Debate: Red-Green-Red | Socialize the conflict

The socialization of living space in Berlin is unlikely to be implemented in the future without pressure from urban society. Photo: IMAGO/Peter Homann The assessments of what the Left, the Greens and the SPD have negotiated in the past few weeks vary widely. In the eyes of Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söders, it is “Honecker 2.0”. SPD state leader Steffen Krach, however, speaks of an “absolutely justifiable compromise”. For the Junge Union, the Berlin Left stands somewhere between National Socialism and Hamas. The press conference to present the exploratory results, however, was full of pragmatism and political responsibility.

The shared echo corresponds to the ambivalent agreements of the explorers. On the one hand, by promising to socialize 160,000 apartments, albeit in a trimmed form, the Berlin Left is preserving the "historically unique opportunity" for a reform that could have a signal effect for a change in political direction far beyond the capital, Analyzes Sabine Nuss in "Friday." This is exactly what conservatives and right-wingers are afraid of. That's exactly why they invoke the Islamist-communist danger.

On the other hand, the potential coalition partners wanted to continue the unambitious course of past center-left alliances in economic and financial policy beyond the housing issue, judges the magazine “Surplus”. The SPD continues to set the tone in domestic politics. Likewise with the question of whether a future state government will take a different position and attitude towards the genocide in Gaza and the anti-Semitism discussion in this country than the current one. That's why at least the Berlin Social Democrats seem somewhat relaxed. They believe they have the left under control. And this is partly how it behaves. That is probably the reason why the mood on the social left is generally cautious. Hardly anyone celebrates the results as a great success. But just as few want to completely scrap the plans. The exploratory paper is better than expected, but too ambivalent to really build trust. How do we deal with this?

Let's look again at election Sunday. The Left gets almost as many votes as the SPD and the Greens combined and wins more clearly than the boldest in their own ranks had dared to dream. The victory was the result of a series of wise decisions within the party. She worked with focus and a clear stance and forced the political competition into the top-bottom arena, where the AfD also has little to say. She also continued the successful election campaigns of the past two years with visits to 250,000 front doors. Last but not least, for many, Elif Eralp represented a long-overdue alternative to the staff of the political establishment. The idea that Berlin would be governed for the first time by a left-wing mayor with a migration background was exciting.

Democratizing negotiations does not mean stopping making compromises.

But that's only half the story. In addition to these subjective factors, which are partly the result of the left's ongoing transformation into an "organizing class party," there were also favorable objective conditions, i.e. developments over which the left had little influence, that gave it this election victory. A comprehensive analysis of the election includes the weakness of the political center from the CDU to the Greens. It was the reason why the left performed much stronger than it could have achieved on its own. The 25.7 percent for the left was also a “populist moment,” as Loren Ballhorn wrote in “Jacobin.” One could also say: The Left's electoral success was a "strange victory." The Augsburg historian Dietmar Süß analyzed the SPD's surprising victory in the 2021 federal election as such. Their success was strange because, although it was also achieved through their own actions, it was made possible above all by the weakness of their political opponents, while fundamental structural problems remained. Now the victory of the Berlin Left differs in many ways from Olaf Scholz’s path to the chancellorship back then. But there is a parallel. In both cases, a social potential for a change in political direction was expressed, which the SPD quickly disappointed and which the Left must now leverage if it does not want to end up at the end of the traffic light like the Social Democrats.

The new sympathy for a socialist or even a renewed social democratic policy is not yet organizationally supported. There are almost half a million Left voters compared to a good 19,000 members. However, the greatest successes of the historical workers' movements - and a successful socialization of living space on a large scale would undoubtedly be seen on a par with, for example, continued payment of wages in the event of illness - were achieved on the basis of social power and not solely through electoral successes. In order to bring about the necessary change in the Berlin housing market, the party would have to work accordingly to build social power based on great sympathy after the election. That would initially mean gaining thousands more members and making Berliners responsible in a double sense: firstly, by repeatedly communicating publicly that they themselves have to have a political impact at work, in the neighborhood and in life in order to change something. And secondly, by actually letting them have a say in which compromises are necessary on the way to a different policy and which are not.

So far, the Left has not held its supporters sufficiently responsible in any of the senses mentioned. Instead, during the preliminary explorations, one could see how a victory achieved collectively by many was managed by a few at the negotiating table, while the vast majority sat at home without information, let alone influence. The cards were laid between the parties in a spirit of trust and on equal terms. At the same time, the respective social camps were asked to remain calm and restraint. Finally, compromises were agreed upon, which were presented to the outside world as having no alternative. This is a common dynamic of exploratory talks and coalition negotiations, which is also familiar from the trade union movement and collective bargaining. After the last day of the strike, the employees go home and wait for the collective bargaining committee to announce what is possible. But this habit is being challenged more and more recently. In various industries, from hospitals to Lufthansa, colleagues and their union have developed new forms of feedback between negotiation and membership in order to ultimately achieve better results - with success, as a recent study by the WSI showed.

The Berlin Left also planned to learn from the innovative idea of ​​open negotiations that helped the Berlin hospital movement to a historic victory in 2021. The coalition negotiations that are likely to take place now offer the last opportunity to keep this promise. However, this requires the willingness to openly pursue social conflicts even after the election - regardless of whether it is about the question of who owns the houses in which we live, under what conditions work is carried out in our hospitals or how our state government deals with the historical responsibility arising from German fascism and the Holocaust. Democratizing negotiations does not mean stopping making compromises. The hospital movement also made concessions. However, if one's own members can have a serious say, the compromise line moves away from the backrooms and habits of the parliamentary business, which is deeply in crisis, and instead comes closer to the real social balance of power. The idea of ​​open negotiations could also be combined very well with offers to broader civil society, for example large public meetings in which negotiators answer questions from the “Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co.” initiative and others.

Back to the unclear feeling that the exploratory results leave behind on the social left. It is the result of tough social conflicts that even a left-wing government will not end. On the contrary. If she does her job well, the arguments will become even tougher. Why? Because it's about something. About real democracy, about affordability, about a future for this country beyond authoritarian neoliberalism and a new fascism. The left cannot turn these conflicts into nice words behind closed doors. She must lead them openly. And this is only possible together with their many supporters in Berlin. It would be fatal if the movements delegated the desire for change to the new state government - because without pressure from urban society, the promised socialization of the apartments will not be able to be implemented despite the numerous resistance.

With us, no one has to pay to be informed. Sounds like a bad business model? It is too. But independent journalism and participation for everyone are more important to us than profit. Journalism still costs money: research, printing and all the people who do it. That's why we depend on you. We need 300,000 euros by the end of the year.

Donate once or regularly, every amount counts. So that nd remains.