The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Theses at a time of an obvious attempted re-division of world ‘spheres of interest’

What support should Marxists give to Russia?

Hari Kumar
08/02/2022

We recently reviewed the stand-off in the borders around Ukraine between the USA-NATO, European Union, Ukraine and Russia. However we note disturbing signs of an opportunist support for Russia from some sections of the Marxist left. They prompt these theses to spur potential debates at this critical time – within Marxist circles.

Thesis 1: In today’s world, any war is unlikely to be a localized affair.

Modern war inevitably becomes part of the international rivalry between the imperialist nations. As these become wars for power and markets – whatever was the initial spur – they become unjust wars between (at least) two sides. In such unjust wars, Lenin points out that:

“It is the duty of the socialists of every country to wage an unrelenting struggle against the chauvinism and patriotism of their own country (and not only of the enemy)”.

V.I.Lenin, ‘Letter to Vorwarts and Wiener Arbeiter-Zeitung’, written 1914; CW vol 21; Moscow 1980; p.42

It follows that while the socialists of every ‘home’ country must to the maximum, struggle against jingoistic war-fury of their own country, they must also expose the chauvinism of the ‘enemy’. Despite this injunction, at the present time as trumpets blare in Europe and Ukraine, many Marxists and socialists in the Western imperialist heart-lands one-sidedly emphasise the belligerence of only their own ‘home’ countries. For example in the USA, the UK or Germany. Many are reluctant to state that the Putin government has had any role in this current escalated stand-off.

Thesis 2: Such one-sidedness may flow from beliefs that the ‘enemy’ state is not imperialist.

Such assertions have been frequently heard by Marxists, applied to both Russia and China. Here we focus mainly upon the assertions about Russia rather than about China. However a general point about both is necessary at the outset: the predominant role of state ownership of industry and portion of industry is no bar to being a capitalist state.

Bland pointed out using materials from the post-Khruschevite USSR that the mask of state management of industry did not prevent profits being made by a managerial class [W.B.Bland, ‘Restoration of capitalism in the USSR, and W.B.Bland,; ‘An open letter sent on behalf of the Communist League to the ‘New Communist Party’ Compass; No. 92, November 1991.] Many others from differing positions within Marxism have also taken this position.

Thesis 3: Whether a state is designated as an imperialist state, has long been defined for socialists by Lenin.

In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Section VII. Imperialism As A Special Stage Of Capitalism, Lenin argues:

We must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;

(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;

(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and

(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

Thesis 4: Marxists correctly point out that currently, the USA is the most powerful both economically and militarily – the most dangerous imperialist power.

This is apparent by Lenin’s detailed criteria, although we will not here belabour this point. However it is also seen in a detailed comparison of the strength of various powers, using a multi-dimensional tool as proposed by Norfield. This tool can be said to subsume the criteria of Lenin into a measurable ‘power’ ranking. By this Norfield measures GDP, Foreign assets held, international banking strength, foreign exchange holdings, and military expenditure.

Thesis 5: We do not challenge this emphasis on the primacy of the USA as the currently dominant imperialist nation as being correct. However it is too often coupled with a serious distortion.

This distortion minimises the rampant imperialist behaviours of other countries, most latterly Russia. Such ‘minimisers’ under-estimate the ability of the international working people to appreciate that there can be more than one villain on the world stage. Those who minimize the imperialist actions of Russia undermine the working peoples of all countries and an international solidarity.

For the working class and toiling people of ‘their own country’ (for example the USA or UK) – it assists in further mystifying the true state of affairs – which is an intensification of inter-imperialist rivalry and battle for markets and resources. For the working class and toiling people inside the ‘enemy’ country (Russia), such simplifications enable further worsening of their oppression.

Thesis 6: It is true that Russia is not one of the most leading imperialisms today, as seen using some measurements provided by Norfield. But this belies its military strength and the regional impact it has in the Eastern sector, and other factors as described below.

Nonetheless, other Marxists have also argued that Russia is not an imperialist nation as assessed by Lenin’s criteria.

Thesis 7: This is contested by – amongst others – in chronological order, Vaughan, Tooze, and Probost.

We first consider the non-Marxist, Tooze who does not use the term ‘imperialist’. Nonetheless he points out a major monopolist strength of Russia’s in the global energy markets:

“Russia is a strategic petrostate in a double sense. It is too big a part of global energy markets to permit Iran-style sanctions against Russian energy sales. Russia accounts for about 40 percent of Europe’s gas imports. Comprehensive sanctions would be too destabilizing to global energy markets and that would blow back on the United States in a significant way. China could not standby and allow it to happen.

Furthermore, Moscow, unlike some major oil and gas exporters, has proven capable of accumulating a substantial share of the fossil fuel proceeds. Since the struggles of the early 2000s, the Kremlin has asserted its control.”

The notion of monopoly was earlier highlighted by Vaughan in 2017:

“In Russia there is an extreme concentration of capital, to a degree that exceeds the imperialist powers of Lenin’s time. Based on the official statistics of the Russian state, the top 600 firms in Russia account for over 70% of Russia GDP.”

Moreover Vaughan goes on to highlight the role of banking finance:

“Today, Sberbank is the largest bank in Russia, and the 3rd largest bank in Central and Eastern Europe. It has an annual operating income of 28 billion USD, and deposits totaling 312 billion USD. This amounts to approximately 36% of the total deposits in Russia (849 billion USD) concentrated in a single financial institution. The breakdown of the deposits, and their share of the total, of the five biggest banks (by total assets) in Russia today is as follows:

BANK	Total deposits (Billions USD)	Percent Total (849 billion USD)
Sherbank	312	36
VTB	135	15
Gazprombank	63	7.5
Alfa Bank	21	2.5
Otkritie FC Bank	20	2.3
	Total	63.3

The 3rd largest bank Gazprom also:

“has an effective monopoly in the gas industry in Russia (accounting for 83% of gas production in Russia, and 17% of the gas production in the whole world) and also has significant holdings in media, oil production, and other sectors.”

Vaughan also goes on to point out the role of export of capital:

“These large firms in Russia also export significant amounts of capital abroad. A few examples: Gazprom has subsidiaries in 36 countries outside of Russia, in 2016 Rosfnet (the 3rd largest company in Russia) purchased a 98% stake in the India-based oil company Essar Oil for ~$13 billion, and overall Russian direct investment abroad exceeds $440 billion. While this pales in comparison the ~$5 trillion that the US has in foreign direct investment abroad, it still represents a significant export of capital.”

More recently in 2022, Probsting reminds us that Lenin pointed out:

“Some imperialist states have had a strong economy as well as a powerful military, while other, more backward, powers were characterized by Marxists as imperialist despite having a relatively small amount of capital exports or no net capital exports at all.”

Thus, Lenin wrote in 1916: “The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new, imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several, though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly.”

Therefore Probsting – in a similar manner to Norfield, but not by using a quantified tool – proposes that the definition of imperialism be modified to being:

“The imperialist character of a given state is based not on a single criterion (like the volume of capital exports) but rather on the totality of its economic, political, and military features. Hence, a scientific definition of an imperialist state would be “a capitalist state whose monopolies and state apparatus have a position in the world order where they first and foremost dominate other states and nations. As a result, they gain surplus-profits and other economic, political, and/or military advantages from such a relationship based on super-exploitation and oppression.”

Probsting goes on to make similar points as Vaughan, namely regarding the role of monopoly in the Russian state: “Russia’s economy is primarily dominated by Russian monopoly capital. (i.e not foreign based) … “the proportion of investment in Russian, foreign, and joint venture companies kept the same for the past five years: 86.3%, 7.3%, and 6.4%,respectively;” and on the amount of monopoly in Russian banking.

But Probsting also enlarges on the theme of capital exports by Russia – and details a recent imperialist practice of ‘round-tripping’. This entails sending monies to an off-shore haven only to re-direct those monies into either the Russian state or onto other states as an ‘invisible’ Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).

Moreover the destination of the Russian investment is strategic towards the Eurasian base. This is being created as we noted previously, where Russia has been establishing alliances, to establish secure arrangements on the Caspian Sea and its’ neighbouring states:

“On 7-8 August, 2016 in Baku was held tripatrial Summit of Azerbaijan, Iran and Russia – focused on regional security arrangements to the South Caucasus and to make a deal regarding Caspian Sea legal status disagreements among the littoral states.. (with) leaders of Russia and Iran and very soon the results were at hand. Moreover, on the second day of the Summit, Turkey’s President Receb Erdogan paid official visit and told how he identified with his “best friend” President of Russia’s Vladimir Putin either long-standing bilateral negotiations.”

[Vakhtang Maisaia; “The Caucasus Geopolitical Dilemma: A Land Between Eurasian Union and Euro-Atlantic Community – A Rimland for New Cold War: Introduction, New Cold Confrontation”; In: Ed Carsten Sander Christensen; Analyzing Political Tensions Between Ukraine, Russia, & the EU; London; 2020; p.99.]

Hence Probsting states that these same Eurasian countries serve as a focus of Russian super-exploitation:

“Russian monopolies also play an important role in the Eurasian countries, albeit more in some than in others. Two Russian economists provide the following assessment: “In 2014, Russian OFDI to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU [a Russia-dominated Eastern version of the European Union]) was close to $15.4 billion, which is equivalent to 4.0 percent of the total Russian OFDI. Both figures nearly doubled in two years (2012-14) after the creation of the Customs Union between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.”

Thesis 8: We are in agreement with Vaughan and Probst, and others – who would maintain that Russia is an imperialist state.

While Norfield’s formulations appear to us, not quite as clear-cut, we do not believe there is any essential difference with Norfield’s overall political conclusion.

Thesis 9: Not explicitly recognising the actions of Russian leaders and oligarchs, as having caused the problems in Ukraine (‘privatising’ of state owned enterprises, corruption at state level, funding of criminal leaders etc.) is dangerous.

It results in some calling themselves Marxists exculpating or denying crimes of Russian capitalists and Putin – as were conducted by Russia in Syria. There the Russian forces defended a corrupt Assad Government and participated in vicious actions against the Syrian people. Marxists in several countries proffered excuses that the war-crimes either did not occur, or were perpetrated by ‘the Syrian people themselves’.

Thesis 10: In this current crisis over the Ukraine – Marxists should recall Lenin’s words that show Marxists that they have more than one enemy alone.

“It is the duty of the socialists of every country to wage an unrelenting struggle against the chauvinism and patriotism of their own country (and not only of the enemy)”.

Obituary: Neil Faulkner, historian, archaeologist and revolutionary (1958-2022)

Marxist historian Neil Faulkner remembered by John Mullen, who knew him, on and off, since the 1970s

John Mullen
07/02/2022

I first met Neil Faulkner in late 1979, when I arrived at King’s College Cambridge as a supremely unsophisticated working-class grammar-school kid. He was involved in an anti-apartheid campaign, and there was a long-running rent strike on at King’s. King’s made bags of money in South Africa, so we paid our rent into another bank account in the hope of pressuring them to disinvest. This campaign gave one of my all-time favourite demonstration slogans: “You say you won’t discuss it? We’ll give you the facts! It’s sherry for the dons, and bullets for the Blacks!”

Neil was energetic and overwhelmingly earnest. Although a state school boy himself, he looked like he had wandered off the set of a period drama – he is the only friend I have ever had who habitually wore a three-piece suit (his favourite was a white one). He put much energy into this anti-apartheid campaign: information exhibitions in the student bar, invited speakers over from South Africa, and direct action against Barclays Bank, the worst of the pro-apartheid banks at the time. Although intimidated, I joined the rent strike and the campaign.

I worked with Neil in a number of actions over the following years, half of which I have forgotten. To popularize a demonstration against new nuclear missiles, we held a sit-in in the local army recruitment office; “We are occupying this office.” I remember Neil announcing, in his fine bourgeois accent. When the Managing Director of British Steel was invited to speak at the prestigious Cambridge Union debating society, in between declaring redundancies in his company, a few dozen of us were outside, chanting “Sack Villiers, not the workers!” Neil led the push to force the doors and got inside briefly before being unceremoniously slung out on his ear.

When a couple of very valuable (and huge) old paintings disappeared from the dining hall of Kings College, the clueless local cops got the idea that this was the sort of thing anti-apartheid activists would do. They came round to my room to have a word with me. “Do you know Neil Faulkner? When did you last see him?” were their first questions.

Neil was a handsome and earnest student activist, standing out among the scruffy and giggly rest of us. He lived in a student room in the college, and his door was always open, even when he was out: anyone could go in and inspect his huge collection of model soldiers, set out on a map used for re-enacting historical battles. I asked him why he always left his door open. “Partly as a matter of principle, John, and partly so that people can get in and out” was his answer. I was a fan. He never actually called me “grasshopper” but there was something of that tone. There were many (shouted) political conversations in the King’s cellar bar disco, with each of us nursing a bottle of Newcastle Brown Ale.

After the anti-apartheid rent strike had been going for a couple of years, regularly voted on at mass student union meetings (where strikers and non-strikers got to vote), there was suddenly a determined attempt to end it. All the right-wing students who never went to union meetings (union membership was automatic for all students) were going to turn up en masse and vote the end of the strike. Many left-wing students were also arguing that, because there was much demoralization, it was best to vote to end the rent strike. I considered this a frankly bizarre argument, but it had a lot of defenders, and I was proud to be one of a very small group following Neil and voting to continue the strike, though we lost the vote.

We were involved in multiple campaigns, and the question of a political party would occasionally raise its head. I had left the Labour Party, after finishing in disbelief the first ever book I read about Northern Ireland. Some months later, Neil joined the Socialist Workers Party. I asked him why. He frowned in concentration. “Well, John, I believe that, if there is a Bolshevik party in Britain today, that party is the Socialist Workers Party.” He really spoke like that. This could not be counted as skilled pedagogy, in that I had never read anything about the Russian revolution, and had a staggeringly vague idea of what a Bolshevik party might look like. It took four more years and the great miners’ strike to recruit me to the party.

After university, not interested in a well-paid career, Neil worked as a full-timer for the anti-apartheid movement. For many years after that we lived in different countries, and were not much in contact. Social media put us back in touch twenty years ago, by which time he was a respected historian and archaeologist, yet he never melted into incomprehensible dusty academic writing. He edited history magazines which sought a broad readership, and wrote for the general reader. He starred in the TV series Time Team, brilliantly popularizing archaeology. He produced a couple of long articles (about the Roman Empire and about the Crusades) for a tiny revolutionary magazine I edited here in France.

He wrote a series of very impressive histories. His history of Roman Britain developed a precious materialist analysis of military expansionism. Then there was a history of the Jewish Revolt against Rome in 66 AD, and one of the Russian Revolution, as well as a monumental Marxist History of the World, from Neanderthals to Neoliberals. He was very skilled at bringing history to life.

He also very much participated in the rise of First World War battlefield archaeology. When the 2014 centenary of the First World War came along, he worked in the No Glory for War campaign. A group of First World War “revisionist” historians led by Gary (“I don’t do theory”) Sheffield were defending the empire and the generals. Neil invited them to debate, and when, very occasionally, they accepted the challenge, he politely ripped them to shreds.

He wrote numerous articles and gave many talks for the SWP on historical topics such as the meeting “What Did the Romans Ever Do For Us?” which I heard at Marxism 2004 in London, and an article in the weekly Socialist Worker Newspaper in 2005 “Hadrian and the Limits of Empire”.

Politically, in my view, leaving the Socialist Workers Party (in 2010, after 30 years) was not good for him. He got involved in breakaways from breakaways, and his energy got taken up in rather convoluted theories which he thought were putting Marxism back on track, but which I didn’t.

It is a great loss to the already extremely small group of activist Marxist historians to lose him at the age of 64. He leaves children who are still very young, which is even sadder. His books, and the memory of his impeccable genial earnestness in defending revolution will help many of us keep going.

Some important works

A People’s History of the Russian Revolution ? Pluto Press/Left Book Club, 2017
A Marxist History of the World: From Neanderthals to Neoliberals ? Pluto Press, 2013
The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain, Tempus, 2000
The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome, Tempus, 2002
A Visitor’s Guide to the Ancient Olympics, Yale University Press, 2012

Election year in France: Some background notes

The French presidential election looks to once more see a run-off between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. Can the Left break through? And what is the threat of Eric Zemmour?

Colin Falconer
03/02/2022

With less than three months to go before the presidential election, the campaign is beginning to heat up. It has long been assumed that the second-round run-off in the presidential race would be a repeat of the 2017 clash between Emmanuel Macron and the leader of the Rassemblement National (RN), Marine Le Pen, and that Macron would be re-elected, possibly with a reduced margin.

But Le Pen, while still odds-on to qualify, is now facing stiff competition from Eric Zemmour, a well-known media personality and even further to the right. Together they represent, disturbingly, up to thirty per cent of the electorate. Macron’s abrasive and often aloof personality hardly endears him to voters, but he is in a good position to be re-elected, mainly because the opposition is fragmented.

One factor, of course, is the electoral system itself. In 2017, Macron was able to win with 66% of the vote in the second round, but only 24% in the first. It was far from an enthusiastic endorsement. Even in the first round, many who previously voted for the centre-left Socialist Party will have voted for him, not because they were convinced by his programme or his personality but in order to avoid a face-off in the second round between the so-called ‘centre-right’ candidate, Fillon, and the far-right Le Pen.

The Mélenchon Challenge

In 2017, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a former Socialist minister and leader of La France Insoumise, ran an imaginative campaign based on a solid reformist programme, and after a late surge achieved an impressive 19.5%, just behind Le Pen (21%) and Fillon (20%). He was also able to attract many voters not because of who he was or what he represented, but because he was seen as the most realistic choice to qualify for the second round.

In 2012, Mélenchon had stood as the candidate of a broad left front, the Front de Gauche, which included his own Parti de Gauche, the Communist Party and others including a small split from the Trotskyist Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire. In 2016 he set up a new movement, La France Insoumise.

The following year he was again backed by the Communist Party, but relations between them were never good and rapidly deteriorated after the election. Mélenchon famously sent an SMS to his Communist counterpart saying “You are death and nothingness”, which was grist to the mill of the sectarian, neo-Stalinist wing of the CP who had never accepted the idea of campaigning for a non-Communist.

In 2018, CP members elected a new, more ‘orthodox’ national secretary, Fabien Roussel, and in 2020 a majority opted for standing a Communist candidate and chose Roussel to represent them. Nevertheless, a minority of Communists, including a few MPs and other national figures, have come out in favour of Mélenchon.

The Most Important Election Issue

2022 is a special year, after two years of a major pandemic, with rates of infection, serious illness and mortality still at a high level. It comes after five years of bitter struggles against pensions ‘reform’, changes in labour relations legislation and other neo-liberal measures, as well as the rise and decline of the Yellow Vests protests, often accompanied by an unprecedented use of force by the police against protesters.

Yet, unlike Hollande, Macron’s rating has not collapsed. He is often credited with having managed the economic effects of the health crisis well, but the cost has been high and the question of who pays is bound to come to the fore. Hence the increased debates about low wages and pensions, taxation, inflation, spending on hospitals and social services, staffing levels in the social services among others.

On 27 January 2022, tens of thousands of trade unionists and others marched to support demands for pay rises, after a hugely successful one-day strike and marches by teachers, and, unusually so close to a national election, more protests are planned.

This re-emergence of social and economic issues, after a period dominated by the pandemic, partly explains the emphasis being put by many on the right, including members of the government and on occasion by Macron himself, on issues such as so-called ‘Islamoleftism’, ‘Muslim separatism’, ‘gender politics’, and ‘political correctness’ (or ‘wokeism’).

Scapegoating migrants, Muslims, and antiracists is sufficiently potent to make an impact and is the basis of support for the Vichy apologist Zemmour. We should also not ignore its influence on parts of the left.

For many, it is time for a reform of political institutions, based on forms of participatory democracy and an increased role for parliament rather than the executive, unelected officials and elite institutions. Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s proposal of a Constituent Assembly within six months of taking office and the proclamation of a 6^th Republic represents this reformist trend in its most radical form; he aims to be, “the last president of the 5^th Republic”. At the same time, he is often criticised from the left, with good reason, for his movement’s lack of transparency and internal democracy – though such criticism is also often motivated by sectarianism.

The Right-Wing Candidates

At the time of writing, the best-placed challengers are Valérie Pécresse, the champion of the centre-right Les Républicains and Marine Le Pen.

But they are closely challenged by Zemmour, who has had some success in attracting dissatisfied supporters of the RN and LR on the basis that he alone defends hard-right, nationalist values. Zemmour has been convicted for hate speech on several occasions, claiming for example that “under 18-year-old migrants are thieves, murderers and rapists – that is all they are” and praising the head of the collaborationist Vichy regime during the Nazi Occupation, Philippe Pétain, for “saving French Jews”.

Zemmour is in favour of repatriating millions of immigrants. Despite, or because of these provocations, several prominent supporters of Le Pen have now defected to Zemmour’s movement, and there are signs that her niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is considering switching sides.

Marine Le Pen, in an attempt to attract centre-right voters and curry favour with French bosses, has toned down some of her rhetoric, admitted mistakes in 2017 (especially during the televised debate with Macron), and no longer advocates leaving the euro zone. But it is unclear how much she can attract support from conservative voters who fear her lack of experience in power.

Today, the RN also portrays itself as the representative of working people and rural communities against the ‘metropolitan élites’. Le Pen proposes, for example, a return to the age of 60 as the legal age of retirement. She has criticised Zemmour for his “brutal” policy on migrants.

Conversely, what has weakened her core support on the right has made her more competitive for the run-off; polls predict a second-round vote share of 45%, compared to 34% five years ago.

Pécresse has also veered to the right, taking former president Nicolas Sarkozy as her model. She has the advantage of her reputation for ‘competence’ – she served as a minister under Sarkozy and currently holds the important office of president of the Île-de-France region, which includes Paris and its suburbs. However, her flagship policies of reducing the civil service by 200,000 workers, raising the retirement age to 65 and ending the cherished 35 hour work week distinguishes her from Le Pen’s appeals to the working class.

The Political Left

Revolutionary socialists do not normally put elections at the centre of their activity, though they don’t ignore their importance. In France, however, there is a tradition of far-left groups standing their own candidates, especially in the presidential election, despite the ‘Bonapartist’ character of the Constitution. However, in recent years their vote has declined from an all-time high of 10% in 2002 (almost equally divided between Lutte Ouvrière’s Arlette Laguiller and the NPA’s Olivier Besancenot) to less than 2% today.

As for the centre-left, the situation is dire. In 2017, after five years of François Hollande’s ‘socialist’ presidency, its share of the vote fell to 28% – a loss of 14% compared with 2012 – while a large number simply refused to vote. The leftish official candidate of the PS, Benoît Hamon, won a mere 6%. Today, the left’s electoral base has shrunk even further. Its best-placed candidate is again Mélenchon, projected to win 8-13%.

At some distance behind Mélenchon, we find the Greens’ MEP Yannick Jadot, the Socialist mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo and the Communist Party’s Fabien Roussel (both on 3%) and a recent addition to the long list of potential left-wing candidates, Christiane Taubira, a former justice minister under Hollande.

The Communist Party’s line under its new leadership is much closer than in the recent past to that of the neo-Stalinist wing of the party. Far from representing a turn to the left, Roussel’s campaign is tinted with nationalism, republican and secularist rhetoric, an emphasis on law-and-order and counterposing ‘class’ issues to questions of oppression. He is also in favour of nuclear power in the name of ‘national sovereignty’. Significantly, he has been applauded by the right-wing Le Figaro newspaper and by Islamophobic secularists.

As for Taubira, her popularity with leftists and progressives stems largely from her role in successfully piloting equal marriage legislation in 2013 and her resignation from Hollande’s government over a restrictive nationality bill, though she is not particularly left-wing. Born in French Guiana and starting her long political career as an advocate of independence, she was the first woman of African heritage to run in a presidential election (in 2002) and has often been a target for racists and reactionary Catholics.

On the far left, the ambitions of unemployed carworker Philippe Poutou (New Anticapitalist Party) and Nathalie Arthaud (Lutte Ouvrière), a teacher, are limited to gaining temporary access to the media in order to publicise class-struggle and recruit new members – both excellent objectives, but irrelevant in electoral terms. There is even a potential third Trotskyist candidate, the young rail worker Anasse Kazib, who heads a ‘left’ split from the NPA. An eloquent speaker, he is popular with many young activists, but is totally unknown to the general public, and ignored by the media and polling organisations.

The left, considered as a broad spectrum, seems confused and needlessly divided. It is true, as some point out, that the left was even more divided in the past, including in the years when Socialists were elected (Mitterand in 1981 and 1988, Hollande in 2012). But at the time, the total left vote in the first round was nearly twice as high as it is today.

The Social Movements

The reasons for this situation go much further than the personal ambitions and character traits of the main left candidates, or the sectarianism of party activists – though these are real problems. Disappointment and disgust with successive right- and left-wing governments and the ‘neither left nor right’ Macron administration have led to a consistent fall in voter turn-out, a decline in party affiliation, an increase in the number of ‘undecided’ voters and general ideological confusion.

While the presidential election usually sees a relatively high turn-out it is likely that many left-wing supporters will abstain. The PS remains, however, a force in local and regional politics, while La France Insoumise (FI) has yet to establish itself locally, though it does have a high-profile group of MPs.

As for the Communist Party, its long decline began in 1981, when its candidate, Georges Marchais, received 4.5 million votes (3 million fewer than François Mitterrand of the PS); in 2007, Marie-George Buffet attracted a mere 0.7 million votes, or 1.9% of the total. While the party continues to have a considerable number of local councillors and a small group of MPs, it lost control of its last county council (département) in 2021 (in the Val-de-Marne) and mainly depends on alliances with the PS or other left groups to maintain its positions.

As for the Greens (known since 2010 as Europe Ecologie-Les Verts), their best results have been obtained in elections to the European Parliament, with a high point in 2019 of 3.1 million votes (13.5%). They last contested the presidential election in 2012, obtaining 0.8 million votes (2.3%).

As in other countries, the political vacuum has been partly filled by far-right ideas and conspiracy theories and the fascists have gained in confidence both in electoral terms and on the streets. Meanwhile, the left is divided on such issues as the EU, Islamophobia, antiracism and so-called ‘wokeism’, nuclear power and international issues such as attitudes towards US, Russian and Chinese imperialism.

The left’s various components are seemingly obsessed by the need to stand their own candidates in order to exist. Yet, after spending much of the presidential campaign underlining their differences or squabbling with their competitors on the left, the party machines will suddenly discover the need to make agreements and alliances in order to win a few seats in the parliamentary elections which follow soon after, leaving little or no time for rank-and-file militants to have their say and the majority of electors more confused and cynical than ever.

Who Will Win?

It is little wonder that, faced with the prospect of five more years for Macron, the victory of Le Pen/Zemmour or the return of the mainstream – but radicalised – right in the shape of Pécresse, many activists are persuaded that, in the short term at least, the left has little or no chance of success. Many continue to support their own party out of habit or loyalty, while others have decided that political parties as such have no future and prefer to be active in their unions or in social or ‘citizens’ movements.

There are two main exceptions. On the one hand, Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise continues to attract new supporters, though there is a considerable turnover of members. It has a well thought-out, reformist, programme, an efficient organisation and plenty of original campaigning ideas: after innovating with parallel public meetings in 2017 using a hologram of Mélenchon, LFI surprised recently with an ‘immersive and olfactory’ meeting using a 360-degree screen and smells of the sea. But while Mélenchon inspires enthusiasm (sometimes verging on idolatry) from a large section of the left, another section is totally allergic or remains highly critical.

Secondly, and contrasting with the character of LFI’s campaign based on full adhesion to the party’s programme and Mélenchon’s leadership, tens of thousands of left activists and sympathisers, including card-carrying party activists, have publicly supported various attempts to bring together the warring left parties. Many of these initiatives are limited to signing online petitions, but there are also local committees in some areas. However, they have been largely ignored or greeted with hostility or scorn by the established leaderships.

Conclusions

The rightward drift of France under Macron and Le Pen’s assiduous ideological efforts is reaping its rewards. Zemmour is a product of this. Even a miraculous consolidation of the left, leading to a run-off with Macron and a left candidate, will not undo these ideological shifts. If there is hope, it lies in the powerful social movements that continue to challenge the French state. The political left has to find a way to resuscitate itself and perhaps these movements offer a basis for recovery.

Marching alongside Nazis is no stroll in the park

Stop the downplaying and denial of Coronavirus

The Left Berlin
01/02/2022

Statement by Aufstehen gegen Rassismus

In a few days, people who trivialize the Coronavirus pandemic are planning to march down your street.

The latest rallies taking place across the country have been initiated by the extreme right. It is therefore not surprising that at these “Corona protests,” racists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis and even representatives of the AfD are spreading hatred. They are finding new supporters among those who compare vaccinations to the Holocaust and demonize masks as symbols of oppression.

Believers in conspiracy narratives look for culprits to Jews or Muslims, who they blame for the situation, and for being in cahoots with the government. Let us not forget: it was conspiracy ideologies like the “Great Replacement” that animated among others the murderers of Walter Lübcke and the assassins of Halle and Hanau to commit their horrific crimes.

It is completely legitimate to criticize the government’s actions during the pandemic. But whoever collaborates with Nazis, racists and trivializers of the Nazi regime makes common cause with them. Whoever cares about democracy cannot allow themselves to be instrumentalized by a right-wing antidemocratic fringe!

Please join us

Please raise your voice in protest against the Corona deniers. Show this radical, loud minority that they do not represent the interests of the majority in solidarity!

Take part in counter-demonstrations or make signs and banners with the slogan “Kein Platz für Nazis” (“No space for Nazis!”) and hang them from or display them prominently in your windows. Give your old sheets a new life! Shout “Masken auf — Nazis raus!” (“Masks on, Nazis out!”) from your window if you feel it. Or x, or y, or z…. Please warn your neighbors, colleagues, friends and people you know about the Covid trivializers and their pact with the enemies of our democracy.

Materials against “Querdenken” and the pact with the AfD, Reichsbürger and the like are available here. Simply download, print, display and show the right-wingers they have no business whatsoever in your street!

Get involved

Feel free to contact us via email for more information: info@aufstehen-gegen-rassismus.de Aufstehen gegen Rassismus (AgR) — Stand Up Against Racism

MASKS ON

NAZIS OUT!

This text originally appeared on a leaflet from Aufstehen gegen Rassismus. Translation: Julie Niederhauser. Reproduced with permission

Nonsense and Panic – Berlin Bulletin No. 198

Vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach was sacked because he told the truth about anti-Russian warmongering

Victor Grossman
31/01/2022

Why do foolhardy spoilers insist on causing embarrassment? Why must out-of-step fools upset well-steered apple-carts? Why did German vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach open his big mouth on Saturday in far-off Mumbai and spill so many beans?

Many or most U.S. media overlooked it – that is, buried it. Or emasculated it. In Germany they couldn’t fully ignore it – though unpleasant as a messy cat cadaver near the red carpet at a major film event. This was no star-studded premiere, however, but a dangerous, frightening political and military program, and the disturbing element was not a raggedy, dead alley-cat but the elegantly-uniformed boss of the German Navy. Yet here, too, a demise was involved – that of the vice-admiral’s career!

What sin earned him such a fate? When asked about the month-long NATO-Washington campaign against Putin and Russia, based only on vague, dubious assumptions and prophesies by anonymous experts yet rushing headlong toward military catastrophe, this top-level expert had the temerity to puncture the foundation of the whole campaign with one word: “Nonsense!”

Is Schönbach a concealed, left-over leftist? By no means! Indeed, his views on other matters – like China – are far from pacifist. But in just a few words he recalled the glass-shattering voice of little Oskar Matzerath in Günter Grass’ “The Tin Drum.” When asked “What do you think Russia really wants?” this navy boss responded: “Is Russia really interested in adding a tiny little strip of Ukraine to its territory? No, that is nonsense! I think Putin is using pressure because he is able to. He knows that he can split the European Union. What he really wants is respect. He wants respect on a basis of equality. My God, give him respect! That costs so little, really nothing at all. If you ask me – but nobody asks me: It is easy to pay him the respect which he desires and really deserves. Russia is an ancient country, Russia is an important country. Even we, India, Germany, need Russia, we need Russia against China.” While his reasoning may be questionable, his taboo-breaking disclosure, based on inside knowledge, was rendered even more troublesome by his next contribution to the discussion: “Crimea is gone…and will never come back, that is a fact.”

Schönbach, who had been commanding an armed frigate waving the German flag in Indo-Pacific waters, was speaking to a group of Indian military men in Mumbai. Thus, his advocacy of lining up with Russia against China was not surprising – nor was it realistic. But the revelation by a top insider in the NATO military machine was like a gut punch to all the hysteria about those deep dark secret plans of Putin.

The result was: The new Minister of Defense, Christine Lambrecht, a Social Democrat, suspended him immediately from all duties and titles. Her earlier predecessor, Ursula von der Leyen, now European Union boss, announced that the EU has allocated over 17 billion euros in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014 and now plans 1.2 billion more. Its foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, in worrisome disregard of Schönbach’s disclosure, turned up the heat:

“The core message is this: Europe is in danger. I wish it were different, but the last two years have seen a serious worsening of our strategic environment. … I am convinced that today we are living through the most dangerous moment of the post-Cold War period. We face the risk of a major military conflict on our continent.“

Based on such assumptions, Denmark sent fighter jets to Lithuania and a frigate to the Baltic in the Russian north, France plans on sending troops to Romania and Spain a frigate to Russia’s Black Sea region in the South, Poland demanded more NATO troops and armaments in Russia’s west, and in Washington the House voted for an increase in arms shipments to Ukraine, while 41 of the 50 Democrats in the Senate, including Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Chris Murphy and Jeff Merkley, had already agreed on similar plans to send $500 million more in military aid to Ukraine in 2022, making it the third-largest recipient of such funding, behind only Israel and Egypt. More funds would also strengthen Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. (Could that be labeled “influencing elections in other countries”? Or was that something done only by Putin?)

Nor was the GOP shy. It submitted a similar bill and Michael McCaul (TX), top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, asserted that “We need joint exercises in Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, Bulgaria, to show Putin that we’re serious…Right now, he doesn’t see we’re serious.”

But with annual NATO troops, tanks and fighter planes maneuvering in a tight ring on Russian borders and up to 800 US military or naval bases in a wide ring surrounding its heartland it is highly likely that Mr. Putin does indeed see that they’re serious. It is just hard facts that motivate Russian policy in Ukraine and Belarus, not any useless, clearly suicidal attacks against Ukraine now treated as facts in the West but called “Nonsense” by the ex-admiral.

Former Bundeswehr leader steps in

Then more unexpected voices could be heard. One belonged to retired General Harald Kujat, commanding Inspector General of Germany’s Bundeswehr from 2000 to 2002 and then, until 2005, the chairman of NATO´s top level Military Committee. You can’t get any higher than that. In a TV interview (which quickly disappeared) Kojat said:

“If I were still in office I would have stood up for Admiral Schönbach, and tried in every way to prevent his dismissal… A criticism of the way Schönbach voiced his views is understandable in the current heated situation …But it must be in our interest to achieve a sensible result, to de-escalate and arrive at a relaxation of tension with Russia, of course with consideration of Ukrainian security interests as well. … However, we cannot tolerate a situation in which we are always talking about war instead of talking about how a war can be prevented.”

Then hard-liner Markus Söder, Bavaria’s right-wing minister president, came up the same surprising sentiment: “Nobody can want a war in Europe. The territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine must be respected. But constant new threats and tougher and tougher sanctions against Russia can not be the only solution.”

Most surprisingly perhaps, Annalena Baerbock, the new foreign minister from the Green party and notoriously belligerent and bellicose in regard to Russia and China, turned to the official German policy of sending no military weapons to conflict areas – a porous policy with huge weapons shipments to Israel, Egypt and other officially peaceful but very conflict-ridden regions. But now, very correctly, Ukraine was offered only a medical unit. When the pressure was stepped up, she increased the offer, permitting the sale of defense bunkers – and then 5000 military helmets – but none of the death-dealing weapons Ukrainian leaders were heatedly demanding. This offer, they made clear, amounted to an insult. But Baerbock stuck to it and even toned down her usual aggressive vocabulary, presumably reflecting some views of the new government with clauses, new for her, like: “Dialogue has absolute priority” and ”Whoever is talking is not shooting!”

Baerbock added another surprise by dropping her fervent opposition to the newly-completed but still unused Baltic gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Economic factors were undeniable; Germany is shutting down its atomic plants and aims (though far too slowly) to cut down and then shut down coal-driven power plants. But with far too little wind , sunshine or water power to fill current energy needs (while top-level profits are always protected), prices for household heating and cooking and for industry are soaring alarmingly, with possible political repercussions. This is leading the new German government to reject US pressure to shut the pipeline and buy more expensive gas elsewhere – like from American frackers.

Does this mean that the long tug-of-war between the strong Russophobes, or “Atlanticists”, and those producers still dependent on sales of cars, machinery, chemicals and foodstuffs to Russia is not moving the way many people feared or expected with the new government? For better or worse, that seemingly eternal umbilical cord might be further fraying.

Even in the USA, Joe Biden seemed – on and off – to be keeping one ear open to those who want to “cool it,” or at least mix some talking with the arming. Of course the danger of using provocations abroad to win elections at home is always present, and there are plenty in politics and the media always willing or eager to risk this path. One prime example is the news agency Politico, now owned by the mighty far-right Axel Springer company, Germany’s Murdock equivalent, which recently ran hellfire and brimstone articles on Putin’s bloodthirsty plans – all based on unnamed “experts” but helpfully labeled at the top: “Presented by Lockheed Martin.” That’s the outfit whose F-35 fighter planes and other useful items helped them rake in over $62 billion in revenue in 2020. Marilyn Hewson, chairman, president and chief executive officer, was rewarded with $20.2 million in 2017. But let’s not jump to any hasty conclusions about war-hungry complicity! Or lobbying!

Reactions from the German Right

I think Americans are deeply troubled by Covid-19, Omicron, and all too often by steep prices, medical costs, rent increases, opioids – but rarely by possible conflicts in far-off places. People in Germany, also troubled by viruses and the incredible bungling and endless daily arguments about possible compulsory vaccination, the proper age for vaccination, school opening or closing with or without masks, about lockdowns and about the sometimes violent demonstrations – with some leftists as well as rightists (and loonies) opposing vaccination (or opposing the opposers). Also very disturbing – for Roman Catholics (and many new ex-Catholics) – was the giant new scandal in Munich affecting church dignitaries, including ex-Pope Benedict XVI (who was caught in a lie), and their decades-long cover-ups of multiple sexual abuses.

Headlines also featured the choice of Friedrich Merz as new chairman of the Christian Democratic Union and head of its Bundestag caucus. Merz, for sixteen years an unlucky rival and loser to the more moderate Angela Merkel, will most likely move the party, now in opposition, well to the right; Merz, a multimillionaire, faithful “Atlanticist” and dedicated anti-leftist (his main book is titled “Dare Have More Capitalism),” was the German chairman of Blackrock, the world’s largest asset manager, before re-entering politics.

Even further to the right, Jörg Meuthen, till now the main spokesman for Alternative for Germany (AfD), who tried to maintain a more respectable camouflage for the party, has quit the job and the party, abandoning it to the most overt and vicious pro-fascists.

But while Germans may not be much more interested in Ukraine than Americans, their grandparents told them enough about that last big war to keep a majority from wanting to risk another one. The disaster in Afghanistan and the military mess in Mali have hardly increased anyone’s enthusiasm.

But how many will defy viruses and inertia for this year’s peace marches – in Germany at Eastertime? How many will defy Lockheed and Krupp death merchants or Axel Springer hate-mongers, all loaded with power measured in billions? Will they realize that the terrible threat to “poor democratic Ukraine” recalls “Remember the Maine” and phony Vietnamese attacks on US warships (in Vietnamese waters) and so many other “security threats”? They led to so much misery and bloodshed – and this time could lead to far, far worse)? Can peace movements make the citizenry aware of the danger facing it, worse even than job loss, ecology or viruses? Can enough people in many countries recognize that supposed facts are manufactured “Nonsense” – but insanely dangerous nonsense?

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

Postscript: I was just about to mail off this Berlin Bulletin when I received a report on a press conference of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with foreign journalists in which he stated that Russia is not attacking his country and news reports are “out of balance”.

“We see today no greater escalation than we did earlier. Yes, the number of (Russian) troops has increased, but I already spoke about that in early 2021 during Russian military exercises. ..The media conveys the impression that we are at war, that tanks are rolling, troops marching around, that there is a mobilization, that people are in flight. That is not true. We do not need such panic. … I have been speaking with leading politicians and explaining that we are forced to stabilize our economy because of all such signals that there will be war tomorrow. The signals even came from respected politicians who said openly, not even in diplomatic language, that ‘there will be war tomorrow’. That leads to panic. Panic on the stock markets, panic in the financial sector. 12.5 billion have been withdrawn from Ukraine since the panic began, which is very costly for the Ukrainians.”

Zelensky also called on Russia to reduce its military deployment and thus lessen tension. Some media used these words – and not what he said earlier. Others ignored all of it.