03.05.2006

German CWI blocs with right

It became clear over the weekend that Sozialistische Alternative (SAV), the German section of the Socialist Party's Committee for a Workers' International, has manoeuvred itself into an untenable position over Berlin

In that city, of course, the 'red-red' government coalition of L.PDS and SPD is extremely unpopular: they have overseen privatisations, the cancellation of collective wage agreements and the strict implementation of the much hated Hartz IV laws (which entail thousands of long-term unemployed people having to work for â‚¬1 per hour or risk the loss of their benefits).

With the merger of the two parties still at least a year away, it would have been technically possible to stand against the L.PDS in Berlin without necessarily ruining the merger process.

However, last weekend's conference has qualitatively changed the situation. Now that a majority of WASG members have voted for the Berlin comrades to abandon standing separately, it is clearly mistaken to insist on this trajectory. There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, for democrats majorities matter. When SAV spokesperson Sascha Stanicic told the audience in his speech for the executive elections that "I am obligated only to the Berlin WASG and nobody else", he drew well-deserved jeers. "What are you doing standing for the national executive then?" a delegate heckled tellingly. It was surprising that comrade Stanicic managed to get 83 votes after such a foolish comment (he came seventh and just missed a place on the executive).

Secondly, SAV comrades not only insist on their right to ignore the majority: they are now arguing for the WASG to become a "more federal" organisation. Sounds familiar? Yes, in the Socialist Alliance in Britain, the SAV's parent organisation, the Socialist Party, agitated for 'federalism' precisely because of its fear of the Socialist Workers Party-dominated majority. Effectively, Peter Taaffe led his troops out of this unity project because they - as a minority - were denied a veto over decisions of the majority. The SP put its narrow, sect interest before that of the wider workers' movement - in the case of the Socialist Alliance, the unity of the revolutionary left.

The SAV is trying to pull a similar trick in WASG - no doubt under the direct tutelage of the SP and its master tactician, comrade Taaffe.

No principled position

Which brings me to the third point. The Berlin comrades - especially SAV member Lucy Redler, who headed the WASG list in Berlin - have been doing good work in exposing the L.PDS's attacks on the working class. But the SAV is putting forward a far from principled position on government participation itself, a position which dramatically weakens its stance over Berlin.

The comrades support the WASG's formulation that the party "will not participate in any government that engages in social cuts, privatisations and the destruction of workplaces". But they seem happy to leave it at that. Does that mean that participation in bourgeois governments that do not have an immediate programme of attacks on the economic rights of the working class could be principled? It is a hostage to fortune - governments-in-waiting do not usually promise to cut benefits, privatise housing stock and rip off the working class.

We are not, after all, talking about a government coalition of leftwing and workers' parties in a situation of burgeoning dual power. In that case communists might well use their position to distribute arms to workers and generally aid the revolutionary process. That is a world away from attempting to administer capitalism in the name of representing workers' interests.

Thus, it was a simple task for the leaderships of both WASG and the L.PDS to draw up a joint election manifesto for the September elections in Berlin that precisely promises that in a new 'red-red government', there would be "no more privatisations" and the like. That has taken a lot of wind out of the sails of the Berlin comrades - but only because they still foster illusions in bourgeois governments in general.

But capitalism cannot be 'managed' in the interests of the working class. Especially as it is pretty much inevitable that a working class party, as the junior partner in any bourgeois government, would be obliged to carry out attacks on working people - in the name of Realpolitik or the 'need to cut massive debts', etc.

Our friends from the SAV were left to haggle over the 'small print' in the election manifesto (what about the reversal of privatisations already made?) - rather than putting forward a position against participation in bourgeois governments in principle.

Conservative allies

At conference, SAV comrades claimed the moral support for the Berlin trajectory of "40% of delegates and therefore WASG members", as SAV spokesperson Sascha Stanicic said in his speech for the executive elections. Indeed, the decision to rebuff the Berlin WASG was a narrow one, with 153 delegates voting against Berlin and 140 for. But even the motion in support of Berlin WASG criticised the comrades and asked them to withdraw their candidates, while on balance being against punitive measures being taken against them (an approach we broadly agree with).

So the comrades can claim the active support only of a small section of this 40% minority. This group was undoubtedly very loud at conference - but it did not constitute more than 15% of delegates. And it is very unlikely that this reflects active support of 15% of the national WASG membership, as the majority of delegates to this conference were elected over a year ago, when the WASG had only 3,000 members. Over 9,000 have joined since - ie, after the WASG leadership opted for a quick merger with the L.PDS.

Most worryingly though is the political outlook of those with whom the SAV are now in alliance. By focussing their whole political intervention on the question of Berlin - rather than on the need to influence the programme and structure of the new, merged party - the comrades have picked up the support of pretty much all those conservative elements in the WASG who oppose the merger in principle.

A meeting of the 'left opposition' the day before conference began saw a very motley crew turn up. At least half of the 100 or so participants clearly had an anti-unity agenda. One delegate, for example, got a lot of applause for demanding that "we should not even talk about the bloody PDS here". Another got similar support for demanding that "we fight against the double membership system", whereby members of the WASG can exercise membership rights in the L.PDS and the other way round. "We, the WASG, are the new left. No mercy for the traitors!" was how one of the more hyperventilated comrades put it.

The SAV insists that they are still in favour of the merger. But their emphasis has shifted considerably in the last few weeks. They have now formulated "preconditions" which must be met before they would go along with unification (see Weekly Worker April 6). I was told that SAV members would not vote for CPGB comrade Ben Lewis, who resides in Germany, in the elections to the WASG national executive because "he is in favour of a quick merger".

Of course communists are in favour of building a united left party in Germany - as quickly as possible. SAV comrades and the conservative WASG minority insist on slowing down the process so that "other forces" can join in and the new merged party would be more than simply a fusion of WASG and L.PDS.

But who is stopping others from joining? If SAV comrades are waiting for some huge influx of untainted socialists who can shift both the WASG (12,000 members) and the L.PDS (60,000 members) to the left, they will wait forever.

The formation of a Germany-wide, mass workers' party is a tremendous step forward for the European working class. That does not mean that the Marxist minority within both organisations should uncritically cheer on the social democratic leaderships in their quest for ministerial posts. We should move forward the merger process - and start the overdue task of developing a positive Marxist programme for it.