The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Whatever happened to Die Linke?

The party was born at the height of the anti-capitalist movement. Since then, elections have become more important than social movements


02/04/2024

It has been 17 years since Die Linke was formed at the height of the anti-capitalist movement. In 2009, the party won 12% of the vote (and 76 MPs), becoming the envy of the international Left. Just seven years ago, the party still had 69 MPs.

In the last general election, Die Linke failed to reach the “5% hurdle” traditionally needed to enter parliament, and got in only on a technicality. More recently, when 10 MPs left the party to join the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance), Die Linke lost its status as a parliamentary fraction and much of the money associated with it.

More importantly, the party, which was once a motor of social movements, has become largely invisible on the ground. In the face of significant demonstrations in support of Palestine, it has remained mostly silent. Recently, left-winger Christine Buchholz refused to take on the post of MP, saying it would put her into a permanent conflict with the party line on Palestine, war and other topics.

How could a party which still has tens of thousands of members experience such crises so quickly? Phil Butland, joint speaker of the LINKE Berlin Internationals group, looks at the rise and fall of Die Linke.

The last 25 Years of the European Left

The Left in Europe experienced three phases in the last 25 years, each lasting for roughly a decade. The first was from 1999 to 2007, starting with the WTO protests in Seattle until the G8 summit in Heiligendamm in Eastern Germany. This was a time of international mass demonstrations and social forums where the Western Left came together to discuss strategies and plan joint actions.

The most important two actions of this period both started in Italy. In July 2001, the G8 summit took place in Genoa. On the day before the planned large demonstration, cops murdered 23-year old activist Carlo Guiliani. The movement quickly mobilised and 300,000 demonstrated on the following day in Italy.

One year later, in December 2002, the first European Social Forum (ESF) took place in Florence. At the forum, a couple hundred activists attended an unofficial meeting to discuss the threat of the upcoming Iraq war. It was there that we decided to coordinate protests for the 15th of February. On that day, 15 million demonstrated against the war, and 40 million in February and March.

Growth of Left-wing Reformist Parties

Despite the large-scale demonstrations, war ensued and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. Social forums became smaller and less political, and the 2008 world economic crisis led to austerity politics, carried out both by conservative and social democratic governments.

For many Leftists, this showed that demonstrations and forums were not enough. For most people, “politics” is what happens in parliament. This meant that socialists must also fight in this arena. But what did “fighting in the parliamentary area” actually mean? For the majority, it meant voting in better left-wing MPs who could make better politics on our behalf. As new mass parties were formed, there was little talk about the role of the State, or how realistic this strategy actually was.

A minority did not believe in short cuts, nor that there could be a parliamentary way to socialism. Nonetheless, we had just spent the best part of a decade building social movements, and did not want to abandon the people who had been building them with us. Many of us joined the large Left parties all the while arguing that such parties meant little without strong social movements.

Those heady days are now well and truly over. The different, but in some ways quite similar, experiences of SYRIZA, Podemos, Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, showed that it was not so easy for the Left to take over the State and use it for our ends. If you want to know more about the specific experiences in each country, I highly recommend Joseph Choonara’s article Revolutionaries and Elections.

Let’s take one early example. The Italian party Rifondazione Communista was central to both the Florence forum and the protests in Genoa. On the evening following Carlo Guiliani’s murder, Rifondazione leader Faustino Bertinotti appeared on Italian television saying: “whatever you had planned to do tomorrow, now everyone must come to Genoa.” 

Three years later, Rifondazione was part of a governing coalition which voted for war credits. Now, Fascists are in power in Italy and the parliamentary Left is irrelevant. The Left in other countries has experienced similar disappointments.

The German experience

In Germany, Die Linke was initially able to combine Left reformism with anti-capitalism. The party emerged from the mass movement against the Hartz IV attacks on the unemployed. Many activists moved straight from the anti-globalisation organisation (ATTAC) to Die Linke. One of the party’s first actions was to mobilise for the G8 protests in Heiligendamm.

Shortly after that came the mobilisations by Dresden Nazifrei, which successfully blockaded and prevented the largest Nazi march in Europe. Die Linke was central to this mobilisation. It was both a reformist party and a motor of the movement.

The most important mobilisations of today are against the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Despite the occasional decent statement, Die Linke stands largely on the wrong side of the barricades. The nadir occurred in October 2023 when Die Linke joined the other electoral parties in calling a rally in solidarity with Israel.

Palestine is not an exception. The party played no relevant role in Black Lives Matter or in the movements against war and the climate catastrophe. Individual regional groups did support some actions, but a generation of activists has grown up believing that no parliamentary party supports them.

While all this has been happening, the Left of the party has been apparently on the ascendant. In June 2022, the left-wing Bewegungslinke (“movement left”), won a majority of posts on the party Executive. Despite this increased representation, the party’s practise has stayed the same. Winning leadership positions is no substitute for being an active part of social movements.

The limitations of Reformism

As social movements have receded, Die Linke has increasingly concentrated on winning elections. This was not always the case. In 2008, Die Linke in Hessen had the chance to join a governing coalition with the SPD and the Greens. They opted instead for toleration – allowing the SPD and Greens to form a government (no-one wants a CDU government), while not joining it themselves.

Deputy leader of the Linke parliamentary faction in Hessen, and key supporter of toleration, was current party leader Janine Wissler, a prominent member of the Bewegungslinke. She has since taken a much more pragmatic position. At a rally before the last general election, she argued that NATO would not prevent a coalition government with the Greens and SPD. In other words, Die Linke’s traditional opposition to Western imperial power could be negotiated away in exchange for a place in government.

This strategy did not even work in electoral terms. As Die Linke casually dropped most criticism of their potential coalition partners, voters saw no reason for voting Left when they could get exactly the same policies from larger centre left parties.

Areas of resistance

This does not mean that the Linke is a reactionary homogenous blob. The Berlin Linke Internationals, an organisation for non-German activists of which I am co-speaker, has consistently been anti-imperialist and pro-Palestine. 

Originally formed to mobilise for the 2014 EU elections, the group has played a leading role in the fight against German/EU austerity in Greece, challenging the international far right, and defending abortion rights. The Linke Internationals organise an annual Summer Camp, usually attended by around 60 people. Party funding means that participation is free. 

Yet relations with the Party are getting strained. Last year,  following some problematic statements by Party leaders on Palestine, we decided to stay in the Party and fight for our positions, while monitoring the political situation.

Our work has been increasingly detached from party activity. Our successful weekly Palestine Reading Groups have been effectively run in the name of theleftberlin – the website which we run together with other left-wing activists. The website has an independent editorial board and is not connected with the party.

“Left” Alternatives to Die Linke

The formation of the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknacht has excited some people who were disillusioned with the direction in which the party was going. Wagenknecht has made much clearer statements against German militarism and in support of Palestine than most in her former party. 

At the same time, Wagenknecht’s apparent belief that we can counter the AfD by adapting to their racist ideas is deeply problematic. She has called for more migration controls and attacked anti-racist activists as “scurrilous minorities”. I have written at length about Wagenknecht’s accommodation to racism in the past (see here and here), so won’t add much, except to say that Wagenknecht’s “anti-woke” agenda often dovetails neatly with that of the AfD.

Recently, some on the Left have become enthused about DiEM25, the latest manifestation of the Yanis Varoufakis vanity show. When DiEM25 was formed, they insisted that they would not contest elections, as they intended to be part of the social movements and nothing else. I reported on the DiEM founding conference here, and made a more recent appearance of Varoufakis in Berlin here.

DiEM25 are not programmatically significantly worse than Die Linke, although there is still time for them to degenerate. And yet they do not offer anything qualitatively different. The next election will surely see a plethora of Left organisations campaigning against each other. None of these parties will provide an adequate focus to unite social movements and build the resistance we need.

Can Die Linke be reborn?

Some Leftists agree that Die Linke is not what it used to be, but argue that Wagenknecht’s departure means that the party can be rebuilt on left-wing principles. They point out that party membership has risen since Wagenknecht flounced out, including many pro-refugee activists who refused to engage with a party for which Wagenknecht was a prominent spokesperson and regular chat show guest.

It is certainly true that in my Linke branch, in Wedding, we have had a massive influx of new members, many of whom are well to the Left of the party leadership. We have had lively discussions on Palestine and sent delegations to solidarity demos. But none of this alters the fundamental nature of the party and its obsession with winning elections.

In February, Vashti media claimed that “the Left Party is split between the Wagenknecht group – which consistently opposes militarism but seeks to intensify deportations – and the remainder, which consistently protects migrants”. Unfortunately, this does not remotely reflect reality. 

Die Linke has been the majority party in Thüringen for 10 years. Last year, under Linke President Bodo Ramelow, Thüringen deported more than 300 people. Although Wagenknecht’s departure is no political loss, the short term effect has been to strengthen “reformers” like Ramelow whose practise is everything other that “consistently protect[ing] migrants”.

I never thought that Die Linke would be the organisation we needed. From the start, it was an integral part of the electoral process which would always ultimately side with the system. But there were always enough contradictions for it to be a meeting point for people who wanted to go further.

In some places, like my local branch in Wedding and the Internationals group, this is still the case. At the same time, it is no surprise that both Die Linke Wedding and the Internationals are questioning how long we can be part of this rightward drift. In both groups, we have said if we leave we will leave together, and that the unity which we have built is more important than any party structures.

Whatever happens, organisations outside Die Linke are increasingly necessary for carrying on the fight – be this Aufstehen gegen Rassismus for the fight against the AfD, or theleftberlin website. For my part, I still have hopes in the new socialist organisation Sozialismus von Unten, where I am working to bring together German and non-German activists, particularly those who have been radicalised by the Palestine movement.

The situation facing the German Left is grim, but we can’t give up hope. I am convinced that our international experience will be part of what lifts us out of our current malaise. I look forward to seeing more faces in demos, in reading groups, and on the streets of Berlin  – with or without Die Linke.

The English NHS plans Medical Assistants will replace expensive doctors – Are they safe?

Medical Associate Professionals are being used as a cheap cover for not enough doctors. This must be fought.


Given both an international crisis in health care staffing and a drive ro reduce costs, highly skilled workerws are being replaced by those with fewer skills and less training. How does this play out? In the UK, Physician Associates (PAs) are now widely discussed. Largely because of plans to increase their numbers, public confusion about what they are and how safe they are, doctors’ complaints against  professional bodies (Royal Colleges). The worry is that PAs are simply ‘doctors on the cheap’ and pose significant risks to patients while undermining planned increases in medical staff. We highlight some of these issues.

What are Medical Associate Professionals (MAPs)?

Since 2003, PAs are one of several MAPs, who currently work in the NHS in a avariety of roles.  By 2036/37 the government in England plans to increase the number of PAs from approximately 3,250 to 10,000 (an increase of over 300%), and MAPs from approximately 180 to 2,000 NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. MAPs complete only a two-year postgraduate course (1,600 hours of clinical experience and teaching) but the NHS deploys them instead of doctors. That includes care of patients with new and undiagnosed problems (‘undifferentiated patients’). In a recent survey by the British Medical Association (BMA)  a large majority of doctors expressed concerns that PAs and AAs risked  patient safety. The BMA has called for a halt in recruitment until their role is reconsidered.

What are PAs qualified to do?

The Royal College of Physicians (of the Royal College of Physicians) states that: ‘PAs are healthcare professionals with a generalist medical education, who work alongside doctors… . .. under their supervision ….They are complementary to GPs …..and in no way a replacement for any other member of the general practice team…(This)  does not mitigate the need to address the shortage of GPs’. The College says that PAs work within a defined scope of practice and limits of competence.

These  accord with guidelines developed by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC),and professional bodies. After a PA degree programme, PAs must pass a National Examination..

Seeing “undifferentiated patients” is controversial. In 2020, a PA could be the first contact for patients with undifferentiated problems. However, a later statement  in GP contract 2024/5  states: ‘#17. non-GP doctors (sic) should not see undifferentiated patients’. It is both telling and confusing that PAs seem to be referred to here as ‘non-GP doctors’ . Some GPs  question the usefulness of PAs in general practice altogether, since the supervision required is onerous, and they flag patient safety concerns.

The NHS England (NHSE)  National Medical Director Sir Steve Powis said: ‘PAs are trained to examine, diagnose and treat patients under the supervision of doctors…PAs are not doctors, and cannot and must not replace doctors’.

Representing all the colleges, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AOMRC) produced a consensus statement on PAs, stating that: ‘PAs are not doctors and cannot and should not be used as a substitute for doctors’. In addition, training opportunities for junior doctors need to be prioritised and protected. The AOMRC also emphasised the importance of supervision.

The issue of professional regulation

Oversight was established by the RCP in 2015 ‘to provide clarity to the public on the different scope of practice of a doctor and a PA’. MAPs currently only have voluntary professional registration. But the government pushed the General Medical Council (GMC) to become the regulatory body for MAPs. The GMC is the independent regulator of doctors in the UK. The BMA set out three demands:

  • PAs and AAs be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC)
  • They should be called ‘Physician Assistants/Anaesthesia Assistants’ 
  • A moratorium on PAs/AAs until clarity about their role and scope of practice was achieved.

The debate on regulation (Draft Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order – AAPAO) took place in a parliamentary committee session, but lacked depth to assess this important issue. For example, former Health Secretary Thérèse Coffey remarked that after she had waited nine hours in one hospital, she went to a different hospital the next day and was seen more quickly – because the hospital had a PA. 

In a radio interview on PAs, Conservative peer Lord Bethell showed his lack of understanding while not endearing himself to GPs: ‘GPs don’t face huge amounts of complexity. Most interactions are incredibly straightforward. Certainly, my own experience over the last 20 years of going to my GP, it really hasn’t required 10 years of training to deal with my small problems’. In Lord Bethell’s opinion at least, PAs could easily take on work currently being performed by GPs in assessing patients presenting with new problems.

But as KONP has pointed out, people often have very complex symptoms with a many possible causes – some serious, some not. It takes 10 years to train a GP with on-going learning. GPs are expert medical generalists who can diagnose, treat, prioritise and manage multiple and complicated conditions. Their particular strength is using their communication skills and clinical knowledge to make sense of symptoms which do not fall into any algorithm.

A Conservative MP and doctor, Dan Poulter, put it this way to Parliament: ‘When the PA role was introduced, it was clearly seen as part of the solution to a shortage of doctors… By freeing up doctors from administrative tasks and minor clinical roles, it allowed them to see more complex patients… Unfortunately, physician associates and anaesthesia assistants (are) employed in the NHS in roles that stretch far beyond that original remit, and… they appear to be working well beyond their competence. That has raised serious patient safety concerns’. 

Push back against expansion of MAPs by rank and file doctors

Many doctors remain concerned that PAs are a threat to patient safety. Members of both the Royal College of Anaesthetists and of the RCP forced their college executives to call an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to explore this. At the meeting of Anaesthetists, 89% of college members voted for a pause in recruiting anaesthesia associates until after a survey, a consultation, and an impact assessment of doctors in training.

The meeting was followed by huge recriminations after it became clear that data from a college survey had been misrepresented to suggest more support for PAs than was actually the case. Negative publicity ensued with accusations that the leadership was ‘in bed with the government’.

Are doctors right to worry they are being replaced by MAPs?

The GMC has asked NHS England (NHSE) to address whether there is a plan to replace doctors with PAs: ‘We believe governments should also consider what they can say about future training numbers to make it clear that their workforce plans envisage significant growth in doctor numbers, as well as amongst PAs and AAs’. In December 2023, there were 8,758 medical vacancies in the NHS and England needs an additional 50,000 doctors to bring it into line with European countries. NHSE points to its plan to double the number of medical school places over the next decade, to ensure an extra 60,000-74,000 doctors plus 10,000 PAs in the NHS by 2036/37. The AOMRC repeats this reassurance, implying that with rising demand there is more than enough work for both doctors and PAs.

But just how reassured should doctors be? There has already been back pedalling on the increase in numbers of new medical student places (just 350 for 2025/6), and no new capital funding for medical schools. In addition, junior doctors already see bottlenecks in training. For example, in 2021, 700 anaesthetic trainees could not continue despite 680 unfilled anaesthetic consultant posts. The government ignores retention of doctors, as many threaten to leave the NHS because of poor pay and working conditions; and only 56% of those entering core training remain at work in the NHS eight years later. The Panorama programme on Centene showed in one London general practice that PAs were effectively working as GPs without supervision. A general practice in Surrey made three of its GPs redundant due to ‘new ways of working’ including the use of non-medical staff, while other qualified GPs report difficulty finding a job. Richard Meddings, chair of NHSE (a banker by trade), argues that the medical staffing crisis could be solved not by improving retention and training more staff but by slashing the time to train a doctor.

The National Audit Office recently examined the modelling used of long-term workforce planning assumptions. There is a gap between estimated demand for GPs and number of expected GPs. NHSE anticipates moving work from fully qualified GPs to trainees (!). This seems very unlikely, and it is more plausible that PAs will be called upon to close this gap.

How to ensure that MAPs do not replace doctors

The BMA asserts that MAPs can play an important part in NHS teams. Because of their concerns the BMA has produced guidance with the aim of protecting patients and safeguarding medical training for the doctors of the future.

Key concepts in this document include that MAPs should follow, and not give medical directives; but act upon the medical decisions of a doctor and do not make independent treatment decisions; and that national standards for supervision of MAPs must be set.

We should spare more than a thought for the 3,250 MAPs currently working in the NHS as valued team members, and through no fault of their own, are caught in the middle of arguments about their future. A worried ‘union’ for PAs (United Medical Associate Professionals – UMAP) warns of GP practices implementing the BMA’s scope of practice of potential legal consequences. The union argues that it is ‘inappropriate’ for the doctors’ union to ‘unilaterally redefine and attempt to impose a scope of practice on another profession’, and highlight a lack of ‘stakeholder engagement or peer review’. MAPs currently in post should be supported, supervised and not forced to work outside their competence.

Conclusions

Some commentators have raised fundamental questions about PAs. What special skills is it that PAs bring to the multi- disciplinary team and what is their scope of practice to be? If they are ‘medical skills’ as such – what then is unique about the profession of medicine and what has been excluded from a five-year course in reducing it to a two year one for MAPs?

The BMA framework should be welcomed by all bodies since its aim it to ensure PAS do not substitute for doctors . However, the government wishes to blur boundaries between MAPs and doctors as a strategy for substituting a cheaper alternative for the latter. The long-term workforce plan looks unlikely to deliver the numbers of doctors we need. The failure to address doctor retention through improved pay and work conditions also suggests that NHSE and the AOMRC reassurances must be taken with a large pinch of salt.

It is instructive to look at the United States where PAs (called Physician Assistants) can work without medical supervision and are growing in number at a much faster rate than doctors. This has been driven by an increase in demand for health care and the push from profit-based providers to reduce labour costs. The cost savings of increasing Physician Assistants relative to physicians is substantial. However, evidence indicates that Physicians Assistants both over investigate and over treat patients compared with physicians. In other words, quality of care deteriorates.

As the editor of Pulse magazine has pointed out: in England ‘it boils down to one thing: they are being used because they are cheaper than trained doctors. This replacement of doctors with PAs is a scandal. Not because we are seeing a spike in avoidable deaths or the like (yet). It is a scandal because it is an acknowledgement that lower standards of care are a literal price worth paying for a cheaper service’.

Campaigners should tell employers that for the sake of patients (and for MAPs), the BMA scope of practice must be adopted and implemented.

My Friend Oppenheimer

Take it, these are the glasses through which I watched the nuclear explosion.


01/04/2024

There’s something barbaric in talking about death while stuffing yourself with éclairs. But since I’m going to talk about my own death, I’ll take a double serving, please!

But let me start by saying that recently, I saw the movie “Oppenheimer”. It doesn’t matter to me at all that this film received an Oscar and popular support. I watched it for two other reasons.

Reason #1: Recently, a publishing house sent me a review of my novel, THE MINING BOYS. The editor compared my manuscript to 20th-century modernists, the beat generation, and, quite unexpectedly, to the film “Oppenheimer.” However, the comparison wasn’t about the plot or characters but rather the narrative style.

Lots of information covered very quickly. This isn’t surprising, as my story is about a person whose psyche was shaken by the impossibility of leaving a country at war. Therefore, the editor likened the novel’s narrative to the effects of ecstasy and once again to the film “Oppenheimer.”

Reason #2: On May 9, 2023, I died as a result of a nuclear strike. Now I’ll dwell on this in more detail.

It all started when, during the first 2.5 months of the war, I was hiding in Lviv. I hadn’t planned to do so, but I literally became a hostage of my own state.

My initial plan was to go to Poland and wait for a couple of weeks until the war ended. In those days, most people were confident that the war would last a maximum of 2-3 weeks. But on the very first day, the borders were closed to guys like me. I mean (literally) the male population aged 18 to 60.

The horrors I had to endure in western Ukraine are described in THE MINING BOYS, so here I’ll just provide some context.

Coming from the eastern part of Ukraine, my native language is not Ukrainian but Russian. Typically, residents of the East were interested in Ukrainian culture, but those in Western Ukraine were hostile to anything Russian. They concealed this hostility from tourists, to an extent. Hatred towards anything Russian in Western Ukraine is part of the culture. This is why residents of the East cannot fully embrace this culture, although the war helps people to accept the hatred. So, that’s the whole conflict, essentially.

For 30 years, Ukraine existed under such conditions. Politics also divided along east-west lines, and the cultural pendulum swung back and forth, depending on the elected president.

For much of its independence, Russian culture and language predominated in Ukraine, but with the start of the war in 2014, the situation changed and has now reached a climax.

Is Ukraine heading towards victory? No, it isn’t. One of its two parts finds itself suppressed. Ukraine can only have a chance at a future if it acknowledges and embraces its diversity. Today, the opposite process is underway.

In all of the 30 years, there hasn’t been a single political party that has attempted to unite the two halves of the country. Would there have been a war if that had happened? That’s a good question. But could the two parts of the country really have been united? Yep. I’m an example of that.

Half of my family is from Ukraine, and the other half is from Russia. I was born and raised in Ukraine. This mix is typical of the East. And for 30 years, I lived free of internal struggle over this matter. This indicates that there was a chance, but it was missed.

Why wasn’t this opportunity seized? Because the principle divide and conquer turned out to be convenient. Linguistic disputes distract not only from corruption but also from the destruction of democracy in times of war. There is little aesthetics in politics, so I had to look for it in a split atom.

Why am I even talking about the language issue and Oppenheimer? Because the language issue and the threat of atomic war – this was my reality not so long ago.

Robert Oppenheimer created the atomic bomb. At the beginning of the war between Russia and Ukraine, there was active discussion about whether Russia would use nuclear weapons or not. This topic was so vigorously discussed that journalists even set the date for the strike on the Ukrainian capital – May 9th.

On May 9th, both Ukraine and Russia commemorate the victory in World War II. Veterans, politicians, businessmen, and ordinary spectators gather on the main squares of Kyiv and Moscow. Military equipment and soldiers demonstrate national combat power for television cameras.

At some point, Ukrainian journalists concluded that symbolism was inherent to the leadership of the Russian army. By this, they convinced many that on May 9, 2023, there would definitely be a nuclear strike on Kyiv.

For 2.5 months, I lived in Lviv. I lived in an office with transparent walls. While ordinary people in Europe were letting Ukrainians into their homes for free, in Lviv, rental prices for apartments equaled those in Paris.

I could have gone to the shelters set up in school gymnasiums. But the military regularly came there, and they took all the men who had come from the East to the war. At night, there was a curfew. If you didn’t find shelter before it started, by morning your body would be wrapped in a military uniform. And during the day, journalists kindly explained to the public that the guys went to war voluntarily.

I speak Ukrainian with a terrible accent, so in 2.5 months, I went out onto the street only a few times. But even on those few occasions, I encountered soldiers who didn’t miss the opportunity to wield their sudden power, which I also wrote about in the novel.

In the office, there was no kitchen. No shower. There was a patriotic security guard who wondered why I wasn’t going to defend my homeland. He talked about it so casually, as if risking his own life was no harder for him than drinking a glass of milk that had been sitting on the sunny windowsill all day. Anyway, he didn’t rush to join the army.

From time to time, the privileged came to the office – the locals. They were also afraid of being caught, but they knew that someone from the East was more likely to be sent to war. Would they betray me? They not only knew my location but also had a key to that damn office. So, I felt as defenseless as if I woke up naked every morning in a brothel for seniors and was obliged to serve anyone who entered the transparent room.

Meanwhile, the Russian army was occupying more and more territory. And so, my hometown fell under occupation. The neighboring town was bombed in an attempt to save it. But for me, the captured town was preferable to being destroyed, simply because there were still people there.

At first, we believed that the war would end in 2-3 weeks. Then we thought it would happen within a month. And finally, journalists were pushing us toward a new reality – the war would end with a nuclear bomb dropped on Kyiv on May 9th.

I didn’t trust the military. I didn’t trust those who came to the office. I didn’t trust the guard who asked me again, “Why aren’t you going to defend your homeland?” I couldn’t even bathe. And at the same time, I watched online as bombs destroyed places where my relatives lived, places I used to visit and would never visit again.

But if the military were destroying cities in battle, the residents of western Ukraine took up destroying culture. From all sides, I heard how bad the Russian language was and how stupid Russian writers were. But at the same time, it was my language and my writers. Culture doesn’t belong to the army, the weapons, or the president. But it’s unlikely you can explain that to someone who looked at you with hostility even before the war, while the war became proof of their righteousness.

War intensifies national symbols. The country’s coat of arms suddenly becomes more than just a coat of arms, acquiring a sacred significance. The same happens with songs and movies. However, a culture whose foundation is vengeance and hatred is far from what is called high culture.

Moreover, taking pride in national culture means building a fence between your culture and the cultures of other countries. If we start taking pride in the achievements of culture as a whole, then we wouldn’t easily give up on books that changed our world yesterday, deeming them unacceptable because of politicians’ actions today.

But even if each country builds such a cultural fence around itself, easily sacrificing the achievements of other countries, such a world can still be destroyed by an atomic bomb.

The atomic bomb doesn’t care whether it devastates a city of Ukrainians or Japanese. It doesn’t care how captivating a film about its creator turned out to be. The atomic bomb has no concern for whether Robert Oppenheimer’s conscience tormented him after realizing what he had created. The bomb simply fulfills its function – it explodes when commanded to do so. You wanted a world without culture? Here it is! Enjoy…

“It’s good weather! Why didn’t you go to defend the homeland this morning?” the damn guard asks me again.

I’m a writer, and if I say that my work is more important than me, I’ll say it with pride. But if someone else says that my work is more important than my life, then I’ll look at them with hostility. From the first day of the war, Ukraine declared this to the men. So, the men ended up being hostages. And it seems like nobody cares.

What if the atomic bomb really falls? Then what? Radiation contamination. Instant casualties. Infrastructure annihilated. Psychological fallout. Environmental impact. Burns. Radiation sickness. Cancer. Leukemia. Mass death. Loss of loved ones. Loss of livelihood. I thought about it and bought a ticket from Lviv to Kyiv specifically for May 9th. I was ready to die from an atomic blast just to escape from the Lviv hellhole where I spent 2.5 months.

I was surprised when I saw the length of the list of psychological illnesses that could be cured simply by trying to understand a person. It’s been 2 years since the beginning of the war. So far, I haven’t heard a single person from western Ukraine say, “I’m sorry you had to go through this.” Instead, I’ve received enough reproaches for lack of patriotism, which flatters me.

If I had to choose between returning to Lviv and death by atomic bomb, I would choose the second option again. In this story, the bastard Robert Oppenheimer is my friend. He thought he created the death of worlds, but it turns out there is something scarier than death.

By the way, those éclairs were wonderful! My damn radioactive éclairs.

 

 

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

Academic Freedom Dies Not With a Bang, But a Whimper

Interview with Lola from Hands of Student Rights about a new law threatening expulsions of politically active students in Berlin


30/03/2024

Hello, thanks for talking to us. Could you briefly introduce yourself?

Of course, my name is Lola, I am a medical student, and am part of the student led movement; Hands off Student Rights: campaign against political expulsion.

Why did you set up the campaign Hands Off Students Rights?

We set up this campaign because the Berlin Senate is trying to, quite hastily, reintroduce a law in the Higher Education Act, that would allow for disciplinary expulsion. We see numerous issues with the law, such as the vague phrasing, and the way it allows for universities to act as if they were a court.

What would be the effect of the new Higher Education Act?

The effects of this law are far reaching, and I think they go beyond what we can even predict. I think that is what makes it so scary – the uncertainty and limitlessness of it all. The changes would mean someone can be subjected to a system of punishment, ultimately ending in disciplinary expulsion. Which measures are used and when will be decided by a disciplinary committee, whose composition is completely up to the university.

If they were genuinely concerned for the well-being of students, they would ensure accurate and thorough formulation of the law… The way the law is framed quite seems to cover as broad of a scope as possible, allowing it to be used arbitrarily.

Not only that, but which offences are punishable is not a legal decision but will also be decided by this committee. We believe that this law will predominately work by silencing politically active students, not necessarily by expelling them straight away, but through the fear that is instilled by the threat of expulsion. Before any protest, political action or organisation, students, especially those with student visas or from marginalised groups, will have to consider this as a possible result. That is structural violence.

Who is behind Paragraph 16 and what are they trying to do with it?

The current governing parties in the Berlin Senate, the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD) are behind this paragraph. I think their goal is mainly to depoliticise universities, and to limit and thereby control the political landscape of universities in Berlin.

Why do you think the law is being changed now?

I think it is quite reasonable to deduce that the rise in Palestine solidarity at universities over the past 6 months is the largest influence for the change happening now. I think what is also very clear, is the way the senate is trying to fast-track this during the semester break. This seems strategic, perhaps to limit opposition to the change and to excuse not involving students in this process.

I also think that this is just another symptom of the shift to the right in Germany, which in Berlin so often articulates itself as xenophobic ‘law and order’ politics. This law is another card played from the same hand.

Is the law protecting students, as the Senate claims?

No, the law as proposed by the Senate will not effectively protect students.

There are several points at which this becomes clear in the proposal. Firstly, the law is being introduced under not only the guise of protecting students, but specifically for protecting students against discrimination and violence. Strangely, the only point that CANNOT lead to expulsion, is the point on discrimination.

Secondly, the law does not define ‘violence’ or what makes up an ‘offence’. If they were genuinely concerned for the well-being of students, they would ensure accurate and thorough formulation of the law, with specific criteria that constitute ‘violence’ or ‘interruption of university proceedings’. The way the law is framed quite seems to cover as broad of a scope as possible, allowing it to be used arbitrarily.

Aside from this, this kind of law is simply unsuitable for creating a safer university environment. For example, in the case of sexual assault, where the perpetrator is a student, expulsion does not prevent them from accessing campus grounds since most all campuses are easily accessible to the public. This is particularly relevant here since perpetrators of sexualised violence are only rarely convicted and given prison time. This law fails to prioritise the safety and well-being of victims.

In fact, the law could even allow for victims of abuse to potentially be expelled, if they are charged with, say, defamation, for example for accusing staff of being inappropriate or making discriminatory comments.

The current repression of Palestine solidarity has so far met little resistance from white Germans. Is this starting to change?

I think there is a lot of fear-mongering, also from the German mass media, regarding Palestine solidarity. The average German is exposed to unwavering solidarity with Israel their whole life, so this could translate into some of the reactions that we typically see. I think as the atrocities in Gaza go on, people are finding fewer and fewer ways to justify Israel’s actions. But there is still a lot of work to be done.

What level of support has the campaign received so far?

The campaign is still quite young, but we have gotten a lot of support from local and international leftist groups. Students in Vienna are mirroring our protests, and students all over Germany are standing in solidarity.

The law was originally introduced in 1968. Do you think that we are experiencing a new radicalisation of students?

I think the shift to the right will naturally lead to an increasing radicalisation of the students. Historically, so many great movements have started on campus and as this political shift progresses, I am sure that the resistance against that will continue at universities.

There was a lobby of the Berliner Senat on 26th March. What are the next steps for the campaign?

We are a grassroots movement of students and feel that the streets are the place for us to be, so we want to keep protesting and make ourselves heard. We also want to continue with international outreach, our social media campaign, and to stay in touch with those who can speak with politicians and lobby that way.

How can non-students support your campaign?

By sharing our content, giving us platforms, informing others about this proposed change, and most importantly, taking to the streets with us.

And what can students do?

We have been hearing that a lot of students aren’t even aware of these proposed changes. So, I think spreading awareness is crucial. We also encourage students to get organised and stay united. They are trying to divide us, and we need to remember that this law could affect us all, whether we are politically active or not.

Doxing is not Journalism!

Independent activists demand journalistic integrity for Palestinians in Gaza and Berlin


29/03/2024

On March 1st, 2024, the Tagesspiegel published an article titled “Die Stimme des Israelhasses: ‘Wenn Gewalt die einzige Option ist, werden wir sie anwenden’” [The voice of Israel-hatred:“if violence is the only option, we will use it”]. In response, a group of independent activists has assembled to demand integrity in the German media.

The article in question is a clear attempt to smear two Berlin-based activists and discount the broader Palestine-solidarity movement as the actions of lone agitators. It claims that two local (PoC) activists are inciting violence and quotes out of context statements about the Palestinian right to self-defense under Israeli occupation (as is enshrined in international law) as if they were direct threats.

It pits the accused activists against “moderate activists” who do not disrupt events but act with “reason and argumentation”. It reveals that one activist has been visited by law enforcement. Instead of calling out the heavy police repression of local activist groups, the article paints him as a criminal and antisemite.

The inclusion of the full names, faces, and workplaces of the activists, in combination with the claims made in the article, has clear potential to lead to harassment and even physical harm against them.

It is unacceptable that after 146 days of the ongoing destruction of Gaza, the Tagesspiegel is spending time and money on smearing and doxing local activists, rather than reporting honestly on the genocide unfolding in Gaza! On the night before the article was published, Israeli soldiers opened fire on around 1,000 starving Palestinians attempting to get food for their families, one of the deadliest incidents since October 7.

Two other things happened that day. According to the UN, the tenth child starved to death in Gaza. Joe Biden also announced the beginning of the cruel and dystopian aid drop program which has since killed 5 people due to parachute malfunctions, as reported by the BBC, CNN, and the Guardian. There are new and horrible things to report on every single day – an activist peacefully disrupting events to raise awareness of these horrors is not one of them!

On Wednesday, March 13th, the new campaign “Doxing is not Journalism” organised a protest outside the Tagesspiegel headquarters in Berlin. The protest aimed to draw a direct link between the killing of over 130 journalists in Gaza and the misdirection and concealment of the real news on the ground by the German media. It asked journalists of the Tagesspiegel: where is your solidarity with Palestinian journalists, your colleagues, who are working out of a war zone?

With every passing day, not only do conditions in Palestine become worse. It also becomes harder to report on them as the voices of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Europe are systematically erased. Doxing is not Journalism demands honesty and integrity from our media. We deserve to see what we all know is happening and not be lied to about made-up terrorists inciting violence among us!

As a final note, we also see a worrying link from this moment to Germany’s own dark past. Newspapers in the 1930s wrongfully painted Jews in Europe and Germany as inciting violence and wishing war upon the West. Through the German media’s obsession with incorrectly labelling every critique of the Israeli government’s actions as antisemitic, it is committing the grave error of denying the ongoing genocide, diluting the meaning of antisemitism, and itself participating in inciting hatred toward an already marginalized group.

The most recent smear article was not the first incident in which Tagesspiegel painted Muslims in a similar light: previous articles have claimed that pro-Palestinian activists in Berlin were “called to violence” by Hamas, have generalized Palestinians in Gaza as “terrorists”, and have repeatedly pushed the narrative that any pro-Palestinian voices are antisemitic.

The protest called on Tagesspiegel and all German media to remember their power in shaping narrative and perception of different groups. German media in particular have a responsibility to name and expose ongoing genocides, as well as amplify rather than attack the voices of those trying to end the brutality.

The media must stop pitting “good” activists against “bad” activists, Jews against Muslims, and Germans against Palestinians. We will show Tagesspiegel that the pro-Palestinian movement in Berlin is strong, it is diverse, and it is not going anywhere!

Since the demonstration, there have been some developments. As a result, the demo organisers have made the following statement:

We are disturbed by how quickly even our small protest was condemned and shunned by the media. The German Journalists Union (dju) was quick to defend Sebastian Leber’s article in their own press release and condemn our protest as an attack on press freedom because “there is a strong public interest” in knowing who “disrupts events” and “calls for protests”. They again conflate peaceful protest with violence and radicalism. Even in the weeks which have passed since our first protest, the damage of the media representation of activists has become increasingly clear. The two activists who were named in the article (and even people with the same name but no relation to the activists themselves) have received numerous death threats. Just two days ago, their homes were raided by the state police in the middle of the night and their personal belongings were confiscated.

We continue to be disturbed by the worsening conditions for activists in this city and hope to bring international attention to the issue. As the Berlin senate debates the reintroduction of politically-motivated expulsion from university and the German media call for the banning of the upcoming “hateful” and “shameful” Palestine congress, we encourage everyone to keep spreading information through all possible channels, maintain scrutiny on the German press, and get active in their communities.

There follow extracts from some of the speeches from the March 13th demonstration. These have been shortened for reason of space. You can read the full speeches here.

Jara Nassar (artist)

What is the role of art while the world burns? It should look without prejudice. It should ask questions, foment hope, open and defend spaces for dialogue, not bury them. In German institutions, there is no more Art when it comes to Palestine and Israel. It’s there on the streets, in posters and workshops, in songs and banners, but not in museum and state theatres.

What is the role of journalism while the world burns? It should inform the public. It should point a critical finger at the powerful, the politicians and the corporations. It should challenge statements, contextualise events, and expose lies.

In the German newspapers, there is no more journalism when it comes to Palestine/Israel. Instead, there is racist agitation. A couple of examples.

Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham, the directors of the award-winning documentary No Other Land, call for an end to the occupation and an immediate stop to weapon exports to Israel. The German media fall all over themselves with accusations of antisemitism and hatred of Israel. The Tagesschau even calls the directors “perpetrators”. Germany provides Israel with a quarter of the weapons used for its war of extermination, and German “journalism” calls those who call on Germany to respect international justice “perpetrators”?

In his Oscar speech, Jonathan Glazer, the Jewish director of The Zone of Interest said: “We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many people, whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel, or the ongoing attack on Gaza.” Die Welt then accuses Jonathan Glazer of abusing the Holocaust and Jewish victims.

Louder than the defamation of those who stand against the war of extermination in Gaza is only the silence about the atrocities of the Israeli military and the illegal settlers.

Over 130 journalists have been killed in Gaza since 7th October. Three were killed by Israel in apparently targeted attacks in Lebanon. Over 31,000 people have been killed in the most gruesome manner. But the targeted eradication of Palestinian and Arab life is not worth a story. Instead, as much credence is given to contrived assumptions by the Israeli army and German politicians, as to independent verifiable facts.

Language has power. This language, which the newspapers use, is dangerous. With the publication of such language, the newspapers make themselves directly responsible for violence against Palestinians, and anyone who shows solidarity with them.

It is the job of the press to critically report government propaganda and not to spread hatred, defame activists and artists, and justify war crimes. Dear newspapers, please do your job.

This speech was given in German. Translation: Phil Butland

Udi Raz (Jüdische Stimme)

It is a heartbreaking reality that we meet here today, 6 months into an ongoing genocide, because German journalists once again have failed to uphold their very basic responsibility towards journalistic integrity.

We gather here today, sisters, because we know that we all deserve better journalism. Especially in times of ongoing genocide, and especially by those who gaslight us with the claim that they have learned a lesson from their own genocidal experience.

But the fact is that in Germany 2024, we are still dealing with the de-Nazification process of German journalism.

About a month ago, my Jewish sibling HP Loveshaft, and my Palestinian brother Salah Said, were subjected to a smear campaign designed and executed by Thomas Heise and Anna Sadovnikova. A smear campaign that was promoted by Der Spiegel.

The journalists claimed that HP Loveshaft and Salah Said were promoting antisemitism.

In another case, less than two weeks ago, my Muslim sister Yasemin Acar was subjected to a smear campaign designed and executed by Sebastian Leber and which was promoted by the Tagesspiegel.

Among other things, Leber denounced my sister as “Israel-hater”.

“Israel-hater”? Seriously? Is this even an insult?

If this is the case, then according to this logic, 6 months into an ongoing genocide, and with more than 130 dead journalists, German journalism emerges as nothing less but journalism for genocide-lovers.

Zionism is not Judaism.

Accordingly, to free Palestine from Zionism means also to free Judaism from Zionism.

In this sense, Free Free Palestine!

Nat Skoczylas

Since October 7, the German media has launched an aggressive, deadly war against those who seek to amplify the voices of the oppressed, of those who stand against silence, of those who dare to look the death, mass destruction, starvation, torture, rape, and other forms of genocidal violence in the face.

Five months into this war, we’re close to 140 journalists dead in Gaza since October, which is a sum higher than those killed in the Vietnam war, 63 over 20 years. During five years of the Second World War, 69 journalists were killed. You also chose to ignore that over 70% of all journalists killed around the world in 2023 were your colleagues in Gaza, in a span of less than 4 months.

Meanwhile, what is Germany doing? Germany’s sales of weapons to Israel since October 2023 have increased tenfold. And the international law says “All States must ‘ensure respect’ for international humanitarian law by parties to an armed conflict, as required by 1949 Geneva Conventions and customary international law. States must accordingly refrain from transferring any weapon or ammunition – or parts for them – if it is expected, given the facts or past patterns of behaviour, that they would be used to violate international law.”

Has this been reported by you? How loudly have you been calling against your government’s complicity and going against the law?

As Germany yet again takes vigorous and active part in a genocide of a people whose horrifying displacement and occupation is a result of the Holocaust, the press all over the country actively supports the government and fabricates narratives that completely dismiss the suffering and the violence we’ve been witnessing live for weeks on end: of people dying under the rubble, being shot as they search for food, starved to death, and tortured.

I come from a town that was 40% Jewish for centuries, until 1939. I come from a family that fought to liberate Berlin, as my grandfather walked by foot from near the Ukrainian border to the Baltic Sea. I come from the area of Poland where Eichmann planned to move the Jews in one of the fascist fantasies of expanding the lebensraum. I grew up surrounded by the ruins and trauma of what war propaganda, hatred, lies, racism, fascism, white suprematism and colonialism can do to a people – the homes that stand empty until today, the graveyards that are stripped of their stones, the human lives that continue struggling with the despair and horrors it has produced and imprinted on us.

You, journalists, have the moral obligation to speak to the truth. To protect human lives, especially those at a greater risk. And whatever keeps you from doing it – you have to fight against it. We can’t afford another lost life, another day of that war, another minute of the occupation, another lie you get paid for.

No one is free until everyone is free, amen.

HP Loveshaft

Following October 7th, I had little patience for those who conflate concern for Arab lives with antisemitism. Having grown up in the wake of 9-11, I saw firsthand my friends called “terrorist sympathizers” for speaking up about atrocities committed in their names.

Since the publication of a video titled Demonstration Gegen Juden, I have been inundated with violent threats. I have questions for Spiegel, including:

  • Why did you spend a full minute going over my instagram account and pronouns, but neglected to mention I’m Jewish? How do your queer colleagues feel about this journalistic practice?

  • When will Salah Said, Mudi, Manar Ahmad, Yasmin Acar and other activists be invited for a warm studio interview, instead of getting shouted at in the middle of a demonstration?

  • Why did you neglect to mention the Zionists you present as victims are known violent instigators? Did their chants of “may your village burn down” fail to tip you off?

Do you think your ancestors would be proud of the way you stoke the embers of simmering racism in this country, giving every reactionary xenophobe carte blanche to act on their hatred of Muslim, Arab, Black and Brown people under the guise of “defending Jews”? Seeing as you opened with painting a target on a Jewish, Hirschfeld-quoting transsexual, I imagine they must.

What will you tell your children, or their children, about what it means to be German? How will you explain to them that this country repeated its greatest shame, on a global stage, as genocide was live-streamed on every portable screen in existence? How will you give them hope to be known for anything besides an unprecedented industrialization of hatred?

For more information about Doxing is Not Journalism, please send a mail to doxingisnotjournalism@proton.me

More pictures from the demo: