The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

The Spanish elections – a Catalonian perspective

As usual, the Right did badly in Catalonia, but the left-wing CUP also lost its 2 MPs. How could this happen and how big a setback is it?


05/08/2023

Results in Catalonia

These last general elections in Spain were highly polarized due to the strong dichotomy between the two coalitions PSOE+SUMAR and PP+VOX, with a very tight result expected, which is what ended up happening. In Catalonia, on the other hand, such strong polarization did not exist and as usual, the voters’ behavior was somewhat different from the rest of Spain.

On the one hand, while participation in Spain increased by 4% compared to the 2019 elections, in Catalonia it fell by 4%, to 63%. The failure of the independence “procés” that began in 2010, which ended with the Catalan government in exile or in prison and with a strong repression that affected thousands of people, has generated a massive demobilization. Since voting was of no use, it was understandable that a part of the independence movement did not go to the polls or even called for abstention. Therefore, the low participation was foreseeable.

On the other hand, turning to the results, it is noteworthy that the right-wing coalition PP+VOX obtained only 21% of the vote, achieving just 8 out of the 48 seats in Catalonia. A result far from the result in Spain as a whole, where PP+VOX achieved 45.5% of the votes and almost obtained an absolute majority. Catalonia, very relevant due to its large number of seats, has been wall of containment of the right and far right. Thus, the coalition PP+VOX cannot govern Spain due to its particularly bad results in Catalonia.

In addition, the 34% drop in the pro-independence vote was very significant in Catalonia. The fall of the leftwing pro-independence CUP was especially notable, which lost 56% of its votes, thus losing the 2 seats it had in the Spanish parliament.

Results in Spain

In Spain, the two parties of Spain’s two-party system PSOE and PP (called PPSOE) are once again gaining strength, going from a combined 48% (2019) to 64.7% (2023) — undoubtedly bad news. These two parties have governed Spain since the end of the Franco dictatorship in 1975, as the two pillars of the so-called “1978 Regime” and the Borbón monarchy.

The leftist party Sumar lost votes and 7 seats, declining from 38 to 31. This loss of strength shows that the party’s recent coalition alliance with PSOE has not benefited the left. It is time to reflect seriously on whether the PSOE government is the real alternative to the right-wing threat or, rather, is part of the problem.

Also surprising is that in the regions where the independence movement is historically very present and established, the right and far right did not gain. In Catalonia, Eskal Herria and Navarra, PP obtained 9 seats (out of 71) and Vox obtained only 2.

In any case, the international press has interpreted these ambiguous results as a stop against the right. Given the international and European situation however, where right and extreme right parties are progressively gaining strength, it is still too early to draw conclusions from these results. Unfortunately, the energy and economic crisis in the European Union, with the drums of war beating loudly in the background, do not leave much room for optimism.

What is the reason for this bad result of the CUP?

To begin with, a significant 40% of the CUP militancy had voted against participating in these elections. 2019 was the first time that the CUP had participated in a Spanish general election, an unusual strategy for the party. It had done so in a very particular context, still strongly marked by the “procés” and in a situation of rupture with the “1978 Regime” and the Borbón monarchy, which had generated a major state crisis and challenge to the regime. Four years later, the situation was no longer the same. The repression had won and the independence parties, without ideas, seemed to be sailing aimlessly. The illusion of 2019 had definitely disappeared.

The existing polarization in Spain led to the call for a “useful vote” in order to tip the balance between the “PSOE+SUMAR” block against the “PP+VOX” one. However, since in Catalonia Sumar also lost many votes (-12%) despite keeping its 7 seats, it is unlikely that the transfer of votes from the CUP to Sumar was particularly relevant. It seems more probable that abstention was not distributed evenly among the parties, but rather particularly affected the CUP. Their traditional voter profile is of someone who participates in municipal and regional elections, but never in the Spanish or European ones.

Continuing with the “useful vote”, the CUP had already stated that its duties in congress would be to oppose both a PP+VOX and PSOE government. It therefore would not tip the scales between PSOE-SUMAR over PP+VOX. Probably, it was another element that eluded some voters.

The future

After their disastrous result, the CUP will have to seriously reflect on its strategy for the future. This is why the party is going to start a debate in the next weeks, in which the entire membership is called to participate. Regardless of what the results are, it is clear that the future of a leftwing, rebellious and insubordinate CUP, which were its origins, must go beyond its mere presence in state institutions; rather it involves knowing how to strengthen ties with social movements, gain presence in trade union movements and articulate grassroots struggles.

Barbenheimer – Not with a Bang but a Meh

This Summer’s two overhyped Blockbusters are neither spectacular nor terrible – like so many products from modern Hollywood.


02/08/2023

You may have noticed that two new films came out recently. The release of Barbie and Oppenheimer – two frankly ordinary films – is being treated as a Great Cultural Event. We are being asked to pick a side. Are we pink and fluffy like Barbie, or deeply thoughtful and troubled like Oppenheimer? Are we fun or serious? Do we want to approach the current political crisis by embracing our inner child or by thinking deep profound thoughts?

According to director Greta Gerwig, Barbie is “most certainly is a feminist film. It’s that diving into the complexity of it and not running away from it.” Meanwhile, Oppenheimer is being celebrated as a great anti-nuclear film. Director Christopher Nolan said that the threat of nuclear war “became a reason for me to make the film,” a reason which intensified after Russia invaded Ukraine.

To the people who say “stop banging on about the politics of the films, it’s only light entertainment”, I’m happy to go along with this, as long as you apply the same standards to Greta Gerwig and Christopher Nolan, both of whom have shown a laudable ambition to address important issues.

The trouble is that – in my opinion – both films fall foul of their inner contradictions and are not able to deliver as powerful message as they could. Barbie is an anti-consumerist film which is riddled with consumerism, while Oppenheimer wants to address radical politics, but can only do so from a conservative standpoint.

Barbie’s dirty deal with Mattel

I have already written about Barbie elsewhere, so I don’t want to go in too much detail here about the content of the film. Instead I’d like to talk about the compromises which were made to bring it to the screen. Mattel, the makers of the Barbie doll, which has been shown to negatively impact young girls’ body image, eagerly backed the film’s release despite scenes which gently mock the lack of female representation on Mattel’s board.

It seems that the film was even Mattel’s idea. As Eliana Dockterman reported in Time magazine: “Barbie’s move to Hollywood is the brainchild of Mattel CEO Ynon Kreiz, who came into the job five years ago with a vision to leverage the company’s intellectual property into a cinematic universe based on Mattel toys.” In the same article, Dockterman tells us that back in 2018, Barbie producer Margot Robbie, who also plays Barbie, met with Mattel executives to promise them “we are going to honour the legacy of your brand”.

Robbie went on: “if we don’t acknowledge certain things—if we don’t say it, someone else is going to say it. So you might as well be a part of that conversation.” This conversation is, of course, about maximising Mattel’s profits. Mattel can cope with the film’s mild criticisms, knowing that Robbie and the film’s production team are otherwise offering unconditional support. Meanwhile the corporation’s tills ring up record profits.

What’s in it for Mattel?

For reasons that we don’t have to get into here, I was recently in the toy department of Kaufhof on Alexanderplatz, which has become a shrine to all things Barbie. The online market is similarly flooded. For a mere $25, you can buy a best-selling Margot Robbie Barbie The Moviedoll on Amazon. If you have a bit more to spare, you can pay £1281 for a Balmain x Barbie Cropped Logo Sweater.

Women’s Wear Daily reports that “thanks to the highly anticipated Barbie movie, the doll industry is expected to surge to $14 billion by 2027.” WWD attributes this to a new Barbiecorefashion trend which “has seen a lot more brands embracing rich bright pink shades from Valentino to H&M collections”. People who are worried about gender stereotyping have fought for decades to stop girls being forced to wear pink. This is now being sold back to us in the name of feminism.

It is not just about toys. A breathless article on airbnb.com announced “In celebration of the highly anticipated release of BARBIE, Ken is inviting two lucky guests to stay in the newly revamped Malibu DreamHouse in all its Kendom glory.” The article went on to describe the apartment: “Located in sunny Malibu, the oceanfront mansion features panoramic views and serves as the perfect backdrop for Ken’s picture-plastic paradise”.

Meanwhile, Mattel has signed licensing deals with more than 100 brands, as reported by the Guardian: “meaning that this summer as well as dressing in Barbie apparel from Gap, Primark or Forever 21, wearing her shoes from Aldo or inline skates from Skatehut and sporting her makeup (NYX Cosmetics and others), you can also relax on a Barbie x Funboy pool float while enjoying Pinkberry’s Barbie-branded frozen yoghurt.”

You could argue that venal companies like Airbnb, Gap and Mattel have been exploiting popular culture for decades – and you’d be right. But the sad fact is that the makers of the “feminist, anti-capitalist” Barbie film have consciously got into bed with these parasites to help them raise their profit margins. This seriously undermines the film’s apparently radical message. In the film, as in real life, the Mattel executives are lightly satirised but they are never punished.

This is the contradiction of “anti-corporate” films like Barbie, which rail against Mattel’s anti-feminism, while buddying up with their corporate overlords. Warner Brothers, who released the film, paid Mattel $25-$50 million. In addition, Mattel is expected to receive 5%-15% sale fee on any collaboration.

Oppenheimer’s inherent conservatism

Barbie, then, exhibits a certain type of conservatism. While loudly declaiming its feminism and anti-corporatism, it has worked closely with the very corporations which it has been denouncing. There is money to be made by attacking the 1%, and both Warner Brothers and Mattel are keen for part of the action.

Oppenheimer, which is trying to market itself as a “serious” film, will not indulge an explicit marketing campaign which is so venal, although I’m sure that the film’s accountants are rubbing their hands in glee at the added box office created by the endless memes and articles on Barbenheimer (including this one. D’oh!)

Oppenheimer’s conservatism is more visible in its political content, which rarely veers from an establishment point of view. In my original review of the film, I described Oppenheimer as being a film by and for white men in suits. Let me briefly repeat that argument.

Firstly, the almost entire lack of women. Oppenheimer conspicuously fails the Bechdel test, and then some. If you look at the cast list on IMDB, you see 79 names of which 13 are women. While the men get some meaty parts, the girls are given the empowering roles of “laughing woman”, “kissing woman”, and “consoling women”. Florence Pugh, one of the greatest actors of her generation, has little more to do than sit around with her top off.

Secondly, the predominance of white men. Some people have defended their predominance by pointing out that this reflects academia and politics in mid-20th Century USA. Nonetheless, it was an editorial decision to only show the state murder of tens of thousands of Japanese men and women through the eyes of the white, male lead.

Thirdly, although Oppenheimer, the film, is nominally anti-nuclear, it is not a call to action. I can only endorse the facebook post (can’t remember who made it, but if it was you, thank you), that said that no-one went on an anti-nuclear demo as a result of watching Oppenheimer. But maybe they did attend a few dull committee meetings.

Oppenheimer’s conservatism means that it sidesteps some crucial political points. It rightly shows how many of the scientists working on the Manhattan project were Jews worried about the rise of Hitler, but shows no objection when the target moves to Japan. It mentions, but does not comment on, the bombing of Nagasaki, whose only purpose was as a show of strength for US imperialism. It shows the concerns of the men in suits, but not of anyone outside academia and official politics.

A film which takes place almost entirely in committee rooms is unlikely to articulate any opposition outside the political mainstream to the horrors which it depicts. It is surely no coincidence that the person who embodies the film’s hope for the future is not someone from the coming movement against the Vietnam war but a man who stood on the other side of the barricades –an “up-and-coming senator from Massachusetts called John F Kennedy”.

How this affects cinema in general

For all their differences, Barbie and Oppenheimer have one thing in common. They are both way too long. To its credit, Barbie does manage to clock in at less than 2 hours, but both films sag in the middle and are clearly dragging by the end. Some friends have said that they didn’t notice that Oppenheimer goes on for over 3 hours. All that I can say is that they must have higher tolerance levels for endless scenes of men in dreary meetings than I do.

As films get increasingly longer and Blockbusters get shown on multiple screens, there is less space for anything else, for films which are challenging or … any good. But never mind, after you have seen Barbie, you can watch Oppenheimer. Then you can watch Barbie again or wait for the inevitable sequel. So far writer Greta Gerwig says that she has no plans to make Barbie 2, but it’s surely only a matter of time.

Even if Barbie 2 is never made, Mattel has already announced 45 more films based on its toys, and other manufacturers are sure to follow suit. This accelerates a trend which has been around for a while. In an article that I wrote over 8 years ago, I noted that “31 of the 50 most expensive films are sequels, and a further 6 are remakes or adaptations of tv series, and even a board game (‘Battleships’).”

This has a serious impact on what we are allowed to see in the cinema. There are only so many screens to go round. Barbie and Oppenheimer may have “saved cinema” by making extra money for the film manufacturers (and their collaborators in Mattel), but this does not mean that they have delivered more diversity to the cinema-going public. After all, not every film director has the $150 million that Barbie paid for its marketing budget alone.

Maybe Nick Hilton is right when he predicts: “the reality is that major chains could very easily collapse. And those that are saved from disaster by administrators are going to be forced into the most brutal, creatively vapid process. They will only show Barbie and Oppenheimer and Spider-Man and Star Wars on a loop, because capitalism is cynical and there’s no room for romance. It will be a brutal form of programming by algorithm.”

What does it all mean?

Does this mean that Barbie and Oppenheimer are terrible films and that no socialist should be seen dead inside a cinema showing them? Of course not. They are both perfectly serviceable, and the acting is great. They start well, and – within their clear limitations – address a number of interesting issues. But let’s not limit our expectations to their bland corporate vision, and recognise them for what they are – vaguely liberal, establishment films.

Recently, Hollywood directors and actors have been striking against the monolithic film companies. One of their demands is for more control over what they produce. It is to their credit that actors and crew from Barbie and Oppenheimer have joined the strike. But until the strike started, the film’s producers preferred to work alongside Warner Brothers and Universal to make products in line with Mattel’s corporate vision.

Film is a battlefield, which the corporations try to dominate, but where theirs are not the only voices. The strike is showing in a very concrete way how big business stifles creativity and also how it can be challenged. Let’s hope that the strikers are successful. Meanwhile, it’s ok to enjoy the unchallenging entertainment of films like Barbie and Oppenheimer, but we should aspire towards much, much more.

 

The Warsaw Rising, August 1, 1944

The Uprising, 79 years ago, was doomed to failure


01/08/2023

On August 1, 1944 – 79 years ago – the Warsaw Uprising was launched in secrecy. It led to a massacre of the Poles by the Nazi forces.  Why had it been called – and why was it launched in secrecy?

First the intense history of rivalry and wars between Poland and Russia:  

“for six centuries the Eastern Slavs—Great Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians on the one hand—and the Poles, one of the branches of the Western Slavs, on the other—were engaged in a bitter fratricidal struggle.”

W.P and Zelda K. Coates; “Six Centuries of Russo-Polish Relations”; London 1948; p.i

Second, the composition of the “London Poles” forming the self-proclaimed “government-in-exile” following the German occupation of 1939. They were heirs of the Pilsudski militarist semi-fascists. Marshall Pilsudksi’s grand project was to forge a Polish Commonwealth from the Black to the Baltic Sea – infringing on the USSR. In the Treaty of Riga in 1921 he effected part of this allowing Polish colonization. Many Polish settlers and officials moved into Byelorussia and Ukraine, yet “The Times concluded.. “On a liberal estimate, there were hardly more than 2,250,000 to 2,500,000 Poles east of the Curzon Line in a total population of over 11,000,000.” (“The Times” January 12, 1944; Coates & Coates (hereafter C&C) p.118 )

The Treaty of Riga (1920) cut off Byelorussia and Ukraine, from the USSR. Attempting to keep these gains, Polish Governments made rapprochements with Hitler. Pilsudski rejected “collective security” including the USSR:  “By January 1934 Poland stood aside from efforts to create a system of collective security. Pilsudski launched Poland upon this policy.” (R.F.Leslie, “Poland Since 1863”; Cambridge 2009; p.183)

Thirdly, against the larger interests of the nation, Poland’s rulers frustrated attempts to unite with the USSR against Hitler. Moreover, on 31 March 1939, without consulting the Soviet Union, the British government gave a meaningless, and unilateral guarantee to defend Poland against aggression. As the liberal Party leader, David Lloyd George, told Parliament: “I cannot understand why, before committing ourselves to this tremendous enterprise, we did not secure beforehand the adhesion of Russia. . . .. . unless the Poles are prepared to accept .. the responsibility must be theirs”. (Parliamentary Debates. House of Commons, Volume 35; London; 1939; Col. 2,510)

Allies reject Soviet attempts at mutual security

On 17 April 1939 the Soviet government proposed a trilateral mutual assistance treaty by Britain, France and the Soviet Union against German aggression. While on 23 July the British and French governments finally agreed to negotiations, but their delegation only arrived in Moscow on 11 August. The British delegation was officially instructed to: “Go very slowly with the conversations.” (“Documents on British Foreign Policy;’ Volume 6; London; 1953; Appendix 5; p. 763″.

As historian Edward Carr put it: “The most striking feature of the Soviet-German negotiations . . . is the extreme caution with which they were conducted from the Soviet side, and the prolonged Soviet resistance to close the doors on the Western negotiations” (E.H. Carr: ‘From Munich to Moscow: II’, in: ‘Soviet Studies’, Volume 1, No. 12 (October 1949); p. 104)

When it became clear the Allies were stalling, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed.  As E.H.Carr said, it gained a critical ‘breathing space’ of two years before the USSR was invaded by Germany. 

After the German Invasion of Poland

When Germany in a long-anticipated blitzkrieg took Poland, the USSR occupied Eastern Poland. Most observers saw Russia had no choice but to occupy “White Russia and Ukraine” – parts taken by Poland after the Treaty of Riga. “Russia knows well that were Hitler to defeat the Western Powers, or merely attain an inconclusive peace with them, his programme for German puppet States in White Russia and the Ukraine would quickly revive, and Russia would be his next victim.” (C&C p. 127 citing “Times” September 23, 1939)

Even Winston Churchill, acknowledged this:

“It cannot be in accordance with the interest or safety of Russia that Nazi Germany should plant itself upon the shores of the Black Sea, or that it should over-run the Balkan States and subjugate the Slavonic peoples of South Eastern Europe.”

(Speech October 1, 1939; Cited C&C Ibid; p.141.)

The Polish Government fled and General Sikorski led (after his death Mikolajczyk) led the self-proclaimed Polish Government-in-exile or the “London Poles”. The London Poles resisted the new changes in the USSR occupied Byelorussia and Ukraine, where a socialist movement had arisen.

After the ‘breathing space’ Germany invaded Russia. The British government refused guaranteeing Poland’s borders in the Treaty of Riga. But Sikorski refused to discuss this with the USSR. Nazi war criminal Joseph Goebbels rejoiced in such manifest division in the Allied Front: “Our anti-Bolshevik propaganda has achieved notable successes. .. This discord in the Allies has already become strikingly visible. The quarrel between the Soviet Union and Poland concerning the drawing of frontiers exceeds by far the bounds usually respected by allies in wartime.” (Joseph Goebbels, “Goebbels Diaries, 1942-1943”; New York 1948; p. 259)

The USSR bore most of the toil, hardships and mortality of World War Two. Yet Poland was content to assist delaying the Second Front in the West against Hitler. 

A resistance army in Warsaw in September 1939 known as the Home Army (AK) was the internal Polish arm of the London Poles.  Its leaders were former pro-Pilsudski officers led by Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski. It was instructed to remain hidden, secretive and not cooperate with the USSR. However it was passive against German occupiers, as ordered by the London Poles. The leaders could not be persuaded to surge into active resistance:

“The Warsaw leaders were ordered by the Government to limit retaliatory operations to a bare minimum. to resist the demands of the masses for more drastic measures.” (Jan. M. Ciechanowski; “The Warsaw Rising of 1944”; Cambridge 1974; p.91)

The Home Army numbered around “a few hundred thousand men… most unarmed”. But in June 1944, the London based Polish general staff estimated that there were arms for only 32,000 men. Warsaw contained 50-70,000 fighters including 4,300 women. But only one-sixth had weapons.

The communist wing of the resistance was the People’s Army (Armia Ludowa – AL).  Because its partisans were active, launching anti-German attacks, it attracted more of the youth. But the Peoples’ Army was smaller at 50,000-60,000 partisans. (Ciechanowski; p.115)

Despite enormous obstacles, the USSR pushed the German fascists out, and began ‘Operation Bagration” to destroy the last German forces. While a tremendous success, it came at a terrible cost of Soviet deaths and casualties (Alexander Werth, “Russia At War 1941-45; London 1964; p.766). The Red Army was now in South Poland. By July 31 the Red Army arrived on the banks of the River Vistula to Praga – opposite the city of Warsaw – led by Marshall Rokossovskii. 

Between 27 July and 4 August 1944, the Soviets established two bridgeheads over the River. However the German army re-grouped, and was desperately fighting to hang onto Warsaw as it “barred the way to Berlin”. As the Soviets were far ahead of supply lines it became tied down by the Germans (Roberts, Geoffrey; “Stalin’s Wars From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953” Yale, 2007; p. 204). Hence the attack on Warsaw was halted. German defences meant it was re-started in September, but only successful in January 1945 (Roberts; p.204).

But the London Poles wanted to pre-empt any Russian liberation of Warsaw. Hence an abortive, hasty, ill-organized, and failed uprising. It was launched on August 1, 1944, without any discussions with the Red Army. In military terms, this was imprudent. 

The Warsaw Uprising 

The fiasco of the premature and ill-timed Warsaw Uprising is explained by the desire to create “legitimacy”. London Poles wanted to achieve this by liberating Warsaw only with the Home Army (AK). They wanted to preempt what they mistakenly thought was going to be an easy entry for the Red Army into Warsaw. General Pelczynski explained:

“The Home Army Generals assumed that the imminent entry of the Russians into the city was a foregone conclusion.” Ciechanowski; p.134, 243

The Warsaw Uprising was predicated on two assumptions.  Firstly that the Soviet army would be at Warsaw’s doorstep within 12 hours and secondly that the Germans had no capacity left for fighting.

“their decision rested on two fundamental and simple assumptions; their profound belief that the Russians were on the point of taking the capital and their impression that the Germans were no longer capable of halting for long the Red Army’s advances in central Poland… those responsible were confident that the Russians would take the city within a few days, if not hours.” (Ciechanowski; p.245)

Bor-Komorowski expected to be rescued by the USSR. He recognised Polish weakness carried “no prospects of success”: “On 14 July, Bor-Komorowski… stated that he had no intention of starting large-scale hostilities in the capital because, in view of the formidable German anti-insurrectionary preparation ‘a rising has no prospects of success’.” (Ciechanowski; p.248)

Nonetheless military offense was to be launched “at the moment the Red Army crossed the Vistula”. But even as the Russian attack was repelled by the German re-grouping, the Home Army knew this:  “In October 1944 the officers.. in German-occupied Poland unequivocally ascribed the Russian failure to take Warsaw to ‘the general collapse of the Soviet offensive on the Vistula’… Gen ‘Monter’ conceded.. that it was ‘possible to understand’ Russian behaviour on the Warsaw front.” (Ciechanowski; p.206)

Charges of sabotaging the Warsaw Uprising

Yet false charges were immediately voiced that attacks on Warsaw were stalled to wipe out the Polish resistance. As historian Geoffrey Roberts puts it: “The picture of consistent, if ill-fated, Soviet efforts to capture Warsaw in summer 1944 runs completely counter to an alternative scenario: that when the Red Army reached the Vistula it deliberately halted its offensive operations to allow the Germans time to crush a popular uprising in the city.”  (Roberts; p.206)

This “alternative scenario” is unsubstantiated. The Red Army did not “at any stage “voluntarily slacken its efforts to capture Warsaw.”  Secondly it ignores the German Wehrmacht’s recovery.  Chief of the German General Staff Heinz Guderian pointed out in 1951:

“We Germans had the impression that it was our defence which halted the enemy rather than a Russian desire to sabotage the Warsaw uprising.” (Ciechanowski; p.251)

Rather than slowing Rokossovskii’s pace of advance – the Uprising increased USSR determination to take the city quickly:

“The uprising reinforced Stalin’s determination to capture Warsaw as soon as possible. ..The anti-Soviet politics of the uprising.. made it even more urgent that the Red Army seize control of Warsaw as soon as possible.” (Roberts; p.206)

The insurgents did not pose a military threat to the Red army as alleged:

“The Red Army had been dealing with the AK ever since it crossed the frontiers of prewar Poland in early 1944, sometimes co-operatively, often conflictually, but at no stage did a few thousand Polish partisans pose a major threat or problem from the military point of view.” (Roberts; p.206)

Rokossovskii said to Alexander Werth at the end of August: “And do you think that we would not have taken Warsaw if we had been able to do it? The whole idea that we are in any sense afraid of the AK is too idiotically absurd.” (Werth, p.786)

The Warsaw Uprising was launched without any military discussions with the Soviet forces. The Poles had of course alerted the British:

“On 26 July Mikolajczyk authorised the insurrection… On 26 July.. he informed Churchill and Eden that the Home Army Command had ordered a state of readiness for the general insurrection in Poland as from 25 July.” (Ciechanowski; p.63)

Even the British recognised that the launch was ill-timed and uncoordinated with the wider military objectives and plans. Mr. Eden’s office told Ambassador Retinger on 28 July:

“quite apart from the difficulties of co-ordinating such action with the Soviet Government, whose forces are operating against the Germans in Polish territory, operational considerations preclude us from meeting… assistance.. . . . There is nothing that His Majesty’s Government can do. .. As Eden put it: ‘It was set off by the local Polish commander without consultation with us and without co-ordination with the Soviet forces advancing on the city.'”  (Ciechanowski; p.67)

Not only had the Poles not informed the Red Army about the Uprising, but neither did the British:

“Before the outbreak of the insurrection the British failed to pass on to the Russians the information received from Poland, that it was imminent. The Russians learned about the possibility for the first time from Mikolajczyk, at about 9 p.m. on 31 July; that is, about three hours after Bor-Komorowski had given the order for the insurrection to begin.” (Ciechanowski; p.67-68)

Stalin in a message to Churchill on the 16th August, 1944 (message 321) considered this secret launch not only as “reckless” but as taking a heavy toll of the population: 

“Now, after probing more deeply into the Warsaw affair, I have come to the conclusion that the Warsaw action is a reckless and fearful gamble, taking a heavy toll of the population. This would not have been the case had Soviet headquarters been informed beforehand about the Warsaw action and had the Poles maintained contact with them.”

The Warsaw Uprising was an absolute disaster in terms of the toll it took on the Polish population. The Germans savaged Warsaw and its population:

“The Warsaw uprising was a disaster for all concerned except the Germans. For the Warsaw Poles it was a catastrophe. The AK incurred about 20,000 fatalities and many thousands more wounded, while the civilian population, caught in the crossfire, suffered somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 dead. When the uprising came to an end on 2 October the Germans finished the demolition job they had begun during the course of military operations against the AK by razing the entire city centre to the ground and deporting the surviving population to concentration camps. For the Polish government in exile the failure of the uprising represented a critical weakening of its ability to influence the postwar politics of Poland.” (Roberts; p.215)

In conclusion, the Warsaw Uprising was called prematurely, and without adequate military planning, and in secret. It was called primarily to create a legitimacy for the London Polish “government-in-exile”. Failure was predictable.

First published for American Party Labor (APL).

Come on Barbie Let’s go Smash the Patriarchy*

*Assuming the patriarchy is just, like, totally bad vibes


31/07/2023

***Possible spoilers below but I have minimised references to the movie’s plot***

I have to admit, the Barbie live action film won me over. I expected to be swept up in the wave of enthusiasm for the film, dragged along simply so I could be in the loop with the prevailing culture. Only to find myself enthralled by the film’s visual narrative and style. Greta Gerwig has, with garishness to match Barbie’s, woven themes of feminism, existentialism, contemporary culture war debates – into a two hour advertisement for a multinational toy making giant.

Politically speaking the movie is, to paraphrase Chris Morris, an exotic display for the court. A comedy that leaves all the right people ribbed but unscathed. A satire that breaks balls while acquiescing to the hegemonic ideals of prevailing politics. But it has an hypnotic power, tailored for a disenchanted generation of millennials, that merits grudging praise.

The movie opens with Helen Mirren’s magisterial voice narrating the world we are about to witness, its opening scene immediately declaring for a cause: “SMASH THE PATRIARCHY!”

Immediately, the sceptical viewer is disarmed by the visual metaphor; delivered as it is – with an unapologetic panache. ‘Barbieworld’ is a particular version of a feminist utopia where incredibly smooth skinned, hairless himbos, clad in eye popping pastel shades that might spontaneously cure monochromatism, ornament the lives of the ceiling smashing Barbies that dominate society. Theirs is a benevolent dictatorship, where men are disenfranchised but treated exceptionally better than the real world dominated by the patriarchy.

Ryan Gosling plays one of the many Kens in this film as the himbo primus inter pares while Simu Liu portrays his rival and homoerotic object of desire. As they both vie for Robbie’s attention, they butt heads aggressively – un-aggressively. While taking turns threatening to beach the other off — instantly coining a double entendre that might just take off. Despite the terrific concentration of abs and male chest cleavage (notably absent for the women throughout the film) on display, men have been tamed of their aggression. You can tell this won’t last. A two hour advertisement cannot sustain itself on pure feel good wish casting alone.

Barbie exhibits an admirable ideological dexterity. It self-consciously makes an effort to superficially validate the angst brewing in the contemporary generation just coming of age. The conduit of these concerns is portrayed by a moody teenage girl who just needs to grow out of it. It is an inherently conservative critique that mirrors the logic of conservative reactionaries the film seeks to rebut.

Mattel is run solely by men, a fact explicitly and self-evidently acknowledged as hypocritical. It is in the boardroom that structural inequality gets a brief moment of acknowledgement through the best line in the movie when Connor Swindell (Sex Education’s Adam Groff) says:

“I’m a man with no power. Am I a woman?”

This is the closest the movie comes to a materially grounded understanding of patriarchy.

Obedience to the profit motive is demonstrated by the chicanery of executives trying to put women back in their box, alongside their tedious declarations of alliance to women through umbilical connections. Mattel is being satirised in its own advertisement for its own benefit. Rooseveltian notions of saving capitalism from itself come to mind in the exotic display of self-criticism Will Ferrell’s character embodies.

For Gerwig, patriarchy is best theorised as a virus that can infect an unsullied society like Barbieworld. just as small pox infected the indigenous people’s of North America and wrought their destruction; a reference explicitly made in the film and a contender for the most unintelligent and distasteful line in the whole film. Yet it is also one of its most revealing.

The patriarchy is a set of bad ideas that infect the body politic and, with enough preaching, it can be reversed. It is maintained and reproduced solely by conviction. Violence never factors into it and how could it? That would upend the tension the film expertly maintains. The very concept of structural discrimination, so commonly discussed in North American political discourse, is thus negated at a stroke. The musical sequences, sudden interjections of Mattel advertising, moments of vulnerable candour, uproarious moments of humour — all work in synergy to soften the senses in preparation for ingesting this message. And they work with a beautiful synchrony.

Gerwig and co-writer/husband Noah Baumbach have anticipated every ideological punch and presented the most coherent vision of liberal feminism through the medium of kitsch. For their exceptional craft, they deserve credit and even admiration. Radical feminism does not have the budget or the rights to intellectual property for rebutting the politics of Barbie through its own framework but if it did, it can learn a lot from their craftsmanship.

Barbie is a challenging film, that requires serious engagement, armoured with a disarming coat of magenta coloured ideological cotton candy. Like Gosling’s dreamy eyes and knee-wobbling smile, it asks you to put the encroaching flames on the horizon out of sight and join in a dance with the Kens and the Barbies. To imagine a world where we are Kenough. To manifest feminist utopia with good intentions and sheer will. Even the moody teenager cheers up, grows close to her mom, works within established institutions to redress the patriarchy. So why can’t you? In essence, serious grown ups try to establish an all female Supreme Court rather than fruitlessly endeavour to strip it of its power.

This film works diligently to expose truths about the real world within an unreal one. Yet it is peculiar how successfully it bounds our imagination within the limited ideological confines of its stupidly wealthy architects. But we need only to follow through on its central metaphor by placing ourselves in Barbieworld and crossing over to the messier domain of the real world. Except that – Barbieworld was conceived and constructed in the very world we occupy. We are all, more than we realise, Barbie.

The right has not won, neither has the left

VOX failed to make a breakthrough in last week’s Spanish election, but the Left has some serious questions to answer


30/07/2023

Last Sunday, July 23rd, General Elections were held in Spain. The media, the polls (with a couple of exceptions) and even the prevailing mood suggested that the conservative Partido Popular (PP) and the extreme right VOX would get more than 176 seats, the number needed for an absolute majority in parliament. Yes, in Spain, the right wing is able to make a pact with the extreme right without any problems. We have seen this after the regional and municipal elections of May 28. They govern together in Extremadura, Castilla y León (since 2022), Valencia and the Balearic Islands, among others.

At 9 pm the two main pollsters, Sigma Dos and GAD3, presented their exit polls. According to Sigma Dos, the right wing could miss out on government by a very small margin, while GAD3 considered an absolute majority for the Right to be a certainty. Cuca Gamarra, PP spokesperson, went to the media to celebrate victory. The counting was quick. With approximately 70% of the vote counted, the social-democratic PSOE were set to win the elections. Later, the PP gained ground to gain slightly more votes than the PSOE (33,05% vs. 31,70%). Due to the Spanish provincial electoral system, the PP have 14 more seats in the Spanish parliament. There was also a fight for the third position between VOX and Sumar (the left-wing coalition of 15 parties, including Podemos, Izquierda Unida, Más País and Comuns). VOX ultimately gained third place with 0.08% more votes (12,39% vs. 12,31%) and two more seats.

The right wing cannot govern, even with the support of the Navarrese UPN, with whom they would have a total of 170 seats: 136 PP (up 47 since 2019), 33 VOX (-19) and 1 UPN (-1). The government coalition of PSOE and Sumar won 153 seats: 122 PSOE (+2) and 31 Sumar (-7). However, for a pact to support the Government, it is quite likely that the Basque left of Bildu (6, +1), the Catalan left of ERC (7, -6), the Basque Christian Democrats of PNV (5, -1) and the Galician left of BNG (1, =) can be counted on for a total of 172. It remains to be seen what the Canarian nationalists of Coalición Canaria (1, =) and, above all, the Catalan nationalists of Junts (7, -1) will do. With the distribution of seats on Sunday, an abstention by Junts would allow Pedro Sánchez’s government to be maintained.

The vote of Spaniards abroad, counted on Friday 29th, gave one last surprise. The PP in Madrid won 1 seat from the PSOE and left the balance at 171 to 171. Junts would have to support the government of Sanchez to be able to govern. If they abstained and Coalición Canaria supported the right, PP and VOX would govern. Some other parties are no longer in parliament. This includes the liberal-conservative Ciudadanos (who decided not to run), the Catalan left-wing CUP, the regionalists of Cantabria PRC, the Asturian regionalists Foro, the provincialists Teruel Existe, and the Catalan bourgeois party PdeCat.

Relief and contained breathing define the feeling in the Spanish left. It is difficult for the right and the extreme right to govern, but it is difficult for the left to do so as well. New elections cannot be discarded. Sumar, as a coalition of 15 parties, has lost 7 deputies and has not reached its goal of matching the 38 deputies it had in 2019.Instead they were squeezed by a campaign that was polarized between PP and PSOE. We could simply rejoice at the far right VOX losing 19 seats – countering the European trend of far right growth – but we should not be complacent.

Sumar is an invention created at full speed, with disputes and unclosed wounds between the members that compose it. In particular, there are disagreements around the integration of Podemos in the lists, which left out heavyweights of the party such as Irene Montero, Pablo Echenique or Rafael Mayoral. The leadership of Podemos and its media channel Canal Red, led by Pablo Iglesias, expressed their disagreement with the construction of Sumar from the beginning and there has been a feeling that, although Podemos’ militants were working hard, the leadership was not being completely honest.

Sumar has not been built democratically, that is a fact. Yes, many people have participated in the construction of its program, but this has in a rather dirigiste way led by the candidate Yolanda Díaz and her closest circle. The program is essentially social-democratic with some left-wing tints, especially around labour and ecology. However, the fact that the Spanish Greens are of part Sumar, makes, for example, the international policy ambiguous. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that the Greens of southern Europe are not comparable to the German Greens and have a more eco-socialist tradition behind them.

Sumar has gained presence in the electoral campaign, when it has expressed its differences with the PSOE. In the electoral debate, although Yolanda Díaz made clear her intention of governing with Pedro Sánchez, she did point out some points of difference, especially regardinf housing, migration and energy. Pedro Sánchez’s reaction was to say: “well, but we must have our feet on the ground”. That sentence reminds us why, even if there are coalition governments, a strong Left is necessary with a program of democratic rupture (and not just looking for pacts with the social democrats).

If the Left is weak or silent, the PSOE will apply the same economic policies as the PP, with a social facelift. But it is also important that Podemos and Izquierda Unida (with the Communist Party of Spain inside IU) remain within within Sumar. If not, the presence of the Greens (represented mainly by Ada Colau’s Comuns and Errejón’s Más País) can turn the Sumar project towards a more social democratic or social-liberal program with ecological overtones.

The questions that remain open to us are: will Sumar still exist in four years from now? What will Sumar be, a party, a coalition, a party roundtable? How will Sumar be built in a democratic way? For that, moment there are no answers, but this discussion cannot be delayed.

Jaime will be kicking off a discussion about the Spanish elections and the growth of the Far Right in Europe at the Berlin LINKE Internationals organising meeting on Monday, 7th August at Links*44, Schierker Str. 26. The meeting starts at 7pm and the discussion should start around 7.30pm. Everyone is welcome to join