The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Month: July 2022

Marx, Wagner, and Anti-Semitism: A Review of the Exhibition ‘Karl Marx und der Kapitalismus’

A new exhibition of the life and work of Marx raises many interesting questions, not least his attitude to anti-semitism


27/07/2022

Marxists are used to seeing society’s institutions misrepresent Marx and Engels. So it was with some scepticism that I visited this exhibition. This is not unwarranted.

We read in the free brochure, Raphael Gross, the President of the Museum, intoning: “Marxism became the ideology in states that committed torture and murder in the name of communism and socialism”. There is no nod that the ideology of Bourgeois Democracy has done that for longer and to far more people world wide, than the harms by a mis-respresented “Marxism” as in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. That Democracy continues today to wreak its toll world-wide.

Moreover the Museum explicitly couples this Marx exhibit with one entitled “Richard Wagner Und Das Deutsche Gefühl”, — translated with a wee bit of license as “Richard Wagner and the Nationalization of Feeling”. Perhaps one can see where this coupling is headed…?

Here is the web description of the Marx exhibit: “The focus is on topics such as criticism of religion and society, Jewish emancipation and anti-Semitism, revolutions, new technologies, nature and ecology, the economy as well as struggles and movements in Europe.” Here is the corresponding blurb for the Wagner Exhibit:

“Richard Wagner experienced and shaped the 19th century in very different positions: as a composer and court music director, as a revolutionary and exile, as a bankrupt and as a protégé of wealthy patrons and a king… Wagner’s pronounced anti-Semitism and his nationalism were closely linked.”

True, both Marx and Wagner participated in the 1848 attempted bourgeois democratic revolution in Germany. But I think the real link the curators aim to make is that of anti-Semitism. That charge certainly sticks firmly on Wagner. Even so, it should be recalled that many great musicians praise Wagner’s music. For example in a 1998 conversation with Edward Said, Daniel Barenboim says: “I think that Wagner’s anti-Semitism is one thing, and the things that we have been forced to associate with his music are another. “

But does the charge stick onto Marx? I will return to this.

Nonetheless, the Marx exhibition itself ultimately rises above the dubious linkage its’ curators target. One caution – it treats ‘Marx’ and not ‘Marx and Engels.’ Engels is regrettably not treated as a fully equal figure in this exhibition. This follows the now well worn historiography of Georgy Lukacs who denigrated Engels. True the exhibit notes the seminal work ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England‘ (Marxist IA). But it does not elucidate that as Marx had praised it, it was a “brilliant essay on the critique of economic categories”. Lenin, Ronald Meek and others have assessed it as containing several “germs” of Marxist theory (Bland).

Cavils aside, overall the exhibition is a great experience in my view, both for those wanting to learn about Marx and for those who already have some knowledge of him. For the first, a well organised guide to the life and work is presented. It takes a chronological course and especially with the audioguide (German or English – well advised but with an extra Euro 3) is comprehensive. Apart from biographical information, it progresses from Marx’s early insights into the process of the workers alienation from society and its inhumane seizure of workers rights. From there Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune then leads onto presentations of his theory of Capital. A particularly vivid illustration of the concept of surplus value involves a working machine. The viewer is asked to work on a lever, which pumps water – largely into a big vat (employers profits) and a tiny dribble into a small wee cup (wages). Other vivid illustrations includes an 1880 botanical pressed leaf page which illustrates the pollution effects on leaves of the industrial revolution. At periodic intervals the disconcerting thunder of a ‘Spinning Jenny’ echoes through the hall. Presumably to remind viewers of the all pervasive effects of the Industrial Revolution on workers’ bodies. The role of women, and the First International is not forgotten.

Those more familiar with Marx will also be intrigued. For instance by numerous pictorials and creative ways of illustrating the period. Apart from those already described are paintings. For example, “The Silesian Weavers” by Carl W.Hubner (1846) described by Engels as having “made a more effectual Socialist agitation than a hundred pamphlets might have done. It represents some Silesian weavers bringing linen cloth to the manufacturer” [Collected Works; Volume 4; Moscow; 1975; pp. 229-233]. Or Robert Kohehler’s monumental ‘Der Streik” (1836). The treasurers box of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (1855) with multiple locks to be turned by different office-holders. A board game “Strikes”, one of which the Marx family owned, involved how to fight the employers in negotiations — is made into a large interactive table game.

So well and good. What about this alleged, very old canard of an anti-Semitic stance of Marx? The charge made in the exhibition is that Marx identified capitalists as the same as Jews. One fundamental problem is that this was not seen differently by leading intellectuals at the time. Most striking for instance, was Moses Hess (1812-1875) — acknowledged as a key father of Zionism (Hess). Ruchwarger (1979) quotes Hess: “society was a “huckster world”, a “social animal world”… (where-Ed) “the priests of ancient Judaism (are) the hyenas of the social animal-world… (with) their :”common quality as beasts of prey, as bloodsuckers, as Jews, as financial wolves.”

Leaving this parallel aside, Marx in fact argues for the emancipation of Jews from the oppressions of society. Following the French Revolution, Jews had been granted civil rights in France. But in then-Germany the Prussian landowning aristocracy rejected the emancipation of the Jews, and allied with the peasants and guild members against this. However the independent professions and merchants were more open to this (Ruchwarger). By 1843, the chamber of deputies of the Rhineland Province asked the king of Prussia to remove all restrictions that “prevent equality between the Jew and his Christian subjects in civil and political matters”.

By 1840 Marx had advocated civil right for Jews. However he argued against the ‘Young Hegelian’ Bruno Bauer, who contested civil-political equal rights to Jews. Bauer advocated instead a societal “emancipation from religion”. Bauer said since no one in Germany was free – demands that Jews obtain “civic political emancipation”, were “egoistic” – as it placed them somehow above non-Jews. Furthermore Bauer argued that emancipation could not be given by those who are themselves “not free”. Marx summarises Bauer’s position:

“The German Jews desire emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they desire? Civic, political emancipation. Bruno Bauer replies to them: “No one in Germany is politically emancipated. We ourselves are not free. How are we to free you? You Jews are “egoists” if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule. “Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

Marx, understood that Bauer denied a real, daily oppression. Bauer wanted instead an “abolition of religion” – but this was postponing resolution to some eventual, uncertain future. Moreover Bauer in reality denied that secular questions were the basis for religion. As Ruchwarger argues, for Marx: “The real foe is the distorted social order of which, religion is only the “spiritual aroma” (Ruchwarger). Marx depicted Bauer’s prescription as follows:

“How, then, does Bauer solve the Jewish question? “We must emancipate ourselves before we can emancipate others. The most rigid form of the opposition between the Jew and the Christian is the religious opposition. How is an opposition resolved? By making it impossible. How is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion.” Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

Pointing to North America, Marx could show that separation of state and religion was possible, without the ‘abolition’ of personal religion, these were different:

“If we find that even in the country of complete political emancipation, religion not only exists, but displays a fresh and vigorous vitality, that is proof that the existence of religion is not in contradiction to the perfection of the state. Since, however, the existence of religion is the existence of defect, the source of this defect can only be sought in the nature of the state itself. We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. It is possible, therefore, for the state to have emancipated itself from religion even if the overwhelming majority is still religious.”

Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

Hence in sharp contrast to Bauer, Marx argued the distinction between political and civil freedoms. Marx argued that Jews should benefit from political freedoms, while yet seeing that this was not “human” emancipation – i.e. the struggle for human rights transcends the ‘Rights of Man’ as seen by bourgeois democrats. Those should not be eschewed – but they were only a step towards a full “human” emancipation:

“Therefore, we do not say to the Jews, as Bauer does: You cannot be emancipated politically without emancipating yourselves radically from Judaism. On the contrary, we tell them: Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation. If you Jews want to be emancipated politically, without emancipating yourselves humanly, the half-hearted approach and contradiction is not in you alone, it is inherent in the nature and category of political emancipation.”

Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

Indeed, Marx reminds Bauer that:

“The privilege of faith is expressly recognized either as a right of man or as the consequence of a right of man, that of liberty. Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, 1791, Article 10: “No one is to be subjected to annoyance because of his opinions, even religious opinions.” “The freedom of every man to practice the religion of which he is an adherent.”

Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

This was relevant since unlike Bauer, Marx also believed that Jews should be endowed with the “Rights of Man.” It is quite true that Marx did not support a separate nation for Jews. And that he saw Jewry as having become enmeshed in money and capitalist relations:

“The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.”

Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

But we have already seen that others (including Moses Hess) analysed the situation similarly, and just as bluntly. In any case, a close reading of Marx himself puts a lie to the old canard – namely that “Marx was a Jew-hating anti-Semite”.

In the end even the exhibit notes half-heartedly agree that Marx was on the side of democratic rights for Jews in Germany as elsewhere. However the exhibit persists in claiming that Marx’s view of the capitalist was made in the image of a stereotyped Jew.

While the rest of the Exhibition is extremely good and can be recommended, I’d suggest the visitor read their copies of Marx beforehand.

The Exhibition Karl Marx and Capitalism is showing in the Deutsche Historisches Museum, Berlin until 21st August.

 

A new book views Berlin from Below

Review: Revolutionary Berlin: A Walking Guide (Nathaniel Flakin)


25/07/2022

Germany is barely 150 years old, and yet the country, especially Berlin, teems with history. If we just look at the twentieth century, we see war and revolution, rule by Fascists and Communists, the squatters’ movement and the one the brought down the Berlin wall. Above all, we see people organising from below – socialists against the First World War, workers against DDR repression, students against police murder, and migrants against racism and poverty.

In Revolutionary Berlin: A Walking Guide, historian and occasional tour guide Nathaniel Flakin, tells the capital’s history based on nine walking tours. Unlike some historians, Flakin does not attempt to hide his bias. He stands firmly on the side of the workers, the oppressed, and most importantly the people who take history into their own hands and try to change it.

Tour One: (Anti)Colonialism

In 1884, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck invited representatives of 14 countries in the Global North to his palace. The Berlin Conference, as it is now known, carved up the continent of Africa among the colonial powers. No-one from Africa was invited to attend. Germany as a country was only 13 years old, and therefore had significantly fewer colonies than many other attendees of the conference. Between 1884 and the First World, Bismarck did his best to make up this deficit by colonising significant parts of Africa.

Tour One walks us through Germany’s colonial history: we visit the Reichskanzlei, site of the Berlin Conference, before viewing the legacies of German Colonialism. There is M-Straße, whose street name and U-Bahn station is unquestionably racist. After the Black Lives Matters demonstrations of 2020, the Berlin Senate promised to rename the street, but 2 years later, it remains.

There exists a history of resistance as well: the League Against Imperialism and the League for the Defence of the Negro Race, which were both part of the Communist International, and the DDR’s Cold War-fuelled support for Namibian independence. Even today, there is an ongoing campaign to rename streets of Wedding and other districts that have been named after colonialists. Germany’s support for colonial imperialism has always been contested.

Tours Two and Three: November Revolution and Rosa Luxemburg’s Berlin

In 1919, inspired by the Russian Revolution and the privations of war and poverty, German workers rose up. Tour Two starts at Potsdamer Platz, site of the first anti-war mobilisation on 1 May, 1916, the first step towards the German Revolution 2 years later.

We move to the sites of discussions within the then Marxist SPD, from the Reichstag, where most SPD MPs voted for war credits, to the offices of dissident MP Karl Liebknecht and the Spartakist Bund who opposed the war and would go on to form the German Communist Party. Then we visit the SPD headquarters from which the party, now in office, used the proto-Nazi Freikorps to put down the workers’ uprising.

Tour Three tells the life story of Rosa Luxemburg, the most important revolutionary leader alongside Liebknecht. Although Luxemburg has since been appropriated as an icon by reformists, lifestyle anarchists and Stalinists, she stood for a quite different type of politics in her lifetime – of socialism from below, of revolution, not reform.

We visit Luxemburg’s various homes, learn about her friendship and animosity with the Kautsky family, and the prison where she spent time for organising against the war. We learn about her participation in the November Revolution, and her flight from the Freikorps, which ended with her corpse being thrown into the Landwehrkanal. Her grave is now in the Gedenkstätte der Sozialisten (Memorial of the Socialists) in Lichtenberg.

Tour Four: Neukölln will stay Red

Two of the next tours tell the history of two of Berlin’s districts with the most radical reputation – Neukölln and Kreuzberg. Both areas have a high number of residents from a non-German background, and both have historically seen widespread support for both the Communist and Social Democratic parties.

The Neukölln tour uses the area to discuss wider Berlin, starting in the village of Rixdorf in 1871, and moving forward through time to show how the industrialisation of Berlin provoked the fight for workers’ voting rights – a fight which was ultimately won, not through reforms but by the revolutionary wave after the First World War.

We also hear about prominent socialist Neuköllners like Leo Jogiches, Ruth Fischer and Olga Benario, and witness the 1929 Blutmai, when the Social Democrat government banned all 1 May demonstrations, then deployed police to massacre anyone who defied this ban. We conclude by looking at the legacy of gentrification and the eviction of the Syndikat left-wing pub by Berlin’s Red-Red Senat.

Tour Five: 1968 in West Berlin

Compared to some other cities, Berlin had a quiet 1968. There wasn’t the Night of the Barricades and general strike of Paris or the mass uprising in Prague which was put down by Soviet tanks. Nonetheless, there was drama around the police murder of Benno Ohnesorg and at least one charismatic socialist leader Rudi Dutschke.

Ohnesorg was killed by police following a demonstration against the Shah of Persia on June 2nd 1967. He was beaten by police near the Staatsoper, then shot in the back of the head. No-one was convicted of his murder. Ohnesorg’s murder, the growing international movement against the Vietnam war, and a repressive SPD-CDU government radicalised a generation, resulting in the student SDS and a new extra-parliamentary opposition (APO).

Germany never mobilised as many people against the Vietnam war as other countries, but February 1968 saw 6,000 people attending the International Vietnam Congress in the TU. In April of that year, a week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., SDS leader Dutschke was shot and seriously injured following a smear campaign against him by the right wing press.

Tour Six: Riots in Kreuzberg

Kreuzberg, like Neukölln, is an area with a high number of migrants and an undeserved reputation for being a “problem area”. It was also a peninsula almost entirely surrounded by the East, which was largely populated by Gastarbeiter, students and poor workers, and as such became the focus of radical West Berlin.

This tour visits centres of the radical movement, like the Rauch Haus, part of the former Bethanien hospital, which was occupied by squatters in 1971. The nearby New Yorck is still a centre for activists. We continue to the 1987 Lausitzer Platz uprising, after a street festival was suppressed with police water cannons and tear gas. This paved the way towards the Revolutionary 1 May Demonstration which still takes place every year.

But Kreuzberg is not just the home of the white radical Left. It saw Turkish workers organising in trade unions, refugees in Oranienplatz demanding freedom of movement within Germany, then occupying an abandoned school in Ohlaer Straße, and a migrant led tenants organisation. Kreuzberg has always been the heart of multicultural resistance.

Tours Seven to Nine: The East is Red, Queer Berlin and Berlinerinnen

The final three tours were, in the author’s words, newly created for this book. While the first six chapters are based on tours that he has already given, these are ideas for future tours, conceived during lockdown.

Tour Seven looks at government and resistance in the DDR: the 1953 workers’ uprising, Berthold Brecht’s Berliner Ensemble, and the punks and churches who opposed the DDR. We visit Bösebrücke, where confusion among border guards caused the border to be opened in 1989, the Stasi museum, and the area of No-Man’s land which was briefly squatted by the opposition. We end in Samaratinerstraße to remember Silvio Meier, murdered by Nazis in 1992.

Tour Eight explores Berlin’s rich Queer history: from the nineteenth century campaign against the ban on gay sex, through the pioneering research of Magnus Hirschfeld and Wilhelm Reich to the post-1968 gay and lesbian liberation movements in the West and in the East. We finish in Berlin’s gay district and see how, more than ever, gay Berlin and opportunities for victims of oppression are determined by class.

The final tour introduces some of the women of Berlin: from support for early strikes in Moabit and riots in Friedrichshain to pioneering socialists like the artist Kathe Kollwitz, the politician Clara Zetkin, and Black women like Audre Lorde, May Ayim and Angela Davis. We follow the ongoing fight for reproductive rights in West, East and united Berlin, where abortion is still formally illegal, and thousands of fundamentalist Christians still march every year.

Review and minor criticisms:

The tours in the book are perfectly structured. With the exception of one of the new tours, everything is rolled out chronologically, so we see that history is not just a jumble of random events, but that decisions made at one time affect what happens – and what can happen – later. As someone once said, we make history, but not under conditions of our own choosing.

This is particularly clear in the tours around the German Revolution: the revolution was neither bound to end in glorious victory nor doomed to failure. Its outcome depended on the bold moves and the mistakes, the premature actions and the dithering of actors on all sides – revolutionaries, reformists, and putative Nazis. Here we see what happened, but also what could have happened if the balance of forces had been slightly different.

In the Introduction, the author Nathaniel Flakin addresses the possible regional chauvinism of his tours: “Why is there a chapter on Red Neukölln and not Red Wedding? Because I live in the former, and the latter is really far away.” In a sense, fair enough, and the book can’t cover everything, but as someone who lives in Wedding (far away from Neukölln), I think that the area’s relative absence leads to a deficit, particularly around the history of the workers’ movement and the Blutmai.

In Wedding, the Blutmai was even more intense than in Neukölln. The SPD-controlled police shot 12,000 rounds of ammunition, much of it into the windows of residential buildings. At least 33 people were killed. Anyone wanting to understand why the German Communist Party took the suicidal decision to refuse to unite with the SPD against the Nazis can understand this better by looking at Wedding’s bloody history.

Wedding was also the centre of many workers’ actions at the beginning of the twentieth century and a chapter on this important history would complement the description of resistance by migrant workers in Kreuzberg. But of course, a book has to stop somewhere, and maybe there’ll be a sequel that gives Wedding’s proletarian history full justice.

Some snarky asides are unjustified. To say, for example, that the rosa luxemburg stiftung is “a reformist organisation” which presents Luxemburg as “a democrat and a pacifist who would have supported the modern capitalist régime” downplays the role that the organisation has played in supporting international revolutionary organisations.

All in all, however, this is a book which shows how ordinary people can make a difference. It’s written in an engaging style, full of anecdotes that would be irresponsible to reproduce here, so best buy the book to read them for yourself. .

An Update On The Capitol Riot and January 6th Commission

The January 6th commission has revealed the seriousness of Donald Trump’s attempted coup


24/07/2022

Introduction

On January 6th 2021, incumbent President Trump made an attempt to overturn the election result in favour of Joe Biden by assembling a mob to storm the Capitol. This, and Trump’s stalling and repeated claims of ‘stolen elections’ has been subject to a slow drip of investigations aimed at him. These reached a summit during the series of hearings at Congress, unveiling a sordid story – all too common in capitalist ‘democracy’. The hearings were co-chaired by Democrat Chairman Bennie Thompson, and Republican Liz Cheney. Even before the public hearings – a federal judge had ruled that:

“Trump was likely involved in at least two potential crimes: conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of Congress.”

Wertheimer and Eisen

These hearings were skillfully orchestrated for a mass TV audience, and succeeded in capturing the attention of many:

“Nearly 20 million people watched the first hearing and 13 million tuned in on June 28 to catch Cassidy Hutchinson’s… testimony. CNN reports that almost six out of ten people in the United States are following the hearings, and CBS finds that nearly 70 percent believe it’s important to find out the truth. “

David Duhade July 10, 2022

Both Trump allies, high appointees, family and aides poured out streams of damning evidence. In particular Attorney General Barr. Thus far perhaps the 6th session was most riveting with top former White House aide, 26-year old, Cassidy Hutchinson. The

What have we learnt from the hearings?

Assessments Before the Hearings

Before examining that, I summarise briefly a prior assessment which proposed that:

“There are some very strange elements… it is extremely difficult to believe that anyone could have been ‘surprised’ by the January 6th ‘event’.”

(Hari Kumar

I argued that a very well choreographed movement had ‘stood down’ law enforcement, encouraging Trump to over-reach. Elements of the Republican party wished to get rid of the Trumpian ‘ghost’ they had called into existence.

But why should members of the Republican Party wish to participate in this? Because they are split between advocates of ‘dirty’ extraction industry (oil, gas, coal) and advocates for industrialists. The latter initially supported Trump to ‘re-shore’ industry, but then pulled back their support :

“the Republican Party is riven. .. they could not get rid of Trump without some form of public rejection of him…

As the ‘event’ was unfolding, The National Association of Manufacturers weighed in with condemnation quickly, and called for Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment – which disempowers the President and effectively removes him from office. “

Many progressives instinctively dismiss such views as ‘conspiracist’. But progressives often under-estimate the calculated deviousness and factionalism within the ruling class. Events at the on-going hearings confirm important pillars of my previous report.

Summary of Findings to Date

The US Secret Services destroyed messages January 5-6 and tried to remove Pence from the Capitol.

As Trump was trying to force Pence to refuse to ‘certify’ the elections results, the Secret Services were trying to whisk him away from the White House. But the Secret service has deleted key data:

“The House Select Committee… has subpoenaed the U.S. Secret Service for more information about text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021, that were reportedly erased or deleted.”

Democracy Now July 18 2022

“the erasure took place shortly after oversight officials requested the agency’s electronic communications…. The Secret Service has emerged as a key player in the explosive congressional hearings … Vice President Mike Pence was at the Capitol … When rioters entered the building, the Secret Service tried to whisk Pence away from the scene. “I’m not getting in the car,” Pence reportedly told them. . Had Pence entered the vice-presidential limo, he would have been taken to a secure location where he would have been unable to certify the presidential election results… “ If Pence had listened to the Secret Service and fled the Capitol.. a congressional official .. told The Intercept. “It could’ve been a successful coup, not just an attempted one.”

Ken Klippenstein , July 14, 2022, The Intercept

One can reasonably ask what did the Secret Services remove from their files?

Trump and his family fully knew he had lost the election

Trump was advised by aides he had lost. Rather more pithily, Attorney general Barr advised in response to his wish to publicise a ‘stolen election, as follows: “I told the president it was bullshit.” [2 minutes 46 s; and Barr at 2 minutes 18 s; CNN Five minute Summary video 9 June]

Both Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, both illegitimately appointed to enormous powers by Trump, testified they knew that the election was lost by Trump. Ivanka cited Barr’s advice.

Trump attempted to pressure voting officials and ‘find’ votes

Previously Georgia’s Secretary State Brad Raffensberger had been vocal about Trump’s pressure. At the Hearings he confirmed:

“Trump sought to procure nonexistent votes, with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger testifying about Trump’s pressure to get him to “find 11,780 votes.”

Wertheimer and Eisen

But in addition Republican high officials substantiated:

“Trump’s direct involvement in procuring an alternate slate of fraudulent electors through the testimony of live witnesses like Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and videotaped ones from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel.”

Wertheimer and Eisen

Multiple evidences emerged that Trump actively planned the attempted coup with the right wing extremist groupings

When all that failed, Trump was in active planning mode with his supporters to storm the Capitol, amply confirmed by several strands of testimony including that of former aide Cassidy Hutchinson. She also confirmed that Trump has a mental age of approximately 3.75 years throwing tantrums where Trumps smashed plates of food against the wall and grabbed steering wheels of cars in motion:

“She said that Mr. Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential limousine and lunged for his Secret Service agent because he wanted to go to the Capitol, and added that at one point he hurled his plate of lunch at a wall in the White House.

“I grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off of the wall to help the valet out,” Ms. Hutchinson testified.”

Maggie Haberman

More disturbing was Trump’s support of mob calls to hang Pence for his defiance. The relevant section of the NPR transcript is worth reading:

“I overheard the President say… I don’t effing care that they (i.e. the mob) have weapons. … They’re not here to hurt me. Take that effing mags (i.e magnets to detect weapons that were screening the entry to an open-space meeting) away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.… ..I remember Pat (i.e. White House counsel Pat Cipollone) saying… “ Mark (President Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows) we need to do something more. They’re literally calling for the vice president to be f’ing hung. And Mark had responded something to the effect of, you heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. ….

LIZ CHENEY: Let me pause here on this point. As rioters chanted hang Mike Pence, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, said that “Mike deserves it,” and that those rioters were not doing anything wrong. This is a sentiment that he has expressed at other times as well. In an interview with ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, President Trump was asked about the supporters chanting hang Mike Pence last year. Instead of condemning them, the former president defended them. [Begin videotape]…

JONATHAN KARL: Saying hang Mike Pence.

DONALD TRUMP: Because it’s — it’s common sense, Jon. It’s common sense that you’re supposed to protect — how can you — if you know a vote is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress?

Because the NPR transcript does not capture the powerful effect of a composed Hutchinson, the short clips videos are recommended: CNN Five minute Summary ; Liz Cheny Summmary (1minute 27s).

What Should Progressives Understand?

Whether or not there are legal consequences for Trump, Rudy Giuliani, or any of the criminal crew surrounding Trump – is almost irrelevant. If there are, it helps the narrative that “democracy” has reasserted itself. Although what has happened is the latest manifestation of a battle within the divided capitalist class of the USA, first revealed to us in Watergate.

I think there are two main things leftists and progressives should consider.

Some, including leaders of the DSA, continue to have constitutional illusions. Even now, after the Supreme Court’s evident ‘politicisation’ on climate, electoral laws, and now rescinding Roe vs Wade, David Duhalde, chair of the Democratic Socialists of America Fund, and former deputy director of DSA suggests:

“One way to prevent this authoritarian slide is through engaging in public pressure to push Garland and other Justice Department officials to prosecute Trump and his allies….We cannot have a multi-racial working-class socialist society without first achieving a functioning democracy.”

David Duhade July 10, 2022

While this is too naïve, we should not lurch to the other extreme and throw out the baby with the bath water. It is true the Republicans and the Democrats become ever more exposed to many as varieties of the same fruit cake.

But yet there remain differences and it is necessary to remind ourselves that we need to not only recognize them, but we need to utilize them. As V. I. Lenin wrote:

“A more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and without fail, most thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skilfully using every, even the smallest, ‘rift’ among the enemies, every antagonism of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who fail to understand this, fail to understand even a particle of Marxism, or of scientific, modern socialism in general.”

“Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder, Moscow 1952, p. 90.

Secondly, we are still woefully disunited. I will end with the same words as in my prior article:

“Until there is a real, organized mass movement of working people in the United States, we can expect nothing more than continued choreography.”

Hari Kumar

EXCLUSIVE: How the left will transform Colombia

Interview with Germany-based Colombian left-wing activist Diana Sepúlveda


23/07/2022

The left-wing surge that continues to engulf Latin America recently claimed its latest and most unlikely victim – Colombia. Gustavo Petro’s 50.46% election won as the first leftist coalition government in the country shook the US imperialist project. How did emerge from behind  the FARC guerilla war, evading right-wing death squads ? Left Berlin asked Germany-based Colombian left-wing activist Diana Sepúlveda.

1. How did Gustavo Petro reach such  popularity that he was able to convince the nation that he could be president, even after being a guerrilla fighter and being in prison?
Gustavo Petro’s political work has a long trajectory far beyond his past as a militant in the M-19. I would not say his triumph is due to his popularity, but, in my opinion, is attributed to several factors:
First, it is intrinsically linked to the 2016 peace process. After the signing of the peace process, the concept of the internal enemy disappears, making state repression and persecution against the Left unjustifiable.

This is a new situation. There was a division between those who support an armed struggle and those betting on the resolution of the conflict through democratic dialogue. It provided a wider margin of action allowing for the unification of the Left and generating inclusive forces in the Historical Pact.
This was the third time that Gustavo Petro tried to be President. His previous attempts gave him experience to manage campaign strategies, creating  discourse, and implementing effective political strategies.

Petro knew how to sustain a discourse with coherent content.  Unlike in previous years, we heard a moderate, calm Petro, dispelling mistrust and offering possibility of building on differences. Petro had accumulated experience as part of the opposition, denouncing corruption in the Senate. As mayor of Bogota he brought levels of malnutrition in the Colombian capital to zero and was named the sixth best mayor in the world. This obviously gave him a lot of credibility.

His closeness to the people is evident. His speeches in public squares were very powerful, and brought him closer to those who elected him. They related to one of his slogans: “the government of the people.” One of Petro’s best decisions was to appoint as Vice-President Francia Márquez, a woman who changes  politics, because of her humble origins, her skin color and the fact that she is a woman. These re-conceive power in Colombia – which now ceases to belong to a privileged class and passes to the common people.

What is most important to emphasize is that Petro, opened opportunities for other political forces to work together. Petro was not only representing Colombia Humana, he was also the candidate of the Historical Pact, a unity coalition of political, social and community forces, for real social and political change in Colombia.

The first leftist president and the first black vice-president in Colombia will have their work cut out (pic: Estrategia Medios)

2. Was there a broad-based grassroots movement to reach the population with the message of the need for change? Can you describe this effort of militants?
This has been a process of hard work by the Opposition against corruption and in defense of human rights and an “opening of the eyes” of the people, in a Colombia that cannot stand more war, inequality and injustice.

Social indicators today place Colombia among one of the most unequal and corrupt countries on the planet. Its traditional political system is based on patronage, extremely high levels of poverty, unemployment and job insecurity. Faced with this the people opened their eyes and took to the streets to demand structural changes. In response, governments only responded with repression and violence, leaving thousands wounded and dead.

In the last 15 years there has been a five-fold increase in social mobilizations in the country. Peasant, student, teacher, indigenous and union strikes, among others, marched not locally but across the entire nation. The social emergency spurred collective protests demanding not only guarantees from the government, but also political participation. This is a new element in protests Colombia.

The Opposition bench managed to unite in spite of its differences, to confront corruption state crimes, human rights violations and the defense of natural resources as one bloc.

The majority of the bench also left its privileged place in the Congress hall and decided to go into the streets to support the people and created protection and support systems for the victims of the protests. This was a rebirth of trust from the most vulnerable population towards a sector of Colombian politics that bet for change.

Colombians wait for the election results in a Berlin social center (pic: Unidas por la Paz Alemania)

3. It was interesting how Petro’s coalition fought against the concept of the left-wing driven to violence by the FARC and the consequent US support against them. Will it change the  relationship with the US, especially considering their imperialist reaction to the Petro vote? How much impact did the 3 months of mobilizations of the general strike of 2021 have?

It is true that in Colombia to be a leftist is to be stigmatized and is almost synonymous with being a guerrilla, a chavista or a communist. That is why many comrades of the left lost their jobs. The road to democracy for the left seemed impossible in Colombia. Our history of bipartisan power and decades-long neo-liberal domination, meant being a leftist candidate was a death sentence.

The Colombian left had a very reduced participation in government until now and it advanced very slowly to reach power. There are three key moments that led to the triumph of Petro: the 1991 Constitution and the arrival of new political leaderships, the 2016 peace process and the social outburst of the last three years.

The M-19 guerrilla group, to which Gustavo Petro belonged, negotiated a peace agreement in the late 1980s and generated new leaders (eg Carlos Pizarro and Antonio Navarro Wolf). The M-19 managed to become a left-wing political party, a leading political force during the process of creating the 1991 Constitution. That document defending the Social State of Law, created a progressive constitution. It includes social rights such as the right to decent housing, health, and life itself.

Now, without the demobilization of the FARC in the 2016 peace process, Petro was unable to win the presidency, since the right-wing discourse stigmatized the left as synonymous with the guerrillas. Petro’s past as a militant of the M-19, further hampered left possibilities of coming to power. Finally, again, Petro’s support of the social movement of the last three years helped his triumph.

Relations with the United States will now have to change character. The fight against drugs will continue to be an issue, as will free trade agreements and the energy transition.

In my opinion, the issue of arms imports will be complicated, since Petro is betting on a peaceful Colombia and good relations with Venezuela and Cuba. He wishes to bring Latin America to dialogue and unity, as he expressed in his inauguration speech. The challenge will be to focus relations with the United States on the issues of both countries and the region.

4. Being the first leftist government to come to power, there are high expectations about this new president. How much can be achieved considering Colombia’s tumultuous past and the nation’s conservative framework?
Expectations are very high and I think we have to be realistic and be very clear that in four years we will not be able to change the history of Colombia. But I believe that this government will bet on total peace, on implementing the agreements of the peace process carried out with the ex-guerrilla FARC group and will seek dialogue with existing armed militias. It will be a government that will not attack protesting population and will respect human rights. It will be a government seeking to reform health, education and production systems. I believe that these will be the pillars of Petro’s government and time will tell.

The new Colombian president has large support among young people (pic: Creative Commons)

5. Will there be a more forceful fight against right-wing terrorism, such as the Black Eagles and other groups?
Testimonies given before the JEP (Special Jurisdiction for Peace), as well as the investigations and denunciations by congressmen (eg. Iván Cepeda and Petro) revealed the reach of paramilitary groups  in Colombia; and how flawed institutions and governmental structures are. To the point that we talk about ‘para-politics’. It will not be easy to combat this scourge in just four years.
Criminal groups infiltrated all areas of the lives of Colombians. I personally do not believe that the so-called Black Eagles are a criminal group: there is a link between state agents and criminal groups that commit crimes under the name of the Black Eagles. The reach they have throughout the national territory can only occur with the complicity of state forces.

The goal has to be to put an end to state corruption but also to carry out reforms of the armed forces, to ensure that the police becomes a civilian force at the service of the population not under the command of the Ministry of Defense. Moreover, the ideology of ‘annihilating the enemy’, under which the public force was created must change to providing educational and training opportunities for police and military, based on principles of respect and defense of human rights.

I can imagine that the new Petro and Francia Márquez government, if given the opportunity, could bring in a peace process with paramilitaries and criminal groups, since their desire is for total peace.

6. Petro promised reforms to fight corruption and inequality. What success do you expect he will have in these areas; what other reforms do you think are key to keeping the faith that his voters place in him?
There are tangible reforms that can be achieved in the short and medium term. Petro announced the declaration of an economic emergency to prioritize the country’s hunger issues, this is achievable. Others are, pension reform – such as not increasing the pensionable age, currently 57 years old for women and 62 years old for men. He will also look to set up tariffs to protect national agriculture and industry, to lower inflation levels, especially in foodstuffs.

Petro will surely look to implementing the 2016 Peace Accord, giving priority to comprehensive rural reform, as recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. These, among others, will surely be priorities in Petro’s government.

The coalition with Historical Pact (Pacto Historico in Spanish) will play a leading role, especially in the fight against corruption, especially in the Congress of the Republic.

7. Considering the alliances agreed to win the elections, both by the Historical Pact and with regional leaders of dubious character, how many changes can President Petro make in these four years?
Colombia is a diverse country, with a complex history of violence leaving victims on both all sides full of bitterness and anger. Petro received a country in disastrous conditions, both socially and politically. But a president has to be intelligent and strategic to be able to govern for everyone, and this is Petro’s proposal.

Petro does not only speak to those who follow him. He also speaks to the right-wing government, to the religious groups, to the elites and businessmen, and to the political parties in opposition. The objective is to carry out a great national dialogue, as this has not happened with previous governments.

His government’s success will depend on these rapprochements and on achieving agreements about the fundamentals. One of the great fears of many Colombians in the presidential campaign was the issue of expropriation and both Petro and Márquez ended this rumor and managed to initiate a rapprochement with some business associations. The Historical Pact might have finally entered the Congress with the right conditions but the road will be a long one.

Protests have been the main way to fight government and FARC violence

8. Will Colombia be able to change from an oligarchic economy to a more egalitarian system, considering that Petro has said that he would not make expropriations as were enforced in Venezuela and Bolivia?
The objective of this government is not to completely change the system. But it is to make reforms to guarantee and defend the rights of the population. For this purpose, expropriations are un-necessary. Petro has studied different economic models and devised a vision to allow him to prioritize satisfying the basic needs of the population, while promoting sustainable, environmentally and community friendly productive initiatives. This has nothing to do with expropriation, but rather with progressive economic models. These project a  future, by creating conditions to guarantee economic stability while reducing poverty levels and promoting intellectual development. The investment is in the people, in their health, in their education, in their lives, just as many industrialized countries do.
We will continue to have rich people, but they will pay more taxes, as in many other countries.

Colombia’s Bogota, is one of the world’s highest capitals (pic: Creative Commons)

9. As Petro has looked with admiration at what Chavez did in Venezuela, how will relations with his neighbor change in the next few years?
I think Petro will have to open the border with Venezuela that Iván Duque closed upon recognizing Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela.
Bilateral relations will have to be re-established because of nearly 1.8 million migrants who fled to Colombia, and the hardship for Colombians who live in Venezuela from to the border closure. The closing of the border created tension  between armed groups and the armies of both countries. As Petro himself tweeted: it is necessary to open the border and to ensure the exercise of human rights as the first step. Subsequently, there will be regional dialogues in which the Venezuelan President Maduro will have to take a position, since one of the objectives is to transition from combustible energies to clean energies. Venezuela, as a major oil producer, will have to decide whether to join this initiative or not.
In addition, attention to the refugee population will be another issue on the table.

Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro has been the target of US sanctions

10. Finally, what are Petro’s weaknesses and main threats, considering that thousands of left-wing activists and even politicians have been assassinated in the last decade?
There have been failed attempts to assassinate Petro, but this time we have a Petro who is not alone.

Let’s not forget that this government program was agreed by a coalition, it is useless to kill Petro, because we have new strong leaders  to implement this program, such as the vice-president Márquez. At this moment in the history of the country, an assassination is not in the interests of any of the sectors of the country. I believe that the attacks already have a different character. We have found out about them through media outlets (Semana magazine and RCN),  in charge of carrying out dirty smear campaigns to discredit the new government. I believe that they have its eyes set on Petro and will not miss the opportunity to attack and discredit him and his government as much as possible.

On the other hand, I imagine that reaching agreements with some unions and right-wing politicians on issues such as the extraction of natural resources or health reform, will be very difficult and that bloc will not yield in the negotiations.

But these are only speculations, because at this moment we are betting on the government of Petro and Francia with the Historical Pact; a government representing the majorities which talks to all sectors of Colombian society, a government pushing for real change in everyone’s lives.

Diana Sepúlveda is a Berlin-based social and political activist, a social communicator and a Professor of Human Rights. She is a member of Vamos por los Derechos International (Working for Rights International), militant of the Polo Democrático Alternativo political party and active member of the International Historical Pact that has backed the president in this coalition.

Palestinian Journalist fired from Deutsche Welle seeks justice: Trial report

“It’s a step forward”, said Farah Maraqa, one of 7 Arab journalists fired from Deutsche Welle based on allegations of antisemitism. Will Farah be able to clear her reputation from this false allegation?


21/07/2022

On Wednesday, the sweltering afternoon temperatures made for a heated trial in the ongoing case of Farah Maraqa against international German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW). As we made our way into the courtroom, it became clear that the number of Farah’s supporters in the small room far surpassed the available seating. The judge himself, together with legal clerks, scrambled to lug additional chairs into the room as we waited huddled together in our sweaty masks. We were gathered to support Farah in her case against DW which in February fired her along with six other Arab journalists based on specious claims of antisemitism. While DW’s single legal representative sat alone, the strength in numbers displayed by Farah’s supporters was palpable.

Here in Germany, the accused often find few white, German-speaking lawyers who are willing to represent them. Many of these individuals must therefore seek German lawyers from racialized groups who are more likely to empathize and identify with these clients, such as those from Muslim or Middle Eastern communities. In such cases related to deeply political questions surrounding weaponized antisemitism accusations, the state of Israel, and solidarity with Palestinian rights, this ubiquitous white vs. non-white dynamic helps to reinforce toxic “us vs. them” perceptions which pervade German society.

Farah’s presence in the courtroom with legal representation from Dr. Hauke Rinsdorf by her side, broke the assumption about German lawyers and their positions regarding Arab and Palestinians – especially with false allegations of the biggest German nightmare – antisemitism.

Trial Strategy 

Inherently fraught political and historical questions surrounding Israel, Zionism, and Palestinian human rights fall outside of the purview of a labor court. In addition, Farah’s writings, which were used by DW’s lawyer to attack her, were mostly before her contracts with DW. This caused Farah and her lawyer to argue that her previous writings can’t be a reason for termination. To support their argument, they concentrated on how DW dealt with the allegations including missing deadlines and procedural errors since announcing its decision to suspend her. 

Comparison with pornography

DW’s lawyer first presented a bizarre and sexist analogy which compared Farah’s comments before she worked for DW, with a male worker who lets a female colleague see pornographic pictures which he had hung up in the past. This, argued the lawyer, damages the relationship irreparably. In short, the analogy rests on the right of an employer to terminate their employee based on any comment they disagree with before hiring by the organization. 

Throughout the proceedings, DW’s lawyer repeatedly inserted her personal opinions and feelings regarding Farah’s allegedly offensive past comments. At one point, the lawyer stated “I found it disgusting”, implying that Farah had openly voiced support for Islamic jihad. This referred to a satirical article has been already challenged and excluded from DW’s report.

DW’s lawyer accepted responsibility for the procedural errors which took place throughout DW’s process of firing Farah. She also blamed these mistakes on the organization’s large size, and explained that other delays were symptoms of DW’s ongoing organization-wide “impartial” investigation to ensure that alleged antisemitism doesn’t extend beyond the seven sacked journalists. During the proceedings, the lawyer contradicted her own statements regarding mistakes made by DW. At first she claimed that Farah’s past comments were easily accessible online, while later she claimed that delays in accessing these online posts resulted from the large organization-wide investigation.

The Verdict

The judge made a proposal on how to continue, based on the recommendation of Farah’s lawyer, striving for reputational rehabilitation. The court declared that both parties must release a joint statement that must be mutually agreed upon by the 2nd of September. The hearings will continue on the 5th of September, where a final verdict is expected.

The judge’s requirement for a joint statement to be published was promising, and even DW’s lawyer agreed to participate. But it is likely that DW will see this as an opportunity to distance itself from Farah and to publicly demonstrate that their opinions on Israel differ. However, what is unlikely to be included in the upcoming joint statement is what DW’s views on Israel actually are. These kinds of baseless accusations by powerful institutions help them to avoid transparency regarding their specific positions on political questions surrounding Israel and Palestinian human rights. Ultimately, DW is just one example of countless powerful, state-funded media organizations that create smoke and mirrors to obscure their agendas. 

The judge also advised DW to provide a platform where Farah can publicly express her perspective and experiences. This is something that DW’s lawyer openly rejected. However, without an opportunity to share her perspective, Farah’s credibility and career are tainted. It is likely that DW will be unwilling to allow Farah the chance to clear her name publicly on their site, as it would then become necessary to offer this to the other sacked journalists. 

A joint statement depends on DW acknowledging that Farah is not an antisemite. Anything else will irreparably damage her professional reputation and make it almost impossible for her to find a job in Germany.

Reactions to the Verdict

In response to the trial’s outcome, Farah remarked that “It’s a step forward if we will agree to a statement that makes clear I am not antisemitic, that will bring me some justice.”

The European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), which is advising Farah, issued the following Statement: 

“It is very brave and important that Farah went to court to challenge her termination. Her dismissal by Deutsche Welle was not just extremely problematic with unfounded allegations, but also politically charged and discriminatory. Which was also reiterated by DW’s lawyer in court yesterday, claiming the divergence of their political stances on Israel. 

During Farah’s hearing, DW’s lawyer did not even refer to the articles mentioned in their own investigation report by Ahmad Mansour and others, who they hired. They rather referred to sentences from two other satirical articles Farah wrote in 2014 and 2015, taking them out of context. 

This case is illustrative of a worrying trend in Germany of institutionalised silencing of Palestinian voices and narratives by employing malicious practices. It depicts how the anti-Palestinian sentiment and the institutional use of the IHRA definition can lead to severe infringements upon the freedom of expression and freedom of the press. This also leads to a significant chilling effect on any individual who would express their opinions on Palestine/Israel.

We are satisfied that Farah Maraqa could lay down her conditions of the settlement and that the judge favored them. We hope that DW will abide by them and will come to the conclusion that they should stop their censorship practices.”

What next?

September 5th is the date to keep on your radar, as the judge will be expecting a joint-statement from Farah and DW. This case, along with many other similar cases, has made clear that powerful media organizations will expend great energy to advance specific agendas at the expense of their own employees while simultaneously claiming to provide unbiased objectivity to the public. Farah’s struggle is but one small piece in the larger fight for justice for Palestinians in Germany and around the world.