flew back to Russia in January 2021. He fully understood that he would be arrested on a number of somewhat spurious charges. He had in the meantime exposed the secret service attempts to poison him with a taped ‘sting’ telephone call to one of the FSB operatives while posing as an operative. He had also openly goaded Putin. In these very public statements, and in his courting of arrest – Navalny has behaved just like Khodorkovsky did in his day.

On January 17 2021 Navalny was arrested. However, in sharp contrast to previous arrests of anti-Putin agitators, there was now a reservoir of heightened, near-organised discontent in the Russian people. Moreover, social media enabled wide-spread demonstrations. He had amplified the publicity by releasing a documentary on Putin’s palace-hideway near the Black Sea. It appears to have cost over 100 billion rubles ($1.35 billion) to build. The video received over 100 million views of which more than 70% were from inside Russia, according to Navlany’s allies. [15]

Thousands of demonstrators showed solid resistance to police and military forces, gathering in 100 cites across Russia. As the New York Times commented:

“In all, more than 3,000 people were arrested on Saturday amid one of the most striking displays of discontent that Mr. Putin has faced in 21 years in power.” [16]

Critical was a satirical takedown of Putin:

“For Princeton professor Ekaterina Pravilova, a specialist in tsarist-era law, economy, and governance, the video’s greatest achievement was the “desacralization of power.” By using humor and irony to ridicule Putin’s venality and bad taste, Navalny turned a formerly revered leader into a punch line. Revelations that the palace contained something called an aqua-disco and that its bathrooms were fitted with €700 toilet brushes birthed instant memes. For the Kremlin, the sight of toilet brush–wielding protesters chanting “Aqua-disco!” at police… is no laughing matter: “When power loses the aura of sainthood, the legitimacy of a monarch crumbles,” said Pravilova.” [17]

This ability to capture the mood of cynicism about the Putinite system, and turn it into potentially viable social movements is critical. It differs from either the previous oligarch attempts, or the old revisionist Brezhnevite, tankie discredited movements. The major force in the latter is the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF). Navalny made overtures to these left forces, through a movement he called ‘Smart Vote’.

‘Smart Vote’ is a clever platform to unite people in voting against candidates of ‘United Russia’ (Putin’s vehicle – the largest party holding 75% of the 450 seats in the Duma). It overcame the Putin strategy of denying any standing right for independents at elections, by simply finding alternative electable candidates to unite around. It helped elect some independent candidates to power including high profile United Russian players. Navalny has been able to light up many movements:

“The blossoming of organizations like OVD Info and Apologia Protesta suggests a significant revitalization of civil society. In the same way, Navalny’s concept of Smart Voting, where citizens vote strategically for the single strongest non–United Russia candidate in each district, has empowered a cohort of young people to enter politics without pledging fealty to Moscow.”

Increasingly, people are seeing through the calm, apparently bland exterior of Putin to his corrupt core. The June 2020 referendum to enable Putin to stay in power until he is 84 years old was widely seen as a compound of fraud and coercion. [18]

But it should not be concluded that Navalny is a saint nor a confirmed savior. He is clearly no socialist and has no economic plan for the dire state of people’s lives. And even leaving aside capitalism, he upholds major reactionary ideologies. For example he has clearly demonstrated himself to be a Russian racist and chauvinist who despises the other nationalities in the Russian federation. He clearly wishes to enable Western capital entry into Russia to dominate the economy.

Conclusion

Russia is a capitalist dictatorship, dominated by the clique of oligarchs who surround Putin. Under Putin’s rule, a rule by personal decree, where stooges control all arms of the state including the judiciary, democracy has been stifled. While Navalny is offensively anti-immigrant, anti-Chechen, and is supported by Western capitalism, he has undoubtedly been a major part of a wide grass-roots democratic movement. Critical support for his ‘Smart Voting’ movement as a first step to rebuilding a socialist movement is the only way forward for progressives inside Russia.

 

Footnotes

1 Bruce J. McFarlane: ‘The Soviet Rehabilitation of N. A. Voznesensy –Economist and Planner’, in: ‘Australian Outlook’, Volume 18, No. 2 (August 1964); p. 151; cited by Bland; and W. B. Bland, ‘The Restoration Of Capitalism In The Soviet Union’; Wembley UK, 1980; at: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html; and http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrleningrad.html

2 W.B.Bland for the Communist League (UK); Compass No.92. November 1991 “An open letter to the “New Communist Party”; citing E. G. Liberman: ‘Cost Accounting and Material Encouragement of Industrial Personnel’, in: ‘Voprosy Ekonomiki’, No. 6, 1955.

3 G. Kosiachenko: ‘Important Conditions for the Improvement of Planning’, in: ‘Voprosy Ekonomiki’, No. 11, 1962; In Bland Ibid.

4 Cited in ‘Times’, (London); 9 December 1991; p. 1

5 Roy Medvedev, “Post-Soviet Russia. A Journey through the Yeltsin era”; New York; 2000; p.4

6 ‘Independent’, 2 January 1992; p. 1; 8

7  Medvedev Ibid p. 89; 90;

8 Catherine Belton, ‘Putin’s People’; New York; 2020; p.76

9 Belton Ibid p. 33-34

10 Gordon M. Hahn, Report: Towards a Political Biography of Vladimir Putin: From Commissar to Accidental Revolutionary From Above,1975-2003: Russian & Eurasian Politics; November 12, 2020

11 Marshall I Goldman, ‘Putin Power and the New Russia”; Oxford 2008; p.62

12 Martin Sixsmith, “Putin’s Oil. The Yukos Affair and the Struggle for Russia”; London 2010; p.55; 49; 77

13 Interview with ‘Voice of America’

14 Jake Rudnitsky,’Putin, Poison and the Importance of Alexey Navalny’; January 15, 2021; Bloomberg

15 Ivan Nechepurenko, ‘Russian Court Orders Aleksei Navalny Kept in Jail‘, January 28, 2021, New York Times.

16 Anton Troianovski, ‘Navalny Allies and Offices Targeted in Raids as Kremlin Turns Up Pressure’; New York Times; Jan. 27, 2021

17 Vadim Nikitin Alexei Navalny Grows More Powerful Every Time Putin Talks About Him’; January 28, 2021; The Nation’; Washington DC

18 Vadim Nikitin, As Alexei Navalny’s Life Hangs In The Balance, So Does The Fate Of The Russian Opposition’; September 2, 2020; The Nation’; Washington DC.

One year of coronavirus ‘lockdowns’

One year after Wuhan, the British government’s Covid-19 strategy is in tatters. It didn’t have to be like this


31/01/2021

January 23rd 2021 marks the first anniversary of the Wuhan lockdown. It is now ten months from when the UK first introduced restrictions on people’s movement in order to decrease the spread of the virus. In this brief overview, I want to look at where we are now and what the Westminster government has or has not learnt.

The current numbers

On January 1st this year we recorded a record peak of 69,000 new cases in one day. The Whittington Hospital in North London currently has 66% of its beds occupied by patients with Covid-19; and it is one of 11 trusts with over 50% beds of its’ beds are occupied by this disease. There are 32,000 infected hospital inpatients, a figure 70% more than in the first peak. Of these 4,600 patients are receiving critical care, 75% of whom are less than 70 years of age. This shows that it is not just the very elderly who are becoming sick.

Huge pressure is being put on NHS staff, and the absence level from a combination of sickness and contact self-isolation is around 14%. There is an enormous amount of psychological stress being caused by current working conditions and through not being able to deliver best quality care. This will take its toll on the mental health of care workers for years to come.

The government still claims to be leading the fight against Covid-19 and to have done everything correctly and at the right time. Yet after 10 months of fighting the pandemic, how can we still be in this situation? With a death toll in proportion to population even higher than that resulting from the chaotic situation in the United States?

How did we get here?

There has been a deadly ‘groupthink’ from the beginning, apparently shared by conservative politicians and senior medical advisors. Whatever was happening in some distant place called Wuhan could not possibly come to trouble these shores, we heard. “It’s no worse than flu”; “We will soon get herd immunity”; “let the virus move through the community and we’ll take it on the chin”. Even the deputy Chief Medical Officer claimed that our preparedness for a pandemic was an exemplar to the world.

The reality was that recommendations from recent government pandemic planning exercises had been disregarded. The state took out third party rather than a fully comprehensive insurance, because it was a lot cheaper. Messages from China about the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 were ignored.

The NHS, underfunded and understaffed, was not in a good state at the start, and it has neither been protected nor has it coped. What the government means by ‘coping’ is that so far, there have been no pictures in the press of people seen to be dying because of lack of intensive care. This is their nightmare, and it may still come to pass. However, to maintain intensive care capacity many services were stopped. This had a huge knock on effect on non-covid conditions. For example, it is estimated that there will be an additional 18,000 cancer deaths from delayed investigation and treatment.

The government must stop blaming others and take responsibility

At the very outset, the suggestion of probable public non-compliance was flagged up in the dubious guise of ‘behavioural fatigue’. This was used to justify delay in initiating lockdown in March and at other times since then. Public health messaging was terrible, with many rightly interpreting the handling of the Dominic Cummings affair as one rule for the elite and another for the rest of us.

Going to the pub became a “patriotic duty” but this was later blamed for an increase in cases, as was the “eat out to spread the virus” scheme. Dangerous family mixing for five days over Christmas was encouraged, and then reduced to one day at the last minute. Against the advice of the teaching profession schools were declared safe, only to be closed on the day that children went back. The influence of lockdown sceptics on government policy can be seen time and time again.

Meanwhile, the government has been blaming anyone but itself. Over seven hundred health and care workers have died, with those who have been infected often blamed by managers for not following official guidance. Shortages of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were first denied, only to be then blamed on workers using PPE inappropriately. Public Health England (PHE) was blamed for not providing tests, despite this was not one of its roles after PHE laboratories had been abolished.

In any case, following the 2012 reorganisation PHE was not an independent organisation but under the management control of the Health Secretary. Therefore any of its failures are his failures. To abolish PHE in the midst of the pandemic was described as “taking the wings off a malfunctioning aeroplane while in flight in order to ensure a safe landing”. This analogy highlights the government’s rash and ill-judged reactions to events.

The second tsunami

Now we have a virus mutation blamed for escalating case numbers, despite the evidence that these were going up in December – before its appearance – and when Tier 4 restrictions were clearly not working. Mutations arise because of rapid spread of infections. In other words as a consequence of the loss of infection control, and mutations are not the cause of lack of control. In other words less infection, less chance of a mutation.

The government was warned in September 2020 that major change in response was needed to prevent a surge in cases but, as always, it was disastrously slow to respond. It has pursued a short term strategy of suppressing the virus and hoping for an effective anti-viral treatment or vaccination to come along. It searched in vain for a magic bullet rather than setting in place a raft of measures under the guidance of public health experts.

The current figure for deaths in the UK from Covid-19 is 110,000, but this is likely to be an underestimate. Data from a Leicester study shows that 30% of Covid-19 patients discharged from hospital are readmitted within 5 months and 1 in 8 of these die – missed from the ‘death within 28 days’ definition used for the UK estimate.

Government claims a ‘vaccination dividend’

The prime minister is desperately wanting to take the credit for an effective vaccination programme in the hope that criminal incompetence will be forgotten. The rapid development of effective vaccines is a major positive development and a scientific triumph. But the £350 million contract that has been given to Lord Ashcroft’s (a former party chairman and major donor) company is another example of the outrageous cronyism that has been all too evident and should be no part of a response to a pandemic.

Let us also remember that official guidance prevents people without an NHS number getting vaccinated. This includes not just undocumented migrants but some NHS and care workers from overseas – an absolutely disgusting situation. As roll out of the vaccine continues at pace, we should remember that this is down to the efforts by staff of a National Health Service. All credit for a successful outcome should be given to a publicly funded, publicly delivered health system and be used as an argument for future investment.

It really could have been so different

There are places like New Zealand, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea that pursued an elimination strategy aiming to exclude disease and eliminate community transmission. This greatly reduced cases, protected health services, saved lives, and averted serious health inequalities. Their economies were actually protected, performing more favourably than countries like the UK that pursued a suppression strategy. In New Zealand there have been just 25 deaths. If we had replicated this approach it could have been translated into 340 deaths in the UK, not 110,000.

Shaming and blaming

Rather than look to its own failures the government much prefers to blame the pubic for not obeying rules, or talking of ‘flouting’ or ‘brazen defiance’ by the population at large and using the flawed concept of pandemic fatigue as an explanation. That impression is reinforced by media attention focussed on examples of rule breaking such as house parties, involving only a tiny fraction of society. The problem is presented not as government failing to meet its responsibilities but widespread non-adherence to rules – a function of poor psychological motivation, more prevalent in certain communities.

The reality is quite different, with repeated surveys showing a very high proportion of the population (over 90%) following behavioural regulations. According to Office of National Statistics, even the much demonised students – in reality showed a very high level of social distancing and low levels of mixing.

The main area of non-compliance is in the area of self isolation if infected or a contact – but this is only running around 18%. But why is this? – because self isolation requires support that is still not available. Contrast this with New York where money, accommodation, counselling, food and even pet care were provided and compliance was 95%.

The bottom line is that people get infected because they get exposed. This happens if you are poor, live in crowded housing, cannot (or are not allowed) to work from home, and are dependent on public transport. The costs of an obsession with getting people back into crowded work places has been highlighted with the 500 cases among staff of the government Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s offices in Swansea.

Judgement is coming

The narrative of blame conveniently projects real government failures onto imagined failure by the public. Despite the vaccination programme we must insist that the government is judged on its record. That is – over 110,000 deaths – the worst death rate in the world – and still rising. Vaccination is not the elusive magic bullet and, like mass testing, like the app, like the tiers – will not bring us quickly back to a pre-Covid normality.

We still need an elimination/zero Covid strategy, a comprehensive ‘find, test, trace, isolate and support’ system based in local public health teams – and these things still need to be implemented urgently to prevent even more wasted lives.

“Keep Our NHS Public” will be reviewing all of these issues in its soon to be launched ‘People’s Inquiry into Covid’ (details on our website). The main lesson will be that it has been political choices that have got us where we are and a changed political landscape is needed if we are going to implement the ‘Rescue plan for the NHS’ and build the kind of publicly funded, provided and accountable health service that is so desperately needed.

This is the text of a speech given by Dr. John Puntis at a meeting of Health Campaigns Together Affiliates on 23rd January 2021. Reproduced with permission. The website for ‘Keep Our NHS Public” is at: https://keepournhspublic.com

ECHOES AND ELECTIONS

Victor Grossman’s latest Berlin Bulletin looks at elections in the US and Germany


29/01/2021

BERLIN BULLETIN NO. 185 January 23, 2021

The US-American nightmare, tight-lipped and pouting, was finally forced to gallop off to its luxurious stable in Florida. Almost every European joined in “Hurrah!” cheers as they watched him go!

In Germany, national elections will also be featuring the departure— in this case after sixteen years— of a very different kind of leader, Angela Merkel. The results are still nine months away, but we all know how much can develop in just nine months!

And despite all the differences, there are echoes and parallels between Germany and the USA. I can testify to one; I was an unhappy witness, just a couple of yards away.

Every year in mid-January, leftists in Berlin have marched —or paraded — to the memorial site for the anti-war Social Democrats, later turned Communists, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, both murdered on January 15, 1919. The event differs greatly from year to year, depending on rulers and politics, but was never fully forbidden except in the Nazi years. This year, the organizing committee called it off because of the coronavirus – or postponed it until “maybe in May.” As expected, several thousand rejected this decision . Most of them, as ever, went by subway, then walked the last seven blocks to the cemetery to place red carnations on the plaques. Also as ever, a smaller group of about 2000 started instead at Karl Marx Allee and marched for two or three miles, with loudspeaker trucks, banners and flags representing every leftist, progressive, anarchist, far- and ultra-left group throughout Germany, plus a few other countries and exiles as well. Taken together, and despite some crazies, it was still a stirring sight for those who like the color red! (Here, colors have different meanings than in the USA!)

One little unit of about twenty wore the blue shirts and carried banners of the Free German Youth – FDJ – the official youth organization of the German Democratic Republic which died with it in 1990. This hardy group, refusing to accept either demise, moved to its assigned position in the long row.

Suddenly, a helmeted, visored troop of police charged in against them, asserting that “the FDJ is an outlawed organization.” The parade leaders, including lawyers, explained that the FDJ was indeed forbidden in 1951 – in West Germany. But the East-West “unification agreement” in 1990 had stipulated that East German organizations were not to be forbidden there. And this was East Berlin! So why attack them?

But who cares about niceties? I watched from a nearby stoop as the cops moved in, slamming hard with batons, kicking, knocking people down, upsetting a wheelchair, and pepper-spraying. Two victims soon lay on the sidewalk four feet from me as friends with water bottles tried to ease their agony. For nearly an hour the cops charged in, again and again, hindering all attempts at social distancing. Finally a truce was agreed upon; the FDJ members took down the flags and banners and covered the blue shirts, and the delayed parade moved off. It had been nasty, vicious, unnecessary – and clearly to prove “who is boss!”

There was irony involved. How could this happen in a Berlin governed by a three-party coalition of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and LINKE (the Left)? I heard bitter remarks about all three.

But this year will be marked not only by a national election on September 26th; there will be six state elections as well – and also Berlin on that same date. All the parties are jockeying for voters and the SPD, whose present leader, the city-state’s mayor, wants to move upward into national politics, is worried about the party’s low poll ratings. The current interior minister (here called “senator”) is SPD man Andreas Geisel, and is thus in charge of police. With hopes to win votes from some folks, those lovers of “law and order,” a show of violence is always seen as appropriate, and not only in the USA! Last October, Geisel sent in over 2000 cops, also with visors, shin guards, and even an armored military vehicle, to forcefully remove a few dozen women from a building they’d lived in for years in an “anarcha-queer-feminist” commune. The victorious police were called in at the behest of shady foreign owner-speculators who prefer wealthier customers. And to win votes.

And yet, for years Geisel’s diligent cops were somehow unable to find a bunch of pro-Nazis who posted names and addresses of antifascists in internet, smeared the walls of their homes, stuffed their mailboxes with threats, and set fire to their cars.

The LINKE, also hoping to win more votes in September, is taking a very different path, far more militant than in past decades (but totally non-violent). Two years ago, with the Greens, and the SPD as a reluctant partner, it pushed though a city law prohibiting all rent increases for five years and even reversing recent increases exceeding a certain level. Costs for improvements – real or exaggerated – were also tightened, and new renters could not be charged more than their predecessors. The real estate sharks were enraged – and are biting at the law in the highest courts.

Even before that final decision, the LINKE, with weak support from the Greens and resistance from the SPD (and from three right-wing parties not in the governing coalition) is pushing for an even more radical goal. A petition, after 77,000 signatures were obtained, must now master a far higher hurdle in order to qualify as a “referendum.” Within a time frame of only four summer months – and despite any remaining corona restrictions – 170,000 Berliners must have signed the petition papers – 7 % of all voters. If this tough task is accomplished, the proposal will get on the ballot in September, along with the election – and will still require a majority of voters.

And if all hurdles are mastered? Every real estate company owning over 3000 homes will have to give them up, for an agreed-upon price, to a public enterprise owned by the city. The term used is confiscation! Hit first and foremost is a company, Deutsche Wohnen, which would then lose ownership of about 110,000 Berlin homes and apartments. Its irate boss, now very active in opposing the measure, would hardly go hungry; his current annual income is in the €4.5 million range. And two other enterprises, each with about a 10% share, would hardly face bankruptcy: they are well-padded BlackStone and the Boston company MFS Investment Management. But a lot of low- and middle-income tenants could feel much safer. But win or lose, this is the kind of militant politics needed so urgently by the LINKE, especially in Berlin – and as a model for all of Germany. And let those real estate czars foam at the mouth. Maybe it’s healthy (perhaps against some viruses.)

To add insult to injury for right-wingers and racists, the LINKE in Berlin has now proposed a law requiring all public services, from kindergarten teacher to garbage collector and court staff, to meet a quota of 35 % employees with first- or second-generation immigrant background. This corresponds with the city population, but not with hiring – now with only about 12% of immigrant background, based on color, religion, and name. This will certainly lead to a very hot fight – but again a good one!

The fight is also sure to be at least as hot on the national level. And complicated! Since Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer surprisingly decided to step down as head of the Christian Democrats (CDU), a thousand and one (1001) delegates, voting on-line from their homes, handed the homophobic, Islamophobic far-right Friedrich Merz, former German boss of BlackRock, his second defeat in two years. The winner, after a speech less about future plans than about his father, a miner, was Armin Laschet, now minister president in the key state of North-Rhine-Westfalia. He seems (in only some ways) similar to departing chancellor Angela Merkel, sticking to softer tones while letting cabinet ministers be responsible for the dirty work. But he may not get chosen to fill Angela’s boots as ruling chancellor; more likely is the head of the CSU in Bavaria Markus Söder, a man with a truly Mephistophelean smile and changing policy hues, perhaps recalling a chameleon – but without even one big eye glancing leftwards.

How will the next German leaders regard Biden’s Washington? The so-called Atlanticists see a chance to repair close connections damaged by Donald Trump. But others say: “Trump taught us a lesson! We must overcome trans-oceanic snuggling and build ourselves up, more on our own, the strengthening center of a strengthening Europe – diplomatically, economically, and militarily!” I fear I’m old enough to hear disturbing echoes in such tones!

The SPD is similarly split regarding USA attachments and armaments, especially those atomic bombs now stored in the base at Büchel, each one far, far more devastating than the one at Hiroshima and all aimed at Russia. The SPD role as Merkel’s junior partner has whittled its poll standing down to the 15% level – less even than the upstart Greens. Some SPD leaders sound currently more leftist than for decades, even bravely opposing those bombs and huge arms exports to countries like Egypt or Bahrain. But can brave words alter directions? And, if the SPD does decide to step away from its coalition, might it founder, split, go under completely?

Fluttering ahead in the political desert is always the vista —or mirage —of a “leftish alliance,” as in practice in Berlin and Thuringia – but on the federal level. But while in those two states the SPD, Greens, and LINKE can stick together in quarrelsome togetherness with a majority of seats, or close to one, and no credible alternatives— on the national level, the three together now stand at only 42%, so right now that mirage seems to be getting more faded or distant than ever.

And there are other obstacles beyond arithmetical ones. First of all, the Greens could choose to discard their last leftish remnants and team up with the CDU, as they already have in several states.

And more seriously, the LINKE has thus far upheld its rejection to sending troops to battlefields or missions outside Germany. Boots on the ground are followed by camouflage uniforms and, before long, to “protect” them, drones, panzers, and bombers. Will the LINKE maintain this party principle despite its total rejection by the potential partners, the SPD and Greens?

Last week an important LINKE leader in the Bundestag proposed a switch; Germany should again play a part in “world security” matters, the LINKE must be more realistic, even spending more money on armaments — not as much as Trump demanded, but more than ever before. The world has changed, and so must Germany’s role in it, he insisted. In other words, the LINKE party should break with its role as the one and only “Party of Peace” and join the others in an alliance which, stripped of artistic camouflage coloring, is aimed at Russia, erasing all thoughts of the 27 million Russian war victims or the menace just one of those storaged bombs represents for all of civilization and environment, too.

This will be fought out by the LINKE at its oft-postponed, Zoomed congress. The outcome could be fateful, like similar questions facing Joe Biden; will Germany – or the USA – treat Russia and China as adversaries, to be out-armed, surrounded, and regime-changed, waving weapons costing ever more billions, even trillions, despite full knowledge as to who will pocket the billions and whose pockets will thus be emptied? Or will instead – thanks to growing pressure from people everywhere – a path of rapprochement be chosen, of détente or— in plain English – of peace, the cause for which Rosa and Karl lived and died? And so many others!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Private note: I got my first anti-virus shot. Painless, no aftermath and no costs; even the taxi there and back was free for us Group One nonagenarians!

All interested in earlier Berlin Bulletins – or about me and my books:

victorgrossmansberlinbulletin.wordpress.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++

6 out of 60,000: Solidarity with imprisoned socialists in Egypt!

Statement by several LINKE MPs and MEPs


by Michel Brandt, Christine Buchholz, Özlem Alev Demirel, Cornelia Ernst, Andrej Hunko, Zaklin Nastic, Tobias Pflüger, and Martin Schirdewan

 

Ten years ago, Egyptians took to the streets demanding “bread, freedom, and social justice.” While the world’s attention was focused on Tahrir Square, Egyptian socialists took the struggle into factories and workplaces. Their efforts helped organize the strikes that ultimately forced former president Hosni Mubarak to resign. Even after Mubarak’s fall, Egyptian socialists are still working tirelessly for social justice and freedom.

Since Abdelfattah Al-Sisi took power by force, elementary civil liberties have been suspended in Egypt. Al-Sisi launched a so-called “war on terror” and imprisoned more than 60,000 political prisoners. Among them are Islamists, liberals, leftists, trade unionists, journalists, and human rights defenders. Independent trade unions and youth organizations have been crushed.

Torture is commonplace in Egyptian police stations. At least 57 people were killed in a series of executions in early December 2020 alone. Amnesty International suspects the number of executions is even higher. The arrest of human rights defenders from the renowned human rights organization Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, one of the few still active in Egypt, was – despite their release after three weeks – a new low point for human rights in Egypt.

Despite its systematic repressive action against civil society, the German government continues to court Al-Sisi’s regime. The former Egyptian ambassador to Berlin received the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in October 2020. Egypt was the main recipient of German war weapons exports in 2020, with exports totaling 585.9 million euros from January to September alone. The bilateral security agreement and provision of police support and equipment assistance was continued in 2020 – measures were only temporarily suspended due to restrictions during the COVID19 pandemic.

We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Egyptian socialists and all Egyptians resisting the dictatorship. We demand a halt to weapon sales and the sale of surveillance technology to Al-Sisi’s regime as well as a permanent suspension of German-Egyptian security cooperation.

We demand the immediate release of all political prisoners. With this appeal, we point to the fate of six of the 60,000 political prisoners as examples. They are socialists who were active in different social fields:

Ayman Abdel-Moati was arrested at his workplace on October 18, 2018, accused of “colluding with a terrorist group to achieve its goals and spreading false news and statements.” These accusations are part of a standard repertoire of fabricated charges leveled against dissidents by the Egyptian regime.

Haytham Mohammadein has been advocating for independent trade unionists for years. He has been in pre-trial detention since May 12, 2019 on fabricated charges. These include “spreading fake news” and “membership in an illegal organization.”

Hisham Fouad was a key figure in the movement against the war on Iraq and in solidarity with striking workers and independent unions. He was arrested on June 25, 2020, and charged with “economic conspiracy to finance a terrorist organization.”

Khalil Rizk is a public transport employee, particularly involved in union organizing. He was arrested in his neighborhood in Cairo on November 17, 2019, and was charged with “participating in a terrorist group, spreading fake news, and misusing social media.”

Mahienour is a human rights lawyer from Alexandria. She has been arrested several times on trumped-up charges – including “spreading fake news” and “membership in an illegal terrorist organization” – most recently on September 22, 2019.

Patrick George Zaki is a gender researcher at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. He was arrested on February 7, 2020, at Cairo Airport during his arrival from Italy, where he was studying. Patrick was tortured with electric shocks and remains in pre-trial detention on fabricated charges such as “misusing social media” and “spreading fake news.”

Signatories

  • Michel Brandt, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Member of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid.
  • Christine Buchholz, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Member of the Defense Committee
  • Özlem Alev Demirel, Member of the European Parliament for The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, Vice-President of the Subcommittee on Security and Defense
  • Cornelia Ernst, Member of the European Parliament for The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL
  • Andrej Hunko, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Vice Chairman of Die LINKE parliamentary group
  • Zaklin Nastic, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Member of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid
  • Tobias Pflüger, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Member of the Defense Committee
  • Martin Schirdewan, Member of the European Parliament for The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, Co-Chairman of The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL

More information about the campaign to free Egyptian political prisoners here.

Blair 1997 – Biden 2021. What have we learned?

When Tony Blair was elected British prime minister, many people thought that Things Could Only Get Better. A few years later, Britain was at war and the Left was demoralised. A look back at the heady Blair years and what they mean in the wake of Joe Biden’s election victory


28/01/2021

The Day After

I still vividly remember 2nd May 1997 [1]. May 1 is a public holiday in Germany, and as it fell on a Thursday, most people at work had taken Friday off as a Brückentag (bridging day). I’d been up late trying to follow the UK election results on CNN and the BBC world service and was too tired and hungover to do much work.

So, I spent the morning using the still-rudimentary Internet. It was particularly satisfying reading about the fall of Michael Portillo. Just after three am British time, it was been announced that Portillo, one of the smuggest and most hated Tory ministers, had been beaten by his openly gay challenger, Labour’s Steven Twigg. The best selling book written about the 1997 election night was titled “Were you still up for Portillo?” But this night was about much more than individual hubris. It saw the end of 18 years of Tory rule, and millions drew a sigh of relief.

Thatcher’s children

I was one of Thatcher’s children. In 1997 I was already in my 30s but had lived my entire politically sentient life under a Conservative government. I had just turned 13 when Margaret Thatcher won the election in 1979, and I looked on impotently as unemployment rose, Britain fought a pointless war in the South Atlantic and Thatcher privatised pretty much all State owned industry.

In 1984 she took on Britain’s most powerful trade union, the National Union of Miners, and won. After that she seemed unstoppable. Victory against the miners encouraged Thatcher to bring in a swathe of anti trade union legislations which made striking and showing solidarity with other trade unions much more difficult. Despite some noble rearguard actions, most notably by the print unions, many of the trade unions were effectively neutered.

In 1987, the first general election in which I was eligible to vote, Thatcher won a third term of office. On a bridge in Coventry, where I was living at the time, some graffiti soon appeared: “Third Term, Third Reich”. See, calling everyone you disagree with Nazis is not so new, kids.

Thatcher was eventually forced to resign, largely on the back of a full scale riot in Trafalgar Square against her Poll Tax. By now she was so widely hated that on the day she was kicked out, our bosses allowed us to bring radios into work. We hoped – wrongly as it turned out – that this was the end of an era. But her successor, John Major, carried on her politics. He may have been less confrontational than Thatcher, a little greyer, but the attacks on the people at the bottom of society continued.

Still, Major was expected to be a short-term stopgap, and we invested a lot of hope in the 1992 election, less than 18 months after Thatcher’s fall. I watched the election results come out at a friend’s house, in a council estate in Bradford, the city where I’d grown up fearing permanent unemployment.

It has been said with a great deal of justification, that Neil Kinnock’s Labour Party lost the 1992 election because of arrogant overconfidence. This may well be true, but we were all sure that this time Labour would win. This made John Major’s eventual success even more devastating. As the scale of the Tory victory became clear, we peeled off one by one to return to our lonely homes.

1997. Having the “difficult argument”

So, yes, Tony Blair’s victory in 1997 meant a lot to me. The nation was delighted, and I was as excited as anyone else. Blair’s campaign song was “Things can only get better” by D:REAM. Originally a #1 single in 1994, it re-entered the UK top twenty the week of the election and seemed to represent a general mood of untrammelled optimism.

So, I fully understand the similar euphoria on 20th January this year, when the Orange Monster was finally turfed out of the White House. This was also a time for celebration. Instead of D:REAM (and later the Spice Girls and Oasis), this time the soundtrack was provided by Lady Gaga and Jennifer Lopez – politics and popular culture once more coming together.

In 1997, I didn’t want to be friends with anyone who didn’t cheer the Tory defeat. In 2020-1, I was as eager as anyone to dance upon Trump’s electoral grave. And yet, as the euphoria at Trump’s demise slowly turned into uncritical expectations of great reforms from the coming Biden-Harris government, I started to have horrible feelings of déjà vu.

After the Blair victory in 1997, I started contacting friends in the UK about it, and some difficult discussions ensued. The start of the discussion was easy enough – wasn’t it great that the Tories had finally gone? Could we really believe it? How were we going to celebrate? But then we came to the challenging part.

Who was Tony Blair?

While we knew who we were dealing with when it came to his predecessor, Tony Blair was still a relative unknown. Neil Kinnock had wrested defeat from the jaws of victory in 1992. When Thatcher had attacked the miners, Kinnock had held her coat. And wherever there was a discussion about progressive issue, Kinnock was almost always on the wrong side.

During the media witch hunt against the gay Labour election candidate Peter Tatchell, Kinnock’s response was to say “I can tell a bloody witch from a fairy!” When the gay and lesbian people were under attack during the AIDS epidemic, Kinnock’s press secretary Patricia Hewitt wrote a notorious letter, saying that “The ‘Loony Labour Left’ is now taking its toll; the gays and lesbians issue is costing us dear amongst the pensioners.”

Blair had been selected as Labour leader because Kinnock – as well as his successor, the bland John Smith – were considered too left wing. Most of my friends knew this. Many of them said, well sure, but Blair was necessary if we were to get rid of the Tories. Some even thought that it was a show – now that he’d won the election, Blair would say that it was all a trick and deliver serious socialist politics. Virtually no-one thought that we may have to fight Blair as well.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we now all know what happened next. The privatisation of British Rail was not reversed. Indeed, PFI (Private Finance Initiative) was introduced as a way of privatising hospitals and other public utilities at the taxpayers’ expense. Schools were turned into education factories with tests for children as young as seven. Tuition fees were introduced at universities. And of course, Blair was an ardent supporter of George Bush’s disastrous wars.

In 2005, we had a new best seller. John Harris, a music journalist who has spent recent years attacking Jeremy Corbyn, brought out a book “So now who do we vote for?” Around that time, my mother – a lifelong Labour supporter who had joined the party as soon as she was able to – asked me a similar question. If we want to understand the excitement about Jeremy Corbyn, a large reason is the sense of betrayal that so many Labour voters felt about Blair.

Lessons for today

The departure of Trump was definitely something to celebrate. I was one of the few people who got together to mobilise a crowd of 2,000 people in Berlin on the day of Trump’s inauguration. For the last four years, I have been fighting against everything that he stands for, and against the far right groups this side of the Atlantic who were emboldened by his time in office.

And yet, on the day of Joe Biden’s inauguration, I made the following post on Facebook:

Fully appreciate the outburst of relief at the departure of the Orange One and his fascist friends

But please remember. We now have a warmongering racist sex pest and a cop in the White House. They are not our friends

This was not a universally popular post. Many people who maybe should know better are investing a lot of expectations in Biden-Harris. And there do indeed seem to be some real gains – from signing on to the Paris Treaty and the World Health Organisation to the removal of a bust of Churchill from the Oval office. Even Biden’s acknowledgement that Covid-19 is a problem is a big step forward from what came before.

But the problem with Tony Blair was not that he never made any reforms. In 1999 for instance, a national minimum wage was introduced, which benefitted millions of low-paid workers despite being set at a derisory level. The 2004 Civil Partnership Act was a palpable gain for gay people. The introduction of Educational Maintenance Allowance in 2004 was some help to working class people wanting to study. And in 2007 troops were finally withdrawn from the North of Ireland.

And yet none of this did anything to stop the rapid and inexorable drift to the right. Cosmetic trade union reforms still left Thatcher’s restrictive laws intact. Blair himself wrote in the right-wing Times newspaper that “the changes that we do propose would [still] leave British law the most restrictive on trade unions in the Western world” [2]. Meanwhile Peter Mandelson, Blair’s Director of Communication said that “We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.”[3]

There is a reasonable argument that Blair was able to make attacks on the poor that Thatcher couldn’t make precisely because he was the leader of the Labour Party. And it was Thatcher herself who best summarised Blair’s government: When she was asked in 2002 what her greatest achievement was, she said “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”

How can we win?

Biden’s inaugural speech did co-opt the language of the social movements which emerged against Trump, starting by saying that “The will of the people has been heard and the will of the people has been heeded”. Biden has promised to repair, restore, heal and build. He has promised racial justice and to “defend the truth and defeat the lies”. He has positioned himself quite adeptly as the anti-Trump.

Biden’s main call is for unity. But unity with whom? With the people who lost out from Trump’s rule or with big business? With the organised fascists who stormed Congress or with Black Lives Matter? Faced with economic crisis and Covid-19, without a radical programme, Biden is almost guaranteed to disappoint. The question is, will this lead to a radicalisation to the right or the left?

We should not forget that the much-hyped Obama-Biden years saw not just the police racism which led to the formation of Black Lives Matter, but also a massive shift of wealth towards the rich. As Matt Breunig and Ryan Cooper reported in Jacobin, between 2007 and 2016, the average wealth of the bottom 99 percent dropped by $4,500. Over the same period, the average wealth of the top one percent rose by $4.9 million.

This does not mean that the next four years will inevitably just be comprised of neoliberal devastation. This depends on the actions of trade unionists, of climate change activists and of mobilisations around groups like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo. Real social movements have been built around Bernie Sanders and against racial injustice. These movements must not concede the streets.

We may also see the rebirth of new movements. Trump’s disinterest in what was going on outside the USA meant that while he continued old wars, he didn’t really start any new ones. Biden is much more hawkish. As Adolph L Reed and Cornel West remind us, “he has supported every military intervention he’s been able to, including, most disastrously voting for the 2002 resolution authorising war against Iraq and ushering the country into the endless war against “terror” we remain immersed in.”

When Biden’s inaugural speech promised to “make America, once again, the leading force for good in the world”, this was just a polite way of threatening to send in the troops. His chosen Defence Secretary General Lloyd Austin, the former head of the U.S. forces in Iraq, is being touted as an anti-racist diplomat. But Austin served as a soldier for 40 years and is very much part of the military machine.

Yet Biden’s push to war can be resisted. One of the most important memories of the Blair years is of the mass demonstrations organised by the Stop the War Coalition and organisations like the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). There is a space to prepare for similar mobilisations – but only if you get away from the assumption that Biden is somehow on our side.

What happens if we don’t fight?

The alternative is too horrible to contemplate. When a ragbag of fascists and assorted esoteric hangers-on attacked the Capitol, they received the support of 45% of Republican voters. What worries me more is that a major rampage by white supremacists was allowed to take place in Washington with no serious counter-mobilisation from our side. In the dark shadow of mass far right mobilisations in Europe, this should give us pause for thought.

Trump has been able to build a mass racist and fascist base. This is at least in part because many middle-class liberals refuse to believe that the 2008 crisis has caused any real suffering because everyone at their Country Club seems to be doing ok. Any opposition to carrying on as before has been dismissed as the rantings of ignorant yokels. The more the pain of working class people is ignored, the more the serious far right will be able to recruit.

When Bernie Sanders showed that he could articulate the despair and hope for change that was felt by millions of people, the Democrat establishment (including Obama) twice closed ranks and ensured that one of their own was chosen as presidential candidate – first Hillary Clinton, then Joe Biden. This associated the Democrats in many peoples’ eyes with a continuation of the status quo. Next time round, if the far right find a candidate who is less of a buffoon than Trump we should really start to be worried.

My lesson from Tony Blair is that right-wing politicians are only allowed to speak in our name if we concede the field. The main divisions in society are not between Conservative and Labour, Republican and Democrat, but between above and below. We must ensure that our side remains mobilised against the attacks that big business and capital will make, whichever of their representatives are in office.

Footnotes

1 Thanks to Alice Lambert, Carol McGuigan and Mihir Sharma for comments on an earlier version of this article

2 Cited in https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/06/blairs-trade-union-reform-at-20

3 Cited in https://www.ft.com/content/5f0bf460-e36d-11de-8d36-00144feab49a

an.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/biden-2020-past-better-candidate