The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Photo Gallery – Until Total Liberation Demonstration on International Women’s Day

Saturday 8th March, Oranienplatz to Hermannplatz


09/03/2025

All photos: Cherry Adam

Not One Person and Not One Cent for Militarism!

Germany’s new government wants to amend the constitution to spend half a trillion euros on weapons. The ruling class wants cannons instead of butter

In 1887, Wilhelm Liebknecht, the founder of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), put out a flyer for the Reichstag elections: “Not one person and not one cent for militarism!” As Liebknecht explained: “Militarism is incompatible with the freedom and the prosperity of the peoples.” For many decades, until 1914, the social democrats refused any support for the government’s budget, even when increased social spending was offered as bait.

Now, some 140 years later, the always amusing dialectic of history has turned the SPD into Germany’s biggest proponent of military spending.

As the social democrats prepare to form a government with Friedrich Merz’s CDU, they have announced plans to amend the Basic Law. While maintaining the debt brake that mandates balanced budgets and permanent austerity, the emerging “Grand Coalition” wants to create two exceptions. Firstly, military spending will be exempted from the cap on borrowing — they are talking about 500 billion additional euros in the next decades. Secondly, a special trust of up to 500 billion euros for infrastructure will also not be counted as part of the regular budget.

In other words: all the parties, but especially the CDU, have insisted that there is no money to repair schools, to properly staff hospitals, or to keep the trains running. Yet in a few days, they conjure up a trillion euros (more or less) for weapons. The Nazis had a slogan for this: the nation needed “cannons instead of butter.”

Cynical in the extreme: CDU and SPD want to pass this constitutional reform at high speed, before the recently elected Bundestag constitutes itself on March 25. In the old parliament, they have the necessary two thirds majority together with the Greens; in the new parliament, with the FDP ejected and Die Linke strengthened, they would need support from a fourth party.

Cannons Not Butter

Half a trillion euros for infrastructure might sound like a good thing — but while there is talk of spending on schools, hospitals, and digitalization, much of the money will go to building Autobahnen and subsidizing fossil capital in other ways. And as previous wars have shown, highways and rail infrastructure are also part of military readiness.

Depressingly, a recent poll shows that rearmanent is quite popular, with 76 percent in favor. Even among supporters of Die Linke and BSW, two parties with (undeserved) reputations for opposing war, majorities support militarism. But this will shift as austerity, already underway, makes itself felt in people’s daily lives. Prices will continue going up as social services crumble, to pay for tanks and fighter jets.

The only good news is that no one wants to put their own bodies on the line. The Bundeswehr, like almost every imperialist army, faces extreme difficulties finding new recruits. As a Gallup poll from 2023 showed, some 57 percent of people in Germany could not see themselves fighting for their country. And why should we? This is a state of billionaires, by billionaires, and for billionaires — are we supposed to risk our lives for a system that doesn’t even give us decent housing?

Stop Putin? Defend Freedom?

The capitalist propaganda machine is running at high gear, telling us that if we don’t tighten our belts, Putin’s tanks will soon occupy Berlin. Watching the Russian army’s lackluster attempts to seize a sliver of Europe’s poorest country, this is not particularly convincing. 

Think of the historical precedent: as the European powers launched ever-greater armaments programs in the early 1900s, they promised their citizens that battleships and artillery would guarantee peace. Yet it turns out that they do not spend this much on weapons with no intention to use them. The First World War cost some 20 million lives.

It is ominous that Gregor Gysi of Die Linke has called for class collaboration between workers and capitalists to “defend our freedom” — this is an echo of the social democratic traitors who voted for “national defense” in 1914. Jan von Aken has also been signaling willingness to negotiate about more money for the Bundeswehr. Tens of thousands of young people joined Die Linke in the last few months — and they need to campaign against the army.

As capitalist governments inch toward new imperialist conflagrations, they can barely offer an explanation for what they’re fighting about. This is just a competition for which billionaires get to rule over the globe, and they’re not even bothering to hide it.

If they were really interested in “defending our freedom,” they could create a people’s militia — as Liebknecht proposed 140 years ago — under the control of working people, and not ordered around by capitalist officers. Opportunists will say it’s not possible to oppose militarism when majorities are in favor. But in 1887, the SPD, with its hard no to military spending, got 10 percent of the votes — its best result to date, and not much worse than the SPD today.

Red Flag is a weekly column on Berlin politics that Nathaniel Flakin has been writing since 2020. After moving through different homes, it now appears every Friday at The Left Berlin.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Statement by the Before Forgetting film collective on cultural repression in Denmark


05/03/2025

Who are we?

We are the Before Forgetting film collective. Though our members are scattered all over the world today, our collective was born four years ago in Copenhagen, Denmark. Since Before Forgetting’s inception, we have been organising film screenings and discussions, focusing particularly on anti-colonial and anti-capitalist themes.

What did we do?

Before Forgetting was invited to produce a video installation and curate a film screening for the Young Danish Photography exhibition at the Fotografisk Center in Copenhagen last November. Working as a collective, we produced a film essay that spoke to the nature of resistance in the Global North today. Reflecting the urgency of such a question amidst the ongoing genocide in Gaza, our work examines how lifestyles in today’s northern metropolises are built on imperialist exploitation and the violent preservation of privilege under the guise of ‘global security’. In such a world, we ask: what might resistance look like?

How did it go?

On the 14th of October, two weeks before the exhibition opening, we were informed that the Fotografisk Center would require us to modify parts of our film. Specifically, a) a clip showing direct action at Terma, a Danish arms manufacturer deeply involved in arming the genocide, headquartered in Copenhagen, and b) a QR code at the end of the film, linking the viewer to a fundraiser for Palestine Action.

The justification for the request was rather strange. The Copenhagen city government sent out a missive, informing the Fotografisk Center that they, as a cultural space that receives support from Copenhagen municipality, were expected to restrict their political critique to domestic issues and to avoid difficult conversations about foreign politics. As it transpired, a large number of cultural spaces and artists in Copenhagen had been sent precisely this missive, best summarised as: don’t worry your pretty little heads about foreign policy; the grown-ups will take care of that

This policy, if one might call it that, emerged in the context of escalations in protests and actions against the genocide in Gaza. No such missive was issued when Danish civil society was engaged in protesting the Russian invasion of Ukraine—conversations about foreign politics become ‘difficult’ only when one calls into question Danish capital’s complicity in genocide.

Under Danish [federal] law, it would have been a lot harder to make a case for a blanket denial of funding or the outright cancellation of events, screenings, and exhibitions similar to ours. The outsourcing of this responsibility to the city of Copenhagen is the state’s workaround to this at a time when the complicity of Danish capital and industry in the genocide is more evident than ever. It accompanies other restrictions on protest, with raids on Palestinian activists’ homes, restrictions on cultural events, and arrests of protestors both at Maersk and at the University of Copenhagen.

What happened next?

Despite intense repression, Denmark also sees more pushback from civil society than Germany—particularly from cultural workers. Since the end of last year, workers in the cultural and art scenes have begun to organise a campaign against the municipality’s measures. A petition calling out the municipality and demanding the policy be revoked received broad support among over five hundred institutions and practitioners. This pressure and media coverage highlighting the move as being in violation of Danish law led the Copenhagen city council—where the largest party is presently the left-wing Enhedslisten—to take up the issue near the end of last month. There, a majority of parties opined that the municipality had been in the wrong and that it must reverse course and issue new guidelines that negate the previous letter. 

These wins are worth celebrating. They are not, however, anywhere close to the end of the struggle. While art has some power to foster reflection, its ability to put an end to the complicity of Danish capital in the genocide is (unsurprisingly) minimal. The need of the hour is direct action, as we witnessed in Copenhagen last week when our comrades broke through police barricades to storm the very same perimeter of Maersk’s central office that appears in our film.

The fight continues in Denmark, Germany, and the rest of Europe. It is our task to take whatever optimism these small wins give us and channel it towards ever-larger and more meaningful action.

You can follow Before Forgetting on Instagram here.

The CDU is Already Attacking Civil Society

CDU and its 551 questions: a long way to imply that NGOs’ neutrality is at stake


04/03/2025

Within the first days after the CDU and its sister party, the CSU, won the largest share of votes in the German federal elections, Friedrich Merz had already started to piss people off. In a parliamentary Kleine Anfrage (small inquiry) signed by Merz and the Chairperson of the CSU’s parliamentary group, they asked 551 questions about various German civil society groups. The questions focused especially on potential links between the various groups and political parties or state funding, which the Anfrage claims could be considered breaches of the political neutrality expected of groups which receive state funding.

Kleine Anfragen are tools through which fractions or members of the Bundestag can pose questions to the government, often forcing the government to provide information or take a stance on a given issue. They are addressed to the governing coalition.

The CDU’s questions appear to clearly constitute retribution against organisations who critiqued Merz’s breaking of the Brandmauer, when he relied on the AfD’s support in an attempt to pass rightwing migration reforms. Groups such as Omas gegen Rechts (who do not receive state funding), Foodwatch, the anti-Deutsch Antonio Amadeus Stiftung, Greenpeace and more were targeted for their supposed role in organising mainstream anti-fascist demonstrations.

Also targeted is the investigative media outlet CORRECTIV, who have released various reports on the extreme right in Germany. Most famously, they were responsible for investigating and breaking the story on the “remigration” conference in Potsdam last year. There, members of Europe’s white nationalist Identitarian movements met with AfD politicians to discuss a plan for sending migrants and Germans with immigration backgrounds to North Africa. Also featured in the CORRECTIV story were two CDU members with high-ranking positions in the party’s grassroots WerteUnion (values union) in North Rhine-Westphalia. 

The questions in the Anfrage include issues such as whether Omas gegen Rechts gets funding from international NGOs, or whether the group has direct connections to political parties or actors. Regarding CORRECTIV, the CDU asked whether the (journalistic) organisation influenced “media reporting on political issues.” Both CORRECTIV and Greenpeace have already published answers to the questions, for which they rely mostly on information already available on their websites. 

Particularly concerning is the preamble, where the CDU alleges that “some voices” claim (the vagueness appears intentional) that there is a “shadow structure”, which uses state money to influence politics. While the CDU does not use the word, their source for this claim is a Welt article talking about the German “Deep State”. The use of far-right terminology with antisemitic undertones so early after the election victory is a concerning sign of things to come.

The logic behind the 30 pages of questions can be seen in the context surrounding the the Anfrage. The CDU, having won the largest majority in the election with their partner the CSU, will most likely be the leader of the future governing coalition. Having failed to win an outright majority, however, they need to negotiate with other parties before forming a government. Until that takes place, the old Bundestag remains in place, meaning the SPD are still in effect ruling Germany

The CDU are having one last run at playing opposition, in what appears to be a pre-planned stunt. Merz, not known for his subtlety, has left it perfectly clear that this was planned: while the questions were only released after the election, the document is actually dated to Friday the 21st, two days before Germans went to the polls.

This is why the questions in the Anfrage are posed to the SPD, rather than the organisations themselves, because parliamentary Anfragen are posed to the government. How the SPD is actually meant to answer a lot of these questions, many of which are questions for the NGOs themselves only posed to the government by means of tortured wording, is beside the point. Merz’s 551 questions should be read as a statement of intent.

Wahad: A Palestinian state of mind

What does Heimat mean for Palestinians in Germany?

‘We are all Palestinians,’ I hear crowds chant at protests. I ask myself what it means, what is the common thread making all of them Palestinians? We may live in a Palestinian state of mind if we miss trust in the world as something never had but existentially needed, disoriented until we recognize: this deprivation, this state is universally human.   

In German we call the metaphorical place of trust Heimat, insufficiently translated into homeland. I sometimes also call it Hemayat in Arabic due to the word’s comforting safety. It is something that comes naturally, a feeling that is deeply rooted, understood by itself, it is selbstverständlich. Heimat can be physical, and that is how most of us learn to internalize the selbstverständliche as places and people you know, move and breathe in and with, without preconditions.

Such Heimat can be seen as a kind of nostalgic longing for childhood basic trust. As soon as we outgrow it, we are thrown into a world we need to find Heimat in again using our templates of basic trust. For some of us these templates do not exist, do not fit, or are rejected from those who decide them. Pushed to its edges again and again the world becomes a non-place for some of us. A Palestinian place. 

Even if we have not experienced Heimat by and in ourselves, we do not come from the void we are pushed into. There must have been something, a place for us to ’return’ to. As pessoptimists we never give up our search for the ‘right’ place. Until then we are kept in a state of unrest. It may be the only possible state outside of a Heimat‘s shelter. A Palestinian state of mind. 

We are out of place but we are not wrong, only because those who decide on who fits keep telling us that we are an unwanted problem. We know what is right for us and remain steadfast, samidoun. In the end, we know why we are ignored: Not because we are wrong, but because our loss of Heimat is mirroring wrongs others will not admit to themselves. What cannot be true for them cannot be possible for us. What cannot be ignored must be suppressed. An oppression of the Palestinian in us. 

These external structures of oppression aim to bury the loss of Heimat inside us. Our most important resistance is fighting this internalization, keeping the externally forced exile out of our inner state. We do not let fear and anger terrorize us and others. Even with our felt powerlessness in the external world, our inner world remains sovereign. We can trust our inner Heimat, not to be occupied by external hegemonic structures that we have to shake off. A Palestinian shaking off (Intifada). 

Only then are we able to see that those internalized structures kept us divided. We start seeing Palestinian states all over the world. Not having to prove our existence anymore, we see the world on our terms; it is not we who are wrong, but the templates forced on us. We do not need prerequisites to find Heimat as the individuals we are—from private rivers to communal seas. The Palestinian state becomes a universal, self-determined one.

This is an extract from the book Gaza, lebendig halten which will be published in Germany in March 2025