2-16-06, 8:41 am
The crisis of reformism
Reformism has deep historical roots in Germany. The foundation for the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) at the changing of the years 1918/19 meant the existence of a new party which continued the revolutionary traditions of the 'federation of Communists' around Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The KPD became a mass-party, the social democrats (SPD) stayed one until their ban in 1933. Members of KPD and SPD who were hunted during the experience of fascism promised to overcome the divisions of the working class movement. But soon after 1945 – also due to the influence of the allied powers – this end to fascism was forgotten. The SPD became a participating force in the restoration of capitalism with all its consequences. The KPD, which formed in West Germany, was banned in 1956, and it wasn’t until 1968 that the DKP was allowed to form a legal party.
During the period of confrontation between the world-systems [Cold War – ed.], the SPD became the party of the 'third way' between capitalism and socialism. The situation of the working class improved to a certain extent due to reforms which were the result of struggle. This had the effect of integration into the capitalist system and linking the SPD with the trade unions. These were the major factors for the SPD-dominance in the German working-class movement.
After the end of the competition between the world-systems and the transformation of German capitalism into its neo-liberal form, reformism plunged into crisis. The SPD changed from a party which tried to integrate the working class into capitalism through reforms to just another neo-liberal party.
Now, political contradictions between trade unions and the SPD are breaking open. Social Democratic union officials, particularly, are in trouble because of these contradictions.
In 1990, many leading Social Democrats were jubilant and were convinced that the era of the SPD’s political dominance was coming. But, in fact, crisis came. Since 1990, the SPD has lost more than 1/3 of its members (3,500,000).
Its potential electorate is now below 30 percent with an election participation of slightly above 70 percent.
Social Democratic government policy under Chancellor Schröder was a form of neo-liberal policy. Capital needed these policies in order to integrate the working class movement or at least to limit its ability to fight.
Since 1990, SPD has been working at a new party program, but discussions on it had to be postponed several times.
Since 1984 and the winning of the 35 hour working week, there has been no single progressive reform in Germany. The balance of power has been shifted towards the dominance of capital-orientated policies for the time being.
The PDS before the 2005 elections
Ideologically the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) defined itself as a pluralist party which sees its roots in the social democratic, the communist and the bourgeois ideologies.
Its program keeps socialism as an aim, but it does not strive for the necessary changes through a break with the ownership (of the means of production) and the power (of the capitalist state). The PDS articulates anti-capitalist positions and claims, which it completely ignores where it participates in governments like in the states of Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Leading personalities within the PDS ignore the true history of the working-class movement. Their picture of history is one of de-legitimization of socialism in Europe.
In some of their political positions, anti-communism in a left-wing disguise shows clearly.
Early elections – challenge for the left in Germany
As a result of the resistance against social program cuts, in 2004 a new left-reformist coalition made up of mainly social democrats and other left wingers came into existence.
The fist step was an 'electoral alliance' made up of members of the ver.di. trade union [United Services Union – ed.], intellectuals and dissatisfied ex-PDS members, as well as ex-social democrats.
Then an 'alternative social justice' movement was initiated mainly by union officials of the metal workers union (IGM).
The electoral alliance started in the North, mainly in Berlin, while the 'alternative social justice movement' developed in the South, especially in Bavaria.
The difference between them was that the electoral alliance pushed for a broad front against neo-liberal policies (from Communists to 'social conservatives') in order to give these forces weight in elections. The social justice project was more concerned with the 're-education' and 'cleansing' of the SPD and wanted to found a party quickly which would exist until such times when the SPD returns to its traditions and original aims.
For this reason, members of the German Communist Party (DKP) have been involved in the electoral alliance from the start but not in the social justice project.
Both projects put resistance to cuts in social programs at the center of their policies. Left-wing Keynesian claims against the neoliberal 'Agenda 2010' and the anti-social 'Hartz-laws' were being developed. Sympathy, agreement and support for both projects came from parts of the PDS with a trade-union leaning, left-wing social democrats and left wingers with no party ties, ex-members of the DKP amongst them.
In 2004, both initiatives developed a common platform and joined to form the Electoral Alternative for Jobs and Social Justice (WASG). It contested the state-elections in Nordrhein-Westfalen, pulling 2 percent of the vote. The early elections for national parliament in 2005 were a challenge and worked as a catalyst for a new formation of the left.
PDS and WASG at the elections
The formation process for the elections in 2005 can only be understood if one knows German election law. Joint lists are not legal. Neither WASG nor the leadership of the PDS had any intention to stand together for these elections. In fact such a move was rejected. At a later stage the PDS leadership offered to open their lists to WASG candidates, the WASG rejected this because they saw the PDS as successors to the Socialist Party (SED) that led the German Democratic Republic (GDR or East Germany –ed.].
Talks only started after pressure from many well-known personalities on the left and the sharpening of the question about how the left would fight a successful election campaign. A crucial move in the process was the step by ex-SPD leader Oskar Lafontaine to join the WASG and his declaration of candidacy.
He saw common ground with the PDS, which he had defined as a social democratic party earlier. In his book, The Anger is Growing, he had pursued the idea that a new left reformist party was necessary.
PDS members supported the name-change to 'The Left,' and the WASG agreed not to stand in the elections on their own. Their members were placed 'safely' (high up) on the lists of candidates by the Left. This process caused a lot of friction, because the short time until the elections left little room for political debate.
The initial predictions were that the Left would win 12 percent. In reality, they achieved 8.7 percent and 54 members of parliament.
The formation of the Left Party
The election manifestos [platforms – ed.] for each party had been decided upon by separate congresses. The joint manifesto was produced at a special congress by the Left Party where members of the WASG were guests but not delegates. The election campaign was dominated by protests against social program cuts. It took on the claims of the working class, trade union and anti-globalization movements.
The 'left public' perceived the Left Party as the only political entity worth voting for. Movements, initiatives and other parties, the DKP amongst them, supported the Left Party and called for voting for them. Eleven DKP members stood as candidates on their lists in different states. This meant a breaking of the PDS-ban on our members to stand on their lists. At the same time, the PDS leadership prevented DKP members from being placed high enough on the lists to have a chance to win.
The overall election campaign influenced positively the movements outside parliament. It enhanced debate about alternatives to neo-liberal policies. The result created hope for strengthening the left, and that their positions – through a lengthy process – could become acceptable to a majority and force a shifting of the political axis.
Looking at the situation realistically, the left has a long way to go to achieve this.
Both the WASG and the Left Party now want to form a united party, based on left reformist policies.
The congress last December started this process by creating a framework for the amalgamation of the two is supposed to be completed by 2007. The membership will then have to decide on the framework and the new Left Party could stand for the parliamentary elections in 2009.
There is already speculation within the Left Party about possible coalitions with the SPD.
The process so far has not grown from bottom up, it was forced from top down. This fact creates plenty of contradictions and resistance. An additional problem is the difference in culture between former members of the SPD and the SED as well as different political views.
The process is particularly difficult in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, states where the ex-PDS, now Left Party, is in coalition government with the SPD and in charge of the policies that cut social programs, policies that are similar to those in other states.
In both places, the WASG majority is in favor of standing its own candidates in competition to the Left Party.
In other states, heavy arguments and political controversies are breaking open, especially in preparation for elections in 2006.
It is difficult to predict further developments. It looks as though the joining of both parties is going to be completed. A major factor is the need for success in state elections in the western areas. The Left Party dominance is partially due to its secure financial situation, unlike WASG it has a lot of resources.
The leadership of the Left Party and some leading members of the WASG – like Oskar Lafontaine – have a strong desire for quickly building a united party, and it looks to be pushed through, even against strong resistance.
The DKP views the building of the Left Party as part of a necessary re-shaping of the left. We see the need to give the Marxist left a stronger profile. Blocking neo-liberalism, which is project that is broader than the left, is a major task in these times.
The attitude of the DKP
In many discussions since the start of the left-reformist breakaways from the SPD, the DKP has urged time and again to bring together all forces which stand against the shift of the political axis towards the right. For us, the elections are important, but movements outside parliaments remain the decisive ones.
We have always promoted these movements and act as the political arm for them.
The DKP has suggested that, instead of quickly creating a new party, that all left forces, parties and organizations who wish to do so create an umbrella and work together, debate questions of common interest, co-ordinate participation in elections and add force to the movements outside parliament.
We think this model of co-operation is the better alternative than a new party.
This suggestion has been rejected. The DKP was not included in talks about co-operation and further projects.
My suggestion – and I am convinced it represents the opinion of the majority of our members – is that the DKP must continue to exist as an independent political force. We are a party which stands for the revolutionary break with capitalist ownership and political power. We develop our policies on the basis of scientific socialism, and we view the working class as the revolutionary subject. Such a force which stands without ifs and buts for a socialist future is crucial, independent of its size and political influence, which unfortunately is limited at present.
At the same time I am for co-operation as close as possible with comrades and colleagues who are members, followers or voters of the Left Party.
The political challenges are growing. In the face of the sharpening contradictions in this society there will be discussion and new positions emerging. The question about the future of mankind will be debated more intensively. Ideas about socialism and their pros and cons will be discussed more often. The chances for the DKP are growing, mid- and long term. Parallel to this, a wide struggle against the policies of war, social program cuts and destruction of democratic rights is necessary. Labeling has never proved useful. Convinced of the correctness of their own ideas, Communists are looking for dialogue with other political forces.
I am convinced. We can only win.
--Heinz Stehr is chair of the German Communist Party.
