Introduction
The Bundestag elections will take place on 23rd February. For those who look with horror, and often a sense of powerlessness, at the advance of the far-right, the question of who to vote for is especially fraught. The majority of members of our organisation, just as the migrant community in general, do not have the right to vote. However the election results will impact us more than almost any other group of the population; we are the central theme of this electoral campaign, all the politicians talk about us; but it seems no one is really interested in talking with us. In spite of this, or more precisely because of this, we’ve taken the liberty of expressing our opinion; analysing our situation, considering the global and national context in which the elections are taking place, and finally addressing who we should vote for, and why.
We also want to point out the limitations of parliamentary politics, and we call for debate and joint action between organisations of the left, where struggles over the living and working conditions of migrants are strategically important. We’ve seen in history how neglecting this leads to failures of the workers’ movement, as for example with the Turkish workers strikes at Ford Germany in the 1970s.
The migration debate as a smokescreen
For years now the political parties have competed to see who has the hardest line against us migrants. With the BSW or the FDP, with Merz’s 5 point plan, Scholz’s mass deportation plans, or Habeck’s (morally painful, of course) detention camps outside EU frontiers, all have added to the racist discourse which converts migrants into the scapegoats for bad economic management, the shortage of housing, insecurity, and even the difficulty of getting an appointment with the dentist. At the same time, our existence is used to justify the expansion of state repression and the simultaneous reduction of the welfare state. We are excluded from democratic participation, we can’t vote, we can rarely go on strike as trade unions don’t usually make policy around the needs of migrants, and we have to live with the fear of being attacked or criminalised by the police when we take part in demonstrations, or as we go about our our daily lives; this can lead to the loss of residence permit and, if Merz and company have their way, in the future the loss of the right to dual nationality, which is already difficult to achieve. Meanwhile physical attacks on migrants are increasing. If policy announcements made during this electoral campaign are implemented, this deprivation of rights, and the precariousness of migrants’ lives in Germany, will only increase in the future.
But why has incitement to racism against migrants become the main theme of the political parties? It quickly becomes clear that the main issue is not security, if we take into account the little attention paid to the terrifying statistics for gender-based violence in Germany. In the last year alone 360 women were murdered, and the number of hate crimes against LBGTQ people was ten times that of 2017. However this issue is hardly mentioned in the current electoral campaign. The racist discourse is essentially a smokescreen that hides the real interests that lie behind it. The same goes for the narrative put forward by the self-described “centre parties”, who point to the AfD as the cause of this racism, since with its electoral successes it is forcing the other parties to shift towards the right. The AfD is the vanguard of the right in this country; it has succeeded in presenting itself as a radical opposition to the establishment, offering its voters an explanation for their problems and apparent solutions – it uses the methods of the right, which is rising worldwide and is strongly interconnected at the international level, and is boosted by the continuing failure of neoliberal capitalism and the inability of the established parties to provide answers or improve the living conditions of the great majority. That the other parties are now following the AfD down this road has reasons beyond wanting to take seriously the wishes of “concerned citizens” and their fear of migrants. In reality, it’s not about permitting less immigration and deporting all those who don’t hold a German passport until there are only “Germans” living in Germany – rather, it’s about controlling immigration and migrant workers.
The global context
To understand why things are like this, we have to take into account the economic and political conditions both in Germany and globally. We live in a world with multiple crises. Capitalism is a chronically unstable system which has generated cyclical economic crises since its birth. And we are now seeing capitalism being shaken by additional crises, such as the coronavirus pandemic, which are increasingly frequent as ecological systems collapse.
In the context of these crises international conflicts are rapidly intensifying. Although the USA is still the strongest imperial power in the world, reflected, among other things, by its military spending – in 2023, the USA spend of $916 billion was more than double that of China and Russia combined – US hegemony is collapsing. The result is an intensification of conflicts between rival power blocs – above all between China and the US – and the increasing incapacity of the US to take on this confrontation alone. In this context, it is increasing pressure on the EU to ramp up military capacity, without wanting to give up control over its smaller allies. As a result these allies see themselves drawn into the sharpening conflict with China and Russia and therefore more tied to the US. Besides this, and the increased military strike capability, rearmament also serves to boost the use of capital.
Greater economic and military competitiveness requires strong internal control of workers. To be able to compete internationally, bosses want to be sure that workers are willing to work for low wages without complaining or thinking of striking for pay rises. The fear the representatives of capital have of this happening was shown clearly last year during the train drivers’ union (GDL) industrial dispute. Spokespeople for the FDP and the German employers’ association (BdA), among others, demanded restrictions on the right to strike in “critical infrastructure” sectors, and in situations where companies saw their competitiveness affected. Besides, they encourage workers to think that, if necessary, they should be ready to sacrifice their own lives in the trenches in the interests of German capital. But the fine words regarding the defence of democracy and moral responsibility with which this is justified are shown to be hollow when one takes into account Germany’s arms exports to countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey.
The national context
But what do racist discourse and politics have to do with the intensification of international competition? The connection lies in their central importance to the German economy and to the control of workers. A racist discourse is not at all incompatible with immigration, rather it serves the purpose of keeping immigration and migrants under control, and being able to use them as a means of pressure against local workers to keep them submissive.
At the start of the 2000s under the SPD-Green government of Gerhard Schroeder the welfare state was dismantled through Agenda 2010, and an enormous low-paid sector was created. Combined with an ultra-modern industrial infrastructure, these low wage costs made Germany a very attractive production centre and its capital more competitive internationally. The reduction of wage levels also destroyed demand in the German domestic market, but this wasn’t a problem for German capital, as it specialised in exports and has been able to conquer foreign markets thanks to its competitiveness. To date, this has led to the European customs and monetary unions preventing other EU states with less competitive capital from protecting their domestic markets from German capital, either through tariffs or by devaluing their currency to promote their own exports.
Maintaining this export-driven economic model requires a large pool of cheap labour. However, the birth rate in Germany doesn’t allow for this so there’s not just a shortage of young workers for the export industry, but also a shortage of nursing staff. In order to solve both problems in the most cost-effective way possible, Germany relies on the recruitment of qualified personnel from abroad. This has the advantage that Germany doesn’t have to pay for their training, and it’s also much easier to keep migrant workers under control than German workers because migrants are not unionised nor even politically organised when they arrive in Germany – a situation maintained through the omnipresent threat of deportation, imposing the acceptance of lower wages.
In order to maintain this control even after naturalisation, the possibility of withdrawing German nationality is being discussed. The deprivation of rights of migrant workers also allows capitalists to reduce the wages of German workers, since whenever these demand better working conditions and higher wages they face the threat of being replaced by “cheaper’” foreign workers. This not only puts pressure on wages, but also pits different sections of the working class – migrants and Germans – against each other, and impedes solidarity.
Racist debates on migration, deprivation of rights and the de facto abolition of the right to asylum, as well as cruel and often arbitrary deportation practices, have several functions in this context. They serve to structure migration in such a way that only skilled workers needed by the economy can enter the country, and to keep out asylum seekers and other migrants who are unproductive for capital. In addition, the precarious residence permits and the increasingly repressive laws make it possible to restrict the political activity and organisation of migrants already living in Germany. The resolution on antisemitism, which was criticised for being politically instrumentalised, and which was approved recently in the Bundestag, together with the narrative of “imported antisemitism” is a good example of this kind of politics. Its practical application can be seen in the criminalisation and violent restriction of fundamental rights in the context of the demonstrations against the genocide in Palestine, alongside the militarisation, for racist reasons, of districts with migrant populations. The possibility and speed of naturalisation linked to economic integration, and the possibility of revoking it in case of criminality (for example, if justified by the resolution on antisemitism) is another example of the orientation of migration policy towards the interests of capital. By creating a climate of fear, the aim is to ensure that migrants do not dare to oppose their precarious living conditions (a necessary condition for German capital) and much less to express their opinion on German foreign policy.
Linking residence permits to earning capacity affects women in particular, as they are often the ones who take care of their children at home and take on other reproductive tasks outside the job market. The capitalist system could not exist without this reproductive work, as without it new workers would not be born and raised, and without emotional care work, cooking, washing, cleaning, shopping, etc., the labour force couldn’t be renewed. Yet, for capital, reproductive labour is not “productive”, as it is not integrated into the market and therefore not valued. Moreover, this work is carried out in the private sphere and therefore becomes invisible. In any case, it is unpaid, so women, especially migrant women, are forced additionally to take on market-integrated work to ensure the livelihood of their families. Migrant women are now threatened with expulsion if unable to perform both unpaid reproductive work and precarious wage work – the result, as planned, is that (poorly) paid care work in this country is mainly carried out by migrant women.
In the same way, other people who are unproductive from the perspective of capital, i.e. all those who do reproductive work or who for various reasons are not in a position to do paid work – e.g. the elderly, the disabled and the chronically ill – are branded as useless or even worthy of contempt. The aim is the same as the racist incitement against migrants, and the images of enemies constructed in this way partly overlap.
In parallel, the racist discourse offers an explanation for the decline in living standards of German workers and diverts attention from the real causes – the exploitation by the capitalists and the huge investments in the militarisation of society. Moreover, the spectacular and brutal demonstrations of power against migrants and the general repression have plunged workers and civil society into a state of paralysing fear and hatred. Although it is clear that we, as racialised migrants, suffer especially from the daily violence, this is ultimately about crushing the organised social and political forces that dare to confront the power of capital. For a more extensive analysis, read our text “Crisis, organizacion popular y futuro”
The political context
In line with the needs of German capital, from the AfD to the CDU, through the FDP, the SPD, the Greens and the BSW, there is unanimity in inciting racist hate against migrants and the unemployed. Some parties, such as the Greens, can appear a little less inhuman and put more emphasis on their obligation to human rights – however they also voted in favour of detention camps outside the EU’s frontiers, they emphasise economic integration as the core element of migration policy, and enthusiastically promote confrontation with other capitalist power blocs and therefore militarisation. Robert Habeck’s words after 7th October 2023 directed at Muslims, in which he also called them Germans almost as an afterthought, resonates with us. The same happened with the words of Annalena Baerbock when she declared that hospitals and schools could lose their protected status in some situations, independently of whether the wounded, children, or as is usually the case, wounded children seek refuge there. The Greens are the party that tries to maintain an image of an enlightened Germany, but this is only an image projected so that those who, with reason, are put off by the narratives of the other parties can feel morally comfortable voting Green.
Vote, and much more!
Although we’re now urging people to vote, we’re aware that change won’t come through parliaments. Political decisions are taken there, so the party composition of the debating chamber has some influence, but the biggest influence in these decisions and in social change in general lies in relations of power formed outside parliament. This was shown recently when the CDU’s proposal to limit immigration was voted down following massive demonstrations which had taken place two days earlier in response to majority support for a CDU Bundestag resolution.
To change this balance of power in our favour in a sustainable way it’s essential to counteract the incitement to racism against migrants with a policy recognising that only joint struggle for better living conditions for migrants will also improve the living conditions of the rest of the working population. Recognising the central role of migrants in the class struggle, and being prepared to build appropriate alliances, is, in our view, a prerequisite for the movement against the advance of the right to succeed.
At the moment we don’t see any parliamentary force clearly defending this position. However, it’s important that there is a voice in Parliament opposing the monotone of racist incitement, showing people who are not interested in parliamentary politics, or who simply have no contact with it, that an alternative exists. Currently Die Linke offers the only voice of this type – if it was not present in the Bundestag, this voice would cease to exist and the racist discourse would be carried without opposition in parliamentary debates and media coverage.
We have many differences of opinion and criticisms of Die Linke. For example, the party has repeatedly betrayed workers’ struggles at city level and has participated in, and even led, deportations, notably in Thuringia. In foreign policy the party’s anti-militarist positions have lost credibility and with regard to the genocide in Gaza one can only speak of a total failure.
However, there are sections of Die Linke which have chosen a different path and are taking party renovation seriously. In Neukoelln, Die Linke have put up Ferat Kocak as direct candidate, someone who represents for us a ray of hope inside the party for his attitude towards international solidarity, his vision of working at the grassroots where the voices of migrants have central importance, and his attitude towards Palestine. In the Saxony state elections the electoral campaign for Nam Duy Nguyen showed the potential of these positions for the renovation of Die Linke if they are combined with with a participative and democratic practice. Our support goes to these forces and we hope that they take us seriously as comrades in the struggle.
Only if Die Linke integrates broader parts of different movements, not only in party work, but in seeking dialogue with migrant organisations and other extra-parliamentary social and political organisations to jointly and on an equal footing elaborate projects and political demands, and goes beyond an instrumental relationship with its electorate and especially with those of us who have no voice in elections, will its renewal be sustainable and the interaction between extra-parliamentary and parliamentary forces be fruitful.
In this sense, while being fully conscious of the limitations of parliamentary democracy under capitalism, and of the differences of opinion and criticisms towards the party, we call for a Die Linke vote in the Bundestag elections on 23rd February.
Besides, we call for first vote support for the candidates Ines Heider (Revolutionary Internationalist Organisation) in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, and Franziska Thomas (Revolutionary Socialist Organisation) in Tempelhof-Schoeneberg. Their programmes include demands that we too make of Die Linke, such as the right to vote for migrants, the expropriation of big businesses and an end to the genocide in Gaza.
Thirdly, we make a call to the organised left to come together to carry out strategic debates which go beyond these elections and can contribute to overcome the sectarian fragmentation and the resulting social irrelevance of the radical left in Germany. These must understand immigration, racism and cis-hetero patriarchy as integral parts of the reproduction of capital and in consequence organise their struggle for peace and dignity for everyone.
The right is strengthening everywhere, from Orban to Trump and Netanyahu, to Bukele, Bolsonaro and Milei, and is organising at the international level in spite of all its political differences. Our struggle must also be at both the national and international level, we must be internationalists!
We are migrants who organise ourselves for a world with neither centres nor peripheries. We are migrants who believe in the freedom to migrate as a right. We are Germans who are raising our voice, we are Germans categorised as migrants, we are those who are persecuted for holding a different opinion, seen as the “other”, as unproductive, undesired. We are the rejected East, we are the Global South in rebellion. We are many, more than they want.
This article is also available in German, Spanish, and Portuguese. Translation from the Spanish: Ian Perry. Reproduced with Permission
