The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Urban Fibers

Circularity in fashion? Local clothing donations to global pollution


26/02/2025

The studio Urban Fibers investigates and implements new paradigms for the production of sustainable and regenerative textiles. In collaboration with regional producers, they have been remanufacturing local cotton from discarded t-shirts, a valuable raw material, to produce upcycled yarns. Designed for the use in locally existing textile infrastructure of digital weaving, knitting and braiding machines, these yarns can replace virgin cotton up to 100%. The results are vibrant and sophisticated textiles that can be recycled again.

Every week, 15 million second-hand garments from the global North arrive in Accra (Ghana) to be sold at Kantamanto, a vital hub for circularity, reuse and repair. Despite the local efforts to bring these clothes back to life, 40% of them remain unsellable and are directly landfilled, polluting the waterways and the complete coastal line of Accra. To top an already unjust situation, in January 2025 a devastating fire destroyed Kantamanto and left more than 8.000 market workers without a livelihood. Urban Fibers is hosting an event on March 1st to fundraise for Kantamanto and to bring attention to the problem of waste colonialism.

Last year Urban Fibers spent two months working in Accra, Ghana, processing market discards from the global north to make upcycled products. They worked with a young Ghanaian team of designers who are making a living by using the imported waste as their material and diverting it from the landfill. Back in Berlin, Urban Fibers wants to share the story of your clothes with you. Let’s give voice to the people processing our waste behind the scenes of the fast fashion industry, one of the most polluting on earth. But also to illustrate how we are all intertwined in our fight for a more just and safer future.

At our fundraising event on 1st March, there will be a discussion with Circular Berlin about the wasteful textile industry. We will also connect live with The Or Foundation, the charity behind the fire relief fund, that has been supporting the community of Kantamanto and providing remediation efforts since 2011. They will update us about the state of rebuild and about the current challenges of the workers. There will also be Urban Fibers’ goodies on sale, interactive activities, food and drinks and a clothing exchange corner. We will end the event with live guitar music and a DJ set to keep our spirits high.

All proceeds from the event will go directly to the fire relief fund of the Or Foundation.

Fundraising event for the workers at Kantamanto in Accra, Ghana
Date: Saturday, 1st of March
Time: 16:00-23:00 h
Location: C*Space Berlin – Langhansstrasse 86, 13086 Berlin

Entrance to the event is free, donations for the fundraising will be collected at the door

Accessibility: The space is unfortunately not accessible on wheelchair

For any accessibility requests please contact hello@urbanfibers.org

Palestine Solidarity Cut from “Uncuttable” Demonstration

The Palestine Exception in German Solidarity Strikes Again. Statement by Arts & Culture Alliance Berlin and Internationalist Antiracists Against Cuts


25/02/2025

We condemn the racist behaviour against culture and social workers in solidarity with Palestine by the organizers and police at the Unkürzbar protest on February 22nd in Berlin.

The protest “Berlin ist unkürzbar – Umverteilung jetzt!” (Berlin is Uncuttable – Redistribution now!) was organized by the union ver.di Berlin against the Berlin Senate’s massive budget cuts in social work, culture, universities, mobility and environmental protection.

At the protest, many demonstrators drew a clear connection between the right-wing agenda of budget cuts, censorship around the genocide in Palestine, and police violence in Berlin. Neoliberal austerity politics go hand in hand with increased law enforcement spending, the securitization of civil society, and the disenfranchisement of the cultural sector—all methods of social control. It is no coincidence that Berlin claims to have no money for homeless shelters or queer art projects while simultaneously pouring tens of millions of Euros more into the police budget, which it then uses to harass those very demographics.

Solidarity with Palestine, mostly from racialized people, was present from the beginning of the demonstration with signs such as “Anti-racists against budget cuts” and “Defund police, fund people.” They were both systematically and individually targeted by the march organizers and police.

Louna Sbou, director of Oyoun, the first initiative to be defunded under CDU rule in Berlin—based on false antisemitism allegations—was scheduled to hold a speech. At the protest, she was asked about the contents of her speech. The organizers forbade her from using any Arabic words, thus perpetuating and normalizing racist police language bans, then banned her from using the German word “Widerstand”, meaning resistance, and finally abruptly banned her from speaking altogether, claiming they “couldn’t trust that she wouldn’t use the word ‘Widerstand’.” Ironically, Sbou’s contribution is something that the organisers considered ‘cuttable’, raising wider questions for the movement against these cuts: is it only White art and White culture, spoken in German or English, which we cannot bear to lose? Are those forms of cultural expression which challenge the norms and assumptions of dominant mechanisms of power unwelcome in this movement? Do we imagine culture to be something inherently political, or do we only resort to politics as a means to preserve apolitical culture? 

From the beginning of the demonstration and even in negotiations beforehand, Palestinian solidarity activists tried to compromise with the ver.di leadership’s conditions for inclusion. These good-faith attempts were however met with persistent badgering by stewards imposing ever new, increasingly nonsensical and unjust demands. About midway through the march route, a large group of Palestine solidarity protesters, “Internationalist Antiracists Against Cuts,” was targeted by ver.di stewards, organizers, and police alike.  A representative of Bündnis Unkürzbar claimed the Palestine “bloc” was “lacking in solidarity,” being “divisive,” and “infiltrating the protest.” Protest stewards, under the direction of ver.di leadership, physically kettled the pro-Palestine group, stopping them from continuing. This kettle was then directly handed over to police, who completely surrounded and isolated the Palestine solidarity protesters. Demonstrators were also called “terrorists” by individual demo participants, shown the middle finger by one steward and subjected to slurs by another, while the group in its entirety was repeatedly called a “black bloc” by an apparently colorblind organizer. The organizers claimed that all participants connecting budget cuts to any issue associated with Palestine (censorship, genocide, police violence) were violating the “consensus of the protest”—a document that was forced through by a small group of demo organisers, despite co-organisers repeatedly voicing concerns about targeted marginalisation against Palestinian protesters and their allies. This “consensus” document devotes almost of third of its entire length to policing expressions around Palestine/Israel. 

Additional targeted infringements on speech, such as banning the word ‘Widerstand’, as it could be used interchangeably with ‘Intifada’, were made unilaterally during the protest by organizers. We strongly oppose both the suppression of Arabic and of the language of political resistance from this protest against attacks on culture. The repression of a language, the very medium through which much of living culture expresses itself, is a core feature of genocide. We therefore utterly reject the insinuation that speaking directly about genocide is irrelevant to a protest against attacks on culture from the state, especially when the very purpose of these repressive measures in Germany is to support the continuation of genocide in Palestine.

At the end, a group of around 100 pro-Palestine demonstrators was completely cordoned off by police and forbidden to join the final rally, with police claiming there was “no space” for them, despite this being an obvious lie. The police made up new restrictions specifically for these protesters, violently tried to confiscate a banner, and punched several people without warning directly in the face.

Two PoC were arrested while walking away at the end of the demonstration. One is an filmmaker visiting from Australia who received a prize at the Berlinale the night before, whom police falsely accused of a robbery that took place in December. The second person was arrested for allegedly chanting a chant that wasn’t even officially banned. He describes a traumatizing ordeal in the hands of the police: being denied medical care for hours, not being told where he was being taken, being told he would spend 48 hours in jail, and being locked in a bathroom at the detention center. He was furthermore refused information in English despite not speaking German, denied food for hours and the right to call a lawyer despite repeated requests, and treated disrespectfully and aggressively by medical staff in the detention center. Family members were wrongly told by the police that he had been brought to a hospital.

It seems many groups joining the protest recognized only THAT their funding is being cut, not WHY their funding is being cut. Drawing the explicit connections between the funding cuts and the draconian levels of censorship and repression amid increased police and weapons funding in Germany is not divisive, it is accurate. ver.di and Unkürzbar organizers enacted repressive politics against racialized people within their midst throughout the organizing process and finally handed the genocide-critical group over to the police, all while claiming themselves to be the victim. It was not those artists, cultural and social workers kettled by the police who were lacking solidarity, it was ver.di, Unkürzbar and all who stood by and watched as it happened!

We stand in solidarity with our colleagues and comrades who were mistreated and disrespected by ver.di, Bündnis Unkürzbar and the Berlin police. We thank those individuals, organisations, and rank-and-file members of ver.di who have stood in solidarity with us not just on Saturday but also beforehand. We call upon the main organisers of Unkürzbar and ver.di leadership to reflect on their stance and behaviour towards Palestinian solidarity groups within their ranks, to take accountability for these failings, and to engage in more constructive dialogue and practices moving forward. We remain resolute that we will not be silenced, cut, or excluded from this fight against the state’s attack on culture and social services in Berlin and beyond.

German election 2025: What went wrong?

A slight surge for die Linke cannot compensate for the CDU victory and the rising fascist threat


The results of the German elections were shocking but not surprising. So unsurprising that I wrote this introductory sentence 2 months ago, when prospects looked even bleaker than they do now. At the time, support for Die Linke was hovering around 3% and it looked like the only vaguely left representation in parliament would be the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), which had just voted alongside Friedrich Merz and the AfD for stricter migration controls.

I will go into the election results at the end of this article, but first I’d like to offer an analysis of how we got into this mess. How can it be, just over 3 years after we voted in an SPD-led government, that the right wing can be so dominant?

Record of the Scholz government

The election of September 2021 resulted in a “traffic light coalition”, named after the colours of the participating parties — red for the social democrats (SPD), yellow for the (neo)liberal (FDP), and green for Die Grüne. This brought an end to 16 years of Conservative-led governments.

One of the first acts of the new government was to double the military budget, ostensibly as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But this money has been increasingly used to provide Israel with weapons, against the will of 82% of the population.

In December 2024, the government passed “the highest sum that has ever been recorded” for Germany’s military budget. Over €20 billion was allocated to the army. SPD defence minister Boris Pistorius announced that he was intending to increase the size of the German army from 180,000 to 230,000.

The increase in military spending took place at a time of rising prices and job losses. This was palpable whenever you visited the supermarket. Partly as a result of the Russian embargo, the price of a bottle of cooking oil rose from around €1 to well over €5. Meanwhile rents were rising and people were finding it difficult to make ends meet.

One main beneficiary from the lack of trust in the 3 government parties was the “official” opposition, the CDU, who saw its support rise from a record low of 20% to 32%. At the same time, the increasingly fascist AfD doubled its support. This set the political tone, and all the major parties felt the need to make strident statements against refugees. 

In October 2023, SPD Chancellor Olaf Scholz was on the front page of Der Spiegel magazine saying “We have to deport more people and faster”. A month before, foreign secretary and co-leader of Die Grüne Annalena Baerbock, told the same magazine that she supported increased deportations.

A pre-election report in The Guardian argued: “most politicians have scrambled to ward off the rise of the far right with tough talk on migrants.” In fact, the acceptance by mainstream politicians of the far right’s talking points only helped consolidate the AfD — just as a similar strategy in France a generation earlier had enabled the rise of the fascist Front National (now Rassemblement National).

Economic crisis

Economist Michael Roberts reports: “the economy shrank in 2023 and again in 2024; it seems likely to stay in recession again this year. It adds up to the longest period of economic stagnation since the fall of Hitler in 1945.” Roberts attributes this slump in part to rising energy prices, due to the boycott of Russia, adding “the biggest drop came in the pandemic and profitability is now at an historic low.”

The IW Distribution Report also remarked: “While more than half of respondents in a survey in summer 2020 stated that they were getting along very well or well with their household income, only just under 38 percent of respondents in comparable surveys in 2023 and 2024 said the same.” This perception of poverty, argued the report, was highest among voters of the AfD and BSW.

In January 2025, 2.99 million people were registered unemployed, the highest figure since 2010. Between January 2021 and January 2025, prices rose by 20%. At the end of 2024, Volkswagen threatened to close 3 factories. Instead they sacked 35,000 people and suspended pay raises for 2 years. 

Meanwhile in Berlin, the government announced a huge cuts package. This included a 12% cut to the cultural budget, €250 million cuts in education, and massive cuts in housing support. Berlin has a CDU mayor who governs with support of the SPD — maybe a sign of what will happen throughout Germany.

The coalition broke apart over different visions of how to save capitalism. The FDP insisted on maintaining the Schuldenbremse, the debt brake which limits public spending. When Christian Lindner announced a moratorium on social spending, Clemens Fuerst, president of the Institute for Economic Research praised the moratorium, resurrecting an old Nazi slogan “Kanone ohne Butter”, cannons without butter. 

This was too much for the FDP’s coalition partners, and the government fell. But neither the SPD nor Die Grüne was prepared to cut the military budget or tax the super-rich. Instead, they assured us that money must be found elsewhere. At best, they were offering cannons and a little margarine.

Crisis of Die Linke

Meanwhile, Die Linke, the main party to the left of the SPD, was suffering an existential crisis. Riven by faction fights, it was unable to take a position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and NATO’s response. Within the party, there were three main positions.

The first came from party members associated with the anti-war movement. While criticising the Russian invasion to a greater or lesser extent, they argued that sending German weapons to Ukraine would only escalate the situation. Money for weapons would be better spent on social spending.

A second faction argued that anti-imperialism also includes fighting Russian imperialism and believed (mistakenly in my opinion) that we could ask the German state to benevolently send weapons to Ukraine without imposing its own conditions. They therefore tacitly approved the increase in the war budget.

A third group consisted of the party right wing, which has always seen the main function of the party as taking part in governments. Due to the party’s relatively low level of support, this means making coalitions with the SPD and Die Grüne who explicitly make support for NATO a condition of any coalition. 

The result was that Die Linke was unable to offer any leadership. Instead, it did what the party has often done of late. It said very little so as to try to contain a deep ideological dispute within the party. These tensions went much deeper than Ukraine. Die Linke, which was a party born out of social movements, has been absent from most relevant movements in recent years. A couple of months before the election, the party looked dead and buried.

Sahra Wagenknecht intervenes

The dithering of Die Linke created an opportunity for Sahra Wagenknecht, talk show favourite and someone who had been associated with the party’s left wing. In 2023, on the anniversary of the Russian invasion, Wagenknecht and leading feminist (and Islamophobe) Alice Schwarzer called an anti-war demo which attracted 50,000 people. 

In January 2024, Wagenknecht and 9 other MPs broke from Die Linke to form the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW). In the European elections a few months later, the BSW won 6.2% of the votes and 6 MEPs (Die Linke gained only 2.7%) Many voted BSW because it was the only party, with the exception of the AfD, with a clear anti-war position.

But the BSW has a darker side, which had already been shown in Wagenknecht’s book Die Selbstgerechten (the self-righteous) where she attacked “an increasingly small and peculiar minority” fighting for the rights of victims of racism, homophobia, and transphobia. She dismissed this fight as meaningless identity politics.

Following a knife attack in Solingen, Wagenknecht attacked “ten years of uncontrolled migration”, and suggested a 6-point plan focussed on more deportations. In her election campaign, she has insisted on calling herself a “left-wing conservative”, distancing herself from socialist ideas.

This found its low point in January 2025, when the BSW voted alongside the CDU and the AfD for laws restricting migration. Much ink was spilled about CDU Chancellor Friedrich Merz breaking the Brandmauer (firewall), an agreement by mainstream parties not to cooperate with the AfD. But the BSW was just as guilty as the CDU, maybe more so. 

AfD and Remigration

All this was happening while the AfD was consolidating itself as a fascist party. At the end of 2023, leading AfD members met with Nazis in Potsdam to discuss Remigration — the forced deportation of up to 15 million people. This would only be possible with extreme physical force, but remigration became a central part of the AfD’s electoral campaign.

Following an attack at Magdeburg Christmas market (by an AfD supporter), AfD leader Alice Weidel explicitly called for remigration, to enthusiastic chants from her supporters. Weidel has traditionally not been associated with the openly fascist wing of the party, but is coming increasingly close to them.

This January, a flyer was distributed at the AfD party conference, addressed to “passenger: illegal immigrant”: “The passenger is to board at ‘Gate AfD’ on 23 February, the day of the election, from ‘8 am to 6 pm’”. Two sentences at the bottom of the ‘ticket’ read: “Only remigration can save Germany”. 

There were two responses to the AfD’s growing influence. Parliamentarians from nearly all parties doubled down on attacking migrants. But there was also a response on the streets. After the remigration conference was reported, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets. In January this year, 15,000 took part in a blockade of the AfD party conference in Riesa. On the weekend of the elections, 100,000 demonstrated throughout Germany against the AfD.

The new anti-racist movement on the streets was reflected in the opinion polls in support for Die Linke. The leader of the parliamentary faction Heidi Reichinnek made a speech in the Bundestag in which she said “we are the Brandmauer”, and “we will take to the streets and to the ballot box”. Reichinnek concluded her speech by calling on people to take to the barricades. The speech got 6 million views on TikTok.

Support for Die Linke trebled, reaching 9% in one poll. Party membership rose to a record level with 18,000 new members won during the election campaign. A post-election report said that the party now has 95,112 members. The increased support does not resolve the party’s internal contradictions, but it does reflect that the polarisation in society is going to the Left as well as to the Right.

As support for Die Linke rose, the BSW slumped, maybe as retribution for voting with the AfD. Nonetheless, a number of people with migrant backgrounds who I spoke with before the election still said they would vote BSW as their position on Palestine seemed less terrible than most of the other parties.

The election results and what they mean

Die Linke finished with nearly 9%, winning more votes in Berlin than any other party (with 19.9%). In the working class district of Berlin-Neukööln, anti-racist activist Ferat Koçak won a direct mandate — the first direct mandate that Die Linke has ever won in West Germany. During the election, Ferat issued a leaflet in support of Palestine, and is a beacon of light in a troubled party. It remains to be seen how much he will be able to maintain his independence of thought and deed.

We can celebrate the demise of the neoliberal FDP — kicked out of parliament because they insisted on maintaining the debt brake and making us pay for their crisis. The Bundestag will be a better place without them. FDP leader and former finance minister Christian Lindner has now resigned. Good riddance.

Some leftists were troubled by the BSW’s failure to break into parliament. They have only themselves to blame. Their decision to vote with the AfD for a deportation bill that even the SPD, Die Grüne, and FDP could not support was punished by an electorate which still contains a large number of anti-racists.

The SPD received a record low vote of 16.5%. Although they have not sunk as their French sister party (the Parti Socialiste received 1.75% in 2022), social democracy in Germany is in deep crisis. Die Grüne’s vote went down by 3.6% but they were punished less than their coalition partners. Maybe they were saved by voters who hadn’t engaged with the parties’ track records but wanted to record a vote for the environment. The CDU gained 28.5%, a little lower than predicted, but enough to win comfortably. 

The vote for the AfD was troubling. When the first predictions were announced at 6pm — based on what voters told the pollsters, the AfD vote lay under 20%. As the evening wore on, with figures based on how people really voted, this number increased. In the end they received a worrying 20.8% of the vote.

In East Germany, the AfD received over 30% in every state. They also made a dangerous breakthrough in the West, with over 20% in Rheinland-Pfalz and Saarland. Hamburg, which has recently seen several large anti-fascist demos, was the only state in which they received less than 15%.

What happens next?

CDU leader Friedrich Merz is not averse to joining with the AfD, but to do so would be political suicide. The large protests which followed the AfD-CDU cooperation on the deportation bill means that the parties are unlikely to form a government — this time round. A CDU-SPD coalition is possible, but may not survive a full parliamentary term. It could even be rejected by SPD members, desperate to stop the party’s freefall.

A long period of uncertainty is expected, in which the AfD will attempt to further build their fascist base. After the election, AfD’s Weidel said ominously: “Our hand remains outstretched to form a government.” She added that if the CDU chooses to govern with “left-wing parties”, “next time, we’ll come in first”. With over 100 hardcore Nazis already working in the Bundestag, this figure is set to grow.

The CDU has promised an Agenda 2035, whose name is reminiscent of the Agenda 2020 attacks on welfare made by Gerhard Schröder’s SPD government. This means further cuts, more war, and more redistribution of wealth towards the super-rich. The CDU election programme promises “a so-called ‘modernisation’ of working hours”. which promises more work for less pay.

And yet, the new government will face resistance. 2.5 million employees from the public sector union ver.di have already started warning strikes for an 8% pay rise. The large demonstrations against the AfD have also attacked the racist deportation plans of all the major parties. Germany is currently experiencing a lot of despair. But there is also anger and a desire for progressive change.

They can only subdue us if we stop resisting. There is a certain feeling of resignation in post-election Germany, but also a lot of anger. If we are going to fight back, socialist organisation is essential. This means a fight in the trade unions, a fight against war and genocide, and — most urgently — a fight against the AfD Nazis. It’s time to organise.

Film Review – Soundtrack to a Coup d’État

Johan Grimonprez’s new film is a superb introduction to the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the continued exploitation of the post-independence Global South and jazz music


24/02/2025

In 1960, following great anti-colonial unrest, Belgium finally granted Congo independence. Elections held in May were won by Patrice Lumumba’s left wing Mouvement National Congolais (MNC). Three days before independence was enacted in June, Belgium privatised the Union Minière mine, the source of much of the uranium used for the developing US nuclear project. Within seven months, Lumumba had been assassinated under orders from the CIA, the Belgium government, and President Eisenhower.

Soundtrack to a Coup d’État places Lumumba’s assassination in both a political and a musical context. To understand Lumumba’s assassination, we need to look back at the preceding years. In 1947, US President Truman issued his Truman Doctrine aimed at “support[ing] free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Initially drafted in response to Communist electoral victories in Italy and Greece, it was also used against the anti-colonial movement in Africa.

In 1955, the Bandung Conference brought together representatives of 29 “non-aligned” countries in what we would now call the Global South, who were trying to end dependency on both US and Soviet imperialism. One year later, Gamel Abdul Nasser, leader of Egypt—one of the countries represented at Bandung—nationalised the Suez Canal, threatening a vital Western trade route, and provoking a military attack by Britain, France and Israel. In 1958, Egypt and Syria united to form the United Arab Republic.

All this was happening in the context of the decolonisation that occurred in the wake of the Second World War. Having taken part in a “war for democracy”, many Global South countries were now fighting for their independence from Western powers. In the year 1960 alone, 16 African countries joined the United Nations. In the light of similar independence movements in Asia, there was a real possibility that US and Soviet control of the UN could be broken.

Meanwhile, in the US, the Civil Rights movement was making its first faltering steps. In 1955, the same year as the Bandung Conference, Ebony magazine announced “the emergence of a ‘new, militant Negro’ … who openly campaigns for his civil rights, who refuses to migrate to the North in search of justice and dignity, and is determined to stay in his own backyard and fight.” That year also saw the Montgomery bus boycott against racial segregation on public transport, organised by Martin Luther King.

Although King’s militancy is sometimes underrated, a more radical movement was developing to his left. Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam were leading campaigns against police racism. In 1965, following another racist attack by the LAPD, Los Angeles went up in flames in the Watts Rebellion. The corrosive effect of the Vietnam war, in which a disproportionate number of conscripts were young Black men, contributed to a growing movement in the US parallel to the former colonies.

This is the background to Soundtrack to a Coup d’Ètat, a breathtaking film by Belgian director Johan Grimonprez, about politics in the US and post-colonial Africa, as well as the development of jazz as a radical musical form. The film astutely switches between political speeches (Malcolm X features prominently), academic texts, and concert performances from Black jazz musicians who were both finding a new audience and engaging with the new political atmosphere. 

Jazz works as a perfect medium for the story it wants to tell. Artists like Nina Simone were militant Black activists, but the film is about form just as much as content. When the film makes loud staccato arguments, this is often done to the sounds of Max Roach’s drums. At other times, it explains its point at a much more leisurely pace to far more sedate vocal performances.

And yet, for all the militant statements by jazz musicians, some of their actions were also ambiguous. Louis Armstrong was instrumentalised by the CIA, who sent him to Congo to perform in October 1960, a few months after Lumumba’s assassination. Of course Armstrong was ignorant of the CIA involvement and, when it became known, threatened to move to Africa, but the damage had already been done. Even the righteous activist Nina Simone joined a venture by the CIA-backed American Society of African Culture.

Nonetheless, radical Black artists had an ongoing relationship with the movements against racism, colonialism and war. We see footage of an action led by Roach and writer Maya Angelou, who crashed a meeting of the UN Security Council to protest Lumumba’s murder. The US representative at the UN, failed Democrat presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, looks on in horror, as well-organised activists manage to push through changes that he was unable to achieve through decades of diplomacy.

Soundtrack to a Coup d’État does not just present us with radical voices. We also hear from the mercenaries and diplomats who fought tooth and nail to defend the status quo. One mercenary describes his modus operandi: “Shoot at the lot, destroy them, burn the villages, kill the chickens and goats … It was a great life, mate. With no regular hours and nice weather … they are cannibals so you can’t class them as shooting normal people. It’s like shooting Irishmen or Germans.”

The diplomats are even more chilling. Speaking with cut glass accents, they show no regret, and even pride in their ability to maintain a racist, colonialist system. They have the self-confidence of people who know that they will never face reprisals for their repugnant actions. Daphne Park, who then worked for MI6 can hardly contain herself when she proudly explains Britain’s strategy of fomenting divisions between Lumumba and General Mobuto so they could control both.

If you don’t get anything more from this film, at least you learn that the figures of the early 1960s were far more charismatic than today’s Olaf Scholz or Keir Starmer. At one meeting of the United Nations, we see Fidel Castro, Mao-Tse Tung, Gamel Abdul Nasser, and Jawaharlal Nehru. And this is even before we get to speeches by Malcolm X. Even from the other side, Dwight D Eisenhauer seems to be more authoritative than recent US presidents.

Having said all this, some of Soundtrack to a Coup d’État’s methodology is open to question. We see joyful footage of Russia’s president Kruschev attacking Western-backed colonialism, but no mention of Russia’s similar venture in 1956 when Soviet troops invaded Hungary. Later, we do witness Kruschev and the US uniting to the detriment of the Global South countries, but the general tone implies that Soviet support for the Global South was motivated by benevolence and not geopolitics.

The film’s conclusion shows fake adverts for iPhone and Tesla, making the point that this is not just a historical problem. There are still $24 trillion of unmined assets in Congo, which mobile phone manufacturers are eager to exploit. End credits cite that 80,000 women have been raped since UN troops arrived in Congo. Imperialist attempts to dominate the Global South are just as strong as ever, and serious questions must be made about how much the UN is able to act independently of its rich backer.

One of the film’s strengths lies with the element of surprise. Instead of a traditional narrative style, we switch backwards and forwards in history, and—more importantly—between politics and music, between long quotes and vibrant live performances. If all documentaries followed this pattern, the form might grow stale, leading to complacency. Instead, this distinctive film grabs us by the scruff of the neck and makes us pay attention.

This is not just a good film—it is a crucial film, which tells a story that is unknown even in many activist circles. It also makes perfectly clear that the colonialism and oppression that it depicts have been ongoing for over 80 years. Most Global South countries may have formally gained independence, but the world economy and military is still stacked against them. This is a film which helps you understand why.

Battling Voter Apathy

Engagement in Germany’s Snap Election


23/02/2025

Duisburg, a city in Germany’s Ruhr Valley, recently made headlines for an unconventional voter turnout initiative. In collaboration with its Carnival Committee, the city council launched a campaign offering a voucher for a free local beer—or a non-alcoholic drink and sausage—to residents who collected a postal voting form from the council’s central office. “What really gets people emotional? A local beer,” Duisburg city director Martin Murrack told Politico “You really have to do things that are discussed very widely and very controversially.” The initiative sparked widespread discussion, drawing both praise and bemusement, but was ultimately reported as a success in increasing voter engagement and sentiment.

Germany’s 2025 snap federal election was triggered by the dissolution of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-way coalition government in November 2024. It is shaping up to be one of the most consequential in recent history. The election will determine not just Germany’s next Chancellor, but also the direction of key issues such as economic stability, social equality, and the rise of populist movements.

Beyond the political stakes, this election raises critical questions about voter participation. While Germany’s citizen rights and voting laws ensure broad access to the ballot, turnout remains a persistent challenge, particularly in disadvantaged areas. As Duisburg’s beer initiative shows, voter apathy is a growing concern, and mobilization efforts—however unconventional—can play a crucial role in shaping democracy.

The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) defines who is eligible to vote in Germany states:

  • German citizens aged 18 and older can vote in federal elections.
  • EU citizens residing in Germany can vote in local and European Parliament elections but not in national elections.
  • Non-EU citizens are not eligible to vote.

Voters can cast their ballots in two ways:

  1. In-Person Voting – At assigned polling stations (listed on voter notifications), requiring only a passport or national identity card.
  2. Postal Voting (Briefwahl) – Available upon request and must be completed before the deadline.

Germany also follows a two-vote system in Bundestag elections as follows:

  • First Vote (Erststimme): Elects a direct candidate in the local district.
  • Second Vote (Zweitstimme): Determines the proportional representation of political parties in the Bundestag.

While voting laws are structured to be accessible, barriers still exist, particularly for marginalized groups. The German government has committed to making elections more inclusive, including improving accessibility for disabled voters) and combating misinformation that can discourage participation.

Low voter turnout has long plagued economically struggling areas like Duisburg, where socioeconomic challenges often fuel political disengagement. The city’s beer initiative, while debated, underscored a larger issue: how do you reach voters who feel disconnected from the political process?

Duisburg is not alone in its efforts. National campaigns—such as those by the Federal Agency for Civic Education are working to educate voters, counter misinformation, and engage younger demographics through social media and grassroots outreach. These initiatives reflect a broader concern: if turnout continues to decline, whose voices will be left out of Germany’s democracy?

The 2025 election is being watched with growing concern by economists and political analysts. Against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s return to the White House and tech billionaire Elon Musk’s reported support for the far-right AfD, Germany’s political landscape is becoming increasingly polarized. In this climate, every vote carries weight—not just for domestic policy, but for Germany’s role in global politics.

Duisburg’s message is clear: every vote counts. Whether through pilsner or policy, ensuring democratic participation is a challenge Germany cannot afford to ignore. 

For comprehensive information on the German voting system, you can read more here. You can read more about voting as a German citizen from abroad here.