http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2015/images/gysi.jpgBut Gysi's farewell speech did touch on issues which continue to divide members; it is hard to tell whether his waning influence will help its wings flap more rhythmically or send them further in diverging directions. One issue is the evaluation of the GDR. . . . A more immediate issue is whether armaments should be exported, especially to conflict areas, and whether German soldiers should be sent on foreign missions. The "more left" wing says: "No, never!" While recalling what German soldiers were responsible for in the 20th century (starting with genocide in earlier African colonies), they ask whether the military arm of a state dominantly repressive in the European economy, which has already expanded to the waters off Lebanon and Somalia, to Balkan and Afghanistan mountains, and now to parts of Africa, can ever be trusted. The "reformer" wing, like the captain of HMS Pinafore in Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta, weakens from "Never" to a "Well, hardly ever!" Gysi criticized the use of troops in Serbia and Afghanistan but left possible exceptions open. Some speak of humanitarian causes, OK'd by the UN, where Germany should not stand aside. For the "radicals," however, these are breaches of a basic principle. With a side glance at reports of child abuse by UN troops in Central Africa and their misuse in Haiti, they reject the constantly modernizing Bundeswehr as intrinsically repressive and repeat: "No, never!" This raises a third most fundamental issue. Over the years the Left joined ruling coalitions as junior partner in two East German states and Berlin, which ended in a loss in popularity in every case. It now heads a government in the state of Thuringia in a so-called red-red-green coalition (since both the Left and the Social Democrats claim the color red, this is now often abbreviated as "R2G"). Though controversial enough, this state level is unaffected by issues like sending soldiers abroad. They would inevitably arise if the Left were to seek or gain junior partnership in a "R2G" coalition on a national level, a possibility after the 2017 elections. As it now looks, only such a 3-way endeavor could beat the Merkel party and its possible allies. A few leftish Greens and leftish Social Democrats are weighing this option but swear they will never accept a Left which insists on "No, never!" for military actions. Thus, the "Hardly ever" back-down must be seen as a bid to be flexible enough to join in a future government; indeed, Gysi stated in his farewell speech that a party can exert opposition even from within a government, not only when it is out in the cold. But this raises many doubts. Social Democratic head Sigmar Gabriel approves the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal with the USA, the sister of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). His party joins Merkel in pushing "austerity" measures against Greece, insisting that paying banking debts is more urgent than rescuing Greek working people, children, and pensioners from extreme poverty. It abandoned promises to reverse huge tax breaks given millionaires and billionaires when it headed the government. Most urgently, both Social Democrats and Greens offer all but direct military aid to the government in Kiev, despite its increasingly horrific far-right and corrupt taint, and they support the increase of NATO weaponry along the Russian borders and the resulting threat to world peace. The Social Democrats only vaguely criticize the German Defense Minister in her build-up of ever more modern, threatening armed forces. In how many such issues would the Left have to make compromises if it were to join a R2G government and get a cabinet seat or two? What could it achieve in the way of "opposition from within the government"? Could a little tail really wag a big dog? Would its basic principles end up in that fabled "round file"?

More... (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2015/grossman100615.html)