The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Review of Die Drei Groschenopera (The Threepeny Opera) performance of Saturday 30 June, 2024.

Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956), Kurt Weill (1900-1950), and Elisabeth Hauptmann (1897-1973); Current Production by Barry Kosky (1967-) at berliner-ensemble.de.

Hari Kumar
15/07/2024

The current repertory of the ‘Berliner Ensemble’ includes the famous operata-cabaret – Die Drei Groschenopera, ‘The Threepenny Opera’. I recommend this to any leftists finding themselves in Berlin. Owing to its small, old ‘vertical’ design, the theatre has good viewing from even the cheapest seats – ‘the gods” – unless labelled as restricted. First premiered in this theatre in 1929, this outstanding production was directed by Barry Kosky, until recently the chief director of the Komisches Oper. I will discuss the origins of the ‘3Groschenopera’ focusing not only on Brecht but also on Weill; review this production with a short synopsis; and then try to place the work within Brecht’s dramatic theory.

Origins of the work

Many discussions of this work incorrectly see Brecht as the sole creative architect. In 1927–28, Elisabeth Hauptmann, Brecht’s then lover and secretary, translated John Gay’s “The Beggar’s Opera” (1728). It concerned a band of robbers in London, and scandously criticised the “moral degradation of society” and the Sir Robert Walpole administration. Its songs became wildly popular in 18th century London. Brecht took the idea over and got Kurt Weill to write new music.

That music was key to its success. Brecht had composed and sang songs since his school days, often consciously imitating Frank Wedekind and fairground performers. But the musical collaboration with Weill took the ballad-music to a new level. Weill’s father was a cantor, and by age twelve he composed and staged concerts. After the Berlin Hochschule für Musik, he joined Ferruccio Busoni’s composition class. By 1925 Weill was famous for incorporating American dance-music into his compositions. Weill first worked with Brecht when the Baden-Baden Music Festival commissioned him in 1927 for Mahagonny (Ein Songspiel). Weill set himself in the words of Arne Stollberg, against all the ”[n]arcotic, foggy, opiate of Wagner’s music” (Programme notes, Brecht Ensemble p.33). Certainly you know at least one or two of the songs from this work.

Lotte Lenya (1899-1981) as a working class girl of 4 years, performed with a circus troupe. She married Weill in 1926 to “quell gossip”, and in 1929 premiered the role of the prostitute Jenny in ‘3Groschenopera’. In the 1930 film of Die 3Groschenoper (directed G.W. Pabst) she famously sang “Pirate Jenny”, originally written for the character “Polly”. Likely the only song in the opera even approaching a near-revolutionary position, it unleashes a maid’s pithy hatred of those who have exploited her. She dreams and gloats of their being butchered by her pirates. Weill’s compositions soon outraged the Nazis and in March 1933 he slipped into exile. Lenya and Weill divorced soon after. Brecht with his wife Helene Weigel also became refugees.

It is still commonly thought that Brecht injected the politics, while Weill provided pretty tunes. But nothing could be farther from the truth. Weill independently believed that the music, play and libretto should interact to entertain and to instruct. In 1929 Weill outlined:

“With the Dreigroschenoper we reach a public which either did not know us at all or thought us incapable of captivating listeners… Opera was founded as an aristocratic form of art… If the framework of opera is unable to withstand the impact of the age, then this framework must be destroyed. In the Dreigroschenoper, reconstruction was possible insofar as here we had a chance of starting from scratch. We wanted above all to restore the primitive form of opera… How can… especially song be used in the theatre? We solved the problem in the most primitive manner possible… I was faced with a realistic action and had to use music in opposition to it, since I do not think that music can achieve realistic effects. Thus we either interrupted the action in order to introduce music or deliberately led it to a point where singing became necessary.. This entailed a drastic simplification of the musical language. I had to write music that could be sung by actors, i.e. laymen.”

Stephen Brook, “An Anthology of Opera”; London 1995; p.471

Weill’s view is very close to the later well known Brechtian theory of Entfremdung. Usually its rendered as the “distancing effect”, or the “alienation effect”. But the word “defamiliarization” is a better translation, as originated by the Russian formalist Viktor Shklovsky in in 1917 “Art as Device” (“Art as Technique”). (John Willett, ed & Trans.; Brecht on Theatre, (New York; 1964; p.91). We return to this later.

A short reprise

The story-line revolves around two crooks in Victorian-era London. The stage has a bright blue glittering streamer curtain which effectively acts as a “fourth wall” to be sliced open and re-stitched repetitively, as actors smash back and forth through it – breaking ‘illusions’ of reality. Another staging element is a set of narrow tubular frames, almost like gym bars. Tightly spaced, the actors deftly weave in and through them as needed, even if with impossibly high clunky heels!

The start – the curtain is partially penetrated by a spotlight onto just the wispy whitened face of Josefin Platt – a “Moon over Soho”. She quietly sings the famous “Ballad of Mack the Knife”. Thus is the infamous killer “Macheath” or Mackie Messer (‘knife’) introduced. A fragment of Brecht singing this exists, but better known are the famous later 1960s versions by Ella Fitzgerald in 1960, or Louis Armstrong .

In this performance all the songs are delivered with panache combining musical chops, humour and at times emphasising deadly political wit. Each actor that sings has a wonderful voice which exudes the requisite passion, irony or tenderness. The music melds jazz and contemporary German dance music. As originally played by a small group, there is an extraordinary small ensemble of seven, each are multi-intrumentalists.

The action segues to the second villain – Jonathan Peachum (played by Tilo Nest). This stalwart of the hypocritical businessman trains beggars to move city-dwellers in pity to give alms. But the beggars must return half their takings to Peachum. Peachum’s daughter Polly (Cynthia Micas) is enraptured with Mack, and sneaks off to ‘marry’ him in a stable. As Macheath (Nico Holonics) is standing up from the pit, the ensemble band serve as the gang members. At several points they are brought into the action, heightening a ‘defamiliarization’. Polly sings a riveting Pirate Jenny.

Suddenly the Chief of Police – ‘Tiger Brown’ (Kathrin Wehlisch) interrupts festivities. Far from chilling the mood, it emerges that Brown and Mackie are former barrack comrades in the pillaging British army in India. Now Brown serves as Mackie’s protector from the law. The rollicking “Kanonen-Song” (“Cannon Song”) is lifted almost straight from Rudyard Kipling.

But when Polly tells her parents she is ‘married’ to Macheath, they vow to get him arrested. Defiantly, Polly tells them that Brown is Mackie’s friend and protector. But this gives them a path. Peachum’s organised power in his army beggars threatens Brown with civic disruption. Macheath flees, handing his gang over to Polly.

But he cannot resist seeing one of his lovers Jenny (Bettina Hoppe) at a brothel. They sing the “Zuhälterballade” (“Pimp’s Ballad”). Yet Mrs Peachum (Constanza Becker) understands Mackie’s weaknesses and sings “Die Ballade von der sexuellen Hörigkeit” (“Ballad of sexual dependency”). She has knowingly bribed Jenny to betray him to the cops. Brown jails Macheath, as the latter intones the “Ballade vom angenehmen Leben” (“Ballad of the Pleasant Life”). Here Macheath excoriates the poor but virtuous life (“They tell you that the best in life is mental/Just starve yourself and do a lot of reading/Up in some garret where the rats are breeding/Should you survive, it’s purely accidental/If that’s your pleasure, go on, live that way…”).

Such reality – or at least a cynical reality – is reprised by Peachum in a later song, here as sang here by Brecht himself – Das Lied von der Unzulänglichkeit des menschlichen Strebens – ‘The Song of Inadequacy’. But perhaps the most searing indictment of capitalist base and super-structure comes when Macheath sings on “What Keeps Mankind Alive?” in “Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral” – “First comes the feeding and then comes the morals” – sung here by Franz Josef Degenhardt.

Macheath demands more applause from the audience as he praises his own philosophy tossing glitter around. This is funny in the production, and reminds us of a more than a passing resemblance to the character of Brecht himself. Even a brief perusal of the standard biography should conclude this (Steven Parker, “Bertolt Brecht – A Literary Life”: London 2014).

Yet another lover, Lucy Brown (Tiger’s daughter Laura Balzer), and Polly appear at the jail, simultaneously igniting a furious “Eifersuchtsduett” (“Jealousy Duet”). Lucy achieves marvellous heights of ridiculous physical comedy, spitting and spinning. Then she helps Macheath escape. Peachum forces Brown to capture him otherwise his beggar army will disrupt Queen Victoria’s Coronation.

Jenny demands her money for betraying Macheath, revealing that Macheath is now at another lover’s Suky Tawdry. Back to jail for Macheath. Sentenced to execution, his gang refuse him cash to effect bribes. He is strung up dangling on stage. At the eleventh hour Peachum proclaims that this is not real life, and therefore a messenger on horseback will arrive (“Walk to Gallows”) with mercy. As Macheath is released from the gallows having become a landed aristocrat by grace of the Queen, a neon sign blares out “Love Me” and he dresses up in a snappy suit.

The show ends with a plea from the same be-curtained ‘Moon’ that began the performance. Now Josefin Platt softly sings that wrongdoing should not be punished too harshly, as life is harsh enough: “Some people are in the dark, and some are in the light/ you can see those in the light, you’ll never see the ones in the dark.”

On this sad moralistic note, a great entertainment ends an amazing production. Go to see it, but contrary to an often heard Left mythology, it is hardly ‘revolutionary’. The work praises individualism and small-beer rebelliousness, and cannot be thought to ignite revolution. In many ways the work glorifies the lumpenproletariat and the petit bourgeoisie. For me, none of that detracts from the songs, the fulcrum of this work. These blend words and music in an amazing way. Note that at least 3 of the songs were initially unattributed from Francois Villon (1431-1463), and one very closely resembled Rudyard Kipling’s (1865-1936) barrack room songs.

Nonetheless most of the songs’ libretti were by Brecht, though working with Hauptmann. And personally for me, it is Brecht’s poetry that comes closest to a revolutionary literary spirit. Such as “A worker reads history”, or “The Carpet Weavers of Kuyan-Bulak Honour Lenin”. Brecht himself wrote to the novelist Alfred Döblin (1878-1957) that “The trouble is that my poetry is the most telling argument against my plays. The reader heaves a sigh of relief and says my father should have brought me up to be a poet and not a dramatist.” (Stephen Parker Ibid, p.230)

He also remarked that his poems were more of a subjective character while his plays were of an ‘objective’ character. What did he mean, and how does this work fit into Brecht’s dramatic theories? Such questions bring into view the ‘Entfremdung’ theory.

Entfremdung or defamiliarization

Brecht first wrote about this in 1936 in “Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting”, describing it as:

performing in such a way that the audience was hindered from simply identifying itself with the characters in the play. Acceptance or rejection of their actions and utterances was meant to take place on a conscious plane, instead of, as hitherto, in the audience’s subconscious.

(John Willett, ed & Trans.; Brecht on Theatre, (New York; 1964; p.91)

His dramatic theory evolved as he set himself against the predominant structure derived from Aristotle (384-322 BC). Namely, that the audience should be convinced that events on the stage were real. In contrast Brecht argued that:

“The essence of his theory of drama.. is [to] avoid the Aristotelian premise that the audience should be made to believe that what they are witnessing is happening here and now… if the audience really felt that the emotions of heroes of the past – Oedipous, Lear or Hamlet – could equally have been their own reactions, then the Marxist idea that human nature is not constant but a result of changing historical conditions would automatically be invalidated… Hence [his] “epic” (narrative, nondramatic) theatre is based on detachment, on the Verfremdungseffekt (alienation effect), achieved through a number of devices that remind the spectator that he is being presented with a demonstration of human behaviour in scientific spirit rather than with an illusion of reality, in short, that the theatre is only a theatre and not the world itself.”

Bertolt Brecht, Encyclopedia Brittanica

There has been since the 1930s much debate on the left as to whether Brecht’s theories, or their translation into plays were successful in the goals to convince audiences of socialism. It has been challenged by Marxist-Leninists on the sound (in my opinion) grounds that this undercuts the materialist, realist understanding of events. W.B. Bland has argued this convincingly. Bland traces Brecht’s evolving views of the stage, but retaining always an anti-realist approach:

Brecht’s concept of the drama continued to change throughout his life. But there was one consistent feature. Although Brecht always presented himself as a “rebel”, his anti-realist philosophy of the theatre was in accordance with norms of society in that he developed the thesis that ‘Naturalism is a superficial realism’.
He tried to present this as being necessary since “Life must be observed through a missing fourth wall”. The meaning of this is made clear as follows:
“It is of course necessary to drop the assumption that there is a fourth wall cutting the audience off from the stage and the consequent illusion that the stage action is taking place in reality and without an audience”.

(Bertolt Brecht: ‘Short Description of a New Technique of Acting which produces an Alienation Effect’ (1940), p. 136).

The goal of all this was to destroy illusion of reality.

By 1948, he had changed his views and rather than seeing the stage as a ‘lecture hall’ he now asked artists to:

“Let us treat the theatre as a place of entertainment”.

(Brecht: ‘Kleines Organum fuer das Theater’, in ‘Versuche 12;’, p. 109). From W.B.Bland.

Other Marxists including Steve Giles, point out that:

“The years from 1926 to 1932 constitute one of the most productive and problematic phases in Brecht’s career. .. It occupies a central position in this phase in Brecht’s career, a phase of particular importance in Brecht’s shift to Marxism. Accordingly, The Threepenny Opera has tended to be seen as a transitional work, not only in terms of Brecht’s politics, but also as regards his developing theory and practice of epic theatre.”

Moreover that Brecht’s re-writing of the original staged production in 1931 did attempt to place a “Marxist gloss to a work whose original politics were rather more vague”; while also

“rendering more explicit the text’s critique of capitalist society.”

To conclude

This production of a key work of Brecht, Weill and Haputmann is riveting, hilarious and very entertaining, while being thought-provoking. It will not bring the revolution. But a revolutionary in Berlin should make the investment to see it.

France in Crisis after the Elections – Interview with John Mullen

“The more parliament is paralyzed, the more mass action is important”

The Left Berlin
14/07/2024

Although the fascists were prevented from getting a majority in the parliamentary elections, Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) still managed to win many more seats than ever before. How do you rate the election result?

It is an important, short-term, victory for working people and for the Left. Four parties of the Left (France in Revolt, the Socialist Party, the Greens and the Communist Party) united into the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP). They stopped the establishment of a fascist government which was highly probable. Millions of people in the country, especially Muslims, lesbians and gays, are losing less sleep this week.

Even more important than the result is the way it was achieved. We saw the most dynamic election campaign for at least forty years, on a radical programme. Tens of thousands of new activists joined the left France Insoumise (France in Revolt – or FI), and many thousands joined other left organizations. Trade unions, charities, academic associations, university councils, singers, artists, scientists, publishers, athletes, all got involved. There were hundreds of demonstrations, and innumerable other events. Keeping this mass of people organized and mobilized is one of the key tasks of the coming months.

In parliament, the far right is stronger than it has ever been, and whole sections of the traditional right are considering working with them. Edouard Philippe, ex- Prime Minister and an important Macronist leader, recently had dinner with Marine Le Pen. «It was because I didn’t know her very well», he said! Bosses have been rushing to meet with her and get in her good books in case the RN takes over.

So the fascist danger is far from over. But the movement which pushed it back could do much more, encouraged by this initial victory.

Will Mélenchon now become Prime Minister and what would that mean from your perspective?

One of the signs of a deep crisis is the long delay in the appointment of a Prime Minister. Traditionally, the president appoints a PM from the parliamentary group with the most seats. Macron has so far refused to do this. In a “letter to the French people” released 10th July he explains that he wants a coalition between Macronists, the Right and sections of the ‘soft’ Left. It is not at all certain he has the numbers necessary, and his own group of Macronite MPs is in the process of splintering. Mélenchon has denounced Macron’s attempt at “a return to a royal right of veto over the decisions of universal suffrage”.

Meanwhile the left alliance is negotiating to decide on whose name to propose as Prime Minister. The problem is a new one and there is no generally accepted method. The France Insoumise (FI), as the biggest component of the alliance (74 MPs), feels it is fair that it should be an FI person. The Socialist Party (59 MPs) and the Greens (28) do not agree that it should be an FI person. But they would no doubt accept FI ministers in other key posts. For Jean-Luc Mélenchon specifically, his solid positions on Palestine; and that he represents an open-ended radical break with the status quo – have meant he is the victim of endless smear campaigns. Sections of the PS and the Greens have cheerfully supported these. It is therefore most unlikely that he will be proposed as Prime Minister.

The NFP’s election campaign was carried by a strong dynamic and there were large anti-fascist mobilisations. How do you describe the current mood in the country and do you expect the wave of protests to continue?

There has indeed been more anti-fascist activity this last month than in the previous five years, and there was no real distinction between an anti-fascist mobilization and a campaign to vote for the radical programme of the united Left. That includes 150 reforms – including stopping arming Israel, raising wages and benefits, and reining in violent police. Right now, there are calls to set up vigilance committees or other kinds of open New Popular Front committees in every town. Several places have already done this. A march on Matignon (the Prime Minister’s residence) if Macron refuses to appoint a left PM has also been suggested. The leader of the biggest of the combative trade union federation – the CGT – insisted Macron must “respect the result at the polls and appoint a new government around the programme of the NFP”. The CGT railway workers federation has called for rallies in front of parliament and in front of all regional government HQs (préfectures) on 18th July, the day parliament reopens. ATTAC and other organizations support the call. Meanwhile seven of the eight major trade unions signed a declaration demanding progress for wages and conditions, and in particular the withdrawal of a recent vicious attack on unemployment benefits.

It is impossible to know how big the protests will be in July. In any case, the present political crisis will last many months. The French Constitution forbids repeat parliamentary elections in the next 12 months, even if the president resigns and a new president is elected.

France is now facing a difficult time forming a government. What are the options and how likely do you think they are?

There could be a minority left government. Without passing any new legislation, several of the key measures of the NPF programme could be implemented (raising the minimum wage and public sector wages, disbanding the most violent police units etc). In addition, if a NPF government could present in parliament, say, a law to reverse the vicious attacks on retirement pensions which went through last year. Those attacks remain overwhelmingly unpopular in the entire population, parties would be obliged to publicly support or oppose. The Rassemblement National (RN), pretended to oppose the attacks on pensions, and would be particularly under pressure. If there is a minority Left government, mass mobilization would be crucial. Indeed, in general, the more parliament is paralyzed, the more mass action is important.

The second option is that there could be a (disastrous) “national unity” coalition bringing together Macronites, right-wingers and those of the Left who could be tempted, or bribed by important jobs. This would probably not have an overall majority. If it lasted it would lead to deep disappointment, and no doubt a far-right government at the next elections.

Finally, it is possible for Macron to appoint “experts” – that is, bourgeois experts – to govern the country. In Italy they at one point chose the director of the national bank. It goes without saying that such a government would not be on the side of working people.

In every one of these scenarios, resistance from the workers’ movement and on the streets is the central element.

The parliamentary elections were a setback for the RN. Nevertheless, the strategy of “normalisation” seems to be working. How strong is the RN?

The RN has been very successful in persuading people that it has left its fascist past behind it. Last year they were even accepted at a demonstration against anti-semitism, and they have declared their aim is to defend Jews against left anti-semitism! In recent weeks, however, the anti-fascist mobilization was able to put on the front pages lists of RN MPs who had made racist or anti-semitic declarations, and a couple of RN candidates were sacked for this (one of them had been photographed wearing a Nazi cap).

The RN have been helped by the lack of general understanding on the Left that fighting for working class demands and presenting a Left alternative is only part of what is needed to push back the fascists. A national mass, long-term campaign of education and harassment specifically aimed at the RN is necessary.

For the moment, the RN is immeasurably stronger inside parliament than outside. With up to 13 million votes in some elections, it is nevertheless incapable of organizing mass demonstrations on the streets. In very many towns it possesses almost no party structure. We need to make it impossible for it to build one.

In addition to building up parliamentary power, the fascists within the AfD in Germany are also focusing on the fight for the streets and repeatedly support right-wing mobilisations. What is the situation in France?

The RN has avoided this, as part of its detoxification strategy. In some towns however, smaller fascist groups have been demonstrating. Over 600 open nazis demonstrated in Paris two months ago, two or three hundred in Lyon last December. The RN avoids official links with these groups, for the time being.

You are a revolutionary and active in France Insoumise (FI). Is there anything like revolutionary alliances or organised currents of revolutionary forces within FI?

The FI is a left reformist organization which is not a political party as such. You do not become a member, but a supporter. Delegate conferences are often organized in innovative ways including choosing delegates by lottery. There are advantages and disadvantages to all this. But for Marxists the advantage is that there is nothing to stop you selling a newspaper, holding discussion meetings and so on. I think there is space for a “Marxistes insoumis” current, and that it is sorely needed. The mainstream of FI thinking is “for a citizens’ revolution”. On this basis it has got nine million votes, and has formed a large new reformist movement with a solid educational and cadre building programme, summer schools, and so on. Now, we Marxists want a worker’s revolution, because it is where the work is done that the power to overthrow capital can be found. However, in a situation where the vast majority of radicalized workers have not the slightest idea of the difference between a workers’ revolution and a citizens’ revolution, we Marxists need to defend our ideas in broad radical circles. We cannot stay outside in the cold because we don’t like talking to reformists.

There are a couple of revolutionary groups more or less inside the FI, of a couple of hundred members each at most. The New Anti-capitalist Party around Olivier Besancenot, with a couple of thousand activists, stood its own candidate rather than supporting Mélenchon in the presidential elections of 2022 (they got 0.7% of the vote). But last month they joined the New Popular Front and are making a useful contribution.

Socialists in Germany often look somewhat jealously at the comparatively high number of strikes and the militancy of the trade union movement in France. At the same time, the level of union organisation is very low and also the French labour movement has been in a state of defence for a long time. How do you assess the situation of the class struggle and the strength of the trade unions?

For thirty years, there have been regular mass strikes and protests against neo-liberal reforms. These have occasionally won (as in the defeat of a new work kind of work contract for young people, the “contrat prémière embauche”). They have often lost or ended in a draw. The net result is that the neo-liberal reforms have moved considerably more slowly than in many other rich countries. These movements have shown that there is widespread political class consciousness among French workers. Millions of people who were not personally affected got involved in protests against raising the retirement age or against rotten contracts for young people. This class consciousness, mixed with the great difficulty of winning (especially because of the braking activity of national union leaders), has allowed the building of a mass left reformist movement, the FI, which aims at very radical change (“a citizens’ revolution”) but puts elections at the centre of its strategy.

In Germany, the AfD has managed to make inroads into the organised labour movement. In the European elections, trade unionists even voted above average in favour of the Nazi party. What is it like in France? Does the RN have a base in the trade unions and among strikers?

Several of the main trade unions expel any RN activist from the union. But of course many union members or, more likely, sympathizers, still vote RN. Twenty-two percent of those who said they were supporters of the CGT voted for Marine Le Pen in 2022, at the first round of the presidentials (as opposed to 23% of the general population); and 24% of sympathisers of Force Ouvrière, which is a less combative confederation.

In some regions the union activists are good at regular anti-fascist education and discussion.

In Germany, the image of the classic RN voter is that of a socially marginalised protest voter from the traditional working class milieu in the former industrial regions or the neglected provinces. Is this image correct? Or to put it another way: What is the social base of the RN?

The RN has succeeded in broadening its social base. But still, older people living in small towns are the centre of its electorate. Twenty per cent of those who voted RN are under 35 (as are 33% of those who voted Left). Twenty five per cent of RN voters live in the countryside (vs. 17% of Left voters). Twenty eight per cent of RN voters are retired (vs. 24% of Left voters). Nine per cent of RN voters live in Paris or its suburbs (vs. 21% of Left voters). The fact of living in neglected provinces then certainly reinforces the RN vote. But the racist aspect is very important – people living in multiethnic places vote much less for the RN. The RN seem to be able to win the votes of many living in very white towns who are convinced that immigration is a huge danger.

The left achieved impressive successes in the elections, particularly in the multi-ethnic working-class suburbs of the major cities. Obviously, it has managed to successfully combine the fight for social issues and against racism. This was by no means always the case. For a long time, the French left had an ambivalent relationship in particular with anti-Muslim racism. In Germany, the left has been discussing for years what significance anti-racism should have in times of a shift to the right; and whether it is not alienating the left from parts of its social base. How do you view this question in light of the French experience? And how has it been possible to change the left’s attitude towards anti-racism in France?

The Left and even the far left in France were for many years supremely uninterested in fighting Islamophobia, many of them claiming that it did not exist and had been invented by fundamentalists hoping to infect French society. Whole sections of the feminist movement and of the left supported Islamophobia. At the worst point, fifteen or twenty years ago, women wearing hijabs were screamed at by feminists on women’s rights marches (“Your mother should have aborted you!”). When a law was passed in 2010, banning the wearing of niqab face veils in the streets, the front page of the New Anti-capitalist Party newspaper referred to niqab-wearing women as “birds of death”.

Left islamophobia is still a real thing, and influences significant sections of activists. But it has been pushed back a lot, by the mobilizations of Muslims and their allies, patiently, over thirty years. A key moment came when Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the FI was working with French-North African leaders and understood much more about how Islamophobia works. The FI has brought the fight against Islamophobia into the mainstream of French left politics. The NPF programme is, I think, the first mainstream programme to include the fight against Islamophobia. Not only that, but Jean-Luc Mélenchon made the question a central point at his biggest mass meeting, in Montpellier last month.

The leader of the Communist Party, Fabien Roussel, and other Communist leaders, have in recent years been suggesting that it is necessary to reinforce pride in (White) French culture. Presumably hoping that it will attract White voters feeling under pressure. So they have been loudly declaring how red wine and steak are important to French identity, or suggesting the fight for Palestine is “communitarianism” etc. These are tentative steps to being soft on racism, and in my opinion are to be condemned.

Any final comments?

The capitalists’ way of governing France no longer works. The traditional right and traditional left parties have massively reduced their social base after ruling over neo-liberal governments which ruined many workers’ lives. Now Macronism, the “radical centre” has lost the elections and is much weakened. More and more the choice is between fascism and the radical left. The election campaign and the idea that it is possible to raise wages, retire younger, tax the rich and rebuild public services has inspired millions. In the medium term, the most important battles will be fought outside parliament, but right now, pushing for a NPF government which institutes urgent measures to reduce misery and oppression is the essential next step.

This interview first appeared in German on marx21. Reproduced with permission

France’s Left Surprises Voters and Stalls Hopes for the Far Right

July 7th has stalled the ascendancy of the far-right and produced a nucleus for hope.

Florent Marchais
10/07/2024

On June 9th France’s far-right National Rally (RN) won first place in the European Parliament elections. The night of those results, Macron called for snap parliamentary elections – which can be triggered by the president to regain public confidence in case of parliamentary deadlock. His strategy was incoherent – he knew the RN was expected to win big again. The president’s goal was to allow the far-right to accede to power in the National Assembly so they could prove their incompetence, potentially leading to a favorable outcome for his successor in a future presidential election.

The French left united two days later to form the New Popular Front (NFP) to counter the far-right and Macron’s bloc. Fraught with disagreements over foreign policy and debates over leadership of the alliance, it seemed like the old problems of the New Ecological and Social People’s Union (NUPES) resurfaced during the first weeks of campaigning.

The first iteration of the parliamentary alliance, created after the 2022 presidential election, fell apart after one year due to infighting. This time, politicians put aside their differences to face the rising tide of the far-right. Major media outlets, the RN, and Macronists criticized the left for its internal divisions and accused certain figureheads as antisemitic or appearing weak on immigration and security issues. In the past weeks, journalists have dug up evidence of antisemitic and racist comments and practices by various National Rally candidates. Investigative report news outlet Mediapart reports that 106 RN candidates held conspiratorial beliefs or had incited hatred in their past.

The NFP was painted as a trojan horse to invite more left-wing radicals to France’s National Assembly – despite the favorable accords with the more moderate PS to run the second greatest number of candidates in electoral districts. ‘Socialist’ ex-president Francois Hollande, who left office with a near 4% approval rating, was given a chance to run with the alliance. He is known for his unpopular neoliberal labor reforms, failed interventionist foreign policy in Mali, and further militarizing policing after terrorist attacks on French soil in 2015.

On the conventional right, the leader of the Republican (traditional conservative party) party, Eric Ciotti, pulled his party into an alliance with the RN. This split his political family in two. Already known for his admiration for the far-right’s program and some of its senior politicians, the move came as no surprise to certain political insiders. But it shocked the public and much of his own camp. The Republican party ran separate electoral lists in different districts, but Ciotti’s move showed that many conservatives were willing to sell out their traditional anti-far-right stance to maintain relevance with the RN.

The first round saw a historically high turnout for the RN (29%) and the Republican conservatives who allied with them (4%). The NFP came in second with 28% in the first round and Macron’s ‘centrist’ bloc fell to third place with 20%.

France has two round elections. Many ‘triangulars’, or three way races, were slated for the second round. The left called on all of its candidates to step out when a ‘centrist’ came in second against a RN candidate.

Macron’s prime minister announced that their candidates would bow out to allow the left to face the RN except in cases where an LFI (radical left) candidate was running. Macronist politicians see the radical left and the far right as equivalent evils. In total, 127 NFP and 81 Ensemble (Macronist) candidates ceded their spots in their races – a hefty political price to pay for the French left, considering its opposition to seven years of neoliberal policies under the current government.

For four weeks straight, all the major polling agencies reported the NFP would get 2nd place after the RN.

Macron’s camp was projected to lose almost 50% of its seats in a poll conducted a week before the second round.

In a surprising end to the whirlwind 4 week election, the left-wing alliance made it out on top with 182 deputies (representatives) in the 577 seat parliament. Macron’s Ensemble coalition came in second with 168 deputies, a number of seats higher than projected just under a week ago. Le Pen’s National Rally came in third place with 143. The RN still won the most seats in its history, but failed to meet expectations set by polls and projections throughout the campaign. The second round saw a level of voter turnout not reached in over twenty years.

Now, France’s political forces must cobble together a governing coalition or create a caretaker government administered by a technocrat acceptable to most parties. This will be difficult. The constitution, written in the throes of the Algerian War in part by ex-general Charles De Gaulle, granted many powers to the presidency and does not favor parliamentary coalition building.

It’s now up to the French left to prove itself to be capable, competent, and clear in its demands. Leading figures of the New Popular Front declared they would only govern to apply their program. Its economic policies include raising the minimum wage, blocking the prices of essential goods like fuel and food, lowering the retirement age, restoring more progressive fiscal policy to tax the rich more and the working class less. It also aims to push for lower class sizes and a recognition of the state of Palestine within two weeks if it is able to govern.

Liberal and social-democratic leaders around the world took notice of the legislative seat projections on Sunday night. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk tweeted that Moscow would be disappointed and that Kyiv would be relieved by the results of France’s election. Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez saluted the defeat of the far-right. The international left should take notice of France’s unexpected return to its revolutionary and radical roots.

It may be too early to be triumphalist – after all, the institutional left has betrayed France many times. But the results of the July 7th election lit a spark of hope which can rekindle the hearth of left-wing traditions in the country.

French Elections : Antifascist Victory and Deep Political Crisis

Election results in France bring joy but also reveal a difficult road ahead

John Mullen
09/07/2024

Many thousands of antifascists celebrated all night in rallies around the country on Sunday evening, as the news came through of the second round election results in France.

It had been widely feared that the far-right National Rally, led by Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, would be forming a government this week. Instead they were beaten back into third place, with 143 MPs (including their close allies). The left electoral alliance, named the New Popular Front, came first with 182 MPs (and they can count on the 13 “other Lefts” to vote with them). Macron’s group got 168. A parliamentary majority is 289.

Millions of people are feeling tremendous relief. It is not only the results which are important, but how they were won – through the most dynamic left campaign in many decades, involving tens of thousands of new activists, large sections of civil society, widespread door to door work, hundreds of rallies and marches, and a dizzying variety of events, initiatives and appeals to vote for radical change and against fascism. The whole country has heard the arguments about how it is possible to tax the rich, rebuild our hospitals and schools, and fight against sexist violence and against racism, antisemitism and islamophobia.

And the radical section of the NPF – the France Insoumise (France in Revolt) – obtained very high scores in multiethnic working class areas, resulting in the election of many fine MPs: class fighters who are light years away from some of the grey apparatchiks we are used to. These include Raphaël Arnault, co-founder of The Young Guard, a dynamic antifascist organization that was set up a few years ago. There is also Sebastien Delogu, a taxi driver who led the campaign against the uberisation of the profession as well as Aly Diouara, originally from The Gambia, who is very active as a town councillor in the working class suburbs of Paris and a local leader of the campaign against the genocide in Gaza. Alma Dufour is also worth mentioning, who is known as a leader of direct action campaigns against Amazon.

Deep crisis

But with this election, France has been plunged into a deep political crisis which will last for some time. The situation contains many dangers, but also many opportunities. Every political configuration is fragile and every tactic and strategy contested. There will be swings and turns and turncoats (motivated by panic or worse) and some will act better politically than we thought they would. We must concentrate on the key elements, not on details of tactics, in order to understand what is new and what is possible.

The electoral alliance, the New Popular Front, encouraged by huge pressure from below, has brilliantly succeeded in stopping a fascist government. This was done through unity and through the inspiration provided by a radical programme. This result justifies the alliance, and the compromises it required, however fragile the NPF may be in the future.

The Rassemblement national activists are demoralized and depressed this week, as they gained only half the MPs they were hoping for. But they still have fifty five more than at the last parliamentary elections. The present relative setback for the far right must be used as a jumping off point to push the fascists back. The hundreds of thousands involved these last three weeks must remain mobilized.

What happens now?

No grouping has a majority in parliament, and the Constitution forbids new parliamentary elections for 12 months. There appear to be three possibilities: a minority left government, a right-left coalition or a government of appointed experts.

Left leaders have declared their desire to form a minority government. This might have difficulty passing laws, but some NPF policies, such as reining in police violence, increasing the minimum wage, and price freezes on basic necessities do not require new legislation. Of course, the pressure from bosses and the media will be unprecedented and the mobilization of workers to ensure our interests are defended is essential. Many NPF supporters understand that a left government must not be given carte blanche. There are, this week, attempts to establish networks of local Popular Front committees to maintain radical engagement of large numbers of people.

Most of the right, aided by a strong media campaign, would prefer a coalition “national union” government, including parts of left and right: including everyone, indeed, except for the France Insoumise and the Rassemblement national. Fear of chaos and disorganization is being used to try to persuade people that this is a reasonable project.

Several leading Macronists are pushing for this idea, and some leaders from the Socialist Party, Communist Party and Greens are saying it should be considered. They may be joined by a small number of France Insoumise MPs led by François Ruffin who are breaking away from the FI, looking for a more “moderate” less left wing option. “We need to calm things down” said Ruffin. This group are pretending that the problem is Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s personality and are joining in the vast smear campaigns against him.

A left-right coalition government would be a disaster for working people. Abandoning the radical measures which people need to reduce misery and improve our schools, hospitals and working conditions, such a government would bring rapid and deep disappointment, and practically guarantee a far-right government in a few years’ time. The France Insoumise has refused this option, and all honest sections of the Left must do so, too. For the moment, Olivier Faure, leader of the Socialist Party, has ruled out such a coalition. Marine Tondelier, head of the Greens, is less clear.

Other commentators are speaking of the nomination of a government of bourgeois “experts” (in Italy at one point they appointed the director of the national bank). This will be presented as a common-sense decision, justified since “foolish politicians” cannot reach a consensus, and because not having a government is “unimaginable”. But how can we imagine that such a government would be on the side of working people?

The crisis is only just beginning. We need to remain mobilized and create structures of vigilance to involve as many as possible of those very large numbers of activists who campaigned for the New Popular Front. These structures must aim at pushing the far right back through mass education, and through mass harassment of all RN events and initiatives.

Do some people have illusions as to what a NPF government can quickly change? Of course they do, this is inevitable. But the way forward is to mobilize against neoliberalism and support a Left government, if one is formed, every time it introduces reforms in our interests, but oppose it immediately if it gives in to the pressure of the dictatorship of profit.

John Mullen is a Marxist activist in the Paris region and a supporter of the France Insoumise. His website is randombolshevik.org.

I’m Sick of Dying Kids

If the goal of life is death, then we live in a surprisingly productive time

Ilya Kharkow
08/07/2024

To be sure: note that I trust neither the statements of the authorities nor their official statistics. I’m convinced that things are much, much worse. I present these statistics only so that you understand where “worse” begins.

According to statistics, as of June 1, 2024, 550 children in Ukraine had died during full-scale war. 1,400 children received varying degrees of injuries. More than 800 minors were deported to Russia from occupied territories.

Russian news also often features headlines about the deaths of children. After the shelling of Belgorod by the Ukrainian army in February of this year, a one-year-old child died. In May, the bodies of two dead children were recovered from the rubble of a multi-story building that was hit. That same month, a mother and her four-year-old son were killed in a Ukrainian kamikaze drone attack on a car.

Since the year 2000, the Israeli military has killed over two thousand Palestinian children. At the same time, Israelis talk about Palestinians killing Jewish children.

Violence against children. Infant mortality. Interview with the child victim of rape in Russia. Horrifying footage of sobbing children in Gaza. A father returning from war beats his son to death. Spreading these stories fuels hatred. The death of a child is something that can turn a pacifist into a cruel soldier. That’s why such news is beneficial for the government to broadcast, but not beneficial for the people dying in the trenches.

Unfortunately, news of dead children will not stop the violence. Such news only embitters the people. Cruelty leads to a prolongation of hostilities, while child mortality increases.

Does that mean we shouldn’t talk about it? Nope. But it is important to understand that when you talk about love constantly, it ceases to be something sacred and becomes ordinary. When a child’s death is adjacent to sushi commercials, you neither want to eat nor feel sympathy.

***

Tired of hearing about dying kids, I’d like to talk about dying parents. Frankly speaking, I don’t want to talk about death at all. I’d rather tell you about my last date and why I don’t use almond-scented soap anymore. But something tells me that talking about serious topics in wartime will be more useful. So, I want to tell my friend’s story, which makes me feel like a vulnerable child myself.

My friend has been in Europe for several months now. He is one of the lucky guys who managed to escape from Ukraine, despite the gender-based ban on leaving. But the feeling of relief did not last long. First, Europe returned to discussing the topic of Ukrainian men. A Polish politician suggested sending us back to Ukraine. Lithuania supported the proposal in public space. German politicians announced that they would discuss it, but neither my friend nor I heard the results of the discussion because his dad had a stroke.

While big companies are still arguing about the effectiveness of remote work, my friend did everything possible to arrange treatment for his dad remotely. I witnessed this process, and therefore now nothing will convince me that remote work is not effective. Still, this has limitations. For example, you cannot hug your loved one who, at the moment, needs it more than anything.

People become weaker when they are sick. In their weakened state, patients often want to hide in a room with the curtains drawn and wait out the illness alone. If no one is around, the illness is likely to last longer and be more difficult to tolerate. Yep, the presence of loved ones is a cure-all medicine, but in wartime this medicine is not available to everyone.

Now my friend asks me not to speak to him in a foreign language. When I’m abroad I spend a lot of time learning the language, but now my friend is pissed off at me about it. Before this incident, I knew practically nothing about strokes. Doctors said that, judging by the test results, this was his dad’s fourth attack. A stroke occurs due to poor circulation in the brain. People who have had a stroke lose some parts of their body. The ability to speak can be lost or deteriorate. The patient may forget how to write or read. All this happened to my friend’s dad. Now my friend asks me not to speak a foreign language to him until I can speak fluently because it reminds him of his dad, who now speaks at a speed of 10 words per minute.

Imagine you have to rescue a family member from a burning house. At the same time, you don’t know where the exit is, and all communication passes through a phone with a poor connection. 10 words per minute is torture in such circumstances. It’s worth talking for a few minutes with such a person, and it will begin to seem that the person himself does not want to be saved. The pettiest thing is that you cannot enter that burning house not because you are afraid of burning with it, but because your state will immediately punish you for it. The same state that received support from the European Union and the United States. The same state whose methods cannot be questioned, because it fights for democracy through authoritarian means.

Some doctors said that they could no longer help. Others asked for more money per month than my friend’s annual income. And he managed everything – the hospital was found. Procedures started. The speech therapist was kind. Medicine on the side table. Of course, all this required money. To complicate the situation, his dad had lost the ability to count. He literally couldn’t pay for anything because he couldn’t count the money. Against this background, total distrust arose. It seemed to the patient that everyone wanted to deceive him. He became aggressive. The man needed a loved one nearby, but he was given a sedative.

Infant mortality is certainly scary, but this does not mean that the death of an adult is not. The doctors said that my friend’s dad would recover, but no one could say to what extent. The nurses shared observations regarding his speech. They said that the extent to which he regained speech over the next 6 months would likely be his new norm. When the Baltic countries announced that Ukrainian guys should be encouraged to return to Ukraine by canceling their work permits, my friend’s dad could already speak 22 words per minute.

Now it is not uncommon for strokes to occur in 30-year-olds. Moreover, on YouTube I saw an interview with a girl who was 5 years younger than me and who had already suffered a stroke. There I also saw an interview with a young guy to whom the same thing happened. From these videos, I learned that after a stroke a person is literally locked in a body that no longer act as expected, while some brain activity remains normal. The person understands everything, but cannot say anything. Can’t move. Pisses his pants. Can’t count money to pay the speech therapist.

Smoking can cause strokes. As well as a diet lacking fruits and vegetables. Or the excessive stress in which we have all been living under for 2 years due to the war and forced emigration.

We treat our relatives remotely not because of Russia. We would brave missiles to treat them. We cannot do this because of the Ukrainian authorities, who will send us to war before we cross the threshold of our home.

“By the way, dad, it might happen that Ukraine blocks guys’ bank cards,” My friend says on the phone. “Don’t worry, we can still treat you. The main thing is just do not worry.”

Yep, we treat our relatives remotely. We read news about dying kids. About the fact that Ukrainian guys won’t be sent back to Ukraine today, but might in the future. About the fact that the stroke became a younger person’s ailment. About whether remote work is effective.

Yes, we are forced to treat our relatives remotely. But are we really going to bury them online too?

This piece is a part of a series, The Mining Boy Notes, published on Mondays and authored by Ilya Kharkow, a writer from Ukraine. For more information about Ilya, see his website. You can support his work by buying him a coffee.