The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

We Honour Our Dead: Never Again for Anyone Anywhere

Speeches from Anarchists 4 Palestine in Holocaust Memorial Day organised by Jewish Voices for Just Peace in the Middle East. 26 January 2025


03/02/2025

We have been taught that the Holocaust was a singular act of evil. So evil, in fact, that it could only have been carried out by monsters.

Caricature nazis have plagued popular media for decades, depicted as uniquely evil, almost like machines. But we all know in reality, they were mostly regular people. Your neighbor, teacher or accountant. They were more like the non-prisoner extras in The Zone of Interest.

Popular Western culture portrays as unique heroes those that stood up and did the right thing in the 1930s, from the Scholl siblings to Schindler. The movie Schindler’s List is, however, as much the story of one businessman who helped those in need as it is the story of thousands of companies and individuals that could have helped but did not, of those who chose profit and quiet instead. Capitalism kills.

We have been taught that the Nazi regime’s power was held by few individuals and groups, and that once they were gone, the problem was largely solved. In reality, the power resided in structures rather than individuals—power structures fueled by the fortunes of capitalists who themselves, in turn, profited from tyranny and war. The moguls and enterprises from back then were allowed to largely retain their ill-gotten war profits and are today some of the richest and most powerful companies and families in this country.

Today we see again the richest people on earth backing up authoritarian regimes and profiting from war and genocide, from Palestine to Congo to Sudan to Western Sahara.

These power structures of the last century were based in racist, white supremacist ideology that dehumanized Jews, Sinti and Roma and Slavic people.

Today, the West dehumanises the majority of the world’s peoples. We expel the ones undesirable to our regimes, close down borders and pay other countries to do our dirty work.

This dehumanization is broadcasted daily in our mainstream media. It is painfully patent in the covering of the genocide in Gaza. Palestinians are rarely worth talking about and are mainly referred to as terrorists. Articles, comments and tweets referring to them as human animals are common and still today remain unpunished. At the same time we are criminalized for shouting ‘Free Palestine’. 

We have been taught nazism came from almost nowhere and that as soon as the most prominent nazis were gone, Germany was denazified. We could not have been more lied to. They are back and as racist and fearmongering as ever. In fact, they never left. 

Conditions for revolutions and dictatorships develop first slowly, and then there they are all at once. We can see this in the last century’s Germany, how it descended day by day into nazism, culminating in war and the Holocaust. Today, we see it in the devastating genocide being perpetrated in Palestine. 76 years of occupation, apartheid and slow genocidal practices are now manifesting all at once in one of the worst atrocities of this century. 

And again, we have the perpetrators and cheerleaders among us. We have them in our university presidiums, our media, our clubs and in the parliament. Germany is once again rotten with genocidal, racist and fascist mania, while most look the other way and criticize those who dare to break their peace of mind. 

Back then they used print media to push their genocidal views, now they have both the media and the algorithms. Back then they had Henry Ford, today they have Musk. Back then people didn’t know, today “it´s complicated”. Shame shit almost a 100 years later.

Being in this square is extremely symbolic, not only because of Heinrich Heine’s words, “those who burn books will at the end burn people” written here, with which he tried to warn of the insidiously growing 19th century antisemitism. He ended up summarizing what was to come—both 80 years ago in Europe and the scholasticide and genocide in Gaza today.

It is also symbolic for its empty monument, both literally empty and devoid of meaning.

As HP Loveshaft said in a beautiful speech back in 2023, some of the first books to burn here were the works of Magnus Hirschfeld, a German-Jewish physician, sexologist, multidisciplinary scholar and women’s and LGTBQ rights advocate, whose German citizenship was promptly revoked by the nazis (eerily familiar). Along with his personal work, the nazis burned the books in Hirschfield’s Institute for Sexual Science library. As HP suggested, this monument would have been a lot more meaningful if instead of void space they would have erected a library with all the books from the Institute’s Library that had been burned. 

Maybe, had we read more, instead of having pretended to atone from the past with empty words, gestures and monuments, we would not have to be here again having to assert that never again means never again for anyone, anywhere.

Free Palestine.


When I think of Germany at night, / Then I am deprived of sleep”

These words by Heinrich Heine from 1844 seemed like an evil premonition, because incredible horrors and atrocities were to follow from this Germany:

The colonial campaign of annihilation against the Maji Maji of 1905-1907 in present-day Tanzania, with up to 300,000 dead. The genocide of the Herero and Nama 1904-1908 in present-day Namibia. As an ally of Turkey the genocide of the Armenians 1915-1923. And then towards the middle of the 20th century, the genocide of 500,000 Sinti and Roma, whom they themselves call Samudaripen, and the Holocaust of 6 million European Jews, who met their end in the concentration and extermination camps of Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmo, Maidanek and Auschwitz. Not to forget all the others persecuted and murdered by the fascist criminal regime: Communists, anarchists, Christians, queers, homeless people, people with disabilities, Black people, dissidents and many more.

On 19 April 1945, 21,000 surviving prisoners of Buchenwald concentration camp took the Oath of Buchenwald on the roll call square:

We shall only stop fighting when the last culprit stands before the judges of the nations. The destruction of Nazism with its roots is our slogan. Building a new world of peace and freedom is our goal.’

From this oath, the much-cited Never Again was born. Intervene, don’t look away, take responsibility should actually be the conclusion today.

But humanity has learned nothing from history after 1945, its memory of endured suffering is astonishingly short: countless wars, crimes and genocides committed by human hands: from the massacre by the French military on 8 May 1945 in the Algerian towns of Setif and Guelma, to the US-American napalm bombing of Vietnam, to the genocides in Rwanda (1994), Srebrenica (1995), the Yazidis in Iraq or the Rohingya in Myanmar (to name just a few examples), and now – the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

And those who remain silent consent. This applies as much today as it did yesterday.

Germany has also learned nothing from its own history, because it sends its weapons to Israel, which then kills people in Gaza. If Auschwitz is to be a warning and a lesson for the future and if indifference to suffering and misery is not to become the norm, then we are raising our voices now to no longer tolerate these injustices and indignities, of which no one can claim to have known nothing.

And we support those who fight for their liberation – in Kurdistan, Western Sahara, Sudan, Palestine and everywhere.

It is up to us, the still living, to end the atrocities of humanity and to stand up for a society and world in which all people can live in dignity and freedom.

Never Again for us means Never Again for everyone, everywhere.

No Power to Nobody

Thank you

Generative AI: At What Cost?

The expropriation, exploitation and environmental costs behind AI


02/02/2025

Tech corporations like to sell a utopian version of their products. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot promise us a personal assistant, ready to write our emails for us, plan our daily activities or even advise us on social relationships. Meanwhile, image generators like Midjourney or Adobe’s Firefly allow us to generate images of the pope wearing a funny jacket. Suno can generate something that is supposed to pass for music, while OpenAI’s Sora can conjure up videos of anything we desire. Soon we won’t ever have to think or create again!

It’s not just Big Tech, and the usual tech enthusiasts, that push this narrative. More impactfully, liberal governments like Starmer’s in the UK have fully embraced the ‘AI revolution’, with Scholz following closely behind.

But some on the left also have illusions. Some believe Artificial Intelligence (AI) will ‘democratize art’, making the bold claim that being unable to draw is undemocratic. Others go as far as claiming ‘fully automated luxury space communism’ is right around the corner, thanks to AI. Arguably these opinions are fringe and rarely leave the internet. But some leftwing social movements and political parties have happily turned to image generators, to create pictures of Marx as Santa, to promote demonstrations and events as well as the viral ‘all eyes on Rafah’ image. 

Proponents of AI also point out advances in fields like medicine and material science. It is important to note that the AI models used for this are specifically trained for that very purpose, and are not the same as the mass deployed models we are seeing today. 

What are the downsides to all of this? Shouldn’t we embrace technology that promises to make our lives easier? Some tech CEOs like Elon Musk and Sam Altman like to talk about the dangers of AI. Others desperately plead for governments to regulate them, others almost messianically claim that only theycan safeguard humanity from the inevitable super intelligence that they seek to create. These narratives are a convenient distraction away from the actual, current impact the technology is having.

It’s time to critically look at these technologies. The are a lot of reasons to criticize AI for its broader effects on civil society: such asjob losses, mass surveillance, privacy concerns, military use, disinformation, loss of culture, decline of cognitive skills, and the beautifully phrased ‘enshittification of the internet’. All important.  But i  will discuss what makes these systems turn. That is expropriation of vast amounts of data, without compensation for those who did the work in the first place; the often invisible labour behind it, often in the global South; and the immense energy cost associated with AI.

Data Theft

Let’s start with the basics: Generative AI needs data, and lots of it. These technologies do not write text or conjure up images because they are intelligent creations , but because they are fed with enough human-created data (written text, video, audio, images etc) that they can predict what word, or pixel, comes next. Feed it enough pictures of cats, and it will be able to predict what a cat looks like (but maybe with some added paws). 

This data comes from somewhere. To get it, tech corporations scrape the entire internet. All of Wikipedia, Reddit posts, any image that was ever uploaded to Instagram – you name it, and it probably trained an AI model, without the creator’s  consent. 

Arguably X (Twitter) posts are not hard labour. But it is more complicated when larger work are affected: books, academic publications, music, visual art, all expropriated by Big Tech, without the creators consent, and fed into a machine to swoon investors and boost stock valuations. his uncompensated labor is used to make a few CEOs and shareholders incredibly rich. It is also being used to automate away means of income for many creators. A graphic designer promoting their work on Instagram to find clients, finds  their work being used without consent by a corporation that explicitly states its desire to remove the need for graphic designers in the future. 

This is theft, plain and simple. 

Copyright & Resistance

In theory, this is where copyright comes in. An author owning the rights to their book, theoretically has a say over what happens to it: including whether to allow AI models to be trained on their work. However, AI companies argue that anything is fair game. After all, if they respected copyright law they would never get the amounts of data needed to train their models.

Does this mean that stronger regulations enforcing copyright law can protect creators from having their work stolen? Not necessarily. Aside from concerns with copyright itself, which includes corporations hoarding large amounts of intellectual property (which they are often happily selling off to AI companies), western governments are happy to go along with the argument that tech companies are making. According to them, Generative AI will benefit society as a whole. At most, the EU forces companies to include an ‘opt out’ option, where individuals can refuse tot have their work be trained on, but they must specifically state this. Generally, artists and activists have been calling for opt-in, where explicit permission is required for a work to be used as training data.

Various organizations and artists have filed lawsuits against tech corporations over copyright violations. Several major cases are in court, mostly in the US. Examples include, frm the New York Times suing OpenAI over training on its entire archive; to a series of lawsuits filed by digital artists, to high profile authors like George RR Martin suing over having his entire Game of Thrones series trained upon. Perhaps these cases can set a precedent and reign in AI companies a little.

Another way that  especially artists, have protected their work, was  ‘data poisoning’. Researchers at the University of Chicago created two tools where  an invisible filter is applied to work, rendering it  useless to AI companies. While Glaze protects against style mimicry, Nightshade is more aggressive as it tricks the AI model that it is looking at something else than is actually depicted. Feed enough of these poisoned images to an AI model, and it risks collapse.

Increasing pressure on governments to regulate AI training, is a ‘Statement on AI training’, with the following core demand: “The unlicensed use of creative works for training Generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted.”

So far, this statement has been signed by over 40.000 people, including major artists like Kate Bush, Robert Smith, Kazuo Ishiguro and Julianne Moore. ignatorys to the statement also contain many cultural organizations, including the SAG-AFTRA union, who’s 2023 strike listed protection from AI as a core demand.

Neocolonialism

The theft of data by Big Tech has been widely scandalized. Much less attention is given to workers in the global South tasked with the ‘labelling’ of data.  For an AI model to work, it needs to know what it is looking at, which means a human has to label it first. Humans also  sort out all of the bad, offensive and harmful content included in the indiscriminate scraping of the internet.

To do this, AI companies employs subcontractors. An investigation by TIME in 2023 revealed that OpenAI relied on a self declared ‘ethical AI company’ called Sama. It paid workers in Kenya between 1.32 and 2 dollars an hour to sift through endless amounts of content, working 9 hour days at a grueling pace. This content contained large amounts of harmful material, like images of sexual abuse (including of minors), which workers had to textually label. Of the four workers interviewed by TIME, all reported being traumatized by the experience, with one experiencing recurring visions as the result of the abuse witnessed. In May 2024, Kenyan data workers wrote an open letter to Joe Biden, calling on the US to hold its companies accountable for the labor violations they are committing abroad.

Kenya is just one example. Similar reports have come out of Venezuela, where data labellers on average earn just 90 cents an hour. Meanwhile in Lebanon, Syrian refugees are often the ones doing this work as  strict work permit laws exclude them from the regular job market. They too report harsh conditions and low pay, with one worker detailing  14 days work to afford just 10 days of food. This is not limited to just data labelling. Generative AI models require large amounts of computing power, with Graphic Processing Units (GPUs) especially sought after to train ever larger models. These computer chips require rare earth minerals, often dug up in war-torn areas where both corporations and rebel groups commit grave human rights violations at mining sites. Just recently, the Democratic Republic of Congo filed a criminal complaint against Apple over the use of blood minerals in its supply chain.

Climate Breakdown

Finally the data centers required to run AI models consume growing amounts of energy in a time of accelerating climate breakdown. A single ChatGPT query consumes 10 times the energy of a Google search, equivalent to running a light bulb for 20 minutes. Microsoft’s energy usage is currently 29% higher than in 2020, with the company officially dropping its (already dubious) claim of being carbon neutral. Google’s energy usage has increased by 48% since 2019, something it attributes to its investment into Generative AI. However, research by The Guardian has shown that emissions by data centers might be 662% higher than official figures fromy tech companies. 

Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2022, at the start of the current AI boom, data centers ( used for more than just AI), accounted for around 2% of all global emissions. It expects that by 2026, data centers emissions will increase from 35% to 128% — equivalent to the annual energy consumption of Germany. Wells Fargo estimated energy usage for AI use will increase to a staggering 550% by 2026.

The estimates of energy usage of these data centers in specific countries, are that in technology hub Ireland they will use 35% of electricity (up from a current 21%) by 2026. Fear of rolling blackouts led the Irish energy grid operator to forbid construction of new data centers near Dublin until 2028. Already, Ireland’s data centers use more energy than all its urban homes combined, energy that for 50% comes from fossil fuel sources. For the US, data center power usage could account for 9% to 25% of national energy usage by 2030 (currently at 4%). This not only drives up local energy prices, but also puts immense pressure on existing energy infrastructure.

It’s not just energy either — water usage also increased dramaticallyto cool servers. By 2027, AI-related water use might be 6 times the water use of Denmark. But a quarter of the world’s population lacks access to clean water and sanitation, and global water demand is expected to be 40% greater than available supply by 2030. Moreover many data centers are located, or are being built,  in water scarce areas i, like Latin America and the southern US. While Uruguay was experiencing a drought in 2023 causing its capital Montevideo to run out of drinking water, Google announced plans for t a new data center  consuming 7.6 million liters of fresh water per day, sparking mass protests. Google adjusted its plans and promised to rely on air conditioning instead But activists and academics continue to criticize the project over carbon emissions and hazardous waste disposal. 

Is it worth it?

Large scale AI models are fundamentally unnecessary.  While they might occasionally allow us to perform tasks faster, albeit with huge drawbacks – they rarely allow us to do anything new. We can already write books, draw pictures, or make movies. Is speeding up that process when it’s built on even more suffering truly worth it? Our planet is literally on fire and we’ve hit 1.5° C of global warming. Maybe we shouldn’t waste large amounts of resources on something we don’t need.

It is obvious that Big Tech doesn’t have the best interest of people and planet at heart. That is increasingly clearer as their involvement with far right figures like Donald Trump and Alice Weidel grows. Instead of buying into their products and promises, let’s stand in solidarity with those negatively affected by the tech. Although a unified mass movement is still lacking – public sentiment is rapidly turning against AI. We can start by supporting labour struggles and uplifting artists and creators who reject Generative AI. 

Imagine what good we could do with the hundreds of billions being poured into Generative AI instead!

So, next time you are tempted to ask ChatGPT a question or want a picture of a cat with too many paws, realize that it, like all large scale AI models, is built on the logic of capitalist accumulation — expropriation, exploitation, and the relentless extraction of the natural resource base.

The new Irish Government’s dubious beginnings on Palestine: a history and explainer

The new government is in, and it is sending signals that it will abandon Ireland’s recent progress on Palestine. How did we get here, and what can be done about it?


01/02/2025

Dáil Éireann—Ireland’s House of Representatives—recently had its exceedingly short moment in the spotlight in European media,owing not to a pivotal political moment or proceeding, but rather to some bickering and rowdiness as the new Ceann Comhairle, or Speaker, was repeatedly demanded to reassess the presence of several pro-government Independents having been given speaking rights and allotted speaking time within the Opposition.

The tumultuousness within the Dáil comes, in ways, alongside a palpable uneasiness within Ireland’s political climate, in spite of what’s on the surface: incredible stability, with the election in November 2024 having had a perfectly predictable outcome.

The new government is a merger of two historically rivalled parties, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. The latter, Fianna Fáil, headed today by Micheál Martin, has dominated Irish politics for most of the party’s existence, with only occasional interruptions to its chain of governments by coalitions led by Fine Gael — often with its ally the Labour party.

So, how did we get here?

History was made in 2020 when a new political behemoth was formed. For the first time in both parties’ histories, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil entered together into a coalition government (alongside the Greens).

To give context to this change, the formula for politics in the Republic of Ireland is relatively straightforward: will Fianna Fáil form a majority or minority government this time? Or will Fine Gael and Labour create a coalition majority instead? Or, to overcome these coalitions, will Fianna Fáil form its own coalition with a junior party partner?

But 2020 disrupted this, and added a new step to the formula.

The Fianna Fáil–Fine Gael alliance

In reality, the parties have never represented a significant degree of difference; even less-so today. Once Fianna Fáil stood for economic isolationism, but it pivoted on this line as far back as in 1959. Fianna Fáil is today also vaguely more associated with its staunchly catholic past, but this is not unique in Irish politics. In material terms, both parties are socially adaptive, and economically liberal. Both emphasise foreign direct investment, and both came to be associated with the austerity politics of Europe’s post-eurocrisis environment.

So, when Sinn Féin — Ireland’s oldest party, often culturally associated with its nationalist republican past, and representing a theoretically centre-left position (although we have not seen their politics in practice) — won the popular vote in 2020, suddenly becoming Ireland’s largest party, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil had to face a new reality. Both parties had long-since dismissed the possibility of a coalition with Sinn Féin. Both were now too small to lead their own coalitions… Except with one another.

This new political reality created a bloc which is difficult to imagine being outnumbered in any future elections. The 2025 government, the 34th Dáil, is, predictably, another Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael coalition, this time with various Independents taking part in the government rather than the Green party.

The November 2024 election: the result of growing unpopularity

The snap election in November 2024 that led us to this point was called when the previous Taoiseach (the equivalent role to a Prime Minister), Leo Varadkar, spontaneously resigned, citing his personal life and family priorities as the grounds. It doesn’t take an astute observer — indeed, it was more or less ubiquitously speculated within Irish media — to conclude the real reason for the resignation had something more to do with Varadkar’s exceeding unpopularity within the electorate. 

A watershed moment revealed the pent-up frustration with the political establishment: Varadkar and his coalition government held two referendums simultaneously in March 2024 to make symbolic amendments to the Irish constitution — one to rephrase and to make broader the constitution’s definition of family, and the other redrafting a line of the constitution which refers to ‘women’s life within the home’. Every single major political party supported the changes, with only minor Opposition parties opposing them. Yet, in what is widely considered to have been a protest vote of historic proportions the public voted No 67.69 and 73.93 per cent, respectively, against the two amendments. A mere twelve days later, Varadkar resigned.

A surprising, shining light: the government’s heel turn on its approach to Palestine

But the resignation would unleash a new and sudden rhetoric from Varadkar and others. To set the stage for this shift, let’s look back to January 2024, when Varadkar was famously asked in a radio interview about the possibility of supporting South Africa’s ICJ case on the genocide in Gaza. Varadkar’s response: to emphatically insist ‘this is an area where we need to be very careful’. Ireland actively decided against supporting South African in their ICJ case, and the government sat by in silence as European governments, most notably that of Germany, intervened to obstruct South Africa’s case.

Yet, around the time of his resignation, there was Varadkar, in the annual March visit to the White House, telling ex-President Biden ‘The people of Gaza desperately need food, medicine and shelter. Most especially they need the bombs to stop. This has to stop.’

Simon Harris was Varadkar’s successor as Taoiseach, and with regards to Palestine, he arrived on the scene with rhetorical vigour. A move that was long-awaited in Ireland was finally achieved: Palestine was formally recognised as a state, allowing Ireland to catch up in Europe on what had already been achieved by Sweden and Iceland, and earlier by former Eastern Bloc countries such as Poland, Hungary, and others. Furthermore, in October 2024, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin affirmed that the government would be positively looking further into a much-debated piece of legislation, the Occupied Territories Bill, which would see a ban on imports to Ireland from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Most telling of all for the extent of this pivot: the Irish government submitted a declaration to join South Africa’s case in the ICJ — reversing the same government’s positioning on the subject from early in 2024.

One step forward, two steps back?

Now, only three months later, Micheál Martin is head of the new government coalition, and already the Occupied Territories Bill has been ‘shelved’. The retirement of the legislation does come alongside the promise that it would be ‘replaced’ by new legislation fulfilling the same purpose, but public details on this are concerningly thin, and there’s no available timeline as to when such a new legislation would be made material.

Similarly, the new government has quite shockingly, seemingly out of nowhere, officially endorsed the much-controversial IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, over alternative definitions such as the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. The IHRA definition has been noted by human rights groups as dangerously tethering the definition of antisemitism to criticism of Israel.

The decision to join the ICJ case remains unchanged, but the sudden rhetorical shift has nevertheless been apparent.

A kind reading would be that once Varadkar was freed from the responsibility of his position, he used his platform to make his voice heard on Palestine. Yet, the political figures responsible for progress on the topic are the same ones responsible for the recent backsteps — most notably, it was Micheál Martin who confirmed progress on the Occupied Territories Bill, and who shelved it not long thereafter.

I suggest, then, another reading of events: when the major parties, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, are at their weakest, they are strikingly willing to take decisive action on Palestine. The election-relevant rewards for such opportunism would be obvious: the Palestine movement is overwhelmingly supported by the Irish population, with a November 2023 Ireland Thinks poll suggesting 71% of the Irish population believe Palestinians live under an apartheid reality.

Conversely, while the two parties are strong — as they are now, with the November 2024 election having proven that their coalition is sufficient to form a government even in spite of the individual parties’ waning popularity — then the government is free to ignore the electorate, by benching the Occupied Territories Bill and by returning to silence on Palestine.

What can be done? Here is something everyone can do, Irish citizen or not:

Ireland has a unique role — or a unique potential for a role — within Europe. The public overwhelmingly calls for peace, decolonisation, and an end to apartheid. Whether the Irish government, therefore, amplifies the people’s voice, or represses those same voices in favour of ‘fitting in’ within Europe, will not depend on intrinsic properties of governance, but rather on the extent to which democratic rights are exercised and whether voices are raised. The current government shows a worrying direction, but in its moment of weakness before the election it revealed a window into its — cynical or not — responsiveness to pressure.

I therefore conclude this article with an invitation: no matter where you are from, let us prove to the Irish government that, in times where moral voices in political leadership are so sorely needed, the world is watching its leaders. I invite readers to engage with this moment of opportunity by directly contacting the new taoiseach Micheál Martin, which can be done by clicking on the following link (remember to sign off at the end of the email), urging the Taoiseach to take immediate action on the Occupied Territories Bill. The link will open your device’s email application with a pre-drafted email. Feel free to add your own flavour to the text — let’s make our voices heard!

Who Should Socialists Vote for in the Upcoming German Elections?

Polls predict a major shift to the right. Should socialists hold their noses and try to keep Die Linke in parliament? Nathaniel Flakin of Klasse Gegen Klasse makes the case for independent, working-class, revolutionary socialist candidacies.


31/01/2025

Photo from Klasse Gegen Klasse

The German elections on February 23 are set to produce the most right-wing Bundestag in at least a generation. The far-right AfD is currently above 20 percent in the polls, building on their victories in the fall and a bump from Elon Musk. Even more disturbingly, the conservative CDU, hovering around 30 percent, has adopted many of the AfD’s policies. On Wednesday, the CDU relied on the AfD’s votes to pass a Bundestag resolution attacking the right to asylum. Hundreds of thousands of people have been protesting against the Rechtsruck, the shift to the right — yet all major parties have responded by shifting to the right.

In this context, Die Linke, the reformist Left party, has been showing faint signs of life. After years of stagnation and decline, a certain sense of optimism has entered their ranks, as the most recent surveys put them at 5%, which is the threshold for getting seats in parliament. Five years ago, the party just barely squeezed in by winning three direct mandates. Could they just barely squeeze in again?

New Faces

The party has new faces like Ferat Koçak and Nam Duy Nguyen, who have both been attacked by police at antifascist mobilizations. Yet Die Linke’s campaign is not centered on popular young activists, but rather on three reformist politicians with long experiences of administering the capitalist state. Bodo Ramelow is the former prime minister of Thuringia, Dietmar Bartsch the leader of Die Linke’s parliamentary group, and Gregor Gysi is the party’s historical leader. All three of them — and really all top Die Linke representatives — have a long record of actively supporting Israeli apartheid.

Some of Die Linke’s most right-wing figures, such as Berlin’s former deputy mayor Klaus Lederer, left the party in a huff last October, accusing it of “antisemitism” for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. (In reality, they were just looking for better career options, and some have already reappeared in the social democratic SPD) At the same time, Die Linke expelled the Palestinian activist Ramsis Kilani for his solidarity work. Under the new leadership of Ines Schwedter, former editor of Jacobin Germany, the party is trying to focus on economic issues while completely ignoring questions of imperialism.

Die Linke claims to have won 18,000 new members — which sounds like a lot, though this would only put them at 60,000, which is around what their membership had been 10 or 15 years ago. One does indeed see freshly organized young people knocking on doors. But this has a whiff of desperation — the last hope to keep someone vaguely left-wing in the Bundestag. Far from being a voice of fundamental opposition, the top candidates all aim to (re)join neoliberal government coalitions, where they can continue to carry out privatizations, deportations, and evictions, as Die Linke has done every day since its founding. In Saxony, for example, the party voted a CDU-SPD minority government into office.

We are told that a vote for Die Linke will “stop the right,” by making sure that someone, anyone in the Bundestag opposes the racist race-to-the-bottom that all other parties are engaged in. The problem, however, is that Die Linke has never consistently opposed racism. Ramelow and other “left” ministers have deported thousands of people, and will continue to do so if given the chance. When a party calling itself “The Left” claims that deportations are unavoidable and even necessary, this normalizes racism. Even worse, as Die Linke forms coalitions with the SPD and the Greens, and even makes deals with the CDU, this allows the far-right AfD to present itself as “alternative” to the all-party cartel. 

The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) is also no alternative. After their meteoric start in the summer, when they overtook Die Linke in the European and East German elections, Wagenknecht’s new party has been stuck at 5-6% in the polls. There are many reasons for this, such as the authoritarian structures that allow only a small percentage of their supporters to become party members. The main reason, though, is that the BSW has already joined coalition governments in two states — if they can govern alongside the CDU and the SPD, they cannot be an alternative to politics-as-usual.

At the moment, Wagenknecht is criticizing the CDU from the right, arguing that their proposals to stop migration do not go far enough. Paradoxically, she is the only major German politician speaking up about the atrocities in Gaza and calling for a ceasefire, which only highlights the eerie silence from Die Linke. 

Radical Left Resignation

How should socialists orient in this situation? It would be easy to latch onto Die Linke, hoping to win over those young people knocking on doors. This is what numerous groups from different revolutionary socialist traditions have done for the last 15 years. The problem is that this requires making excuses for the party’s constant betrayals. Many young activists join Die Linke only to turn away within a few months — and anticapitalist groups embedded in the party lose touch with them. Many working people do not feel represented at all in the political system, and have formed the basis of rebellions in a number of countries. A focus on Die Linke makes it impossible to address these sectors.

The last year saw something of an exodus of socialist groups from Die Linke — including, of course, The Left Berlin. After the network Marx21 split three ways a year ago, the section which was once the right wing of the network (which kept the name Marx21) continues to work in Die Linke. The left wing, called Revolutionäre Linke (RL), called for a clear break from the party. The center, Sozialismus von Unten (SvU), took a much more circuitous route to the exit, waiting almost a year before declaring they were leaving after Kilani’s expulsion in December. SvU’s most prominent face, former Die Linke MP Christine Buchholz, also announced her resignation — but her statement was far from a revolutionary break. She expressed her hope that Die Linke would return to “the strength of its early years” (when the party was part of multiple neoliberal governments!) and added she would “vote for Die Linke and encourage others to vote for it.”

RL and SvU have broken from Die Linke — yet still call on people to vote for the reformist party. Their “critical support” sounds more like resignation (you have to vote for someone!) than a revolutionary tactic. Both groups have called for voting for Die Linke without illusions” (SvU uses the same formulation in an article in their print magazine that is not available online). Both claim that Die Linke will oppose racism if it gets into Bundestag, but as we’ve seen, that is an illusion.

Other groups like the SOL, the German section of the CWI, and the SAV, of the ISA, have dialed back from their long-term work in Die Linke over the last few years, yet are nonetheless campaigning for people to vote for the party. Their hypothesis is that Die Linke could be transformed into a fundamentally different party than it has been since its foundation. The GAM, the German section of the LFI, has not yet published a statement on the elections, but it seems likely they will yet again vote for Die Linke, as they have done for many years without joining the party. 

Independent Candidacies

We from Klasse Gegen Klasse have been arguing for socialists to present a revolutionary alternative in these elections. As a result, RIO (publisher of Klasse Gegen Klasse) and the RSO have joined forces to present independent, working-class candidates: Inés Heider and Franziska Thomas in Berlin, as well as Leonie Lieb in Munich. They have been running on a platform to stop the genocide in Gaza and expropriate big capitalists. Despite our extremely limited resources, the campaign has gotten a lot of positive responses: people are happy to hear that there are candidates who object to politicians’ obscene corruption and only want to take a workers’ wage.

This campaign is not limited to RIO and the RSO. It is an open proposal to the radical Left — especially RL, SvU, SOL, SAV, GAM, and similar groups — to work together so we can make our voices heard at a time when bourgeois society puts a special focus on politics. This isn’t just about running candidates, either: revolutionary socialists of different stripes can work together, without hiding their differences, to fight against the shift to the right. The election campaign has already worked to mobilized people to block the AfD conference in Riesa, for example.The small breaks away from Die Linke have been progressive — but it’s only half a break if these activists continue campaigning and voting for a reformist party that helps administer the capitalist state. As Rosa Luxemburg explained more than a century ago, reformists and revolutionaries have fundamentally different goals. The 15 years since the foundation of Die Linke have shown that revolutionaries do themselves no favors when they present themselves to the masses as the left wing of reformism. Instead, we need to do everything we can to use the elections to make sure that anticapitalist ideas become visible in the political superstructure.

Ceasefire now?

And what Trump has to do with it


29/01/2025

On Saturday January 11th, president-elect Donald Trump sent his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to have a chat with Netanyahu. It was widely reported that the Israeli PM’s aides informed Witkoff that he could not disturb Bibi with such a meeting, as it fell on the Sabbath day of rest. As reported by Haaretz, “Witkoff’s blunt reaction took them by surprise. He explained to them in salty English that Shabbat was of no interest to him. His message was loud and clear.” Netanyahu was going to discuss the ceasefire deal, or have hell to pay for it.

After negotiations in Doha that went down to the wire, a ceasefire agreement was finally achieved between Israel and Hamas — just in time for Trump’s inauguration. The ceasefire is at least ostensibly meant to achieve a lasting end to the Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip since the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. Notably, this was something that the Biden administration lacked the backbone to accomplish, despite the fact that it was ever apparent that the genocide in Gaza wasn’t particularly good for US foreign interests. 

This shift in tone and change in tack between Biden and Trump on Gaza has been subject to much attention ever since. On the surface and with the help of Witkoff — a fellow billionaire and real-estate magnate with little experience in foreign diplomacy — Trump seemed to achieve the unachievable: successful negotiations between both parties and perhaps an end to the genocide, nearly 500 days after it began.

But being that Trump is no champion of the Palestinian people, we must interrogate his motivations for this in order to stay vigilant with regards to what is likely to come. 

The grand display of pressure on Israel

It is fairly well known that Trump is not the biggest fan of Netanyahu. Not long ago, he circulated a video on his Truth Social platform denigrating him, and complaining that Israel has consistently tried to lead the US into foreign conflicts on its behalf. The video features Jeffrey Sachs calling Netanyahu a “deep dark son of a bitch,” and when Trump was asked to comment on the guy, he very eloquently replied, “fuck him.” From Putin to Kim Jong Un, Trump has long made a big display of approaching foreign relations through cults of personality, so on the surface it would be easy to presume that this is playing a role in his dealings with Netanyahu as he begins his second term in office.

Moreover, as Ali Abunimah observes in a recent article for Electronic Intifada, “While Trump is often unpredictable and mercurial, a consistent aspect of his worldview is that he does not view America’s traditional ‘allies’ as anything more than client states who are taking advantage of American largesse.” For example, Abunimah recalls, “This was his view of NATO in his first term, when he accused Germany, supposedly the bedrock of the transatlantic security alliance, of ‘making a fortune’ off US troops stationed in the country. ‘Demanding billions from ostensible allies and partners, [Trump] thundered, ‘Why should we defend countries and not be reimbursed?’” It is indeed likely that Trump is viewing relations with Israel as a simple transaction — one where if the US is paying the bills, then it had better follow the orders. 

Yet, such explanations for why Trump pushed the ceasefire deal over the line can also be misleading. These tendencies have led some to conclude that Israel now has to contend with a dynamic with Washington that will be markedly distinct from what they enjoyed under the Biden administration. For instance, as the Guardian reported, “The Israeli prime minister is ‘scared’ of antagonising Trump, according to a European diplomat. […] ‘They’ve had maximum support during this war and what comes next is not so certain,’ the diplomat said. ‘They need to work with Trump now. At least in the beginning.’” 

Far more likely, the US establishment has been convinced for a long time that Israel is not going to win the war against Hamas. Trump may have the spine to put an end to it in a way that Biden — a lifelong Zionist himself — did not. However, it is also likely that both Trump and Netanyahu timed the ceasefire agreement in a way that would benefit them both. Trump could take credit as well and project an image of dominance and prestige, that he can add this to his legacy as the one who can push a deal to end the conflict in the Middle East. After all, as Giorgio Cafiero argues for The New Arab, “What Trump often did in his first term was broker relatively artificial deals and sell them as huge diplomatic accomplishments that brought about a type of ‘peace’ that no previous US administration achieved.” 

The real question, then, is what lies behind the political theatrics, and specifically, as Alice Speri reports for Al Jazeera, “what sort of reward Trump will be giving to the Israelis, and Netanyahu in particular, when they come to cash in.”

Picture: Maria Cofalka

“Deal of the Century” set to run amok

That question can be answered — at least in part — by Trump’s greenlight for Netanyahu to redirect his genocidal agenda on the West Bank. Upon taking office, Trump removed sanctions on Israeli settlers. We have also seen the usual Israeli expansionist psychosis released there — including aerial bombing and full-fledged military operations — particularly in historic sites of resistance like Jenin. Yet, it is likely that through his very lack of concern for the people of the Middle East, Trump underestimates the impacts of actions such as rewarding the Israelis with the West Bank, all while it resumes attacks on Lebanon and expands into Syrian territory.

Trump’s brazen shortsightedness becomes clear when we consider what is likely his central motivation for pushing a ceasefire in Gaza, where prestige and image cultivation are really only fringe benefits for a leader set on viewing other countries as clients and business partners, rather than doing politics with them. It is probable that Trump’s real agenda is to strive toward normalization between Israel and other countries in the Middle East to maximize business dealings with wealthy players in the region. 

This is a continuation of his business-forward approach during his last term. Back in 2020, he brokered the Abraham Accords, which functioned as a normalization deal between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. As Cafiero reports in the aforementioned article for The New Arab, “The new US national security advisor Mike Waltz said he has high hopes for the ‘next phase of the Abraham Accords’, with Israeli-Saudi normalisation a ‘huge priority’ for Trump’s administration.” As Cafiero puts it, “From Trump’s perspective, quiet fronts in Lebanon and Gaza are needed to convince the Saudi leadership to join the Abraham Accords.” 

Yet, this is unlikely to be successful for a number of key reasons overlooked by the myopia and entitlement ingrained in the US foreign policy agenda. For one, Saudi Arabia has far less incentive to normalize relations with Israel now that Iran has been significantly weakened due to successive blows to the Axis of Resistance and, therefore, its regional sphere of influence. Furthermore, the Israelis are unlikely to agree to further concessions, such as a pathway toward a two-state solution, that would make lasting peace in Palestine a reality, as this would be seen as a reward for the last 15 months of armed resistance. 

More than this, however, Trump’s lack of concern for the people in the region he is meddling in completely overlooks the element of public opinion. This is something that Saudi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) cannot do, considering that, according to a poll from late 2023, “96 percent of Saudis believed […] that all Arab states should sever ties with Israel in response to the aggression against Gaza.” MbS has seen his own popularity markedly rise in light of statements he has made in solidarity with the Palestinian people. To bypass all of this and sign onto the Abraham Accords could be both political and perhaps even literal suicide, as shown by the example of Egyptian President Anwar Saddat’s assassination after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. 

Public opinion: Israel’s Achilles heel 

By allowing Israel to continue its onslaught in the West Bank, not only is the US failing to contend with public opinion in attempting to broker a deal with the Saudis, but he is playing a dangerous game in the region more broadly. As Hearst contends, the US army “has so many assets and bases in the region which are supremely vulnerable to local public opinion of their host nation. […] Trump will not be in a position to ignore the collapse of Jordan if it happens. […] It would threaten the entire US military footprint in the region.” 

Jordan, a key site of US military presence in the Middle East, is also host to millions of Palestinian refugees, and the country shares a border with the West Bank itself. Particularly now that Trump is calling to “just clear out” Gaza via full-scale ethnic cleansing of the enclave, suggesting that neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt absorb the Gazan refugees. Both nations have already firmly rejected such a plan (not to mention, this form of forced displacement would also constitute a war crime.) Indeed, as Hearst argues, the Americans “see the region through the prism of Israel. America has always done this, but the myopia is even greater today.” No doubt, the shared tendency of the Israelis and the Americans to misread the Arabs constitutes what Hearst refers to as their Achilles heel.

Moreover, Israel’s own image in the eyes of the world is unlikely to recover for generations to come. In fact, as Abdaljawad Omar writes for Mondoweiss, “Israel’s most exceptional achievement lies not in securing victory but in showcasing unrelenting devastation—a capacity to destroy on an immense scale. This persistence in destruction, rather than achieving security, underscores the lengths to which Israel is willing—and permitted—to go. In this paradox lies its most profound failure: the collapse of its ethical narrative and the erosion of its moral legitimacy in the eyes of the world.” And even if the downfall of the Zionist project is imminent, as Ilan Pappé warns, its collapse will be its most violent phase. 

Taken together, it would be a grave mistake to regard Trump’s business-first presidency as ushering in any meaningful peace in the region, as his tendency to approach diplomacy, as a series of shortsighted deals brings any tenuous stability in the Middle East closer to a breaking point with each passing day. Therefore, even in light of the ceasefire agreement, we must remain focused and steadfast in our solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.