The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Zeit der Verleumder – review

A new film offers real insights on the discussion of Palestine in Germany


09/10/2021


“On 10 February 2018, German, Israeli, British and US-American researchers, journalists, artists and political activists met in Berlin. At a conference with the title “Zur Zeit der Verleumder” (“At a Time of Slanderers”), following a poem by Erich Fried, they, together with around 250 visitors, analysed the ideological instrumentalisation of Jews, Judaism and the Jewish catastrophe to legitimize right wing power politics, anti-Communism, historical revisionism and (anti-Muslim) racism in the Western world.”

So read the opening titles of Dror Dayan and Susann Witt-Stahl’s new film Zeit der Verleumder, subtitled “An ideological-critical intervention”. As one of the 250 visitors present, I have a particular interest in this documentary.

The line-up is impressive: actors Rolf Becker and Jürgen Jung, historian Moshe Zuckermann, British Jewish-Black activist Jackie Walker, theologian Hans Christoph Stoodt, Palestinian activists Fouad El Hay and Ali Abunimah, philosopher Moshé Machover, and many more spoke at the conference and are featured in the film.

Different speakers discuss the current debate on Israel/Palestine in the context of the international developments. In recent years we have experienced the rise of parties like the AfD, and of the Evangelical Right around politicians like Donald Trump. Both Zuckermann and Abinumah discuss how one sort of racism – antisemitism – has been reproduced by another – Islamophobia, allowing for prejudice to remain, just wielded against a different group.

The Accusations

For Walker the timing of the conference is important; it took place while Jeremy Corbyn was still leader of the British Labour Party, between the 2017 and 2019 elections. It was during this period that false accusations of antisemitism against Corbyn and his party reached their apex. Walker speaks eloquently about how such accusations were weaponized against the Left, both in Britain and internationally.

We are later reminded that the Simon Wiesenthal Centre called Corbyn “the biggest global threat to Jews.” In Britain, as in other countries at the time, accusations of antisemitism were used as a political weapon aimed at silencing both solidarity with Palestine and the growth of a new Left.

Becker argues that the instrumentalization of the Holocaust is not just about Palestine: Joschka Fischer of the Green Party used his stated fears of a second Auschwitz to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia – the first German post-war military intervention – which he ordered when he was foreign minister.

Zuckermann cites a “specifically German problem” which he calls the “extended arm of Hitler” and talks of an “almost hysterical solidarity with Israel”. He speaks of a German philosemitism which fetishizes Jews, removes their individuality, and has the same roots as antisemitism. This, he argues provocatively, is not so far from how the Nazis treated Jews.

The Wrong Sort of Jew

Geographer Christin Bernhold explains how accusations of antisemitism work in practise. One year before, the bank account of the German Jewish organisation Jüdische Stimme (JS) was closed by their bank. The reason given was that the JS supports the BDS campaign and opposes Israel. As JS board member Shir Hever remarked, this was the first time since the Nazi regime that a German bank had blocked the bank account of a Jewish organisation.

Many of the speakers – most of them Jewish – list personal attacks waged against them. Jewish journalist Judith Bernstein was accused of “not being a real Jew”, Walker of being a Holocaust denier, and Becker a “Jewish eyewitness who relieves antisemites from their guilt”. Of course, none of these allegations is true, but the hope was that, if enough mud is thrown, the sense that something is not quite right will stick. This was, in the end, exactly what happened to Corbyn.

A section of the film looks at the definition of antisemitism as put forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). These parameters were fully adopted, among others, by Corbyn’s Labour Party. David Feldman of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism finds that the IHRA definition was “imprecise and isolated antisemitism from other forms of bigotry”.

Yet the lack of response from the political Left continue to allow vague and ungrounded accusations of antisemitism to take hold because no one is opposing them.

Identifying the Problem

For me, the film dedicates too much time to discussing the so-called “Antideutsche” (anti-Germans), as was the case at the conference. The criticism of this strange pro-Israel group which considers itself to be part of the German Left is correct, but exaggerates their influence. Outside some universities and the ultra-Left scene, very few people know that they exist.

Similarly, there were many valid criticisms of both the German Left as whole and the party die LINKE in general. Becker remarks that the LINKE Berlin culture senator Klaus Lederer has claimed to stand “for a quite new Left which doesn’t see the central contradiction as being between Capital and Labour but the inner contradictions inside Capital relations”. This is, Becker argues, a clear attempt to justify joining capitalism and is linked to Lederer’s pro-Israel stance.

I don’t disagree with his analysis, but would argue the problem is less that the Antideutsche and Lederer are opposing Palestinian rights, but that – because of German history – the majority of German Leftists are reluctant to take a stand at all. This leads them to not acknowledge the crimes which are being carried out against Palestinians. I find that this lack of debate is a far greater obstacle to building solidarity with Palestinians. The question is, how can we open up this debate?

Without offering an alternative, criticisms like Becker’s have the danger of leading us into the cul-de-sac of apportioning blame without seeing a way out. Zeit der Verleumder offers plenty of ammunition to demonstrate why Palestinians don’t just deserve but require our support. Yet we must deliver this support in the form of concrete actions, aimed at involving more than a small minority of German society.

How can we respond?

Becker concludes by quoting Bertolt Brecht: “We must say that torture must happen, because the structures of ownership must remain. If we say this, we will lose many friends who are against torture because they believe that the structures of ownership can be maintained without torture. This is not true.”

Machover draws the following conclusions: “Ultimately, Zionism can be overthrown and will be overthrown by unity of the working class of the whole region, that is to say of the Arab East and Israel.” While I don’t share Machover’s illusion that the Israeli “working class” has something to gain here, it is refreshing to see a solution offered that does not depend on the actions of Western powers.

Zuckermann’s conclusion is that “everything which has happened historically can be overcome historically. There is nothing in human history that can’t develop in some way into a turning point.” Becker says, simply, “Show which side you are on”. Following this logic, Machovar calls on German activists to campaign against their government supplying Israel with nuclear submarines.

The film concludes with a statement by musician and Holocaust survivor Esther Bejarano, who unfortunately recently died. She says:

“Regarding the inhumane politics of the Netanyahu government in Israel, my companions Moshe Zuckermann and Rolf Becker have comprehensively explained our criticism. What Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists did to the Jewish people – the extermination of 6 million people, the Holocaust, must not be Israel’s justification for the discrimination against the Palestinian people. It is particularly important that everyone in Germany in whom a human heart beats finally recognise that criticism of the politics of Israel cannot be compared with antisemitism. I did not survive the Extermination Camps Auschwitz, the Concentration Camp Ravensbrück and the death march, to be insulted by so-called Antideutsche and consorts as an antisemite.”

Zeit der Verleumder – the film, and the conference, show why it is necessary for those of us who live in Germany to tirelessly raise the issue of Palestine in all progressive organisations and movements. It also provides us with arguments which we can use. The next step is with us.

The online premiere of Zeit der Verleumder will be on Sunday, 10th October at 6pm, Berlin time. To watch the film, follow this link.

News from Germany and Berlin, 8th October 2021

Weekly news roundup from Berlin and Germany


07/10/2021

compiled by Ana Ferreira

NEWS FROM BERLIN

Gorillas drivers: “Don’t look at us as numbers or machines”.

In Berlin, drivers of the popular delivery service Gorillas have once more gone on strike against poor working conditions. The company is one of the most thrilling and controversial start-ups in Germany – and the fact that it does not rest is nowhere more evident than in Berlin. Just on Monday morning, another one of the delivery service’s warehouses in Tempelhof was closed for two days. The demands of the riders are manifold: twelve euros per hour wage, quick maintenance of the bikes, better allocation of shift work, intermediate breaks and information about how heavy the bags filled with food actually are. Source: rbb

No room for queer treasures

Berlin receives a great gift: Prof. Dr Jan Philipp Reemtsma’s Hamburg Foundation for the Promotion of Science and Culture donated an extensive library on the history of sexual science to the Magnus Hirschfeld Society. With these, the city gets a replacement for the library of Dr Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science destroyed in 1933. The Magnus Hirschfeld Society would also like to make this treasure accessible to the public, but there are currently no rooms for an extension of the library. Worse still, the institution will have to leave its premises next year because the building is to be converted for a federal ministry. Source: queer.de

Another large police search of Rigaer 94

First a fire inspection with 1,000 officers, now an identity check with over 300 police officers, some of them wearing hoods: when it comes to the left-wing house project in Rigaer Straße 94 in Friedrichshain, the Berlin police spares no effort. And, yes, the police are “only” enforcing an order issued by the local court. The timing of the martially executed search of the house project as well as the announced eviction of the “Köpi” car park in Mitte is nevertheless remarkably convenient – at least for the opponents of a continuation of the previous centre-left alliance in the city. Source: nd

Strike could end at Charité but must continue at Vivantes

About the strike in Charité and Vivantes: of course, a collective bargaining dispute can only be fought “hard”. But in the end, all parties stand next to each other and say: “It’s a milestone”. It is easy to be understood: if the working conditions are not good, it will not be possible to increase the massive lack of staff, and it will not be possible to persuade the employees who are still there to stay. The Charité has realised this. For Vivantes, the latest developments show that their demands are not an illusion. Relief is possible. Source: nd

 

NEWS FROM GERMANY

Reservists of the Bundeswehr allegedly planned attacks on migrants

The public prosecutor’s office in Lüneburg is investigating nine accused on charges of joining or commanding an armed group. According to SPIEGEL reports, the group planned to kill migrants. In September, investigators searched eight properties in Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Berlin because of the suspicions. Weapons, ammunition and material were seized which suggested that the reservists were right-wing extremists. The investigators learned too that Jens G. was in close contact with an advisor in the Federal Ministry of Defence. A spokesperson for CDU Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said the ministry was pursuing an unyielding line on the issue of right-wing extremism. Source: Spiegel

AfD successful in Saxony

In Dorfchemnitz, over 50 percent voted for the AfD. Why did the AfD gets its best results in Saxony? In Saxony as a whole, where the AfD achieved 24.6 per cent in the federal election. The party got its worst results in western Germany. In the constituencies of Cologne II and Münster, for instance, it achieved only 2.9 per cent. However, the voters in Saxony state they are not “brown.” Who can untie the knots and contradictions of such situation? The political scientist Hans Vorländer, from TU Dresden, argues that the AfD has replaced the Left and above all the CDU with the image of the caretaker party. Source: taz

Asklepios clinics threatened with indefinite strike

According to the trade union ver.di, 91 per cent of the employees questioned in a ballot were in favour of industrial action. Ver.di is criticising the fact that Brandenburg employees earn up to 10,000 euros less per year for the same work than colleagues at the group’s Hamburg sites. An Asklepios spokesperson claimed that the union would drive the clinics to ruin. Since the last round of negotiations in June, workers in Brandenburg have already been on strike for a total of ten days. It is not yet clear when the indefinite strike will begin. Source: deutschlandfunk

 

Whatever happened to the Pirates?

8 years ago, the Pirate Party got a million votes in the German elections. This year it was 60,000. What happened?


06/10/2021

One of the less-told stories of the recent German elections was the dog that did not bark. The Pirate Party got 0.1% or just over 60,000 votes. This may not seem particularly newsworthy to anyone new to German politics, but less than 10 years ago, it seemed like the Pirates were on the verge of a serious electoral breakthrough.

In 2009, the first general election in which they stood, nearly a million people voted Pirates and they received a very commendable 2.0% of the vote. This was followed by 2.2% in 2013, as party membership rose to 30,000. Between 2009 and 2011 they won a number of individual council seats and in 2011 they won 8.9% of the vote in Berlin, entering the state parliament. All 15 Pirate candidates were elected.

It seemed that the Pirates were on their way to becoming a serious force. After the Berlin elections, Bild Zeitung ran a headline “Will the Pirates conquer the whole of Germany?” As they continued their electoral successes with 7.4% in Saarland, 8.2% in Schleswig-Holstein, and 7.8% in North Rhine Westphalia, that question did not seem so crazy to ask.

So, what happened? How can we account for the rapid rise and fall of what was, for a brief moment, a national phenomenon?

Freedom Not Fear

One reason for the Pirates’ early success was a series of demonstrations under the banner “Freiheit statt Angst” (Freedom not Fear) organised for data privacy and against the surveillance state. These took place between 2006 and 2015 with an estimated 25,000 demonstrating in 2009. Similar demonstrations were organised in other countries.

The demonstrations were backed by a wide variety of organisations, from ATTAC and the trade union ver.di to Pro-Asyl and the Catholic youth community. It was backed by the Greens, die LINKE and the youth wings of both the SPD and the FDP. And yet in the public consciousness, the Pirates were the party that was most identified with these relatively large mobilisations.

By positioning themselves as the “Netzpartei” (Internet party), the Pirates appeared to be the embodiment of an idea whose time had come.

The limitations of single issue politics

The problems came when the Pirates were forced to take a position on other subjects. The Pirates described their position as “post gender”, arguing that gender is no longer relevant. They rejected the practise of parties like Die LINKE and the Greens of having a certain number of female candidates. Instead, they argued, they selected candidates on merit.

In practise, this meant doing nothing to address sexism and oppression within society. Ulrike Baureithel noted that the Pirates’ position was very similar to those of reactionary “men’s rights” groups, who deny existing discrimination. In her 2013 article The Pirate party and the gender problematic, Manuela Kulick estimated that only around 14% of the Pirates’ leadership at all levels were women, and that the number of female members was even lower.

A further controversy emerged when it was revealed that party functionary Bodo Thiesen had been a Holocaust denier and deputy leader Andreas Popp gave an interview to the far right paper Junge Freiheit. This lost the party members and voters. They issued a statement distancing themselves from right-wing extremism, which lost them further voters.

Whether they tacked to the Right or the Left, the Pirates suffered by taking a position on issues outside their core subjects of Internet politics and surveillance. When they sailed close to the far right, they lost the support of liberals and leftists. But when they disowned this strategy, they lost more conservative support. And yet any party with aspirations to power must take a position on a whole range of issues. In this sense, the fall of the Pirates was always likely.

The downturn of the campaign against state surveillance combined with the lack of clarity regarding the Pirates’ position on most other issues helped start the process which resulted in the Pirates gaining 0.4% in the 2017 general election and just 0.1% this year.

What can we learn?

At their height, the Pirates were able to attract a significant number of people who had not been involved in politics before but wanted to change the world. Sure, the Party always consisted disproportionately of slightly nerdy men, but they made a particular impact on people voting for the first time and people who don’t usually vote.

At least in part, the Pirates owed their success to the idea that they were a members party – everyone could influence policy. In practise, this ended up giving too much power to sexists and those who wanted to flirt with the far right, but the idea that politics is too important to leave to the politicians hit a nerve.

Coalition talks are still ongoing, but it looks like in the near future, both Germany and Berlin will be ruled by “progressive”, “reforming” governments which are unlikely to deliver many reforms. Opposition to these governments will be necessary. We could do worse to regain some of the spirit of the Pirates, without repeating their political mistakes.

“Dreams are not lost just because they can’t be realised”

Interview with Sobo Swobodnik, director of a new film about Class and Class Struggle


05/10/2021

Your film “Klassenkampf” (Class struggle) shows your development from the child of a working-class family in a Swabian village to a film maker and author in Berlin. For those who haven’t seen the film, can you quickly explain your history?

 I grew up in the mid-60s in a Swabian village constricted within the so-called “precariat” – the class of workers, craftsmen and farmers. I was expected to follow a regulated, traditional life. With puberty came politicisation and my first attempt to break out of this milieu. Then civilian service, theatre school, journalism and abandoning my origins, while I was failing to enter the new class or to take root in the new milieu.

You have made a very personal film. How much can we generalise from your experiences? And is that important?

If it were just about me, I wouldn’t have to make a film; that would really be too banal and unimportant. In truth, it’s about more. In this scream, I am a projection screen: my life is an example from which you can generalise. My experiences are also the experiences of many others, of the class politics. But as addressed in Klassenkampf it is based on my life. It explains a social background based on my biography,  as an exemplary representative for many. It is significant that the question of class emerges from these lower classes of society.

You quote several progressive academics and authors, such as Didier Eribon and Annie Ernaux. To what extent do their beliefs correspond with your own?

Didier Eribon’s fantastic book “Returning to Reims” was an awakening for me; and opened my eyes to the fact that so-called “class-ism”, the desire for “social mobility” and all that this entails – isn’t an individual phenomenon but is widespread.

You refer to Eribon’s analysis of the precariat. He says that this term is now used more often than working class. Later, he says that the precariat is the new working class. Does the working class still exist in the old sense of the term? What has changed?

I think that Eribon does that well. He extends the term “working class” and adapts it to contemporary social and political conditions. The class of workers no longer consists of people who have work but above all and in larger numbers people who have no work. What unites them is the precarious conditions in which they must live.

I think that some things regarding this really have changed and shifted. The industrial disputes of earlier years are not as pronounced in the old form. Regarding the class struggle as I understand it, this is now more about individual advancement and not so much about collective goals such as reasonable pay, equal rights etc. which may have been more of a focus of earlier industrial struggles.

The precariat which is shown in the film seems to be very passive. They suffer, possibly more than ever. But according to Eribon they have few opportunities of organising themselves. Back to the title: where can we find class struggle from below at the moment?

Well, something is happening, but not enough. I think that Georg Sesslen gets to the heart of it: “the precariat is the sphere of devalued work and disenfranchised people. It is a class which has no party and no organisation, no project and no consciousness. It is the class of the long-term isolated.”

He than asks about possible consequences: “how would it be if, instead of the precariat fighting itself in its segments, condemning and mistrusting, it began to regard itself as a class? How would it be if the precariat were aware of its strength and recognized itself as a political subject?” I think that then there would be something to win.

You, and many who you quote – have halfway gone over from one class to another. In other words, you don’t seem to feel full comfortable, either with the workers and farmers at home, or with the élites in the world of art. How do you understand class? Is it a feeling, a relationship to the means of production? Or a little of both?

Class is the vessel in which all fragments of identity are contained: cultural, religious, political, gendered, sexual, drifting around in different mixes. 

The class from which I came, is above all characterized from “classism”, that is discrimination because of social origin; the social position goes along with exclusion, stigmatization, discrimination – in the form of education injustice, bad pay, exploitation which was and is apparent in many aspects.

The desire to leave your class of origin is not just because of this, but also because of forms of discrimination within the precariat. I have sensed and experienced racism, misogyny, homophobia, sexism and antisemitism very strongly in my class of origin.

But “social mobility” doesn’t really function. At least, not with me. Somehow I hang in between, between the stools, or – better said – the classes. Which means that I can’t fully escape the old class of origin, but have also not really arrived in the new class. No surprise really: it takes four generations to really carry our this step.

This manifests itself in that I zigzag in my apparent “social mobility”. I feel a traitor to and defector from my class of origin. One who abandons their ideas and principles, and both behind their back and in their eyes betrays them, so that I can take root elsewhere. They really make me feel this whenever I have anything to do with them. They treat me as a deviant, as a refugee, as a crackpot, as one who’s made himself an outcast.

In turn, in the class in which I try to enter, I believe myself to be an imposter, a liar, a fraud, who in principle doesn’t really have the codes, the habitus which this role requires. That despite adopting the signs, the behaviours which are necessary for a lasting imitation. In other words – “how do I deport myself? How do I eat? How do I speak? How cultivated is my conduct? How am I?” 

Eribon, and other authors who you introduce are convinced that fights against oppression like feminism and anti-racism must be central part of class struggle. In her new book, Sahra Wagenknecht argues the opposite – that so-called “identity politics” are a diversion from real struggle. What do you think about that?

I’m afraid that Frau Wagenknecht is mistaken, and I find it at times insidious to play class struggle against the fight against oppression. Quite the opposite: you must think of everything together: class politics, classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, antisemitism and other forms of discrimination.

Class dynamics cannot be reduced to the dualism between wage labour and capital. Power and methods of oppression like sexism and racism criss-cross class relations and manifest themselves inside them. You must think of a form of collectivity. One which is not aimed at standardizing internal differences, but much more in recognizing them, which ultimately leads to overthrowing class society.

What can sound theoretical becomes immediately clear in practise. The exploited, migrant cleaning worker, or the dark -skinned care assistant do not stand with both feet in the class struggle, but also have one in the debate about racism and e.g. sexism.

You quote Michael Hartmann when he says that the AfD appeals to the poorest part of the population. But according to a study by the Institute of German economy, AfD supporters are paid above average wages. Who is right here?

Well, for sure in a society characterized by racism, the middle class accounts for supporters of the AfD. Nevertheless I believe (and Hartmann verifies it in his study) that that there is definitely a relationship between precarious existences and resentment against strangers.

This is also my experience from my milieu of origin. The separation from what is believed to be foreign was always strong and always there, even when the “foreigners” didn’t directly affect your life. This meant that there was a deeply felt rejection of migrants, although no or few migrants came into our area, The same was so with antisemitism. The AfD is quite consciously and successfully fishing in these murky brown waters.

I agree with most of your arguments, at least in part, and where I have a different opinion, you film has made me think. But one thing didn’t convince me. Shortly before the end, you quote Hermes Phettberg, who says that we must avoid class and retreat to a classless, role-free parallel world of art.

But class isn’t a choice. Most of us work because we must survive. It seems to me that a parallel world of art is a luxury that the majority can’t afford. Or have I misunderstood something?

That is meant to be naturally provocative, also exaggerated, and to a degree meant ironically. The deep-rooted desire to leave these class relationships behind you needs that you deny this class dynamic. This denial, which really seems only available to those who can afford it, also appears to be a privilege, although the real income and living conditions of those who take it is usually close to precarity.

You ask another question shortly before the end of the film: what is to be done? What would be your answer to this question?

Hmm – that is a good, and I think the decisive question. Here I must elaborate a little. The currently dominant criticism of classism – is not aimed at ending class society, but only at a superficial resolution of class antagonism. Those who have become successful are more willingly accepted by those who are longer established and they should then always be friendly to waiting staff and postal workers.

If the latter try hard, they should also be allowed to rise. But this criticism of classism, most definitely does not suggest class struggle, as all demands remain immanent within the system. This is how classism is currently treated socially. I find that this does not go beyond the paradigm of acknowledgement and does not lead to a transition. That can only be achieved by a structural change to the production of misery.

This means: respect doesn’t pay any bills. Or as the Slovenian philosophy rebel Slavoj Zizek says: recognition, respect and attention to workers is only cosmetic for the oppressed class. I also think that the recognition as class probably and ultimately will not lead to a peaceful coexistence of classes. Quite the opposite: it will thus be more accepted as “normal“, as “natural“ and not as something that must be abolished as soon as possible. The fight for economic redistribution is reduced to a cultural question of respectful behaviour. 

It would probably be more effective to abolish classes by changing the system. Exploitative neoliberal capitalism, in which very few acquire wealth and prosperity at the cost of the overwhelming majority, must be eliminated.

Capitalism does not just destroy most people worldwide – tramples on their worth and living conditions – but it also rigorously and systematically destroys nature and the environment. It seems to me that the end of capitalism is a precondiition, not just to defeat classism but also to deal with other forms of discrimination.

If the gap between poor and rich is removed; if a just redistribution happens, the common good stands in the foreground; if participation is not just a word but seriously implemented.. equal rights and community spirit are strengthened; sustainability and the defence of nature and the animal kingdom is a decisive factor on which all human actions orientate – Then not only are classes obsolete – But life for EVERYONE will be more worth living.

In this regard we come self-evidently to an overdue dismantling of all discriminations, as well as the fossil resources. Renewable energies are the only ones that we should consider. Basic income is standard, as are equality of education, equal treatment and equal rights. This leads to expropriation of exorbitant private wealth from corporations, and nationalisation of the essential social and political areas – health, education, housing, energy, land, mobility etc.

For many people, this scenario may seem to be a utopia that sounds like a fairy tale, but who is against fairy tales? Dreams are important – they are not lost just because they can’t be realised. They will always be there. At least, the East German Heiner Müller believed this a long time ago. As ever, he is correct.

How and when can we see Klassenkampf? Is there also a possibility for people who don’t speak good German?

The preview premiere was on Friday, 1st October in the Volksbühne Berlin. The cinema release is then in selected German cinemas from 7th October. In some cinemas, the film will be shown with English subtitles. You can find out more on the homepage.

Editor Note: This was edited at points for clarity.

Germany Elects Merkel’s Successor – Catastrophe for DIE LINKE

The causes for the defeat of DIE LINKE in the German elections go deeper than electoral tactics


04/10/2021

The German elections of Sunday 26th September were dominated by the question of who would succeed Merkel as chancellor. The improbably bad performance of CDU/CSU candidate Armin Laschet enabled Olaf Scholz (SPD) to become the sudden favourite, without having a clear profile of his own. To the extent that DIE LINKE featured at all in the debates, the main issue was what positions the left party should give up to enable the election of a centre-left government.

The CDU/CSU lost 9 percentage points. With 24,1% of the vote, the Christian Democrats suffered their worst ever electoral defeat. The SPD won 5,2% against the long term trend and achieved their best result since 2005. The Greens gained 5,8 percentage points to land at their best result ever with 14,8%. The liberals of the FDP also won slightly and rose to 11,5% of the vote. The AfD lost 2,3 percentage points and fell to 10,3%. However, the AfD also managed to become the biggest party in most of Saxony, the southern half of Thuringia and the southern tip of Sachsen-Anhalt. DIE LINKE lost 4,3 percentage points and ended up below the election threshold of 5,0%, only returning to the Bundestag thanks to three direct mandates in Berlin and Leipzig.

The Centre Left

The victory of the SPD and the Greens indicates that many people are looking for change. The rise of the massive climate movement over the last years, in which over 600.000 people participated, electorally mostly played into the hands of the Greens. The SPD carried out a relatively left wing campaign despite their candidate Olaf Scholz, who was one of the architects of the neoliberal labour and welfare reforms under the Schröder government and a hardline mayor of Hamburg. This way the SPD could win 1,5 million voters (net) from the CDU/CSU and at the same time half a million from DIE LINKE.

For DIE LINKE, the direction of the campaign turned a precarious situation into a perfect storm, in which only the most loyal supporters cast their vote for the socialists. Many former LINKE voters gave their vote to Olaf Scholz in order to keep Armin Laschet from becoming chancellor. At the same time, DIE LINKE lost almost half a million votes to the Greens. The longing for a centre-left government that takes the environment seriously will have played a crucial role in this.

In the last weeks of the campaign, there was pressure on DIE LINKE to make early concessions in the interest of a possible government with the SPD and Greens, for example by giving up the demand to disband and replace NATO. The party wing that favours coalition governments most, around fraction co-chair Bartsch and party co-chair Henning-Wellsow, took this up to prepare DIE LINKE for “red-green-red”. Instead of lambasting the SPD and Greens for their neoliberal realpolitik, the party leadership made repeated offers of left cooperation to the SPD and Greens, who snubbed the socialists in return. After the Taliban conquered Kabul, DIE LINKE tellingly refrained from attacking the SPD and Greens for supporting the war all those years. That didn’t save DIE LINKE from ending up on the defensive herself for not supporting the last “rescue mission” of the Bundeswehr.

Causes of the defeat of DIE LINKE

The causes for the defeat of DIE LINKE go deeper than electoral tactics, though. In great swathes of former East Germany, where party structures have been rotting for ages and the average age of members continues to rise, the party is nowhere near as present as it used to be. Neither has the party managed to take root and establish permanent LINKE structures in many cities, and especially rural areas, in the former west.

The Covid pandemic also created problems for DIE LINKE. Pandemic prevention measures made organising harder and eroded strong social ties that we depend on when campaigning. But DIE LINKE did not become a widely recognised voice of solidarity and public health during the pandemic. The Bundestag fraction could not keep pace with the developments and failed to find a common denominator on the question of pandemic prevention. The well thought-out plans and motions that the fraction eventually produced over the course of 2020 and 2021, that included hundreds of billions of Euros for health care, education, social security, public transport and a left Green New Deal hardly featured in the press at all and never reached the electorate. Furthermore, Sahra Wagenknecht kept publishing dubious videos spreading doubt over Covid-vaccinations and evidently flirting with the sizeable number of “corona-sceptics” amongst her supporter base.

In addition, the ongoing fights inside the party which the media are always glad to highlight, did the party no favours. Especially the conflict between the supporters of Sahra Wagenknechts national-chauvinistic (and increasingly economically liberal) course on the one hand and comrades championing internationalism, active anti-fascism and anti-racism, LGBTIQ solidarity, feminist and ecological socialist politics on the other, but also the rift between advocates and opponents of coalition politics played a role here.

The Way Forward

An exception to the national trend for DIE LINKE is Berlin, where people elected not just the Bundestag, but also the Berlin parliament, the so called Abgeordnetenhaus, as well as the city district councils and voted in the successful Berlin referendum to expropriate housing corporations with in total 240.000 housing units. Despite participating in the Berlin government, DIE LINKE only lost 1,6% in the Abgeordnetenhaus election and ended up with 14% of the vote – a stark contrast to the Berlin result for the Bundestag, in which DIE LINKE lost over 7 percentage points, falling to a dismal 11,4%.

In areas where DIE LINKE is especially rooted in movements, in the neighbourhood and in the referendum initiative “Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen and Co”, like in Neukölln, Kreuzberg, Wedding, Charlottenburg or north Treptow, the party was even able to win slightly in the Berlin and local elections. The fact that DIE LINKE was the only party to forcefully support the immensely popular initiative helped stave off catastrophe, just like the party’s standing in the anti-fascist movement.

By supporting the strike movement in the Berlin hospitals over the last years, DIE LINKE was also able to make inroads into the fighting sections of the working class instead of anaemically complaining about the disappearing support in the working class. In this way, DIE LINKE Neukölln could win the best result in former West-Germany with 11,9% for the Bundestag and 14,3% for the Abgeordnetenhaus. In Treptow-Nord, the movement oriented Katalin Gennburg managed to defend her direct mandate for the Abgeordnetenhaus with 26,2%, in a district that was believed lost to Die LINKE just a few years ago.

This means that DIE LINKE can realise its potential when the party gives up the fixation on parliaments as the primary political terrain and the main instrument for social change, and instead focuses her energy on building movements and strikes. How that can work in practice will be very different from locality to locality. But it is clear that DIE LINKE has to radically change course if the party is to play a significant role in the crisis-riddled times to come.

This article first appeared in Dutch on the website socialisme.nu. Translation: Freek Blauwhof