The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Everyone complains about cis white men, yet they are the ones who get to have a roof over their heads

Finding accommodation in Berlin is not easy for anyone, but for marginalised groups it is much worse. We need networks of solidarity


04/09/2022

As the city of Berlin continues to be gentrified, the number of people affected by the housing crisis in Berlin is rising. Even though more than 50 percent of Berlin residents with voting rights voted for Deutsche Wohnen und Co. to be expropriated, nothing has transpired. The politicians have not only failed to stop gentrification or find any kind of long-term solution for solving the housing crisis, but have also contributed to the criminalization of the people who are most affected by the crisis: undocumented people, people without housing, migrants, BiPoCs, unemployed people, and people without German citizenship (who, by the way, do not have voting rights). 

3.75 Million Euro = one year of rent for 780 people

Since March this year, the SPD have invested 3,75 Million euros in building a police watchtower at Kottbusser Tor, which is historically and politically one of most important neighborhoods for migrants, workers, and so-called “guest workers” in Berlin. The planned surveillance facility at Kotti is supposed to “guarantee the security of the residents ” but will only open new avenues to criminalize marginalized people and commit racial profiling and police violence In Kreuzberg.

All this is taking place while Kotti remains one of Berlin’s “KBO- Kriminellbelastete Orte”, a status which legally gives the police the authority to control anyone at any time without any reason. Like all the other KBO, the victims of the police watch at Kotti will be in the first line of people who will be racially labeled as “dangerous”: black, indigenous, people of color, and especially undocumented people.  

3.75 million euros is enough money to pay 780 people’s rent for one year or to start new housing construction projects, schools, and care centers for children and the elderly. So instead of even trying to solve the gentrification problems by tackling economical issues, the government is turning the migrants and people with low income out of their neighborhoods: happily and legally gentrified ever after.

Who gets to build a home in Berlin?

It’s no secret that Berlin’s housing market is deeply classist and racist. When applying for an apartment, the most important factors are your income, name, race, and nationality. The situation is, of course, far more complicated for (documented) people whose former residential address is a refugee camp, outside of Germany, or a homeless shelter. This power dynamic doesn’t limit itself to apartment-hunting; it’s more or less the same situation with finding rooms in shared flats.

Everyone who has suffered from the housing crisis in Berlin is aware of the power imbalance between the Hauptmieter (main tenant) and untermieter (subletters of the other rooms), even within a small household. As a result, many people end up in precarious, overpriced or insecure living conditions. For marginalized people, the right to have a home can always be questioned or taken away, and the need for a home can be instrumentalized to reinforce systems of unequal power imbalances. How can we change this?

Resources(s)-sharing as political praxis

Everyone complains about cis white men, yet they are the ones who get to have a place to sleep at night. When it comes to choosing a flatmate, white middle-class subletters share their “resources” with other white middle-class people.

Systematic racism and class discrimination means not only having no chance to certain but also ascertain social capital. It means being barred from getting an apartment or a room to rent due to low income, name, race, or citizenship, and also, crucially, having less access to the people who do have access to those resources and who, as a result, are less likely to share them. This gap is reflected in social groups (even my own), and is one of the reasons why the housing crisis threatens marginalized communities to such an extent that it can lead to homelessness.

So should we just rent our room and the problem will be solved?

Yes. And No. Of course, the housing crisis will not be solved by individuals who are ready to share their limited resources. This is not an invitation to take on the state’s responsibility instead of demanding structural change.

What is needed are networks of solidarity that reflect one’s political possibility and try to actively break the cycle of power dynamics. When the state fails to produce at any kind of solution for the most basic human right to live, it is the responsibility of its citizens with more access to find alternative solutions.

This does not and should not mean we should take the responsibility of the government and massive investor companies and try to find individualized solutions within our limited resources. Quite the opposite: we should keep fighting and demanding equal access to housing for everyone while finding different points of access to political power to make changes. And this is one of the biggest challenges in many leftist movements.

There need to be short-time strategies in place to minimize the harm and pressure on minorities and the most intersectionally marginalized groups while fighting for the broader change: After protesting on the street for housing rights, a person should have a place to go to sleep. There should be measures to provide safety for people without documents or migrants during such protests. To include and unite movements and people, we need to prioritize the needs of the most marginalized group(s).. 

Resources(s)-sharing as an alternative to classical governing hierarchies:

In the last few days, a new initiative:”9 euro fonds” has been started. The initiative started its work after the new government in Germany decided to cut off the 9 euro public transport tickets. The 9 euro funds are supposed to pay the fines of the people who have been penalized for riding public transport without a ticket.

The initiative is problematic for a few reasons: the most important is that most of the racialized, undocumented and/or migrants cannot afford to get a fine in the first place because it would impact their freedom, residency permits, or security. There are thousands of people in Germany who are in prison because of their inability to pay these fines.

Another initiative that fights against the criminalization of riding public transport without a ticket is Freiheitsfonds. The “Freedom Fund” initiative frees people who are in prison across Germany from using transportation without a ticket.

These initiatives, while far from perfect, give political agency back to civil society. Mobility shouldn’t be a luxury – it should be a right to be given to people independent of their financial ability and the 9 euro fund will not solve that. Nevertheless, it is an important step toward learning alternative ways for self-government.

Another good example is the solidarity fare share for sharing resources for the communities from the Neighbourhood anarchist collective.  The Neighborhood Anarchist Collective (NAC) strives to grow the anarchist movement by taking action directly and locally by providing a welcoming environment for education and participation.

This is something we should learn from a lot of communities and organic movements around which their solidarity resource-sharing has always made them survive because sharing is not (only) caring, it’s political praxis.

Naturalising the Present

Why I am proud to call myself a Feminist


03/09/2022

This article originally appeared on Ali Khan’s blog

My seventy years and an ode to the departed GDR

Victor Grossman on 70 years since his defection to the DDR


01/09/2022

It’s a momentous day! Not for the world – for which it’s nothing special. But for me. Just seventy years ago, in nervous panic, I took off my US Army jacket, shoes and sleeve insignia and stepped into the swift Danube River which, at Linz in still-occupied Austria, divided the USA Zone from the USSR Zone. Although very wet at this short sector, it was part of the long Iron Curtain. And I was swimming across it in what most Americans would consider a very wrong direction!

It was not really my free choice. In 1950 the McCarran Act ruled that all members of a long list of “Communist Front” organizations must immediately register as foreign agents. I had been in a dozen; American Youth for Democracy, the Anti-Fascist Spanish Refugee Committee, the Southern Negro Youth Congress (I gave them a dollar in solidarity), the Sam Adams School, the American Labor Party, Young Progressives and – most heinous of all, the Communist Party. The maximum penalty for not registering could be $10,000 PER DAY and 5 years in prison! Neither I nor anyone else bowed to that monstrosity.

I found neither Utopia nor, back then or ever, the hunger, poverty and general misery the American media might have led me to expect… The GDR lacked the huge investment possibilities by war-criminal monopolies like Krupp, Siemens, Bayer or BASF, whose factories it nationalized, as well as the politically-aimed assistance of the Marshall Plan.

But in January 1951, during the Korean War, I was drafted – and required to sign that I was never in any of those on that long list. Should I risk years in prison by admitting my infamy? Or sign and, by staying mum, hope to survive two army years with no one checking up?

I signed.

However, they did check up. Decades later, thanks to the FOIA, 1100 pages of FBI files about  me (at 10c/page) revealed that J. Edgar Hoover’s boys had watched me closely, as a leftist Harvard student (the names of seven informants were redacted) and as a worker in Buffalo, where I had hoped to help in saving the fighting 1930s character of the CIO unions.

In August 1952 a Pentagon letter listed seven of my memberships and ordered me to “report on Monday to HQ”. The threatened penalty for my perjury: up to 5 years, perhaps in Leavenworth. By then dozens of Communists had been indicted; many were sent to prison. I had luckily been sent not to Korea but to Bavaria, next to Austria. With no-one to advise me, I chose the Danube.

Across the river, in a surprisingly quiet Sunday landscape, in no way like an Iron Curtain, the Soviets kept me two weeks in a barred but polite lock-up, then drove me north to the German Democratic Republic, East Germany. I was lucky again; the GDR was the most successful, most untroubled of all in the “East Bloc”. For the next 38 years, as an American, raised with a broad, varied education (six public schools, Bronx Science, Dalton, Fieldston, Harvard), I watched, with left-leaning but not dogmatically limited eyes, the rise, then fall of this western outpost of socialism (or Communism, “state socialism”, “totalitarianism,” or whatever).

I found neither Utopia nor, back then or ever, the hunger, poverty and general misery the American media might have led me to expect. Even in the crucial, difficult year 1952-1953, less than eight years after the war, while shop offerings were limited, lacking variety, style, and often just that very item you were looking for, they were stocked well enough with the basics. East Germany was much smaller and, in terms of industry and natural resources, far poorer than West Germany. It had borne over 90% of the war reparations burden; the heavily-destroyed USSR did not drop these until 1953. The GDR lacked the huge investment possibilities by war-criminal monopolies like Krupp, Siemens, Bayer or BASF, whose factories it nationalized, as well as the politically-aimed assistance of the Marshall Plan. Large numbers of its scientific, management and academic staffs, mostly pro-Nazi, had fled from the occupying Red Army and the leftist, mostly Communist administrators who came with it, and got jobs with their former bosses who were soon prospering again along the Rhine and Ruhr. This seriously weakened the economic revival, but I felt happy that the war criminals were gone.

As an ardent Jewish anti-fascist, I rejoiced to find that the entire atmosphere was anti-Nazi! Unlike West Germany, the schools, universities, courts, police departments, all were cleansed of the swastika crowd, even when at first this meant new, barely-trained replacements, like my father-in-law, a pro-union carpenter, as village mayor, or my two brothers-in-law as teachers. My wife trembled when she was reminded of her brutal teachers before 1945. Then, in the altered East German schools, corporal punishment was immediately forbidden.

Of course there were countless problems in a country ruled by Hitler & Co. for twelve years, where cynicism was widespread and Stalin’s cultural views and anti-Semitism exerted undue influence until his death in 1953. Luckily, the aged Communist leader Wilhelm Pieck was able to shield the GDR to a large degree in this regard. And from the start anti-Nazi leftists, often returned Jewish exiles, became leaders in the entire cultural scene; theater, music, opera, literature, journalism and film, where true masterpieces were created, often against fascism, but boycotted and hence unknown in West Germany and the USA. In the all-powerful Politburo of the ruling party Hermann Axen had barely survived Auschwitz and Buchenwald (his brother and parents did not). Albert Norden had escaped to the USA; the Nazis killed his father, a rabbi, in Theresienstadt. In the GDR, except for 3 or 4 mild word-clichés, I met no anti-Semitism in all those 38 years. Those still infected with fascist ideology were careful, except with family or buddies, to keep their mouths shut. Which was OK with me!

Step by step our living standard – of my very dear wife, who saved me from homesickness, our two sons, and myself, kept improving, like that of nearly everyone in the GDR, as it pulled itself up by its own thin bootstraps. What impressed me most as an American: no layoffs, no unemployment; there were jobs for everyone. Rents averaged less than 10% of most incomes and evictions were forbidden by law. In the early years large apartments were divided up when needed, no-one slept in the streets or went begging. Food pantries were unneeded, even the word was unknown. So was student debt. All education was free and monthly stipends covered basic costs, making all jobbing while at college unnecessary.

A monthly medical tax on wages or fees (max. 10%) covered everything; in my case, nine (free) hospital weeks with hepatitis plus four weeks at a health spa to recuperate and four more a year later in Karlsbad. My wife had three rheumatism cures, four weeks each, in the Polish and Harz mountains. All costs were covered and we also got 90% of our salaries. Prescribed drugs were fully covered, also dental care, glasses, hearing aids; I had no need of my wallet or checkbook to pay for my daily insulin shots or my ten-year active pace-maker. Nor for my wife’s two maternal leaves (six months paid, the rest, if wanted, with guaranteed job ). No charge for full child care, participation in sports, summer camps, for contraception aid nor for free abortions after a new law was passed in 1982. So many fears were gone – so many were totally unknown.

While GDR leaders, in full power, did aim at noble goals, how could such elderly men, hardened by years of life-and-death struggle against Nazi murderers but usually trained with Stalinist clichés, grow flexible enough to find rapport in printed or spoken word with the average, changeable citizen?

I participated fully in the generally very normal life. First as a factory worker, an apprentice lathe operator, then a student, editor, director of a new Paul and Eslanda Robeson archive, finally as a freelance journalist, lecturer and author. I was not treated as a privileged “American”, as some assume, but my last three occupations meant that – in my series of four little two-stroke Trabant cars I really “got around”- to nearly all areas, with all age levels, in all possible milieus.

This may really seem almost Utopian. Then why did some risk their lives to leave? Why was a wall built to keep them in? Why did they vote to join West Germany – and ditch the GDR? Why did it fail?

There were all too many reasons. East Germany was occupied by a country it had been taught to hate, whose soldiers had fought it hardest, were often violent in the first weeks, and were poorer and more difficult to love than prosperous, hence generous, gum-chewing GI’s, who came from a wealthy, undamaged homeland. Many but certainly not all East Germans appreciated the Soviets’ major role in defeating the Nazis. Their pressure and guidance in confiscating major industry and breaking the power of those worst enemies of the world and the Germans: the Krupps, Siemens and IG Farbens, in addition to the ousting of giant Prussian landowners, the Junckers, who so often officered Germany into mass bloodshed and disaster.

The Russians offered lots of good culture, such as Tolstoy and Dostoevski, top quality dancing, “Peter and the Wolf” and “The Cranes Are Flying”. But these could rarely compete in mass popularity with the Beatles and Stones, Elvin Presley and suspense-laden Hollywood B-films.

Such enticements, which included some of high quality, based on an unusual American mix of Anglo-Scot, Irish, Jewish, Italian and especially Black cultures, were cleverly misused to increase political and economic influence and power in the world, especially in the East Bloc. They were paired, above all in Germany, with clever propaganda adapted from both Goebbels and that master peddler-publicist of anything from toothpaste to capitalism, Edward L. Bernays. They threaten the great old cultures of France, Italy, India, even China. While GDR leaders, in full power, did aim at noble goals, how could such elderly men, hardened by years of life-and-death struggle against Nazi murderers but usually trained with Stalinist clichés, grow flexible enough to find rapport in printed or spoken word with the average, changeable citizen? There were indeed successes – but too few and far between.

The GDR citizenry took all its amazing social advantages for granted and dreamt of scarce bananas and unavailable VWs, of Golden Arch and Golden Gate, without realizing that these are largely available and affordable due to the poverty of children in West Africa or Brazil, of exploited pickers in Andalusian or Californian fields and orchards.

In the 1980s difficulties increased, upward trends slowed and slipped downward. The USSR, with its own problems, offered no assistance. Such problems were difficult but, in a changing world, hardly rare or insurmountable – except that here every problem was utilized in the unceasing attempts to retake East Germany, use its skilled but exploitable working class and move eastwards from there. The State Security or “Stasi,” created to oppose such doings, was crude enough to make the situation worse.

And yet the GDR had probably come closer than any country in the world to achieving that legendary goal of abolishing poverty, while sharply decreasing the frightful, growing rich-poor gap based on an obscene profit system. But it could not afford the immense assortment of goods – foods, apparel,  appliances, electronics, vehicles and travel which the West offered, above all the USA and West Germany. The GDR citizenry took all its amazing social advantages for granted and dreamt of scarce bananas and unavailable VWs, of Golden Arch and Golden Gate, without realizing that these are largely available and affordable due to the poverty of children in West Africa or Brazil, of exploited pickers in Andalusian or Californian fields and orchards. Some are just now beginning to realize that those billionaire giants, after cheating so many people of color, wrecking world climate and wielding ever deadlier weapons of annihilation, may soon feel impelled to squeeze and break the comfortable middle classes in their own countries. The start is already felt by many families.

I look back at my seventy years as an expat, and still consider myself a patriotic American – never for the USA of Morgan or Rockefeller but for that of John Brown, Harriet Tubman, Eugene Debs and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, DuBois, Robeson, Malcolm and Martin.

I also love and admire great Germans: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Karl Liebknecht, the great Polish-German Rosa Luxemburg, or great writers as Lessing, Goethe, Heinrich Heine, Thomas Mann, Bertolt Brecht. And I respect and empathize with people from all lands, my brothers and sisters, from Guam to Guatemala – and Gaza.

I can only hope that new generations learn from the GDR, and not only from its blunders, nasty habits and limitations, born of its history and all too realistic fears of being overthrown.

It was finally overthrown and stands no longer as a barrier to renewed billionaire expansion – economic, political and military – to the south and east. It is still being belittled or maligned – largely out of fear that it has not yet been sufficiently erased and forgotten. Despite my sometime feelings in those years of despair, even anger at mistaken paths or missed opportunities, I still look back with a mixture of nostalgia, regret and also pride at its many hard-won achievements, in culture, in living together, in partly overcoming the cult of greed and rivalry, in unflinching GDR support for the Mandelas, the Allendes and Ho Chi Minhs, for Angela Davis, too – and not, like its ultimately stronger and victorious opponents in Bonn, for the Pinochets, Francos, racists and apartheid tyrants. I recall our achievements in avoiding war and striving for lives without fear or hatred. By and large they were good years. I am glad I lived through them.

Victor Grossman, Karl-Marx-Allee, Berlin, August 2022

Dekoloniale Festival 2022

Memory culture in the city

Although not always visible, the colonial past is omnipresent. This can also be said about the reverberations of the colonialism that emanated from Germany into the world. Berlin wants to face its responsibility as former colonial metropolis and capital of the German Reich. This is the reason why we have started the Dekoloniale Memory Culture in the City in January 2020 as cultural project to critically deal with the history of colonialism and its consequences.

The model project traces back to an initiative of four member organisations of the civic alliance Decolonize Berlin e.V. and the Berlin Senate Department for Culture and Europe. The Stadtmuseum Berlin Foundation could be attracted as a cooperation partner. The project is thus significantly upheld by stakeholders who for years have been committed to achieving a critical appraisal of colonialism by the city of Berlin.

Dekoloniale Memory Culture in the City perceives colonialism as a system of injustice, which always met with the resistance of the colonised people. The project picks up on the ever louder demands for a consistent change of perspective in the post-colonial memory culture. Instead of colonial and colonial-racist stakeholders, from now on the victims and opponents of colonial racism and exploitation are to receive attention and appreciation.

As a participatory solidarity project of historical-political education, we have set ourselves the goal of working with experts and activists worldwide to explore the past and present of the (anti-)colonial in Berlin, in the rest of Germany and in Germany’s former colonies explore and make visible online. Colonial history is always also a global history of entanglements: histories of life, places, objects and institutions connect Europe with Africa, Asia, Oceania, Australia and America.

Using the example of Berlin, Dekoloniale of Memory Culture in the City tests how a metropolis, its space, its institutions and its society can be examined on a broad level for (post-)colonial effects, how the invisible can be experienced and the visible can be irritated. The participatory cultural project is aimed at a broad and diverse urban society. It not only questions individual actors or fields – such as museums – about their (post-)colonial realities. During the project period, Dekoloniale mobilizes the entire city with its own activities and supporting cooperation.

Dekoloniale Memory Culture in the City is a joint project of Berlin Postkolonial eV , Each One Teach One – EOTO eV , Initiative Black People in Germany – ISD-Bund eV and the Stiftung Stadtmuseum Berlin . The state network Berlin Development Policy Advice – BER eV supports the project as a partner. In addition, we cooperate closely with the German Museum of Technology and the Berlin district museums in Treptow-Köpenick, Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf and Berlin-Mitte. The project is funded by the Berlin Senate Department for Culture and Europe and the German Federal Cultural Foundation.

The Dekoloniale Festival 2022 takes place from 1st – 4th September around Mariannenplatz. You can see the full programme in English here.

Where to now with the €9 travel ticket?

It provided brief opportunities, but we need more fundamental change to protect the environment and provide better services for the poor


31/08/2022

If you’re on English-speaking social media, you probably know the meme. It had a large picture of an ICE train and says “Germany is slashing public transit fares by 90% to encourage people to ditch their cars and save energy amid high gas prices.” It was very compelling. Even Tariq Ali shared it. It was also complete bullshit.

Here’s what really happened. In September 2021, Germany voted in a “traffic light” (SPD-Green-Liberal) coalition. This coalition became very unpopular very quickly, not least because one of its first acts was to double the military budget. Inflation was also rising to worrying levels, and Russia’s war with Ukraine had led to an increase in petrol prices.

This is not what is supposed to happen to new governments, which often start with a few reforms before disappointing their voters after a couple of years. The German government needed a populist policy. Enter the €9 ticket.

For three months, from June till August, people in Germany could buy a one-off travel ticket for €9, which entitled them to free transport throughout the country. It wasn’t eligible for all transport – the rich were still able to travel on their ICE and IC trains without being bothered by plebs who could not afford the posh trains. But it was still a real benefit for those of us for whom rail travel was becoming prohibitively expensive.

Writing in the Guardian in July, Melissa and Chris Bruntlett called the introduction of the €9 ticket a “bold and decisive” response to the Covid pandemic and climate change. They went on to argue that “after just one month, the success of the scheme appears to make a compelling case for other countries to follow suit.”

In this article, I want to argue two main points. Firstly, the €9 ticket has been a huge benefit, if not to the environment, then at least to transport users. If introduced properly, it could make a significant contribution to the reduction of car travel, and the pollution that comes with it. And yet, the ticket was never intended to bring long term change, and therefore we must demand much more than what is currently on offer.

What benefits did the €9 ticket bring?

I believe that the €9 ticket was issued in bad faith, and was not a serious attempt to deal with the catastrophic threat to the environment. Nonetheless, it has brought real changes, at the very least in the short term. In just the first month of June, over 30 million tickets were sold. Car usage in city centres dropped dramatically, leading to fewer traffic jams. 23 of 26 examined cities reported a decrease in congestion – up to 14% in cities like Hamburg and Wiesbaden.

The number of flights taken inside Germany sank by 31% compared to pre-pandemic levels. Researchers at the University of Potsdam recorded a 6% to 7% decrease in air pollution levels across Germany. In a poll by Civey, 55% of those asked called for the ticket to be continued. Only 34% were against.

And yet, all of these benefits are likely to disappear in September, when the ticket runs out and travellers return to their cars.

Not just environmental benefits

In its application as a temporary measure, the €9 ticket’s effectiveness in protecting the environment was only ever going to be limited. But, it was still of great benefit to the poor – people who usually can’t afford to leave the city by car or train. As such, it played a small part in redistributing wealth towards those who need the money the most.

Don’t believe the moaners in Ex-Pat chat groups (most of whom never use the cheap trains anyway). When they talk of overcrowded trains and people sitting in the aisles, they’re not entirely wrong, but even on the busiest Saturday, the conditions in German trains have been considerably better than those I’ve experienced on an average day travelling in the UK.

Besides which, to complain that too many people are using trains is a little perverse. This is something which can be solved with a little extra investment – by scheduling more trains, or adding extra carriages. Such investment could also be used to guarantee rail workers a decent wage, and to overcome reservations of the trade unions to fully support the ticket.

Even under the current limitations, the €9 ticket has enabled people in Germany to do all sorts of things that they previously couldn’t afford. The LINKE Berlin Internationals, a group of non-German Berlin activists, of which I am the speaker, organised a series of five separate day trips to visit parts of Germany which many people have not seen before.

In June, July and August, we visited Eisenhüttenstadt, the DDR’s first planned city, Dessau, home of the Bauhaus art movement, the Brecht-Weigel Haus in Buckow, the DDR art archive in Beeskow, and the former concentration camp in Sachsenhausen. These trips provided the ability not just to expand our experiences, but also to discuss important parts of Germany’s political and cultural history.

There were more fundamental savings. To travel around in Berlin, you need a Monatskarte, a monthly travel pass. A Monatskarte currently costs between €86 and €107. And yet in June, July and August, you could travel within Berlin for just €9 for the whole month. On top of this, you could travel outside the city boundaries whenever you want, a benefit not contained in the Monatskarte.

What the €9 ticket did not change

Today, 31st August, 2022, is the last day for which the tickets are valid. After that, we are going back to the old prices for rail travel. There are even reports that tickets will cost more than before.

This means that suggestions that the tickets would encourage car drivers to start using public transport are largely fanciful. You don’t sell your car if you know that in 3 months’ time, train tickets will cost more than ever. What is required is a well-funded public transport system, and increased investment, with the full cooperation of affected trade unions.

This investment is just not happening in Germany. In Berlin, the transport minister Regine Günther (Green Party) has been trying to privatise the S-Bahn (local train line). This would mean diverting money that could be used to make the transport system cheaper and more environmentally friendly into the pockets of shareholders.

In recent months, rail workers in Hessen have organised 5 warning strikes demanding more pay, fair conditions of employment, and that their demands be taken seriously. Other trade unions have been reluctant to support the €9 tickets, reporting that “elevators are broken, toilets on trains no longer work, everything is simply put under a lot of strain.” Claus Weselsky from the GdL union blamed this on “years of broken savings.”

As long ago as 2019, Politico reported that “Germany’s railways are creaking from years of underinvestment.” The article quotes Markus Sievers from Allianz Pro Schiene (alliance for rail) as saying that “Germany even lags behind Italy on investment per head”. In 2017, €66 per German citizen was invested in track infrastructure, compared to €165 in Britain, €128 in the Netherlands and €362 in Switzerland.

Complaints made about the €9 ticket were really about more systemic problems in the under-financed German transport system. We need a fundamental increase in the level of government investment. This requires working with trade unions, not using benefits for passengers to attack pay and working conditions. We also need more public transport in rural areas, where people were least likely to buy the €9 ticket.

What are the demands?

The €9 ticket was seriously popular, so naturally campaigns for its retention have sprung up. The civil movement campact has launched the campaign 9-Euro-Ticket retten! (save the €9 ticket) with the following demands:

  • Extend the €9 ticket until the end of the year and provide a permanent solution: a climate ticket which costs a maximum of €1 per day.

  • Invest in the expansion of the rail and regional transport offers, particularly in the countryside, so that public transport will be more attractive.

  • Finance this by reducing subsidies which damage the climate, such as tax advantages for company cars.

Similarly, a petition launched by the broad-based campaign 9 Euro Ticket weiterfahren (continue with the €9 ticket) has already received 14,000 signatories. This petition makes the following demands:

  • We want to permanently retain the €9 ticket, for public transport in the whole country.

  • We want the government to massively invest in bus and rail, and in more workers with good conditions.

  • We want to restructure the budget: finance mobility for all, instead of encouraging car traffic.

The campaign says the following: “the €9 Ticket costs €12 billion a year. The environmentally harmful subsidies and tax concessions from the Federal government amount to €65 billion every year. Both inexpensive tickets and the expansion of buses and trains are financeable, if the political will is there.”

Build political power

Germany’s neoliberal finance minister Christian Lindner has refused to consider continuing the ticket, arguing that it is “not fair”. Lindner also suggested that the €9 ticket was suspect because it was “supported by Antifa”. Although Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called the €9 ticket a “great success”, Lindner is an important coalition partner for him. The pressure for change must come from outside parliament.

The rail strikes in Britain have shown that the fight for public transport can inspire public support. 58% of Britons say that rail strikes are justified. Even the Church Times is reporting that rail union leader Mick Lynch is “suddenly popular”, while over half of people polled consistently believe that Labour leader Keir Starmer is doing badly in his job. A campaign for the €9 ticket which involves rail unions could be both popular and effective.

In a recent paper for the rosa luxemburg stiftung, Mario Candeias argued: “an expansion of public transport would ensure more social justice because it is precisely the poorer sections of the population that are most dependent on public transport, as they cannot afford cars.” An extension of the €9 ticket, combined with increased investment in transport infrastructure would benefit both the environment and the everyday lives of people who are not super-rich.

What now?

Despite all of this, there is still no offer of extending the ticket. There are rumours of some variation of an extension, from a €365 yearly ticket to a €69 monthly ticket, both significantly more expensive than what has been on offer for the last 3 months.

In Berlin, there has been speculation of even more on a local level. SPD mayor Franziska Giffey is considering continuing the ticket within Berlin’s AB zones, although she has not committed herself to a price. DGB (trade union confederation) leader Katja Karger has gone further, suggesting a ticket which covers both Berlin and Brandenburg. But still nothing concrete is on the table.

How likely is a solution? On the national level, things don’t look hopeful. The SPD and Greens are happy to claim credit for the scheme while blaming the FDP for Lindner’s opposition. That way they gain the political benefits without having to pay anything.

On a local level, the chance of change is higher. Giffey recently experienced a turbulent party conference, where she was re-elected as SPD leader, but only with 59% of the vote, despite there being no challenger. This is an incredibly low vote, and she needs to offer something to restore her popularity. Together with growing discontent, and talk of a “hot Autumn” of protests, she may just be forced to deliver.