Weekly Worker 623 Thursday May 4 2006 Subscribe to the Weekly Worker

Tactics and principle

Tina Becker spoke to Sascha Stanicic, spokesperson of the Socialist Party’s sister organisation in Germany, Sozialistische Alternative (SAV), about the thorny question of Berlin and the opposition in the WASG

Now that the majority at the WASG conference has voted for the party not to stand in opposition to the L.PDS in the September local elections in Berlin, what will you do? Are you considering withdrawing your comrade, Lucy Redler, who heads the WASG list?

It is obvious that this is a difficult situation for everyone. The SAV’s attitude to the question is a purely political one. There is no way we could support a L.PDS candidate in Berlin, nor could we simply remain silent on the question.

That would be to support the policies of social cuts and privatisation that the L.PDS has been carrying out for the last four years, and has decided to continue. Regarding inner-party democracy, I think it is simply too superficial to say that the very small majority yesterday should be the measure of everything, because it is quite obvious that this majority decision was achieved by the disruption of elementary democratic procedures.

I think it is quite obvious that the congress was characterised by blackmail - with Oskar Lafontaine, Klaus Ernst [joint WASG secretary] and Ulrich Maurer [parliamentary secretary of the joint fraction in the Bundestag] announcing that they would leave the party if decisions that do not suit them were made regarding Berlin. Therefore I know that many delegates simply gave in to this, despite having different views on the question. I also think that the congress’s clear vote against the motion to exclude the SAV should be taken into account.

Personally I consider myself bound by the decisions of the WASG in Berlin on this question, because I believe that a broad, pluralistic party should also contain some federal aspects. Oskar Lafontaine, for example, says that the decision about the entry of WASG into a regional coalition government should be made by the party in that federal state, and I think that the decision about whether to stand in federal state elections should also be taken by the WASG members there. So concretely that means that we will carry on the debate within the structures and committees of WAGS Berlin, and I am pretty sure that the majority of them will still want to stand against the L.PDS.

However, there is clearly a democratic problem here. Sure, the WASG is no democratic centralist party - nevertheless, a majority has voted to ask you to halt your current trajectory …

We in the SAV have never suggested that the WASG should be a democratic centralist party. In the broadest sense of the word I think the workers’ movement needs to be built from scratch. The WASG is not a Marxist party that can function on the basis of one world view and organisational discipline. I think the only way in which we can attain a political vibrancy, especially for the younger generation, is by having broadness and federal elements.

That parties at a regional level decide upon their own politics is actually quite normal in the workers’ movement - the only condition being that these federal components abide by the fundamental principles of the party. That is precisely the point in Berlin. The WASG in Berlin is defending the fundamental principles of the party, whereas those who want to campaign alongside the L.PDS are throwing overboard the WASG line on government participation, which states that we will only participate in governments if it leads to a political transformation in favour of WASG’s demands.

At Friday’s meeting of the ‘left opposition’ there were quite a few people present who argued against a merger with the L.PDS and who see the WASG as an end in itself. Does it not worry you that your position on Berlin could contribute to a split, in which you are attracting a lot of conservative elements?

We deliberately announced Friday’s meeting as a meeting of the left in the WASG. It was a public meeting and as such we did not have any control over who was there. I think it became clear that there is little common ground with these anti-communist, rightwing oppositionists, and as a result the meeting did not come to any agreement or make common arrangements on how to behave during conference.

However, in Berlin, the majority of those who support separate WASG candidates - even if they do not all see themselves as socialists - regard themselves as a left opposition, are in favour of the formation of the new party and thus reject the idea of WASG as an end in itself. The WASG in Berlin has always said that it wants to see this process completed, but that it is proposing certain programmatic conditions, which the Berlin L.PDS is not fulfilling.

They want to see a left party that draws in the L.PDS, but also attracts forces that aren’t yet involved in either of the two parties and, of course, adopts leftwing policies. This is not possible at the moment with the L.PDS Berlin, and for that reason the standing of separate candidates is necessary.

In your article in Solidarität in April you write that the WASG should “affirm its principle” that it should “not participate in any government that engages in social cuts, privatisation and the destruction of workplaces”. This principle should “be used as an important prerequisite in the process of forming a new party”.

I think that that the task of Marxists and the left is to propose what sort of politics WASG should formulate in this fusion process. If the WASG leadership enters into talks with the L.PDS with clear political demands for a change of L.PDS policy - even with those minimal conditions that Oskar Lafontaine always talks about (but never actually demands are implemented) - then this would lead either to a movement to the left within the L.PDS, or to a new formation, a new party, with many different elements - if not all elements - of the L.PDS and WASG.

It gives out a false signal to support the creation of a party whose starting point is the politics of the lesser evil, the politics of coalition with the neoliberal SPD. That does not mean, however, that the left in WASG would not work within the new formation, if it turned out to be a party with a different political basis from what we had been arguing for. That is something we would have to decide upon concretely when the time came.

Leaders of the L.PDS have said quite clearly that they have no intention of ending the party’s government participation in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In fact the opposite is the case. The L.PDS has said it would have been willing to go into government with the SPD in Saxony-Anhalt, and it is also keen on participating in a national government. It is clear your conditions will not be met, so de facto you oppose the merger?

It is a condition in the sense that we are formulating proposals for WASG. It is not an ultimatum - ie, to say that the SAV will only be part of the new project when certain conditions are met.

We are currently in the process of debate around the new party, the process of the political struggle for the political direction of the new formation, and as such should not make hasty political compromises.

But there are other methods of intervening that do not threaten the merger of a new left party. For example, critical WASG candidates on a joint list in Berlin could put forward their desire to bring this disastrous coalition to an end.

I think that in Berlin we are in a situation of class struggle, where the ‘red-red’ government stands in opposition to the striking Charité hospital workers and the unemployed. These people are leading a struggle against the government. That means that we must give expression to these protests. Giving these people the ability to vote against this ‘red-red’ government is one way of doing this.

Also, it is practically out of the question that the L.PDS in Berlin will accept critical candidates. For example, in the run-up to the national elections, the L.PDS in Berlin rejected the candidate proposed by WASG. It is clear that the L.PDS insists on deciding its candidates for itself and will not accept anyone from the current WASG majority in Berlin on its slate. Leaving aside such considerations, I think it would send out the wrong signal to put ourselves on the same electoral lists as those who are privatising and attacking social welfare.

WASG members could still use the elections to give out literature opposing the regional government. You could potentially win over critical voices in the L.PDS as well as draw new members into the joint party who are against government participation.

The decisive question will be who the WASG Berlin should support in the elections. To decide now not to stand would be capitulation.

See related articles

Berlin haunts proceedings
Tina Becker and Ben Lewis report from the April 29-30 conference of the Wahlalternative Arbeit und Soziale Gerechtigkeit (WASG) in Ludwigshafen. Intended to smooth the way for unity with the Linkspartei.PDS, it was marked by discontent, threats and the profound disorientation of the left opposition

German CWI blocks 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.

Tactics and principle
Tina Becker spoke to Sascha Stanicic, spokesperson of the Socialist Party’s sister organisation in Germany, Sozialistische Alternative (SAV), about the thorny question of Berlin and the opposition in the WASG

Minimal wage
The WASG and the L.PDS have launched a campaign for a legal minimum wage in Germany - but €8 an hour is not enough

Ben Lewis
CPGB comrade Ben Lewis stood as a candidate in the elections for the six vacant posts on the WASG national executive

Print this page