The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

“The police excluded people from our demonstration against our will and against our recommendation”

Interview with Udi Raz (Board Member Jüdische Stimme)


26/05/2023

Thank you, Udi, for talking to us. Could you start by briefly introducing yourself?

Thank you for inviting me for the interview. My name is Udi Raz, and I’m sitting here in relation to the demonstration that took place on Saturday the 20th of May, last Saturday. I was there as a board member of Jüdische Stimme für Gerechte Frieden im Nahost (Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East), which is a registered organisation here in Germany.

Why did the Jüdische Stimme call the rally last Saturday?

We called the rally to commemorate 75 years of the ongoing Nakba. That started in 1948, or 1947, depending on how we look at it, but according to popular narratives this is the 75th year.

As Jewish Berliners, we wanted to create room for ourselves to also engage in this commemoration. We are deeply involved, both as an organization and as individuals, with ongoing traumas that are inherent to this process of the ongoing Nakba — of the oppression of Palestinians by Zionists in Palestine.

We called this demonstration as one of many similar demonstrations around the same time. In Berlin, specifically, there are many different organizations which all have their own way of commemorating the Nakba. We were one organisation among many.

After the event, reading some of the press coverage, some of the things reported are quite incredible. The general tone which is being pushed by the press and by the police is that you were having your peaceful Jewish demonstration, then a load of Palestinians came up, took over your demonstration, and started shouting antisemitic slogans.

Let’s take these allegations one by one. Firstly, what about the charge that your demo was taken over by Palestinians?

The police came to us during the demonstration and said that if we saw anybody in this crowd who might threaten our physical well-being, we should report them. We never went to the police with such an accusation against any of the participants of the demonstration.

While the speeches were taking place, the police came to us again and asked us about a specific group of people who were standing together. They asked if we were interested in excluding them from the demonstration. Again, we very clearly said “No, we don’t want anybody to be excluded from the demonstration”. We did not feel that anybody was annoying us or taking over the space of our demonstration.

The police, of course, were not happy with this answer. In reaction, they decided to exclude these people from our demonstration against our will and against our recommendation.

Why did the police think that you might not want these people at your rally?

I believe that the police thought that certain chants that they were shouting could be intimidating, specifically: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. We as an organization have no problem with this chant. We don’t perceive it as antisemitic. Apparently, the police do not agree.

What does the slogan “From the river to the sea” mean to you?

We, as organisation, stand behind the logic that demands freedom to anyone between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This includes equal legal rights. Look, I grew up in Haifa. From an early age the extent of segregation between the Palestinian and the Jewish population of the city was very clear to me. During my 12 years in the Zionist state-education system, I only once met a Palestinian individual whom I could also call a classmate. It is crystal clear to me that this is an outcome of an exclusionary governing system. You see, in the West Bank and in Gaza, the governing system of the Zionist regime is deadly to Palestinians. This is also why there is urgency here. Discussing whether this or that is antisemitic or not is important, but it cannot come at the cost of failing to discuss the ongoing violations of human rights by Zionists in Palestine, or of discussing the Nakba. And it cannot come at the cost of basic democratic rights here in Germany.

And yet there are people in Germany who construe this slogan as antisemitic. How could that be?

In order to grasp how this chant could be understood as antisemitic, we need to go back to the IHRA definition of antisemitism. According to this definition, any kind of criticism of the legitimacy of the State of Israel to operate as a racist state, is antisemitic.

As a result of this, anybody who resists this racist framework is perceived by many Germans as being antisemitic.

Let’s go back to the press reports. Several reports, including from the left-liberal Taz, say that there were antisemitic statements from the rally which you organised. Some reports refer to the “from the river to the sea” chant, but most of them offer no evidence at all.

You weren’t there till the very end, but there were plenty of people from the Jüdische Stimme and Palestinians throughout the rally. Has anyone who you’ve talked to reported experiencing any antisemitism?

I haven’t heard of anyone experiencing antisemitism. I haven’t heard of anyone witnessing antisemitism except the police who argued that this chant could be antisemitic.

Has the Jüdische Stimme decided how you want to react to this press coverage? These are severe allegations. Several newspapers, including liberal newspapers, are accusing you of indulging antisemitism in your rally.

Thank you for this question. We have just issued an official statement which breaks down this media coverage. As you say, even “liberal” platforms reported what happened from a very distorted perspective.

We, as a democratic society, cannot allow this. We must insist that the press has a responsibility to at least report what happened and not to invent their own reality according to mainstream, racist ideology.

This is the second year running that demonstrations commemorating the Nakba have been banned in Berlin. Some have been allowed to take place in other German cities, but in Berlin there has been a blanket ban. Why Berlin?

I also asked myself this question. I really don’t know. I believe it has something to do with Germans trying to come to terms with their own past, with their own crimes against humanity, by projecting it onto Palestinians, and not being able to perceive the world from the perspective of people who suffer exactly under this condition.

Germany is willing to unconditionally support Israel, without even showing any regard to what Israel is doing. Israel has the most right-wing extremist government ever, and Germany doesn’t seem to be bothered by that.

But the right wing, extremist government that Israel has at the moment is only the tip of the inherently racist, Orientalist, and colonialist iceberg. It is just hard to believe that we’re talking here about Germany. where one of the main national narratives is that the Holocaust should serve as an important lesson to anyone who lives in a post-Holocaust world.

I understand that many Germans wish to come to terms with what they perceive as their past. But in the current situation, Palestinians are often marked as a problem in Germany’s project of coming to terms with it’s past. Germany’s unconditional siding with Israel means for many Palestinians being subjected to structural and arbitrary discrimination, arrests, death, and other ongoing violations of human rights. In this sense, Germany must free Palestinians from its guilt.

At the moment, we’re experiencing two things which are coming together. On the one hand, there is what people call Germany’s Palestine problem, which is in reality the Palestinians’ Germany problem. On the other, police are being used against different groups, not just Palestinians.

There is increased police violence against environmental protesters, and more attacks on the 1st of May demonstrations. Does this increased criminalisation of protest provide an opportunity for the different groups who are being attacked to come together?

It’s exactly the ridiculousness that is inherent to the strategy of the ruling ideology which is making us fight back. And “we” are diverse. Look at the demonstration from Saturday. There were people from such a variety of cultural backgrounds, different life stories, even different ideologies and understandings of what a just solution could look like.

So there is no “us” in the sense that we speak in one voice, but there is an “us” as different groups, different individuals who understand what the problem is, and where the problem lies, namely in the structure that rules us, that makes us into this imagined unified group.

Within this unified group, what is the contribution of the Jüdische Stimme? And what are you planning to do next?

First and foremost, it is important to stress that we act as human being who see also Palestinians as human beings. As Jews, we understand that the general discourse of in Germany includes a coming to terms with the subject of Jewishness. As part of this discourse, we have something to say. But so do other Jews with different opinions. Many Jews in the public sphere in Germany translate their subjectivity as Jews into some sort of capital. It is by no mean a phenomenon inherent to Jewishness. It characterises rather the essence of identity politics, that is prevalent also in Germany. We are one of the many, many Jewish individuals and groups who speak as Jews in a very specific political environment.

It was interesting that at the quote-unquote “antisemitic” demonstration, the first two people I saw being arrested were Jewish. I believe that the rally organiser is being charged with assaulting a police officer, and the artist Adam Broomberg, who grew up in apartheid South Africa, was also brutally attacked by police. It seems that the German police are attacking Jews in the name of defending Judaism.

That’s it. It’s a ridiculous situation. The Berlin Police does not protect Jews as such. On the contrary, as we saw on Saturday, the fight against antisemitism as led by the Berlin Police is dangerous for Jews.

What happens now? It seems that some people have been charged, and others haven’t. What can people do to support those who were arrested? How can we ensure that we can demonstrate in Berlin again?

I think that it’s important to anyone who is interested in what’s going on and how to get more involved that they follow the different channels that provide information — theleftberlin website for example. You can also subscribe to our Newsletter, and connect with us and with people around you. Know that you are part of a big movement, a huge movement that is getting ever bigger. Among us are professionals who specialise in providing legal support, managing public relations, administrators, artists, students, and the list goes on. Everyone who is willing to be part of this movement for a just peace in Palestine must know that they’re not alone. Precisely because the ruling power is so overwhelming, sometimes it feels that voices such as ours cannot be shared or are not allowed to be heard. This is exactly the wrong lesson, not only from history, but also from the demonstration that happened on Saturday.

Our message is that we need to stay connected and network together. This doesn’t mean that we need to think the same. But we have a huge problem in Germany, and that problem is called Germany.

One final question. How do people find out more about what Jüdische Stimme is doing?

They can go to our Website, register for our mailing list, follow us on facebook and Instagram and write us e-mails. We are here. We are happy to get to know new people who are interested in coming together.

Jüdische Stimme Statement on the Rally at Oranienplatz on 20th May, 2023

Rally Organisers respond to lies from the Press and Police


24/05/2023

On Saturday, 20th May 2023, there was a joint rally by Jewish and Palestinian participants. The Jüdische Stimme had called it in order to express solidarity with Palestine and to commemorate the Nakba after a strict ban of all other Nakba events, not least the large demonstration “#Nakba75”, planned for Hermannplatz on the same day. This was the only possibility for Palestinians to remember their past and their ongoing expropriation and oppression.

There were many stewards, and they cooperated fully with the police throughout the event. The police, however, were on the offensive from the start, and at one stage they kettled part of the rally. They then demanded that chants of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” be suppressed. We do not see any antisemitism in this slogan, and we support its message of equal rights without exception between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, the police used this as a pretext to break up the demonstration.

It was narrowly possible to commemorate the Nakba in Berlin, but the police ultimately intervened in this one remaining event, leading to blatant police brutality and arrests. The message: in Berlin, no remembrance of the Nakba must take place.

On the following day, the campaign against the rally on social media began, under the banner of press freedom. There were various representatives of the press at the rally, who identified themselves and were treated politely and professionally by the demo organisers. However, activists were also present from state-funded political organisations that were opposed to the rally, and regularly monitor pro-Palestinian movements, filming and photographing participants. With the help of the police, they occasionally attempted to intimidate participants. They refused to answer polite questions about their work, although the Press Code guidelines 4.1 states: “journalists fundamentally identify themselves”. Stewards tried many times to respond to the provocative behaviour with de-escalation, but some participants still allowed themselves to be provoked.

It is clear that the provocative behaviour of these political activists around Jörg Reichel, who were given press accreditation through ver.di, followed a strategy: to provoke cases of “hostility to the press” that could be later used by the police as a basis for restrictions and bans. For this reason, we are also sending this statement to ver.di.

After the rally, false information from the police was also disseminated in the genuine press. The Berliner Zeitung wrote: “despite the ban of a planned Palestinian demonstration in Berlin, there were antisemitic attacks in Kreuzberg on Saturday afternoon. Between 80 and 100 Palestine supporters massively disrupted the rally registered by the organisation Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost (Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East) on Oranienplatz, declared a police spokesman.”

This implies that our rally was disrupted by people who were, in fact, a part of it. By referring to fictional antisemitic attacks, a picture was painted in which well-meaning Jewish activists were overrun by Palestinian Jew-haters. This perfectly portrays the racist discourse around antisemitism that currently exists in Germany.

In the online edition of the Berliner Zeitung report there was a photo in which Jewish activist Adam Broomberg was taken away from the police after they had violently arrested him. Who was really protecting whom, from whom, and who were the real disrupters?

The taz was little better. Below the headline: “Skirmishes despite ban: Palestinian assembly despite banned demo” they published an article whose title already aimed to delegitimise the rally. The Tagesspiegel went even further and made the assertion that “dozens gathered in Kreuzberg despite a ban”. To make this claim about an officially registered demonstration is false. The only balanced report, in which participants also had a chance to heard, was in rbb24. But even here, Palestinian voices were absent.

Conclusion: anyone who wants to show solidarity with Palestine in public can count neither on law-abiding behaviour by the police nor on objective reporting in the German press. We explicitly welcome media representatives to visit our meetings, talk to us and ask questions of us as well as other participants.

We will continue to criticise provocations by individual activists from pro-Israel organisations with press passes, who approach and harass vulnerable groups, such as participants without a secure residency status, with cameras in order to provoke emotional outbursts. This enables them to later construct a narrative of hostility to the press.

Board of Jüdische Stimme, 23rd May 2023

This statement appeared first in German on the Jüdische Stimme website. Translation: Phil Butland. Reproduced with permission.

Racism and Class Struggle in France Today

An explicitly anti-racist politics is required to stop the current wave of protests in France from splintering and strengthening the far-right


23/05/2023

The mass movement to defend pensions in France has impressed the world, and is one of the biggest mobilizations in Europe on class issues since 1968. Many millions, in hundreds of towns, have been on the streets. Mass strikes and smaller wildcat strikes, occupations, school blockades, direct action and riots have all been part of the mix. The movement has not yet either won or lost, but it has retained the support of the vast majority of the population, who do not believe the government’s squeals about the need for us all to tighten our belts and work for two years longer.

This movement has revealed once more a widespread political class consciousness in the country. Large numbers of people not affected personally by the reform have joined the struggle, just as in 2006, the movement which forced the abrogation of a law imposing precarious work contracts on all those under 26 involved workers of all ages. This class consciousness has, among other effects over the years, allowed the rise of the radical Left France Insoumise (“France in Revolt” or FI), which got seven million votes in last year’s presidential elections.

But another particularity of France also echoed round the world in the spring of 2022. Thirteen million people (41% of voters, making up 25% of the entire adult population) voted for the far-right candidate, Marine Le Pen, at the same presidential elections. This is a candidate whose party promises to stop non-French residents of France from receiving welfare benefits or social housing, to ban Muslim headscarves on the streets, and which puts the “unity of the nation” at the centre of its racist programme, as well as maintaining discreet links with streetfighting nazis, (like those who set on fire this month the house of a small town mayor who defended building a centre for asylum seekers). Le Pen’s “National Rally” party often claims to be “the leading working-class party in France”.

Obviously there is a sharp polarization working its way through society, helped along by the bankruptcy of the traditional Right and of the Socialist Party Left, who, between them (though one or other had governed the country for decades), got fewer than 7% of the votes at the 2022 presidentials.

Playing the racist card

Racism and Islamophobia will be the key options for Macron’s new Right as it attempts to undermine the class unity shown in the present movement. The fact that Macron originally came from a current of right-wing thought which did not make a priority of attacking Muslims faded in importance as he realized how profitable such attacks could be. This is why we saw the introduction of last year’s ludicrous “law against separatism” (making life harder for mosques and for Muslim charities), and other attacks whose main aim is simply to say to those who are voting Le Pen “Vote for us, we mistrust Muslims too”.

This month, local education authorities in Toulouse asked teachers to cooperate with a police questionnaire which aimed at finding out how many pupils took the day off for Eid, a major Muslim festival. Any excuse is used to suggest that the big  problem of the day is the presence of Muslims  in our society. In this context, the capacity of the activist Left and of trade unions to loudly prioritize their antiracism is of the first importance.

Historical weakness

But the French radical and revolutionary Left has been traditionally weak on actively fighting racism. Recently a right-wing smear campaign against a student union which sometimes organizes seminars reserved to Black members found far too few defenders on the Left. And for decades no Left organization took fighting Islamophobia seriously; even today they are often disappointing.

In  2016, when right-wing mayors banned full-body swimsuits worn on their beaches by Muslim women, the Left replied with paper denunciations at best. At worst, Left organizations (including parts of the France Insoumise) relayed the ludicrous idea that such swimwear was part of a sinister political campaign. In 2020 when  the legal aid organization, the Collective against Islamophobia in France was banned (a government decision denounced by Amnesty International), no Left mobilizations were organized beyond lukewarm press releases. In 2021, the France Insoumise invited a well-known islamophobe, Henri Pena Ruiz, to speak at its summer school (though this fortunately caused an uproar). In 2022, a vicious right-wing campaign against full-body swimsuits in municipal swimming pools, backed up by the courts, met with half-hearted opposition from the Left.

Progress

Nevertheless, real progress has been made over the last decade. The changes in the speeches of FI leader Jean Luc Mélenchon in particular have been very notable, and he will now loudly defend Muslims against racism in general TV interviews and speeches, something which helped lead a large majority of Muslims to vote for him last year. The New Anticapitalist Party (NPA) has also made progress, since the times when (in 2011) women who wore the niqab were insulted on the front page of the NPA newspaper, with an article which referred to them as “birds of death”. A first ever mass demonstration specifically against Islamophobia was held in Paris in 2019. Both the FI and the NPA were very much present, although the two organizations certainly had many members who refused to support the march. Still today, practically all Left and far Left organizations contain a significant minority who do not want to fight Islamophobia, and national leaders are therefore reluctant to make much noise on the question.

The weakness of the Left and the far Left on these issues led to the emergence of independent activist networks among non-White citizens, mainly in multi-ethnic suburbs, often prioritizing the fight against police racism. These networks have a strong anticapitalist component, as can be seen in the recent book by Houria Bouteldja, Beaufs et Barbares (“Rednecks and Barbarians”), in which she hopes for unity between provincial white working-class “rednecks” and Black second-class citizens. Yet one can also hear in such circles the idea that “White trade unions” and “the White Left” can never be trusted. These networks could have been much closer to the main anticapitalist Left if the latter had not been so weak on fighting racism, and particularly on Islamophobia.

Today

The combativity of the movement to defend pensions, and some good mobilization work has led to a recent upturn in antiracist demonstrations. On the first of May in Le Havre, Marine Le Pen’s “Banquet for the nation” was the subject of a fine counterdemonstration; there is another antifascist mobilization (to defend the mayor mentioned above) next week, and at the end of April there was a day of action against racism and in favour of the rights of undocumented migrant workers. On that day, dozens of towns saw sizeable rallies, with wide trade union support.

Some commentators have claimed that the present movement to defend retirement pensions has not mobilized the non-White population in the poorer, multi-ethnic suburbs. This has only a small grain of truth in it. It is certainly the case that workers on less stable contracts find it harder to go on strike (and non-White workers have on average significantly more precarious work situations). Furthermore, if you are Black or Arab, you are quite aware that if there is police violence you will be the preferred target, and this will obviously dissuade some.

But many Black workers in trade unions were fully involved in the strikes. In a few towns, demonstrations demanding papers for undocumented migrants joined up with the pensions demos. And in April, fifty rappers, including some of the best-known in the country, played a concert in the Paris suburbs to raise money for the strikers. This symbolized the mobilization of a culture strongest in multiethnic areas alongside established trade unions.

Macron’s people are far more frightened of class struggle and of the radical Left than they are of far-right racists, and they have an urgent need to divide a combative working class. So we can expect  more racist provocations, and there is a real danger of right-wing parties and fascists working closer together. Fierce antiracist mobilization is what can advance unity within the working class.

The Tinderbox of Greece’s Political Contradictions

As Greeks went to the polls, a divided left struggled to channel the anti-systemic sentiments of the population


22/05/2023

NOTE: this article was written before yesterday’s elections when New Democracy made considerable gains

On May 21 Greece goes to the polls to elect a new parliament. The term of the ruling government under right wing New Democracy expires in July.

The vote will take place under a new (as close as possible to) proportional representation system in the 300-seat Parliament — posing difficulties for any party to attain an absolute majority. This opens the way either for coalition governments or for a second round of voting.

Until three months ago and despite serious failures, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis appeared to be in control of the game. His government has already passed a law changing the representative system, so that the next elections will take place with the new system, which grants seats to the winner of the elections, making it possible for them to form a government. New Democracy’s plan was to head straight for a second round and get re-elected. However, today it does not seem to work.

The horrible train accident in Tempi on February 28 left 57 people dead and sparked a series of strikes and protests, which changed the political context in the country. But the discontent was not born suddenly because of Tempi. It was the fruit of prolonged resistance to the policies of the government.

Today a big part of the Greek society knows that New Democracy has been a murderous government of poverty, racism, sexism, environmental destruction and war mongering. Kyriakos Mitsotakis had set three main objectives when he became Prime Minister in 2019: to impose brutal neoliberal measures so that the profits of the Greek bourgeoisie increase, to pass measures against the working class and trade unionism, and to attack ideologically the Left and leftist ideas. The truth is that he increased the profits of the Greek bourgeoisie, stealing from the income of the working class. But he did not succeed at all in his goal to smash the working class and the left. It’s quite the opposite, trade unionism has recovered and spread to new “precarious” sectors and left ideas are a hope for better days. All recent polls show that the majority demands the nationalization of the main sectors of economy.

New Democracy in office: Sexism, lies and video tapes (and much more)

OECD statistics show that the average real wage in Greece in 2022 fell by 7.3%. According to Eurostat, the average per capita income in the country in 2022 was 68% of the average of the 27 EU countries, compared to 85% in 2009. According to the national official data, income inequality within the country increased by 2 percentage points between 2018 and 2020, which is the last year for which we have figures. In fact, it is some 2% higher (worse) than the average of the 27 EU countries.

New Democracy tried to handle things by granting subsidies to the poorer family households, as salaries are impossible to follow inflation and soaring prices in basic needs. There is an “energy pass” to make up for soaring electricity and gas prices, a “food pass” to balance ridiculously high prices for basic needs like milk, cheese, meat and vegetables, and an “Easter” pass for vacations! This has created a lack of security and dignity and evidently discontent, but the government claims that this is the only way for Greek capitalism to go forward and consequently for the working class to evidently benefit. However, reality contradicts them: Greece is the only country in the EU and perhaps the only country in the world where GDP is some 20% below what it was in 2009. It is the epitome of the failure of the European vision of Greek capitalism. At the same time the national debt amounts 420 billion Euros, some 120 billion higher than in 2009 when Greece entered the austerity memoranda which would supposedly manage the crisis.

Their hopes of recovery and catching up to the so called “investment grade” are sinking against the international backdrop of bank failures in the US and Europe. At a European Union level, the system is gearing up for a new round of austerity, as revealed by the Commission’s new “economic governance” proposal released on April 26.

To control action from the organized working class, New Democracy passed the notorious “Chatzidaki’s law” on labor affairs, named after the notorious right-wing minister who compiled it, which scraps previous achievements of the trade union movement and trade unions themselves, by introducing voting via email and making strike action an almost impossible goal. But so far it looks that trade unions have defied the law and continue strike actions. This was confirmed and ultimately visible with the two huge general strikes on March 8 and 16.

With all official mass media (TV channels, press and news web pages) being controlled by friends and collaborators of New Democracy (and being heftily subsidized by the state), the government appeared unscathed by their failures. The media presented an omnipotent cabinet, supposedly enjoying public support. Protests and strikes were absent from the newsfeed or commented as insignificant events plotted by traitors of the country.

Nevertheless, in the summer of 2022, what started as a complaint by journalist Thanasis Koukakis about his mobile being tapped grew to a huge scandal, with some 33 people having been found to have traces of the illegal spyware Predator on their devices. The list included PASOK leader Nikos Androulakis, members of the Cabinet and members of their families, politicians in the main opposition Syriza party, journalists and media professionals. Following protests, the government finally acknowledged it had wiretapped Androulakis’s phone — a move it called legal but wrong. Mitsotakis tried to exonerate himself by firing two top government officials, but the matter did not fade away, despite the claims that it had to do with “national security matters”, that is concerns from rival Turkey, with whom Greek militarism under New Democracy has engaged in a mad race for dominance in the region.

Last but not least is the racist policy of New Democracy, which has intensified illegal push-backs of refugees at the border with Turkey and at the islands, resulting in hundreds of innocent people being killed. On May 18, an article on the New York Times confirmed that the Greek government is putting refugees on rafts and sending them to drown.

Resistance from below

The collapse of the government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis was not a result of gradual decay and in any case did not come from within parliament, where New Democracy enjoyed a relative calmness, mainly because Syriza did not provide any serious opposition and a lot of important laws passed. We have described in previous articles in this webpage and above, that during the last four years numerous struggles challenged the policies of the ruling class and their favourite government. These burst inside the working class, the universities, included political issues to defend democracy and stop fascism and Nazism and demonstrated the potential inside the Greek society to fight back. Most of them ended in compromise, a few lost, some others won (for example police forces never managed to get a foot inside university campuses), but Mitsotakis was clang in power for good, until Tempi turned the calmness upside down.

Tempi revealed the mess created by privatization, cuts in public expenses and health and safety rules and caused thousands of people to question the efficiency of the government’s measures. A recent poll among 19-34 year old citizens reveals that the majority of young people are now for a strong public sector, 81% will go to the polls, and at the same time they don’t trust the “big” parties.

The Left

The Left in Greece has never been a marginal political force. It always shaped the political events, despite repression and military coup d’etats. This dynamic brought Syriza to the government in 2015 and contrary to the the U-turn and the betrayal of “OXI”, hundreds of thousands of people still believe that Greece has to break from austerity, militarism and challenge the ruling class. Different strategies though, do matter.

Many people angry and disgusted with New Democracy still turn to Syriza as the opportunity to get rid of Mitsotakis. The problem is not the will of these people, but the rightward shift of Syriza, which does not even promise to implement reforms, as they had done back in 2015. Instead of nationalization, Syriza talks about control of the state through “Independent Authorities”, which supposedly will control private companies but actually have been the cloak of privatization. Syriza now hosts ex-ministers of New Democracy and claims that a coalition government can include the most notorious politicians who implemented the memoranda back in 2010-12. And of course Syriza claims that the wall at the border with Turkey, which prevents refugees from entering Greece, has to remain. It is imperative to look for a left alternative.

The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) looks like the main left force; it is still loyal to Stalinism and bears no connection to most of the European CPs. Despite a recent “openness”, thanks to which several personalities disappointed by Syriza were invited into its ranks, it has an abstract strategy that “no real change can be achieved as long as we live in capitalism”. This is generally correct, but in practice it resulted in KKE not supporting progressive immediate measures, e.g. the re-nationalization of the railways after Tempi, with the argument that under capitalism this will not work! As a result, although KKE hosts a number of militants in its ranks, their energy is often spent in theoretical condemnations of capitalism and immediate achievements become an opportunist endeavour. Nevertheless, many people are turning to KKE as a left alternative to both, New Democracy and Syriza.

MERA 25 is the Greek formation of Diem 25, led by ex-Syriza minister Yiannis Varoufakis and has stood clearly against New Democracy in parliament, at times when Syriza refused to. Militants of MERA participate actively in several movements (democratic rights, youth, LGBT+ and women, environmental protests) and are quite open to discuss with other left parties. In the coming elections MERA has formed an electoral alliance with sections of Popular Unity (LAE), based on a minimum programme, in order to provide an alternative to the left of Syriza, an absolutely understandable objective. The weakness of this coalition is not in intentions, but in the continuity with the politics of Syriza back in 2015. Following the debacle of “OXI” becoming “YES”, it is imperative for the Left to provide a political explanation going deeper than the circle of the party leadership and to address a strategy for change. MERA 25 is oscillating between the denunciations of “techno-feudalism” as it calls the current economic system and a relief programme to be implemented by a progressive government. Who will form that government? Accusing Syriza is fair but not enough, when it appears as a possible leader of a governing coalition. How can we fight the “institutions” and the ruling class, which pressed Syriza’s government to capitulate?

A small example is the fuss created in the media following a statement by the press spokesman of MERA25 that “there is a possibility that the banks may close in the case of future policies proposed by MERA’s programme”. New Democracy and its media arm attacked Varoufakis with two main targets: on the one hand to bury any discussion of an alternative trajectory in the country with populist arguments of scaremongering and catastrophizing, and on the other to undermine a post-election coalition government led by SYRIZA, which would include MERA 25, on the ground that “you’ll bring chaos with Varoufakis”. Standing against the scapegoating of the right wing is absolutely necessary, but not enough to provide strategic answers on what is to be done.

Anticapitalist left

Having described the strengths and weaknesses of the reformist parties, it is important to examine any left alternative. The broad radical-anticapitalist left has never been strong in parliament but it is present in trade unions, local and regional councils (it holds numbers of counselors) and often plays a crucial role in the social movements. Its members have led strikes in public hospitals, education, universities, have fought sexism and homophobia and have been on the forefront in the successful struggle to put nazi Golden Dawn in prison and to defend immigrants and refugees. There is a constellation of organizations and parties with several ideological backgrounds, while splits, attachments to reformist parties and regroupments have always taken place.

The most serious attempt to unite these forces is undoubtedly ANTARSYA, a front founded in 2009, in the aftermath of the riots of December 2008 following the murder of 15 year old Alexis Grigoropoulos. Since then, the front has always participated in both social movements and electoral confrontations, with clear success in the first and medium to low in the second. It suffered pressures and splits towards a “broader” left, like for example during the formation of Popular Unity in 2015. Not dissolving itself for the sake of a current unity project, even when it looked promising turned out to be essential.

The previous months have seen an ongoing discussion between sections of ANTARSYA and a number of non-sectarian formations which broke from the left of Syriza and from Popular Unity. Unfortunately, so far this did not conclude to a new left front, resulting to an autonomous standing of ANTARSYA. Is it any good? Yes it is, if we want to claim political orientation to the struggles. Today we have the experience of Syriza, which appeared as a realistic alternative to get rid of the memoranda and ended up to lead new rounds of austerity. There is clearly an anti-systemic current in Greek society, it has been traced in the protests and surveyed in serious polls. Whether this current will turn to anti-capitalism or to reformism, or get disappointed from politics does matter.

Contrary to the mainstream hypocrisy that this anti-systemic mood will supposedly breed the “danger of the two edges”, ANTARSYA has greeted and supported this tendency in the streets. Standing in the elections is linked to an attempt to connect with these militants, with which we have fought harsh struggles together and turn the anti-systemic to a revolutionary political force. The pre-requisite for this is to combine its demands through a transitional program that will provide immediate answers in favour of the working class and put workers’ control at the centre. The restoration of wages and trade union power, state ownership and/or re-nationalization of social services (health, education, social insurance) and common utilities (electricity, water-supply, transport, ports etc.) are at the heart of this concept. Take for example the case of the train accident, where a transitional demand is “nationalization now under workers control” who, as it turned out, were the ones who knew how to make transport safe.

As the polling day approaches, it is likely that the formation of a coalition government will be a difficult equation and any office will be not strong enough to handle the hurdles of Greek capitalism and popular discontent. This opens all possibilities for the Greek working class and the movement to stand for the just demands described above. How the left parties will respond will be the key to winning the future struggles and to strengthening the left political alternative.

Dimitra Kyrillou is a member of the National council of Antarsya and was their candidate in Athens North-B1

Chile: triumph of pinochetism and the crossroads of the left

Gabriel Boric’s refusal to implement radical reforms led to his recent referendum defeat


21/05/2023

On Sunday, May 7, the elections for representatives to the Constitutional Council took place in Chile. The Republican Party of Chile obtained the majority vote, with 35.41% of the votes, and 23 elected representatives out of a total of 50. The party founded, in June of 2019, embodies a contemporary version of Pinochetism. Behind them Unidad Para Chile [1], took 28.59% of the votes, and  16 representatives. Finally, the “traditional” right wing, united under the Chile Seguro [2] pact, reached 21.07% of the vote and 11 elected representatives. The “extreme center” of the Todo por Chile [3] coalition and the right-wing populist People’s Party received a low vote share. Finally, a representative of the indigenous peoples, elected to a reserved seat, integrates the Constitutional Council.

There was a significant increase in spoiled votes, amounting to 16.98% (equivalent to 2,119,506 votes) –  previously 3.03% of spoiled votes (187,819) . Why? Some propose that these represent individuals who  likely supported the proposal for a new Constitution (September 2022 plebiscite).

The mobilization favouring the invalid vote, involved ex-conventionists, parliamentarians, social organizations, and grassroots activists. A spoiled vote  serves to uphold a critical perspective of the process and lay the groundwork for an impeachment. Particularly during the forthcoming exit plebiscite where individuals will cast their vote either “for” or “against” the second constitutional draft.

Previously, we addressed this process following the defeat of the Constitutional Convention (September 4, 2022 plebiscite). But these electoral results show a predominant control and oversight by political parties, to exclude key actors who played a significant role in the October 2019 mobilizations and, those who participated in the Constitutional Convention. Non-party political activists and social movements were excluded from this new process.

Following the rejected new constitution those with parliamentary representation robustly debated how to address the 2019 constituent momentum. In December 2022, the Agreement for Chile outlined the new process. It entails an Expert Commission, appointed by Congress to draft the constitution based on 12 defined foundations. It establishes a Constitutional Council consisting of 50 elected representatives. Unlike previously the current process only permits discussion of political parties.

This Constitutional Council reviews and votes on the already written draft. Then a Technical Committee on Admissibility, appointed by Congress, forms a meta-constitutional court. It reviews the text to ensure adherence to the 12 foundations defined in the Agreement for Chile.

Between September and December 2022 a strong opposition of the Republican Party, was led by José Antonio Kast, against a new constitutional process. How is it possible for the main opponent of an institution to secure an almost absolute majority of its seats? 

Pinochet’s Constitution and the current crossroads

The results of  May 7, are a strong blow to the government, which has acknowledged this. They affirm that they will maintain the course of their program. They aim to isolate the Republican Party by appealing to the “democratic” and “dialogue-oriented” nature of the traditional right-wing parties within the Chile Vamos coalition (UDI, RN, Evopoli). On the other hand, the Republican Party still does not know what to do with its new toy and faces attacks from all political sectors. They are accused of sexual abuse and invited to “avoid making the same mistake we made,” as President Boric stated. Boric was referring to the alleged lack of dialogue by the left in the Constitutional Convention. The Republican Party attitude was predictable.

Luis Silva, a lawyer and member of Opus Dei, who received the highest number of votes stated that he has “no fear of disagreement. That’s what votes are for. And if they don’t have them, they have to leave the square. And if not, we call upon the public force, because that’s what it’s there for, to enforce the law. Otherwise you end up dancing to the tune of the left”. With openly anti-left and anti-feminist rhetoric, the Republican Party articulated a novel political and ideological influence over the political right and its social bases. At their core lies an authoritarian, repressive, socially conservative Christian, and xenophobic nationalist project. 

One staple of the constitutional struggle in recent years was denunciation of the “Pinochet constitution.”  This phrase highlighted illegitimate approval during the dictatorship and its neoliberal content. Unfortunately, its illegitimate origin weighed more heavily than  its content. As reflected in statements by Minister of Women, Antonia Orellana, that having “the new Constitution crafted in a democratic setting… is valuable in itself.” Undoubtedly, a constitution born out of a dictatorship carries illegitimacy. However, the dictatorship’s motivation for a new constitution was not to seek legal validation, but to dismantle the democratic, republican, and progressive avenues of the previous 1925 Constitution. Above all, its intent was to pre-empt eradicate any resurgent transformative constituent movement with a socialist vision. The 1980 constitution was Pinochet’s “never again”. Never again would the people be allowed to organize, never again would a revolutionary left find its voice, and never again would the working class have a path to power.

Currently the dilemma is that the new constitution could end up worse than the Pinochet-era constitution, placing constituent sectors in an unfavorable position. The new constitutional councilor, Luis Silva (Republican), stated that “The government faces a major problem because if they call for approval, they will be endorsing a right-wing constitution. If they call for rejection, they will be stuck with the very constitution they wanted to change. And what will happen is that in either of these scenarios, once they are no longer in power, they will take to the streets demanding a new constitution. And if we Republicans are in government, I will tell them to go to hell.” 

Some hypotheses to understand and regain the initiative

How did we get here, and how could we move forwards from the left? I  highlight some hypotheses to explain the scenario and possible paths to regain the initiative.

1 It was a mistake for the government and its parties to push for a new constitutional process. It opened the door to a victory for the right. Since 2021,  a radical shift in popular concerns occurred, from socio-political issues of the constituent uprising to individual and family survival concerns within the context of the pandemic lockdown. This, in part, could explain the outcome of the plebiscite.

2 The political hegemony of the right comes from a government that backtracked on its program, adopting elements of the right-wing agenda. Alongside the shift in popular concerns, the right launched an offensive in the media and parliament to place safety and migration at the center of public debate, especially following the deaths of three police officers. This offensive led the government and the ruling coalition to a narrative and legislative work that was only a sell-out. Adopting a narrative criminalizing poverty and migration, they supported strengthening police repression. They authorized the use of firearms by the police who merely perceived threat. This “license to kill” has already claimed its first victims and, was used to overturn convictions of state agents guilty of human rights violations. The government justified its programmatic retreats based on the difficult balance of power, and placating the forthcoming discussion of tax reform to finance their expanded social rights program. However in March, Congress rejected the proposed reform. It begs the question, what sense does it make to grant legislative space to the right in exchange for parliamentary votes that will never materialize?

3 The process of polarization continues to deepen. Traditional sectors of the “center-right,” the center, and the “center-left” have lost political leadership, unable to offer an alternative. In the recent election, the center collapsed, represented by those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the reality of a crisis and cling to the post-dictatorship neoliberal administration, which was fiercely contested by the 2019 uprising.
The emergence of a counter-revolt in the “Rechazo” (Rejection) led by the far-right shows that reactionary sectors have caught up, seeking to hegemonize the terms of the political struggle with lies, provocations, and threats. These efforts have had electoral results, at least among the poorest sectors. There migration and security are the main issues and there is a higher concentration of evangelical influence.

4 The chapter of October 2019 is far from closed. The political crisis continues to unfold, no actors  able to overcome stagnation. With the weakness of progressives, apparently only pinochetismo can fulfill the state policies desired by capital in Chile. This means the precarization of life to weaken the value of labor, military containment of social instability, unlimited expansion of the primary-export matrix, and governing by brute force in the face of ineffective parliamentarism. This the normalization of pinochetismo. The government made overtures to the traditional right outside of the Republican Party, labeling it as the “democratic right” to open lines of legislative dialogue. The problem is that instead of dividing the right to weaken it, it grants political legitimacy to a sector that shares the social and political project of the Republican Party. 

5 The radicalization of the right and the drift of progressivism create an opportunity for transformative left-wing politics. However, a transformative alternative is not to appeal to the current common sense (formerly progressive and constitutional, now punitive and republican), but rather one willing to shake up the crisis. This by placing at center the immediate needs of the working, precarious, indebted population, offering the middle-class sectors a way out with universal policies, and breaking radically with big capital.

6 Unity to build a viable left-wing alternative cannot be guided solely by moral compass, it must be guided by the compass of warfare. No revolutionary project for Chile is possible without a feminist mass leadership. Feminism offers the best possible solution to “identity politics” because it overcomes the hidden identitarianism within misogynistic left-wing leadership. The universality of feminism is concrete and revolutionary. No new left is possible without the communist family, without the radical left, without the grassroots organizations, without the middle-level leadership of the labor movement, without university intellectuals (from working-class or middle-class backgrounds). In tactical terms, it is impossible to confront the extreme right unless a total tactical complementarity is embraced. We need to engage in all battles: the struggle for demands, self-managed and cooperative construction, institutional and electoral disputes. “He who desires the ends, desires the means,” as an old revolutionary used to say.

7 The first point of a new program must be to reclaim wealth monopolized by capital. It can no longer be solely about social rights financed through the same level of distribution between capital and labor, or targeted social spending programs funded by austere fiscal coffers. Mere redistribution fails if it does not confront profits. A tragic decision comes: either an increasing expropriation of illegitimate capital gains or a deepening cycle of extermination of the working class. This does not arise from ideological desire of the left, but from the actuality of our stagnant low productivity economies. The private sector is simply incapable of investing in sectors to revitalize growth in a beneficial direction for the entire population. Without expropriatory policy, that is, reorganizing work to increase the wage share and significantly transferring economic activity to the public sector, it is impossible to envision a transition towards the type of eco-social development we need to overcome the ecological crisis while ensuring a dignified life for our people.

Footnotes

1  “Unity for Chile”, coalition formed by Acción Humanista (Humanist Action), Comunes (Commons), Convergencia Social (Social Convergence), Federación Regionalista Verde Social (Regionalist Social Green Federation), Partido Comunista (Communist Party), Partido Liberal (Liberal Party), Partido Socialista (Socialist Party), and Revolución Democrática (Democratic Revolution).

2 “Safe Chile”, coalition formed by the Unión Demócrata Independiente (Democratic Independent Union), Renovación Nacional (National Renewal), and Evópoli.

3 “Everything for Chile”, coalition formed by the Democracia Cristiana (Christian Democracy), Partido por la Democracia (Party for Democracy), and Partido Radical (Radical Party).

Translated from the Spanish by Rafaela Apel Marcel