German Left Party's Path to Irrelevance

  Gesine Lötzsch, President of Die Linke - the German Left Party - has started a firestorm of controversy with her piece in Junge Welt - Wege zum Kommunismus ("Paths to Communism"), in which she muses on the many roads to the ultimate goal of a Marxian utopia:

Die Wege zum Kommunismus können wir nur finden, wenn wir uns auf den Weg machen und sie ausprobieren, ob in der Opposition oder in der Regierung. Auf jeden Fall wird es nicht den einen Weg geben, sondern sehr viele unterschiedliche Wege, die zum Ziel führen. Viel zu lange stehen wir zusammen an Weggabelungen und streiten über den richtigen Weg, anstatt die verschiedensten Wege auszuprobieren. Zu lange laufen wir auf Wegen, obwohl wir ahnen oder gar wissen, daß sie nicht zum Ziel führen. Doch wir kehren nicht um, weil wir Angst vor denen haben, die immer noch diskutierend an der Weggabelung stehen und uns mit höhnischem Gelächter empfangen könnten. Wir müssen lernen, Sackgassen zu verlassen und sie nicht ambitioniert als Wege zum Kommunismus zu preisen.

("We can only find the paths to communism if we set out on the path and see where they lead - whether in the opposition or in the government.  In any case, there is not just one path, but many different paths tha lead to the final destination.  All too often we stand at forks in the road and argue over the right path, instead of trying out the different paths.  Too often we find ourselves stuck on paths even though we sense or even know for sure that they will never take us to our destination. But we don't turn back, because we are afraid of those who are still arguing at the fork in the road and might laugh at us in derision.  We need to learn to leave the dead-end paths and not to praise them as paths to communism.") 

Gesine Lötzsch has just handed her political enemies a powerful weapon to bring down the Left Party, since the "C" word carries such emotional baggage 22 years after the collapse of the DDR and the Wall.  It only confirms the suspicion of many that Die LInke has never overcome it Stalinist roots. Sure enough, the conservative Weekly Standard responded with a piece attacking Die Linke - German Left Party Seeks to Reintroduce Stalinism.  Of course, Frau Lötzsch is proposing nothing of the kind, and in her piece she confirms her commitment to "democratic socialism".

This is all very unfortunate, since Gesine Lötzsch actually has a very good critique of our current system which has resulted in growing economic inequality, unnecessary wars and ecological disaster.  It is justified and necessary to recognize that the system is broken and to think of new solutions and new paradigms.  The Left Party could conceivably be a force for change, since the other parties seem to have embraced the status quo - the dysfunctional current state.  But it is mistake to look for new solutions in a tract that was conceived and written in 1848 - The Communist Manifesto. 

Comments

[Strahler 70]

Polls show the Left at stable 9%, regardless of the daily agenda. They will not become irrelevant.

[David]

But their support is more in the eastern states, no?

[Attie Schutte]

"actually has a very good critique of our current system which has resulted in growing economic inequality" – A very interesting article, it is only with the above quote that one is perplexed and forced to ask: What prior system to the current did not lead to inequality? Was there equality before any modern ideology and system? Can humans even function in a society in which everyone is completely equal and who will have the power to enforce it? In other words is it even desirable? I think Communism from the word “commune” just like Fascism which means to bind all call to a deep human need to belong to something more then the just the “I”.

Community is an important part of human existence, but to map Communism or Fascism unto anything bigger than a town would be disastrous. In much the same way democracy and republicanism originated as ideas for local self rule. Plato who probably have been shocked to learn that his ideas were copied unto something so big as France never mind something like China. I do agree with Strahler, Ideas tend to circulate, so all of them will make a comeback every century or so. If you are interested in some brilliant discussion on Marxian theory, I suggest the following:

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=47

[David]

I know you don't believe in democracy, but in my opinion democracy cannot exist for long with the income disparities we have in the US.

As of 2007, the top decile of American earners pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'

Do you think it is just that for the past 20 years we have seen the greatest transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the wealthiest?

Unrestricted capital - the Austrian ideal - results in the monopoly capitalism of the US. And it means the end of the middle class, which was the foundation of our democracy.

[Attie Schutte]

I actually agree with you on unfair wealth transfers, but you are attributing phenomena to the Austrian school that it does not hold and would not cause. People misunderstand the argument for a complete free-market, it is not just that gov. Interferes in business, it is that “Big business” gets unfair advantages and a hold on gov. as we understand it. Multinational corporations and the Wall street palls all get huge protectionism, tax breaks and political influence that they would never get in a true free-market. If I was an American I would probably rather attent Anarchist-Communist conferences then ever vote Republican. Austrian free market idees have never existed in America since the Civil-War so it could not lead to anything negative you see today. Federal taxation was institutionalized in 1914, so nothing after that is true free-market.

But it what caused the meltdown/Bubble in the first place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541bajR4k8g
This video is an absolute damming critique of the current system.

I think people are good by nature if left to be themselves, there is no reason we should not attent to the poor and less privileged, and In foro one do my part, but I do it because I want to. If you have a million $’s I have no right to say "give me that!" by force and lastly if you think taxation is not forced, try not paying it out of principal and see what happens.

[Attie Schutte]

Chasing equality is like chasing a ghost, it is even worse then having racial discriminatory laws to attain racial harmony because for every action by gov. there wil be a deliberate reaction. Nobody even knows if equality is possible. To test a “right” always do the caveman-spaceman test. Did the caveman have a “right” to electricity, housing, water, education, job preservation etc...etc? No. Wil the space colony on Jupiter have that “right” a million years from now? No. If you can have equal Income tomorrow in the USA, can you have the equal in Africa with electricity, Income distribution, housing etc...? No. Then those “rights” are Time and Space dimensional and are not “rights” whatsoever?

Did the caveman have the “right” to bear arms, not get murdered, taxed or raped? Yes. Can the spaceman have those “rights”? Yes. Can Africans, the Chinese and Indians simultaneously have those rights? Yes. Then they are negative “rights” and apart from them there are none because in every other case you would have to take away from someone to give to someone els, I call it theft. That is why communism never worked if you have a 1000 laws to protect laborers you do not get a empowered laborer you get an empowered HR department and a few empowered gov. bureaurocrats. By centralizing power you do not empower the proletariat, you empower the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Attie Schutte]

It is also interesting to note that the main argument for socialism up to the late 1950’s was – “Efficiency”. It was argued that when the factors of production were centralized, central planning would ensure much beter efficiency. In the early days of Marxism they said:” everything will work like the post office”(just that should make you frown). Ludwig Von Mises the Great proved in his 1922 book Socialism that socialism would fail because of a lack of a pricing system, where there is no market there are no bids and where there are no bids there are no prices. He was eventually proved right, socialist however did not give up, they changed the main argument from about the 1960’s from “efficiency” to “equality”.

It is here that you should ponder why “diversity” is so heavily promoted. The more people of unequal backgrounds, different races, religions and cultures are mixed-up, the more inequality would naturally exist. This would give the state an excuse to intervene relentlessly and unendingly in the lives of its citizens to attain said “equality”. David, how much “inequality” has your government imported over the last 20 years by social benefits for illegal immigrants? You can’t blame the free-market for social ills when government holds either a monopoly or extreme legal interference in Education; Healthcare, Security, legal services, the enterprise of Law, transport, cleaning services etc. Is it then any wonder that we live in a world that is stupid, unhealthy, criminal, unfair, dictatorial, slow, and filthy? For a study in the growth of government and the excuses used I do recommend Robert Higgs most critically acclaimed book: Crisis and Leviathan.