The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Networks of Support

The Reality of Abortion in Poland


08/11/2020


There is not much that you can learn from the political and media debates about the reality of abortion in Poland. The restrictive anti-abortion law has been in place since 1993 and there have been constant attempts to strengthen it. Three debates took place in the last months alone.

With the Covid-19 related lockdown, severe restrictions on access to health care, travelling and a growing economic precarity of many took place in the country. Yet in April 2020, the Polish parliament discussed a Stop Abortion bill. If passed, the bill would prohibit abortion in case of fetal abnormality. That is one of the three current exceptions, legally permitted for abortion in Poland. The others being rape and danger to a pregnant person’s life and health.

This April, as a result of protests performed despite serious restrictions, the bill was not passed, but sent back for a review to a parliamentary commission. Nevertheless a decision to further restrict access to legal abortion was already taken by parliament in May 2020. Previously, a doctor refusing to perform an abortion on grounds of the conscience clause, (that is citing conflicting religious or moral beliefs) was obliged to direct the pregnant person to another facility or medical expert willing to perform the procedure. But the new law passed, allows the doctor to withhold such information.

But this was not enough. On 22.10.2020 the Polish “Constitutional Tribunal” decided that the malformation clause enabling abortion is “unconstitutional”. In fact, terminations when the fetus is malformed account for around 95% of abortions, an estimated 1000 procedures a year. This decision amounts, therefore, to an almost total ban on abortion and further contributes to its (already immense) stigmatization.

The politicians in Poland think that they now have control over our bodies. If they only knew that every day, hundreds of people with unwanted pregnancies in Poland are taking matters into their own hands and getting abortions regardless of the media and political debates and in spite of the restrictive laws. This is the reality of abortion in Poland.

The networks of support structured around reproductive justice for people in Poland make sure that in spite of the anti-abortion laws, termination of pregnancy is and will be an option. It is not the law but practical activism and solidarity that create the reality of abortion in Poland.

You can read more about the work of Ciocia Basia here. Ciocia Basia is the Campaign of The Week in our Newsletter this week. We send the Newsletter out every Saturday lunch time. If you do not receive it already, you can contact us at theleftberlin@yahoo.com

Ciocia Basia

Providing abortion help in Berlin for Polish women


06/11/2020

Every day we respond to emails, Facebook inquiries and phone calls from people asking about the possibility of having an abortion in neighboring Germany, which permits terminations up to 14 weeks. We are activists of Ciocia Basia (Aunt Barbara), an informal, Berlin-based feminist collective which helps people with unwanted pregnancies access safe and legal procedures in the country. We provide information on abortion options, make appointments at the clinics, offer translation services, find accommodation at volunteers’ homes, and help financially. Over the last five years, virtually every week several Polish women and other people come to Berlin to terminate pregnancies, having found us on the internet.

The outbreak of the pandemic made access to abortion abroad more difficult but not impossible. It taught us how to collectively practice creative problem solving: looking for exemptions for border crossers (abortion as medical procedure that cannot be postponed counts as one of them), inventing and often reinventing ways to avoid mandatory quarantine in the country of departure and arrival, and finding the safest travel routes.

When the borders closed, Ciocia Basa continued its work. In fact, we have never been so busy, seeing a dramatic increase in calls for support from people affected economically by the crisis, anxious about the future or scared by parliamentary debates on abortion. The recent developments in Poland will translate into even more work. But We are ready to accommodate all people with unwanted pregnancies affected the decision of the “Constitutional Tribunal” in Poland.

And we are not alone in this. Ciocia Basia is but one of many abortion support groups of this kind active in Europe that offer help to people from countries where abortion is barely possible. In the Netherlands, where abortion on demand is accessible up to 22 weeks, the Abortion Network Amsterdam is in existence. In the UK, which allows termination up to 24 weeks, one can turn to the registered charity Abortion Support Network and be sure to receive all possible help. No questions asked, our only objective is to provide access to abortions for people who need them.

In December 2019, all groups joined ranks with the Polish collectives Kobiety w Sieci and Abortion Dream Team, and the online medical service Women Help Women, to form the first pan-European initiative called Abortion Without Borders that comprehensively responds to demands from women in unwanted pregnancies in Poland and beyond. In recent weeks new support groups began to emerge: Ciocia Wienia in Austria, or Ciocia Czesia in Czech Republic.

The networks of support structured around reproductive justice for people in Poland make sure that in spite of the anti-abortion laws, termination of pregnancy is and will be an option. It is not the law but practical activism and solidarity that create the reality of abortion in Poland.

You can support Ciocia Basia by making a donation here

Election Results – US-American progressives in Berlin respond

With the election results still too close to call, we interviewed several US-Americans in Berlin and beyond about their initial reactions


05/11/2020


Interviews with John Borland , Nicole Möller Gonzalez, Victor Grossman, Zachary Murphy King, Jeff Lee, Tina Lee, Aimee Male, Thomas McGath, Julie Niederhauser, Virginia Rodino, and Laura Wilt

Count Every Vote rally at Brandenburger Tor, 4 November 2020

What has just happened in the US? Is it all over?

JN: Apparently the fascist fuck has declared himself the winner before the votes are counted. It ain‘t over though.

AM: It’s not over until the final ballots are counted, of course. Right now, as of Wednesday morning, it still could go either way, for Biden or for Trump, as a handful of key swing states are still in play.

VR: At this moment it is likely Biden will win, but not certain. We will probably know this tonight (Thursday), but possibly by Friday.

LW: I don’t think it is all over but it certainly does not bode well for the future of the USA.

JB: Even if there’s been a decision by the time this is published, nothing is over. No matter who wins, the election is just one step (with luck a marginally positive one) in an ongoing struggle.

JL: Not that much really “just happened.” The final election results were available months ago, after the DNC bosses pushed Bernie aside and selected Sleepy Joe. And the winners are: Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, reckless corporations that control our food and water supply, no M4A although 75% of Americans want it, a further loss of rights and liberties under the pretext of safety and security, military expansionist, media suppression and so on and on. In 4 years both parties will be telling us how badly we need to vote.

Who did you vote for, and why?

JN: I voted begrudgingly for Biden, because I believe in civilization and the rule of law.

LW: I voted for Biden/Harris because the two party system is so firmly in place that voting for any party other than Democrat or Republican at the presidential level is purely symbolic and has no chance of affecting any change.

AM: I voted for Biden/Harris. It’s simple. Trump is a racist, proto-fascist and con-man, emboldened by a complicit Republican party. Biden is no perfect candidate; there is no such thing. But you fight fascism with the weapons you have at hand.

TL: I voted for Joe Biden because sitting out election after election when we don’t get the candidate we like doesn’t seem to me the inspiring message that some on the left think it is. I don’t think voting is the only thing that makes a difference, but voter abstinence is not an effective or empowering strategy in a two party system. More than ever this time, progressives are ready to fight back against a democratic victor and hold them to a high standard, something they are far better positioned to do than they are against Trump.

JB: Biden/Harris in the general, Sanders in primary. The US is well along in its collapse into neo-fascism. There’s a climate crisis on. Children are being kept in cages. We all know the list and its increasingly likely consequences. Failing to use every tool available to turn this around – even if it’s not a perfect tool, even if it causes other problems we have to solve – would be a moral and practical failure with a cost counted in vulnerable people’s lives.

VG: I did something I never dreamed I’d do; held my nose and voted for Joe Biden (but on the Working Families Party ticket). The reason: four more years with Donald Trump could mean moving closer and close toward fascism in the USA, maybe even crossing the line. Based on hordes of well-armed racist mobsters with close connections to thousands of cops, sheriffs, judges and legislators, this danger is great and frightening. Especially if Trump wins, these mobs, with their pro-fascist shirts and tattoos and their allies in uniforms or well-tailored business-suits, are pantingly waiting to take over – and not only in the USA!

VR: I voted for the Green Party candidates who were explicitly eco-socialist. Presidential candidate Howie Hawkins is a retired Teamster construction and warehouse worker who has been active in movements for civil rights, peace, unions, and the environment since the 1960s. He was the first U.S. politician to campaign for a Green New Deal in 2010, in the first of three consecutive runs for New York governor. New York enacted several policies that only Hawkins had campaigned for after he received 5% of the vote in 2014, including a ban on fracking, a $15 minimum wage, and paid family leave. Vice-presidential candidate Angela Walker is a queer Black truck driver in Florence, South Carolina, a veteran and a union and racial justice activist.

In the United States we have had two corporate-run parties of millionaires governing the United States since its founding. People have always had to pick between which of the millionaire parties we should choose from when neither put the people’s interests first.

Those in the Green Party are often activists in social movements who would rather vote for what we want knowing the electoral process is rigged against us, but use the vote to grow a larger movement that works to dismantle the status quo to win the changes we need. That is not only a better alternative than voting for what we do not want, including pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist candidates, but also recognizes that our responsibility as engaged citizens does not end with a vote every four years. Those who remain shackled election after election to the corporate parties do not have faith in ordinary people, instead relying on corporate politicians to change the conditions that keep 99% of the world’s population down, with most unable to thrive and lacking in their basic needs.

JL: Hell will freeze over before I ever cast a vote for either Trump or Biden.

Before the election, Donald Trump made it clear that he might not accept the result. How likely is this to happen now?

JN: He‘s done it, he is not accepting the unfolding results.

LW: Trump has already declared victory without all votes being counted. The results will be contested and this is going to go on for a while and probably just get uglier.

JB: Very. The worrisome aspect of this is that a lamentably huge portion of the electorate will not view a Biden government as legitimate, even if it wins the popular vote (which it has, by a country mile) and the Electoral College vote.

AM: If Biden is able to pull out an Electoral College victory (it will be slim, probably, if it does happen) there will be lawsuits galore. It will be a lot of noise, but my hope is that unless there is evidence of brazen nonsense, these will all come to naught. I hope.

VR: It is difficult to predict what Donald Trump the individual will do, or try to do. It is impossible to know what his handlers are able to stop ahead of time, or what they encourage him to do. Because the results are so close, no matter who wins, it seems clear Trump will try to use the courts to challenge the results should he lose. He is already asking the courts to stop vote counting in certain states.

We have also heard stories of voter suppression and intimidation. Was this a fair election?

JN: As fair as US elections ever are, I guess? Let‘s see if they count all the votes first. I dunno.

LW: I can’t say that there was more voter suppression or intimidation than in any other election. I am happy that more people actually voted, a higher overall percentage of the population but really appalled by how many have chosen to support racism, sexism, hatred and greed.

ZMK: I haven’t heard anything about any kind of voter suppression in my area and haven’t been following it very closely elsewhere. Both my father and brother voted in person and didn’t report any lines or issues, but this is a small, somewhat rural, well-run town.

JB: Clearly not. Any election decided on the basis of the U.S. Electoral College begins by being unfair. Democrats have to be approximately 3% ahead in the popular vote (also known as “the vote”) just to have a plausible chance of winning the Electoral College. Congressional districts have been gerrymandered for decades. The Supreme Court has thrown out the relevant parts of the Voting Rights Act. There is a long and ongoing history of active disenfranchisement of voters of color. Even the Postal Service has been manipulated to create barriers to mail-in voting. All that is before you get to the first-past-the-post system that makes it all but impossible for third parties to establish a foothold in the electoral system.

VR: Both parties actively participate in gerrymandering which leads to more manipulation by monied interests, districts being drawn around racial lines and lower voter turnout because of the creation of safe seats where the real battle is over the nomination and not the election. Both parties benefit from voter suppression. Campaign financing is paid by billionaires and corporations in support of both major parties so that the super wealthy control our elections. Both parties try to and often succeed in suppressing votes from Blacks, other minorities, or Green voters. There is a long history of purging voter rolls, creating and maintaining huge hurdles for ballot access, restricting polling places in certain communities, and refusing to democratize the electoral process by supporting rank choice voting or easing burdens for other candidates or referenda to gain ballot access.

The GOP’s active suppression of the Black vote and the Electoral College’s anointing candidates who actually lost the popular vote spoils elections. Campaign financing and gerrymandering spoil elections. The election process in this country is a rotted mess that only benefits corporations, the wealthy and the corporate duopoly. Sadly, it’s a spoiled system producing unfair elections no matter what year, no matter who the candidates.

Did Trump’s antics make this a particularly unfair election? Possibly. But it’s essential to know that presidential elections in the United States are never fair.

NMG: There have been several attempts to make this process even more undemocratic. From Robocalls to scare off voters in Michigan to attempts not to count mail-in ballots by Trump. However, we need to understand that elections in the US are already in themselves not democratic, even for a bourgeois democracy. Votes do not count as one voice because of the electoral college. States with higher population get more electors, which are ultimately the ones that decide the winner. So, we are already starting with a system that is very undemocratic and unfair.

AM: No US American election is fair. Voter suppression is built into the system. What is encouraging is just how many voters, in the face of a pandemic, did come out to vote or voted absentee. It is a good sign that many people have finally realized that democracy is not a spectator sport; you have to show up.

JL: It would take pages to explain why US elections are anything but fair and democratic. Suggest reading Greg Palast’s last two books, or watching him interviewed on the Jimmy Dore show, or spending a few minutes on his website.

Many people thought that a good result for Trump would empower his neo-Nazi followers. Is this what has just happened?

JB: Yes. Stay tuned for more fun-filled far-right terrorism.

JN: Sadly half the country seems to be full-on supremacists, yes. They are now chestier than ever. I just talked to a German neighbor who said to me “thank God Trump won; the democrats are pedophiles.” So I mean, is that hopeful? It‘s not just us? I feel like vomiting.

AM: There was a lot of talk about day-of intimidation, which seems not to have materialized. That’s a good sign, either that most of that bluster was just further attempts at suppressing the vote or that perhaps these groups are having second thoughts about jumping when Trump tells them to. Maybe they aren’t actually as loyal as he thinks; rats and sinking ships, etc.

TL: I think there’s an argument to be made for their empowerment either way. Everyone loves a martyr and right-wingers in particular enjoy being aggrieved, so a loss would not make them disappear. What is more concerning is the prospect of re-election where they are not just motivated but actually in position to ruin people’s lives with forecasted policies such as banning birthright citizenship, deporting thousands, and continuing an environmentally catastrophic deregulatory spree (among other horrible things.) In any event, his high percentages demonstrate that is not a fluke, large chunks of the US prefer barbarism and revenge to progress, and we are gonna have to deal with this on the level of neo-nazis as well as conservative businessmen and suburban moms.

VR: The white nationalist movement is a problem whether Trump wins or not, a growing problem for which we are preparing no matter what. A Trump loss would not make the fascists happy, so we are prepared to respond no matter who is declared the victor.

Do you think the election results would have been different if Bernie Sanders were the Democrat candidate?

JN: I don‘t know that. We can‘t know that. If it comes down to Bernie supporters having stayed home, they can fuck me, too. I voted for Bernie twice but I cannot accept the non-voting position or writing in a no-hope candidate so you can stay pure. Sorry, I‘m too invested in the lives of my family and friends over there. It‘s not a theoretical exercise for “expats.” I‘m really sorry Bernie was not the candidate but I do not today lay the bulk of the blame for this at the feet of the party.

LW: I don’t know that Sanders would have done better. I would have preferred voting for him as his views are closer to mine but I don’t know. Did Sanders supporters not vote for Biden or vote for Trump because Sanders wasn’t on the ticket? I hope that doesn’t turn out to be the case.

AM: Had Sanders actually secured the nomination I sadly think the election would have been called for Trump on Election Day. The “socialist” red scare branding stuck to BIDEN, for chrissakes. It would have been far too easy to campaign against Sanders.

ZMK: As a Bernie supporter, I would like to think that the results would have been different if Bernie had been running, but I don’t want to spend too much thought on imponderable hypotheses like that. The main economic forces that influence policy making in Washington and the media that most influence how Americans learn about or consume political narratives all favor absolute gridlock, although for different reasons, and are the incontestable and primary winners of this election. I really don’t know what can be done about that, and it sounds like just as much of a waste of my time to go on insisting that Bernie could’ve won after losing twice, or that there is a way to assemble a comparable coalition outside or inside the Democratic Party. My own personal preference would be to destroy it completely, but I don’t see how that would happen.

JB: Different, yes, highly unlikely to be better. As much as I personally liked him, he has twice been unable to win a nationwide contest even when the relevant electorate (the primary Democrats) was leaning substantially farther to the left than the full national electorate does.

There’s a case to be made that some portion of the right-populist vote might have shifted from Trump to Sanders, and that this could have put him over. But I’ve never seen any convincing evidence for this, electoral or otherwise, beyond a justifiable wishful thinking. Tuesday’s electoral map certainly doesn’t support this position, and indeed the gains apparently made by Trump in minority communities tend to undermine it (though it’s still early, and the available data is rough to say the least, and this point may simply be wrong).

TL: How can Bernie Sanders become the candidate without winning the primary, which he failed to do twice? I was surprised as anyone that Biden won, but Sanders second loss after so much momentum is a rebuke of people who thought there was a conspiracy against him in 2016. The ‘conspiracy’ is that the Democratic Party is filled with people who are scared of the word “socialist”, and we are seeing that even in the results against Biden in places like Florida and Texas.

I think the only thing that can overcome such pervasive fear-mongering is grassroots organizing for socialist policies that can break through the almost unanimous media propaganda and demonstrate that labels don’t matter, the movements and the policies do. I see politicians like AOC and Katie Porter doing that work effectively, but I think the key is to stop focusing so much on individual candidates and focus more on movements and policies.

VG: It is very likely that Bernie would have done better, since he advanced a genuine progressive programme and spoke clearly and convincingly to working people – like no other. But he could not be permitted to win by the powerful forces controlling both parties. So he was stopped.

JL: Just like in 2016, every reliable poll showed Bernie trouncing Trump. Unfortunately, virtually all of Bernie’s positions represent what the majority of Americans want, so…

At the time of writing, it’s still not clear who has won. What can we expect from the next government?

AM: Way too early to tell, man.

JN: It will be not be recognized as legitimate by half the country.

JB: From Congress: Very little actual legislation. It’s a broken institution. Republicans have torn up the conventions needed even in a system of semi-consensual governance.

If it’s Trump: Further dismantling of government structures, rampant narcissism, unchecked corruption, politically motivated terrorism from the right, international isolation, increasing legal battles between progressively governed states and the government. Probably attempts to criminalize protest, further use of 9/11-era surveillance policies and militarized law enforcement to crack down on Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Decay, collapse, death.

If Biden: Attempts from the top to get along and compromise with the Republican Senate, paired with the occasional genuinely progressive policy proposal. Which the Senate will kill. A return to the Paris Accord, some environmental progress, largely through executive order and cooperation with progressively governed states. Protracted efforts to undo the institutional damage Trump has done. This will take years, and will prompt great and justified frustration when the administration isn’t able to act quickly on issues vital to peoples’ lives, in large part because the government’s inner workings are seriously broken.

VG: I hope Biden wins. But that would be only a very necessary, but only negative success, fending off the worst evil. Over the decades, nice, fatherly Biden has supported far too many reactionary laws and actions, like mass incarceration of young Black males, a form of serfdom hardly better than slavery, the brutal treatment of refugees on southern borders, broken promises on anti-union legislation and more. He has hedged on creating a fair and sensible medical system, on minimum wages, free college tuition, cancelling student debt – promising instead a reversal to the “status quo”.

Worst of all, he – like most Democrats and Republicans – supported and still support a dangerous foreign policy aimed at world hegemony, total rule by the same billionaires and their monstrous octopus companies – in oil, armaments, pharma, fast food, the press, mail order sales, banking and, increasingly, mind control – who control the USA to great extent. Already holding giant power in much of the world, they aim at breaking any resistance by disobedient leaders – whether good, bad or controversial – and to do so by any means, whether bombing civilians and torture by sodomy against Gaddafi, hanging with Saddam Hussein, economic strangling and subversion against Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia or martial manoeuvres and the threat of nuclear war and world destruction against Iran and Russia and China.

Trump’s foreign policy was unpredictable, occasionally seemingly less belligerent, but then, influenced by men like Pompeo and the economic establishment, extremely dangerous. Biden’s policies, like those prevailing in his party were – except toward Iran, perhaps – uniformly menacing.

Despite the Trump presidency, social movements like Black Lives Matter and #metoo have been able to organise high profile and well attended demonstrations? What can we expect from them in the next 4 years?

JL: I hope and pray that BLM and #metoo step up their efforts, never give up, keep building their ranks and fighting for justice for everyone.

JN: They‘re all we have left now. They will not go away. They are now desperate to survive as human individuals and these collectives will ensure our survival as a thinking, feeling species.

VR: It will depend on if the movements can break away from believing that a corporate Democrat in the White House will truly end systemic racism and sexism, climate disaster, our mess of a privatized healthcare system or our heinous foreign policy. The movement for Black Lives has put out statements that it will not rest until we achieve justice, no matter who is in power, and Black Lives Matter did form under Obama, so there is hope.

JB: Continued high-profile and well-attended demonstrations, I hope. Further coalition-building, so that the movement(s) continue to build strength and influence beyond the streets. If Trump wins (and even if he doesn’t), they’ll have to deal with efforts to criminalize and marginalize protest and protestors. It won’t be easy. But people are rightfully angry, and aren’t going to shut up and sit down.

AM: I certainly hope that these grassroots movements translate to more local activists taking up political positions in local government. It has to happen from the bottom up. Cori Bush’s win in Missouri is a wonderful sign that fierce progressives can and should assume power where they are able. It is absolutely crucial that we turn the fight for social justice into effective government on every level that truly represents all people. Coming out and resisting is necessary, as is making a plan to win, everywhere.

TL: I think we will see these movements mature and come together around ideas that will change how our democracy functions. You can’t defund the police without having a say in how budgets are distributed and agreed upon. We can’t get paid family leave without breaking the corporate lobbyist stranglehold on congress. Violence in our communities is connected to the violent military tactics we pursue around the world. We also need to fight for a democratic majority to be able to pass any remotely radical policies, by granting statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington, DC. To be radical is to grasp things at the root, and while so many democratic policies just brush the surface, movements like BLM have been putting in the work to get the bottom of what needs to change in America to enable us to face these various challenges. I think there is increasingly realization of the connectedness of struggles against racism, capitalism and sexism and if you don’t think so, get involved and help organize!

Look at how the mass feminist movement in Poland has influenced policy outside electoral politics and used creative tactics and direct action- despite a fascist government and a corrupted judiciary. It shows the possibilities for movements beyond elections and without costing billions of dollars, like elections in the US frequently do.

What will happen now to the millions of people who were excited about Bernie Sanders?

TL: The same thing that will happen to the millions who were excited about all the other losing candidates: they’ll regroup and find new candidates and causes to support. We still have #theSquad. And if Biden wins I think it’s likely to see Sanders in a key position, if he wants it.

JL: Personally I am completely disgusted with Bernie for the way he reacted in 2016 and this year after he was cheated. His followers are mostly progressives (I.e., the opposite of liberals or conservatives). Not sure they are homogeneous enough to say ‘they’ will react this way or that. Ideally they will organize themselves better for progressive candidates.

AM: Sanders, again, did not win the nomination. As much as I respect his work in pushing the Democratic party toward a more progressive agenda – he was my choice in the primaries, like with so many voters abroad — it is long time for the US American left to focus on the new, younger generation of democratic socialists who are doing the good work on the ground and in office. If so many leftists bemoaned the “choice” between two septuagenarian presidential candidates, why would Sanders, a 79-year-old, somehow fall outside this category? Time to look forward.

ZMK: I don’t know what happens to the millions of people excited for Bernie. Within my local DSA, I think post-Bernie demoralization has been high, and after this election (whoever gets to go to Washington, and with the close failure of prop 15, backed heavily by Cali DSA, and huge success of prop 22) there will probably be even more distance as people examine the extent of our power(lessness) to campaign or organize effectively against capitalism, with Covid or without. Those are my not very optimistic post-election reflections.

VR: Hopefully they will join Marx21!

JB: I hope to the goddess that they stay energized and involved, and don’t mistake a person for a movement. Sanders was one individual, not a messiah, as he would be the first to say. There is a new generation of extremely exciting activists and thinkers coming up, some in conventional politics and some on the street. This election was only ever going to be one moment in a long fight, and Sanders is only one (admirable, inspiring) individual in it.

Is the Democratic Party no longer fit for purpose? If not, what’s the alternative?

JL: The DNC is why we’re likely getting Trump again: they would rather see Trump win than a progressive. It’s what their employers demand and why they get paid so well.

JN: I‘ve been thinking about leaving the party for years. I‘m still in it, mainly b/c my state has a closed primary and I like to vote in the primary. It‘s a big tent.

VR: The Democatic Party was never fit for purpose if we are looking for a party that addresses the needs of the working class and not the capitalists. It’s a capitalist party. The alternative is to build movements that strategically use electoral politics as a tool to grow, and not to diffuse itself. We need to vote for candidates who represent and are part of the popular movements so we advance the causes of economic, racial and environmental justice. But what we really need to focus on is continuing to build the movements for black lives, the climate justice movement and the immigrant rights movement in this country.

AM: We’re looking at a crucial demographic shift in the next decade. Both parties have hit a wall, in that boomers have sat, far too long, in government without sufficiently making space for the next generations. Both are clearly increasingly out of touch with social movements and grassroots activism. This isn’t a US-specific thing, it’s global. Yet the US system is so paralyzed within its two-party structure (with third parties usually playing spoiler instead of offering a legitimate “alternative” in major elections) that it’s hard to envision, quickly, a fix on the party level or that the idea of more or different parties is a solution. Instead, really, it’s a system fix that’s needed. The thing is, despite the many problems with outreach and progressive messaging that the Democratic Party may have, it still is, today, a sufficient home for a large proportion of the left-leaning US American electorate. There certainly is room for a more serious leftist, democratic socialist party, too, particularly as Generation Z and their cohorts come of age, and I would welcome this. But what we’re looking at now, today on Nov. 4, 2020, with Trump on the cusp of potentially securing four more miserable years, is that a large percentage of US Americans – far beyond the approximately 20% of the electorate that covers his gun-toting, Proud Boy “base” – is apparently happy with this administration. This is the part that scares me deeply. That despite the blatant human rights violations, despite the corruption, despite the children in cages, this near majority of the US voting populace is on board with Trump’s “leadership.” There’s no amount of earnest leftist propaganda that’s going to flip that blue. So, we have a lot of antifascist work to do, on top of it all.

JB: The “Democrat Party” is not an entity the way European parties are. It is many different things in many different localities – the San Francisco party is not the rural New Mexico party is not the suburban Atlanta party. The “establishment” is made up largely of officeholders with access to money – which means one foot in a safe, preferably rich district, and another in a position of institutional power. But these eternities have a way of changing very rapidly; look at what has happened to the Republican “establishment” in the last four years.

What’s happening in the U.S., as virtually everywhere, is a breakdown in the old comfortable center-right/center-left (or in the U.S., quite-far-right/center-right) coalitions. For many frustrating years, Thatcher’s There Is No Alternative (to neoliberal/neoconservative capitalism) held sway across the mainstream U.S. political spectrum. It was always facile to say there was no difference between the parties – but on many critical economic issues in particular, the practical differences were too small to be relevant to anyone but professional scorekeepers. But hey, there are alternatives now. On both sides, right and left. Some of them are terrifying, as we’ve seen under Trump. But there’s a stronger pull to the left than I’ve seen in my lifetime, and that’s inspiring. Some of that is happening inside the Democrat party, and will change it substantially. That said, the DSA and other groups need to keep the pressure on from the left. This means starting from the bottom and building up.

Also, action outside pure electoral politics obviously remains absolutely vital, and probably more meaningful to most people’s lives. This means unions, street actions, mutual aid. We need allies (or at least malleable people) in decision-making positions to push through policies, but we need continuing pressure from the outside to push them to do the right thing. And we need to help each other when policymakers can’t or won’t.

NMG: The Democratic Party is clearly not appealing to the real interests of Americans, which are very much related to their material stability. Especially younger generations have a very bleak future given the Covid and economic crisis, climate change, etc. We saw so far that most young voters voted for Biden and most Dems that voted for Biden voted for him only because he is not Trump. They are not voting for Biden because he represents any sort of change for the better, but because there is literally no other option if we don’t want 4 more years of Trump. However, because the US has only two parties that can actually compete and third parties have no chance at all, at least in the current configuration, we need another strategy. That’s what DSA has been doing. They are pushing candidates that are openly socialist or members of the organization to contest establishment Democrats and many have won seats (look at NYS legislature, or the two new congress members). This is an indication that people want change and are voting for it. Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, housing rights and in general tackling inequality in this society is something that actually moves people. DSA has grown out of every disaster. When Bernie lost the first time, when he lost the second time, when Covid started, etc. We hope to expect more people join us if Trump wins again. The alternative is to keep organizing on the ground and bring forward candidates that are clever enough to make socialist campaigns mainstream.

So what happens now?

AM: I keep the whisky nearby and hope luck is on our side. It’s 2020, so anything goes.

LW: I really don’t know what comes next. I am exhausted and disheartened. I don’t want to share my County with a bunch of bigots. I don’t want to get along with fascists and neo-Nazis. I expect things to get worse and that either way we will see more civil unrest. For now, at this moment, I am nauseous and fearful.

JL: Not that much really. As my grandfather liked to say after an election, “It’s the same shit in a different bucket.”

JN: The alternative is action, activism. Not giving up, not letting the rightist-centrists have it. Change the party from within until there is a viable third option. Join DSA and stay in the Dems, I guess. WTF do I know. Nothing, obviously. Also, we need to scrap the electoral college. What a cruel joke on democracy.

JB: Keep organizing. Keep pushing. Keep fighting.

Both major U.S. parties are falling apart, and will be remade by the people fighting for or against them. Be a part of that, from the outside or the inside, whichever works for you. Non-party social movements are gaining influence. Help push them in the right direction.

The problems are and will be fierce, no matter who wins. They’re not going to get smaller. Take a breath, and then keep working on them. Make coalitions, make allies, listen to other people, try to understand their lives and experiences. The more isolated we are, the more likely it is that we lose, and that the world loses.

VG: In the years to come, with either Trump or Biden, an increasing wave of opposition must grow – based on organised labour, Black opposition, the ecological and many others – but above all the peace movement. More and more, such an urgently necessary movement must realize, the sooner the better, that in the USA and elsewhere, fundamental change is insurgently necessary – if the world is to be saved.

Interview partners: John Borland (JB), writer/translator/oaccasional coder in Berlin, registered to vote in Washington State (Seattle); Nicole Möller Gonzalez (NMG), DSA member in Syracuse, not eligible to vote; Victor Grossman (VG), author and retired journalist in Berlin, registered to vote in New York City; Zachary Murphy King (ZMK), downwardly mobile dude from Santa Barbara, California; Jeff Lee (JL), freelance English teacher in Stuttgart, registered to vote in Texas; Tina Lee (TL), writer, researcher and project manager in Berlin, registered to vote in Virginia; Aimee Male (AM), resident in Berlin but registered to vote in San Francisco, California; Thomas McGath (TM), housing activist in Berlin, registered to vote in Maryland; Julie Niederhauser (JN), disappointed Democrat in Berlin, registered to vote in Maryland; Virginia Rodino (VR), ,Co-Chair Maryland Green Party, marx21 (US) member, registered to vote in Maryland, Laura Wilt (LW), based in New York State and in Northern California, where she is registered to vote.

Racist offensive against Muslims in France

An antiracist’s guide


04/11/2020


Islamophobia in France has been growing in strength for many years, but recent weeks have seen a dangerous acceleration.

The context

The brutal murder of a high school teacher on the 16th October by an isolated terrorist with a knife shocked the whole country. Macron’s neoliberal government has jumped on the opportunity to occupy some of the space that Marine Le Pen and her fascists had been taking up. The horrific killing on the 29th of October of three Catholics in a major church in Nice, in the South of France, by a young Muslim man who had only arrived in France a few days earlier, added fuel to the flames. This terror is being used by government and others to stigmatize all Muslims and to win votes from racists.

Fascist Marine Le Pen got ten million votes in the presidential elections in 2017, the highest score ever for the extreme Right. And President Macron has been extremely unpopular because of his plans to drastically cut pensions, (which led to millions being on strike last year). So, although he comes from a strand of the right which did not traditionally make a priority of islamophobia, it is just too tempting for him to play the scapegoat card.

This is especially easy for him because the left in France, including the radical Left, is very confused about Islamophobia. The situation has improved these last five years, due to the hard work of a minority of activists, but even today far fewer than half of left wingers think it is important to fight Islamophobia. In 2004, when the ban on young women wearing hijab in high schools began, there was practically no opposition. In 2016, when twenty or so town councils banned the wearing of full-body swimsuits on beaches and in swimming pools, opposition was limited to a few press releases at best. The Right know that when they theatrically attack Muslims, there will be only half-hearted opposition from the Left!

Macron’s Islamophobic campaign

Macron had already been preparing an offensive, based on a new law “against separatism”. He pretended that this law would be aimed at many different groups including White supremacists, but it is really about loudly spreading the racist myth that Muslims don’t want to be part of French society. This is an invented danger. In fact, Muslims are, for example, far less keen on having separate schools for their children than are devout Catholics or Jews. There are In France 9 000 private Catholic schools, 300 or so private Jewish schools and around 20 private Muslim schools (there are five and a half million Muslims).

This month’s crimes are very useful to Macron. A minute of silence and special classes on freedom of speech will be organized in all schools immediately after the school holidays. His government is banning Muslim organizations accused of being involved with “political Islam”, a usefully broad expression which allows charities, legal aid organizations and antiracist groupings to be targeted.

The Interior Minister, Darmanin announced raids on 51 organizations, and the compulsory dissolution of several. These include the Collective against Islamophobia (CCIF), a small organization which organizes mediation and helps provide lawyers for those defending themselves against Islamophobic discrimination at work or elsewhere. It is just about the only place one can go as a discriminated Muslim. The organization has received funding for some years from the town council in Grenoble in the East of France, and has regularly worked with the National Observatory on Secularism, which is a government body meant to supervise the division between state and religion in France. It has worked in collaboration with a number of United Nations bodies (being granted consultant status) for years and has always condemned terrorism. The banning order was so flimsy that the government’s experts’ main contention was that among the comments on the organization’s Facebook page (comments not made by the organization), one could find expressions of antisemitism.

Another group, which was banned on 28th October, is the charity Barakacity, founded in 2008, known for its ambitious campaign to provide clean water in parts of West Africa, its “rounds” to help homeless people in the Paris region, and its initiative paying funeral costs for refugees who have died at Calais or trying to cross to England. The organization is accused of “proselytising” because it is faith-based, whereas Catholic charities are not condemned for working from a faith perspective, which is everyone’s right in a democratic society.

A mosque in Pantin which in previous weeks had shown sympathy with criticisms of Samuel Paty’s teaching has been closed down, although there is zero evidence that the mosque leaders supported any violence. In the days after the murder, the Interior Minister Darmanin stated openly that they were hauling in many people unconnected with the murder investigation “because they wanted to get the message over”. Macron has declared “fear must now change sides” and is pushing the idea of a “clash of civilizations”.

Darmanin declared last week he was “shocked” by halal or kosher food sections in supermarkets. These, he said are based on people’s “lower instincts” and represent “the beginnings of communitarianism”. A few weeks ago, the same minister declared “Islam in France must be certain that all its believers accept that the laws of the Republic are superior to the laws of their God”. But it is common for believers in many religions to think of their God as superior to human institutions – this does not make them killers! Darmanin just wants a witch hunt.

What is the immediate danger?

If these Muslim organizations are banned without protest, we can expect even worse in the future. Already far right thugs are taking advantage of the new atmosphere. In Nîmes a supermarket displayed a poster saying no “veiled women” would be allowed in the shop. The oldest mosque in Bordeaux, and another in Montélimar have been smashed up. Several mosques in Rouen received threatening letters, while in Donzère on Thursday a Muslim prayer room was vandalized with graffitied insults and Christian crosses.

Using Islamophobia to attack the Left

As well as win racist votes, Macron hopes to use the crisis to damage the main Left opposition, painting them as “soft on Islamic extremism”. Left reformist Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the France Insoumise (Rebel France) got seven million votes at the last presidential elections on a Corbyn-style radical programme. For a long time weak, like the rest of the French Left, on fighting islamophobia, the France Insoumise has recently made progress, partly under the pressure of Black and Muslim antiracist networks which have been getting stronger. One of the FI, MPs, Danièle Obono, has been involved in fighting Islamophobia for many years.

In November 2019, for the first time ever, a mass demonstration against Islamophobia was organized in Paris. Against considerable internal opposition, Mélenchon insisted that the FI must support. Education Minister Blanquer accused the FI this week of being “Islamo-leftists” and being “in favour of an ideology which little by little leads to terrorism”.

These attacks are supported by some on the Left. There is a long and disastrous tradition in France of equating being left-wing with detesting and mocking believers. Over the last 25 years, this tradition has fuelled the attacks on Islam in France. Many left-wingers, using the excuse that they hate all religions, support Islamophobic laws and campaigns. One of the main revolutionary newspapers denounced women wearing niqab as “birds of death” on its front page in 2010 (although this current, now the NPA, has made a lot of progress since and supported the demonstration last November, even if only half its members were really convinced).

University lecturers under attack

Macron’s ministers have been turning to Trump-style Right populism and attacking university lecturers who dare to work on racism and anti-racism and not limit themselves to studying dead White men. Education Minister Blanquer claimed that universities had been infiltrated by “very powerful Islamo-leftist currents which are wreaking havoc”. “We must fight” he said “against an intellectual framework imported from American universities and ideas of intersectionality which want to fix identities, the contrary of the Republican model (…) This is the basis of a splitting-up of society which converges with the Islamic model”.

University organizations have protested at these insults. Even the coordination of all the university presidents in France (hardly a radical Left body) put out a declaration that denounced Blanquer’s insults, saying “No, universities are not producing an ideology which leads to the worst excesses. No, universities are not places where fanaticism is expressed or encouraged. No, universities cannot be accused of being accomplices to terrorism.” Other academic organizations have also protested, although inside many there are members who swallow the myths about “Islamo-leftists”. Scandalously, a hundred university professors signed an article in Le Monde in support of Blanquer, and denouncing Muslim students who wear a hijab (see this article for more information).

What is the role of the caricatures of Mohammed?

A series of caricatures was initially published by a Danish right-wing newspaper. To these, Charlie Hebdo added more insulting examples, before the horrible attack in 2015 by terrorists who murdered 12 of the magazine’s staff (and Jewish shoppers in a Kosher supermarket the same day). The caricatures are racist for at least two reasons. Firstly, they include such cartoons as Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, with the fuse lit. This drawing is supposed 1) to say that what is typical of Muslims is to be terrorists and 2) to get people to laugh at the fact that his Muslim head is about to explode. The other Charlie Hebdo caricatures – like one of Mohammed naked with his genitals showing – propose a different sort of “satisfaction” to the reader, based on the fact that readers know that Muslims do not think the prophet should be depicted in drawing, much less depicted naked and ridiculous. The only way you could find this cartoon funny is if you think that offending Muslims is fun in itself – that is, if you are a racist.

In the present crisis, the cartoons have played a pivotal role. As part of his civics class every year, Samuel Paty showed some of the racist cartoons, having warned pupils and allowed them to leave the room for a moment if they wished. Not understanding that these caricatures are racist is very common indeed on right and left in France, and explaining about the caricatures is part of the school curriculum, so showing them in class as illustrations does not mean that this was a racist teacher. This year some parents complained, and the school inspectorate organized a discussion meeting of some sort. Naturally, No one imagined all this would come to the ears of a teenage fanatic who lived 50 miles away and was ready to kill and die for this.

After the murder, those who wanted to push “clash of civilizations” nonsense decided to make the caricatures the centre of the protest against terrorism. In some big cities like Toulouse and Montpellier, the caricatures were projected onto the front of the town hall, while more than one regional government has announced that booklets of caricatures including these will be distributed to all high school children. It is not uncommon to hear individual teachers, even on the Left, demand that showing the caricatures be compulsory in all schools as a protest against Samuel Paty’s murder. This is often the work of loud minorities – at the mass rally in Paris called by teaching unions, there were only a dozen Charlie Hebdo placards in a crowd of tens of thousands, and in online forums, Islamophobic teachers complain that “almost all” their students think it is good not to mock people’s religious beliefs, because respect is important.

What about the far right and the fascists?

In Avignon this week a member of a small neo-Nazi group threatened a North African shopkeeper, and then the police, and was shot dead. The danger of far-right terrorism is real.
As for Le Pen and her “respectable fascists”, they have had a bad couple of years. The Yellow Vest revolt which mobilized poor workers and small business people could have moved towards far-right ideas, but did not, thanks to the work of Left activists. The mass strikes against government destruction of the retirement pensions system last year were very popular indeed, but Le Pen could not support them because of her strong small employer base.

At last with the campaign against Muslims, Le Pen has a terrain where she feels at home. She has been calling this week for a freeze on all immigration, and on all procedures through which immigrants gain French citizenship. She is demanding “wartime legislation” and declaring “Nobody should be afraid of being called an Islamophobe”. Her and her fellow fascists are invited every week to prime-time talk shows to spread their poison.

Who is fighting back against all this?

The situation is contradictory. Several Left groups and trade union federations are much better on Islamophobia than they were ten years back (this is not difficult). Nevertheless, protest remains symbolic. Press releases from the Left declare « Muslims must not be blamed for terrorism, singled out or marginalized ». But no major Left group is saying “Defend the CCIF!” and protesting alongside Muslim groups to stop them being banned, let alone organizing a broad protest alliance. Smaller antiracist networks are doing what they can.

The hypocrisy of the Macron government, who sell arms to dictatorships all over the world, use French troops to defend French interests while wreaking death and destruction, and give crucial political support to Israel, while claiming to be a beacon of light leading the fight against political violence in the world, must be denounced. But practical solidarity to Muslim organizations under threat is also essential. Organizations in other countries should certainly send messages of solidarity.

TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE?

On Berlin’s housing crunch – and responses to it


03/11/2020


Introduction

Housing is a big issue in Berlin – as in most cities. But that wasn’t always the case. For some years after reunification in 1990, apartments were plentiful and rents cheap. After all, in the old/new capital, salaries were significantly lower than in many other major cities – and the rest of Germany. They still are. But people who come here now with high hopes and great expectations discover that it’s hard to find an affordable place. However, it’s long-time Berliners who especially suffer from rising rents and gentrification, whereas inward migrants – from western Germany and abroad – working in the start-up scene can benefit from Berlin’s “economic supercycle”.

In this article I consider the main housing issues, focusing on my Kreuzberg neighborhood, two significant rent laws and a few promising campaigns. For 40 years, the district of Kreuzberg was the neglected periphery of West Berlin. In addition to young men fleeing the draft and people coming to enjoy lifestyles frowned upon in the rest of the Federal Republic, the district’s war-torn housing also accommodated the mostly Turkish “guest workers” recruited to rebuild the German economy. The groups interacted and cooperated, and alternative projects, including many squats, flourished.

During my first visit to divided Berlin, I was struck by the wealth of inventiveness and diversity in Kreuzberg and decided I’d live there one day. Reichenberger Kiez has now been my home for 16 years. But Kreuzberg has become central and gentrification (the process of changing the character of a poor urban area through the influx of wealthier people), appears to be progressing fast here.

At the beginning, the corner playground’s oriental embellishments seemed a nod to the people using it. Since then, however, their profile has changed completely: White parents outnumber Turks and Arabs by far. The playground design now reads like an Orientalizing gesture to the neighborhood’s past. Observing the newcomers and recalling the numerous evictions of mostly migrant residents from my kiez over these years, I wince. Protest has been massive, but it hasn’t sufficed. Kreuzberg is being gentrified beyond recognition.

Financialization

The major driver of this development is the financialization of virtually everything. Interest levels make loans cheap and push everyone who can invest to put their money into property. Bank savings are from yesteryear, and bricks and mortar more stable than stocks. Berlin’s reputation for having rock-bottom real estate prices has attracted masses of bargain hunters.

Ten years ago, an Italian friend complained about compatriots coming for weekend property-shopping sprees. Since then, insurance companies, major pension and investment funds and international real estate groups have also discovered Berlin. One of them recently bought the large apartment house on my corner that has a hugely popular neighborhood bar on the ground floor. Yet as the recent exhibit about “the issue of land” at the German Architectural Center (DAZ) explained, many of the same people hunting for housing in Berlin have investment and pension plans that are snatching up city real estate even as they scour the listings.

Living places in Berlin

More than 85 percent of Berliners live in 1.5 million+ rental apartments. As of March 2019:

  • Almost 55 percent of them belonged to professional owners (private enterprises, public housing corporations and housing associations);
  • 40 percent were owned by private persons and community associations, according to Immobilien Manager.
  • Interestingly, 5 percent of the owners were “unknown”: Shell companies make it difficult for tenants to effectively contest sales.
  • Some 230,000 rental flats belong to publicly traded companies that are raking in huge profits. More about them later.

Berlin property values have been rising steadily for many years now. Undeterred by the coronavirus pandemic, investors continue to shell out good money here. After all, Berlin is a global brand. At the same time, every sixth Berliner household pays more than 40 percent of its net income for housing:

“Berlin’s residential base is broadly made up of low to middle-income earners. In fact, more than half of single-person households in Berlin earn less than 16,800 euros ($18,000) a year.” (DW, 21 July 2017).

Despite an overall trend of rising incomes, this population can’t afford condominiums. The price of apartments is rising even faster than rents.

One federal measure implemented to slow huge rent increases was the five-year “Mietpreisbremse” (rent control) for leases signed after 1 June 2015. That limited prices to 10 percent above comparable rents – in buildings finished before 2015. The website <wenigermiete.de> claims that three quarters of all landlords are not complying with the law. When, in 2019, the law clearly had had little effect, it was extended through 2025 and the rent hikes permitted for modernizing occupied apartments lowered from 11 to 8 percent.

With buildings costing 30 to 40 times what rentals return in a year, new owners inevitably undertake costly modernizations and jack up rents … in order to get vacant apartments, which they can sell at a premium. With modernizations of empty apartments uncontrolled, landlords try to get rid of their tenants using the carrot – offering a sum to terminate the lease that’s far too little for a comparable apartment – or the stick. One nasty ruse that’s growing in popularity is for a landlord to claim to need an apartment for personal reasons. That’s very hard to disprove.

The German language has a word for “getting rid of tenants”: entmieten. One hears this a lot! Already in 2012, tenant associations observed that landlords no longer regarded their long-time tenants as positive signs of stability: They were seen instead as hindrances to profit maximization.

Beyond the housing crunch caused by speculation, Berlin’s lack of affordable flats is due to the shortsighted idea of filling city coffers by selling half of its social housing for a pittance. In 1990, East and West Berlin together had 650,000 public housing units. By 2005, only 273,000 were left. The big housing companies that snatched them up are doing very well! A 2019 study by the Tagesspiegel and Correctiv found that between 2012 and 2018, the share value of Berlin’s largest owner of public housing – Deutsche Wohnen, (115,612 apartments), had quadrupled. During that period, Vonovia, Germany’s largest private housing corporation (with 41,943 apartments in Berlin), saw its stock value triple. That of the much smaller private Grand City Properties (8,141 units), had increased nine-fold. For comparison: In the same period, the “DAX” index of the most important corporations in Germany, had increased by just 60 percent.

Moves to a housing referendum

Deutsche Wohnen regularly neglects basic maintenance such as heating and functioning elevators for high buildings. Yet it undertakes unnecessary and expensive modernizations that price long-time tenants out of their homes. In an effort to stop it and forewarn other “sharks”, the “Deutsche Wohnen & Co. enteignen” campaign seeks to bring a referendum to the public. This is to be on expropriating the approximately 240,000 apartments belonging to Deutsche Wohnen and other publicly traded housing companies with more than 3,000 units each. Most of these flats – now belonging to companies whose stocks are performing beautifully – used to belong to Berlin.

Campaign initiators view profit-oriented housing as a structural problem, and charge that Berlin is neglecting its responsibility for social welfare. Noting that all previous measures undertaken by the city have failed to halt rapidly rising rents and homelessness, campaigners invoke Article 15 of Germany’s Basic Law. This foresees a possible law for expropriation, along with articles in Berlin’s constitution ensuring each person’s right to live with dignity in decent housing. Despite horrified reactions and massive PR efforts to derail the campaign, housing for the common good has become an acceptable topic for discussion.

Practices of large investor groups

However, the majority of Berlin apartments would not be affected by the referendum, and a difficult situation is getting worse and worse. Figures about massive new purchases by global real estate actors are overwhelming, and changing so swiftly that it’s difficult to maintain an overview. The investor group Heimstaden Bosta AB, one of Sweden’s largest private housing companies, is candid about wanting to become a major player in Berlin real estate. It recently announced its purchase of another 130 apartment buildings (3,902 units) for EUR 830 million. Since 2006, its local partner, the Skjerven Group, has paid over EUR 1 billion for housing in Berlin. That according to the website of Fünf Häuser – a group of tenants-turned- housing-activists whose buildings have been acquired by Heimstaden.

The buildings are located in areas designated as “Erhaltungs-” or “Milieuschutzgebieten” whose social composition is to be maintained. Once a potential buyer sets their sights on a building in a protected area, the local council can attempt to persuade them to sign an “aversion agreement”. That is to respect the (fairer) rental practices of city-owned housing companies and not evict tenants. Heimstaden claims to have its tenants’ best interests at heart but tellingly refuses to sign an Abwendungsvereinbarung; other Heimstaden tenant experiences belie the company’s professed good intentions.

Alternatively, the district can exercise its Vorkaufsrecht to pre-emptively buy the property – usually by finding a state-owned company to foot the bill. In early October 2020, the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg Bezirksverordnetenversammlung (BVV) or local council recommended increasing the practice of pre-emptive buying. Three weeks later, an alternative buyer was found for one of the many buildings on Heimstaden’s long list. It sounds too good to be true! What about all the other buildings?

Compounding the problems caused by speculative investment is the wholesale removal of rental apartments from the market. Airbnb vacation flats are the most glaring example, with entire buildings rented by professional landlords – firms with massive turnovers. Despite several years’ efforts to control this market, the local broadcaster RBB24 recently reported that four-fifths of Berlin Airbnb offers are illegal.

Another way to take rental apartments off the market is to turn them into furnished apartments with short-term leases for many times the cost of rental apartments. With leases running a minimum of two months (but less than one year), these offers are not considered “holiday apartments” and can thus skirt Airbnb restrictions. Furthermore, the “all inclusive” rent obscures what’s charged for the apartment and what for the furniture, making it harder to contest illegal rents. Finding an apartment offered by these services is a cinch: online, with a credit card. No standing in line with 100 other desperate people, no need to certify your ability to pay.

Usually entire buildings offer furnished apartments; Berlin’s own “Berlinovo” housing company claims to manage 6,900 units. The website of “Wunderflats” favorably compares its model to Airbnb and explains in detail how to avoid illegal “misappropriation” (Wohnraumzweckentfremdung). However, another platform seems unconcerned about extending leases and exceeding the one-year legal limit, thus belying the need for “temporary” housing. Fünf Häuser reports that in recent years many of their apartments have been converted into furnished flats.

Rent caps

With rents continuing to spiral out of control, in February 2020, a city law capping rents for five years (the “Mietendeckel”) entered into effect. Although student dormitories, buildings ready for occupancy after 1 January 2014, public housing, housing refurbished with public funds and commercial properties are not covered, 90 percent of Berlin apartments are. The ceiling applies to 18 June 2019 rents. A hardship clause allows landlords to charge more if they can show that the rent cap renders their property financially unviable and will cause its physical degradation.

The rent cap requires landlords to unilaterally lower all basic rents that are more than 20 percent above rent levels established by Berlin’s Department for Urban Development and Housing (Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen) on 23 November 2020. Failing to do so can cost EUR 500,000. Because there’s no guarantee that landlords will comply with correct calculations, tenants who believe their rents are too high should become pro-active and take advantage of the free advice for tenants offered by each district. But instead of simply paying less, it’s advisable to first ask the landlord to reduce the rent and file a complaint if they don’t.

The Bundesverband Freier Wohnungsunternehmen (BFW), which represents the larger profit-seeking companies, estimates that 31 percent of all their rents will have to be reduced – by an average EUR 1.40 per m2. According to the Berlin Tenant’s Association (the Berliner Mieterverein, BMV), charitable associations, cooperatives and smaller landlords usually do not charge inflated rents and are unlikely to have to reduce rents on that scale.

Tenants who benefit from rent reductions are urged to put aside their savings in case the Federal Constitutional Court rules against the rent cap. A decision is expected in the first half of 2021. Thus far, most district courts have ruled in favor of the new law or postponed cases. While conservatives and free marketeers loudly protest that these issues are regulated federally, such powers were in fact transferred to individual states in 2006. Objections that the new law infringes on owners’ property rights are considered indefensible by Berlin’s government and the BMV. They cite the scarcity of flats, high rents and huge rental market distortions as justifying a rent cap. The ins and outs of the law are explained in both German and English on the BMV website.

Regardless of its legality, the rent freeze is scheduled to thaw. In 2022, rent increases up to 1.3 percent of the 18 June 2019 amount will be allowed, with the exact figure still to be determined. However, landlords will be able to pass along fewer modernization costs in the future. Still allowed are insulating the building, installing an elevator and making apartments wheelchair accessible. Marble bathrooms are not.

The rent cap’s uncertain legality and continued demand for housing has created the phenomenon of “shadow rents” – rents significantly higher than what is currently allowed that the landlord agrees to waive temporarily. Assuming that the rent freeze will be ruled illegal, landlords require prospective tenants to pay the difference between the capped and the shadow rent into a fiduciary fund to insure payment of “arrears”.

Nine months into the Mietendeckel, the number of rental vacancies covered by the rent cap have dropped by 40 per cent and the number of apartments for sale has risen, according to ImmobilienScout24. Its manager, Thomas Schroeter, claims property owners have decided there’s just too little money in renting. In February 2020, as the law was entering effect, Jochen Möbert of Deutsche Bank Research* named what the rent cap does not redress: “a shortage of residential space” (200,000+ apartments): “A real estate boom in a relatively poor city brings a lot of downsides. The expropriation/rent cap shock could work. However, this requires […] a modern leftist housing policy, which implies a focus on new construction pursued with the very same vigor as the rent cap.” [my emphasis]

Does that sound too good to be true? Möbert cites a study on local construction costs that maintains that costs “for municipal housing corporations are well below the selling prices for newly-constructed residential space” and concludes, “The city’s incentives to expand its new construction activities are accordingly high.” You just have to want to do it.

Back to my kiez

Luxury condominiums in place of old, unrenovated flats attract a new population with deeper pockets who squeeze out long established residents and also price out less-well-heeled newcomers. Everyday services, family-run businesses and cultural icons, such as the Kisch & Co. bookstore in Oranienstraße, give way to expensive shops and bigger, more sophisticated eateries and bars – and the kiez gets featured in Trip Advisor. The quirky venues for alternative culture, like the tiny performance spaces and cafés that once dotted the neighborhood, are supplanted by cookie-cutter “trendy” locales. “Free spaces” like the Meuterei bar, where strategies and solidarity actions are planned, vanish. Not least, neighborhood walls also change, as I discovered while postering one night: Many renovated facades are coated with a non-stick finish. Recalcitrant residents are not only unwanted, they’re also prevented from publishing their protest. Berlin street photographer Jürgen Große’s 2008 album is full of unique and witty scenes; his recent “Works in Progress” – buildings covered by scaffolding and tarp. Ho-hum. Gentrification is sooooooo boring!

Back in 2008, a blatant harbinger of change in my kiez was the new building in which residents can take their cars home in a special elevator. CarLoft GmbH explains [it’s] “In the middle of the big city but like in your own house in the country”! No need to walk in the street – much less use the stairs. Gentrification denies and limits the mix of lifestyles that make city life so exciting and rewarding. It suburbanizes cities.

Hermannplatz Karstadt development

A major gentrifying project in walking distance from my home concerns the Karstadt on Hermannplatz – part of the German department store chain that once shaped many city centers. In May 2019, plans for the building aroused hefty protest and “Initiative Hermannplatz” started to organize rallies and round table discussions and collect signatures. Signa Holding, a major pan-European real estate group founded in 2000 by Tyrolian entrepreneur René Benko, had bought Karstadt in 2014. It then split the business from its property, a move that allowed for inflating rents, rendering the stores unprofitable. Benko is interested in making the most of his prime real estate – not in retailing.

Aside from questions about how Benko amassed his wealth so quickly and overlooking his proximity to the Austrian rightwing extremist party FPÖ, his Hermannplatz Karstadt project spells radical gentrification of the heavily migrant neighborhood that straddles Kreuzberg (the Karstadt building) and Neukölln (Hermannplatz) and hollows out local authority. The plan is to destroy the current structure and rebuild a much larger one clad with the 1929 façade. Drawings by the architectural office of David Chipperfield highlighted the reconstruction of the original large roof garden with a crowd enjoying the space – that bears no resemblance to neighborhood residents.

Just what would be inside the new/old building remains unclear. Each objection is deftly countered, including that destroying a large functioning concrete structure is environmentally indefensible: Signa will build without concrete! Affordable housing has been added to the plans, a few non-white faces inserted into project drawings. Signa promises 2,000 new jobs, 600 new parking spaces for bicycles, 3,500m2 of new space for the common good. All that is too good to be true. In Stuttgart, where Signa was permitted to raze and reconstruct an old Karstadt, it left the store out of the new building. A huge investment has to earn a giant return.

Signa’s expensive PR assault has included an exhibit about the history of Karstadt on Hermannplatz featuring historic photos and objects, mannequins in Roaring 20s dresses and a guestbook. The comments – mostly from tourists – were clueless. But they provide Signa with enthusiastic quotes. Signa also opened a café for “brainstorming” in the open space behind Karstadt and a shortcut bike lane through the block. Now huge banners hang on the façade: “Not Without You!” – and to demonstrate its closeness to Neuköllners, Signa recommends visiting local community gardens. When gardeners protested the co-optation, Signa linked to their statement on Facebook – because “We rely on dialogue and transparency”. Sounds good! Time to rehang the banners with critical messages from tenants facing Karstadt on Hermannplatz that were removed under threat of eviction.

For years, Karstadt employees have been asked to make more and more concessions to keep their stores open. When the coronavirus pandemic eliminated in-store sales, Signa had the perfect excuse. This past June, news that 62 Karstadt stores throughout Germany would be closed for good caused panic in many city halls. But on 3 August, in exchange for “saving jobs” for three to 10 years at four Karstadt stores in the capital, representatives of Berlin’s coalition government signed a letter of intent supporting three of Signa’s mega-projects, including Karstadt on Hermannplatz! (The others are high rises on Kurfürstendamm and Alexanderplatz.) That was no swap, it was a sell-out – in which the city also assumed Kreuzberg’s building authority. The new Senator for City Development and Housing, Sebastian Scheel (Left Party), said in a private meeting that the district remains in charge of Karstadt’s construction plans. For now.

Berlin’s government also fell for Signa’s argument that Hermannplatz should become “significant” for the whole city “again”. That translates into destroying inner city neighborhoods inhabited by poor people and those with moderate incomes… to draw more tourists. Attracting tourists in great numbers to residential neighborhoods is always a mistake, and in the age of pandemics, relying on tourism is plain unhealthy.

Furthermore, Signa’s interest in renovating Hermannplatz and redesigning the traffic flow is dangerously reminiscent of public-private schemes in other cities, where well-funded unelected sources gained authority over public spaces that were eventually closed to the general public. Involving Signa in planning decisions beyond the boundaries of its property is risky. Signa says that it’s got enough money to wait out the protest.

In fact, the fate of Karstadt is only part of the gentrification around Hermannplatz, witness the new and unusually high apartment buildings on Hasenheide. In old factory premises there and in Reichenberger Kiez, eviction notices have been sent to tenants, including artists, who can’t afford to pay triple rent prices.

Tenants feel pinched… and small businesses crushed. Commercial property has no protection from exorbitant rent hikes. When family shops on Kottbusser Damm and elsewhere are forced to move or close, older shopkeepers in particular suffer a radical loss of income and poorer retirements. As for culture, the legendary Moviemento, Germany’s longest running movie theater and host to unique film festivals, is also threatened with eviction.

These developments are not following laws of nature. Neglect and greed are destroying what Kreuzberg/Nord Neukölln once embodied and the lifestyles it fostered.

That said, organized protests have led to some successes (at least provisionally): Google Campus was convinced to not open its “community of start-ups” in the old electrical substation on the Landwehrkanal, and a big hotel and hostel complex on Skalitzer Straße was cancelled in favor of space for Kreuzberger businesses and shops. Outcry over the threatened eviction of a bakery and meeting point for locals ended with a new and better lease, and landlords’ bogus claims of “Eigenbedarf” have been exposed. The new owner of the house on my corner has even signed an aversion agreement. Not without a fight!

What you can do:

First, inform yourself (and learn German). Never unquestioningly accept undocumented rent increases or extra charges. Building managers are famous for adding unauthorized sums to the annual Betriebskostenabrechnung (utility bill). Failing to challenge them makes you, too, guilty of driving up rents. But you are not alone: For a membership fee, BMV counsellors provide very thorough advice (and even type your letters to the landlord) and legal defense, as well as a monthly magazine.

Join one of the countless groups fighting the myriad drivers of gentrification. These include Deutsche Wohnen & Co. enteignen, which in February 2021 will begin its second round of collecting 170,000 signatures in favor of a referendum. Visit www.dwenteignen.de to learn more about the campaign and sign up to help – or learn how to start a tenants’ group and organize your neighbors with its “AG Starthilfe”.

Fünf Häuser is working to network tenants in all the recent Heimstaden acquisitions and has an excellent website. Among its recent events was one for networking with the Initiative Mieter:Innen Gewerkschaft Berlin (MGB, Berlin Tenants Union) – activists from the 2019 “Mietenwahnsinn” (rent insanity) alliance. According to the MGB, Berlin has a good tenant law, but cases like the Fünf Häuser call for aggressive public actions. Tenants must be united in a group that can react quickly, with at least one contact person per building, and research has to keep abreast of investor plans and investigate other options. The MGB is planning a series of meetings for late November with local tenant groups because each building is a special case.

The Initiative Hermannplatz regularly collects signatures and takes part in public debates. Its website is in German, English, Turkish and Arabic. Still other groups are investigating Airbnb’s presence throughout the city and working to support storeowners.

There are tons of initiatives. Get involved. Hold the politicians’ feet to the fire. Fight for the right to housing and the city. These campaigns all represent serious battles in the fight to reclaim Berlin for the people who live here. Together we can make Berlin “too good” and true.

*“Any views expressed reflect the current views of the author, which do not necessarily correspond to the opinions of Deutsche Bank or its affiliates.”(!)

Nancy du Plessis takes courage knowing that in the end, the mega-construction project next to her place in Manhattan was scaled back significantly and her block in Paris was not razed for the commercial center and offices endorsed by Mayor Jacques Chirac!

©Nancy du Plessis 2020