- The Guardian
- Issue #2124
BSW and Left Unity
Dear comrades,
My name is Maxim Nicola and I am a member of The Left party from Germany. A comrade of mine from Australia sent me one of your newspapers with an article about the then newly founded “Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht” (or BSW for short) of the former Left party politician Sahra Wagenknecht. In your article you described this project as a new actor on the German political left, if I recall correctly. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that the BSW has anything to do with leftist politics. Wagenknecht voiced her support for Stalinist policies in the 90s and has since come around to quoting Ordoliberalism as her guiding philosophy this year. Her split from our party was mainly motivated through her rejection of progressive social values, such as queer issues or migration.
Within our party framework she and her small band of die hard fans were unable to push for these regressive positions, and so she continuously went on talk shows or gave interviews where she openly attacked the party on those issues that she couldn’t influence within the internal democratic process. Since she founded the BSW, her opposition to migration (which already has quite barbaric aspects due to neglect, racism, and various inhumane EU policies on the topic) has been stronger than ever. She pits working class Germans against working class migrants and refugees (for example from Ukraine) and has shown time and time again that she most certainly does not want to actually make progressive politics.
I admit, I may be biased, since I am a proud and active member from the party she left and attacked so much in the past, but I truly think that no objective analysis of Wagenknecht and her politics can come to the honest conclusion that her brand of right wing populism can be described as left wing.
Best wishes from Heidelberg,
Maxim Nicola
Heidelberg, Germany
Humphrey McQueen
Dear editor,
Unfortunately I remain somewhat unaware of the titles and/or substance of the publications by Humphrey McQueen that A Carruthers refers to in their mis-headed book review (Guardian #2122, 28/10/2024). What I do know is that the vitriol of the piece besmirches an Australian historian who has over a long time actively contributed to the cause of socialism. And whilst I have not always agreed with his observations and analyses, I would suggest that A Carruthers hostile so-called, book review does not help in building unity on the left.
Regards,
Graham Drew
A Carruthers responds:
When a defensive reader reads a negative review, they often overlook the good parts. I would like to remind the reader that there are positive elements in my review that should not be overlooked: for example, I stated that McQueen’s contributions to Australian cultural history are to be recognised.
But let me repeat my original accusation: McQueen’s attempt to bring Capital down to earth is a catastrophic failure. It fails as a program to action, on the one hand, which is what we need in such handbook-style works, and on the other hand as a distillation or interpretation of Capital. I suggested as a model the extraordinarily creative Manifesto of Marx and Engels; the 10 points, say, or the 12 in Engels’ Principles of Communism. There are myriad ways theoretical works could be “brought down to earth.” This is not it.
What I did not point out also was stylistic blunders: the writing is messy. Parts don’t make sense. Writing of this kind requires attention to argument and structure. To come down from heaven and connect with the people of earth, it can’t be a series of roughly strung-together sentences and condensed ramblings.
What we in the working class need right now is clearly-worded programs for action, crystallised in clear language.
One of the problems I noted was the notion of enriching individuality; most community activists or communists, of course, won’t take issue with enriched individuality. But in our time, when the working class of Australia is having to fight on multiple fronts, we want collectivity. We’ve had our New Culture. But capitalist conformity cannot be fought on the side of social relations. We want workers’ power, workers’ state power. The pamphlet doesn’t offer us a credible path in this direction.
As to vitriol: what does this compare to our Marx’s ‘The Holy Family’? Unity cannot be forged by avoiding debate.
Crying foul
Dear Editor,
The Opposition was quick to cry out over Albanese’s election carrot of cutting existing student debt by 20 per cent. We heard the usual right-wing commentators join the chorus, protesting against the reduction in debts, and not just because it was a carrot to win over disaffected younger voters.
“Why should these students not pay it all back? It’s not fair on those taxpayers who never got the benefit of university. They shouldn’t subsidise uni students who will go on to earn high incomes.” And so the chorus goes on.
Take a closer look at those who crying foul. Many of them went through uni when it was free. The Whitlam Labor government introduced free tertiary education. They are more likely to afford private health insurance and skip public hospital waiting lists. I can’t hear them complaining about it being unfair that many taxpayers who cannot afford private health insurance are subsidising them.
Bring back free education and redirect private health insurance subsidies to the public health system, I say.
M Santos
