The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Alain Krivine: The May 68 Activist And Lifelong Anti-capitalist Remembered

Obituary of the French socialist Alain Krivine, who died last week


21/03/2022

Alain Krivine (1941-2022), whose activity as a revolutionary socialist spanned 65 years, has died, aged 80.

His paternal grandfather, a Ukrainian Jew, had fled the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian empire. At the age of six months his family was visited by agents of the Gestapo, who are said to have declared of Alain and his twin, Hubert, that they were “beautiful boys”. They were subsequently removed by his parents, who both survived, to a ‘safe’ home in the north of France. His four brothers, who were all politically active, pursued distinguished careers in medicine, science and business; the conductor Emmanuel and the mathematician Jean-Louis are cousins.

Alain joined the youth wing of the Communist Party (PCF) – then an organisation with more than a quarter of a million members – in 1956, when he was only fifteen. It was the year of the Russian invasion of Hungary, Khruschev’s ‘Secret Speech’ denouncing the crimes of Stalin, the Suez Crisis and the hijacking by the French army of the plane carrying the leaders of the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN). The following year he was in Moscow to attend a Communist youth conference where he came into contact with emissaries of the FLN who were critical of the Communist party’s refusal to give outright support to the national liberation movement. He was to return to the country several times in later years, helping to set up a Russian section of the Trotskyist Fourth International.

On his return to France, Alain soon clashed with the leadership of the PCF and of the party’s student organisation, of which he was a member. After joining the Trotskyist movement (two of his brothers had preceded him) he continued his activity in the Union of Communist Students until his expulsion in 1966. In the years before Algerian independence in 1962 he was active in Jeune Résistance, an underground network of supporters of the FLN, one of whose tasks was to delay trains taking conscripts to the war, earning the displeasure of the PCF leadership.

Krivine is best known as one of the leaders of the Jeunesses Communistes Révolutionnaires, the organisation he helped create in 1966, during the epic May-June events in 1968. There is a right-wing myth that the movement was essentially a revolt of middle-class youth, conveniently forgetting the general strike by ten million workers. Alain, who was active on the barricades and the march to the Renault factory in Billancourt (where the union and Communist Party cadres ensured there would be no fraternising with rank-and-file workers), knew that the key to overthrowing the régime lay with the working-class. But, as he repeated on many occasions right up to the speaking tour he undertook in 2018 for the movement’s fiftieth anniversary, he also knew that the Communist Party and the CGT union federation, which it controlled, were determined to hold back the struggle, and that they had the ability to do so. The revolutionaries had no ‘plan’ to make a revolution. He recalled a demonstration passing in front the parliament building, which was protected by three policemen: “the idea of taking over the parliament never even occurred to us”.

Amongst the many tributes paid to him were those from Chilean leftists for his support after the military coup of 1973, and from Algerian revolutionaries for his political advice and support

In June 1968, as the revolt subsided, the JCR were banned. Krivine was briefly imprisoned in the ancient Santé prison in Paris. In 1973, the successor organisation, the Ligue Communiste, was again banned after a demonstration against the fascist group, Ordre Nouveau, turned violent. The Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR) was founded a few months later.

While remaining faithful to the aim of building a party rooted in the working class, his organisation, unlike some rival groups who considered them “petty bourgeois”, was open to the new social movements of young people, women’s rights and environmentalist activists, anti-militarist struggles among others. Alain had cut his teeth on antifascism, his parents’ home had been bombed by far-right terrorists in 1962, and he was generous in his support of undocumented immigrants. However, the majority of the Ligue, like most of the French left, were less well equipped to deal with the emergence of Islamophobia, which became a serious issue in France. Krivine was no exception.

The essence of Alain’s politics was anti-imperialism, as well as anti-Stalinism. In 1967, he helped print and distribute a French translation of the Open Letter to the Polish communist party, written by two dissident Marxists, Jacek Kuron and Karol Modzelwski. In February 1968, he was in Berlin to demonstrate against the Vietnam War alongside the students of the SDS and their leader Rudi Dutschke (Krivine would help organise the demonstrations against the Springer press following the assassination attempt against Dutschke in April of that year). He participated as an observer in the Nicaraguan elections of 1984 and 1990. In the 1980s he spared no effort to defend the anti-colonialist movement in the French territory of New Caledonia (Kanaky). In the 2000s he visited Palestine as part of a delegation as well as Venezuela, where he met the Bolivian Evo Morales. He also took part in events organised by the global justice movement in Brazil. Amongst the many tributes paid to him were those from Chilean leftists for his support after the military coup of 1973, and from Algerian revolutionaries for his political advice and support.

Although considering themselves to be a “party of the struggles”, the Ligue did not ignore elections. In the aftermath of the May events, Krivine stood in the presidential election of 1969 while doing his military service, obtaining just over 1% of the vote (by comparison, the PCF, which he considered to be primarily responsible for the defeat of June 1968, obtained 21 per cent). Five years later he obtained even less, while a young bankworker, Arlette Laguiller, obtained 2% for the rival Trotskyist party, Lutte Ouvrière. In 1999, standing on a joint LCR-LO platform with Arlette, they were both elected to the European parliament. In 2004, he was back in his favourite role as full-time organiser and agitator at the Ligue’s headquarters in Montreuil.

There were many setbacks, and a succession of splits but the contribution of the ‘Ligue’ to creating a dynamic, innovative, democratic political culture of the revolutionary left was ongoing. Krivine knew how to encourage younger militants, and he quickly spotted the talent of a young postman, Olivier Besancenot, who obtained over 4% of the vote in the presidential elections of 2002 and 2007. This was to be a highwater mark in terms of electoral politics.

Responding to the rise of opposition to neoliberalism and the strikes and mass demonstrations in 2006 in which school and university students joined forces with unions to force the government to withdraw a law creating a new, precarious contract for young workers, Krivine and the majority of the Ligue took the risky step of disbanding into a new formation, the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA). The party claimed 9 000 members, making it probably the largest organisation of the far left in the developed world. It was an ambitious plan which assumed that Besancenot’s popularity could be translated into a new type of party and that waves of struggle would attract a new generation of activists.

The potential undoubtedly existed. The French working-class and young people had demonstrated remarkable combativity since the great public sector strikes of 1995, and many more struggles were to come (despite declining union membership), but this did not lead to a growth in revolutionary organisation. The NPA, while continuing to recruit a layer of young people, saw its membership decline rapidly, and those who stayed were divided between a number of factions, something which had long plagued the LCR.

The NPA was also upstaged by the formation of Le France Insoumise, the party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who obtained 19.5% in the 2017 presidential election, compared to just over 1% for the NPA’s candidate, car worker Philippe Poutou. Undoubtedly the success of Besancenot in 2002 and 2007 and the continued decline of the Communist and Socialist parties encouraged the NPA’s members to believe, in their words, that they had a “boulevard” before them. This turned out to be an illusion, resulting in part from underestimating the attraction of left reformist, as opposed to revolutionary politics. A decade after the foundation of the NPA, Krivine could characteristically admit that “we messed it up”, but, as always, “the fight must go on”.

He would be the first to volunteer to carry out the humblest organisational tasks… Alain was a very human revolutionary

Despite mistakes, the LCR/NPA has made a significant contribution to keeping the revolutionary, internationalist tradition alive – and not just as a club for “survivors”. Krivine’s party will be present once more in this year’s presidential election, though it is to be feared that its candidate will fail to attract more than a tiny proportion of voters. In this period, without exception, Alain Krivine was present, leading, encouraging and sometimes reprimanding comrades, in the spirit of “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. Even as illness overtook him, he was still an inspiration.

A committed Marxist, Krivine is not known as a theoretician, and the list of his publications is short (this role was played by his close friend, Daniel Bensaïd, and others). He was above all an activist, a charismatic speaker, a formidable debater, and no task was too small if it helped build the organisation. In later years, when I knew him, he was a stalwart of the LCR (and later the NPA) in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis – then a stronghold of the PCF – where he asked for and received no special treatment, despite his aura of ‘grand old man’ of the far left. He could be found in the town centre every Sunday morning, selling the party’s paper, Rouge (later L’Anticapitaliste), and amiably greeting local residents. When debating tactics and strategy he was less accommodating, as I once found to my cost – though I was unimpressed by his arguments.

However, he was never a ‘star’. It is indeed extraordinary how often two adjectives come up in tributes from comrades who knew him well – ‘modest’ and ‘kind’. He would be the first to volunteer to carry out the humblest organisational tasks, and his first thought was often to put at ease the newest or youngest recruit or offer to help a comrade in difficulty. Alain was a very human revolutionary. He also had a nice line in anecdotes and jokes: on one occasion, just after the death of Bensaïd, I asked him about the number of Jews in the organisation when it was founded. He replied by saying that the joke at the time was that there were two factions on the central committee – the Ashkenazi Jews and the Sephardic Jews.

There is a saying that it is normal to be a revolutionary when you are young and a conservative when you are middle-aged. It is true that many, but far from all, of Krivine’s best-known contemporaries and comrades on the radical left would leave revolutionary politics to become successful academics, politicians, media personalities or even neo-conservative ‘intellectuals’. Alain himself would never abandon his belief that “Another world is possible”. When he published an autobiography in 2006 it was called “Ca te passera avec l’âge”, which could be translated as “You’ll get over it, son” or “You’ll grow up one day”. It was another example of his humour and playfulness. He never did “get over it”, of course. Nor, contrary to the myth, did the majority of those who took to the streets in 1968 – though few had the willpower to dedicate themselves so single-mindedly to the cause.

Alain Krivine is survived by his wife Michèle, his daughters and grandchildren. A final march of friends, family and comrades accompanied him today to the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris, where he is in good company.

Respect, comrade : « Ce n’est qu’un début, continuons le combat ! »

Colin Falconer was a member of the same local committee of the LCR/NPA as Alain Krivine. He is currently a member of Ensemble!

We didn’t expect that our forum to help refugees in Berlin would be so successful

Ukrainian socialist Taras Salamaniuk talks about anti-capitalism, the anti-war movement in Ukraine and Russia, and how you can concretely help refugees from Ukraine  


20/03/2022

Q: Hello Taras. Thanks for talking to us. Could you start by telling is a little bit about yourself?

A: I’m originally from the Western part of Ukraine, from a city near to the Polish border. It’s a rather conservative, and religious region. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union it has moved in a nationalistic direction. I studied sociology in Kyiv and connected with activists in the student trade union, and engaged in direct action. This was around 2010-2011. From anarcho-syndicalism, I became a Marxist. And then Maidan came.

Q: There was a lot of confusion in the West about Maidan. Some people called it a left-wing uprising, some saw it as Fascist. How would you categorise it?

A: I would say that it was neither Leftist nor Rightist. It was a popular uprising increasingly dominated by the Svoboda party and other far right groups. We clearly saw that although the far right did not participate in a lot of protests, they were the most visible. Repression and street violence against the Leftists prevented their profile.

They managed to bring down the Lenin statue in Kyiv and other cities. After that it was about the Ukrainian language. They were quite successful – although Svoboda lost in the election. But they allowed discourse for pro-Maidan people, contributing to splitting Ukraine into anti-Maidan and Maidan.

They were able to do this because the core of the Maidan agenda was just an anti-authoritarian one. Of course it was also about integration into the Euro, but for the people on the streets, the first protest was more about anti-authoritarianism.

Their visible involvement, fueled Russian media propaganda which underlined the involvement of Nazis at the protests. As the liberal opposition in Ukraine did not distance themselves from the far Right, this furthered the split, which continued until the current war.

Q: So, three months ago, before Putin’s invasion, what was the political landscape of Ukraine?

A: Three months ago, Zelensky was quite a weak president. He won the presidency with an impressive majority – the first absolute majority in modern Ukraine, avoiding a coalition government for the first time. But then a lot of people were disappointed that he didn’t manage to deliver on his promises, especially on his promise of peace.

There were hints of a comeback of former president Poroshenk. In the second round of the previous elections, Zelensky had crushed Poroshenko. There was a hint that Zelensky was losing support. People were also getting disappointed and moving out of politics.

There was also some repression against the so-called “pro-Russian opposition”, which was stronger in the traditionally Russian speaking part of Ukrainian society. One of the opposition leaders, Victor Medvedchuk, who named Putin as godfather to his daughter, was put under house arrest. The pro-Russian opposition had a little support but was quite oppressed and lost support after the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass conflict. People who might have voted for them just moved out of Ukraine.

Ukraine politics was at a dead end. Previously there had an equilibrium between the pro-Russian and pro-European camps. This was no longer the case.

Q: Was there any sort of internationalist left wing opposition outside these camps?

No. First of all, the so-called pro-Russian faction is more left wing in economical questions. They are against strong pro-market reforms. They are not really leftists, but they’re a bit social democratic. In contrast, the pro-European camp is rather neo-liberal. 

Polls from three or four years ago show that Ukrainians don’t want to be described as Leftists, to be seen like a Soviet. At the same time, they support some of the central demands of the Left such as the nationalisation of key sectors or a progressive tax system. It is quite paradoxical .It is even more complicated as the Svoboda party is far right, but their economic programme also calls for the nationalisation of key industries.

However, in cultural terms, both the pro-European and pro-Russian camps are conservative. Maybe a bit less among the pro-Europeans, but a lot of them are still homophobic, and so on.

The internationalist Left groups are quite marginal, mainly centred around Kyiv. Most people move to Kyiv for education.. There is a Leftist community of about 1000 people.

In 2010 the Left was more or less united. But then, especially during Maidan, they split into different sections. This was still so three months ago.

I was part of a social movement, to found a workers’ party in connection with an independent trades union. But it was unsuccessful and then tried to help individuals with labour relations. Their main demand was to freeze the conflict.

Another group, more intellectual based (known as The Reds) embraced the Soviet identity more and tried to speak to the original pro-Russian, Russian-speaking camp. They argued that the conflict should not be frozen but resolved and that Ukraine needed to embrace the Minsk agreement and reintegrate Donbass. This argument about freezing the conflict or reintegrating Donbass was a line which split the Left.

Q; So, if I understand it correctly, towards the end of last year we have a pro-European ruling party which is losing support, a pro-Russian opposition, and a tiny Left which is mainly based in Kyiv. And then Putin invaded. How did this change Ukrainian politics?

A: It wasn’t so much pro-Russian politics that were gaining support but the pro-nationalistic politics of Poroshenko. The pro-Russia position was stagnating, due to repression and loss of electorate. They were also splintered and couldn’t agree on how to build a united front against the other camp.

Regarding the invasion, one could say that Putin miscalculated. He probably thought that it was a perfect time to invade due to the political dead end in Ukraine. The brutal force of the invasion shocked me. The vast majority of people in Ukraine was shocked.

Zelensky acted as the president of a country should. He is a bit of a showman but this served him quite well in these times. Every day he makes a video message promoting morale across the country and the vast majority of people have united under his banner against the Russian invasion.

Some of the Left joined the militia in Kyiv where they got rifles and they’re ready to defend Kyiv against the Russian troops. Another Leftist faction opposes the invasion but has remained quite silent. At the beginning they also tried to criticize Ukrainian actions but then – maybe due to some threats, I don’t know – they just stopped and now remain silent.

The same for the so-called “pro-Russian” opposition – who mainly remained silent. There was a demand by Putin that one of the “pro-Russians” Yuriy Boyko should become prime minister, but Boyko very quickly said he wasn’t interested, saying he doesn’t have anything in common with Putin. The mayor of Odessa, Trukhanov, also has a pro-Russian reputation but is now saying that they are defending Odessa to prepare against a Russian invasion. I can’t think of any politician who would publicly saying anything in support of Putin.

This has consequences for local Leftists. Although they didn’t support Putin and some supported Ukrainian self-defence efforts, it’s still dangerous for some of them to remain in the country.

Someone I know, Alexander, was active in anti-Maidan but was targeted by police and some local militia who were originally part of the local Nazi scene. Attacked in his own house, he was tortured, his head was shaved, as was that of his wife. They were beaten up then he was taken to jail. They are accusing him of treason. It’s horrible.

It’s also very difficult to organise his defence. It’s hard to find a lawyer who is able and willing to defend him. If you say now that there are also some Nazis in the militias, you will be accused of helping Putin and his talk of “denazification”.

Q: We’re now getting news reports that German Nazis are now going over to fight. Do you have any information?

A: I don’t have any specific information but I also heard this, it’s quite logical. They have had connections with the Azov battalion. The movement around Bilesky, the leader of Azov is connected with Der Dritte Weg and other organisations, so he’s a real Nazi. But one should say that of course Russia has their own Nazis, and in Donetsk and Luhansk they are also using Nazi brigades in their battalions.

I think that it will be very important to criticize this Nazi involvement after the war ends. Especially if Ukraine is going to be accepted as a member candidate to the EU. What we as Leftists in Germany and the EU can do is put public pressure on our national governments that the Ukraine government examines these cases of torture; to fire Nazis from all official positions that they currently hold in the army; and to withdraw all government funding that they enjoy now.

All this should be done, but of course for people like Alexander who are now facing prosecution, it could be too late. Maybe they will torture him further, or maybe even kill him using the war as a pretext. This is a real danger.

Q: Let’s move onto Germany, because we’re in Germany. What should the German government do and what shouldn’t it do? What are your demands?

A: We don’t have any demands for governments. But I think that all people in our diaspora of Ukrainian Leftists in Berlin would all support sanctions – preferably an oil and gas embargo rather sooner than later- to hit the Putin régime hard. As it’s getting warmer, maybe Germany won’t  be dependent on Russian gas imports.

About weapon exports I would agree with Gregor Gysi responding to Sahra Wagenknecht and other former Putinversteher [ “Putin understanders”] in die LINKE. Now, they are of course opposing Putin’s invasion but they think that we need to blame both sides. I support Gysi because it’s important that the German and international Left should acknowledge and honour the right of Ukrainian people to self-defence. For Ukrainian people to carry out this right, they need some support.

I don’t like the patriarchal belief that adult men can’t leave the country because they all need to fight, while the women should leave with the children. I also don’t like it that some war criminals would be freed from jail to fight. But in general I think that there is an enthusiasm of people to fight and defend their livelihood and their cities against invasion.

After Maidan, no part of the country wants to be part of Russia – see the videos from Kherson and other Southern cities currently under Russian occupation. All across Ukraine people are willing to defend their country and they should get support.

Q: What sort of support?

A: Now, lethal weapons should also be considered. The main thing to do is just stop the aggression and stop the invasion. But the support should be balanced. It’s not only about lethal weapons. It’s about medicine, it’s about humanitarian help. All options should be on the table.

I’m also thankful if people are willing to help civilians, make donations to charities in Ukraine, helping old people and children who are especially affected by this war. All these are important. All little steps help.

Q: In terms of stopping the war, do you have any contact with the anti-war movement in Russia?

A: Yes we do. A comrade of ours, Sasha, is on the border of these two groups. She’s originally from Ukraine, but grew up in Russia. Five or six months ago, she moved to Berlin, but she’s also an active member of a socialist movement in Russia, especially in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Sasha helps us with our initiative Host Ukrainians and is also organising protests. She has a very important function, as these harsh new laws in Russia, have heavily criminalised all opportunities to criticize or organise protests. From outside Russia, she’s free to post in social media. They also have a call centre to help people who are currently under arrest because of the protests.

This is a very important job, but it’s a thankless one. I really appreciate their effort. It is the only way to remain moral, as a human, to protest this absurdity. But there is such a level of oppression making a lot of people in Russia just afraid.

Now it looks like they are damned to be crushed by the régime. This all could change due to sanctions. Russian society could get fatigued. This is a difficult trade-off for activists: to oppose this absurd war but to remain intact. Maybe you need to go underground and become a partisan guerilla group. They still try to remain legal but it has become more challenging each day.

We really appreciate what Sasha is doing, but as Ukrainian Leftists we don’t know how we could help. We honour their attempts but we don’t know what we can do.

Q: You mentioned Host Ukrainians. Can you say something about the work you’re doing in Berlin for Ukrainian refugees and how people can help you?

A: As activists, we come from different regions of Ukraine. Most of us moved to Berlin to study. We organised events, some public some private, to discuss Ukraine.

Host Ukrainians’ was the most serious initiative. On the first day of the war, we made a call to meet together. We were all shocked and met in my flat. This idea emerged to make a forum for people in Germany who could offer some space.

We reached out to our German contacts. I have been in Germany for 7 years. We all have political contacts. We didn’t expect it to be a huge success, but the next day, we had 100 answers. Now we have something like 1,000, and a quite impressive database of people willing to share their flat with Ukrainians. Especially in Berlin, but we also have people in other cities like Leipzig and Dresden. We are also looking for new people, so if somebody can offer accommodation, we are interested.

We want to accommodate Ukrainians temporarily. To be a bridge when there’s already a lot of refugees, but official institutions haven’t yet managed to accommodate them. So, our database has Ukrainians looking for a place and one with Germans offering somewhere.

Sometimes it takes a few days, sometimes a few hours. We may need to accompany people who are outside Ukraine for the first time not knowing German or English. Some people have special needs like medicinal support, children, etc. The first couple of weeks will be the most difficult time and we try to make our small contribution to help to accommodate people.

There are a lot of other initiatives, but ours is special because we have a special relationship with the German Left. It’s not a big secret that the mainstream Ukrainian diaspora are mostly anti-Communistic. This makes it hard for them to address German Leftists who already in 2015/2016 managed to establish quite impressive networks to help Syrian refugees.

Q: Do people need to be able to speak a certain language to help?

A: We don’t care what language they speak – English, German or whatever language you have. But we are looking for volunteers who speak Russian and English in order to translate. In Ukraine, only five, ten, maybe fifteen per cent know English. German even less.

Evangelical and Lutheran churches are accommodating people, and today I got three requests to translate. In seven years it is the first time my Ukrainian skill is in demand. (laughs)

It’s a really busy time and we are all volunteers. We don’t have the plan to formalise it, but we have free time and want to help. It is important to be active for two-three weeks accommodating people, and we hope that then Berlin and Laender will react to build the necessary capacities.

Q:If somebody wants to help either host people or translate, how do they best get in touch with you?

A: Volunteers to translate can send an e-mail to host.ukrainians@gmail.com. If you know Ukrainian or German it is even better, but if you can translate Russian-English that’s ok. If you can accommodate people, you can fill out this form. This provides the structure to help us process the offers.

Is a Cultural Boycott of Russia justified?

A boycott of Russian cultural institutions is affecting conductors, ballet and even a statue of Engels. Comparisons with similar boycotts of South Africa and Israel do not hold up.


19/03/2022

As sanctions against Russia intensify, it seems that Russian conductors, singers and ballet and music companies have also become targets. Russia’s most famous living conductor Valery Gergiev has had his contract to conduct various orchestras cancelled and his management company has also abandoned him. Anna Netrebko, who has been the New York Metropolitan Opera’s premier in-house soprano for many years now, has also had her contract terminated. She’s even been replaced in a forthcoming opera she was scheduled to be singing in by a Ukrainian soprano!

The Royal Opera House at Covent Garden in the UK has cancelled a summer season with the Bolshoi ballet, whilst the Helix Theatre in Dublin cancelled a performance of Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake by the Royal Moscow Ballet. And the Russian State Ballet from Siberia has also had its tour of various cities across the UK cancelled. There is also a massive boycott now developing of artists of all sorts going to Russia to perform.

There have even been demands in the UK for the statue of Frederick Engels in Manchester to be taken down. Engels was most certainly not Russian and, having died in 1895, can’t be held in any way responsible for current events in Ukraine. In fact, he was the staunchest of opponents of colonialism and imperialism. It seems that there are some who associate Engels with Putin because he was once a KGB agent in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union formally revered Engels—whilst actually defying everything Marx and Engels stood for, following Stalin’s accession to dictatorship over the Soviet Union. What’s more, Putin has attacked Lenin and the Bolsheviks for giving Ukraine the right to self-determination.

The boycott of the Royal Moscow Ballet is particularly grotesque as it receives no money from the Russian state and includes in its company ballet dancers from many different countries, including Ukraine. The demands being placed on Russian artists and artistic companies are also patently unreasonable given the circumstances: it’s now illegal in Russia to describe the invasion of Ukraine as an invasion or a war. It’s clear people will lose jobs and jeopardise their families’ welfare if they denounce Putin and the invasion. One might argue that they should follow the lead of the very brave peace campaigners in Russia, but that is surely their choice and not one the West has any right to impose on them.

Some managements may argue in addition that if they now entertain Russian artists and artistic companies, they will suffer threats and intimidation, including demonstrations. This is a more serious argument, though not one that is motivating these managements in the first instance. But such a reaction to ballet companies, opera singers, etc, is surely indicative of the frenzy that has been whipped up by governments and the media. It is part and parcel of the mounting war hysteria following Putin’s brutal and entirely unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine which is now taking on a distinctly Russophobic feeling in many parts of Europe. This is escalating Western imperialism, which is threatening to widen the conflict and lead to far greater loss of life.

One justification for this artistic and cultural boycott is that it might put pressure on Putin to moderate his attacks on Ukraine. The central problem with this argument is that there is absolutely no indication that the unprecedented economic sanctions being imposed on Russia are having any effect at all in encouraging peace rather than war. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be the case. So, there is even less reason to think a cultural and artistic boycott will be any more effective.

There are also massive double standards at work. The New York Metropolitan Opera, for example, has treated its own workers abysmally during lockdown, refusing to pay the people who make sure that operas can actually be staged. But more egregious is the rank political hypocrisy. Israeli conductors and performers continue to be welcomed across Europe despite the daily assaults on Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank and the continuous encroachment on occupied Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. And the noted German conductor Christian Thielemann, who in the past has expressed his support for the far right, racist and Islamophobic organisation PEGIDA is still getting plenty of contracts to conduct across the Western world.

The cultural boycott has also been extended to a sporting boycott, whose the double standards are even more grotesque. Russia has been kicked out of all or almost all international sporting competitions. In the UK, the Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has felt obliged to sell Chelsea Football Club, which he has owned since 2003. Meanwhile, super-rich Saudis have been allowed to buy Newcastle United, despite the patent lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia, its propensity to cut the heads off people who break its laws and its continuing and very bloody war on Yemen. And Israel remains a member of UEFA despite not being in Europe and being a racist, settler state.

The contrast between the Ukrainian case and Apartheid South Africa is notable. Some of the people demanding economic sanctions on and boycotts of Russia are the same people who resisted them in the case of South Africa for very many years, arguing that it was better to have “constructive engagement” with regimes with which one disagreed. The same is no doubt being said today about Saudi Arabia and other loathsome regimes, but which have the one redeeming feature for Western imperialists—that they’re on the side of Western imperialism rather than neutral or on the side of rival imperialists. Having a lot of oil also helps.

Of course, there is one big difference between Apartheid South Africa and Russia today. The African National Congress, the principal organised opposition consisting of South Africans in the days of Apartheid, stood firmly in support of the widest possible sanctions to isolate the racist regime and weaken it (though ultimately it was the struggle of black South Africans themselves which brought about the downfall of Apartheid).

Similarly, the call for a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel has come from Palestinian civil society organisations seeking to fight back against the constant attack on the basic human rights of Palestinians inside Israel, in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza. That campaign extends to a cultural boycott and to including academics and rightly so. Israel enjoys the indulgence of the West in its development of nuclear weapons, its repression of the Palestinian people and the extension of its borders into Syria in the Golan Heights as well as in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinian activists are clear that the more successful the BDS campaign, the more it will give them confidence to fight back and resist Israeli oppression. This, in turn, will empower those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in the surrounding countries of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt to find ways to express their solidarity for the Palestinian people often in defiance of their autocratic and reactionary governments, most of which, if not all, are firmly in the Western camp.

The Russian situation is quite different; the call for boycotts and sanctions, far from being against what is desired by Western establishment political leaders, is being led by them. It’s all part of the extension of Western imperialism through NATO up to the borders of Russia, contrary to the promises made in the 1990s to Russian leaders after the fall of the Soviet Union. Even more importantly, no demands for sanctions and boycotts have been issued by the most progressive forces inside Russia. As things stand, they rightly fear that laying economic siege to Russia will both strengthen the scope of repression and risk Putin further escalating the appalling events in Ukraine. Moreover, boycotts and sanctions in this instance bear the risk that the confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia will spiral out of control, engulfing surrounding countries and leading to many, many more deaths and displaced people. Economic sanctions combined with cultural boycotts are not a peaceful alternative to war—they are steps on the road to war.

Of course, few on the left will shed tears over hugely privileged and very rich artists like Gergiev and Netrebko having their contracts cancelled and even less over the sanctions on rich so-called oligarchs. But they are easy targets and are being used to justify a much broader set of boycotts and economic sanctions that are hurting the Russian people in general and Russian artists in particular, who are simply seeking to do the things they love to do to bring joy to whomever has the luck to see them perform. Moreover, it seems more important than ever for Russian people facing repression and economic meltdown to know they are not isolated from those of us in the West who oppose imperialism and war. These boycotts and sanctions are all part of an ever-increasing escalation at the end of which lies the threat of nuclear war itself. The left should oppose them, seek de-escalation and an end to the killing. We urgently need peace, not war.

 

“The only thing that you can ever really depend on in Berlin is that it will change”

Ahead of Saturday’s political walking tour, Izzy Choksey talks about Berlin’s radical history


17/03/2022

Hello Izzy. Can we start with you introducing yourself? What are you currently doing in Berlin, and what have you done?

So, my name’s Izzy. I’ve been in Berlin for about nine years now. I come originally from the UK, and I moved here when I was 24 to take up an internship. The internship was a pretty shitty one – I quit it within a couple of weeks. Later, I decided to kind of take a complete career shift.

I was an English speaking person living in the centre of the historical memory of Europe during the 20th century. I previously studied history, and I’ve always considered myself first and foremost a historian. So I decided to become a tour guide.

I started back in early 2015, and I did it all the way up until the pandemic. I worked as a tour guide for five and a half years. I loved it, and I miss it very much. I’m looking forward to the opportunity to do the occasional tour.

Let’s talk about tour guiding as a job. Tour guides are sometimes taken a bit for granted, both by their employers and the people on the tours. What are the working conditions like?

When I was doing it, Berlin was going through a steady sustained increase in tourists every year. You had millions of people coming to the city throughout the year. There was definitely more work in the summer than in the winter time, but there was always work. We made plenty of money and there wasn’t a huge amount of competition between us all.

About the working conditions, I can only really speak for myself. A lot of people I know did it for a long time, half a decade, just like me. You don’t do a job like that for that long If it’s rubbish. It was outside, you are talking to new people every single day. The money was pretty great.

Until the pandemic this was a fantastic job. However, you don’t have any rights. You don’t have any contracts. You’re just a freelancer. And that means that you can be picked up and dropped as is.

How has Covid affected tour guides? It’s a precarious procession. What sort of support was made available?

We got the freelancer grants at the beginning of the pandemic. It was about five grand in a one-time payment. I think you could reapply for that in October 2020. Then a lot of people went on unemployment benefit. I got a job by November 2020, so I was out of the woods.

I don’t think many people foresaw how precarious it became. Tourism just felt like the gift that kept on giving, It didn’t feel like something that would be eradicated overnight. This was a shock that the industry wasn’t prepared for.

We had talked about unionizing for a few years before that, but nothing had ever come of it because it was such a seasonal job. We could work for multiple companies and weren’t locked into contracts. Without this, most likely the pay would be lower. Things like tips come into question as well. I made about half my money from tips.

Many of us were not able to access statutory health insurance. I became a student in 2017, partly because I wanted to learn some more stuff, but also so I could get onto statutory insurance. Before that I was on private insurance which was not good.

I put nothing towards my pension for five and a half years. I wasn’t paying into social security because of the freelancer lifestyle. Much of my money was essentially Schwarzgeld [untaxed semi-legal income].

[Editor’s note: Not only do some plans not cover basic medical requirements, if you get your insurance last minute or after 15 days have passed from the day you booked the trip, you may not be able to get full coverage. You can find more information about obtaining insurance for international travelers, students, workers and immigrants at the VisaGuide world, or the Germany Visa websites].

In “Homage to Catalonia”, George Orwell talks about the liberation of Catalonia in 1937 when people stopped tipping because of the power relationship involved. Did you have a problem working for tips?

In my job, some people tipped and some people didn’t. Sometimes you’d walk away with a very large amount of money, sometimes with slightly less. But it was fairly consistent and I never felt in any way that I needed to change my behaviour.

Other companies were based on a model of free tours, which meant that you pay what you want at the end of the tour, based on your experience. A tour guide would have to pay the company a certain amount of money per tourist, and hope that you get, say, more than four Euros per tourist. Otherwise you’ve lost money.

I never did those tours because I didn’t want to have that power relationship between me and the tourists. For me, getting tips was just a massive bonus. It was something that I really appreciated and made up around half of my income. A bad tour meant that I was potentially losing a nice bonus at the end of the day, but it was not a tragedy because I knew I was getting paid for that tour.

It’s a very complicated relationship overall, and I haven’t really thought about it before. We did base a lot of our income on tips. And that obviously creates a certain dynamic between a tourist and what I was, which was essentially a service sector worker.

You’re trying to explain stuff in the simplest kernels of truth and maybe you’ll inspire someone to go and learn more.

On Saturday you are coming out of retirement to do a new tour. Is there any particular motivation that you had for doing this one?

This tour is going to be about the history of the Left in Berlin. I am fascinated by the subject and wanted to learn more, which is often where the best ideas for tours come from. Berlin is a canvas on which you can paint many beautiful tours.

What’s so interesting about this particular subject matter is that Berlin is a city of change. It’s a city of constant rebirth, of chaos and destruction, which is then reborn as something different. The only thing that you can ever really depend on in Berlin is that it will change. I wanted to see what the Left has changed and how it has changed itself as a result of interacting with Berlin.

Anyone who has a basic understanding of history, especially over the 20th century, can imagine what might come out of that tour.

Just thinking of the last century, we have the First World War, the German Revolution, the rise of Fascism, the DDR, the squatters’ movement and the rebirth of United Germany as an imperial power. How can you structure a tour to fit in all of this?

Firstly, you have to put together all your facts and figure out what the major themes are. At the same time, it’s not an undergraduate degree programme in Berlin history, you’re conducting a four hour tour. You’re trying to explain stuff in the simplest kernels of truth and maybe you’ll inspire someone to go and learn more.

You don’t just look for historical fact, you also look for locations. In this tour, we’re going to go through some of the most historic parts of the city and talk only how the Left was affected by those places. I hope to show places that have influenced and have energized and have changed as a result of leftist politics.

This tour is going to be going from Alexanderplatz to Oranienplatz – basically Alt-Mitte and Kreuzberg. Which are some of the most important locations in this area?

For the first part of the tour, we’re going to do 1848 to 1919. It will go from Marx and Engels Platz to Rosa Luxemburg Platz, where I’ll talk about the German Revolution and the death of Rosa Luxemburg, and how this affected the movement.

I want to show the creation of the schism between the two parts of the left – the SPD and KPD in party political terms, liberals and the far left in more philosophical terms. After talking about Karl Marx’s role in the 1848 revolutions, I’ll address the death of Rosa Luxemburg. What did she stand for and how she was in a schism when a new nation was born during the German revolution?

These are aspects of world history that happened here in a turbocharged way and gave rise to the turbocharged politics of the 20th century.

Another really exciting location that we’re going to go to is the Sophiensäle which has a fantastic history for leftist movements. It’s also a place that is genuinely beautiful to visit and often hidden from the naked eye. It’s not somewhere that most people have on their lists.

Then we’re going to Kreuzberg to talk about gentrification, the squatters’ movement, and more recent struggles. We’ll look at how Berlin has been shaped by the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, and what reunification meant for this part of the city that was right up against the wall for 28 years, surrounded on three sides, squeezed in with a mostly working class population which came from lots of different places in the world, most prominently Turkey.

We’ll be looking at the workers’ history of Kreuzberg and how it was shaped by the massive changes that occurred on a higher political level.

How much do you think you can use Berlin to talk about more general international politics? Is Berlin just different?

When you’re talking about the history of Europe and North America in the 20th Century, Berlin feels like an obvious place to start, because it saw it all. It was the powerhouse of National Socialism during the 1930s and 1940s. The most murderous political force in human history was harboured here in this city.

That destruction then gave rise to a period of detente and both ideological and physical divide. We see this physical divide in the Berlin wall. The divide was felt internationally, but here there were physical barriers between communism and democratic capitalism.

If you go back further, 19th century Berlin was one of the major places of disruption and excitement, change and reverberating ideas, partly because it went through such fast, rapid urbanization and industrialization.

Prussia was one of the fastest states in Europe to industrialize. Within a generation there was mass displacement on a level that we haven’t seen since. Berlin quadrupled in size within 40 years from 1871 until 1920. These are aspects of world history that happened here in a turbocharged way and gave rise to the turbocharged politics of the 20th century.

You also have the international figures that found refuge here, studied here, learned stuff here, and then went off and did rather radical things elsewhere. Lenin is the prime example of this. Berlin is not just somewhere that teaches us about German history or Berlin history, but also how ideas and political movements are shaped by massive structural changes.

Is this just going to be a history lesson or are their lessons that people today could learn from both the good parts and the bad parts of Berlin’s history?

It’s going to be primarily a history lesson, but I tend to be a quite didactic tour guide, especially when I talk about Fascism. T

The capabilities to fall into Fascist totalitarian dictatorships are present everywhere. You just need that kernel of hate to grow into a political movement and create the basis for taking away people’s liberties then their lives.

Equally, some really exciting movements have happened in Berlin, especially in West Berlin during the 1970s, like the squatters’ movement which said that housing should be for people and not for profit.

These kinds of movements come out of the city. They would never have happened without the specific history that Berlin went through during the 20th century, but they give us an opportunity to see how such movements could be recreated and extended elsewhere.

If Saturday goes well, there are thoughts of doing further tours in Berlin. Where else in Berlin do you think people should know about?

I would like people to know more about the last 30 years, to really offer context about the current situation. One of the places that has seen the most change is Neukölln, where I live. It is a great example of where public policy can go wrong and where public policy can go right.

The history of Neukölln since 1990 is educational. It would be amazing for people to really understand more about the rent crisis that we’re living through, more about gentrification, precarious working situations and the school system, why there are such massive disparities between different parts of the city.

To understand more means you can then create policies that help. Tour guiding is a fantastic opportunity to really get people engaged with the city that they live in, and for them to feel empowered, to give them knowledge to go forth and create change within their districts and within their city.

The political walking tour with Izzy starts on Saturday, 19th March at 2pm at the Martin Luther Statue next to Alexanderplatz (Karl-Liebknecht Straße 8, near the Fernsehturm). Everybody is welcome.

The Refugees We’re Used To…

Worries about “miltary-aged men” coming to Western Europe are partly influenced by racist and sexist stereotypes


16/03/2022

If you haven’t already heard, Ukrainian refugees are different. According to Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov, “These are not the refugees we have been used to”. The leader of Spain’s Vox party, Santiago Abascal, agrees. He believes that, “Anyone can tell the difference between them (Ukranian refugees) and the invasion of young military-aged men of Muslim origin”.

Military-Aged Men”

What is a military-aged man? Presumably it’s any male between the ages of 18 – 60, i.e. most men. Abascal talks about young men but rather than refer to them as simply that, he emphasises their suitability for the military as if to say they ought to stay at home and fight for their country – that being a young man means you cannot possibly be in need of refuge, or that being of a “military-age” makes you a risk to our security.

It doesn’t really matter how his comment was intended because whatever the case may be, it resonates with those of us angered by images of male refugees crammed into little dinghies. Why are young, fit men coming to Europe? Are they coming to take our jobs while their wives, sisters, mothers and children are left to suffer? The first thing we want to know is why the safety of women and children isn’t a priority. The answer might surprise you: it is.

Protecting Women and Children

Take a look at Ukraine: it’s in Eastern Europe and borders several member states of the European Union: Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania. Governments and aid organisations have been working hard to open up humanitarian corridors so that refugees can flee safely into the European Union and other neighbouring countries.

Despite being located in Europe and the presence of direct routes across Ukraine’s borders, women and children are at risk of human trafficking. Warnings of traffickers posing as volunteers and offering lifts to women abound on social media and while many of these posts are unverified, the high risk of sexual abuse, violence and exploitation posed to women and children fleeing war zones is not. The UN has clearly documented the risks involved for women and children fleeing war zones and if the risk is high while fleeing across a single border, imagine fleeing across continents.

Human trafficking is not the only risk that disproportionately affects women and children. It is perfectly legal to apply for asylum in Europe but the funds and documents required to travel make it impossible for a great many refugees to reach here safely. Instead, refugees are forced to embark on a perilous journey across the sea and many do not survive.

A Swedish study from 2012 has indicated that survival rates are low for anyone capsized at sea but that crew members and strong swimmers have better chances of survival. Under these extremely physically demanding conditions, women and children are least likely to survive. Women and children still attempt these dangerous crossings but it is primarily young, fit men who volunteer their lives in the attempt to create a better life for themselves and for their families.

Providing For Families

We also want to know how young, fit, foreign men looking for work in our countries can possibly be justified. The answer to this question can be found by looking at our own society. It has become increasingly common in the West for both men and women to work outside the home in order to provide for their families. Despite this, women continue to take on the majority of child-rearing responsibilities, often taking breaks from their careers or reducing their working hours in order to do so.

For heterosexual couples this may make financial sense, since men still tend to be the major wage earners. Should a situation arise in which families must send a single family member off in search of better economic opportunities, they are likely to send whoever has the most earning power. The result is that even in Western Europe, where the gender wage gap is smaller than elsewhere in the world, it is more often than not the man who ends up working further afield in order to bring the money home. This financial responsibility can be a burden for men because, even as equal numbers of women enter the workforce and the pay gap decreases, there is still an expectation in our society that men should be able to provide.

The greater the gender wage gap, the less practical it is for women to work outside the home and the fewer incentives there are to do so. Where this is the case, the pressure on men to provide financially is enormous. In countries ravaged by war, economic sanctions, foreign occupation or governmental corruption, it is not always possible for men to find jobs that would enable them to provide for their families. It goes without saying that even fewer opportunities exist for women and that women are less likely to have relevant work experience.

Under such circumstances, men have little choice but to seek out countries in which they might be able to earn enough money to put food on the table. For entire families forced to flee their homes, they do not only need money but also a safe place to rebuild their lives. The difficulties involved in travelling have already been mentioned, but it is worth pointing out that for a single person travelling alone the journey is fraught with complications. For entire families, it is a logistical nightmare.

While men gamble their lives in search of better conditions for their families, it is often more sensible for women and children to remain in refugee camps. It is incorrect that most refugees are male: the global population of refugees is divided fairly evenly between males and females. Women are simply less visible because while their fathers, sons, husbands and brothers are out at sea, the women are often in camps waiting on tenterhooks to hear from their male family members. The truth is that photos of bodies washed up on shore often reach our television screens before any news makes it back to the refugee camp.

Muslim Invaders

Another thing we really want to know about refugees is whether or not they pose a threat to us. Kiril Petkov, the Bulgarian prime minister, voices these concerns when he speaks of refugees with “unclear pasts” who “could even have been terrorists”. Abascal is more explicit, singling out men of “Muslim origin” and calling them invaders “who have launched themselves against European borders in an attempt to destabilise and colonise it”.

While his claim that Muslim men are attempting to colonise Europe is a far cry from reality, it nevertheless strikes a chord with people who, in light of a number of terrorist attacks linked to Islamic fundamentalist movements that have occurred in the West in recent years, associate Islam with terrorism. Given the high profile nature of these attacks and the emphasis the media has put on the religious identity of attacks carried out by Muslims, it is clear where this fear stems from.

Our fear is not, however, proportional to the actual threats posed to us by terrorism. According to the 2022 Global Terrorism Index, people living in the West are extremely unlikely to become victims of terrorism since 97% of all deaths from terrorism occur in conflict zones. Muslims are, by an extraordinarily large margin, the group of people most likely to be victims of terrorism, a statistic which they are no doubt devastatingly aware of. Still, with the Western media putting so much emphasis on Islamic extremism it is a difficult topic to discuss rationally. “That’s because they’re in Muslim countries”, people reason when confronted with statistics. “What about terrorism in the West?”

Well even here, non-Muslims are safer than Muslims should a terrorist attack actually take place. The Global Terrorism Index reveals that politically-motivated terrorist attacks, and in particular attacks conducted by the far-right, pose a far greater threat to our security than attacks motivated by religious ideology. Far-right attacks are five times more likely to happen than attacks associated with any religion, suggesting that we should be much more wary of the people describing Muslims as “invaders” than of Muslims themselves.

It is easy to understand peoples’ misconceptions of Islam due to the disproportionate amount of negative attention drawn to Muslims in the media, as well as the masses of inaccurate interpretations of Islam posted by hostile sources online. Prominent political figures only exacerbate the issue, because rather than come up with solutions to actual problems, they can scapegoat Muslims, refugees and economic migrants for an easy win. The reality is that the security risk posed to European countries by accepting refugees from Muslim countries is negligible.

They should stay and fight!”

Finally, the opinion that young, able-bodied men should be fighting for their countries rather than claiming asylum is one that crops up all too often. We forget that the quality of other people’s lives depend on these young men’s survival and that the wars in which they’re caught up often have little to do with them.

Given that our own society continues to teach men to be providers and protectors, you would have thought we would have more respect for the young men risking their own lives in demonstration of these values. It really doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with these concepts of masculinity, what is important here is to acknowledge the gender dynamics that draw predominantly young, male asylum seekers in our direction and not to dismiss human beings in need of support purely on account of their age, gender, religion, and the colour of their skin.

It is a wonder than anyone can speak of “the refugees we are used to” when so few of us have made the kind of effort we are making for Ukrainian refugees in order to help them and to get to know them. In any case, if we are unable to put people brave and resourceful enough to complete these astonishingly difficult journeys to good use, perhaps the problem isn’t them.