The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Hertha vs Union and the Battle for Berlin

The Berlin derby might look like a capitalist juggernaut versus a worker-owned union, but it’s much more complicated than that


18/12/2020

Hertha BSC defeated 1. FC Union Berlin by three goals to one in the Berlin derby earlier this month. While Hertha’s victory matters to football fans, the match is a microcosm of the economic and cultural battle being waged in Germany’s capital between powerful corporations and monied interests on one side, and the actual people that make Berlin what it is on the other.

The Battle for the Bundesliga and Berlin

Germany’s Bundesliga is hailed for its ,,50+1 rule, a regulation stipulating that German football clubs must be majority owned by their own members. This means that the fans, the people that make a football club what it is, have the controlling stake, similarly to a worker-owned cooperative. A billionaire investor such as Chelsea’s Roman Abramovich has complete control over the club’s ticket prices, stadium regulations, etc. This is the case with every club in England’s Premier League.

There’s a reason Germany’s stadiums are known for having the best atmospheres and the most genuine and affordable fan experience in Europe: the fans are the ones in charge. This is the case for now, but ultras and club members will have to continue fighting and organising to maintain this control. Money talks and investors would love nothing more than to repeal the 50+1 rule. Just look at those Premier League ticket prices.

Credit: https://www.statista.com/chart/3896/how-premier-league-ticket-prices-compare-to-europes-elite/

 

Berlin is a city viewed similarly to the Bundesliga. Its relatively low rents, general affordability, and community organization and activism make the capital very different to London or Paris. It is a city known for its artists and openness, but the battle against exponentially rising rents, the complete commodification of housing, and a future where Berlin is a city exclusively for the wealthy has been waged for decades. Football clubs are a part of a community’s culture just like its bars, restaurants, and shops, and the fight over the 50+1 rule and Hertha Berlin’s investor takeover is a key battle in Berlin’s fight against gentrification.

Hertha Berlin’s Corporate Investor

From Germany’s reunification until 2019, Hertha were Berlin’s only Bundesliga side. During the days of the BDR and DDR, no other west Berlin club was able to establish itself in the Bundesliga. While Hertha had a monopoly on Berlin topflight football for decades, it has always disappointed. Other than Die Alte Dame, the club is also known as the Graue Maus of the Bundesliga, as it always finishes in mid table obscurity.

Hertha then suddenly began playing well, and at the same time, many of Germany’s wealthy business elite saw an investment opportunity. With Berlin being the only European capital lacking an internationally acclaimed football team, the idea of a “Big City Club” enticed quite a few. Hertha was also in massive debt, making such an investor seem appealing. Therefore, in the summer of 2019, Tenor Holdings GmBH, owned by Lars Windhorst, acquired a 49.9% stake of the club. The German investor has since invested more than €200 million.

With this new-found wealth, Hertha have spent a massive €140 million on transfer fees. Polish striker Krzysztof Piątek arrived in January from AC Milan for €24 million, smashing Hertha’s previous record signing of €10.5 million. Just days later, the signing of Lucas Tousart from Lyon was announced for €25 million. In a city with a housing crisis and high unemployment, its biggest football club casually spends €50 million on two players.

Olympiastadion. Photo: Tobi 87. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license

 

Hertha has its ultras, as a traditionally working-class club from Rote Wedding, and is still majority owned by its members, but the current movement of the institution is one unfortunately towards consumerism, the commodification of football, and corporate investment. Many Hertha fans desperately want Windhorst out as he has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and may only views Hertha as an “entrepreneurial project” and not a Traditionsverein founded in 1892, but the businessman is here to stay.

Union Berlin: An Anti-Establishment Organisation

On the complete other side of the city in the district of Köpenick, lies the Stadion an der Alte Försterei, home to 1. FC Union Berlin. Köpenick is a working class district in southeast Berlin, much different from Charlottenburg. Just look at the two stadiums, Hertha’s Olympiastadion couldn’t be more different than Union’s ground in the forest. The two clubs are also in completely different financial realms. Union have spent less since 2012 on transfers than Hertha dished out for Tousart. The club’s record signing is the €2 million Marwin Friedrich.

Stadion (Stadium) an der Alten Försterei. Photo: Mefistofe. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license 

 

The reasons for this massive discrepancy are multivariate. Firstly, Union is a club from the DDR, and the process of integrating east Germany’s football clubs into the western pyramid was simply unfair. The ,,Wiedervereinigung failed east Germans in many ways, and the downfall of their football clubs was just another example of this. Only two of the DDR’s top flight sides were added to the Bundesliga in 1991, four to the second division, and the rest had to battle it out in lower leagues.

Many of the DDR’s most successful sporting institutions, including record champions Dynamo Berlin, have since dropped into the fourth tier or lower. Western clubs instantly purchased all the east’s best players, while DDR clubs lacked the business mindset and did not know how to navigate the world of sponsorships and transfer fees. Union Berlin is the only former DDR side in the Bundesliga. The club was able to gain stability in the third tier after reunification, but nearly went bankrupt multiple times.

A Club Owned by its Community

The other important factor resulting in Hertha having so much more financial might, is Union’s anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian nature. Eisern Union’s main rival during the DDR Oberliga days was Dynamo Berlin, the football club for the state aparatus. This included sailors, soldiers, border guards, and most notoriously, the Stasi. One of Dynamo’s biggest fans was longtime Minister of State Security Erich Mielke.

At the same time, Union was a club for workers, initially sponsored by the FDGB, one of the DDR’s main trade unions. These workers often bumped heads with the DDR’s ruling Socialist Unity Party (SED). The terraces at the Stadion an der Alte Försterei became a safe-haven for anti-SED speech, cultivating a fierce rivalry between the two clubs. Today, Union continues this tradition and constantly protests against Red Bull owned RB Leipzig and TSG Hoffenheim, propped up by SAP owning billionaire Dietmar Hopp.

Eisern Union was able to fight off multiple financial crises by obtaining key sponsors and navigating the capitalist marketplace, but most importantly by being a keystone of the community. The club is owned by its members, and this social ownership is what allowed Union to not just survive, but survive without selling its soul to a wealthy investor. To be allowed to play in the 2. Bundesliga, the Stadion an der Alte Försterei had to undergo massive renovations, and the community showed up to work. Thousands of club members volunteered to help renovate the stadium, while even more sold their own blood to raise money so that Union could be promoted to the 2. Bundesliga.

Hertha vs Union and the Battle for Berlin

Union quintessentially represents what Berlin is known for. The stadium belongs to the fans, not some rich billionaire like Roman Abramovich. The fans are not just proud of Union Berlin and what it has been able to accomplish, but they organise and fight to keep it. While Hertha is now threatened by an investor like Windhorst, and the derby can seem like a capitalist financial juggernaut versus a grassroots, worker-owned organisation, the west Berlin club is not much different than Union. It has its working class roots, its fans are organised and aren’t afraid to fight for control. While the animosity between the fans of both clubs has only grown over the years, it might be time to put that aside and organise to fight together for the control of Berlin.

Everyone has a right to the city

Invitation to join the working group “Right to the City for All,” of the movement “Deutsche Wohnen & Co. Enteignen” (DWE)

Today, December 16th, at 6:30pm, the first online meeting of the “Right to the City for All” working group will take place, organized from within the DWE movement. This group invites people who do not have German nationality or German-language skills to participate in the DWE campaign.

DWE is thus widening the spectrum of involvement, aware that many people may find it difficult to work exclusively in German within the Kiezteams. For this reason, English is the working language in this group, but not necessarily the only one when it comes to forming signature collection teams, since Spanish, Portuguese, and French speakers— among others— will be present in the working group.

The objective is, on the one hand, to collect signatures for the second phase of the preparation of the referendum, which will take place between the end of February 2021 and the end of June. These signatures may be those considered valid ones (that is, those from German nationals), but also from Berlin’s migrant community, which is about 25% of the population. In this way, the aim is to show the support of people who have lived in the city for years and do not have basic political rights such as the right to vote.

On the other hand, work will also be done on the translation of DWE materials, such as the movement’s learning materials, such as flyers explaining concepts like socialization of housing, or videos about the compensations for expropriation. Finally, the “Right to the City for All” working group organizes actions like hanging up posters or handing out flyers. For this, German is not necessary as the language of communication and the activists can work in a friendly atmosphere.

The first meeting of the new working group”Right to the City for All“ will happen online on Wednesday, December 16th from 6:30pm to 8:30pm.

From 6:30 to 7pm, we will provide a short introduction to the referendum and the initiative behind it for everyone new to the campaign. If you already know the basics, feel free to join us from 7 pm onwards, when we will start gathering ideas and discussing all possibilities for this new working group to contribute to this initiative and beyond.

To join the working group on the 16th December, please write an e-mail to right2thecity@dwenteignen.de to receive the access data for the meeting. We encourage anyone interested to join!

The lonesome martyrdom of Jeremy Corbyn

Less than 1 year after leading Labour to win over 10 million votes in the general election, Jeremy Corbyn was temporarily suspended from the party. He is still not allowed to sit as a Labour MP. How could the beacon of hope for the British left fall so far so quickly?


15/12/2020

One year ago, it seemed so different. [1] Jeremy Corbyn was leading an election campaign with a manifesto pledging significant social reform, paid for by taxing the rich. His radical plans had a widespread level of support. In a poll of reactions to Corbyn’s demand to renationalise the big four industries, “water topped the poll (83%), followed by electricity (77%), gas (77%) and the railways (76%).” [2]

We all know now that Corbyn didn’t make it and that Boris Johnson became British prime minister. Even so, 10.27 million people voted Labour in 2019. This was down on the 12.88 million who voted for Corbyn in 2017, but considerably more than every other Labour campaign since 2001.

In 2015, Labour under Ed Milliband won 9.35 million voters, in 2010 Gordon Brown won 8.61 million and in 2005 Tony Blair won the election with 9.55 million votes. In terms of the number of voters, Corbyn’s result was comparable to Blair’s second victory in 2001 when 10.72 million people voted Labour. [3]

The fall in Labour’s vote can be largely attributed to the debate around Brexit. This is not the place to rehash this debate, but anyone wanting to know more can look at 2 articles on the subject which I wrote last year – one at the beginning of the year, [4] and the other just after the election. [5]

It is still worth noting that for years Corbyn had been subject to a barrage of vilification led by the liberal press, most notably the Guardian, which offered its pages to anti-Corbyn “dissidents”. Among the many Guardian articles attacking Corbyn was one from Labour MP Jess Phillips threatening to “knife Corbyn in the front” [6] and one from Tony Blair’s old fixer Peter Mandelson explaining how “I try to undermine Jeremy Corbyn every single day.” [7]

When Labour right wingers plead for party unity, it is worth remembering how unremitting the constant attacks on Corbyn were, at a time when Labour was supposed to be fighting an election.

Accusations of Antisemitism

At first, the campaign against Corbyn took many different forms. In 2016, the right-wing Spectator magazine published an article entitled “Jeremy Corbyn should not be allowed to rewrite the history of his support for the IRA.” [8] The Daily Telegraph shrieked that he “called for ‘complete rehabilitation’ of Leon Trotsky in Parliament.” [9] Meanwhile the Sun gleefully quoted disgraced former MP Simon Danczuk, who attacked Corbyn and John McDonnell MP for “celebrating Marx and Stalin.” [10]

These attacks were largely unsuccessful, and Corbyn’s popularity grew. Under his leadership, Labour Party membership trebled, making it the largest political party in Western Europe [11]. It was then that wild accusations of antisemitism started to accelerate. The Guardian in particular developed an obsession with “Labour antisemitism”, which was apparently something larger and more pernicious than antisemitism in society as a whole.

Although individual instances of antisemitism were recorded – as is inevitable in any organisation with over half a million members – the constant drip-drip of accusations in the press had an effect. Greg Philo and others reported that “When pollsters asked the British public what share of Labour members faced complaints of antisemitism, the average guess was 34 percent.” [12] In a party with 550,000 members, this would mean nearly 200,000 antisemites.

In fact, the maximum number of Labour members who might be guilty of antisemitism had been estimated to be 0.3%, or 2,000 people. [13] A YouGov poll of the members of all the major parties recently suggested that the Labour Party was the party least afflicted with the scourge of antisemitism [14]. Remember these figures, they may be useful later.

The Rise of Keir Starmer

Labour’s failure at the general election in December 2019 made a new leader almost inevitable. In the leadership election that followed, Keir Starmer was the clear victor, winning over half of the vote. Largely notable for his sharp suit and expensive haircut, Starmer gained the votes of many former Corbyn supporters for his promise to unite the party, which led some on the left to think that they were voting for “continuity Corbyn”. [15]

Despite this, one of Starmer’s first acts as party leader was to withdraw Labour’s support for Kashmiri independence – in defiance of policy decided at party conference. His stated reason for doing this was because “a Labour government under my leadership will be determined to build even stronger business links with India.” [16]

It is hardly surprising that some Labour members were a little sceptical, but many were a little overawed by Starmer’s “Ten Pledges” [17], a list of guarantees that appealed to the radical reformism promised by Corbyn. Pledges such as those for climate justice, common ownership and the strengthening of workers’ rights led many to believe that all that had really changed was the person at the top.

The increasingly delusional Paul Mason, once a man of the Left, proudly said that he’d voted for Starmer as leader, saying “Starmer’s politics effectively embody late Rawlsian justice theory, in which democratic socialism is seen as a better route to social justice than a regulated market economy. That is the principle underlying his Ten Pledges, which should be the basis for a focused, radical programme for government centred on green investment and redistribution.” [18]

The pledge that maybe excited most people was Pledge #10 “Effective opposition to the Tories”. Facing a Johnson government that was somehow both corrupt and inefficient, many people would be satisfied to see any sort of challenge to the venal status quo. Despite being an isolated island, the UK had the largest number of COVID deaths in Europe. [19] Surely anyone was better than this?

Ineffective Opposition

And here was the problem. The new Leader of the Opposition had seemingly lost any sense of how to oppose Johnson’s unscrupulous government. Time and again, when faced with the opportunity to savage Johnson, Starmer faltered, apparently being more concerned with showing the media and big business that he is “fit to govern”.

One of the most popular programmes on British television is “Gogglebox”, where members of the public are filmed watching and commenting on recent tv programmes. In a now notorious episode, people watched on gobsmacked as Starmer constantly evaded questions and repeatedly agreed with his Eton-educated opponent. [20]

As the Labour Heartlands website reports “Starmer responded constantly to Marr’s questions with ‘I support the government,’ This provoked one of the show’s family members to respond with the jibe ‘If this was a drinking game and you had to drink every time he said “I support the government” you would be drunk by now!’” [21]

Worse was to come. In October, Johnson introduced the “Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct)” Bill, commonly known as the SpyCops bill. As Anna Southern reported, the bill “will authorise undercover state agents to commit crimes as part of their work. It does not rule out murder, torture or sexual violence. [22]

This was a particularly provocative bill, it was introduced as reports were hitting the press about an undercover operation which the police had been running for decades, infiltrating mainly left-wing groups. Many undercover officers had started relationships with unsuspecting female activists, and some had fathered children whom they also deceived and later abandoned. Even the parents of the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence had been spied upon. [23]

You do not have to be as radical as Jeremy Corbyn to oppose this measure. Yet Starmer ordered his MPs to abstain. The argument was that by abstaining, Labour could table amendments and, of course, would oppose the Bill on its Third Reading. Yet when it came to a Third Reading, Starmer enforced another abstention and only 34 Labour MPs voted against.

It gets worse. Labour front benchers Margaret Greenwood and Dan Carden, and five parliamentary private secretaries, were forced to resign for opposing the Bill which, to repeat, legitimizes the use of murder, torture and non-consensual sex (aka rape) by representatives of the British state. Labour continued to abstain on other bills, including one on Corona restrictions [24], and there is increasing evidence that Labour will abstain on the coming vote on Brexit. [25]

Labour’s abstention on the Covid bill caused even Gary Neville, former footballer and hotel owner, to respond. According to Neville: “the Labour Party are there to protect the disadvantaged and the vulnerable … you’ve got to take a position … When you’re elected and you’re in that seat in Westminster, you take a position. You don’t abstain. You take part in the match. You’re the opposition. You’re the opposition. Don’t sit in the stand.” [26]

The Suspension of Jeremy Corbyn

This is the context in which Jeremy Corbyn was suspended, and in which Keir Starmer later ruled that Corbyn could no longer serve as a Labour MP. A dangerous government, an ineffectual opposition and hundreds of thousands of Labour members who hadn’t signed up for this. Those who had been prepared to give Starmer the benefit of the doubt were getting impatient.

The official reason for Corbyn’s suspension was his reaction to the publication of the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) report into antisemitism in the Labour Party. Corbyn had said that the problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party had been dramatically overstated for political reasons by his opponents and the media. [27]

The EHRC ruled that its analysis “points to a culture within the [Labour] Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.” [28], yet this was not the only ruling. It also demanded that Labour “acknowledge, through its leadership, the effect that political interference has had on the handling of antisemitism complaints, and implement clear rules and guidance that prohibit and sanction political interference in the complaints process.” [29]

And yet this is clearly what Keir Starmer has done. Corbyn accepted the report’s findings, but said that “the scale of the problem [ie antisemitism in the Labour Party] was dramatically overstated.” [30] Now let’s remember the statistics that we mentioned before. The general public perception was that a third of Labour members were guilty of antisemitism. The real figure was 0.3%. In saying that antisemitism in Labour had been exaggerated, Corbyn was simply speaking the truth.

The EHRC report explicitly said that “Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the party.” [31] And yet Keir Starmer removed the whip (preventing Corbyn from sitting as a Labour MP) from Corbyn for his “actions in response to the EHRC report” [32], that is, for commenting on the reported scale of antisemitism within Labour.

Problems with the EHRC

It may also be worth saying that the EHRC is not the independent, unbiased organisation that it purports to be. EHRC Board member Alasdair Henderson has ‘liked’ or retweeted social media posts criticising Black Lives Matters protesters and describing the words misogynist and homophobe as “highly ideological propaganda terms.” [33]

After Philosopher Roger Scruton was called out for describing Jews in Budapest as forming part of a “Soros empire”, claiming Islamophobia and homophobia were “invented” and that homosexuality was not “normal”, Henderson liked a tweet saying “If Roger Scruton, one of our most esteemed thinkers and writers is drummed out of public life by the offence-taking zealots, we may as well pack up and go home.” [34]

Ammar Kazmi notes that “the immigrant-bashing, Islamophobic journalist Douglas Murray recently revealed that the Conservatives had asked him to serve on the EHRC. While Murray never actually joined the EHRC, the Tories have just appointed David Goodhart as one of its commissioners. [35] Goodhart has argued that the Windrush scandal, when hundreds of Black British citizens were wrongly deported “must not lead to a radical watering-down of the so-called ‘hostile environment’.” [36]

In 2004, in an article called Too Diverse?, Goodhart argued that “significant NHS resources are spent each year on foreign visitors, especially in London. Many of us might agree in theory that the needs of desperate outsiders are often greater than our own. But we would object if our own parent or child received inferior treatment because of resources consumed by non-citizens.” [37] This should be enough for us to question the EHRC’s impartiality when ruling on issues of racism.

In passing, let us remember that all sorts of people were accused of antisemitism, when all they had done was expressed solidarity with Palestinians. Two years earlier, the Labour Party conference had been awash with Palestinian flags. [38] Now the slightest indication of support for an oppressed people was seen as proof of rampant antisemitism in the Labour Party.

Meanwhile, the problem of Islamophobia in the party was allowed to fester. A report by the Labour Muslim Network (LMN) found that more than half Muslim party members did not trust Starmer to tackle Islamophobia and had no confidence in the party’s complaints process. [39] The Labour leadership thanked the LMN for the report [40], but made no obvious changes to its practice.

This is before we start to talk about unchallenged Conservative Islamophobia. When the Muslim Council of Britain asked the EHRC to investigate Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, the EHRC said that this would not be appropriate [41], even though Islamophobia is much more prevalent in the Conservative Party than antisemitism is in Labour. Only last year, Conservative leader and Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that Islamophobia is a ‘natural reaction’ to Islam and that ‘Islam is the problem.’ [42]

Why was Corbyn Attacked?

Maybe it’s time to make a brief diversion to investigate why Corbyn and the Labour Left are under attack. If you spend too much time on social media, as I do, you will come across the theory that Corbyn’s downfall has been orchestrated by the Israeli government with the help of the Israeli Lobby /Jewish Lobby (delete according to how woke you are).

While I don’t doubt that Israel has an interest in British politics, as has been shown by the Al-Jazeera documentary The Lobby [43], I think that this argument gets things the wrong way round. Keir Starmer and his consorts do not behave the way they do because they are in the pay of the Israeli government. Their support for Israel is a natural consequence of their right wing politics.

Starmer has managed to rally behind him two groups of people. On the one hand, there are the people who were genuinely excited by the successes of Jeremy Corbyn. In the face of a hostile media onslaught, led by the liberal Guardian newspaper, they feel that the only way to enter government (and in their analysis take power) is endless compromise and to pretend that society is fine as it is.

But there is a second block behind Starmer – the Blairite right-wingers who slightly went into hiding while Corbyn was leader, but always held power within the party machinery. Unelected officials mainly kept their posts and Blairite MPs also had jobs for life, as deselecting them was almost impossible.

For these people – who had extraordinary access to the mainstream media – a Conservative government was always preferable to one led by Corbyn, and they did everything they could to sabotage Corbyn’s chances. When preparing this article, I spoke to a Labour member who said “The PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] and paid staff want to make the Labour party more like the SPD Phil, tell your readers that.” [44]

The musician and activist Brian Eno noted that “The Right reacted at first with incredulity at the prospect of somebody with a coherent progressive agenda becoming prime minister – and then used every dirty trick in the book to prevent it happening. [45] In April 2020, Novara media printed a leaked report which showed how far they were prepared to go. [46]

Recorded conversations from the run up to the 2017 general election heard Party Executive Director, Patrick Heneghan, explicitly stating that he wanted Labour to lose two coming by-elections. The party’s senior management team diverted money away from key marginal constituencies to protect right-wing candidates and Neil Fleming, the party’s head of press and broadcasting, praised MP Nia Griffith as a hero because “she just stabbed Corbyn.” [47]

In other words, threats of antisemitism were weaponized as a reaction to Corbyn’s attempts to bring socialism to the Labour Party. Accusations of him being a Marxist or supporting national liberation struggles could be shrugged off, but the left wing people joining Labour in their masses were much more likely to be discouraged if they thought they were somehow facilitating racism.

As a response to the leaked report, the Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC) set up the Forde Inquiry to “undertake an independent investigation into the circumstances and contents of the report entitled The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014-2019”. [48]

Writing on the Jewish Voice for Labour website, Dr. Alan Maddison posed the following questions, which he said had still not been satisfactorily answered and must be addressed by the inquiry:

  • “did some staffers and PLP members deliberately sabotage Corbyn’s 2017 general election campaign?
  • were unacceptable racist comments made, even given any context provided?
  • did Jeremy Corbyn and his team try to speed up, rather than impede, the processing of antisemitism complaints?” [49]

The most recent statement from the Forde Inquiry said “the Inquiry has moved into the next phase of reviewing and analysing these submissions and interviewing relevant individuals. The Panel will then prepare its report, taking into account the contributions it has received.” [50] We have yet to see whether Jeremy Corbyn and the left will be vindicated, but as the right wing now have full control of the Labour apparatus, any victory will be pyrrhic.

Whatever happened to Momentum?

Corbyn’s suspension was, then, a big deal. How did the Left respond? Significant sections of the Labour Left were found wanting.

For years, many Leftists in Germany have hyped Momentum as being a new and dynamic way of organising the left. For example, Bruno Leopold wrote in Prager Frühling “Momentum is not just a type of popular “Pretorian Guard” for Jeremy Corbyn’s position as party leader, but also a powerful motor of political renewal and the revitalisation of a large party. [51]

In an interview just last year with the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, Callum Cant explained that “Momentum exists primarily as a party-orientated faction—its role is to dominate internal elections and democratic processes, and push a ‘new left’ line within the party. It’s been very successful at doing so—the Left now dominates basically every committee in the Labour Party. Wherever there are open and democratic elections, we win.” [52]

If Corbyn’s suspension was a time to test these hypotheses, then Momentum was found severely wanting. In reality, Momentum had long been the personal fiefdom of one man, Jon Lansman. Asa Winstanley reported in the Electronic Intifada that Lansman was “sole owner of Jeremy For Leader Limited, the company which receives Momentum’s membership dues.” [53]

Lansman had already occasionally indulged in attacks on Corbyn, suggesting that he be removed as party leader in 2016 [54] and in 2019 claiming that “It’s now obvious that we have a much larger number of people with hardcore anti-Semitic opinions.” [55] In this context, Rob Hoveman argues that Momentum “simply became a tool for canvassing and was only mobilised to select candidates where there were vacancies because of death or retirement.” [56]

In the elections after Corbyn’s resignation. Momentum supported Angela Rayner rather than the more left wing Richard Burgon. [57] Momentum members were never even given the chance to support Burgon. Instead, they were given a ballot paper on which Rayner’s was the only name. [58] In the end, only 52.15% of those casting a vote, or 12.5% of Momentum’s membership [59] backed Rayner.

As a response to this crude form of ballot fixing, former Momentum national coordinator Laura Parker tweeted: “Although I am pleased Momentum’s governing body accepted the principle of balloting its members on the leadership, I’m sorry they seem to have decided in advance what the answer is.” [60]

In 2020, in the wake of increasing criticism, Lansman stood down as Momentum chairman [61], and a more explicitly left-wing stream within the organisation called Forward Momentum was formed [62]. Forward Momentum members have been less ambiguous in their support of Corbyn and his legacy, and have gained effective control of Momentum, but they have still been relatively impotent in the face of the witch hunt.

Other Labour Left reactions to Corbyn’s suspension

The Labour Left is much more than just Momentum, but a wide spectrum of the Left reacted indecisively to Corbyn’s suspension. The Socialist Campaign Group (SCG), which unites Labour left MPs, was divided. Corbyn never had the support of most of his MPs, and even after some gains in the 2019 election, there were only 32 members of the SCG. When Corbyn was suspended, only 18 of these 32 signed a letter calling for his reinstatement. [63]

Leftist celebrity writers called on Corbyn to apologise. Paul Mason posted the following on Twitter: “As far as I can see, JC issues an apology for Labour’s failings on AS and Nick Brown gives him back the whip. Not ideal for those who want to split the party and launch a sect, but a decent compromise for the rest of us – and would annoy the Blairites.” [64]

Interviewed on the BBC, Owen Jones accused Corbyn of a “lack of emotional intelligence” [65], later repeating this allegation in his Guardian column [66]. Jones went on to call Labour to unite, accept the distress and move on. Just over a week after his television interview, he wrote an article called Both sides of Labour’s internal war need to focus on a vision for Britain’s future. [67]

Even Corbyn’s old friend and supporter John McDonnell, one of the 18 SCG MPs who signed the letter against his suspension, “urged Jeremy Corbyn and Labour to “keep on apologising” to Jewish people for the pain caused by anti-Semitism in the party”. [68] This advice from McDonnell was well-intentioned at least, but it profoundly misunderstood the nature of the witch hunt.

Firstly, while it is true that many Jewish people were pained by worries of antisemitism, at least where Labour was concerned, this was mainly triggered by inaccurate reporting about the extent of the problem. Apologising would both confirm that “Labour antisemitism” was a specific danger and encourage Corbyn’s opponents to keep on coming back for more.

Secondly, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi was correct when she said “there is pretence really that it is about dealing with antisemitism because what we’re doing is we’re silencing critics of the leadership over a whole range of issues.” [69] Starmer and co were instrumentalizing ungrounded fears of antisemitism to erase the memory of Corbyn and all he stood for from the party.

Apologising would just encourage further attacks. And however much Mason, Jones and McDonnell appeal to party unity and call for both sides to come together, this is of limited use when you are being purged. Of course, many individual left wing members, Wimborne-Idrissi included, continued to consistently resist the right wing attacks, but most leading figures of the Labour Left based their arguments on the need to unify with the same people who were attacking them.

The Suspensions Continue

While the party Left wrung its hands in despair, Starmer was far from done. In May 2020, David Evans was appointed general secretary of the Labour Party. Before Evans’s anointment, Fire Brigades Union leader Matt Wrack had warned that he had “played a key role in the party in the Tony Blair era when trade unions were sidelined.” [70] In 1999, Evans had authored a memo suggesting that “representative democracy should as far as possible be abolished in the Party.” [71]

On 26th November, following Corbyn’s suspension, Evans sent an e-mail to local party secretaries, ruling that “any motions of ‘solidarity’ (with anyone) or any motions discussing the processes of the Parliamentary Labour Party are out of order.” [72] In short, even discussing Corbyn’s suspension in Labour Party meetings was verboten.

Evans’s justification was that “motions (including expressions of solidarity, and matters relating to the internal processes of the Parliamentary Labour Party) are providing a flashpoint for the expression of views that undermine the Labour Party’s ability to provide a safe and welcoming space for all members, in particular our Jewish members. Therefore, all motions which touch on these issues will also be ruled out of order. ” [73]

Evans also ruled that local Labour groups were not allowed to discuss motions about the removal of the Labour whip from Corbyn. [74] This led to the ridiculous situation in Labour Berlin (and this is surely not the only case) where left wing activists could propose a motion of no confidence in the current leadership but were not allowed to mention the words “Jeremy” or “Corbyn” in their motion.

Labour members, including prominent Jews like Moshe Machover and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi were suspended for allowing debate. [75] This meant that they were not allowed to attend Party meetings or to stand for office. The purge that was being carried out in the name of “the Labour Party’s ability to provide a safe and welcoming space for all members, in particular our Jewish members” [76] was now being used to suspend Jewish members from the party.

Although the authorities suspending Machover ordered him to be silent, he published a reply saying “I disobey the anonymous inquisitors’ instruction, because I believe that these matters are best discussed in public, in the open, not in the secrecy that they desire. I publish, and let them be damned. I am not going to dignify their letter with a direct response, but allow readers of this open letter to make their own judgment.” [77]

The Labour Left was caught between a rock and a hard place. Stay silent and the witch hunt would go onwards, speak out and you could very easily be suspended yourself. And suspended members were not even allowed to speak about their suspension. [78] For those who saw no future outside the party, this was not an easy decision. You may not agree with the tactic of staying silent (I don’t) but, in the party rank-and-file at least, it was generally not motivated by cowardice.

The aggressiveness of the attacks was too much for many younger people who had joined Labour because of Corbyn’s vision of hope. Suspended Jewish member Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi has compared accusations of antisemitism with those of paedophilia. [79] In the face of such vitriol, it is unsurprising that many people stayed quiet in the hope that they could regroup and fight another day.

Labour Continues to Move Rightwards

On 29 November, the UN’s Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Keir Starmer and his deputy Angela Rayner attended a conference organised by the Labour Friends of Israel and the, equally pro-Israel, Jewish Labour Movement. At that meeting, Rayner – who was, lest we forget, the preferred candidate of Momentum – promised that “if I have to suspend thousands and thousands of [Labour] members, we will do that.” [80] It was clear that she was referring here to defenders of Palestinian rights.

In December, Gemma Bolton, newly-elected member of the National Executive Committee, Labour’s ruling body, was placed under investigation for a tweet that she had posted 2 years previously: “If I run the risk of getting suspended for calling Israel an apartheid state then so be it. Suspend me. Because that comrades, is a hill I am perfectly happy to die on.” [81]

In Liverpool, City Councillor Tony Norbury was suspended for chairing a meeting which passed two motions pledging solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn and a third motion on free speech. [82] It is a Kafkaesque world in which discussing free speech can get you suspended from a party which calls itself socialist.

After banning Bath Constituency Labour Party (CLP) from discussing all motions, except, ironically, one on George Orwell [83], a party official banned the CLP from donating £3,600 to Bath Food Bank and to 2 charities. The justification used was that the responsibility of CLP’s was to “secure the return of Labour representatives to Parliament and local government bodies, by promoting the policies and principles of the Party throughout the Constituency”. [84] The unnamed official threatened legal action if the CLP went on with the donation.

While all this was going on, Sir Keir Starmer personally wrote to property developer David Abrahams asking for money. [85] Abrahams had stated Muslims have “mixed loyalties”, that conservative Muslim culture is inherently violent, and that Muslim youth have a propensity for suicide.” [86] He had also implied that Black South Africans were happier under the white supremacist tyranny of apartheid than under democratic majority rule. [87]

None of this was unknown. In 2007, Labour had already been involved in one public scandal following donations from Abrahams. [88] And yet Starmer’s spokesperson justified the approach to Abrahams by saying “We want to grow our funding as all previous leaderships have … Keir wrote to a variety of individuals who had previously donated to the party, it wasn’t just David Abrahams.” [89]

Labour’s Shadow Minister for Faith, Janet Daby, said that there needs to be something in place that respects people’s conscience and views of faith” if they refused to certify same-sex unions [90], a position that had only previously been supported by UKIP. It is a small mercy that Daby was forced to resign, but the fact that she was able to find a place on Starmer’s front bench speaks volumes.

Where Now?

There has been resistance to Starmer’s attacks. 175 local Labour party chairs wrote to Evans, telling him that his rulings were “undermining our efforts to build up our local parties. [91] A letter demanding democracy and free speech in Labour was signed by 230 officers in 160 CLPs. This is a quarter of all local Labour parties. [92] By 12th December, over 230 CLPs had passed motions or written to Starmer to demand change. [93] These figures are rising and being monitored by the Twitter account Solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn. [94]

Despite Evans’s attempts to stifle debate, by 7th December, 81 CLPs, 8 affiliated trade unions, 28 MPs and Young Labour had called for Jeremy Corbyn MP to be readmitted to the Parliamentary Labour Party, expressed solidarity with Corbyn, passed a motion of no confidence in Keir Starmer or David Evans, or called for the guidance to CLPs to be withdrawn. [95] Some Jewish members and others are also threatening to take the Labour Party to court. [96]

This is all to be welcomed, and yet what a long way we have fallen in just 12 months. Last year, Labour members (and others) were engaged in a dynamic election campaign to tax the rich and nationalise the utilities and railways. Now they are petitioning for the right to mention the name of the person who led this campaign in internal meetings. The hope and excitement of the Corbyn years is now being squandered.

One reaction to the scale of Starmer’s attacks is to pretend that they are just not happening, or that the fact that the right wing are on the offensive proves that they have lost. This attitude was clear to see after the recent elections to Labour’s NEC. In the previous elections, in 2018, left wingers, running on the #JC9 slate won all available seats for representatives of local parties. [97]

In 2020, things were different. The highest number of votes from local parties went to the egregious Luke Akehurst, described by Asa Winstanley as a “professional Israel lobbyist, who is also a right-wing activist in the Labour Party.” [98] Akehurst proudly identifies as “the guy who believes America were the good guys in Vietnam.” [99]

Two years after they had swept the board, left wing candidates, standing on a ‘Grassroots Voice’ slate, won only 5 seats. [100] As Sienna Rogers reported “After the April by-elections and before the 2020 NEC elections, Starmer had 18 solid NEC votes (then of 38 members, though effectively 37 due to Pete Willsman’s suspension). He can sometimes rely on GMB backing, such as in the general secretary appointment, but these reps are considered swing voters. The Labour leader now has a net total of two more definitely supportive NEC members” [101] (emphasis in original).

The fact that the Left has lost its control of the NEC owes much to Starmer changing the voting system used to elect the representatives of local parties [102] (the voting system for all other NEC members was left unchanged). Whatever the reason, this was a serious defeat for left wingers who want a say in the party’s decision making process.

Not so if you read some left commentators. Under a headline “Left-wing Labour slate records upset in NEC elections”, the Morning Star breathlessly reported a “huge victory for the socialist left,” and that “Momentum celebrated victory for those on the Grassroots Voice (GV) grouping, saying it ‘showed that members want Labour to back a transformative, socialist programme.‘” [103]

I am all for looking on the bright side, but the only way that we can avoid making future defeats is to acknowledge the ones that we’ve suffered in the past. By refusing to accept that Starmer and his consorts now have hegemony in all Labour Party ruling bodies, part of the left is averting its gaze from the areas where we can experience short term victories.

Seeds of Hope

The years 2015-9 generated a load of hope and energy among young people. Some of these activists went on to become students at Manchester University, imprisoned this year in their student halls by the University in its inhumane response to the Coronavirus. The Manchester students organised the biggest University rent strike ever and won a 30% rent cut. [104] Students of at least 20 other Universities quickly followed Manchester’s lead. [105] Labour party members and councillors at a local level were clearly involved, but as a national organisation Labour was absent.

Manchester student and Labour member, Ben McGowan reported: “This environment seems to have all the perfect conditions for Labour to stand in solidarity with the student movement in their fight: unfiltered rage towards a Tory government, successful strike action, support from the trade union movement, thousands of young voters calling for a better standard of living. Yet the party feels invisible at the moment.” [106]

As Starmer concentrated most of his fire on people in his own party, opposition to the Conservatives was left to overpaid footballers and ex-footballers. We have already mentioned Gary Neville. Another Manchester United star, Marcus Rashford, fought against child poverty, forcing a government U-turn [107]. Starmer tried to claim credit for a campaign in which Labour had been notably absent.

When Starmer courted the racist vote, another Black footballer, Stan Collymore tweeted that “the most disturbing thing about the accepted on display racism popping up everywhere in the UK is how many Labour “people” have pivoted from democratic socialism to barely disguised racism based on the fact the party needs Dave the racist from Burnley’s vote.” [108]

Time to leave Labour?

Many on the Labour Left are pleading with their comrades to stay in the party because “leaving is what the Right Wing want you to do.” I think that this doesn’t quite get it right. The Labour Right is perfectly happy with a compliant and silent Left, After all, it’s the left wing activists who disproportionately go on the knocker at election time. What Starmer and the Labour Right really want is to break all left wing organisation – both inside and outside the party. And the strategy of many Labour left wingers of stressing party unity is aiding and abetting them.

Rob Hoveman comments on a recent Momentum Rally in support of Corbyn:“Richard Burgon [just about the best current Labour MP: PB] urged Starmer to lift the suspension so that left and right inside the Labour Party could unite (behind Starmer) to attack the Tories. Like all but at most a couple of speakers, he failed to mention that Starmer was driving the party hard to the right. This means, for those who might not have noticed it, that uniting behind Starmer would mean supporting that rightward shift. [109]

Rob notes that another speaker at the rally, John McDonnell, spent much of his time attacking the “sectarians” who had left the Labour Party. “He also bracketed the sectarians with “agents provocateurs”. [110]

Starmer’s increasing control of Labour is a blow to all socialists inside and outside the party, and there is a legitimate debate about whether our battles are best fought from inside or outside the Party. A vigorous debate among the Left is necessary, but such denunciations do not help the atmosphere in which this debate is held.

Rob Hoveman has argued elsewhere “the fact is that Jeremy did everything he could to appease the offensive from the right of the party and enemies outside the party who were disgustingly using antisemitism allegations for factional purposes. This was part of a more general strategy in the face of a Parliamentary Party which was overwhelmingly and often viscerally opposed to Jeremy and the left. The hope was that in seeking unity the right would play ball.” [111]

I understand that many people are not impressed by the British extra-parliamentary left, which has suffered some damaging splits in the recent past. Indeed, I would much rather that socialists stay organised within Labour than sink into inactive pessimism. But the question must be raised: is this the best we can hope for?

Forward to Peace and Justice?

Some people were hoping for Corbyn to leave Labour and create a new party, just as Oskar Lafontaine left the German SPD in 2005 to help form first the WASG and then DIE LINKE. [112] Anyone aware of Corbyn’s historic loyalty to Labour believed this development unlikely, but while Corbyn remains a Labour member, he has made an interesting move.

While I was finishing off this article, Corbyn launched the Peace and Justice project, aimed at “creating space, hope and opportunity for those campaigning for social justice.” [113] A video was released where supporters like Alexei Sayle, Lowkey and Ken Loach articulately explain why we should support the project. [114] A launch event has been planned in January with speakers like Ronnie Kasrils, Zarah Sultana MP and Yannis Varoufakis. [115]

Sources close to Corbyn, whoever they are, insist that “it is not a step toward [a] rival party.” [116] Instead it aims to “provide a platform for campaigns against war and in favor of concerted international action on the climate and soaring inequalities.” [117] Any initiative based on internationalism which aims to activate everyone who has been inspired by Corbyn is obviously to be welcomed.

And yet the Project seems to be of itself insufficient to address the problems in hand. A broad transnational movement aimed at democratising Europe before it disintegrates sounds great. Indeed these are the exact words which Varoufakis used 5 years ago when he launched DiEM25 in Berlin. [118] There are different assessments of the success of DiEM25, but it has not really fundamentally changed the balance of power in international politics.

This is not to say that the Peace and Justice project will necessarily follow the same trajectory. For a start, it seems to be more based in class politics and has the support of important trade unionists and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. But it must be prepared to face down potential problems. This is why I find it problematic that none of the announcements about the new project makes even a passing reference to Corbyn’s fight in the past 5 years against Keir Starmer and the Labour Right.

In the short term, it may be good to concentrate on the fight that we need to achieve social justice, but sooner or later we need to understand how our side could suffer such great and important defeats over such a short period of time, if only to avoid repeating this horrible experience. An honest debate is necessary. Nonetheless, the attempt to unite the Left inside and outside the party is important. I hope it leads to some serious joint activity.

Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader on a wave of euphoria and the belief that the world can be better than this. I don’t think that this feeling has gone away, but the self-belief of people on our side that we can actually effect change has been seriously damaged. The need for a loud, organised Left has never been greater.

A friend and comrade commenting on this article said: “you talk about euphoria. Well I now think that euphoria needed to be tempered by reality a lot sooner than it did. Because basically the majority of the PLP and staffers were at war with the membership from the get-go. The horrible irony is is that factionalism of the most brutal kind was wielded against Corbyn and his supporters and still is. Euphoria is all very well but you have to come down to earth and see that people in your own party are trying to destroy everything you believe in.” [119]

I agree, but believe that we must follow Gramsci’s tenet of “Optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect”. [120] The Starmer counter-revolution is real and should not be denied, but so is the massive wave of particularly young people who were invigorated by Corbyn. In the last few years, we have seen many ebbs and flows which need a strong left to help guide us through the currents. The best service that we can pay to Jeremy Corbyn and his legacy is to actively build that left.

Footnotes

1 Thanks to Rob Hoveman, Carol McGuigan and Anna Southern for commenting on an early version of this article. Both Carol and Anna were active Labour members during last year’s election campaign. Anna has since left the party, while Carol is considering her options. Both are highly dissatisfied with the current leadership. Rob was a Labour member from 1973-82 and has never returned.

2 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/01/jeremy-corbyn-nationalisation-plans-voters-tired-free-markets

3 Source: Lukas Audickas, Richard Cracknell, Philip Loft UK Election Statistics: 1918-2019: A Century of Elections https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/ page 12

4 https://www.theleftberlin.com/post/brexit-in-the-time-of-corbyn-what-s-going-on-in-britain

5 https://www.theleftberlin.com/post/british-elections-what-just-happened

6 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/14/labour-mp-jess-phillips-knife-corbyn-vote-loser-general-election

7 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/21/peter-mandelson-i-try-to-undermine-jeremy-corbyn-every-day

8 https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira

9 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/jeremy-corbyn-called-for-complete-rehabilitation-of-leon-trotsky/

10 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3511319/former-rochdale-mp-simon-danczuk-quits-labour-party-after-it-parachutes-in-a-corbyn-supporting-candidate-to-fight-for-his-old-seat/. Danczuk had been suspended by the Labour Party for allegedly exchanging explicit messages with a 17-year old girl https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35204398

11 https://br.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN11R2C7

12 https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/10/labour-party-antisemitism-claims-jeremy-corbyn

13 https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/bad-news-for-labour-a-response-to-channel-4s-factcheck/

14 https://evolvepolitics.com/yougov-polls-show-anti-semitism-in-labour-has-actually-reduced-dramatically-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader

15 https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/analysis-sir-keir-starmer-bids-to-be-the-real-continuity-corbyn-candidate

16 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/5/6/starmer-changes-corbyns-kashmir-stand-as-he-woos-british-indians

17 https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

18 https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/12/labour-s-mutually-destructive-civil-war-should-end-now

19 https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/coronavirus/2020/11/how-uk-suffered-50000-covid-19-deaths-highest-number-europe

20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQwTI2F0FQQ

21 https://labourheartlands.com/gogglebox-have-just-utterly-dismantled-sir-keir-starmer/

22 https://www.theleftberlin.com/post/the-spycops-bill

23 For more information about these cases, see https://www.spycops.co.uk/the-story/

24 https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-30/covid-19-tier-vote-labour-to-abstain-and-tory-unrest-over-tough-new-measures-for-england

25 https://www.ft.com/content/c8bc84f2-9ea5-462c-9d4e-5d45d3bddd07

26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&feature=share&v=pyVz3dqj1zQ

27 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/29/jeremy-corbyn-rejects-findings-of-report-on-antisemitism-in-labour

28 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/investigation-antisemitism-labour-party-finds-unlawful-acts-discrimination-and

29 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf page 13

30 https://labourlist.org/2020/10/corbyn-claims-labour-antisemitism-was-dramatically-overstated/

31 https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/ehrc-labour-antisemitism-civil-war-fire-added

32 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/18/jeremy-corbyn-refused-labour-whip-despite-having-suspension-lifted

33 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/30/ehrc-board-member-under-scrutiny-over-social-media-use

34 Ibid

35 https://jacobinmag.com/2020/12/jeremy-corbyn-echr-report-antisemitism-labour-party-uk

36 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/28/do-cut-illegal-immigration-policing-britains-internal-border/

37 https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/too-diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-britain-immigration-globalisation

38 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45634379

39 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/14/over-half-muslim-labour-members-do-not-trust-party-to-tackle-islamophobia

40 https://labourlist.org/2020/11/labour-urged-to-tackle-islamophobia-within-party-by-new-report/

41 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/12/equalities-watchdog-drops-plan-for-tory-islamophobia-inquiry

42 https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-islam-is-the-problem-and-islamophobia-is-a-natural-reaction-2018-8

43 https://www.aljazeera.com/program/investigations/2017/1/10/the-lobby-young-friends-of-israel-part-1/

44 Personal correspondence

45 https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/leaked-labour-report-should-have-been-explosive-scandal/

46 https://novaramedia.com/2020/04/12/its-going-to-be-a-long-night-how-members-of-labours-senior-management-campaigned-to-lose/

47 Ibid

48 https://www.fordeinquiry.org/

49 https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/the-leaked-labour-report-a-quantitative-assessment/

50 https://www.fordeinquiry.org/forde-inquiry-update/

51 https://www.prager-fruehling-magazin.de/de/article/1331.die-bewegung-hinter-jeremy-corbyn.html

52 https://www.rosalux.de/en/news/id/41079/the-most-radical-economic-transformation-britain-has-ever-seen

53 https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-jon-lansman-joined-labours-witch-hunt/28601

54 https://electronicintifada.net/content/ally-jon-lansman-wanted-jeremy-corbyn-removed/28306

55 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/momentum-founder-jon-lansman-labour-has-major-problem-with-antisemitism-a4075736.html

56 Unpublished manuscript

57 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-momentum-member-ballot-deputy-candidates-a9283826.html

58 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51140071

59 https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/momentum-backs-rebecca-long-bailey-69612

60 https://twitter.com/parkerciccone/status/1216028944241233920?lang=en

61 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/16/lansman-to-step-down-as-momentum-chair-but-remain-on-labour-nec

62 https://theclarionmag.org/2020/04/08/five-points-on-forward-momentum/

63 https://labourlist.org/2020/11/18-socialist-campaign-group-mps-sign-call-for-corbyn-reinstatement/

64 https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1333359652785057792

65 https://manchester-city.uk/owen-jones-turns-on-corbyn-as-he-slams-ex-labour-chiefs-lack-of-emotional-intelligence-politics-news/

66 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/brexit-labour-election-corbyn-left

67 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/28/labour-britain-future-starmer-leftwing-ideas

68 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/john-mcdonnell-corbyn-pain-jewish-community-anti-semitism-podcast_uk_5fbd9adec5b6e4b1ea46ac6a

69 Suspended from the Labour Party – Interview with Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2pWVam6Hs0

70 https://labourlist.org/2020/05/exclusive-fbu-leader-warns-against-factional-general-secretary-frontrunner/

71 Meg Russell, Building New Labour: The Politics of Party Organisation p229

72 https://labourgrassroots.com/labour-members-barred-from-discussing-freedom-of-speech

73 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/27/labour-mps-and-members-ordered-not-to-discuss-corbyns-suspension

74 https://labourlist.org/2020/11/motions-on-corbyn-whip-suspension-will-be-ruled-out-of-order-local-parties-told/

75 https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-senior-member-jewish-pressure-group-suspended

76 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/27/labour-mps-and-members-ordered-not-to-discuss-corbyns-suspension

77 https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/moshe-machover-suspended-again-he-has-issued-a-public-response/

78 https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-suspension-uk-keir-starmer

79 https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2020/11/30/introducing-naomi-wimborne-idrissi-one-of-the-wrong-type-of-jews/

80 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-angela-rayner-antisemitism-thousands-suspended-jeremy-corbyn-b1763577.html

81 https://ppost24.com/post/977/uks-labour-party-suspends-critic-of-israel

82 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/labour-councillor-suspended-after-voting-19421425

83 https://skwawkbox.org/2020/12/09/literally-orwellian-bath-labour-forced-to-abandon-meeting-to-protect-members-after-sw-region-bars-all-motions-except-one-to-mark-orwell-anniversary/

84 https://skwawkbox.org/2020/12/09/exclusive-labour-bans-bath-clp-from-giving-3-6k-of-its-own-1-3m-to-foodbanks-poor-children-and-homeless-people-because-its-not-campaigning/

85 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-era-tycoon-backer-david-abrahams-donates-to-labour-again-hh7rv7cqh

86 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/01/keir-starmer-urged-to-return-donations-from-islamophobic-property-developer

87 https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/12/capitals-b-team

88 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/nov/30/labour.partyfunding

89 https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1336664560850362370

90 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-janet-daby-same-sex-marriage-resigns-keir-starmer-b1767416.html

91 https://labourlist.org/2020/12/your-guidance-puts-us-in-firing-line-175-local-chairs-and-secretaries-tell-evans

92 https://skwawkbox.org/2020/12/10/number-of-local-partiess-signing-letter-demanding-democracy-and-free-speech-rises-to-a-quarter-230-officers-from-160-clps/

93 https://skwawkbox.org/2020/12/12/number-of-clps-whove-passed-motions-or-written-to-starmer-to-demand-change-230/

94 https://twitter.com/clpsolidarity/status/1329108337271726083

95 https://statsforlefties.blogspot.com/p/support-for-corbyn.html

96 https://skwawkbox.org/2020/12/10/jewish-members-and-others-file-court-claim-against-labour-for-breach-of-ehrc-principles-after-party-tells-them-ehrc-does-not-apply-to-you

97 https://labourlist.org/2018/09/full-jc9-slate-elected-to-labours-nec/

98 https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-israeli-spies-are-flooding-facebook-and-twitter/27596

99 https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1227357634245865484?lang=en

100 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/14/labour-nec-election-returns-mixed-results-momentum-corbyn

101 https://labourlist.org/2020/11/what-we-can-learn-from-labours-2020-nec-results/

102 https://labourlist.org/2020/06/labour-nec-changes-voting-system-for-internal-elections-in-starmer-win/

103 https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/left-wing-labour-slate-records-upset-nec-elections

104 https://mancunion.com/2020/11/25/uom-rent-strike-win-30-rent-reduction/

105 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/06/we-wont-be-cash-cows-uk-students-plan-the-largest-rent-strike-in-40-years

106 https://labourlist.org/2020/11/the-biggest-student-uprising-in-a-decade-is-forming-where-is-labour/

107 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53065806

108 https://mobile.twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1335608436671778819

109 Post on facebook

110 Personal correspondence

111 Unpublished manuscript

112 https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/abgang-im-streit-lafontaine-kuendigt-spd-austritt-an-a-357334.html

113 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpoA01YerG4

114 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xetVOpBEMiM&feature=emb_logo

115 https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/jeremy-corbyns-project-for-peace-and-justice-live-launch-tickets-131909925137

116 https://skwawkbox.org/2020/12/13/breaking-corbyn-launches-new-project-for-peace-and-justice

117 https://jacobinmag.com/2020/12/jeremy-corbyn-project-for-peace-and-justice-launch

118 See my report for Philosophy Football https://www.philosophyfootball.com/yanis-varoufakis-launches-democracy-in-europe-movement-diem25.html

119 Personal correspondence

120 https://www.facebook.com/groups/5636348598/permalink/10157203557993599/

Police repression and social resistance in Greece during the time of the pandemic

The Greek government is using the Corona pandemic to suppress freedom of assembly. But protests and civil disobedience are continuing


13/12/2020

Statement by ReAkt Berlin

 

At the beginning of summer, the Greek government rejoiced at the low number of domestic corona cases. They also wasted no time in attributing this to the success of their own policies throughout the pandemic. With the motto “Greek summer is a state of mind,” the Greek government tried to market the Aegean – the grave of drowned refugees and an arena of military disputes – as the perfect place for a ‘corona free’ holiday.

Even half a year after the beginning of the pandemic, the Greek government had still done nothing to support Greece’s public health system. Incredibly, throughout this time new recruits were hired for the police, while millions of euros in contracts were awarded to private media companies that supported the government’s agenda. In light of the expected second wave of the pandemic, this order of priorities was, and remains, incomprehensible.

An explanation for these decisions can be found, however, in the ideology of neo-liberalism, which is characterised by a disdain for every form of public services. It is therefore unsurprising that public health workers were left to fend for themselves, despite only being able to perform their duties at great risk and at the cost of enormous personal sacrifice.

In recent weeks, the number of available beds in intensive care units in northern Greece and Athens has reached a critical limit. Instead of boosting the capacity of the public health system, the government decided to increase the fee paid by the state to private hospitals to treat public health patients, from 800 to 1,600 euros per day. Nowhere else in Europe can a similar strategy be found.

The list of absurdities goes on. A few weeks ago, the pandemic was used as a pretext to suppress protests of school students and healthcare workers. On the 7th of October, the day that 68 members of the neo-Nazi organisation ‘Golden Dawn’ were sentenced, the police did not shy away from using water cannons to disperse the thousands of anti-fascists gathered in front of the courthouse. On the 17th of November, thousands of police were brought to Athens to suppress the popular turnout at the memorial events for the anniversary of the 1973 uprising against the Junta regime.

Both the courageous presence of thousands of people on the streets and a broad alliance of all the left-wing parties in the Greek parliament have challenged these political decisions. Notably this is the first time that alliance of this kind has formed in recent history. The common denominator uniting these groups is a shared concern at the authoritarian course of the government in its recent decisions. Even the’ Association of Greek Judges and Public Prosecutors’ has spoken out, to argue that the government’s proposed restrictions on freedom of assembly are attacks on the right to assemble and, therefore, on the Constitution.

Behind these restrictions lies a particular calculation on the government’s part. The uprising at the Athens Polytechnic in 1973, had opened the way to the overthrow of the Junta. That anniversary is always marked by a combative mood. The annual memorial events invite reflection on a historical subject that has often served as a focal point for future conflicts. The ruling class, whose next goal consists of the degradation of working conditions, cannot tolerate this sort of historical reflection and does everything possible to undermine it.

Absurdities of all sorts are seen in the pursuit of this objective. For example on the 17th of November, a man was brought to the hospital in handcuffs after suffering a heart attack during the violent entry of police into his home. At the same time, women who were protesting outside were brutally attacked and insulted. A few hours earlier, a woman was issued with a fine of 300 euros for having dared to leave behind a flower at a memorial site.

On the 25th of November, the ‘International Day Against Violence Against Women’, 11 feminist demonstrators were arrested in Athens. They were accused of having failed to adhere to hygiene regulations. Considering that the police then forced all 11 of the arrested women to ride in the same crowded police vehicle, these accusations appear laughable.

The women were subsequently required to spend six hours at a police station. While their lawyers were prevented from entering, one activist was pressured to sign documents in which the time of the arrest was falsified. This trick aims to cover up the police’s violation of Greek basic law, committed by exceeding the designated detention period for an arrest. Interestingly, the Interior Minister Michalis Chrisochoides apologised publicly to the arrested feminists on the following day [1], admitting that the arrests were “excessive.” It could be assumed that the massive uproar in social media and the statement from ‘Amnesty International’ [2] exerted immense pressure on the Ministry. Incomprehensibly, the charges against the women have, as of this time, still not been dropped.

All of this has taken place under the pretext of protecting the health of police officers, who themselves disregard every form of hygiene regulations during their own operations.

It is clear to us that the government has lost control over the situation. However, instead of re-thinking its strategy and deciding at the last minute to support the public health system, the government has opted for repression and societal polarisation.

The defiant attitude of our comrades is a sign of hopes and resistance in these dark times. Their solidarity and unceasing efforts are a great inspiration, and prove that civil resistance is the only guarantee for a life in security and peace.

[1] https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2020/11/27/greece-women-arrest-violece-minister-apologizes/

[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/11/greece-charges-against-womens-rights-activists-including-amnesty-staff-must-be-dropped/) Οι κατηγορίες, ωστόσο, ακόμα να αποσυρθούν

This article first appeared in German and Greek on the ReAkt facebook page. Translation: Tim Redfern. Reproduced with the authors’ permission

The USA one month after the elections

On election day, we interviewed several leftists from the USA about their feelings about the elections. At the time, a Trump victory was still a distinct possibility. One month on, we interviewed US socialists based in Germany, the UK, and the USA to try to get a sense of the current mood


07/12/2020

Interviews with Tina Lee (TL), Kate O’Neil (KON), and James Ziegler (JZ)

 

Could you please briefly introduce yourself?

TL: I’m Tina Lee, a writer, researcher, and project manager in Berlin. I’m registered to vote in Virginia.

KON: I’m a socialist from the US, active on the American Left for many years, and have lived and worked as a teacher in London, UK since 2012. I’m a contributor to Counterfire on US-American politics.

JZ: My name is James Zeigler. I am a member of marx21 (US), and resident of Pasadena, CA and past resident of Portland, OR.

At the time of the first interview, a Trump victory still seemed possible. Now it seems that Biden has won a clear majority. What is your reaction?

JZ: I was actually not surprised to see Trump on the verge of what looked like another election day victory. I was surprised to see that Biden had been able to flip PA, MN, MI, and GA from 2016 Trump wins over Hillary. I am, however, not surprised it was close— but am very surprised by the increased voter turnout for both candidates. I do not think we can extrapolate much from the increased turn-out other than that this election cycle is far more politically charged, and I think the mail-in option made a difference with turn-out.

Do you think that Trump will go gracefully?

TL: HA.

JZ: He is incapable of grace. Humility is not something he has ever shown.

There were some nasty right-wing demos in Washington and elsewhere. Who organised these demos, and what are they doing now?

JZ: Mostly Proud Boys, or other ‘Patriot’ groups like ‘Patriot Prayer’, and I am sure other Nationalist groups and the White Supremacist fringe that will get involved There are plenty of militia groups (3 percenters) that will also get involved, usually seen in military grade body armour and weaponry.

Isn’t it now time to scrap the Electoral College system?

TL: Yes! And introduce a raft of other voting reforms, and ban gerrymandering, and fight for statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Let’s fight on many fronts.

JZ: It’s been time for quite awhile. I doubt that it will go away any time soon. It has been the symbolic equaliser for ‘Rural America’ vs the evil ‘City Slickers’ (Liberals). The fight over keeping this system of minority control has been viewed as absolutely necessary to protect classic ‘American Values’ (Conservatism, Heartland, Christian Values, etc).

What can we expect of a Biden/Harris government?

JZ: A less verbally offensive version of Trump politics. They literally have no choice because Biden and Harris are 100% dedicated to bi-partisan politics, because the Democrats lost in both the House and Senate. Unless they want to get nothing done, they must draft right-leaning legislation, which will help further pave the way to Trump 2.0 (either Trump or potentially his son’s running in 2024).

TL: People often haven’t read Biden’s manifesto and don’t realise that he has the most progressive platform of any president in US history — far to the left of either Obama administration on issues such as immigration reform, environment, and criminal justice. Considering what has come before that certainly doesn’t make him a socialist, but it means there are some real possibilities for progress if he doesn’t face massive gridlock and follows through with what he promises. We will have to wait for Senate run-offs in Georgia to assess more properly.

But what I expect initially is a slate of executive orders overturning the Muslim Ban, reinstating DACA (the Dream Act), and restoring environmental standards to where they were pre-Trump. I am looking forward to this while being realistically pessimistic about the massive entrenched challenges facing this administration and their own tendency to side with centrists. I’m not assuming the worst before they even start, though, because whether it’s right or left, it’s best to look at what people actually do, not what they say.

KON: An attempt to move politics back to a pre-Trump, Obama-style centre. This was clearly the party leadership’s goal in side-lining Sanders during the primary, and it was further evidenced by the support they welcomed from Wall Street and Bush-era hawks during the campaign and of Washington insiders for cabinet roles after the election. Internationally, this will mean a recommitment to organisations and agreements that Trump has snubbed, such the WHO, NATO, and the Paris climate accords, and an overturning of the Muslim travel ban. Biden has also signalled his wishes to re-join the Iraq nuclear deal, although recent tensions with Iran over the assassination of their lead nuclear scientist may complicate this.

Domestically, scientific agencies like the Centres for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency will be re-legitimised; commissions will be set up to address social issues like police abuse and separation of immigrant families; and some limited ‘pathway to citizenship’ for undocumented immigrants begun under Obama will be renewed. Most of this can be done through executive order. We are also certain to see some emergency action on COVID, such as one-off economic relief measures, tighter social distancing restrictions and funding for treatment and vaccination. It won’t be hard to improve on Trump’s performance in this area, though. He just seems to close his eyes, plug his ears and sing ‘Happy Birthday’ as the virus spins out of control.

Beyond this, those looking for a departure from status quo capitalist management are sure to be deeply disappointed. The few progressive reforms that Biden has pledged to put on the table in 2021—a 7% tax hike on corporations, the addition of a ‘public option’ to Obama’s healthcare reforms, a $2 trillion fund for clean energy development, and the creation of 5 million jobs through a $700 billion economic boost—will all undoubtedly be blocked or whittled down by Republicans in Congress, regardless of the outcome of the Georgia senate race in January. Even if they were to pass in full, they are far narrower in scope than Sanders’ Green New Deal or Medicare for All plans and rely essentially on private sector investment.

But this moderate brand of politics cannot resolve the deep crisis country is facing. Whatever the intentions, the Biden administration will be operating under conditions very different from those of the Obama administration. Transformative economic, health, and climate change is required, and the less Biden is willing or able to issue from White House, the more politics will need to fought over between right and left in the streets.

In 2020, one of the most discussed political slogans was “Defund the Police”. Could this demand be realised (and how)?

TL: Despite all the hand-ringing over the phrasing, the slogan accomplished a lot: it moved the Overton window on police reform, drew attention to police budgets, and started a conversation about alternatives to the carceral state. A huge majority of Americans support divesting funds to the police to invest in social programs – which is what #defundthepolice stands for. Abolitionists should build on this momentum and continue to stack up victories for community-led solutions and alternatives to sending our taxpayer dollars to increasingly militarised police departments that don’t make communities safer.

JZ: Not under a Biden/Harris presidency. Both are staunch supporters of police; Harris is a cop, and her CA record should illustrate her absolute support of more cops, more jails. I think there will be some states where there will be token shows of de-funding, or of restructuring police budgets in ‘Liberal’ states, but because these changes will be debated over and end up completely watered-down versions of real change. Any changes will prove to be ineffective, and instead of identifying the poor implementation, they will blame ‘socialistic’ type programs that prove the failures of socialism and scrap the entire project and blame us.

Since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there are worries the new Supreme Court could ban all abortions. How likely a scenario is this?

TL: It is not likely that SCOTUS bans abortion. Instead, it seems possible that they could overturn Roe v. Wade, a case that said women have the right to an abortion without excessive government regulation. With that case revoked, we can expect to see a flurry of fascist state laws regulating women’s bodies. However, it is still possible to make state-level laws that enshrine a woman’s right to choose, or for state level courts or constitutions to do so. So, the Supreme Court won’t likely ban abortion, but it may open the floodgates for states to do so.

KON: What is at stake here is whether or not the court will overturn the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which gives constitutional protection to abortion in all fifty states. So overturning it would not ban abortion nationally, but it would grant the right to ban it at the state level. A majority of Americans has consistently opposed a blanket ban on abortions since Roe v. Wade, and you can be sure that in more liberal states the extent of support for the right to choose is very high. So if Roe v. Wade is overturned, what we would be looking at is an unequal patchwork system in which women in some states have access and others do not.

This is still a nightmare scenario, of course. It would set the women’s movement back generations, and it is a distinct possibility. Currently there are over a dozen abortion-related cases just one step away from a Supreme Court, and with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, six out of nine justices are now conservative. It is likely that one of these cases will come up soon, and women’s rights activists must remain on high alert and prepare to ‘go Polish’ when it does.

But I don’t think it’s the case that Roe v. Wade will be overturned ‘automatically’, as Trump claimed in 2016, just because conservatives stack the court. Republican appointees have been the majority on the Court for 49 of the past fifty years, and Roe v. Wade was in fact decided by a Court with the same ratio of conservatives and liberals that it has now, 6-3, during the reign of Richard Nixon. These people opposed abortion, but they were also responding to popular opinion and the women’s rights movement of the early seventies.

This summer, the Court, which already had a 5-4 conservative majority, struck down a challenge to Roe v. Wade coming from Louisiana. Why? 2019 saw waves of protests across the country when first-trimester abortion bans were declared in various states. I think the Court has been hesitant to go for the jugular on abortion all these years because, ultimately, they fear unleashing a national ‘Women’s Lives Matter’ movement and a major political crisis. For this reason, rather than trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Court may choose to continue kicking the issue back to the states, where rights have been quietly chipped away since 1973 and where smaller local movements are easier to trample. Our movement must be just as prepared to confront that strategy.

Biden has made no secret of his imperial ambitions. Can we expect more wars under Biden?

JZ: Lots more, and he will sell it as ‘good for the failing economy’, which will still be failing but not for the ruling class.

TL: I think in the short term a US return to robust collective security organisations probably makes new outbreaks of wars somewhat less likely. But that won’t necessarily impact below the surface conflicts where the US and our horrible weapons continue to play a significant role.

What can we expect from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad?

TL: Unless she drops out of politics because of the relentless harassment, I think AOC is going to continue to be a major progressive force in the party, and the current squad will hopefully continue to grow. I think their success depends heavily on their ability to change the way dark money influences US politics. Warren and Sanders both had good approaches to dealing with that issue, and I hope they push for their strategies in the Biden administration.

JZ: I expect more of the same. Obviously much further left than the majority, but she and the Squad have shown the several contradictions they have politically with the DSA and the ‘Left’. They have limits, but I expect them to be the popular voice of dissent in the Senate and House.

The DSA had a strategy of building inside and outside parliament. What can we expect of them now that the elections are over?

JZ: I am not sure what sort of faith I have in the DSA. There are too many political contradictions within the organisation, and I am not sure they can actually be the vehicle to push politics leftwards in America because of the contradictory strategy. But maybe this sort of Big-Tent organisation can be effective in the struggle for socialism, but I am not sure how.

KON: There is a wide range of views in the DSA about how much weight to give parliamentary versus extra-parliamentary activity, and this reveals itself in debates about how to orient to the Democrats. Many, like Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, look to a strategy of reforming the Democratic Party and shifting it leftwards—very similar to that of the Corbyn-supporting Left inside of the British Labour Party. The priority is to get progressives elected to office and to leverage this to lobby for change through legislation.

Much of the DSA membership, led by the Bread and Roses faction and promoted in publications like Jacobin, have espoused an inside-outside strategy that they call ‘the dirty break’. That is, electoral campaigns on the Democratic ticket should continue to be a key area of activity until the political and organisational strength of DSA, and indeed class struggle, has developed to the point where they can form a separate party. In theory, this strategy should lend equal weight to grassroots organising and campaigning, but it has been argued that in practice ‘the dirty break’ has pushed movement and organisation building to the margins of DSA work. For example, while individual DSA members or local DSA branches have been very involved in the Black Lives Matter organising, DSA has not been a key player in the movement nationally. It is for this reason that a minority of DSA members, often around revolutionary left publications such as Tempest, are now pushing for a ‘clean break’ from the Democratic Party and a renewed emphasis on grassroots organising in workplaces and neighbourhoods.

For the foreseeable future, it looks like the Bread and Roses ‘dirty break’ position will hold the most sway over the membership, but that view could be put to the test quite dramatically in the coming year if Biden launches a direct attack on the Left in the Democratic Party, if politics is deadlocked in Washington, if further major class struggles do emerge. There is no guarantee, of course, that DSA will be capable of responding to these changes. One mustn’t forget that its transformative growth spurt took place in the wake of an electoral campaign, the Sanders’ 2016 presidential run, and electoralism has dominated the group’s leadership and activity ever since. A shift from this approach would have to be the subject of major debate inside DSA. I hope we will see this.

Does the left have a future in the Democratic Party? If not, what should it do?

TL: Yes, in fact it is the future of the Democratic Party.

JZ: No, and we should really stop trying. The work should be started to break labour away from the Democratic Party. Union Labour donations to the Democrats has been far eclipsed by Wall Street. The voice of Labour in American Politics has been effectively silenced since probably 1920-1930’s when the American Labour Movement sort of loses its effectiveness. Workers need to organise to either force their union to back and formulate a true American Labour Party, or to form new labour organisations that will work to back or form a Labour Party alternative. However, it must be only the political representative of the working class and not the path to socialism.

KON: If by this you mean, ‘Can the Democratic Party be transformed into a left-wing party?’, the answer is an emphatic no. There is no historical precedent for this. Since its founding as a party representing southern slaveowners in the eighteenth century, through to its conversion in the twentieth century to the party of choice for more liberal-minded capitalists, the Democrats have never been anything but an advocate for elite interests. This is obscured, of course, by the fact that the Party—at least since the Roosevelt era—has relied on votes from working-class and oppressed constituencies, and so must talk left at election time to gain votes. Institutions that routinely rally the vote for Democrats—from trade unions to civil rights groups—in turn echo and legitimise this left talk.

Until the Sanders campaign in 2016, it was the often case that grassroots activists from the ranks of these institutions would run for office themselves, furthering the impression that the party represented a left-wing agenda. But in the end these activists have generally ended up colouring within the moderate lines drawn by the party’s Wall Street backers. John Lewis, the recently deceased civil rights hero turned Democratic congressman, is a perfect example of this kind of progressive loyalist. A radical in the 1960s, he maintained his progressive credentials by defying the party leadership on a number of important occasions, including opposition to both Gulf Wars, NAFTA, Clinton’s regressive welfare reforms and the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act. But he has also played a key role in propping up the party’s neoliberal establishment. In 2016, he not only chose to back Clinton over Sanders for the presidential nomination, he even tried to discredit Sanders by claiming Sanders had exaggerated his involvement in the civil rights movement. He is also a staunch supporter of Israel and stood against the Black Lives Matter movement’s call to defend the police.

Since 2016, we have witnessed the emergence of a very different kind of progressive inside the Democratic Party: first with the Sanders campaign in 2016, then with the election to Congress of the Squad in 2018, and again this year with the election to Congress of other progressives, most famously Jamaal Bowman from New York and Cori Bush from Missouri. These figures look to grassroots struggles as an engine for social change; support transformative policies like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All; and—most crucially—are willing to stand up to party leadership on a host of controversial questions, such as defunding the police and support for Israel. This is very refreshing, but it will not fundamentally change the direction of the party.

My one hope is that these new progressives can at least caucus collectively and leverage their positions as a coherent voice inside Congress for left-wing movements on the ground. The pressure from inside the Democratic Party not to do this will be immense, though. To resist such pressures, grassroots movements will need to grow in size and strength, and the Squad and others will need to maintain close links with them. Meanwhile, the extra-parliamentary left will need to devote more resources to building the mass organisations and networks that can pose a left-wing alternative to the Democrats in the future. I would love to see inspiring fighters like Ilhan Omar, AOC, and Cori Bush at the helm of such a venture one day.

What are your wishes for 2021?

JZ: An end to the pandemic.

TL: To only hear the words ‘I think you’re muted, check your microphone?’ once a week instead of 4 times a day. Also, obviously, to crush fascism and the white supremacist patriarchy.