The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

What Evergrande Can Teach Us About Economic Growth

Despite the geographic and social distance between China and Germany, there are important lessons in this saga for the German left

Ali Khan
10/01/2022

The misery of Evergrande, China’s second largest property developer by sales, is an ongoing saga. Although apparently sudden, the “crisis” is, clearly, engineered by Chinese governmental policy with specific aims and intentions. The political economy of China exerts a gravitational force that is felt in every corner of the world.

The Evergrande Crisis and The Middle Income Trap

Chinese policy makers are trying to break a recurring economic ceiling, the dreaded ‘middle income trap’. They believe that the flow of money in the Chinese economy needs to be recalibrated sharply away from ‘non-productive investment’. This would involve building domestic consumption while presumably maintaining a strong export base not unlike Germany’s.

In this regard, the business of buying land and building buildings on it to sell at a mark-up is non-productive. The non-productive aspect arises when the demand for property skews the value of the material inputs of construction to artificially high values. It achieves growth on paper (as the value of assets within the country rises) but incentivises directing the flow of money (from investors abroad and at home) into assets that are extremely overvalued. The demand for these “safe” assets creates an economic bubble and makes housing unaffordable for the subsequent generation. Furthermore, when these practices are carried on the scale of Evergrande, entire segments of the economy reliant on these practices fall with them – a systemic shock. The bursting of the bubble can take with it the life savings of working people and their source of employment.

Evergrande became a behemoth of the market through the practice of borrowing money from banks and investors (in China and abroad) by promising unrealistic returns, buying up land and starting construction, attracting deposits from potential customers, and then starting the cycle again without delivering what was promised. When lending policies were tightened by the state and cash reserve requirements increased, the group that flew too close to the sun was the first one to fall. Since market confidence tends to drop precipitously, a share sell-off began that collapsed its price. Now the state is involved in managing the systemic risks Evergrande’s demise would entail.

Why Now?

The difference between the uncertain real value of assets and their (inflated) market value represents the size of the adjustment. This is the hit that all actors have to disperse between themselves somehow since the money has already been spent. Some actors within the economic ecosystem squandered more money than others however if they were to bear these losses, they too would be bankrupted. For example, a worker losing half the value of their savings invested in Evergrande as opposed to a corporation like Blackrock.

The sooner the state steps in to call time on this speculative bubble, the smaller the adjustment. In short, the best time to deflate a bubble is as soon as the state is ready to absorb the fallout. A chaotic deflation, such as in the 2008 crash in the US, will likely lead to a kind of social collapse.

Lessons For The Left

The collapse and neoliberal capture of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the integration of China in the neoliberal economic order, the end of the postwar social democratic settlement; all these events have their unique character and history yet they were influenced deeply by the rapidly globalising economy of the time. An inability to adapt to these trends contributed to the demise of these states, while China’s technocratically deft evasion of shock therapy left it standing as the last major state flying the banner of communism.

Yet it is difficult to escape the realization that China’s position as the world’s manufacturing hub weakened the power of organised labour across the world. China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001 but there is yet to be a grand unification of Chinese labor with world labor. Critiques of China from the left should focus on this shortcoming. Internationalism is a pillar of leftism after all.

China’s economy must be engaged with on an equal footing with the US economy. A harsh winter in China can rapidly increase demand for gas and the economic effects of this can be felt in Europe. Therefore, when China is trying to readjust its economic model to break through a perceived economic ceiling, we need to think about its implications.

Since the 70’s, oil was the limiting commodity that shaped foreign policy and economics. However, in the next three decades, a catalogue of commodities will become scarce. China’s dominance of the rare earth market has been frequently cited. The semiconductor market is a strategic battlefield, with the US government blocking a Chinese acquisition of a US manufacturer. The EU has been monitoring, with increasing vigour, the supply of what it calls critical raw materials. The aim of this competition is to engineer a consumption oriented and constantly growing economy in defiance of any laws of nature.

Leftists take it as an article of faith that imperialism is the life blood of present day prosperity in the Global North. It is now accepted that this prosperity also comes at the cost of the destruction of the planet’s ability to support life. Therefore, we must regrettably confront that China’s ambitions to achieve, as an example, European levels of per capita income is an environmentally suicidal ambition. Simultaneously, we cannot deny any nation the right to give its citizens a better quality of life.

This is where we on the left need to break with economics as a discipline. The statistics of growth, GDP, trade deficits cease to be useful and require us to articulate an economics of equilibrium and redistribution. China’s economy is extremely unequal, like all capitalist economies. If it remains this unequal, and triples in size, human survival will be impossible.

I believe we need to seriously attempt to do our own economic analysis of what is possible with the resources we have already extracted globally. Perhaps we need to estimate, country by country, how much money each citizen needs to meet their basic needs in addition to a bonus for luxury. The World Bank has long been the gatekeeper of what the poverty line is, setting a ridiculously low threshold (see concluding paragraph of hyperlink). We on the left need to calculate a real poverty line, based on the actual cost of survival in addition to a realistic survival and prosperity line acting as a ceiling. These should become concrete demands that are adapted in struggles across the world. Those above the ceiling must pay for the uplift of those below the floor.

The uplift of the Chinese masses should be welcomed and advocated on the left. But just as we care about the structural effects of inequality on US politics, we need to think about the structural impediments of inequality in China. Saber rattling and trade warfare are the means used to divide the masses whose interests are common. As we continually overshoot the natural ceiling of extraction imposed by nature, we need to calculate with precision the material bounds of those common interests. As ever, in a globalised world economy, global solidarity and cooperation are essential.

The left faces particular linguistic and cultural barriers in building bridges with Chinese workers and activists. All of these efforts are further complicated with rampant Sinophobic propaganda in the Global North, the egregious acts of an assertive Chinese state, and the even more egregious acts of the declining US empire. The left should focus more sharply on understanding Chinese workers, their working conditions, and what can be done to help them improve them.

Radio Berlin International #2 Palestinian artists, Sudan, bell hooks

In this week’s episode, we’ll be checking out a new exhibition by Palestinian artists that opened this weekend in Berlin. We also look at protests in Sudan and bell hooks

The Left Berlin

Episode 2: 9 January 2022 with Ahmed Isamaldin

In this week’s episode, we’ll be checking out a new exhibition by Palestinian artists that opened this weekend in Berlin. We’ll have a live studio guest to tell us about the latest protests in Sudan, and how the German government has been propping up the country’s military regime. Finally we’ll honor the black feminist writer bell hooks, who died mid-December and was a huge influence on justice movements in Berlin and around the world.

This episode’s guest is Ahmed Isamaldin.

The presenter is Annie Musgrove.

The show was produced by Tom Wills and the studio engineer for reboot.fm was Franziska Duchemin.

This episode’s playlist was:

Shadi Zaqtan – News
Marcel Khalife – The Passport
A.G Nimeri – سودان بدون كيزان

More information on the exhibition discussed in this episode here.

We won the housing referendum in 2021. Let’s get it implemented in 2022.

The vote for expropriation must be respected. This requires more direct action, not hope in the courts or the new Berlin government

Phil Butland
08/01/2022

On 26th September 2021, parallel to the national and local elections, citizens of Berlin took part in a referendum. 59.1% – over a million people – voted to expropriate the corporate landlords. If this result is implemented, all flats and houses owned by companiesin possession of 3,000 or more units will be put into public ownership.

The referendum had been called by “Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen” (DWE, expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co) an initiative which targeted large real estate companies. Thousands of activists got involved, doing everything from collecting signatures and attending demonstrations to knocking on doors and joining a cheer leading action group.

The campaign did not come out of nowhere. As in many cities world-wide, housing prices in Berlin have been rising at an extortionate rate. In 2014, a similar referendum prevented houses being built on the grounds of the old Tempelhof airport – now a popular park. Many of the DWE activists had cut their teeth in the 100% Tempelhofer Feld campaign.

In the run up to the referendum, the Berlin government introduced a city-wide rent cap. After pressure from the CDU (conservative) and FDP (liberal) parties, this law was deemed unconstitutional by the courts, even though it was very popular with tenants. This decision only strengthened grassroots support for the new referendum.

Who were the actors?

It was important that DWE was a cross-party initiative, as well as involving many people who felt alienated from party politics. Many more people voted for expropriation than for any individual party. It is likely that people voted in the housing referendum but not in the local and national elections going on at the same time.

All left of centre parties supported the referendum, but with different levels of enthusiasm. Although there was a degree of support from the SPD (social democrat) basis, party leader Franziska Giffey was implacably opposed from the start. The Greens formally supported the referendum, but leading Green politicians insisted that even if there was a vote for expropriation, they would only implement it “as a last resort”. Only the left party, die LINKE, wholeheartedly supported the campaign.

But if support was lacking from the main parties, many other organisations were active in the campaign. Most tenants’ organisations and the Berlin branches of many trade unions supported DWE, as could be seen by the flags at the many demonstrations that were organised.

I would like to pay particular mention to one group – non-Germans. Only German citizens were allowed to vote in the referendum. In a city where nearly a quarter of the inhabitants do not hold a German passport, this excluded nearly a million people. And yet throughout the campaign, hundreds of non-Germans were active in the DWE working group Right2TheCity.

As one of those activists, I was one of the lucky ones as I have dual citizenship. But I can attest to the fact that although people without citizenship were unable to vote, they are indeed affected by the result – non-Germans already pay disproportionately high rents.

What happens now?

Tenants in Berlin have now reached a stalemate. Berlin’s rent freeze has been rejected by the courts. The referendum has been passed, but it has not yet been implemented. And the new Berlin government – led by the aforementioned Franziska Giffey as mayor – will be very reluctant to displease the real estate lobby, which invests a lot of money in supporting politicians and political parties.

On the same day as the referendum, there were elections in Berlin. The result of post-election talks means that the city will continue to be ruled by the SPD, Greens and LINKE, but with die LINKE much weaker than before. Under the previous administration, the housing senator was a LINKE councillor – now it will be someone from the SPD.

Instead of promising to implement the referendum, the new coalition announced that it would set up a “commission of experts” to look at the feasibility of expropriation. This commission will take months to set up, and then has a year to make a recommendation. The government has the option of rejecting any recommendation and doing whatever it wants.

This is a clear attempt by the coalition to demobilise the campaign. The referendum was able to win because of a couple of years of nearly constant activity. We are now expected to wait at least 18 months to see what happens next. Giffey, and her supporters, hope that this will be enough time for us to become demoralised and leave the streets, so that she can implement a shoddy compromise with no serious opposition.

The role of the Left

This is the background to the recent vote among LINKE party members about whether the party should join the ruling coalition. I voted “No”, as did every active member of my local branch in the working class district of Wedding. And yet we were in the clear minority, as 75% of the party members who voted chose to join the government.

I think this is a serious mistake. If necessary, the SPD and Greens can rely on the support of right wing parties to push through policies which protect Big Real Estate. But, as part of the ruling coalition, die LINKE will now discourage independent activity, saying that change can be implemented in parliamentary debates. This will demobilise the mass movement.

The recent case of the rent cap has also shown that we cannot rely on the courts. There may be occasions when strategic litigation is necessary to build other movements, but the courts are not our territory. They largely exist to protect property, and cannot be relied upon to oppose the big real estate companies.

The key to our success is to maintain Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen as a mass movement on the streets and in our local communities. Ten years and more of struggles against gentrification and for fair rents have strengthened our networks. Without a clear focus in the near future, it will be difficult to maintain the current level of activity – but we have certainly not lost yet.

The housing movement is also generalising politically, and starting to address other issues. Right2TheCity is now working with other migrant groups to demand voting rights for people who pay rents and taxes, but who are unable to vote in most referenda and elections. The DWE campaign has taught us that when we unite, we are strong. La lotta continua.

The Heavy Cost of Demanding Basic Rights

Indian farmers and other activists have forced Modi to repeal the Farm Laws, but with over 700 dead the struggle must continue

Berlin for India
06/01/2022

On the occasion of the Sikh holy festival of Guru Nanak Jayanti, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made an announcement on national television. In an unprecedented U-turn, he promised that the three farm laws that farmers in India had been protesting against would be repealed. The laws were subsequently repealed in the winter session of the parliament.

Since November 2020, a coalition of farmers’ organizations, collectives, farmworkers’ unions and families and individuals working in the agricultural sectors had been camped on the outskirts of the capital New Delhi. They demanded that the government repeal the three farm laws it pushed through both houses of parliament earlier that year. These laws were passed without consultation with opposition parties, stakeholders, and farmers unions and were criticized for favoring free market and business interests at the cost of farmers’ livelihoods. The laws allowed the market and the private sector to play a greater role in agricultural value creation. They included the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020.

The announcement marked a major victory for the largest democratic protest that we have seen in recent years. Braving the cold, violence from the police, water cannons, and industrial scale barricades at the border, the farmers’ protest finally forced a stubborn government to admit defeat. During this year, the state used a range of tactics to suppress the movement: state-aligned media ran smear campaigns portraying the farmers as terrorists, as separatists, or as wealthy landowners. On social media farmers had to contend with disinformation campaigns and censorship. They faced police repression, physical attacks, intimidation, and had false cases filed against leaders for protesting. Some estimates indicate that during the year-long protest, over 700 farmers lost their lives, even as the government claims it has no record of these deaths.

Agrarian Crisis and Remaining Demands

While the three laws have been repealed, the struggle to rectify the agrarian crisis remains. Neo-liberal policies and practices have hit small and landless farmers hard, causing dwindling incomes and rising debt. “It’s not so much that democracy is working in India as much as the fact that these farmers refuse to acquiesce to the neoliberal takeover of their existences” explains human rights activist Guneet Kaur in an interview.

Even after Modi’s announcement, the farmers announced that they would continue their agitation until their remaining demands are met. These include introducing a law that guarantees Minimum Support Price (MSP), providing compensation, rehabilitation and accountability for the deaths caused by state repression of over 700 protesters, exemption from criminal liability under anti-pollution laws for burning crop stubble, the withdrawal of the Electricity (Amendment) Bill, and withdrawing cases against farmer and union leaders and other persons.

After talks with the government, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), the coalition body of various farmers’ groups leading the protests, received a letter on 9 December from the government with proposals to resolve remaining demands. Following this, SKM announced the suspension for the protests at the Delhi border, whilst stating that a meeting will be held in the middle of January to review the situation.

“…an agrarian-centered network has emerged in the course of these protests which transcends state lines, often transcends class and caste divisions…”

“One of the central questions for the movement now is: what happens to the 700 people who have been killed by an indifferent, arrogant, and belligerent state? Some murderers are ministers and their relatives who are roaming around freely”, said Guneet Kaur referring to the incident in Lakhimpur Kheri where four farmers were murdered by being run over by an SUV. Union Minister Ajay Mishra’s son is an accused in the incident.

New Networks and Alliances

During the course of the more than year-long blockade and encampment, the movement has engendered numerous networks, alliances, and relationships, built around a quasi-city. For one, an agrarian-centered network has emerged in the course of these protests which transcends state lines, often transcends class and caste divisions, and is poised to challenge the attempts of the industrialist-friendly central government to accumulate wealth in the agrarian sector. Secondly, the movement has created a range of relationships, networks, and subjectivities. These include women’s groups fighting for land and against sexual violence, to transnational alliances of farmworkers unions which coordinated actions, protests, and strikes in several parts of the nation state, in addition to international funding and support networks through diasporic and solidarity networks.

“The new alliances formed through the farmers’ protest have to be wary of the current decision to repeal these laws as it is by a government that has time again shown its nonchalance for human lives…”

Several hundred songs, music videos, and thousands of self-made reels and videos focused around sustaining a blockade have been created and circulated over the course of the year. Finally, consciousness about the collaboration between the government, its agencies and executive branches, the media, and industrialist-capitalist interests has become a baseline for anyone associated with the movement.

Although the three laws have been repealed, they have been repealed unilaterally and undemocratically much like most of the decisions made by the Modi government. After the repeal of the 3 farm laws, the SKM wrote an open letter criticizing the Prime Minister’s unilateral declaration which was delivered without direct engagement, despite them having had 11 rounds of talks with the government. That the sitting government’s decision to repeal the laws is hinged on the upcoming elections in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Punjab is very obvious from the force with which it is going through the assembly elections despite fears of an oncoming omicron wave. This is much like the campaigning and elections held across several states in India during April-May 2021 that contributed to the deadly second wave in the country. Although the Election Commission’s inaction at this stage may be the one to blame, the autonomy of most institutions in India currently is compromised. The new alliances formed through the farmers’ protest have to be wary of the current decision to repeal these laws as it is by a government that has time again shown its nonchalance for human lives and disregard of public health for the benefit of its survival.

Despite this, the farmers’ movement brought together multiple groups that can continue to mount a serious challenge to market power and vested government interests to expand the struggle to resist the draconian labor laws, policies, and the struggle for achieving dignified working conditions and rights.

This article was written by members of Berlin for India, a collective based in Berlin.

Shuffled Cards – Berlin Bulletin No. 197

What can we expect of the new governments in Germany and Berlin in 2022? And how strong is the left opposition?

Victor Grossman
02/01/2022

Dear readers, friends and relatives,

Plenty has been happening in Germany these past months, in Berlin most especially. And where were the BERLIN BULLETINS or, more exactly, where was their author? The answer is simple. Like Germany and most of the world, I got hit by Corvid (despite two vaccinations). I was ill for four weeks, three in the hospital (one in Intensive Care). Now recuperating at home (with a tube pumping oxygen into my nostrils), I have finally gathered up enough energy to get them going again. (But Germany is still in an epidemic mess, with rules changing every day, and protests continuing!)

++++

After the German elections on September 26th it took, as usual, weeks and weeks for the three coalition parties to agree: On one program, full of compromises, pledges and promises (some of which may even been be kept) and to resolve quarrels over who gets which cabinet seat. The answer to that old question, “Who’s on first?” was clear – Olaf Scholz, the Social Democrat (SPD), became chancellor, after sixteen years with Merkel. Finally, on Dec. 8th, he and 16 cabinet ministers were sworn in. Nine pious ones added an appeal to the divinity, “so help me God!” while the five Green ministers and three of the six Social Democrats (including Scholz) decided to risk the job without His Assistance.

Pious or not, they were faced by the old truism, “Two’s company, three’s a crowd!” The SPD still calls itself “left” and tries somehow to appeal to workers, or at least union leaders. The Greens, once the party of rebelliousness, still stand for women’s rights, gay rights in all variations, opposing neo-Nazis and far-right xenophobia. But they have grown tamer and tamer. While still playing their basic environment-ecology card they often cozy up to monopolies who like to talk green but always think first of their bank accounts. In southern Baden-Württemberg, the Greens’ one and only state governor gets along fine with Daimler-Benz, the giant which is centered there. In Hesse, as junior coalition partners of the Christian Democrats (CDU), they have had no known run-ins with the bank interests centered in Frankfurt/Main. All the same, the media still classifies those two as “left” – or at least “center-left”.

But that third Free Democratic Party (FDP) is unabashedly right-wing pro-capitalist, at least in all economic matters. Despite the fewest popular votes of the three its’ good-looking, well-spoken one-man boss, Christian Lindner, has a loud voice. It is he who grabbed the powerful job of Finance Minister and has taken a no-compromise stand against raising taxes on the super-rich (using the same leak-down arguments as in the USA since Reagan). While SPD and Greens have ties with the monopolies, they occasionally move them to make limited concessions. Like raising minimum wages, some aid to children and a few more euros to the jobless. But Lindner and his FDP belong outright to the ‘biggies’. Whether the pandemic wanes or worsens: working people, the jobless, the elderly, and several millions with precarious, temp, gig, part-time and unprotected jobs will all have to exert strong pressure “from below” to hinder further stagnation or worse.

Even more disturbing – or alarming – is foreign policy. The media contains constant, often daily warnings about Russian plans for aggression against the Ukraine. The so-called Very High Readiness Joint Task Force has cut the time allotted for going into action from seven to five days. What was lacking, however, was any evidence of anything else but the stationing of Russia’s forces within its own borders, while the military forces of fifteen NATO countries, including the USA, Germany and Britain, conduct annual maneuvers – far from their homes but all along Russian boundaries.

Sevim Dagdelen, the most militant deputy of The Left in the Bundestag, used the question time to ask what the basis was for the frightening build-up. The official answer was: “In this exceptional case, security requirements “ which made it impossible to give her an answer. Video films on TV of Russian tanks sitting near the Ukrainian border show no activity at all but are used over and over, obviously for lack of anything more convincing. The media’s blood-thirstiest warrior, the Springer Company “Das Bild,” printed a map with arrows showing Russian strategy plans. But – oh dear – the name given Lviv (or Russian Lvov) was Lemberg, not used since 1945; they seem to have used an old Nazi-era map (or older). (Note: The far-right Springer Co. now owns the news agency Politico, which seems to be just as alarmist.)

And who is now in charge of German foreign policy? It is Annalena Baerbock, the Greens party leader and always among the loudest in belligerent, bellicose statements against Russia, and now China too.

German foreign policy has long been divided between: First the “Atlanticist” position – all for armaments and maneuvers along Russian borders and in the South China Sea, the more the better; and second the commercial position, reflecting the need for trade with Russia and even more with China, its main trading partner. Merkel was caught in the middle. Some in the SPD may also prefer trade and diplomacy to belligerence or war. The Green leaders (though not all of their grass roots membership) are avid Atlanticists. Baerbock made that clear: “We stand by our responsibility within the framework of NATO and the EU and also for nuclear participation… We have to procure the successor system for the (A-bomb-carrying, VG) Tornado because the conventional capabilities have to be replaced.”

Although a majority of Germans want no military action, the peace movement, though valiant, is still far too weak and splintered, and currently even side-lined by weekly protest marches by the corvid-downplaying anti-vaxing crowd, which includes both leftists as well as far-rightists.

And what about The Left?

The disastrous results of the September election (4.9%) have been blamed on all sorts of things, often on the left wing of the party’s stress on opposing NATO and deploying of German soldiers abroad. But far more convincing is the charge that the major mistake was the dream of many party leaders of becoming the third party in a coalition with the SPD and Greens. This led them to resolutely attack the Christian Democrats (CDU), who were never their rivals for votes. This would ‘spare the rod’ with the Greens and SPD – in hopes of being accepted by them as partners in a new government. But this did not hurt the CDU at all; if anything it brought them votes which might have gone to The Left. In the election, the Christians lost and so did The Left. The latter had sadly neglected its two major playing cards: the militant spokesperson for working people, the jobless and poorly paid – and the only genuine party for peace. With the collapse of the war in Afghanistan it passed up the opportunity to loudly recall: “Only WE, alone, opposed that war from the start!” and “We must never again engage in a NATO war or any foreign war!”

Even more basic, just one major candidate of The Left, co-chairwoman Janine Wissler, hesitantly attacked the whole billionaire-led system. It’s a daring stand, risky, but gaining ground. If matched by a genuine street-for-street fight for people’s rights it can have surprising results; a Communist woman recently won out as mayor in Austria’s second city, Graz.

The city-state Berlin also had elections on September 26th. For five years it has been ruled by that very same SPD-Greens-The Left coalition which some in The Left dreamt of achieving on a national scale. In vain! But in Berlin – Germany’s capital and biggest city – the state election results made it logical, arithmetically, to renew that coalition for five more years and avoid upsetting the applecart.

Then how could anyone favour breaking up this ruling trinity? There were some possible reasons. The five past years in government had cost The Left votes: it had dropped from third place in 2016 (with 15.6%) to fourth place, (with 14.1%) now behind the Greens, and lost its traditional first place in three East Berlin boroughs. Almost every time The Left manages to join a government coalition it loses votes in the following election. For protest voters it has become part of the Establishment.

Now, as the weakest partner, it lost its key cabinet post, Housing – after a disappointing (because greatly obstructed) record in building new apartment houses.

But the over-riding issue was the amazing initiative demanding the “confiscation” (though paying for it at market prices) of all housing owned by the seven companies with over 3000 apartments. In especial ‘Deutsche Wohnen’, which owns 243,000 of Berlin’s 1.5 million apartments. Members of The Left had outdone themselves to get this initiative on the ballot, collecting 350,000 signatures. Meanwhile its coalition partner the SPD opposed it and the Greens waffled and dragged their feet. This was the biggest truly fighting step The Linke has ever taken.

All Germany was amazed when over a million Berliners voted a resounding “Ja” – 59.1% (to 40.9% voting “Nein.”)! People everywhere, hit hard by rapidly rising rents and fearful of being forced out of their homes (and in Germany a majority live in rented apartments), hoped the move might spread beyond Berlin. The real estate giants, nearly all foreign-controlled, feared cuts in their big profits and grand gentrification plans and had exerted every possible form of pressure – but lost!

However, the vote is only a requirement to put the matter on the agenda of the Berlin legislature, not to enforce action. And that means trouble, most clearly in the form of Berlin’s new mayor. Franziska Giffey of the SPD, young, attractive, popular, once a borough mayor in West Berlin, then a cabinet minister in the national government. But only until it was “unearthed” that, in 205 pages of her doctorate dissertation, plagiarism was evident in 76 of them! Goodbye to her degree, goodbye to her national cabinet seat! Amazingly, she then landed on her feet back in Berlin, where her SPD got the most votes and she became its first woman mayor! And Giffey, like her party, rejects confiscation. Her plagiarism could be publicly proved – but her (and the SPD’s) ties to real estate interests could not.

Should The Left buckle , and accept her flouting of over a million Ja voters and join again in the city government? Yes, said right-leaning party leaders, who wangled a “compromise”. This is a three-party commission plus experts to “study the legal and financial questions involved in confiscation” – for a year of deliberation and report conclusions after which further measures could be taken. It was clear to everyone what this meant: Side-track it until enthusiasm and activity had subsided, then fully dilute or quietly bury it, i.e. postpone it to “Sankt-Nimmerleinstag” (“St. Neverman’s Day”).

In addition, the Left would lose the important Housing department. Instead it gets the departments of Culture, Social Services and Justice (largely about the prisons). All are important, but none are crucial or can win back many voters. In a first debate on the question of maintaining a status quo, 40% were opposed. But in a write-in vote of the entire membership, three-quarters of those who took part favoured staying in the ruling coalition. And so it will be.

Such differences at the state level reflect the worrying condition of the whole party. It is divided, partly due to some East West differences, but also to personal animosities, often paired closely with political views. Two one-time stalwart militants, Sahra Wagenknecht and her husband Oskar Lafontaine, a major party founder, have zig-zagged enough to move them to the party periphery. There has still not been any open debate as to why the party lost so disastrously in September, and what meaningful consequences – even painful personal ones – that requires.

A basic question remains: Will the party continue urging reforms and votes against arms sales and military deployment abroad, but playing down any basic condemnation of NATO and Pentagon‘s dangerous belligerency and unceasing push on all continents for world hegemony? All while equating this with Putin’s attempts at self-defense of Russia? Will it join the crowd in a continuing disparagement of the GDR, really aimed against socialism in general? Or will it take militant positions, opposing billionaires, from Krupp or Lockheed-Martin to Amazon and Facebook, Daimler and Bayer-Monsanto, keeping in mind the eventual need to send them off to the moon, to Mars or wherever? That would require The Left’s support for strikes, for those evicted, for all laid-off and underpaid working people. Not only in the Bundestag or state legislatures but at direct ground-level, primarily in the workshops, job centers, offices, universities – encouraging people to have a goal, for which they can fight together, march together, picket together and also sing together.

The next big meeting of The Left, probably only viral, is planned for February. Perhaps new methods and directions can gain ground – and save the sagging party before it is too late!

In closing, I hope for a genuine improvement of Russian-American relations, not just a photo-op.

And, also because my illness prevented me from sending any individual greetings, I send my personal greetings to all readers, relatives and friends with the hopes for a healthier, happier and more peaceful 2022. My own escape from fatal epidemic clutches strengthens the words, “Where there’s life there’s hope!”

So – Happy New Year!