The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Open Letter to the British Left – Defend Trans Rights

This is no time for abstract debate. Unite to fight a serious – and dangerous – right wing attack


29/07/2021

by Phil Butland and Anna Southern

Across the world, Trans rights are under attack. Right wing governments are introducing anti-Trans legislation and the religious and fascist right are gleefully adding Trans rights to their campaigns against women’s rights and gay rights. Antisemitic conspiracy theorists have added ‘transgender ideology’ to their hateful conspiracies about Jewish world domination.

Yet in the UK, a strange alliance of radical feminists, conservatives, and a portion of the Left are apparently in agreement. This UK phenomenon is based on the premise that Trans rights undermine or conflict with women’s rights. We will address this point later in this letter, but first a quick summary of the extent of the current offensive.

The Attacks on Trans Rights are worldwide …

  • In the United States, over 110 anti-Trans bills across 37 states have been proposed by Republican law-makers this year. The Republicans pushing the anti-Trans legislation are also, of course, against abortion rights, which means that they are simultaneously pushing anti-abortion legislation.

  • In Spain, the ultra-conservative Catholic group Hazte Oír instigated an anti-Trans bus campaign. The far right Vox party backs this campaign, which also has targeted abortion rights and attacked LGBT groups and women’s associations.

  • In Hungary, Victor Orban’s far-right government passed a law in 2020 ending legal recognition for Trans and intersex people, as part of a wider attack on LGBT rights in the country.

  • In Poland, attacks on LGBT rights have come hand in hand with attacks on women’s rights. ‘LGBT Ideology Free Zones’ and anti-LGBT ‘Family Charters’ have been set up in nearly 100 Polish regions, towns, and cities.

  • In Japan, Trans people must be diagnosed with a mental disorder and be operated on and sterilised if they want to have their gender identity recognised. They must also be unmarried and have no children under 18. A Trans woman living in Japan is now suing the Japanese government for the right to be recognised as a woman. If she wins, she and her wife will make history as Japan’s first same sex married couple.

… and in the UK

In the UK, there has also been a recent surge in transphobic hate crimes. Between 2019 and 2020, transphobic hate crimes rose by 16%. Media coverage about Trans people is often toxic, with Trans people often depicted as aggressive, predatory, and unreasonable.

An atmosphere of moral panic has been whipped up. The UK Conservative government has postponed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) which would allow Trans people to self-identify their gender. There is hope though, as recent polls show that a majority of UK people, especially women, support Trans rights.

Recently, a UK woman named Maya Forstater won an appeal against an employment tribunal. The original tribunal took place after Forstater’s work contract was not renewed due to complaints about her online and workplace bullying, which included her repeatedly misgendering Trans people.

The initial tribunal had found that her anti-Trans beliefs were not protected by the Equality Act 2010, were a threat to the dignity of Trans people, and were not ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’. The appeal found that her beliefs should have been protected and she will get a new tribunal.

The strange alliance of Trans exclusionary radical feminists, conservatives and ‘gender critical’ minority of UK leftists celebrated this victory. And yet Trans activist Laura Miles explains the real consequences of the ruling:

transphobes and gender critics will see this outcome as a political victory and a license to abuse and harass trans people at work, online and in the streets, as well as a step forward in their strategy of seeking every means possible to undermine trans rights and exclude trans people from social life.

It will undoubtedly make it more likely trans people will be subject to yet more hate speech by those defending their system of transphobic/trans-critical beliefs as being legally legitimate. The tribunal seems to have ignored the proven link between the expression of exclusionary views and exclusionary behaviour. Words have consequences.

So what is the disagreement?

Writing for Counterfire, Lindsey German put the case for what we’ll call the “fence sitting” position. Much of the statement is uncontroversial – the left is split on Trans rights (in Britain at least), and this split must be overcome through respectful discussion and joint activity against oppression. Moreover, oppression does affect working class people disproportionately and cannot be reduced to biology.

Other parts of the statement are less convincing. This is in part because of the nature of the statement. It is a plea for free discussion, which avoids spending too much time outlining what exactly the discussion is about. This is a legitimate method, but it almost inevitably means that some bones of contention are either ignored or misrepresented.

Let’s start with the statement that there is a ‘conflict’ between the rights of women and Trans people, which ‘has to be discussed and debated’. As the statement does not explain what this conflict is, further discussion and debate is somewhat difficult.

So, let us make a couple of assumptions based on what we have experienced from the current debate. Our assumptions are made in good faith. Should the plea for discussion and debate be about something else, then let’s talk about these specific issues rather than engaging in an abstract discussion about free speech.

Is it about toilets?

One of the main arguments used by “trans critical” people is that men could register as Trans in order to enter women’s toilets and harass women. This is an argument that originated with the right wing and is reminiscent of similar arguments used against gay men in the 1980s. It also has little to do with the reality of what is happening at the moment.

In countries such as Ireland which have introduced Self-ID years ago, we cannot find any evidence that men have been registering as Trans to smuggle themselves into toilets. Besides which, the Equality Act 2010, already gives Trans people in the UK the right to not be discriminated against. This explicitly includes access to toilets.

Similarly, the same act already contains the potential for exemptions for spaces such as prisons and women’s shelters, and admissions are already considered on a case-by-case basis.

How split is the Left on the issue?

A second weakness of the article is that the statement that ‘many’ of the left and Trans people ‘take different views’ is misleading. It gives a false impression that the Left and Trans people are split down the middle on the issue. Let’s be clear about this. The ‘gender critical’ faction represents a clear minority of the British Left and is effectively non-existent in most other countries.

None of this means that the Left should not discuss these issues, but nor does it mean that all views are equally valid. This would be a ‘postmodern idealist view’ rightly criticized elsewhere in the statement.

It is not too long ago that a significant proportion of the Left thought that being gay is a ‘bourgeois deviation’ and held some very sexist views on women. Even today, many Leftists support immigration controls on the basis that people born in ‘our’ country deserve more rights than those born elsewhere.

The fact that these ideas are sincerely held by people who take a good position on other issues does not make them right. Nor does it give people who hold these ideas the right to be invited to speak about them on every leftwing panel. While No Platform should indeed be only used against Fascists, this does not mean that our meetings should have to contain speakers telling ‘all sides of the story’, including ideas which we find repellent.

Who is splitting the movement?

This brings us to our final argument (for now). The article is quite correct to point out that ‘the trans debate on the left is in danger of turning people who should be potential supporters and allies into enemies’. But who exactly is splitting the movement?

The statement argues that claiming that ‘those who do not agree on questions of gender are transphobes, TERFs, bigots’ weakens the movement as a whole. This implies that the main splitters are Trans people reacting to Leftists who claim to support them while wilfully misgendering them, accusing Trans women of being potential rapists and insisting that Trans women are not women.

At a time of unprecedented attacks on Trans rights, some sensitivity is required. We could add that the article is also weak on recognising and responding to the reality of oppression against Trans and non-binary people

The attacks of some Leftists on Trans self-identity seems to be at best an academic distraction from the main debate. At worst it involves people who claim to be socialists using the same language and arguments of the oppressor, enabling and providing left cover for what are objectively reactionary positions. Such paternalism is no basis on which we can build a movement of solidarity with victims of oppression.

Solidarity comes first

We stand in solidarity with our Trans sisters, brothers, and siblings around the world in their fight against oppression. We believe that women’s rights and Trans rights are not in conflict, but are under attack from a common oppressor. The framing of the Trans fight for liberation by some feminists and leftists as a fundamental clash with women’s rights has only served to divide us at a time when we need to be united against a serious right-wing threat.

As Laura Miles puts it, ‘Equal rights is not a finite cake where different oppressed groups have to fight each other for bigger slices. Austerity and racism affect all of us: there is a common class enemy. Socialists start from the notion that an injury to one is an injury to all’. Our ‘gender critical’ comrades would do well to remember it.

Anna Southern and Phil Butland are both British socialists based in Berlin. We are very grateful to Laura Miles for giving feedback on an early version of this article, and wholeheartedly recommend her book Transgender Resistance: Socialism and the Fight for Trans Liberation to anyone wanting to know more about the fight for Trans rights.

AUTHORS’ NOTE: this article has been amended since publication. Lindsey German objected to us saying that she represents the “left wing gender critical” position. As this is not the substance of our argument, this has been amended to the “fence-sitting” position

Unsere Stimme Zählt

Our Vote Counts – for Participation and Anti-Racism. The non-party and non-demoninational German-Arabic campaign for the 2021 elections.

The initiative Unsere Stimme zählt – für Teilhabe und Antirassismus (Our vote counts – for participation and anti-racism) has set itself the goal of making and campaigning for non-party and non-demoninational German-Arabic election demands to the election of the Bundestag and the twelve local parliaments in Berlin on 26th September 2021.

We have come together to demand a life of dignity for future generations, a world without racism with fair chances for all and peace. We express pressure on politics with our social media campaign, election criteria and public meetings.

We campaign against every for of racism, especially anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and antisemitic discrimination on institutional and social level. We demand equal participation in social life and wealth for all people.

Our demands:

  • Support people with foreign roots in the public sector (e.g. through anonymous job applications)
  • Remove the neutrality law
  • Arabic lessons in public schools
  • Introduction of Arabic history and culture and anti-colonialism as school subjects
  • Independent anti-discrimination officers
  • Recognition of Muslim religious communities as public corporations
  • And end to stigmatisation of mosques
  • Defend and observe human rights and international law
  • Punish and pursue war crimes throughout the world through the International Court of Justice
  • Put an end to Palestinian misery. Germany must play a constructive role towards ending the occupation based on UN resolutions
  • No weapons in war zoners
  • Effective measures to defend the climate
  • Progressive immigration politics (eg reuniting families)
  • Voting rights for all people who have lived here for a long time, at the very least on a local level.

Europe and Germany Owe Us Some Answers About The Pegasus Project

If Hungary, India and Saudi Arabia passed the human rights test for NSO spyware, just how low was that bar


28/07/2021


Last week a consortium of journalism outlets and NGOs dropped a bomb of cross-border journalism. According to a leaked list of 50,000 names, at least ten of the world’s authoritarian regimes have been spying on their own citizens, using cutting edge surveillance software developed by an Israeli security firm called NSO Group.

The software, dubbed Pegasus, used malware to give governments practically unlimited access to a surveillance target’s phone, with new hacking techniques that left victims with practically no way of knowing they were being monitored.

Once it has wormed its way on to your phone, without you noticing, it can turn it into a 24-hour surveillance device. It can copy messages you send or receive, harvest your photos and record your calls. It might secretly film you through your phone’s camera, or activate the microphone to record your conversations. It can potentially pinpoint where you are, where you’ve been, and who you’ve met. (Guardian)

The ten countries are known for various degrees of human rights abuses, but the scale of unlawful surveillance was still stunning. (The countries: India, Hungary, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan and Mexico.)

The list of numbers belonged to dozens of freelance and legacy news journalists (including a journalist from Mexico who, was murdered under mysterious circumstances), activists, citizen investigators and even a, number of heads of state, including French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron and the King of Morocco.

India appears to be, one of the most prolific abusers, monitoring opposition party members like former Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, a member of the Supreme Court, a top virologist, journalists, activists and even members of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s own right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party.

Saudi Arabia’s appearance on the list is not totally surprising, but the, reporting that Jamal Khashoggi’s fiancee was monitored using Pegasus software in the days leading up to his murder is chilling.

Nevertheless, for people living and organizing in Europe, the appearance of Hungary on the list must be the detail that raises the most questions. If Hungary could flagrantly violate the European privacy and human rights laws and get away with it, what does it say for the other countries in the EU? Will Fidesz finally face some consequences?

The consortium of reporters could only confirm Pegasus infection on phones that they could forensically examine themselves- meaning the actual scale of surveillance is still not clear.

Reporting is still coming out daily, but there are a few big questions that are especially relevant for journalists, activists and organizers.

How could NSO not know their product was being used for evil?

NSO Group has denied that they keep any kind of list like the massive leak that kicked off the Pegasus Project. In fact, they deny that they keep tabs on clients whatsoever, saying that they license software and then have no further insight to how their products are used. These denials make very little sense, for several reasons.

First, NSO claims that each client they license to is thoroughly vetted for human rights violations in cooperation with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Now, Israel is not exactly the standard bearer for human rights, but even so, the countries on the client list are infamous for harassing, imprisoning, and in one case, dismembering journalists. If Hungary, India and Saudi Arabia passed the human rights test, just how low was that bar?

Even so, they claim that they would stop selling to countries who abuse their software. But if they don’t monitor how their software is used, how exactly would they find out about such abuse? Were they relying on the very journalists being surveilled and harassed to discover abuse of their products?

Where did the NSO list come from?

“The list of 50,000 phone numbers has nothing to do with us.”

Founder and CEO of NSO Group (Haaretz)

NSO has denied making the list, or possessing any list like it. But who else would have had a global overview of each of their clients’ surveillance targets? In some cases, Pegasus Project journalists were able to compare a time-stamp of when people’s numbers were added to list with the attempt to infiltrate the phones, and showed they were within seconds of one another. Who could have access to information like that, other than someone who worked at NSO?

NSO has suggested the list might have been something governments used for “other purposes”, which is maddeningly vague, but again, makes no sense. If you had a surveillance “wish list” for one country, one might assume the leak somehow came from the Security Agency of that country. But having access to hundreds of government surveillance targets spread across the world is incredibly valuable intel.

And if they are lying about whether or not they monitor the use of their software, does that mean they ultimately had access to all the information accessed? And who might they have shared that information with?

NSO employees apparently earn upwards of $30,000 per month, meaning they have strong incentives not to undermine their employer. Could the leak come from someone the data was shared with? Or was someone able spy on the spyware firm?

Who else was using NSO technology?

NSO is ,just one of many such spyware firms, so the fact that certain governments were not on the list does NOT mean they weren’t using similar types of spytech. In addition, the Pegasus Project only revealed ten of NSO’s clients, when there are reported to be around 40. So who else is illegally spying on their citizens, or has the power to do so?

EU Commission head, Ursula Van der Leyen, responded to the reporting with verbal condemnation:

“What we could read so far, and this has to be verified, but if it is the case, it is completely unacceptable. Against any kind of rules we have in the European Union.”

Nevertheless, the government of Hungary has suggested that some of their European Union allies employ similar tactics:

Have you asked the same questions of the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany or France? In the case you have, how long did it take for them to reply and how did they respond? Was there any intelligence service to help you formulate the questions? (WaPo)

It could be a tactic to distract and deflect. But Germany has ,used controversial spyware in the past (albeit, possibly lawfully), and it defies belief that some of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world do not have access to such spytech, simply because they weren’t on the Pegasus Project list. How could Hungary possess technology that, say, the UK or Germany would not?

Is Germany boycotting Israeli products?

Which leads to our final question: If Germany was not using Israel-based NSO’s brand of spyware, but that of a different country, is it because they knew it was being misused by authoritarian regimes? And if that’s the case, weren’t they basically boycotting Israeli products over human rights concerns?

Inquiring minds and ice cream companies would love to know.

Genoa G8 – 2001-21

Michelangelo Severgnini shares his experience of Italian police brutality


At the time of the march
many do not know
that the enemy is marching at their head.
The voice that commands them
is the voice of their enemy.
And he who speaks of the enemy
is himself the enemy.

Bertold Brecht, ‘The Enemy’.

I was only 26 years old

I was 26 years old. I believed that this world could be fixed. I believed I was on the right side. And I believed I was clear about who my enemies were.

Only a few months earlier, in January, George W. Bush had taken office in the White House for his first term as President of the United States. That day I was in San Francisco, taking part in a huge demonstration protesting, to no avail, against the fraudulent way in which the Republicans had snatched victory from Al Gore by winning Florida only a couple of months earlier.

In Italy, too, things had not gone as hoped. Silvio Berlusconi had just been elected Prime Minister, winning the election with the centre-right. And it seemed unprecedented. Since the early elections of 1996, which ended Berlusconi’s first experience in government prematurely, we had thought that such a person would never again govern Italy. Even less so people like Umberto Bossi or Gianfranco Fini.

[Editor’s note: the right winger Silvio Berlusconi was elected Italian president in May 2021 as part of a coalition which included Umberto Bossi’s Lega Nord and Gianfranco Fini’s National Alliance. Both were far right parties in which Nazis were active]

In previous years, I had travelled a lot in the former Yugoslavia. I had been to Bosnia several times. I had set up twinning projects. In December 1998, I was in Kosovo, working as a non-violent barrier between the Yugoslav army and the Albanian rebels of the KLA, in villages in the countryside that had been the scene of massacres.

I came back with many contacts. When the bombing started a few months later, I called them on the phone, recorded the conversations and broadcast them on the radio.

When Bush and Berlusconi, only a few months later – both having won their elections – met in Genoa, I didn’t like the direction the world was taking.

But the left in Italy had deserved that defeat, throwing away its own identity, its own sense of history.

That’s why there had to be another left. A left that might not have had full representation in parliament, but which was alive and made up of the stories and sensibilities of those who did not want to bend to the new principles of the world emerging from the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, only 12 years had passed. There was still time and a way to change course. There had to be. I was only 26 years old. That’s why I went to Genoa.

Video-Activist

A few months earlier I found myself almost by chance becoming a video-activist (that’s what we called ourselves then). The digital video camera, one of the first, was not even mine. At the Bicocca University in Milan there was a Visual Sociology Laboratory, one of the first in Italy. I had stumbled into it by chance and found myself with a video camera in my hand.

“Do you want to come and film the G8? We’ll need to film everything we can”.

And so it was that I found myself collecting a ‘pass’ for the ‘red zone’ at the beginning of that week, as early as 16 July. A handful of us had been chosen to get official accreditation and freedom of movement in the city.

To our amazement and bewilderment, we discovered what they meant by “red zone”. Several-metre-high railings resting on concrete blocks marked off the port area and the centre of Genoa. While they militarised Genoa, we militarised ourselves in our own way.

We too, in some way, saw ours as a militancy, a struggle, a battle. But the ‘media centre’ was our headquarters, and our weapons were the video cameras. Independent information. “Become your media’ was our philosophy.

But it wasn’t just reporting, it was also documenting. Yes, because in those days, under the patronage of the “Genoa Social Forum“, various initiatives and peaceful demonstrations of great importance were held. Nothing happened with regard to public order. Everything took place without tension, indeed, with a certain euphoria – given the importance of the event and the joy of seeing so many people, realities, organizations, gathered from all over the world to join the struggle.

Of course, there were helicopters flying overhead at low altitude, plainclothes agents on street corners who in turn filmed the marches. There was always a horizon of cops and trucks somewhere. There were also urban legends that popped up just to keep you on your guard. But more than one of us wondered if they hadn’t needlessly spent all that money on militarising the city.

As far as I was concerned, the event could have ended there. They were locked up like thieves in a cage inside the ‘red zone’ and we were free outside to meet, talk to each other and imagine what was then called ‘the other possible world’.

Via Torina was a perfect movie set

I didn’t take any instructions that morning. I didn’t even have time to have breakfast in the red zone. Too much tension in the air, too much chaos, too many people everywhere. I started walking back and forth on Corso Torino with my small video camera in my bag. I was trying to breathe the air, to understand the movements, the intentions. To understand who was who.

A Carabinieri truck was set on fire at the end of Corso Torino, at the corner of Via Tolemaide. From this street, the “White Suits” would have come down, on Corso Torino they would have had to pass. Probably, the clashes would have taken place there, because there is more space on the corso than on all the other surrounding streets. More space, not for the clashes, but for the video cameras, for which would have been easier to film. Or continue towards Piazza Verdi.

[Editor’s note: The White suits / White overalls or Tute Bianche was a group of Italian anti-globalisation activists who went to the front of demos in padded suits and white suits to protect demonstrators from police violence. Some accused them of escalating violence]

The iron cages of the red zone were not far away now. Corso Torino and Piazza Verdi were an excellent place to negotiate and play a symbolic invasion of the red zone.

But something in the air was not right. The policemen were not there to act as extras in a theatre. I could tell from their speeches, as I walked past different departments, with my pass clearly visible on my chest, whistling.

I could tell by the excessive number of exaggerated people I had not seen in the previous days. I could tell by the use of some guerrilla techniques that I had never actually seen used in those years: cars set on fire, rods to break shop windows and ATMs, violence not only against the symbols of power, but against anything they liked.

Not that I was scared. A few years earlier, in the mountains of Kosovo, I had been in the middle of a real war, a volunteer in a civilian nonviolent intervention force. I had seen death, gunfire, bombs. But I wondered how it would end.

It wasn’t the violence itself that frightened me. It was seeing the total military unpreparedness of the protesters. In Kosovo, on one side was the regular army, but on the other side were heavily armed guerrillas.

Here there were units in riot gear, armed as in war on one side. On the other side were students, workers, families. Totally unprepared for the fight. In fact, many of them completely uninterested in the clash.

Except for the “White Suits” otherwise known, not without a sense of crypto-irony, as the ‘Disobedients‘. They needed the clash. They had proclaimed it. They had to play the role of the naughty children.

But someone deprived them of this role, overpowered them, forcing them to bring the threshold of confrontation where the square would not hold.

In short, they acted as bait.

The Disobedients

When the charge in Via Tolemaide had not yet started, Corso Torino and its side streets were already a battlefield. Scattered from other scuffles and secondary charges people had poured in to find some respite. The first tear gas was thrown into the small side streets, you couldn’t breathe in there. Even the policemen. Not only could we no longer breathe, but it was even difficult to see us now. Yet I had breathed in tear gas in the previous two years. These gases were different, stingier, more caustic, more toxic.

I tried to squeeze through a few alleyways, knowing that the march on Via Tolemaide was still a long way off. It was already surreal. The first policemen had come down too hard. Not with beatings yet but with tear gas. They were nervous, their hands had slipped. Everyone, policeman or demonstrator, was running in every direction. Turn a corner and out of the fog could emerge a policeman fleeing from a group of protesters. Turn another corner and you would come across a group of policemen harassing a protester who had fallen behind.

And it all had yet to begin. Because it all started at 2.53 p.m. on Friday 20 July 2001, that cursed day.

The dynamics have been reconstructed and are now known.

“Nooo!… They charged the white suits, damn it! They were supposed to go to Piazza Giusti, not towards Tolemaide… They charged the white suits who were supposed to get to Piazza Verdi.” So says an excited officer in a service communication recorded in those minutes.

What had happened then?

At 2.30 p.m., the operations centre of the Police Headquarters had requested an intervention by the Alfa Company of the Ccir (Contingent of containment and decisive intervention) of the Third Battalion of the Lombardy Carabinieri: “Please, you must go quickly, however, to Piazza Giusti, where there is a group of a thousand anarchists who are destroying everything. You can get there by going straight along corso… where you are now, until you get to the crossroads with corso Torino, turn left and go straight. But you have to do it immediately because another march is coming down Corso Gastaldi”.

Once at the crossroads between corso Torino and via Tolemaide (which later changed its name to corso Gastaldi) the unit got lost, got confused, forgot the objective for which they had been asked to intervene and charged the ‘White Suits’.

Real life

From a military and square management point of view, the story begins and ends here. A recently converted department of the Carabinieri, full of ex-soldiers from the war in Somalia, after getting lost (after all, they were used to the open spaces of the Somali desert, not the narrow streets of the city), unleashed against the wrong protestors and started doing what only they knew how to do: slaughtering people.

And the ‘White Suits’, who had made themselves picturesque Plexiglas protectors for the occasion, great for stage photos, were swept away as in a macabre comic strip. The railway wall on the right for those descending with the march reduced the escape routes.

From that minute, 14.53, until the shot that killed Carlo Giuliani in Piazza Alimonda, not far away, at 17.27 minutes, the collapse of a generation was manifested.

2 hours 35 minutes of all against all, of ignorant madness, of blind nonsense, of blood, tears, blows, anger, frustration, gratuitous violence.

The strategy of the “White Suits” failed miserably. Because although it presented itself as a military strategy, it was actually a precarious balance above madness. The operative centre of the Questura (Police Headquarters) put its own, much of its own, into it. But it is stupid to complain of having been burned when one wanted to play with fire. That was the horizon of an immature and childish generation, that of the game, of fiction, of acquired privileges, also in the antagonist mode.

Those leaders and ringleaders were allowed to defend themselves behind the so-called “disproportionate reaction of the forces of law and order”. They thought they were going to a film set, but they found real life. One of us found death.

The raid on the Diaz school

The story of those days cannot end here. Because that equally sad day, 21 July, had not yet said it all. In fact, an even worse surprise awaited us.

We all returned to the “Media Centre” in the “Pascoli” school. People were dismantling: computers, printers, video cameras, telephones, everything was being stored and taken away.

For the Italians, there were special trains that would take people home. “What, so soon?” There was perhaps a need to stay together one more evening to try to understand together how everything could have gone so wrong.

But there were the special trains, better to go. There would be time over the next few weeks to see each other again and talk.

But I slept in the camper van and had come from Milan on my motorbike. It was decided to stay an extra night and leave the following morning after a few hours’ sleep.

I started phoning from the Milanese classroom, which was now empty. I spent perhaps hours on the phone, because I wanted to be as far away from that place as possible in my mind. I was there, alone in that classroom, while the whole school building had emptied out in the meantime.

When I heard the policemen shouting from the courtyard, I realised that I had lost all sense of time. It had long since gone dark outside the windows. It was just after midnight. I left the person I was talking to on the phone for a moment and looked out of the window on the side of the school. I could see the entrance gate from there. I saw several dozen policemen in riot gear with helmets, shields and truncheons. I went back to the phone and put off the call until a better time.

I paralysed myself in the middle of the classroom. I tried to think back. It had been a while since I had heard any more noise in the building. Was I the last person left inside? I thought back. There were only two possibilities that came to my mind: to stay in the classroom and wait for the cops to come up and then present myself with my hands up and try to prove that I was innocent, or to throw myself out of the second-floor window? I thought about it for just a couple of seconds and I was already standing with my knee on the windowsill ready to throw myself from the second floor. I had a glimpse of a nice flowerbed in the dark where I would hide when I landed, who knows in what state, on the lawn of the schoolyard.

Until a cry came from the school corridor. A girl hurriedly shouted: “Everyone in the Gap radio room!”. I asked myself: “Everyone who?”. So I wasn’t alone.

I put off jumping out of the window and followed the girl into the corridor. We hurriedly erected a barricade on the stairway with the school desks. And then we ran with others to the classroom where ‘Radio Gap‘, the movement’s radio station – the only ones still operating in Genoa, was still broadcasting live.

After a few minutes the police broke into the classroom. There is a famous audio of the live broadcast of those minutes:

“It’s a Chilean scene, they are breaking down our door, they are breaking down our door… I don’t know if you can hear it….

– They’re trying to break down our door on the second floor… Well, hands up, passive resistance, guys: a live eviction. Radio Gap is being evicted. Let’s stay calm…

– Sit down… guys, calm, sit down and raise your hands… We will continue to denounce what this criminal state and fascist police are doing…

– Here they are, they entered… the policemen entered the radio…

– …who entered the radio station, truncheons in hand and helmets on their heads… at this moment they are signalling to stay down…

…with batons in hand and riot helmets… the repression live on Radio Gap”.

 

I was inside the classroom at the time, along with about twenty other guys and some radio editors.

The policemen were surprised, stunned, to realise that their action was being recorded and they were being smeared live in real time. They stood with their truncheons in the air: “Ah, well, we just wanted to check your documents”, they said, frightened of being denounced for an action whose premises were as shaky as its legality.

We remained under guard for about an hour, however, without being able to leave the courtroom.

As soon as it became clear that we would not be harmed, we rushed to the classroom windows, which inevitably overlooked the “Diaz” school, just a few dozen metres away.

That’s where the “Mexican butchery“, as it became known, was taking place. Fifteen uninterrupted minutes in which dozens of policemen beat to a pulp, as everyone knows, about a hundred demonstrators.

The blitz had been launched on both schools. The “Pascoli” school, our school, was by then empty, except for those like me, who in the end saved themselves by taking refuge in the Gap radio room.

The ‘Diaz‘ school, on the other hand, was full of young, defenceless boys and girls, mostly foreigners, who would have left the next day. They had been unable to take advantage of the special trains with which the Italian State had already brought the Italian demonstrators home.

Those 15 minutes were a living nightmare for our ears.

Many of us went mad, tearing our hair out and throwing ourselves on the floor. Some tried to jump out of the window. The helplessness was killing us, the frustration of not being able to do anything, of feeling we had escaped in the middle of a butchery.

I managed to pull out my video camera and took some of the few images that capture those minutes of the blitz. You can easily recognise them, they are the ones with the black mask at the top and bottom of the screen.

When, after an hour, the time it took to evacuate the wounded from the Diaz school, the policemen let us out of the classroom, the barricade in front of the “Diaz” school was also removed. I was among the very first to enter the now deserted school.

I saw it with my own eyes and my video camera, the “Mexican butchery”: the puddles of blood on the ground, the smears of blood on the walls, the clumped locks on the radiators, the soiled backpacks, the sleeping bags, the notebooks, the clothes thrown everywhere.

I was not impressed. I had already seen worse.

I was offended.

All this had happened in my country.

This is an extract from an article which was originally published in Italian in L’Antidiplomatico. Reproduced with permission

An Initial Assessment of Angela Merkel’s Legacy

In 2021, Germany will vote for its first new Chancellor since 2005. A look at 16 years of Merkel governments


25/07/2021


In 2005 Angela Merkel became the Chancellor of the German Federal Republic. She went on to keep the Chancellorship for 16 years, her long stint ends in her fourth term this year. Merkel is smarter, likely more compassionate and likeable, than her peers. In Germany think of Merz, Seehofer, Schäuble; or in the UK Blair, Cameron, May, and (gulp) Johnson. None would have uttered ‘Wir schaffen das’, or taken in about 1.2 million Syrian refugees in 2015-16. It is quite true that Germany’s employers needed cheap workers, and yes, several retreats were made from initial promises. Even so her stance was rare amongst capitalist rulers. It is possible to believe her sincerity when she explains what COVID means, or when she commiserates with victims of flooding.

However Merkel was Chancellor for 16 years, and socialists ask: “What did her leadership do for workers in Germany and world-wide?” In this stark assessment Merkel emerges much as other bourgeois politicians. Ultimately she served her own class and its profits. After a short biographical recap, two policy components are discussed: domestic effects on the working class and foreign policy.

Short biographical note and the foundation for Merkel’s chancellorship

Merkel was raised in the ‘German Democratic Republic’ (GDR). She became a quantum chemist, but rapidly moved into politics. As the GDR fell in November 1989 she joined ‘Democratic Awakening.’ This merged with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which quickly joined the West German CDU, with the agreement of the CDU sister party partner in Bavaria the Christian Social Union (CSU). As a smart candidate from the former East, Merkel was spotted early. She signaled support of labour legislation reform, and a pro-USA policy. Labour reforms had already been initiated by the ‘Red-Green’ (1998-2005) coalition government between the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green Party. However Chancellor Gerhard Schroder had opposed the Iraq war of USA imperialism.

Elections in 2005 very narrowly favoured the CDU/CSU versus the SPD-Greens. The ensuing impasse was solved by a ‘Grand Coalition’ between the CDU/CSU and the SPD, making Merkel Chancellor. For Merkel coalitions remained necessary, although in her second term (2009-2013), she partnered with the liberal-conservative ‘Free Democratic Party’ (FDP).

Helmut Kohl’s task had been to bring East Germany into a reunified Germany. Not only did that prevent a further drain on Grermany’s funds that had gone to the GDR, but it provided more cheap workers. Merkel’s task started with completing the transition of Germany into a modern neo-Liberal state. That also meant to economically make West and East Germany truly one state. But what is ‘Neo-liberalism’? As exemplified in polices of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, it is simply an unfettered capitalism. As signified by the commonly associated word ‘deregulation’. More precisely it can be stated as:

“A theory of political economic practices that proposes that human wellbeing can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade.” 1

This was not introduced in one fell swoop in Germany, and it was initially resisted. Likely because Kohl’s CDU-FDP government would have been unable to face down organised working class protest. It would take an SPD government to bring it into play.

“While deregulation went full swing in the Anglo-Saxon world (Reaganomics, Thatcherism), it was initially adopted half-heartedly in West Germany, after the Kohl government (1982– 98) had replaced the SPD-FDP coalition (1969– 82). The CDU-FDP coalition with Chancellor Kohl implemented only some of the Deregulation Commission’s proposals. Incisive labour market reforms had to wait for the next government, Gerhard Schröder’s SPD-Greens coalition.” 2

Merkel’s tasks were eased by her SPD predecessor, then her coalition partner. As a good Social Democrat, Schroeder did his part: pushing through the ‘Agenda 2010’ Hartz ‘reforms’ (regressions is a better word I think). Briefly this consisted of increasing part-time contracts; eroding workers committees; lower salaries for agency labour performing the same work; raising ages of retirement and reducing pensions and easing the way for a privatized pension system; reducing ‘allowed’ periods of unemployment from 36 months to 12 months; lowering of thresholds for firing; etc. 3 Recall that Peter Hartz, head of Human Resources at VW, closely advised Schroeder in this. 2 Despite massive rank and file protests, the regressions were rammed through. This pre-history allowed Merkel to avoid confrontations with organised labour – this was her foundation. So what did Merkel do?

1) Merkel’s Policies directly affecting German workers

Let’s start from where German capitalists would, namely corporate profits. These had faltered between 2017-2019, as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Figure 1) 4.

It is true that profits differ by capitalist sectors, and German banking capital lags behind profits of big non-financial corporations. 2 However by 2021 all corporate profits (regardless of sector) were back to pre-COVID levels (Figure 2 5)

Meanwhile taxes on corporate profits (Figure 3 7) remained extraordinarily low (red line Germany) as compared to the average for OECD countries (black line). In fact the ‘Wealth Tax’ was abolished in 1997.6

But as Figure 1 shows, profits had faltered for Germany. Unsurprisingly therefore, even as new elections loom, Marcus Soder (Bavarian CSU) projects new tax cuts:

“Tax cuts are at the heart of our tax policy… That is clearly reflected in our joint election manifesto.” 8

So in summary, although profits had faltered, they were only lightly touched by tax. But how had these profits been made in the first place? Squeezing labour ensured labour productivity outstripped wages (Figure 4 9) – the gap in essence being profit:

The concerted attack on workers wages in Germany, is seen by the steady fall in the ‘labour share’ of the GDP 10 since 2000 (Figure 5 11):

This fall in worker wages accompanied the increase of work precarity and insecurity. Recall the Hartz Reforms/Regressions. They started the process that Merkel put into their meaningful effect – namely:

“labour law changes facilitated greater use of fixed-term employment contracts, part-time work, and agency work, while at the same time relaxing employment protection legislation, reducing unemployment benefits, lowering reasonableness criteria for job offers, and introducing so-called ‘mini jobs’ not liable to social security contributions. These opened the door to wide-reaching exemptions from labour standards and promoted the rise of precarious work. The overall aims of these labour market deregulation measures were to weaken union power on the one hand and to strengthen employer control over employment contracts and working conditions on the other.” 15

The net effect of all this was to increase inequity. Figure 6 12, shows the Gini coefficient over the years 1991 to 2016. Note: If the Gini is 1.0 there is complete inequity; and a value of zero represents complete equity.

So the rich got richer and the poor poorer. Some argue that the Gini seriously underestimates degrees of inequity. But it is relatively easy to understand. 13 Germany stands 15th of 35 OECD countries in its Gini.

Recall one of Merkel’s goals was to reunify Germany. This mandated wages in the East come closer to the depressed wages of the West. Indeed this has happened, but inequity remains such that former East Germany still has lower disposable income:

“In 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, per-capita disposable income was €19,909 per year in the former East Germany… By comparison, disposable income in the former West Germany was €23,283 a year… Put another way, people in the former East Germany earned 86% the after-tax income of their West German counterparts in 2017“ 14

Reflecting the disparity between former West and former East Germany is the continued outdated infrastructure in the East shown vividly in Figure 7 13. Here the total productivity of former East Germany was only 75% of that in the West:

Unsurprisingly, the mean unemployment rate in former East pre-COVID 2019 was 6.9% vs 2.8% in the West, a gap of 4.1%. But better than 2000 when the gap was 10%.

So inequity between West and East has narrowed, but is far from eliminated. The goal of equity is complicated by COVID. The OECD predicts it will take Germany 1.75 years to return to pre-COVID levels of employment will be versus 4 years in the UK and USA. 15

Naturally all this was associated with even weaker trade union structures in former East Germany than in former West. Workers in the East were told by their trade unions to join the Western unions, which however did not support them in the ensuing Eastern deindustrialization. 16 Many works councils (consisting of trade union representatives and company representatives) have either been dismissed or transformed more into ‘co-managers’. 15 The implications of all this on the growth of the fascists of the AfD are clear.

And yet, despite all of Merkel’s success on their behalf, it is all too predictable that capitalists will ‘find it necessary’ to make it even harder for workers. One signpost is the cross-country comparison on labour productivity where Germany lags. It is behind 11 OECD countries – including the USA – which itself is only in 8th place (Figure 8 17).

In summary: Merkel ensured Germany removed significant protections for workers (under Hartz) to keep profits at high rates. Since it is likely the ruling class will want to boost Germany’s competitiveness, things will only get worse for workers. In turn without broad front and left party formations, the AfD will likely only grow.

There is one large elephant in the domestic room – the environmental catastrophe. This will require far more detail than space allows here. But it is appropriate to recall that spurred by the Fukushima disaster, and then under pressure from below, Merkel did halt nuclear development in Germany. Yet this is much diminished by her slow moves on coal-mining and lignite mining in Germany; and her support of the car industry against calls for CO2 emission reduction. 18 While the last nuclear plant is scheduled to end production in 2022, the last coal-fired plant ends production only by 2038.

2) How has Merkel protected German Capital in Foreign Policy?

In foreign policy Merkel’s problem was complex. She had to repair bridges to the USA, broken by Schroder, but after Obama she was faced by Trump. That forced the EU to shore itself against Trumpite protectionism. At the same time Merkel tried to steer Germany’s independent role as the dominant nation even within the EU itself. Finally China was a close trading partner. Hence Merkel resisted USA attempts (under both Trump and Biden) to shut down trade with China. She has been unable to fully reconcile all this, and her class will have to play that game further.

Starting at the EU, obviously Germany is a major fiscal force within the EU. However it’s influence is resisted by the other members (even France), her close ally:

“In 2017, Germany was the largest net contributor to the European Union budget (Euros 12.8 billion), providing substantially more funding than either France (Euro 5 billion) or Great Britain (Euros 7.3 billion)… effectively purchasing German influence in supranational governance… (but) Germany’s role is contested, resisted, and delegitimized by a range of actors in European affairs. The cooperative mechanisms successive German governments attempted to build were, in important ways, doomed projects including the failure of the European Union to create institutions by which future sovereign debt crises might be averted as well as Germany’s attempt to foster and promote shared norms across Europe”. 19

German capital physically expanded production plants into the former Comecon countries. But at the same time it wielded its fiscal power, to devastating effects. Germany reaped enormous profits in granting Greece enormous debts, knowing it could not repay them, then later demanding full restitution. 20

However this had pushbacks. Such a callous act warned ‘Europe’ against German might. It was to allay such anxieties that Germany enabled massive COVID cash injections by EU to member states. Italy for instance would have been severely affected otherwise. Moreover, Germany went soft on disseminating COVID vaccination prior to full EU dispersion of vaccine. That even though German capital was instrumental in developing the BioNTech-Pfizer RNA vaccine. So the EU relationship that Germany had wanted to dominate as its own vehicle, is not such a push-over.

Finally Germany is far more favourably disposed to both Russia and China, than either many of her EU partners or the USA. In particular, German trade with China had become crucial for Merkel to protect:

“Ms. Merkel is a firm believer in engagement with China, Germany’s most important trading partner. More than 212 billion euros worth of goods — over $250 billion — were bought and sold between the two in 2020, according to German government figures. Before Mr. Biden took office, she pushed ahead with a new investment deal between the European Union and China that still needs ratifying by the European Parliament. Before they even get to China, however, there is Russia and the thorny issue of Nord Stream 2, a natural gas pipeline that will run directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea from Russia. The project is bitterly opposed by Mr. Biden and Congress — along with several of Germany’s European partners — but Ms. Merkel and her government firmly support it.” 21

“In 2020, trade between the two countries was more than 212 billion euros – more than between China and the UK, France, and Italy combined. Germany’s major automakers Volkswagen, Daimler, and BMW generate significant profits in China, and Volkswagen alone accounts for almost 20 percent of China’s passenger vehicle market.” 22

In Summary: In the dynamic of 21st century capitalism, under Merkel Germany has tried to ride several horses. But the increasingly tense race between USA and Chinese imperialism, will likely force Merkel’s heirs to be clearer about opposing US imperialism. Call me a pessimist, but I cannot see how a new inter-imperialist war is going to be avoided over the next 20 years. Unless that is by such intense climate change that the Anthropecene era literally burns itself out.

Conclusion

In my view, the main thing to take away is that Merkel has battled hard to preserve Germany capitalism. That she is far more insightful than her politician peers explains her ability to convey (and I believe truly feel) a genuine compassion for people.

Her science background also explains how she can convincingly and effectively explain the realities of COVID to a lay audience. The subsequent swings of policy on COVID I think are tied to the chain of the USA booby-trap of the Basic Law. At the end of WWII, this was laid down in the new constitution for West Germany, after the division of Germany by the Western imperialists. This meant a perpetual divide between Länder and the Federal State.

In addition, Merkel employed a large staff of women advisers and policy gurus. Undoubtedly most of the avalanche of books on her will highlight all these characteristics. But I suspect most will not acknowledge her class solidarity with the German capitalist class.

Who and what will follow her act? If indeed the task will be to sharpen German competitiveness more by paring working class wages and living conditions, an SPD knife is on the cards. Neither Cum-ex or Wirecard scandals will impede Olaf Scholz if the ruling class decide he has the sharpest knife. If it needs green-washing, there are suitable parties, despite cries of plagiarism.

However still unclear to me, is where Die LINKE will fall. It has been tempted by coalition politics before, but the coalitions rejected it. What will happen in 2021?

Footnotes

1 David Harvey, ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism”; Oxford University Press 2005; p. 2.

2 Walther Müller-Jentsch; ‘The German Model Of Conflictual Partnership Is Still Alive’; In: “Walther Müller-Jentsch, Britta Rehder, Sidney A. Rothstein & Tobias Schulze-Cleven (2020) Debating Lessons from Germany After the Social Democratic Century, German Politics, 29:3, 522-543

3 Oliver Nachtwey, ‘Germany’s Hidden Crisis Social Decline in the Heart of Europe,” Verso London 2018; chapter 3

4 Benjamin Braun &Richard Deeg (2020) Strong Firms, Weak Banks: The Financial Consequences of Germany’s Export-Led Growth Model, German Politics, 29:3, 358-381

5 Bundesbank data graphed by Trading Economics

6 Jan Behringer, Nikolaus Kowall, Thomas Theobald & Till van Treeck (2020). ‘Inequality in Germany: A Macroeconomic Perspective’, German Politics, 29:3, 479-497

7Compiled by OECD from: Revenue Statistics

8 Laurenz Gehrke,‘Armin Laschet’s tax comments divide German conservatives’; ‘Politico’; July 14, 2021

9 Figure generated at ‘The OECD Productivity Statistics Database’ website; Report for 2000-2019; section Labour income and productivity

10 US Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017

11 Ricardo Barradas; ‘Financialization and Neoliberalism and the Fall in the Labor Share: A Panel Data Econometric Analysis for the European Union Countries’; Review of Radical Political Economics; 2019, Vol. 51(3) 383-417

12 https://www.gut-leben-in-deutschland.de/indicators/income/gini-coefficient-income/

13 Jan Behringer, Nikolaus Kowall, Thomas Theobald & Till van Treeck (2020), ‘Inequality in Germany: A Macroeconomic Perspective, German Politics, 29:3, 479-497

14 John Gramlich; East Germany has narrowed economic gap with West Germany since fall of communism, but still lags’ Nov 6 2019; Pew Research Center;

15 OECD; Jobs, A Slow Rebound; 2021

16 Walther Müller-Jentsch; ‘The German Model Of Conflictual Partnership Is Still Alive’; In: “Walther Müller-Jentsch, Britta Rehder, Sidney A. Rothstein & Tobias Schulze-Cleven (2020) Debating Lessons from Germany After the Social Democratic Century, German Politics, 29:3, 522-543

17 OECD; 2019 Report Labour Productivity

18 Ellen Thalman, Julian Wettengel, The story of “Climate Chancellor” Angela Merkel Clean Energy Wire; 07 May 2021

19 Luke B. Wood, ‘German Hegemony? The Federal Republic Of Germany In Post Coldwar European Affairs’; German Politics And Society, Issue 133 Vol. 37, No. 4 (Winter 2019): 95–108.

20 Hari Kumar, ‘The Greek Debt Crisis: A misnomer for the European Imperialist Crisis; August 22, 2015; ‘The Red Phoenix’’

21 Melissa Eddy, ‘Legacy and Policy Mix as Merkel Takes a Bow in Washington’; New York Times 14 July 2021.

22 Torrey Taussig; What is Angela Merkel’s legacy on engagement with China?; American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; July 2, 2021