The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Expropriation is not negotiable

As a housing activist and member of the Berlin Senate, here’s why I think LINKE members should vote NO to the new coalition agreement


30/11/2021

Recommendations for posts in the next Berlin government are in. Urban development goes to the SPD 😨. What about Die LINKE?

Let me put it this way. It is very difficult to gain a direct mandate [majority of votes in a constituency]. It is even harder to defend this at new elections.

Put another way: to win one of the most powerful government departments in 2016 was a great victory.

To lose it in 2021 is a major defeat!

As a politician for my party Die LINKE, I cannot just speak about urban development – my main area of concern. I also want to comment more generally on today’s agreement between the SPD, Greens and LINKE. I will comment with facts and in political terms.

As one of the negotiators, I could still defend my positions, even though some of our leading figures described them as being “too extreme”. Unfortunately, I could not then bring them into the negotiation group, because other people in the group would have / could have / should have to negotiate.

Nonetheless, it is also important to me to report that many of my individual demands have been more or less firmly established, that I was able to introduce some projects close to my heart, and that these projects have actually survived.

But this is an insufficient evaluation of the whole picture and does not answer the question as to whether the coalition agreement has been written in left-wing handwriting. This is why I am attempting a full analysis of the current situation and asking some important questions.

  • What will become of the highly publicized “rent election” #Mietenwahl 2021.
  • What will happen now to Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen #dwenteignen ?!
  • What will happen to rent control of city-owned housing companies and affordable new building by communal housing associations?
  • What will happen to the maxim: no further privatisation of state-owned properties?

Hard facts: All decisions for social, ecological and cooperative urban development policy now lie outside our potential party political influence. The senate administration for finance will go to the Greens, who will be responsible for real estate and access to state-owned housing companies!

The senate administration for urban development and housing will go to the SPD, and with Frau Giffey as mayor of Berlin, the senate office’s connection between the Rotes Rathaus (Berlin city hall) and the urban development authorities will be firmly under the control of the SPD and – tadaaa – be opened up to rounds of investors.

Frau Giffey says: “Berlin must be an international competitive city”.

Hold my beer! I think the 1990s have just called… ☎️

Even more importantly: who has taken the SPD seriously here?!

True, the settlements in the coalition agreement in the area of urban development and housing are written in very clear handwriting (this could also be seen in the consultation paper with 1. building new houses, 2. housing alliances, 3. DWE)

The final agreed distribution of department cements this.

Building communal housing and regulating rents is no longer at the heart of the politics of providing accommodation. This is now based on construction a la “build, build, build” #bauenbauenbauen. And this will be realised above all by private companies, who will be allowed maximum legroom.

The SPD has prevailed, and wants to once more pursue their ideological programme of gentrification and eviction of poor people – class struggle from above in favour of a “new middle class” – just as they did in the 1990s and early 2000s.

We must remember: gentrification as a political battle cry has a real basis with the “Planwerk Innenstadt” [a 1999 masterplan to rebuild Berlin aimed at winning the support of private investors] and restructuring politics. In this period, this battle cry #gentrification became known through the rental battles in Mitte and Prenzlauer Berg, and with them we saw the emergence of a new Generation Rent Protest in Berlin. (To some, this may sound “exaggerated and somehow extreme”, but unfortunately it is historically documented and common knowledge, at least within the movement for fair rents!)

I ask again: who wants to hear this and has seriously entered into dialogue based on this knowledge, instead of dismissing it as grumbling and Gennburgish defeatism?

But isn’t the distribution of departments just one thing, and hasn’t the coalition agreement been negotiated so laboriously as a basis for working together ???!

Here I would like, as best I can, to offer my wealth of experience of the previous five years as the speaker for urban development and as part of the government coalition R2G [red-red-green or SPD-LINKE-Green].

I have not shied away from any conflict (abolish the marketing of the capital city, legalise squatting, open the Spreepark, abolish the agreements with Nestlé, SIGNA / Airbnb / Siemensstadt … and many more). I have from time to time argued with my own senator, and have never found common ground with her successor (which was no glorious story, but an open secret and an honest reflection of our political and professional differences!) [In August 2020, after Katrin Lompscher (die LINKE) was obliged to stand down as Berlin Senator for city development and housing, she was replaced by Sebastian Scheel (also die LINKE)]

Nevertheless, we always fought together against the blockade of the SPD, whether around the rent cap #mietendeckel or against development plans for #checkpointcharlie or rent control and cooperation agreements with the housing companies, or with #SIGNA or the tower block model.

In short: for five years, without controlling the department, the SPD has consistently stonewalled and arranged that we could NOT carry out decisions in the previous coalition agreement.

And, do I need to tell you? They will carry on doing the same, and this time they will also be in charge.

The housing mafia in construction above and below ground will celebrate!

My prognosis: this Giffey-gentrifies-all-of-Berlin-SPD will completely ignore all detailed decisions in the coalition agreement and will fill all decisive posts with leading ideologues of the Berlin real-estate-SPD.

We have lost politically (and if you know me, I never say that!)

I am actively campaigning during the members’ vote in our party for a NO! to the coalition agreement.

Why?

In the last few years, die LINKE in government could have decided much more uncompromisingly to rule rebelliously. Unfortunately. this train has left the station. with the appointment of the successor to [Andrej] Holm [advisor to housing senator Katrin Lompscher] and Katrin Lompscher [who was also forced out of office].

The new parliamentary leadership in die LINKE fraction in Berlin has followed this course of sucking up and not supporting any resistance from the fraction.

We can see the proof of this in the last confrontation about the amendment of the law to prohibit misappropriation [this law, in effect since May 2014, limits the misuse of empty houses by turning them into commercial space or holiday homes]. As a politician working in this area, I had to vote against the proposal of die LINKE senator. This was because the fraction leadership preferred to follow the legal opinion of the social democratic lawyers in the urban development department over the position which I developed with left-wing lawyers and tenants’ representatives for a truly hard ban on misappropriation. Our proposal would have been one of the most important laws to protect housing space at the state level. (You can read my statement on this here).

You can find many more examples which show that for a long time, die LINKE has not resolutely fought for a rebellious participation in government in this powerful department. My opposition to this policy has not been noticeably acknowledged – neither in the Senate, nor in the fraction!

Clearly we are not yet ready for a LINKE participation in government which includes the challenging contradictions which could orientate our own party towards the future.

This must change. Otherwise, we will be swept away at the next election.

We need a renewal within the party and a radical democratisation of the Berlin party if we are to realise the honest desire for a common politics.

“By the way, politics is what happens when everyone wants to be right”. 😉

Yes, sure” 🤓

I can only report my assessment of the bad situation, and in all clarity state why the rent election #mietenwahl has been buried and why “we give you the city back” #wirgebeneuchdiestadtzurück is now over. At the same time and very urgently I can say that our party Die LINKE now needs a socialist and anti-capitalist update.

The rebellion on the streets will not decrease and the world is out of joint. Compared to this audits and playing according to bogus rules is not an option for LINKE politics.

We urgently need a LINKE voice which can be heard, and we won’t have this if we are part of a social democratic and bourgeois government project where the left-wing potential for protest is curbed by power politics or – much worse – the movement is much more remote from us as LINKE, and – as already announced, will resolutely stand against us at the next elections.

I have repeatedly presented my compass for the assessment of the issue of urban development, housing and how we live, repeating this in my recent speech in parliament.

We have at least three referenda to defend, and if “build, build build” #bauenbauenbauen is the current strategy, then this is not our project.

At least the BZ was kind enough to put the agreement that must now be voted on online, so that we can all read it 😉

See also this report on rbb.

This text first appeared in German on Katalin Gennburg’s facebook page. Translation: Phil Butland. Reproduced with permission

Lift the Blockade of Cuba

Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have fought an economic war against Cuba. This must stop.


29/11/2021

The economic blockade imposed on Cuba by the U.S. will soon have been in place for 60 years, and has intensified during the pandemic under the Trump and Biden administrations. In order to explain the present and to understand the blockade, we need to discuss Cuba’s historical and material conditions. 

Historically exploited and subjected to the brutal violence of Spanish colonization as well as by American imperialism, Cuba was built as a dependent economy, producing raw materials and mainly exporting sugar. To give a picture of the social circumstances, half of its children did not go to school in 1958.

Eduardo Galeano’s Open Veins of Latin America (1973) provides a clear historical background on Cuba before the revolution: “Cuban sugar became the master key for U.S. domination, at the price of monoculture and the relentless impoverishment of the soil” (p60).

Cuba bought not only automobiles, machinery, chemical products, paper, and clothing, but also rice and beans, garlic and onions, fats, meat, and cotton, all from the United States. Ice cream came from Miami, bread from Atlanta, and even luxury suppers from Paris. The country of sugar imported nearly half the fruit and vegetables it consumed, although only a third of its population had regular jobs and half of the sugar estate lands were idle acres where nothing was produced.

Thirteen U.S. sugar producers owned more than 47 percent of the total area planted to cane and garnered some $180 million from each harvest. The subsoil wealth–nickel, iron, copper, manganese, chrome, tungsten–formed part of the United States’ strategic reserves and were exploited in accordance with the varying priorities of U.S. defense and industry. In 1958 Cuba had more registered prostitutes than mine workers and a million and a half Cubans were wholly or partly unemployed (Galeano, p72). This voracious exploitation led to horrible conditions in Cuba and completely deprived the Cuban people of sovereignty.

In 1960, one year after the Cuban revolution had succeeded and liberated the Cuban people, a memorandum by U.S. diplomat Lester Mallory was released advising the enforcement of new economic sanctions. These sanctions would go much further than the weapon and ammunition restrictions already in place since 1958, with Fulgencio Batista. This document clearly stated the essence of American foreign policy in Latin America and on the periphery of capitalism as per se, arguing that the sanctions policy should be one that:

makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” 

Following the memorandum policy, the U.S. announced a drastic reduction in sugar importation from Cuba. These measures strongly hit the island economy, considering that Cuba relied on a sugar monoculture which was responsible for about 70% of the GDP.

At this point, the alignment with the Soviet Union was developing in multiple aspects and the USSR took charge of the importation previously undertaken by the U.S., trading oil with sugar under extraordinary conditions to support the Cuban economy. As a retaliation to the new American restrictions, Fidel Castro announced the expropriation and nationalization of all American companies in Cuba.

With the escalation of tensions, and concerned with potential diplomatic damages that could be caused by a direct military intervention, in 1961 the U.S. backed a group of counter-revolutionaries on the operation of the “Bay of Pigs Invasion”. The U.S. not only providing financial and logistical support, but also preparing the forces with CIA training. The operation was a fiasco and the troops suffered a humiliating defeat by the Cuban armed forces. 

In the following year, Kennedy enacted harder sanctions that could affect any nation establishing commercial relations with Cuba, prohibiting raw materials importation, medicines, artifacts and financial operations.  Considering the worldwide economic power of the U.S, the effect of this measure was determinant in establishing how Cuba would be able to trade with other nations in international commerce. 

The risk for other nations of trading with Cuba and being subjected to economic retaliations by the biggest economic power is a fact. This brings other countries to a position of avoidance towards Cuba. Being a small economy with around 7.5 million inhabitants at the time, means that engaging in economic relations with Cuba, isn’t worth the risk. This act marginalized the Cuban economic position and clearly showed that the embargo was detrimental to Cuba’s commerce with any other country in the world; not only with the USA.

During the 1970s and early 80s, Cuba was benefiting from the Soviet Union’s bilateral relations. This enabled the country to progress towards a social welfare state and bring significant improvements to people’s lives, stepping forward in multiple state initiatives.

The island economy was still heavily dependent on sugar exportation to the USSR. With the fall of the Soviet Union and consequently the dissolution of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON), Cuban exportation had dropped by approximately 80%, importation by more than 50% and the GDP by 35%.

Facing enormous difficulties with keeping industry and agriculture running, mainly because of a lack of fuel and energy, Cuba opened up the economy for tourism. The 1998 election victory of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela brought a new key commercial partner, especially for oil exportation to Cuba.

The systematic policy to suffocate Cuba reached a new level with the Torricelli and Helms-Burton laws (1992,1996). This allowed any company establishing commerce or financial operations with Cuba to be sued in an American court (OFAC).

That means if a company has branches in the US or financial operations in dollars; or any connection with the American financial system it can be prosecuted by an American Court for commercially engaging with Cuba.

The laws also strangled naval logistical operations by stating that a ship which has docked at a Cuban port is temporarily forbidden to dock in the US, enormously increasing the logistics costs for Cuba.

The imperialist machine is still at full speed in the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. President Trump imposed more than 240 sanctions during the global health crisis, including classifying Cuba as a sponsor of terrorism. President Biden has kept the previous sanctions and increased them, saying that the sanctions on Cuba are just the beginning. These measures brought severe complications for Cuba in acquiring medical equipment, medicine, syringes for vaccinations and artificial respirators. Despite the blockade, Cuba was the first Latin American country to develop its vaccine (Soberana 2).

By comparing some U.S. rates with Cuba we can observe a higher literacy rate than the U.S., lower unemployment, a lower infant mortality and seven times less CO2 emissions per capita. In the last UN general assembly, 184 nations voted for ending the embargo on Cuba. Only the U.S. and Israel voted to keep it. 

The blockade is an oppressive and systematic crime, denying Cuba the right of self-determination and economic stability. Imperialism in its late stage operates through unbalanced trades, instrumentalized by a global economic monopoly and political interventions, intensifying exploitation and surplus value. The shape has been transformed but it still preserves the body and the content of domination and violence. 

U.S imperialism knows no borders and we must call for the end of the blockade.

 

Teachers and educators in Berlin go on strike for better pay

Appreciation for essential workers must be reflected in adequate pay and good working conditions


23/11/2021

Since the 8th of October, several unions have been negotiating with the bargaining association of German states (Tarifgemeinschaft deutscher Länder (TdL)), demanding salary increases for around 845,000 public sector employees across Germany. This includes teachers without civil servant status, early years educators, research staff at universities, social workers, healthcare workers and local government employees.

What are the demands?

The GEW (Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft, Education and Science Workers‘ Union) is demanding a pay rise of 5% for public sector employees, with a minimum increase of at least 150EUR a month, as well as an increase of 100EUR for trainees and interns. As the GEW points out, this just about covers the current rate of inflation and is an extremely moderate demand. The TdL have so far rejected these demands as ‘unrealistic’ given the impact of the pandemic on public finances. Ver.di (Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft, United Services Trade Union) is also demanding a 300EUR monthly increase for healthcare workers and the reinstitution of previous guaranteed employment contracts for trainees.

As Anne Albers, head of the division of wage policy at the Berlin GEW, puts it:

Appreciation for the important work of educators, teachers and social workers is also reflected in pay.”

What happens now?

The final round of negotiations will take place between the 27th and 29th of November in Potsdam. The Berlin GEW has called for a third warning strike on Wednesday, the 24rd of November. This follows warning strikes on the 11th of November and the 17th of November, which were attended by 6000 and 8000 union members respectively. Warning strikes will also take place in a number of other cities across Germany.  Ver.di  has also called for another warning strike on the 25.11, following a warning strike on 16.11.

In a message to parents, who are especially hard hit by the strike, the GEW said:

“We are aware that daycare and school closures are an enormous burden for families. Unfortunately, the uncompromising attitude of the finance ministers so far makes our warning strikes necessary. We are fighting for good working and income conditions and consequently also better educational conditions. We ask for your understanding and support.”

Educators are undervalued, facilities are understaffed

My daughter started KiTa (childcare facility) in August this year. Having a child has made me understand how incredibly exhausting the work of childcare is, and therefore appreciate the educators that look after my daughter. Recent closures due to corona outbreaks and strikes have made me realise the importance of having childcare. In Berlin, all children are entitled to at least seven hours of free childcare a day from the age of one. This is a huge deal.

Free childcare allows both parents, and especially women to go back to work without worrying if they can afford to do so.

In London, for example, families spend around 1000 GBP a month on childcare, and the high cost of childcare is pushing many families, and especially women, into poverty. In Berlin around 45% of children under three are in childcare facilities. KiTas in Berlin are, however, chronically understaffed and undervalued. A recent study found that there is only one educator for every five children under three. The poor working conditions and societal recognition of this profession has meant that there will be an estimated shortage of 230,000 qualified educators nationwide by 2030.

Teachers, educators, healthcare and social workers and others deemed ‘essential’ during lockdown should not be made to pay for the economic cost of the pandemic.

As we have seen time and time again in the last two years, their work is vital and they deserve better wages and working conditions, not just applause!

The GEW warning strike will meet on the 24.11 at 10 am on Friedrichstraße between S-Bahnhof Friedrichstraße and Weidendammer Brücke, ending with a rally at Invalidenpark at 11 am.

Ver.di’s warning strike will meet on the 25.11 on Straße des 17. Juni between S-Bahnhof Tiergarten and Charlottenburger Tor at 8.45 and marching to Brandenburger Tor.

Macron, Electoral Chaos, the Fascists and the Alternative

French presidential elections 2022 – Interview with John Mullen


22/11/2021

Hello John, thanks for talking to us again. Could you remind people who you are and what your relationship is to the coming French elections?

I’m a revolutionary socialist and I’ve been living in the Paris region for over thirty years. Although a bit less active than I used to be, I am a supporter of the France Insoumise, and of Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s left reformist candidacy for the presidency.

So, a new French president will be elected next April. What are the polls looking like at the moment?

Because of the two-round election system (the strongest two candidates go through to a run-off), candidates are above all aiming at getting over 22% or so in the first round. The fragmenting of the vote should mean that 22% is enough to get through to the second round, and the more people who stay at home on election day, the fewer votes will be needed to get through. In 2017 Emmanuel Macron got 24% in the first round, while far-right Marine Le Pen got 21.3%. 22% of those registered to vote stayed at home. Macron is hoping for an exact rerun, confident he can easily win again in a second round against Le Pen.

The polls continue to show the shipwreck of the traditional Socialist Party and classical Conservative options. Declared Socialist Party candidate Anne Hidalgo gets around 5% (which, given that the president before Macron was Socialist Party, remains stunningly low). The traditional right Republicans haven’t yet decided on their candidate, but the most likely, Xavier Bertrand, stands at around 13% in the polls. The Greens just chose a candidate from the right of their party, Yannick Jadot, who is on 6-9%.

Radical left Jean-Luc Mélenchon is at 7 – 10%. The Communist Party, which backed Mélenchon in 2017, is fielding its own candidate (who is at 2-3%), a rebel ex Socialist Party candidate gets 2-3% too, while various Trotskyists get 1.5 % each. Macron gets 24 -28 %. But in the latest polls the shock is the fascists, represented by two candidates – Marine Le Pen on 16-19% and Eric Zemmour on 12- 15%.

How are French people reacting to Emmanuel Macron’s presidency at the moment?

In the polls, at least 25% of those registered say they will vote for him in the first round. His “extreme centre” neoliberal support base is stable, so he certainly has a good hand of cards to get himself re-elected. The success of the vaccination campaign and of the vaccine pass (required to get into cinemas, restaurants etc) have helped his ratings (in France there are 35 deaths a day at the moment from COVID, as against 150 in Britain).

But if a quarter of voters definitely want him back in, that leaves an awful lot of unhappy and angry people, and what these people decide to do is key. We have plenty to be angry about: the Catholic charity Secours Catholique just reported that fully ten per cent of the French population had to use food banks last year. Macron has been pushing through islamophobic laws, slashing taxes for the rich and making life harder for the poor since his first day in office. Recently a new system for unemployment benefit came in, meaning you now have to work six months not four before having initial rights to unemployment benefit (this in a world where short-term contracts are everywhere). He has also been talking of clamping down on unemployed people who are “not really looking for a job”. There is no evidence that there are many of these, but politically it looks good for Macron to be loudly denouncing them.

Macron does have however a key political defeat to swallow. Millions on the streets and on strike forced him to shelve his huge flagship “reform” which would have destroyed a retirement pension scheme which has been kept intact if bruised after twenty-five years of working-class struggle. Last week in a major speech, Macron admitted (if we read between the lines) that he was too scared to relaunch this attack before next year’s elections. So as to have a new flagship project, he announced the building of a bunch of nuclear power stations.

A year ago, most people outside France had never heard of Eric Zemmour. Who is he and is he dangerous?

Zemmour is a media personality and journalist, openly claiming that France is threatened with destruction through immigration. He represents a part of fascist and hard right opinion which regrets the move towards respectability of Marine Le Pen. By throwing her father out of the organization, changing its name, no longer talking about the Holocaust, and allying herself with some small non-fascist right-wing organizations, Le Pen has been fairly successful in mainstreaming her politics (although building a rooted party structure has had limited success). Zemmour appeals to hard racists. He demands that it become illegal to give babies first names like Mohamed or Fatima. He claims that Muslims are terrorizing working-class neighbourhoods like mine. He claims that the French fascist Vichy government during World War Two tried to protect French Jews, and asks people to be reassured that most Jews sent to their deaths by Vichy were of other nationalities. At present, he is (once again) in court accused of inciting racial hatred by saying that unaccompanied minors among migrants seeking asylum are “murderers and rapists”.

The fact that he can get 1500 people in Bordeaux to his public meeting, without the support of a proper party structure, is worrying. And his new book “France Has Not Said Its Last Word” is on sale on every high street, promising the slashing of taxes and benefits and the abolition of environmental regulations, and warning against the supposed dangers of woke-ism and “gender theory”. Fortunately there have been counter-demonstrations against Zemmour’s meetings in a number of towns, including Nantes, Bordeaux and Geneva. These should be built everywhere.

Should we be pleased that Zemmour seems to be taking some voters away from Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (formerly Front National)?

Some desperate people on the left feel that way, but they are wrong to do so. Zemmour is normalizing hard islamophobia and fascist ideas, and dragging much of the media debate to the hard right. On news channel CNews, Zemmour was invited to discuss whether Western Civilization had forgotten how to be proud! These bad tidings follow a year in which the far right have successfully built their support, very much helped by the context of much broader mass anti-vaccination demonstrations.

The rise of the far right has encouraged Macron to go much further in attacking Muslims, even though he himself originates in a branch of right wing thought for which islamophobia was not important. The government has recently banned several Muslim organizations that fight islamophobia, on the grounds that … they fight islamophobia! Excuses were used along the lines that outside commentators had left antisemitic comments on the Facebook pages of the now banned organizations! The Education Minister has said universities are in danger from hordes of “islamo-leftists”, while Le Figaro, a mass circulation conservative newspaper had headlines last week on the “indoctrination of our children” by “LGBT ideology” and by “antiracism”!

Many people have been inspired by France’s Yellow Vest movement. What are the Yellow Vests doing now, and have they had an impact on the elections?

The Yellow Vests were a broad, dynamic, leaderless movement of revolt which inspired millions and scared Macron. Today the movement is many times smaller, and is unlikely to produce a united response to the elections, though it could burst into action again at any time.

France has seen some large Covid demos this year, in which both left wingers and right wingers have participated. I was at a film screening recently where the director called these protests a continuation of the Yellow Vests. Is he right?

The Yellow Vest movement was always contradictory; an alliance of poor workers and very small (sometimes penniless) business people. So the anti-authority and individualist content was always strong (supporting destruction of speed radars etc). Sadly, along with much of the radical left, certain sections of the remaining Yellow Vests have mobilized on an individual freedom basis against Covid restrictions that are necessary to save lives. This led to a mass mobilization which was not hard for the far right to profit from: in Paris we have seen separate marches by anti-vax fascists, the biggest fascist marches for decades.

Who are the Left candidates for President and what do they stand for?

The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, is standing for the Socialist Party, but it does not seem that she can revive the Socialist Party’s very sick body. Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the left candidate who really matters. Yannick Jadot is the Green candidate. The Communist Party, which supported Mélenchon in 2017, is standing Fabien Roussel, who is pitching for political space to the right of Mélenchon, loudly emphasizing his support for the police and for nuclear energy. At least three revolutionary Left candidates are hoping to stand, including Philippe Poutou for the New Anticapitalist Party.

Of the various left candidates, the one most likely to challenge for president is Jean-Luc Mélenchon. What are his chances?

There are several anti-Macron candidates on the Left very broadly defined. Mélenchon is the only one who could win, because he is the only one who might be able to run an insurgent campaign and persuade millions who were going to stay home to go and vote. This is how he got 19% and seven million votes last time, the highest ever vote for the radical Left, with 24% of blue-collar voters and 22% of white-collar working class voters choosing him. His programme of raising the minimum wage, retirement at 60, a hundred percent renewable energy, huge investment against violence against women, generalization of free health care, and many dozens of other radical reforms, pulls the political debate leftwards. It opens up spaces for mass discussion on crucial questions, on which we Marxists have things to say to other class fighters. And he has been loudly defending Muslims against islamophobia for years now, improving on his previous positions on islamophobia. [1]

His organization, the France Insoumise (FI), is running a dynamic campaign. The Youtube channel has 600 000 followers, and the plan is to knock on a million doors over the next few months, although door-to-door canvassing is not a traditional tool in French elections. Mélenchon is an extraordinary orator and his mass meetings will be huge. The FI calls for a “citizens’ revolution”. The tiny Trotskyist candidates reply “that would be the wrong kind of revolution”. They are kind of correct in the abstract, that is, the question of overthrowing the capitalist state cannot be avoided, but the differences between a citizens’ revolution and other kinds of revolution are sadly unknown to 99% of French workers. Given that Mélenchon’s campaign and movement is not a membership organization with strict rules to limit what activists can do, it seems to me obvious that revolutionaries can and should work within it, rather than chase after getting 1% of votes based on distinctions invisible to the working class in general. Marxists who work in the campaign for Mélenchon’s election have plenty of space for fraternal debate about reformism and the state, and to politically oppose other sets of ideas like the deep green degrowth ideas, identity politics or animal rights ideas, which all have considerable influence.

Mélenchon is a left reformist candidate, and I could amuse myself by listing twenty-seven disagreements I have with him, but this would be unproductive. He is at present facing a major smear campaign which will accelerate as the months go by (we will hear that he is a megalomaniac, racist, antisemitic friend of Putin’s, etc etc). The lessons of Corbyn in Britain must be learned. Mélenchon is under attack because he says neoliberalism is not inevitable, and that another world is possible in which human needs are put first. Those sections of the radical left who are tempted to bay with the hounds are doing our class a great disservice.

Whoever wins the presidency, social struggles will continue. What is on the horizon?

If Macron wins, he will try again for his juggernaut anti-pension reform, and there will be mass revolt. If Mélenchon should win (which is possible if it turns out he is in the run-off against Le Pen), the ruling class will pull out all the stops to prevent him from applying his programme, and mass movements are also likely. However, my crystal ball is rather hazy today, so watch this space.

John Mullen’s political website can be found here.

Footnotes

1 See this article for an analysis from a few years back on the nature of Mélenchon’s movement 

“Everything changes the world – little by little”

Interview with Anastasia Klevets, organiser of an exhibition about violence against LGBT people in Russia


21/11/2021

Hello Anastasia, thanks for agreeing to talk to us. Could you start by introducing yourself.

Hi. My name is Anastasia, I am the organizer of the Veshchdok exhibition. By profession I am a historian and guide, an activist of Quarteera – an organization that unites Russian-speaking LGBT+ people in Germany.

Why should people go to the exhibition “Veschdok”?

To feel that violence against queer people is not something distant and special. And that this violence has a very usual character, we have objects that surround us in everyday life. And violence can happen at any time, it does not require special preparation and special time. And then you can feel this constant background fear of LGBT+ people in Russia, who know that violence against them can happen at any moment.

The exhibition shows sketches of different tools which have been used to violently attack and kill LGBT people in Russia – from axes and broken bottles to forks and a pair of socks. Should art be beautiful and comfortable?

Quite the opposite I believe. Nowadays, after all, art doesn’t have to meet any expectations. But I would say the art leaves a trace when it takes you out of your comfort zone – it expands your understanding of the world, adds new facets and changes perspective. I doubt that nice and comfy art is able to do that.

What is the current state of LGBT rights in Russia today? What has been the effect of the 2013 law criminalising “propaganda for non-traditional sexual relationships between minors”?

The adoption of this law showed that discrimination against LGBT+ people is becoming a state policy. Because under this law you can attack anything – from a simple hand-holding and telling about yourself – to the release of educational brochures. LGBT+ people are persecuted by activists of radical right groups,. These groups seek the dismissal of LGBT+ people, and threaten to take away their children. The number of attacks on queer people is constantly growing, and the police virtually do not react, very rarely do they even start an investigation. And thanks to the law LGBT+ people are second-class people, and the use of hate speech against them is justified – even at the official level.

At this evening’s Q&A, artist Polina Zaaslavskia spoke of her problems with the term “Queer-Feminist Art”. Can art be feminist? Should it be?

Art can be classified by different criteria – by style, period, or by the themes that a piece raises. Therefore, technically something can be called queer-fem art, if it’s more convenient, of course. But good art is universal. Doesn’t violence concern everyone? And discrimination? After all, we do not know what can cause violence; with what ideas one can try to justify dividing people into groups and declaring that some group is worse than another and should be punished.

Do you think that art can change the world?

I would like to believe that yes! Everything changes the world – little by little, not always immediately noticeable. But the subtlest elements come together and become the driving force that transforms the world. One reed may not stand up, but there are a huge number of reeds in the world who dream of the same. The main thing is for us to unite.

How and when can people view the exhibition?

The exhibition is open daily from 12:00 to 17:00, admission is free, 3G rule. And you very welcome to the finissage of the exhibition on November 25 when we will be talking with the authors of the study that inspired the artist for her series of works.

Do you have any projects planned after this?

For now we are closing our projects for this year. But stay tuned for the events starting from January.

You can see the Veschdok exhibition at the BAS CS Gallery, Soldinerstr. 103.