The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Constitutional rights, the Nazis and the state

The experience from fighting the fascist menace in Greece


15/05/2024

On April 24, department A1 of the Greek Supreme Court announced that the party Spartiates (Spartans) was removed from the list of those allowed to participate in the coming European elections. The essence of the judgment of the Supreme Court is that “It has been proved that Ilias Kasidiaris, the actual leader of ‘Spartiates’, which is standing in for the banned Golden Dawn, never remotely disapproved or rejected hate speech, violent and racist action, within the criminal apparatus of theparty, of which he was a leading member”. [Decision Number: 1/2024, SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE, A1′ CIVIL DIVISION]

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has just now discovered that Spartiates are the showcase of convicted and imprisoned former Golden Dawn commander Kasidiaris and a whitewash of the criminal Nazi organization. Everyone knew this a year ago, when Spartiates participated for the first time in parliamentary elections with court approval. There is now a pending trial against all eleven Spartiates MPs and Kasidiaris for deceiving the electorate about who the real leader of Spartans is.

The exclusion from the European elections took place after an appeal by Social Democratic PASOK, Syriza’s left split Nea Aristera (NEAR) and the governing right-wing New Democracy. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis claims primacy in anti-fascism: “We fight far-right fascism in action, not in words […]” he declared. Is this good news for anti-fascists? The answer is no. It is sheer audacity that Nev democracy claims to deliver lessons in confronting fascism. We need to remember the way we fought against the Nazi gang Golden Dawn and the battles that led to its conviction as a criminal organisation.

A flawed argument

The main argument is not the ongoing demagogic public discourse about which party will “inherit” the votes of the fascist Spartiates. In this competition, New Democracy is competing with three ultra nationalist, racist, homophobic formations: “Hellenic Solution”, “Nike” (the party of the Orthodox Church) and the newly formed “Patriots”. In fact, the judicial exclusion of far-right parties for being “dangerous for the constitution” gave the opportunity to other, less extremist, far-right formations to purify themselves through the “good and bad far-right” division.

The far-right rhetoric of the members and MPs of Nike, Hellenic Solution and sometimes even of the ruling party, is equally dangerous for democracy. But these parties are trying to normalise their discourse, by counterposing a “bad and criminal” far-right, which must be removed, with a good far right, which not only is to be tolerated, but also govern the country…

The crucial question, though, is whether a constitutional ban is an efficient method for halting the advance of the far right. Let’s examine some parts of the long verdict of the Supreme Court:

The entire reasoning of the court is based on the following notion:

“a political party that incites violence and promotes political views that do not respect democracy, or that aims to dismantle it and violate the rights recognized by it, does not enjoy protection against legislative regulations that are presented as necessary and desirable in order to protect democracy itself”.

Back in the 1970’s when a new Greek constitution was drafted following the fall of the military junta:

“such a provision was proposed but withdrawn, after the objection of the parties of the opposition, as it was in line with the then prevailing socio-political conditions, in which Greece was emerging from the seven-year dictatorship and there was justified distrust of the real purpose of the constitutional legislator for the first post-dictatorial operation of Greek democracy. Those circumstances then necessitated the refusal of the prohibition of parties.” 

[Decision Number: 1/2024, SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE, A1′ CIVIL DIVISION]

The court judges are arguing today that the circumstances have changed and allow for a “proper and justified” prohibition, because trust in the operation of democracy in the country has been finally restored (!).

There is nothing to celebrate in this decision. The very same people (the courts) who correctly today judge Spartiates a threat for democracy, might less or more willingly apply the same measures to the left-wing parties, if the political situation and the balance of forces allow them to do so.

The Greek constitution of 1975 tried to make up for the lack of democratic rights inherited by the Civil war (1945-49) and the demise of the Left. Even before the military regime of 1967-74, legislation not only banned all left-wing parties as a threat to democracy, but also foresaw hard punishments for any sympathizer of communist ideas. Citizens were denied a job in public services if they had family bonds with Communists, people were exiled to isolated islands in the middle of the Aegean Sea as a punishment for any expression of discontent with the regime and in order to get a job, one had to achieve the notorious “certificate of political beliefs”. This is how the ban “for the sake of democracy” functioned then. Thanks to working class resistance, it turned out to be completely unsuccessful in the long term in smashing left wing ideas.

Is it therefore a correct for the anti-fascist movement to demand that neo-Nazis be outlawed? The contradiction lies in the fact that for the majority of people who hate neo-Nazis and are alarmed by their re-emergence, a ban looks like an immediate, legitimate, practical solution, especially bearing in mind that so far Golden Dawn was convicted but punished softly by the courts and state apparatuses continue to cover Nazi members. On the other hand, the majority of the people in the Left and the social movements are understandably opposed to any ban, considering bans a possible weapon in the hands of the bourgeois state, to be used against the militants and not the fascists.

The experience so far from fighting Golden Dawn

Back in 2010-2012, Greece experienced the rise of Golden Dawn from a gang of fascist thugs to a political party, demanding and achieving successes in a new way compared to the past: It benefited from the collapse of the mainstream rightwing parties because of their role in introducing austerity measures and memoranda and picked up hundreds of thousands of votes, which allowed them to gain parliamentary representation and financial resources.

Did Golden Dawn transform itself into another “legitimate political party”, as it claimed at that time? The answer to this question was and remains a big No. Golden Dawn has always been a Nazi gang. Its decision to take the form of a party was a conscious strategy to exploit any freedom in order to use violence against its enemies (immigrants, militants, etc.) through its Street Battalions which demanded control in the neighborhoods.

In the Greek anti-fascist movement, we did not focus on the demand for banning GD, even at the times when the question emerged in the mainstream political discourse. It was also important to recognize the political context: when Golden Dawn was a fringe group and the bourgeois political system could claim clear differentiation from its political opinion, then a demand to outlaw it might have been useful. But in 2012, after Golden Dawn hat gained 7% and was on the rise, and the government was actually implementing the far-right agenda, the demand for a legal ban in response to the neo-Nazi threat was inappropriate and disorienting. It is true that for decades the ruling class and the State had not put any real barriers to the activity of this criminal gang. This is a disgrace for the Greek bourgeoisie, which only acted after the antifascist movement exposed Golden Dawn’s Nazi character.

The fight against Golden Dawn was organized mostly the other way round: A strong mass movement, comprising of several organizations and initiatives, with bonds with the trade unions, the universities and the left parties emerged in the country and opposed all activities of the fascists, whether it was opening a new headquarters, rallying against immigrants, or organizing pogroms. Even if it was not always successful in individual campaigns, the movement exposed the racist practices of GD to its newly attracted audience and to the entire society. These were the priorities and not the demand to the government and the state to legally ban GD. This hard work was carried out at a time (2012-13) when GD was considered by a section of the governing party to be a possible governmental partner in order to prevent a left-wing government.

In this way, following the assassination of militant rap singer Pavlos Fyssas in September 2013, the movement pressed the government to file a case against them. The group of lawyers for the civil prosecution against Golden Dawn undertook the task to link the ideological profile of GD with the murderous attacks on Pavlos Fyssas, the Egyptian fishermen and PAME trade-unionists. This was a crucial battle, which ended up in victory. Golden Dawn was convicted neither for its ideas, nor for its leader’s declarations, although we still remember that at the timeNikolaos Michaloliakos introduced Golden Dawn as the “seed of the defeated army of 1945”. Golden Dawn was convicted for proven crimes executed by its members following orders stemming from its leadership and spread through the party apparatus. There is a huge difference between this sentence and the “threat to democracy” expressed today by the Supreme Court.

Golden Dawn leader is out of jail

On May 2, Golden Dawn “führer” Nikolaos Michaloliakos was released from jail, following a court decision which granted him parole, although an appeal trial is still going on, demanding that all GD leaders’ imprisonments be increased. This development was outrageous and a blow to any belief that the state and the courts may be allies in anti-fascist struggle.

“The release of Nikos Michaloliakos from prison is a huge provocation against the victims of the Nazi criminal Golden Dawn and their families, the antifascist movement and democratic public opinion”, reads a statement by the civil prosecution group against Golden Dawn comprised by Thanasis Kampagiannis, Kostas Papadakis and Kostas Skarmeas, the lawyers representing the Egyptian fishermen in the GD trial.

Michaloliakos was released only because the most favorable regulations and the most beneficial provisions were applied to his person, his advanced age, his health condition and his “positive behavior”! He was released officially due to the provision that he has served slightly more than one third of his sentence (which happened in the best possible conditions, as he spent the last two years in a rehabilitation center near Athens). His release could be made feasible only under the condition of repentance and remorse, but Michaloliakos not only did not show “repentance and remorse” but continued to guide criminal Golden Dawn which, despite its loss of members and power, has never stopped organizing attacks, trying to maintain local caucuses, while former cadres of Golden Dawn have led racist and fascist attacks all over the country.

The end of the civil prosecution group statement concludes and summarizes the tasks for the immediate future:

“Confronted with fascist and racist violence, there is no room for complacency. The antifascist movement and the large democratic community, whose uprising forced the state authorities in 2013 to initiate criminal proceedings against the Nazi criminal organization Golden Dawn, must be on the alert.
We continue the judicial battle in the Court of Appeal for the final conviction of the criminal organization with the highest possible sentences, aware that fascism will be crushed by a mass, grassroots, majority, anti-fascist movement of workers and youth inside and outside the courts”.

Photo Gallery: That was Palivision

Impressions of the Palivision concert for people who wanted to observe the Eurovision boycott. AlHamra, Berlin, Saturday 11th May 2024


 

–

All photos: Cherry Adam. You can see more of Cherry’s photography here

Statement from Teachers at Berlin Universities

Open Letter in support of the Right to Protest signed by over 1,000 educators


14/05/2024

Editor’s Note: On 7th May, authorities at the Freie Univerität (FU) called the police who cleared a Camp for Gaza organised by FU students. In response, teaching staff released this open letter, which over 1,000 educators have since signed. Thanks to the teaching staff for providing theleftberlin with this English language version of their open letter.

As lecturers at Berlin universities, our professional standards require us to stand by our students as equals, ensuring their safety and protection from any form of police violence.

Regardless of whether we agree with the specific demands of the protest camp, we firmly support our students’ right to peaceful protest, including their occupation of university grounds. These are core democratic rights of assembly and expression that must be upheld, especially within academic settings. Given the dire situation in Gaza and the announced bombardment of Rafah, it should be understandable to recognize the urgency behind the protesters’ cause, even if we don’t endorse every detail of their demands or their chosen methods.

Constitutionally protected rights to protest are not contingent on dialogue, but we do believe it’s the duty of university leadership to prioritize dialogue and seek non-violent resolutions whenever possible. Unfortunately, the recent dismantling of the protest camp by the Free University of Berlin (FU Berlin) administration, without prior dialogue, was a breach of this responsibility. The right to peaceful assembly is not conditioned on specific viewpoints and extends to public spaces like the FU Berlin campus, as confirmed by the German Federal Constitutional Court (“Fraport” case).

We urge Berlin university administrations to avoid police interventions and further legal actions against their own students. Dialogue with students and preserving universities as hubs of critical discourse should be paramount, which cannot coexist with police interventions on campus. It is only through open engagement and debate that we, as lecturers and institutions, fulfill our responsibilities.

The AfD and Israel

The AfD is full of antisemites. Nonetheless, it fully supports Israel.


The AfD’s support of Israel is hinged on hypocrisy. Despite their history of antisemitism and controversial foreign policy stances, on this topic, they seem to be in agreement with the coalition government. The reasons for this are multi-faceted, but ultimately boil down to their Islamophobic and anti-immigrant agenda; using the October 7th attack to further demonise Palestinian and Arab people, including those living in Germany. 

Chancellor Olaf Scholz frequently reinforces his support of Israel, both through words and weaponry, and refers to the ‘Staatsräson’: the responsibility Germany has to protect the state of Israel after the Holocaust. Due to this concept, it may be considered too risky for any political parties to speak out about the genocide in Gaza, as there is a terrifying culture of censorship in contemporary German politics. Yet, the AfD’s support of Israel predates October 7th, for example, supporting Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital. (This support is not mutual; Israel has cut all ties with the AfD.) 

Following Hamas’ October 7th attacks, Alexander Gauland (speaking as the honorary AfD chairman) said “The attack was not only aimed at the Jewish state, it was also aimed at us. Israel is the West in an environment that rejects and fights the West. When we stand with Israel, we are also defending our way of life”. This idea of ‘defending a way of life’ is common anti-immigrant rhetoric, and one the AfD frequently utilises to criticise immigration policy in Germany.

The AfD also submitted proposals in October to end financial donations to the United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees. Following this, a press release from the Bundestag said “the SPD accused the AfD of using Hamas’ terror to fuel Islamophobia”, and also mentioned a representative of the Greens calling out the antisemitic comments made by AfD members, as well as contacts between party members and Iran (who support Hamas). 

The AfD is notorious for intra-party division, with some members decidedly far-right, and others leaning to the more moderate, Eurosceptic right. Attitudes to Israel are no exception, with co-leader Tino Chrupalla condemning the October 7th attack, but calling for ‘de-escalation’, also saying ‘a viable solution for all sides must be the goal’. This Tweet was criticised by many within the AfD, particularly his use of the word ‘war dead’ for Israeli victims. 

The AfD have a long track record of antisemitism and neo-Nazi affiliations, ranging from Björn Höcke’s use of a Nazi paramilitary slogan (‘Everything for Germany’), to Alice Weidel’s advisor Roland Hartwig attending a meeting in Potsdam with known neo-Nazi groups. Specifically in relation to memory culture, Höcke was critical of Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial, saying Germans are “the only people in the world to plant a monument of shame in the heart of its capital.” How can a party claim to care about Jewish citizens when they show such blatant disrespect toward those who were murdered during the Holocaust?

The AfD have caused huge controversy with their stances on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, saying Germany should stop sending weapons to support Ukraine, and maintaining close ties with Russia financially and politically. So, why are they toeing the line on this point, when it is clear they do not care about the safety of Jewish citizens, or about remembering the victims of the Holocaust? The answer is that it helps them further their (domestic) Innenpolitik agenda, utilising all possible avenues to justify their Islamophobic and anti-migrant stances. 

A party that will so readily turn human lives into political pawns, atrocities into justification for bigotry, is a true danger to society, both in Germany and abroad. It is further proof that the AfD’s only real political convictions are fear-mongering and xenophobic hatred. 

The Bookstore That Destroys Books

What is art worth if it doesn’t make the world a better place?


This is a story about how a bookstore in Ukraine robbed itself. What’s remarkable is that the perpetrator turned out to be the store’s administration. No, they didn’t steal profits; they did something worse. I should mention that this text is written not only by a writer but also by a book thief who also acts as a judge. Let me explain.

An object is never just an object; it’s always something more. For example, in Ukraine, due to the minimum wage being 200 euros and the average wage being 400, buying an iPhone is considered a luxury. When purchasing a phone that costs several times more than a monthly salary, a person is buying not only a phone but also status. An old apartment in the city center makes the tenant an appreciator of history, while an apartment in a new building makes them a fan of modern solutions. Sellers actively speculate on this.

It’s obvious that owning expensive things doesn’t change your social class, but it allows you to appear as if you belong to a different one. The ability to create the illusion of change is also a change. Rest assured, this idea has found its embodiment even in the cost of your sneakers.

When I was a student, I dreamed of getting a job at a bookstore. And I did. I worked there for only one day. Why did I quit? The thing is, I always saw books as guides to intimate places. In the bookstore, books were just products.

I don’t have a dad. I grew up in a mining town. I’m gay. This combination was enough for me to try alcohol at 13. Several of my friends committed suicide. Some died from drug problems. All of this prompted me to quit drinking by 17 and find the strength to go to university to study literature. No, books have never been just books for me. They’re both a guide and a compass, and a lover. But never a product.

I don’t understand those who don’t read books because they’re expensive. If I really need something, I’ll find a way to get it by any means necessary. That’s why I’ve stolen books. The same audacity applies to my dates. Can you imagine the nightmare that would unfold if you hinted at sex to the wrong guy in a post-Soviet mining town? Yep, shoes were thrown at me. But the risk of getting into trouble only made my dates more precious.

When I was a teen and didn’t have enough money for wine, I would read Marina Tsvetaeva’s poems to the shopkeepers, and they would agree to give me a discount. I loved reading poetry while getting drunk. Poems shouldn’t live only in auditoriums and libraries. A good poem is like a hammer, that’s why you need to proudly swing it on the nighttime street.

Thanks to the books of Henry Miller and Jean Genet, I started approaching sex differently. Remember, an object is never just an object? The same goes for sex. It’s one thing to have sex with someone who’s solely focused on the physical movements, and it’s a completely different experience to do it with someone who allows you to transcend boundaries through it.

In my novel THE INTIMATE SMELL OF THE MARINE, there’s a scene where the characters engage in sex without moving. It’s a damn revealing moment, but because of the lack of movement, this scene wouldn’t translate well into porn. And therein lies the advantage of books. With words, you can describe what can’t be captured by a camera, which is why the best books will never be adapted. That’s why readers are often disappointed by adaptations of their favorite books, with rare exceptions.

Books. Books. Books. To me, this word is as important as ‘commission’ is to an estate agent. Remove books from my life, and what remains? It’s thanks to dozens of novels and hundreds of short stories that I’ve adjusted my perspective in such a way that I see each day as art. Turning your life into art is simple. All it takes is to follow one rule – understand yourself. A book is the fastest path to that, albeit a rather painful one.

I’ve never bought books instead of food, but I’ve often had to save on food to buy a book. I buy books at least twice a month. Even while living abroad, I travel to Lithuania and Poland to buy books in Russian there. Now I pay double, and even triple, the price for books, but I still continue to buy them because there’s nothing more valuable to me than a book. So, the news I heard today really pissed me off – a bookstore robbed itself.

THE INTIMATE SMELL OF THE MARINE describes two guys living in a former brothel. I actually lived in a former brothel in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Occasionally, I would hold readings of my manuscripts there. The brothel was in a rough area, so I would meet guests at the bookstore, and when everyone was gathered, we would walk together for another 20 minutes to get there.

This was the very same bookstore that robbed itself. My friend used to work there. Near the checkout, there was a coffee machine, and my friend would make me crappy coffee for free. It was in this store that I bought Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf – later, this book became one of my favorites. Now, the management of this store has announced a promotion. Bring Russian-language books there for recycling and get a free coffee.

Should I bring them Steppenwolf? This is the store where I bought the Russian translation. Ukrainian-speaking people in Kharkiv are as rare as multiple orgasms in women. I’ve been reading in Russian all my life. Moreover, I write in Russian. My passport is filled out in 2 languages: Russian and Ukrainian. But the war has brought aggressive nationalism, which now goes so far as to send books for recycling. Should I bring them my manuscripts? How should a Russian-speaking writer feel towards his country when his country treats his language and work like this?

Despite having lived in Ukraine all my life, my native language is not Ukrainian but Russian. My family speaks Russian. My friends speak Russian. When I have sex or dream, it all happens in Russian. But does that mean I support the war? Why should the war, which has torn me from a peaceful life, also take away my language?

If I were to change my native language, then why Ukrainian? Ukrainian culture is as foreign to half of Ukraine’s population as German or any other culture. But if it’s time to change culture, then I’d prefer not to adopt Ukrainian culture, but German. Friedrich Nietzsche has long been an intimate friend; maybe it’s time to make it official? Or should I become French? I’ve spent so many nights in bed with Jean-Paul Sartre’s books that a genetic test would surely reveal kinship.

At some point, the Ukrainian government decided that this war wasn’t a war of democracy against autocracy, but a war between Russians and Ukrainians. Therein lies the root of the problem. But this problem has a history. For all 30 years of Ukraine’s independence, Ukrainian politicians governed the country by dividing it along linguistic lines. While residents of western and eastern Ukraine quarreled with each other, corruption did its work. During the war, they decided to use the same principle.

At least once a week, I come across news of domestic crimes based on linguistic grounds. The bookstore in Kharkiv – one of the most Russian-speaking cities in Ukraine. I wouldn’t go in there now, not for free coffee, not even if they gifted me their coffee machine. Anyway, why bother thinking about it when there’s a chance they wouldn’t let me in at all? No, I don’t want to live in a country that suggests recycling the meaning of life.

The primary goal of any bookstore is to sell books, but what is the point of books? As a writer, I can say that one of the goals I set when writing a book is something like this – to create meaning. A bookstore that proposes to destroy books based on the language they are printed in undermines the construction of meaning, and therefore robs itself. That’s why I don’t consider Ukraine my home, or myself a Ukrainian. Today the country is full of hatred. Hatred spreads easily, and never stops after hitting one target.

Today, books are the newest target.

This piece is a part of  a series, The Mining Boy Notes, published on Mondays and authored by Ilya Kharkow, a writer from Ukraine. For more information about Ilya, see his website. You can support his work by buying him a coffee.