25.11.2004

Socialist or welfare state party?

Over the weekend of November 20-21, the first national delegate conference of the German left alliance, Wahlalternative Arbeit und soziale Gerechtigkeit, decided unanimously to begin the process of setting up a party. However, there is rather less unity over what kind of party it should become and how democratic its internal structures will be. Tina Becker reports from Nuremberg

The first delegate conference of the WASG (Electoral Alternative for Work and Social Justice) was refreshingly different. There was a frank exchange of opinions and a very comradely and inclusive atmosphere. Delegates were cheered for declaring themselves communists or revolutionary socialists. Almost every speaker was enthusiastically applauded - even when the motion they moved received only a couple of votes. There were members and ex-members present of the governing Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) and the Green Party. In short, you got the feeling something really exciting was happening.

I found it slightly strange, though, after so many years abroad, to be part of this very German style of conference. Before it got underway, a rock band got us into the mood. The 247 delegates from all 16 federal states were seated at long tables, which were covered with drinks, food and delegate papers. Although smoking was only allowed in the enclosed bar, the hall quickly became smoke-filled. Delegates chatted to each other all the way through conference. Often, it felt like the speakers were supplying the light entertainment, to which the delegates could listen - or not. And we started bang on time: quite a surprise to see the hall packed at 9am on a Sunday morning.

The main decision was for a poll of the membership seeking to transform the association into a fully-fledged party. By December 14, all 6,000 members will have had the opportunity to vote, either via email or post. This somewhat overly complex method is supposed to assure the membership of the organisation’s Basisdemokratie. In reality, however, there are strong bureaucratic trends that could well become a stumbling block in transforming the WASG into an effective political alternative.

German crisis

It certainly seemed correct when Klaus Ernst, one half of the leading duumvirate, declared this conference an “historic opportunity for Germany”. The country is in the middle of a deep political crisis. In a situation where (at least) 4.5 million are out of work and more and more companies are threatening to move production abroad, the governing coalition of SPD and Greens is conducting the most ferocious attacks on the working class for decades.

In the name of keeping the country competitive, they are actively supporting the discarding of the very important Tarifverträge (agreements between unions and employers over wages and working conditions), which has resulted in the return of the 40-hour week (if not longer). After the major union struggles of the 1980s, a 35-hour or 37.5-hour week was introduced in most German industries, thereby setting the precedent for similar struggles in France and other European countries.

While the German economy as a whole is certainly not growing as fast as it used to, the economic situation is hardly as dire as you might have thought, listening to those who try to persuade you of the necessity of the above measures. There are of course bankruptcies, but most of them affect very small companies. The big conglomerates, however, are doing just fine - in fact many are reporting record profits. The 30 biggest companies listed in the Deutsche Aktien Index returned average increases of 30% last year alone, according to Die Zeit (November 11). It quotes economist Harald Jörg from the Dresdner Bank as saying: “The international competitiveness of German companies is excellent.” And the department for national statistics is pleased to report that the wages of German workers have stagnated since 1993 - while average profits have risen by 60%.

Impotent unions

Easy access to cheap labour in the new EU countries has put the unions on the defensive. At the moment, this ‘outsourcing’ is more threat than reality - Morgan Stanley estimates that ‘only’ 300,000 German jobs have been lost to eastern European countries since the beginning of the 1990s, not millions, as often quoted. But this is expected to rise as tax concessions and heavy subsidies for companies investing in the new EU states start to bring results. There is no effective cooperation between workers and their unions in the different EU countries that could coordinate an effective fight for the levelling up of wages and working conditions. As long as this remains the case, the threat of outsourcing production to Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland remains very real.

Secondly, and of course related to this, Germany is witnessing a systematic attempt to break the unions - similar to what Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s. Once IG Metall (until recently the most powerful and feared union in Europe) agreed to one shit deal, other companies jumped on the bandwagon and the workers have been sold out over and over again.

Up until recently, German trade union leaders usually had a relatively easy job: in the yearly renegotiation of the Tarifverträge, they would, at most, call a couple of warning strikes and then sit down with the bosses to agree a deal. Nowadays something much more is required if members’ rights and working conditions are to be defended. Many in the union bureaucracy are of course also longstanding members of the SPD and are not ready to break from ‘their’ party. Faced with this lack of fight, less and less people are joining unions: there are now only seven million union members, compared to 10 million a decade ago. And with fewer members, the unions are even less capable of waging a real fightback.

Last week IG Metall agreed to reintroduce the 40-hour week at Siemens - without any increase in wages. At Mercedes, the workers will no longer be paid for meal breaks and the union has agreed to forego a previously negotiated wage rise. Worst of all was the deal struck at Volkswagen: IG Metall agreed to a wage freeze for 28 months and to give up the premium for working overtime, while any newly employed workers will earn 20% less than their colleagues. In return, there are supposed to be no sackings until 2011. However, the company can cancel this agreement at any time. It does not need a genius to work out that longer working hours and less protection against sackings will lead to only one thing: more unemployment.

The fact that three of the WASG’s four main leaders are middle-ranking IG Metall officials certainly reflects discontent with the leadership’s performance - even if none of them are at present prepared to comment publicly on their union’s role.

The tremendous demonstrations against the cuts in benefit and social services which took place this summer have shown that many workers are angered by the bosses’ onslaught. Hundreds of thousands joined the Monday demonstrations in cities across Germany. However, although the leadership of the German TUC (DGB) supported a massive demonstration in April, it has since distanced itself from the protests. Many workers are therefore deeply unhappy with their union leaders and of course the SPD: more than 65,000 people have resigned their membership since the beginning of 2003. While there were almost a million SPD members in 1991, the figure now stands at only 650,000 (Frankfurter Rundschau November 17).

Of course, support for the demonstrations has since dropped - in cities where once there were 100,000 on the streets, now they are counted in hundreds. But the WASG argues quite correctly that this most likely indicates a frustration with the limited nature of such demonstrations, rather than a lack of anger. “What we need now is to channel this anger and frustration into organisational structures,” Klaus Ernst told the Weekly Worker.

No cooperation with PDS?

Quite obviously, there is a real space opening up for an organised fightback and it is growing bigger every day. As junior partner in the government coalition, the Green Party has long stopped being seen as any kind of alternative. The Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), which emerged from the former ‘official communist’ party of East Germany, has also lost much of its reputation as a leftwing force. In the three federal states where it is part of the regional governing coalition, it has been responsible for some of the most draconian cutbacks and in Berlin helped undermine and finally cancel the Tarifvertrag for all public sector workers in the capital.

Although the PDS took part in the demonstrations against the attacks on unemployed benefits (Hartz IV, so called after the bureaucrat who thought of it), it has since announced that - now that the proposals have become law - it intends to enforce them. Under Hartz IV, anybody who has been unemployed for over 12 months can be forced to take any job - at a minimum rate of €1 per hour on top of benefit. If they refuse, their benefit of €330 per month can be cut.

January 1 2005 is incidentally not only the day when Hartz IV comes into force. It is also the day when the new corporate tax rate of 21% will be introduced - the lowest in the whole of the EU. This neatly symbolises the way German society is moving at the moment.

Little wonder then that the WASG has attracted strong media attention, numerous attacks by the SPD and massive interest from many on the German left. Although the organisation is still only an association, not a party, more than 6,000 people have signed up in the six months since its launch.
Some in the WASG want to see a joint campaign with the PDS in the forthcoming parliamentary elections, to be held in the autumn of 2006. A conference motion from Frankfurt, for example, demanded “urgent clarification” of the position in relation to the PDS, declaring it “extremely unfortunate” if two left parties were to stand against each other. Comrades from the east German city of Thüringen, on the other hand, state that “if we wanted to vote for the PDS, we would have joined the PDS, not the WASG”.

The relationship will have to be clarified soon - after all, the PDS still polls over 20% in most of the east German federal states. Many in the WASG come from a PDS background or are still PDS members. Irina Neszeri, for example, was a PDS councillor in the west German city of Duisburg - now she has left the PDS and is the WASG’s only paid employee. Joachim Bischoff was for years a prominent member of the PDS national executive - and has now been elected onto the WAGS leadership.

One thing is clear: the PDS is not just the ‘SPD of the east’, as some in the WASG believe. It is also not simply the continuation of the “real existing socialism” of the old GDR regime. Many people, particularly in east Germany, see it as an alternative to the capitalist system and a way to register their protest. Unlike the WASG, the PDS holds a clear position of “seeking to present alternatives to the current system”. It defines itself as a socialist organisation - at least formally.

The WASG leadership has announced that it does not want to take up the PDS offer of running joint slates in the parliamentary elections in 2006. This could well turn out to be a wrong, indeed arrogant, decision. After all, while the German electoral system is more democratic than the British, a party still needs to achieve a national average of 5% in order to enter the Bundestag.

A poll conducted by the respectable Emnid institute in August put “a new left party” at 14%. But this might look different in the autumn of 2006, particularly if voters believe that a vote for the WASG could let in the right.

A stronger state?

The leadership around Klaus Ernst and Thomas Händel want the WASG to become, not an explicitly socialist party, but a “social welfare state party” (Sozial-staatspartei), that “should not ask whether or how this current system could be overcome”, as Thomas Händel put it. “At the moment we are on the defensive - we should concentrate on building a fightback against the current attacks.”

The draft WASG programme (which will now be discussed by all party forums and then voted on at the official party launch in April 2005) is therefore mainly a Keynesian appeal to the state to do more to stop unemployment and manage the capitalist system better - the comrades are suggesting a “public investment programme into the future” to create 500,000 new jobs in the environment and social sectors; the reintroduction of the wealth tax (abolished under chancellor Schröder); the reduction of the working week, etc.

All worthy demands, of course, but there a number of problems. Firstly, the authors have actually calculated the cost - and on paper it all adds up beautifully. Secondly, the authors of the draft claim that their proposals would not only be socially more just, but also “better economically”, as they would lead to less unemployment and therefore more economic growth, which is of course good news for “everybody in Germany”: the workers and the bosses, the unemployed and the capitalists. Easy. There is no need for an organised fightback of the workers and unemployed, just ‘logic’ and ‘rational thinking’. As if the current onslaught on workers’ rights and the high level of unemployment were mere accidental symptoms of a system that is basically fair and just - if only we could scrape away the nasty bits that have built up over the years.

Naturally, if we believe that, we do not need to discuss any fundamental alternatives to the current system. Quite obviously, the WASG leadership does not want to appear too radical; it wants to build an organisation that is attractive to the liberals, the christians and the anti-capitalists. The mere defence of the welfare state is the be-all-and-end-all for the current leadership.

Many conference delegates, however, were quite insistent that wishful thinking alone would not stop the current attacks; nor would an organisation with such a limited programme provide a realistic political alternative for German workers. “We want to be a left party” was the reaction of many speakers following Klaus Ernst’s definition of the WASG as a “social welfare state party”.

One delegate from Hamburg commented cynically: “I get the impression that we want to present organisational structures and a programme that are supposed to convince even our biggest enemies.” Another delegate from Bremen mused: “It certainly looks as if our executive thinks we should position the WASG just a little bit to the left of the SPD and then we can easily grab everybody in that space. That won’t work - we have to have clear ideas about a real alternative system to run society.” And yet another delegate demanded - to much applause: “I don’t want another social democracy. That’s been tried and found wanting. How can we mobilise against unemployment and then not also criticise the system that has produced it in the first place?”

Many comrades were also adamant that the WASG should remain a party of opposition, even if they were to be elected into parliament: “We’ve seen what happened with the Greens and the PDS,” one delegate warned.

As far as I could tell, most of these critical voices are not members of any particular left group. The German Communist Party, while very interested in the process, was not officially there and nobody identified themselves as a supporter.

German SWP

Interestingly, comrades from the SWP’s small German section, Linksruck, positioned themselves well to the right in this context. In their three contributions, they had nothing at all to say on the future shape of the organisation, but concentrated - as usual - on populism and activism: “We have to stop the Nazi parties - now!” demanded one, while another urged the WASG to “participate in the international protests against the social cuts in Brussels on March 19”. By the way, none of the three identified themselves as members of Linksruck - but the character of their contributions left seasoned SWP-watchers in no doubt as to their affiliation.

Only when comrade Christine Buchholz stood for the new executive did we hear the word ‘Linksruck’ for the first time (“I am a member of Verdi, Attac and Linksruck”). And one had to read her leaflet to find out what she actually thinks about how the WASG should develop: “I think it would be a massive mistake to narrow down the WASG to a socialist or anti-capitalist programme. This would exclude the majority of those people who have been bitterly disappointed by the mainstream parties and would prevent the building of a serious political alternative,” her statement reads. But of course, “as an organised socialist, I am of the opinion that we have to overcome capitalism in order to achieve lasting peace and social justice. Building the WASG must be an open, united process in which everybody can participate who wants to defend the welfare state.”

It is hard to find anything positive to say about Linksruck’s input in the face of such sheer opportunism. In Respect (and previously the Socialist Alliance) the SWP has to suppress its revolutionism until such a time as new members flood in by the score and then, as a minority, the SWP would be able to come out in its true colours, like a beautiful butterfly emerging from a rather unpleasant and ugly cocoon.
Well, not so in the WASG. Linksruck is already a very small minority in the organisation - and still the time is not right to fight for its own politics. At least, in Germany Linksruck occupies the proper position such opportunist and uninspiring politics deserve: as a small and unimportant sect amongst many similar-sized groups.

But comrade Buchholz made a good enough speech, in which she opposed neoliberal globalisation “with our own globalisation from below” and got elected onto the executive. Christine Lehnert, the far more outspoken and openly socialist representative of the Socialist Party’s German section, Socialist Alternative, did not make it onto the executive.

Trade union habits

Even though Linksruck seems to have no desire to challenge Ernst’s plan to make the WASG a responsible and safe organisation, comrade Buchholz’s election was opposed by the leadership: “The election of Frau Buchholz is the only outcome of this conference that we did not actually plan for,” Thomas Händel told the press afterwards.

The old executive had made sure that all WAGS members were aware who they wanted to be on the newly elected leadership - without the list system we saw applied in Respect, but with enough emphasis nevertheless.

Naturally the way in which the old executive came into being was top-down: in effect, 40 co-thinkers got together in July 2003 to register the WASG as an association. These 40 then selected four from amongst themselves to become the central executive and 10 further comrades to make up the national executive. This executive wrote its own constitution; set up all sorts of commissions (like the one working out the draft programme and the association’s constitution); delegated comrades to ‘temporarily’ run the WASG in different federal states; and made ‘strong recommendations’ on who should be elected into office locally and regionally.

Three men on the (old and new) central executive are high-ranking members of IG Metall. Klaus Ernst and Thomas Händel - who were simultaneously expelled from the SPD in July after threatening to set up the WASG - are close political allies. The economist Axel Troost is the brains behind them capable of throwing around all sorts of facts and figures.

Sabine Lösing, as the fourth player on the inner leadership, is a member of the national council of Attac and is supposed to symbolise the link with the social movements. Attac itself is divided over its attitude to WASG, as many members are deeply suspicious of any political party. Like other national sections, Attac Germany as a whole refuses to engage in elections or political parties (though many in the national Attac leaderships are in fact members of parties).

Moreover, it is clear that the trade union officials are in the majority - there are at least another three IG Metall members and a couple of Verdi members on the 10-strong national executive. This, and the way the whole project was first launched, might possibly explain some of the bureaucratic teething problems which have characterised the first few months.

For example, many WASG members were unhappy that only delegates were supposed to attend conference and I am told that there were some “very lively” discussions on the issue. With shrugging shoulders the executive referred to the constitution - which it had of course written itself. When a majority at conference then accepted a motion allowing all WASG members to attend as observers, it was a bit of a pyrrhic victory - obviously, not many had made their way to Nuremberg, as they did not know whether they would be let in or would have to stay out in the freezing cold.

I was also told by a number of delegates that prior to conference the executive also made very clear who they wanted to see as a delegate and who they would encourage to run for the new executive. Although there were no serious candidates opposing the four members of the central executive, the delegates punished them with lower than expected votes: Thomas Händel, as the executive member with the highest vote, received the support of only 191 of the 247 delegates. Sabine Lösing, the member with the least support, received 152 votes.

In this respect of course, it is good to see comrade Buchholz making it onto the leadership.

No place for 'sectarians'

Conference also saw a heated discussion on the role of so-called Linkssektierer (left sectarians) in and around the WASG, which will undoubtedly become a bigger issue in the weeks and months ahead. Klaus Ernst had given an interview with the Frankfurter Rundschau, whose reporter noted: “The fact that some communists and Marxists are wandering around in the WASG does not concern Ernst; they will quickly disappear again. The WASG is not supposed to become a marginal left party, but a social welfare state party - in this way, the sectarians would quickly lose their footing” (November 17).

A number of delegates were outraged by this article and demanded that comrade Ernst distance himself from these comments. “This is a disgrace. Are we again hunting communists?” one delegate asked to enthusiastic applause. “Have you already forgotten Pastor Niemöller’s warning, ‘First they came for the communists, but I did nothing ...’? If we want to build a new and democratic organisation, we need everybody on the left to be involved.”

Many delegates noted disappointedly that comrade Ernst did not in fact distance himself from the Frankfurter Rundschau’s write-up of the interview. Moreover, there is quite clearly a desire by the leadership to tighten up the organisation once it has become a ‘proper’ party in April. Two motions demanded that WASG members should not be allowed to retain their membership of other parties. Although the motions were referred to the commission working on the party’s constitution, Thomas Händel told the Weekly Worker that for the time being he does not mind people being members of another party - for as long as the WASG remains an association: “As soon as we become a party, then people have to make a decision, especially if they are members of the old establishment parties. How can you be a candidate for the WASG and meanwhile finance a different party with your membership dues?”

Time will tell if the leadership also has the “left sectarians” in mind and not just members of the SPD, PDS or the Green Party. I would guess that comrade Buchholz will not make the transition onto the party’s executive in April 2005.

Despite all of these problems, the place for communists and socialists in Germany today quite clearly is in the WASG. Organisations like Workers Power’s small German section, Arbeitermacht, have truly shown their sectarian narrow-mindedness by boycotting the new formation - particularly in a period where the foundations of the party are still being laid. Obviously, an uncritical engagement à la Linksruck is almost as useless.

There is a real opportunity to fight for WASG to become a democratic, inclusive and socialist organisation that goes beyond defence of the welfare state. However, this requires a more organised approach by the so far atomised, but quite clearly leftwing and enthused membership.