The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Month: August 2021

Berlin wall and Kaiser Palace

On the 60th anniversary of the building of the Berlin Wall, Victor Grossman looks back at another East German monument


13/08/2021

BERLIN BULLETIN NO. 194  August 10 2021

The annual heyday for German journalists is here again – another round anniversary reminds us, days in advance, how terrible life was for us poor souls in that awful old East German Democratic Republic. This year it’s the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Wall. For me such previews were handy reminders to buy flowers or chocolates: August 13th has been, since 1955, our wedding anniversary. But I was always aware that for all its 28 years, the majority found nothing pleasant in the nasty barrier, with 100 to 150 people losing their lives trying to break through, under or over it.

But what is it that still warrants so much attention, year after year? Why (and I’ll borrow an analogy from my own book), why keep kicking a horse that’s been dead for 31 years? Do some fear that the old stud may still have a kick or a bite left in him?

But if such fears were present when parts of the giant structure titled “Humboldt Forum” were finally opened on a main square in Berlin then triumphant expressions of satisfaction drowned them out; only a small group of protesters visibly expressed some of the bitter nostalgia.

It was here that the Hohenzollerns – the Prussian kings, and after 1872, German Kaisers – had their palace. This famous dynasty was expert in three activities: making war, seizing colonies in Africa and Oceania, and amassing wealth and property. In 1918 they lost out fully in the first two; they are still litigating about the third. The palace, no longer theirs, was wrecked and burnt out in World War Two.

In 1950 the GDR leaders, faced with a choice, decided that rebuilding it in ruined Berlin was far out of reach. And was it worth it? As a symbol? One balcony was saved and built into a new government building. From it, on November 9th 1918, Karl Liebknecht vainly proclaimed a “Free Socialist Republic of Germany”. The rest was carted away as rubble, arousing the wrath of all the still very vocal monarchists in West Germany.

In its stead, in 1973-1976, the Palast of the Republik was built – a sleek, long building in Bauhaus style, with transparent-from-the-inside windows. Some found it handsome, some didn’t. But everyone I have ever met liked it on the inside, except the northern third reserved for the national legislature, which is hardly exciting since all votes have been unanimous (with one exception: in 1972 when 14 Christian party delegates voted, in vain of course, against a new law legalizing free abortions).

But the rest of the building had a big concert hall, convertable in 30 minutes into an auditorium or a dance area, and also a small theater, bowling alley (new here at the time), disco, almost a dozen restaurants, cafes and beer bars at modest prices, an always-open post office and, best of all, a big two-level foyer full of comfortable armchairs and sofas, always open, free and ideal for meeting friends, resting after shopping or escaping sun, rain or cold.

But with no more East German republic there must be no more Palace of the Republic. Asbestos was found in steel beams, offering a desired opportunity, not to renovate it like other buildings, but to tear it down despite desperate demonstrations by East Berliners and pleas by international architects. Led by a bankrupt but ambitious minor noble from Hamburg, aided by media and politicians who always hated “those Reds in the East,” with even the Greens joining in and the LINKE isolated, it was decided to rebuild – not exactly the imperial palace but an immense atrocity of the same size, with a copy of its baroque façade, Prussian eagles and all, and 200 feet up a victorious golden cross.  To diminish the all too royal association it was named, like the nearby university, after the brothers Wilhelm and Alexander von Humboldt, a leading philosopher and a famous explorer in the early 1800s.

But what to put in it? Simply a library? Too big a contrast! So, step by step, other items were added in an effort to replace what had been torn down; a café on the roof, two restaurants, a small theater and a cinema. Even a shamed-face little exhibit about the GDR Palast. But the main content was the Asian Art and Ethnological Museum moved from the city outskirts, one of the world’s largest collections of wonderful objets d’art, begged, borrowed or mostly stolen from German colonies before 1918, now Namibia, Togo, Cameroun, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi in Africa and New Guinea, Samoa, Palau and other islands in the Pacific. There are beautiful bronze sculptures, ceremonial masks, finely-carved religious and animal figures, even a beautiful South Sea island fishing boat, 52-feet long. Some of the 150,000 objects date back to the 12th century. The most remarkable and beautiful would be exhibited.

But in France, Belgium and England some consciences had begun stirring. And even where these were weak or non-existent the feelings of scholars, journalists and ordinary people in the ex-colonies could increasingly be described by the American phrase, “We was robbed!” Plans for new museums in these countries raised the question: why should tourist money paid to see exquisite Benin bronzes fill Berlin or Paris bank accounts once founded on the backs of people who created the art work?

Of course, European curators don’t want to lose their attractive treasures, and while some respond to demands for repatriation others are seeking display loans, joint traveling exhibitions or other compromises. In Berlin, too, many conciliatory words have been spoken. But somehow the gloss of the exhibits in the Humboldt Forum has taken scratches even before being opened to the public.

Alongside embarrassed discussions about the ownership of art treasures the whole question of German colonization has gained new attention. For years many West German history books still tended to praise efforts to “civilize the savages”. But new, tougher attitudes in Africa are now demanding not just artifacts but official apologies and reparations, often in hard cash.

Many are only now learning of the first genocide in the 20th century, a decade before Armenia! In 1904 the Herero people, after an uprising against forced occupation and settlements in what is now Namibia, were surrounded, defeated with modern machine guns, driven into the huge desert and forcibly cut off from all water sources. An estimated 40,000 to 60,000 men, women and children died, mostly of thirst – about 75% of the Herero population. The neighboring Nama, also defeated, enslaved or confined to the first concentration camp of the century, lost up to half their population. In another dreadful preview, 300 skulls were taken to Germany to “scientifically prove black inferiority.” In 1907 a rebellion in German Southeast Africa claimed a death toll of perhaps 200,000.

For years Namibia has pushed for an apology and reparations – at last something over $1.1 billion has now been offered, a fraction of what the suffering cost. The negotiations are continuing.

For some, this giant edifice with its imperial façade, in disregard of any such nasty recollections, marked a delicious victory, happily recalling Germany’s one-time colonial glory and greatness. But alarm bells are now ringing to warn us that such memories are becoming relevant – and dangerous!

Did they recur when German troops moved into Afghanistan, together with US and other NATO troops? Except for the LINKE deputies (then under an earlier name) and a few brave rebels, every Bundestag party voted for the deployment. It was originally for six months. Twenty years later the troops are finally coming home, after the death of 59 Germans and thousands of Afghans, very often civilians and most famously a large group, many of them children, who had gathered to collect leaking gasoline from a mired truck and were bombed by order of a German colonel. “A mistake,” he insisted – before being promoted to general. Defense Minister Peter Struck, a Social Democrat, had declared: ”The security of the German Federal Republic must be defended at the Hindu-Kush mountains.” What was really achieved in Afghanistan? Worse than nothing!

This German security had to be defended quite often, even though the end of the Berlin Wall meant that not a meter of frontier could now be called hostile. Yet German planes flew missions over Serbia, lives were lost “defending Germany” from presumed foes in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, and the coasts of Lebanon and Somalia needed protection from hostile Arabs or Somali fishermen-pirates. And once again in Africa! While a beautifully-crafted drum from ancient Mali was being polished up for the Humboldt Forum exhibit, it was found necessary to defend freedom and peace – (and “help civilize Africans”?) in today’s Mali. Or was it to defend the gold and mineral desires of its European ally France – and squeeze back into West Africa, where the fighting in Mali has spread to four neighbors? The most recent result: twelve German soldiers wounded, three of them seriously – all presumably involved in training Mali’s soldiers – or perhaps doing a bit of reconnaisance as well?

But oceanic glories are also re-emerging from a long hibernation (to mix a metaphor). In early August the German navy’s frigate “Bayern” set sail for a seven-month tour of eastern waters.

German government officials explained: “With the rise of Asia, the political and economic balance is increasingly shifting towards the Indo-Pacific. The region is becoming the key to shaping the international order in the 21st century…The Defence Ministry intends to increase its security engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. In addition to expanding security and defence cooperation with partners in the region, defence contacts are to be intensified, too. This includes, for instance, participation in exercises.“

The head of the navy, Vice-Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, explained things more clearly to the sailors waiting to embark: ”The aim is to show the flag and demonstrate on the spot that Germany stands by its international partners for freedom of the seaways and the maintenance of international law… That means we meet our partners and train together. We also plan, among other things, to watch over UN sanctions against N. Korea…” (Under the heading “freedom of the seaways,” I guess!)

Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer made it even easier to grasp: “It is high time for Germany to be more energetic in watching over its interests.” Her words and the frigate’s trip seem aimed at tipping a delicate balance, favoring not those wanting trade and peace with China but those looking for trouble, building up German strength and influence in Eurasia as a true ally but occasional rival of its big partner on the shores of the Potomac. And again, do I hear echoes of a nasty past?

German expansionism no longer needs dreadnaughts under royal flags of a ruler with handlebar whiskers, nor Panther tanks and Messerschmitt fighters with the twisted cross of a man with a little black mustache. Fat wads of euros, now electronic, can also be effective. And yet there are always some who love Leopard tanks, Rheinmetall missiles and Thyssen-Krupp frigates, all useful for Germany’s twelve current operations on three continents. Or who pine for colorful medals!

But after one more gloomy glance at the Kaiser’s posthumous new palace, awesome in size, awful in appearance, I must return to the anniversary of that notorious, far uglier Berlin Wall of 60 years ago.

President John F. Kennedy is said to have made the perceptive remark at the time: “A wall is a hell of a lot better than a war!” And quite a few historians now agree that the tensions at the time, with East Germany facing chaos, a coup, or even a conflagration, and two atomic powers face-to-face and toe-to-toe in Berlin, might well have led to a terrible disaster if the Wall had not been built.

Atomic dangers today seem at least as menacing as then. Armed with the threat of Armageddon power are not just boxed-in little North Korea, obviously motivated by self-preservation, but eight stronger powers, and volatile borders are certainly as endangered as in 1961 in Berlin; in the Ukraine, Syria, Estonia, the Black Sea, the South China Sea, even outer space. In little Büchel in peaceful Rhineland-Palatinate an unknown number of American B61-3/4 nuclear weapons are stored, each with an explosive strength about 13 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Right next door are hangars with Germany’s speedy Tornado planes, ready to fly them eastwards at a moment’s notice. Two-thirds of all Germans wish the bombs were gone; German law requires them to leave. But the courts look away and and they are all still there.

Until 1989 that terrible Berlin Wall angered many an East German. The small part of Germany it helped preserve for 28 years was always the butt of anger, sarcasm, vituperation and resistance in one form or another. But it also formed a kind of barrier against German expansion and war-making; not a shot was fired outside Germany by any German soldier until after the Wall was opened, crumbled and sold to tourists in little pieces (genuine or not). Now, we are told, Germany must again find its “proper place in the world”, in keeping with its economic strength. And its many “traditions”?

I think back to the Palast der Republik and to concerts I heard there – with Harry Belafonte, Miriam Makeba, Mikis Theodorakis, Mercedes Sosa, Pete Seeger, and also young people’s groups and their new songs – also about opposing bad old traditions and preserving peace. They are long gone.

What songs, if any, will we be hearing in the Humboldt Forum? I hope their motifs will not be rooted in nationalism, hatred and fear of a system they could never ever understand. I wonder: Is there really a kick or a bite or two still left in the old stud? Or will the Kaiser’s ghost prevail?

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

  • For Victor’s free monthly Berlin Bulletin write to:  wechsler_grossman@yahoo.de
  • For previous Berlin Bulletins and info on Victor, visit his website.
  • For Victor’s thoughts on the rise and fall of the GDR and what we can learn from them, order: “A Socialist Defector: From Harvard to Karl-Marx-Allee” – Monthly Review Press

Hear Victor talking about the Berlin wall in the latest edition of the Spaßbremse Podcast.

News from Berlin and Germany: 14th August 2021

Weekly news roundup from Berlin and Germany


compiled by Ana Ferreira

 

NEWS FROM BERLIN

Berliners could get a third vaccination from September

Up to 200,000 Berliners could receive a Corona booster vaccination from September onwards. Initially, this is planned for the very elderly over 80 years of age, people in need of care, and for immunocompromised people. The booster is planned to be given no earlier than six months after the previous vaccinations. Doctors’ surgeries have also been called upon to ensure the vaccinations are administered to those in need of outpatient care. All others in the eligible groups, such as older people who are not in need of care, can also get vaccinated at their doctor’s office. Source: morgenpost

Schools start with rapid tests and vaccinations

Classes started again in Berlin and Brandenburg schools from Monday. For the first time, some schools also offered direct vaccinations. For those over the age of twelve, after the consent of the parents, they can be vaccinated in vaccination centers or by doctors in private practice. However, the special offers for schoolchildren may vary. It is expected that all students in Berlin’s vocational schools aged 16 and over will receive a vaccination offer in the next two months. The mobile vaccination teams would come every day to the schools for this purpose. Source: rbb

 

NEWS FROM GERMANY

German government U-Turn on Afghan refugees

Due to the dramatic deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan, Germany will not deport any more rejected asylum seekers there for the time being. This decision shows a radical change of course once only a few days ago Germany has decided for continuing deportations to Afghanistan, at least for criminals. In the meantime, more Afghan employees of the army and the police, who have been granted visas, are coming to Germany. According to the Ministry of Defence in Berlin, around 1,700 of them, including dependents, have arrived in Germany by last Tuesday. Source: dw

Rail strike begins

The train drivers’ union and the Deutsche Bahn (DB) are in conflict. In June, the German Train Drivers’ Union, (GDL) declared that collective bargaining talks have failed, demanding an improved offer from the DB. This is affected by the Collective Bargaining Unity Act (Tarifeinheitsgesetz, TEG). According to the TEG, only the collective agreement of the union with the largest membership counts in a company. In most cases, this is the rival railway and transport union (EVG). Volker Krombholz, GDL Northeast District Manager, declared: “We have proven that we can strike for a long time.” Source: jW

Renovated Lübeck synagogue reopened

After more than six years of renovation, the Carlebach Synagogue was officially reopened on Thursday. The opening takes place in the year in which 1,700 years of Jewish life in Germany is being celebrated. The Carlebach Synagogue, named after its first rabbi Salomon Carlebach, was the target of two arson attacks in 1994 and 1995. Schleswig-Holstein’s Prime Minister Daniel Günther (CDU) spoke out in favour of not hiding Jewish life. “The Jewish faith needs places where it becomes visible – not on the margins, but in the midst of society.” Source: Süddeutsche

 

Demanding the Right to Housing and the Right to Vote

Interview with Carol from the Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen Right2TheCity group


06/08/2021

Hi Carol, could we start off by you saying who you are, and what your connection is with Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen (DWE) and the Right2TheCity group?

I’m Carol, and I joined Right2TheCity (R2C) in February 2021. I’m active in the R2C Reproduction and Organising Task Force, we make sure the wheels keep turning and connect new people to the activities of the group. We are using relational organising techniques to try to activate our 150+ strong telegram contact list. We realised that unless we have a chat with people to get to know them and their interests they are unlikely to become active members of the group. Mainly because for most people, knowing how to contribute to a new group is a bit confusing and our telegram threads are too epic. But we need active members because there is so much to do!

DWE just had a record-breaking campaign collecting over 350,000 signatures for fair rents in Berlin. Why do you think this campaign was so successful?

For several reasons. Berliners do not need any convincing that the cost of rent should go down, 80% of people who live in the city are tenants, thousands of volunteers did countless hours of work in a decentralised neighbourhood based structure to collect the signatures. Also the branding of the campaign is super effective, the purple and yellow posters really stand out! The campaign started in really difficult pandemic conditions; restrictions have only eased towards the end of the collection phase, allowing collection at events, cafes and bars. There was one other thing that happened which, although it was a disaster, it helped the campaign. The Federal constitutional court overturned the Berlin Senate’s Rent Cap legislation. This meant that scumbag landlords levied retrospective rent from tenants – amounts based on the difference between the capped rent and the rent the landlord wanted to charge. For some people this meant thousands of Euros. This caused widespread and lasting anger which helped motivate people to sign and to collect signatures. Several people on in R2C were forced to work two jobs just to keep a roof over their heads because of this indefensible landlord behaviour, cheered on by the FDP and CDU.

Also the expropriation and socialisation proposal is really well thought out and based on already existing laws. It is proposed that the cost of buying the 240,000+ apartments (calculated at 8 billion euros) will be financed through bonds issued by the Berlin Senate, with the compensation amount set to repay the cost  via fair rents (3.70 euros per square meter) over a period of 45 years. Socialised housing will not be able to be sold and rental income will not be able to be used for profit. This makes sense, especially to Berliners familiar with Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften (housing asssociations). These exist thanks to the work and organisational skills of Berliners 100 years ago. Berliners understand the value of long lasting, well maintained, not-for-profit housing. The Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen campaign seeks to socialise an additional 11% of the existing housing in Berlin. The CDU and FDP like to pretend that building new housing is the only way to address the housing crisis but it is clear to Berliners, especially lower income Berliners that we need the housing we already live in to be affordable and secure while at the same time we need to build new housing.

About 30% of the signatures collected were deemed to be invalid, mainly because only people with German nationality are allowed to vote. How come non-Germans pay rent but aren’t allowed to vote in referenda like this?

Racist voting laws. The situation is the result of a combination of the actions of German legislators. They wanted the post-world war two ‘guest workers’ to go home after they finished rebuilding Germany’s cities. In addition, the German political and legal class would like to minimise the voting rights of EU passport holders, And of course, also the racist border policies and practices in relation to asylum seekers and refugees, people who the German state prefers to exclude from even the most basic rights in relation to long term asylum, movement, work, housing and also voting.

What is the Right2TheCity group doing to give a voice to disenfranchised voters?

We are adding some small contribution to the decades of campaigning that has been carried out by a range of racialised, refugee and migrant groups. The signatures quantify the number of invalid [for voting-Editor] signatures – giving a tangible way to communicate just how many people in the city are disenfranchised. The fact that even the referendum, the most democratic of instruments – is not accessible to migrants – is a bad look for a city that benefits from a cosmopolitan, multicultural image. The decision to collect ‘political signatures’ by the Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen campaign gave us a tangible measure of just how many people who live in this city and want to have a say over its’ future are disenfranchised.

Recently Right2TheCity organised a Strategy Day to plan the next steps of the campaign. What were your expectations and were they fulfilled?

We needed to do several things. Some of them were related to group formation. We are new and our membership is in flux. Many people join and have to be brought up to speed and existing structures need to constantly be flexible to everyone’s learning curves, inputs and capacities. Strategy day allowed us to spend time together in real life (our meetings are largely all online) and get to know each other better. It also allow us to flex our organisational muscles, muscles that we developed at the Demo we held on Tempelhofer Feld in May (dubbed ‘a happening’ in the Neues Deutschland reporting). We had a large team of people helping with all the different tasks that are needed to hold a strategy day and we had fun looking after each other, and building skills such as getting experience facilitating large groups. Everyone got a chance to share ideas with people from the different task forces within R2C which has enabled us to be more coordinated and focused.

We also needed to shape a shared understanding of who we are and what we want to focus on in the third phase of the campaign. Part of that discussion was related to our structure. What structural changes do we need in order to carry out the work we want to do? How can we support all the people who join R2C to get involved, which of our task forces have served their purpose and what new task forces do we need? That sort of thing.

One thing that kept coming up at Strategy Day was a desire to improve communication. We’re doing great things, but not enough people know about them. How can this problem be best overcome?

Mainly we need more people to get involved. In order to do that we need to get better at supporting people who join, which means more people in the Reproduction and Organising Task Force, a better filing system and more of an emphasis on communicating opportunities to get involved as individual tasks that need doing. Many people don’t want to attend meetings but are really happy to do concrete and specific tasks. Which means those tasks must be identified and communicated to non-meeting-goers. We also need more people who speak German well enough to help us translate and coordinate R2C involvement in the German speaking parts of the campaign, and to build awareness in the German speaking parts of the campaign about what R2C is doing.

So far, Right2TheCity has been doing a lot of work collecting signatures, but now we have collected all the signatures we need. What is the group doing now?

In the third phase, the ‘turn out the vote phase‘ of the campaign we have three focuses. The first is to spark a public conversation about the democratic management of housing. This is a key part of the socialisation model that the campaign is fighting for. Success in the referendum means so much more than just fair rent. It means the capacity to make decisions a bout housing infrastructure that are far sighted. When the cost of modernisation and other improvements can be spread out over years instead of being undertaken under an ownership model that requires quick profits so as to pay dividends to shareholders ( the current situation, which delivers few repairs and ever increasing rent rises), then we can make more long term decisions about our housing infrastructure. How would you use the communal space in and around your building if you and your neighbours had decision-making power over it? What climate adaptations would you make to protect you and your neighbours from extreme weather? How would decisions be made about how housing is allocated when someone moves out? Could we make decisions based on the wider housing need in the city? Would it be run like an elite club like the Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften (WBG)? Which we love, by the way, even though all of their membership lists are closed.

The CDU has unfortunately spread malicious rumours that the WBG’s will also be expropriated if we win the referendum – but do not fear! Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften are explicitly excluded from being expropriated in the wording that people will vote on. The number of falsehoods about the DWE comapaign’s proposal that are circulating in the coming weeks is likely to increase. We are working to build a solid understanding of the proposal amongst R2C members so that we can combat these falsehoods when we hear them.

One of the things we have realised as not-fluent-Deutsch speakers participating in the campaign, is that we need to start pushing now for an inclusive and accessible structure for the management of the socialised housing. We need the management to be accessible for people who speak a range of languages for example. Perhaps the housing management structure will need to include paid organisers so that tenants can be supported to engage in decision-making? There is a lot to discuss and we want migrants, queers and racialised people as well as tenants of the 240,000 apartments that we are seeking to socialise, to be part of this discussion.

Our other focus is on supporting the Kiez Teams to do the work of postering, door knocking, telephoning and events organising that is needed to turn out 1 million ‘Yes’ votes. The third focus is to keep up the pressure on the Berlin Senate and Federal Government to extend voting rights to people who do not have a Deutsch Pass. To this end we will be present at all the big and small demos in the next two months with our banners that demand the right to housing AND the right to vote – for all.

There was a lot of talk about winning new members for Right2TheCity. Why do you need new members? And why would potential new members need you?

R2C has many different things that we are trying to do, which means that there is plenty of opportunities for a large number of people to get involved. In turn we provide the opportunity to be part of something that is exciting and which could significantly improve the lives of all Berliners. Along the way if you join us in R2C you will meet and work with some fantastic people and have the chance to learn new skills. There is nothing like being part of a network of solidarity to make you feel more deeply rooted to place!

The referendum will happen at the end of September, parallel to the German elections. What happens to Right2TheCity after that?

We don’t know, but with our structures and relationships I think it’s certain that we will continue to work together. One of the ideas that came out of the strategy day is that people want a physical space to host our events and activities in – a place where we can deliver a program of political education in the style of a strike school. Others are talking about a migrant tenants union, and others about setting up a housing project or something that can directly address our housing needs, others are talking about how we can support other struggles by organising the English speaking tenants and workers that German speaking groups struggle to connect with.

When we win the referendum (you can see the wording here, hopefully with an overwhelming number of votes, the Berlin Senate will be under enormous pressure to pass legislation that enables them to purchase the apartments and to hand them over to the democratically managed non-profit organisation – the specific legal form will be an Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR). The Vergesellschaften A.G of the DWE campaign has drafted the laws that we will offer to the Senate, and we expect these laws to form the basis of the final legislation which will govern the expropriation (ie: how much is paid, and in what way) and how the socialisation will take place (ie:what sort of democratic structures will manage the housing).

After the referendum, there will be the need to continue the work of creating opportunities for Berliners to come together to discuss what we want from this new democratic housing management system and to imagine what it will make possible (such as modernisations without evictions)

France: Vaccination, Health Pass Protests, and the Left

Macron’s COVID policy has been disastrous. But pro-“liberty” protests aren’t the answer


04/08/2021

As of the beginning of August, President Emmanuel Macron has let at least 112 000 people die of Covid in France, and there are still a thousand Covid patients in intensive care today. At every point, the interests of profit have been his priority. We have seen half-hearted lockdowns, called too late and lifted too soon, with much too little financial help for workers to make sure they could respect the rules, and criminally low investment in vaccination programmes, which started late and advanced slowly. Most of the deaths could have been avoided, and this, added to the neoliberal dismantling of the health service over the past years, means there are plenty of reasons to be angry with Macron and with capitalism. But left organizations here have a responsibility, too, and have been making dangerous concessions to vaccine skepticism which will help the far-right to build up more of a following.

In many countries, demonstrations against lockdowns or vaccines have been clearly far-right enterprises, but in France a vigorous row divides left activists. The last three Saturdays in July saw demonstrations in over 185 towns against the “health pass” announced by Macron. This pass proves you have been vaccinated, tested very recently, or have recovered from Covid, and it will be compulsory from mid-August to get onto long-distance trains, or into cinemas, restaurants, football matches, concerts and so on. On many of the demonstrations, slogans calling for Macron’s resignation were prominent.

Demonstrators were counted at anything up to 250 000 people on July 24, and at least as many the following week. There were no trade union banners, and the people present came from all parts of the political spectrum, most no doubt thinking it was not a question of being right or left wing. Political organizations were generally not visible, most placards were home made, and consensual chants of “liberté” were the most common slogan. When activists were seen, they were generally from the far-right or from the radical left. In Paris there were separate marches on July 24 and 31, one led by fascist Florian Philippot, behind a banner “Vaccinated and unvaccinated united!”, the other organized by Yellow Vest activists from the non-party movement which humiliated Macron so often in 2018- 2020.

But in most towns there was only one march, which may or may not have included fascists. In Orléans and in Bordeaux, far-right royalists openly joined the demonstration. In Poitiers on the 31st there was both an antifascist flag and a far-right royalist one, as well as NPA (New Anticapitalist Party) newspaper sellers. Yet on the main banner in Toulouse the slogan denounced both the health pass and the attacks on retirement pensions.

Placards against vaccines were regularly seen (“We don’t want to be guinea pigs”, “Against sanitary dictatorship”, “Hands off my DNA!”, or “My body, my choice”). But there were also placards accusing Macron of being a Nazi, slogans such as “No Pass, no pasaran” and even a few yellow stars with the word “unvaccinated” written on them, a disgusting attempt to compare the fate of unvaccinated people today with that of French Jews in the Holocaust. Such symbols were denounced by all left organizations, but a poll showed that over half of those expressing strong support for these demos were “not shocked” by them.

Authoritarianism 

Macron announced his measures on July 12, in a long speech in which he also pitched his bid to be re-elected as president in 2022. The new law also makes vaccination a condition of employment for health and care workers. Macron’s aim is to facilitate opening up the profit economy as quickly as he can, no doubt too quickly.

After the pandemic, many left-wingers have been waiting for an explosion of mass anger, but this has come in an unexpected form, with much confusion. Should we oppose the principle of the health pass? And should we participate in demonstrations even where the main tone of the rally is anti-vaccine, and the far-right is supporting? And what about compulsory vaccination for health workers and care home workers?

Many on the left denounce the health pass as a dangerous further move towards authoritarianism. Others insist that unity between those who choose to be vaccinated and those who choose not to be is essential in order to oppose this dangerous attack on individual freedom. The 17 radical left France Insoumise Members of Parliament claimed on July 24 that the health pass was “absurd, unfair and authoritarian” and was a step on the road to a society of “generalized surveillance”. For the FI this extreme measure was meant to compensate for the incompetent management of the crisis by Macron’s government and the criminal under-funding of the health service over decades of neoliberalism. Compulsory vaccination of sections of the workforce was said to be a “violent” measure “undermining freedom”. FI members of parliament have organized a challenge to the new law in the courts, and the verdict is expected early August.

Some local FI groups have been joining the recent demonstrations, others not. Mélenchon did not directly call his supporters to participate, but said that the demonstration “should be listened to”. He also asked supporters demonstrating to distance themselves from the “excessive” slogans sometimes seen. “No, a freely chosen vaccine is not apartheid, a vaccination campaign is not a Holocaust”, he said.

A wider alliance of radical left figures organized by social justice campaign ATTAC, and including national leaders of most union federations and left parties, set up a petition on the 28 of July. It declares that while “a massive vaccination campaign is necessary to fight this pandemic”, the health pass and compulsory vaccination measures are “undemocratic and harmful”. The petition also denounces neoliberal attacks on pensioners and on the unemployed, as well as calls for the lifting of patents on vaccines. Another group, comprised of 200 lawyers, signed a declaration stating “We are neither in favour of vaccines nor against them, but we want freedoms to be respected”.

Similar arguments were put forward by the New Anticapitalist Party, defending the idea of mass vaccination but opposing the health pass and any sanctions against unvaccinated health or care workers. The NPA leaflet from the 28 of July called, perhaps a little timidly, to “defend these ideas, including by joining in mobilizations everywhere where it is possible to popularize such policies”.

The other main Trotskyist organization, Lutte Ouvrière, seemed to go even further in making concessions to anti-vaccine feeling. Their weekly workplaces leaflet declared “ Yes, vaccination could be a step forward if capitalism was not concerned with profit rather than the satisfaction of human needs”.

Only one significant left organization, Ensemble, openly declared it was not joining the demonstrations. The FI and the NPA left the decision to local sections, usually depending on how prominent the far-right elements were in local rallies. And indeed, on the 31st, the NPA joined the demos in some towns, such as Poitiers and Bordeaux , and refused to do so in others such as Bourges.

Vaccine skepticism

Being against the vaccine is contrary to the interests of workers, who account for the vast majority of deaths. Yet skepticism about vaccines is very strong on the left in France. Last January, a poll showed that only 59% of those identifying as left-wing intended to get vaccinated (as against 69% of right-wingers). Only 36% of supporters of the radical left France Insoumise wanted to!

Reluctance has been somewhat reduced since, but skepticism remains high in the country. It is particularly high among non-white populations, who are, understandably, used to mistrusting a racist state. In the French overseas departments of Guadeloupe and Martinique, vaccination rates are half those of the metropole. Stéphanie Mulot, a sociologist, explained “there is much mistrust of the French government … refusing the vaccine is an oppositional political position”. In professions where individualism is particularly prized, skepticism is also high: artists, theatre, and cinema workers as well as musicians are often particularly vocal in the demonstrations. With few exceptions, left leaders have done little or nothing to challenge vaccine skepticism among their supporters, and are today making mistaken concessions to anti-vaccine sentiment.

No concessions to anti-vaccine ideas

A recent opinion poll showed 35% of French people “felt sympathy” for the demonstrations against the health pass, while 49% were opposed and 16% indifferent. The survey showed that 46% of working-class people felt sympathy and 31% clearly supported the mobilization. Unsurprisingly, given their individualist orientation, 61% of business owners felt sympathy too. Sympathy was expressed by 38% of left voters, 24% of right-wing voters, 49% of far-right voters and 50% of those who voted France Insoumise. However, the situation is complex, since another recent poll showed 69% of citizens thought unvaccinated people should not be allowed to work in health or in care homes (60% of working-class respondents in employment , 87% of retired people) and 62% are in favour of the COVID passport (a little over 50% of working class respondents in employment, 81% of retired).

This poses two urgent questions: Firstly, can these demonstrations expressing anger against Macron be pushed in a leftward direction? And secondly, should the left oppose the health pass on principle, and the imposition of vaccination as a condition of employment? Most left organizations seem unsure about the first but sure about the second: hence the challenge to the law in court and the broadly-based petition. Left-wingers on the demonstrations insist that a mobilization intended to defend individual freedom should not be left to the right-wingers.

For my part, I think the main body of demonstrators are campaigning because they do not want to be vaccinated. Although in form the marches resemble the early Yellow Vest marches, the Yellow Vests were marching against poverty, not in favour of a (wrong) individual choice. The popularity of the protests is the sign of a move to the right. The far-right is more likely to benefit than is the left. I do not think that adding demands about pensions to your placards will change much. The left should be campaigning for people to be vaccinated, and should not be presenting vaccination as purely a matter of individual choice.

Secondly, although any law passed by Macron will of course be applied in a discriminatory and authoritarian manner, is the left correct to oppose these measures on principle? Since Macron’s announcement, in 17 days, 4.7 million people in France got their first dose of the vaccine. The rate of vaccination doubled as compared to the previous month. This acceleration will save many lives, and there is no point in denying this.

Just as for other health and safety rules, trade unions in other circumstances have campaigned for vaccination to be compulsory for working in certain sectors. In 2013, the CGT Trade Union here pushed for compulsory vaccination against leptospirosis for sewerage workers. Although there are obvious advantages to using persuasion, and Macron’s arrogance rightly makes people angry, is it a left-wing priority to mobilize against these measures? There is nothing inherently right-wing about compulsory vaccination, which was a bolshevik policy just after the Russian Revolution. Do we really want to “respect” people’s right to put others in danger?

Is a health pass different in principle to alcohol testing for drivers or eyesight tests for bus drivers? And, in a world where my mobile phone, my credit card and CCTV cameras would allow state agencies to know huge amounts about me, if I were important enough to care about, it is not clear that the pass is a decisive step towards 1984.

Universal vaccination is absolutely in the interests of the working class. An impatience to see masses back on the streets has led much of the left to downplay the centrality of vaccination and make concessions to anti-scientific nonsense. This, sadly, will help the far right to build. This month’s demonstrations in Paris were the biggest ones addressed by fascist leaders for many years, and they faced no opposition on the streets. Last week, two vaccination centres were vandalized, and in Montpellier this week a COVID testing tent was attacked. A far right which has long had difficulty getting thousands on the streets is making the most of the situation.

We need rather a campaign for vaccination, and quality health care, for the whole of the world’s population.

‘Free’ From Covid Restrictions, Britain Faces Another Virus Surge

The British government has failed to learn lessons from the pandemic so far and is taking a huge gamble


03/08/2021

On 19th July, the British government abandoned many of the precautions in place to reduce the spread of coronavirus on what some of the press inappropriately insisted on calling ‘freedom day’. Limits on how many people could meet, social distancing and mandatory use of masks were dropped. Nightclubs were allowed to reopen, pubs and restaurants no longer had to offer table service only and limits were lifted for numbers at weddings, funerals, concerts, theatres, sports events and church services. From mid-August, most Covid restrictions in schools will end, including ‘bubbles’, and fully vaccinated adults will not need to self-isolate after contact with a positive case. Guidance recommending against travel to amber list countries was removed, and those visiting were no longer expected to self isolate on return.

Had the war been won?

Reading the above it would be tempting to think that the ‘war against coronavirus’ in the UK had been won. However, numbers of new cases and hospital admissions told a quite different story, prompting rising concern among the scientific community long before restrictions were lifted. Writing in the medical journal The Lancet, Deepti Gurdasani and colleagues branded the decision to lift restrictions as dangerous and premature. An end to the pandemic should mean that enough of the population are immune to SARS-CoV-2 to prevent an exponential increase in infections with the huge pressure that this exerts on the NHS and the risk to many of death and chronic illness. In fact, in early July it was estimated that there were still 17 million people with no protection against the virus.

Indeed, the Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, was confidently predicting a rapid rise in case numbers to as high as 100,000/day. Soon afterwards, having developed infection himself despite being vaccinated, he fatuously and insensitively tweeted that people should not “cower” from infection. This not only led to swift condemnation by those who had lost relatives but also called seriously into question his soundness of judgment and his understanding of the seriousness of the disease.

A return to herd immunity

At the start of the pandemic, the UK government initially considered letting infection spread until herd immunity was achieved. While this is denied, video evidence confirmation from the Chief Scientific Adviser is freely available. The most obvious explanation for the recent lifting of restrictions is that the government now feels that herd immunity can be achieved through a combination of both vaccination and natural infection, rather than waiting for greater vaccine coverage to be rolled out. The consequence would be a huge rise in infections among the predominantly as yet unvaccinated younger population. This was justified by arguing that vaccines had “broken the link between infection and mortality” and that catching the virus if you were relatively young and healthy did not much matter.

However, the link between virus and death has been weakened rather than broken and infection can be a serious matter resulting not only in sudden illness requiring hospital admission but also long term problems in many who become ill. Around 10% of patients have symptoms three months after being infected and long Covid can affect the whole spectrum of people with Covid-19, from those with very mild acute disease to the most severe forms. The risk of this approach is therefore clear – exponential growth of the delta variant leaving hundreds of thousands of people with long term chronic health problems, increasing pressure on the NHS, and preventable deaths.

Storing up trouble for the future

Allowing transmission of the virus over the summer may also create a reservoir of infection that will accelerate spread when schools and universities reopen in the autumn. Modelling suggests that another effect could be to increase the likelihood of vaccine resistant variants. This would put all at risk, including those vaccinated, both in the UK and globally. An increase in hospital admissions will apply further pressure on health services struggling to cope and on exhausted staff. Catching up with the backlog of work will also become even more challenging. As always, it is the deprived communities who are more exposed to and more at risk from Covid-19 that will be disproportionately affected.

The authors of the letter to The Lancet described the government approach as a “dangerous and unethical experiment” as well as branding it illogical. They suggested an alternative approach of delaying relaxation of restrictions while pushing up vaccination rates, investing in adequate ventilation in schools and workplaces, continuing to follow WHO guidance including mask wearing in indoor spaces, having effective border quarantine processes and ensuring that ‘find, test, trace support’ systems worked. The latter must include doing something about statutory sick pay in the UK, which at £95.85 a week is almost the lowest anywhere in the industrialised world, and means around a quarter of the British workforce face poverty by falling ill.

Taking the batteries from the smoke alarm – a novel approach to fire fighting

Just as England was about to lift restrictions, new infection rates had climbed to one of the highest in the world with 54,674 new cases in the UK on 17th July. Not surprisingly, more people were being asked to isolate through contact with infected cases, more than half a million in the first week of July (a 46% rise on the previous week). Most of the press chose to call this a ‘pingdemic’ and blame it on the NHS contact tracing app rather than the huge rise in infection brought about by government strategy. Meanwhile, the lamentably expensive and largely useless privatised ‘test and trace’ continued to underperform, with only a minority of those with Covid symptoms coming forward for testing, mainly due to lack of financial support.

There followed calls for the sensitivity of the contact tracing app to be reduced and for key workers to continue to work provided they had negative daily lateral flow tests, a negative PCR test and had been double vaccinated. Much confusion then followed in terms of just who were key workers, would they still have to isolate when not at work, and what about risk to fellow workers who had not been in contact with infection? In addition, health staff told not to isolate would inevitably come into contact with vulnerable patients. While ministers are fans of lateral flow tests, it should be noted that the US Food and Drug Agency takes a different view and warned the public to stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid qualitative test for detecting infection, suggesting the tests should be destroyed and binned or returned to the manufacturer.

Despite a symptomatic Sajid Javid testing positive and being in face to face meetings with the prime minister and chancellor, both suddenly claimed to be part of a ‘pilot scheme’ that allowed them not to isolate. A hostile public response, including from many of the around 1 million people estimated to have been told to self isolate, prompted a rapid U-turn. Among accusations of ‘one rule for them, another for the rest’ Johnson spent ‘freedom day’ isolating in 10 Downing Street. This meant we were spared him declaring victory over the virus day “by summoning the spirit of Churchill with appropriately stirring rhetoric . . at an historic venue associated with the wartime leader”.

Time will tell which way the numbers go

Modelling of what might happen after lifting restrictions suggested that Covid cases could rise as high as 200,000 a day with up to 2,000 hospital admissions and 100-200 deaths each day. By 26th July, daily infections had fallen from over 50,000 to the lowest in three weeks (24,950 cases) but hospital in patient numbers had risen to above 5,000 for the first time since mid-March and deaths were up by 50%. The seven-day average for hospital admissions had increased by 26% over the previous week, with a 31% rise in Intensive Care Unit bed occupancy. Since a June 1st with no coronavirus deaths, 1,114 were reported over the next four weeks. NHS providers warned the government that the NHS was as stretched as it was at the height of the pandemic in January.

With the closure of schools, numbers of children tested fell, possibly contributing to falling case numbers. Good weather also meant more people were outside and the spread of virus may have reduced. At the time of writing (end of July) It is certainly too early to conclude that a level of herd immunity has now been reached. Effects of lifting restrictions on the 19th July will take time to become apparent and a surge in cases remains possible in September (if not before) when schools reopen. There is general agreement that considerable uncertainty must remain about what will happen in the coming months.

International disbelief

Overseas observers looked on with incredulity at the July 19th lifting of restrictions, pointing out that the prime minister had clearly abandoned any claim to be basing actions on ‘data not dates’ given the skyrocketing of delta variant cases. A professor of infectious disease from Harvard commented: “Yes, vaccines make it much less likely you’ll get infected or ill; but if the virus isn’t there, it definitely can’t infect you”. Only half the UK population was fully immunised, vaccine uptake was slowing, and there were many who were unable to benefit from vaccination including those with immuno-suppression or those struggling with vaccine access.

Prof Robert West of the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies behavioural sciences subgroup, described the government approach as getting “as many people infected as quickly as possible, while using rhetoric about caution as a way of putting the blame on the public for the consequences”. In effect, a very strong signal had been sent out that the Covid crisis was now less serious, with the overall message being that actions by the public – not only mask wearing, but also distancing and avoiding crowded places – were no longer required.

The possibility of the UK becoming a breeding ground for new vaccine-resistant variants and exporting them to the rest of the globe caused alarm among 1,200 world scientists. Prof Michael Baker from New Zealand remarked: “we have always looked to the UK for leadership when it comes to scientific expertise, which is why it’s so remarkable that it is not even following basic public health principles”. Clinical epidemiologist Deepti Gurdasani commented: “Let’s be under no illusions – we are in a country where our government is taking steps to maximally expose our young to a virus that causes chronic illness in many. Our government is ending all protections for our children including isolation of contacts of cases in schools and bubbles”. Others warned that the British government’s approach would be imitated, for political expediency, by authorities elsewhere.

Coercion and vaccine passports – an assault on civil liberties

Care home staff will be expected to have vaccination against Covid-19, with expansion of compulsory vaccination against both Covid-19 and flu for all health and care workers. Care home staff that refuse will be dismissed without compensation and barred from their occupation. There is a lot more to safety in care homes than vaccination, including adequate staffing levels, training equipment, cleanliness, personal protective equipment, risk assessment, and consultation with staff and residents. The government has also overestimated the number of care staff who have not had vaccination. Respect and professionalisation of care staff would do more to boost vaccine uptake.

Nightclubs have been identified internationally as particularly dangerous environments for spreading the virus. By the end of September, vaccine certificates will be mandatory for entry into nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather. This is more about coercing the young to be vaccinated rather than a serious approach to persuading people of the benefits. Critics asked why, if it was safe to go to a nightclub from July 19th, would it require full vaccination from the end of September? Big Brother Watch has highlighted problems of vaccine passports/COVID status certificates and mass testing of asymptomatic people – that there is insufficient evidence that vaccinations prevent transmission of the virus; there is no evidence to support the use of mass testing in people without symptoms or exposure to an infectious person (false positive tests hamper public health efforts and unfairly exclude healthy individuals from public life).

Further, the use of immunity as a condition for work, travel or leisure rights raises serious legal and ethical issues and would risk incentivising healthy people to contract the virus in attempting to access equal socio-economic opportunities. As COVID-status certificates do not reduce community risks, they should not play a role in reopening the economy. COVID-status certificates would create a two-tier society, in which minority ethnic groups, migrants, poorer people and people with lower education would be disproportionately represented. The best way to ensure marginalised groups are included in public health measures is to create an enabling, not a punitive, environment.

In conclusion

The current UK government strategy for managing coronavirus remains deeply flawed. Despite rising infection rate, restrictions known to reduce the spread of virus were abandoned on July 19th exposing many millions of unprotected individuals to risk of developing Covid-19. Ministers chose to abdicate responsibility for this by leaving the public to decide how to behave. Apart from a recent reduction in number of daily new cases, it is clear that hospital admissions and deaths have been increasing. Lifting of restrictions should have been delayed until a much greater proportion of the population were vaccinated, up to around the 85% mark needed for herd immunity to be achieved. The government has capitulated to its critics who declare mask wearing an infringement of liberty, insist Covid-19 is no worse than flu and see a disconnect between the economy and the health of the people. It is principally the young and the poor who are being sacrificed.

While only time will tell, there is every possibility that cases will once again surge over the coming months, with the added risk of the emergence of vaccine resistant variants. The government has failed to learn lessons from the pandemic so far, is still failing to adopt basic public health measures, has long since abandoned the science and is now taking a huge gamble. More than ever, it no longer deserves to be in power.