The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

The German Federal Elections — Bleak with a Chance of Hope

Analysis of the German election results


12/03/2025

At the Bundestag elections on Sunday, 23rd of February, the political landscape in Germany shifted further to the right. As expected, Friedrich Merz, the right-wing conservative candidate of the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), won the election. The fascist AfD won a plurality of votes in almost all constituencies in the former East and is now the second largest party in the Bundestag with almost 21%. The governing parties, the social democratic SPD, the Greens, and the liberal FDP, all suffered heavy losses. At the same time, a massive influx of young activists in the big cities has brought the socialist party Die Linke back to life. Die Linke was able to almost double its share of the vote to 8.8% and even become the largest party in Berlin.

The fact that Friedrich Merz was able to become the CDU’s top candidate was already a sign of the cold right-wing gust that has been blowing through the country in recent years. The former chairman of the supervisory board of Blackrock Germany is an ideologue from the CDU’s right, who voted against criminalizing marital rape in 1992. Both Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel did not trust him and refused to give him a ministerial post. With Merz, the CDU has turned away from Merkel’s centrist domestic policies and it now stands for a repressive migration policy, a ban on abortion, and tax breaks for the rich and for a longer working week. In today’s economic and geopolitical crisis, this is compounded by austerity and heavy militarization.

The fascist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) was able to double its votes to almost 21%. In the weeks leading up to the elections, they had the wind in their sails; the campaign was dominated by knife attacks in several cities, which made the debate on asylum and migration even more poisonous than before. But support for the AfD is a long-term phenomenon; in recent years, the AfD has taken root in society. In rural regions, and most of all in the East, there is hardly any other party present. This will embolden fascists to intimidate local opponents even further.

An unpopular government

This much is certain: the growth of the AfD is fuelled by enormous dissatisfaction with the prevailing politics and fears of an economic downturn. The “traffic light government” of Chancellor Scholz (SPD) was unprecedentedly unpopular. In the week before Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) pulled the plug on the coalition, only 14% of the country was satisfied with the government.

There is a general atmosphere of malaise. While even large companies such as Volkswagen and Daimler are laying off workers, wages and benefits are lagging far behind the rapidly rising rents, energy and food prices, all attempts by the SPD and Greens to make small social improvements were foiled by Lindner. Even in times of economic recession, the government held on to the so-called “debt brake” in the constitution, which forbids budget deficits, and preferred to cut back on youth care, education and culture. Only one exception was made: the Sondervermögen of 100 billion Euros for upgrading the Bundeswehr. The result for Scholz’s SPD is the worst result since 1887 with 16.4%.

The campaign was already polarized, but at the end of January, Friedrich Merz (and Lindner) took it one step further by actively working with the AfD in parliament for the first time. The aim was, among other things, permanent controls at all borders and the authority to permanently detain innocent asylum seekers who had been rejected. Family reunification would also be banned.

The floodgates had opened. Merz broke the agreement between the mainstream parties and Die Linke not to work with the AfD. This unleashed a huge counter-movement with hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of Berlin, Munich, Hamburg and many other cities. In Berlin, a quarter of a million people gathered in front of the CDU headquarters, where the director of the Buchenwald memorial lectured Merz on fascism. In Cologne, hundreds of demonstrators blocked Merz’s car when he visited the university medical centre.

Wagenknecht split

For Die Linke, this movement came at exactly the right time. A few months ago, the socialists were still declared dead by friend and foe. On the issue of the genocide of the Palestinians, the party cut itself off from the solidarity movement with a combination of a lack of initiative and scandalous pro-Israeli positions of factions, officials and parts of the party base. But since Sahra Wagenknecht’s departure in January of last year, it was already palpable in branches in large cities that the party had a new appeal for young people who wanted to take action against fascism.

In the years before that, Die Linke had been battered by fierce internal quarrels, especially between the self-styled ‘left-conservative’ Wagenknecht wing and most other wings of the party: about migration and asylum, about what Wagenknecht called “all sorts of absurd minorities”, about Russia and about climate activism.

After Wagenknecht left to join the start a new party, the ‘Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht’, Die Linke seemed to be in terminal decline. However, the political mix has proven too contradictory to survive in the long term. For instance, the BSW mixes social demands on issues such as the minimum wage and pensions with a concept of peace in Ukraine that ignores Russian imperial ambitions and sees the US as the only imperial actor. Wagenknecht also wants to cancel the right to asylum for people who have travelled to Germany through other countries – which in fact applies to all refugees. To top it all off, they voted in favour of the CDU and AfD bill. On election day, the BSW narrowly missed the 5% electoral threshold.

Militant anti-fascism

After the now widely watched speech by Die Linkes Heidi Reichinek against Merz’s collaboration with the AfD and the movement on the streets in the weeks that followed, the party gained momentum. By presenting itself as the polar opposite to the AfD, millions of people, especially young people and often women, helped Die Linke to 8.8% in the election. Many also became members. In the weeks before the election and directly afterwards, Die Linke has grown by almost 10.000 members per week to a national total of over 100.000.

In large cities, Die Linke was able to win more than 10% of the votes. In Berlin, the party even unexpectedly became the largest with 20% and won the most constituencies. This victory is the result of a well-organized campaign, in which members and sympathizers not only distributed flyers on the street, but also, in cooperation with neighborhood branches, knocked on as many doors as possible to hold talks.

In the multicultural working-class district of Berlin-Neukölln, where Die Linke won the most votes in the district for the first time in former West Germany with the anti-capitalist Ferat Kocak, this became particularly clear. There, 2,000 members and allies knocked on 140,000 doors and held 50,000 conversations. Often this was combined with the NGO petition against arms deliveries to Israel.

Now that the controversial Merz, hated by progressive Germany, is forming a coalition with an SPD that is already on its deathbed, the field suddenly seems open for a strong countermovement and for Die Linke to be the driving force and voice of it. In order to remain so, it will have to reinvent itself and adopt a new activist party concept. If it becomes an SPD 2.0 again, it will sooner or later lose itself in parliamentary games and give up the dynamics at the base for the next government participation.

It remains an open question whether the renewed party base can credibly put the party in the middle of organising the fightback against the Merz government on the streets. If the action-oriented, rebellious vision for the party can continue and the party throws itself fully into the fight, Die Linke can grow much further and become a real mass socialist party not just representing, but organising the German working class, in all its diversity.

This article was originally published in Dutsch on the socialisme.ne website

Avoiding Headlines

New Code of Conduct for documenta


The documenta fifteen controversies in 2022 foreshadowed much of the current debate around anti-semitism and artistic freedom in Germany. In its wake, the Kassel Art Show has taken steps in trying to prevent another scandal at documenta’s 16th edition, due in 2027. After much back and forth, the Kassel Art Show has released a Code of Conduct that is to bind both the festival institution documenta und Museum Fridericianum gGmbH and each future edition’s artistic direction to a set of rules and principles. But can documenta retain its international renown as a contemporary art festival that pushes boundaries by staying out of headlines?

Documenta is jointly funded by the City of Kassel, the State of Hesse, and the Federal Culture Fund, and while the institution itself is permanent, each edition of the festival is considered a unique event, with an artistic direction that sets the curatorial principles, programme and even branding of their edition. 

In 2022, the Indonesian collective Ruangrupa directed documenta fifteen, with a vision based on platforming artists from the global south, focusing on the work of collectives over individual artists, and highlighting artistic processes by exhibiting some of these at work during the show, sometimes without finished pieces. Above all, their intent was to question and even undermine many of the assumptions of the creative establishment. 

In this context, the work of one collective, Taring Padi, also from Indonesia, attracted searing media attention for their work People’s Justice, which depicted several figures interpreted as displaying anti-semitic codes or imagery. The huge banner was subsequently removed, but documenta was forced to apologise, provide contextualising statements, and face continuous calls for the entire event to be closed early. Several other works and collectives subsequently faced similar accusations.

By the end of documenta fifteen, after many reports and statements, including by the newly created Scientific Advisory Board and Federal Culture Minister Claudia Roth (GRÜNE) who suggested the federal government should play a more direct role in documenta’s curation, the documenta fifteen’s closing report proposed the creation of a code of conduct to avoid similar conflicts going forward. The idea was to find a balance between enshrining a set of morals to avoid excessive controversy while protecting freedom of expression for artists. 

Supporters of the code argue that enshrined values like protecting human dignity and preventing discrimination of any kind are needed, adding that it is these values that enable the environment of freedom in which documenta flourishes. On the other hand, groups like #standwithdocuemnta, who ran a petition against the Code, see artistic freedom of expression threatened by a code of conduct, and in the worst case believe this could lead to excessive government or institutional control of documenta’s curation, threatening its reputation as an important avant-garde arts event. 

Despite this debate, the Code of Conduct has now been drawn up and released. It acknowledges the tensions in this debate by stating documenta’s “obligation and responsibility … to guarantee protection against anti-Semitism, racism, and any other form of group-related misanthropy.” In the next sentence, it affirms its commitment to “artistic freedom and the free space for the expression of attitudes and opinions … which is indispensable for any artistic activity and is characterised by tolerance and an open view of the world.” But how will that tension actually be resolved?

There is an indication that documenta will try to let any tension between these principles hang, by reserving the right to distance itself from artworks it deems in violation of the code of conduct, and to add “contextualization in the immediate visual context of the exhibited works of art.” There is no mention of a right to remove artworks due to a breach of the code, suggesting an “agree to disagree” approach where documenta would state its issues with controversial works but not remove them. Apart from the removal of People’s Justice, this was the approach taken with all other controversial works in 2022. 

On the other hand, while there is little detail on how such judgements would be made, the Code makes the IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism binding. The German Bundestag has adopted the same definition since 2017, and repeated it late last year with a new resolution on protecting Jewish life in Germany. This contested definition is criticised for running the risk of conflating any criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Ultimately it will likely be the Scientific Advisory Board that advises on the final decisions regarding the application of the code. A new board was appointed at the end of January for a five year term, including the 16th edition in 2027. It is made up of Tania Coen-Uzzielli, director of the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Nicole Deitelhoff, Professor of International Relations and Theories of Global Order at Goethe University Frankfurt, Susanne Gaensheimer, director of the Kunstsammlung NRW, Diane Lima, a Brazilian curator and academic, Christoph Menke, professor of philosophy at the Goethe University Frankfurt, and Thomas Sparr, author, literary scholar and editor-at-large at the Suhrkamp Verlag.

Moreover, Naomi Beckwith was named as the new Artistic Director of documenta 16 at the end of last year. The code of conduct states that she must present a case for how she will comply with the code alongside her curatorial concept, which is due in mid-March. How the American curator and art historian plans to balance tensions will be telling for documenta’s next edition. Lord Mayor of Kassel and Chairman of the documenta Aufsichtsrat (board of supervisors) Sven Schoeller says that the new code of conduct is “strengthening an open culture of discourse” by engaging against discrimination and committing to artistic freedom. Whether documenta will continue to be an important space for that culture of discourse remains to be seen, but an aversion to scandal and a Code of Conduct that seems to want to keep documenta out of the headlines is surely not the way to foster such a culture.

Women’s Rights in Germany today

Interview with the director of DaMigra and representatives of Zora.


09/03/2025

How is it that Germany doesn’t have a Ministry of Gender Equality, and that the Schutzgesetz (Protection from Violence Law) has still not fully been implemented after three years?

It is indeed astonishing and regrettable that there is no Ministry of Gender Equality in a country like Germany, which has taken up the cause of promoting gender equality. The current organisations in which gender equality issues are often embedded — namely the ministries of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth — reflect a traditionalist perspective. Women are often seen in the context of family and care work, rather than gender equality being treated on its own terms as a comprehensive social goal.

Of course, this contradicts the Constitution. Article 3 clearly stipulates the active promotion of gender equality between men and women, and the eradication of discrimination. The lack of focus on gender equality highlights how deeply embedded patriarchal structures and traditional gender roles are in society.

An independent Ministry of Gender Equality would be an important signal, showing how gender equality is no longer a fringe issue, but rather a central social goal. Gender equality does not only affect women but also men, children, LGBTQIA+ people, and of course marginalised groups as well. The creation of such a ministry would show that policymakers are ready to firmly tackle structural or institutional discrimination and inequality.

The hesitation in implementing the Gewalthilfegesetz — the law for providing help to domestic violence survivors — illustrates this issue clearly, namely how the lack of focus on gender equality has a direct effect on the security and rights of women. The Istanbul Convention, which Germany ratified in 2018, urges clear measures to be taken to protect people from gendered violence. That such a law has still not been passed, three years after it was announced, shows a level of political inertia that is unacceptable.

What do you think of the potential removal of Article 218 (abortion) from the German Penal Code? How do you see the implementation of the promised Gewaltschutzgesetz within the framework of the Istanbul Convention?

We welcome the initiative to remove abortion from the penal code as a necessary and long overdue step towards decriminalisation. The current law criminalises women and creates legal, social and psychological hurdles. The abolition of the law would set a clear example for recognising the bodily autonomy of women as a fundamental right. 

However, we are sceptical if this proposal can still be implemented during the current legislative period. There have been multi-partisan initiatives from certain members of Parliament, but it’s too late, and the political will doesn’t seem to be sufficient. Unfortunately, it will likely take years until a similar momentum comes into being once again — one in which organisations and initiatives can work towards such a reform.

Yet what is often overlooked in this discussion is the access to safe, free and accessible abortions for all women. Decriminalisation by itself is not enough when structural barriers such as cost, insufficient care and treatment, or regional inequalities are not addressed. Access to abortion is difficult (or even impossible) for migrant or refugee women. Immigration laws, residence status or restricted access to the healthcare system create additional obstacles. 

By all proposed legislations or reform initiatives, we must keep in mind that all women must be accounted for equally — irrespective of their background or status. Abortions cannot merely be legally decriminalised, but must also be made practically possible in order to ensure equality and justice.

The Federal Ministry of the Interior’s recently published report shows that “crimes against women are increasing in every sphere”

The increase in crimes against women, as they are pointed out in the federal report, are alarming for all of us. Not only does it point to the urgency of finally taking gendered violence seriously, but also to policymakers’ and institutions’ continued failure to protect women. Violence against women is not an individual but rather a structural problem, deeply rooted in the power structures of society.

The numbers are harrowing: 360 femicides in 2023, a woman murdered almost every day. Since we still don’t have a consistent definition of femicide in Germany, the police registered 938 female victims of homicide last year — but the estimated number of unrecorded cases is much higher. 

That means almost three women per day! 360 women and girls murdered. A large portion of these murders (68.6%) were committed in the context of domestic violence. 

Additionally, more than 140 women and girls are victims of sexual offences every day. It is especially concerning that politically motivated digital violence and misogynistic hate crimes are increasing massively. This development shows that violence against women is ever more present in every aspect of life — from physical assault to online attacks. 

The situation is often worse for migrant and refugee women. Not only do they face violence from perpetrators, but also from a system which doesn’t protect them. Refugee accommodation centres are dangerous places; there is no personal privacy, and there is no public outrage about this. This shows that Germany is far away from a comprehensive and intersectional protection mechanism. 

The consequence is clear: we urgently need political measures to implement the Istanbul Convention and write a law for protection from violence which protects all women — irrespective of their background, immigration status or station in life. The increase in violence is a wake up call to take action. 

How long have you been active in women’s rights and how have you experienced the developments in the past few years? 

I’ve been engaged in women’s rights and human rights for a very long time with a special focus on migrant rights, refugee women or other marginalised groups. My work allows me to observe developments and trends at first hand and the last few years have shown that the challenges are bigger than ever. 

On the one hand, we see positive developments: there is a growing sensibility for topics such as gendered violence and femicides. Terms such as ‘femicide’ have now entered into public and political debate. Women’s rights organisations and migrant community organisations such as DaMigra contribute to helping ensure that the voices of those affected are no longer ignored. 

On the other hand, the practical progress is worryingly slow. Despite the Istanbul Convention and increasing awareness around gendered violence, there is a lack of effective structures and measures that truly protect women. Migrant women and refugee women are consistently marginalised. There is often a lack of translation support, information and low-barrier access to protective systems. Additionally, we are experiencing how political conditions such as deportations and mandatory place-of-residence rules put these women in dangerous situations.

The increase in violence across the board illustrates how the measures that have been introduced up until now have not been sufficient. It is our responsibility to continue to apply pressure, to act on our political responsibility and to fight for a change in the way that we think, as a society. Because every woman’s life matters — and every form of violence against women is one too many.

How do conditions for migrant and refugee women differ from others, in this context?

The situation for migrant and refugee women is in many ways more precarious than for women who belong to the dominant group in society. Not only are they subject to violence by perpetrators, but also by structural and institutional conditions, which hinders their protection or makes it altogether impossible. Women who live in refugee accommodation — where there is a lack of personal privacy and the danger of assault is high — are especially affected by this. Often, they lack access to protective services for linguistic, cultural or legal reasons. The mandatory requirement to have a place of residence is often a barrier for refugee women trying to find protection and support.

A central problem is the implementation of the Istanbul Convention in Germany. 

The provision of Article 59 has indeed expired, yet the law itself was nothing more than symbolic until now. The necessary reform of Article 31 of the Aufenthaltsgesetz (Residence Law) — which would grant migrant women a residence permit that is not tied to their marital status — has still not been undertaken. Article 59 of the Istanbul Convention urges clearly that women must receive independent residence permits irrespective of their marital status. However, German policymakers have wasted this opportunity.

What we see now is just a sham. The provision was simply not extended, and the government showcases this as progress. But there has actually been no change that protects migrant women better. This shows how far away Germany is from human-rights oriented policymaking that truly includes migrant and refugee women. Such reforms would mean that women would no longer be forced to stay in violent relationships just because they were afraid of losing their residence permits. But these reforms were considered to be politically risky.

The consequence of this for many women who come to Germany on a family reunification visa is that they still remain dependent on their partner and are thus especially vulnerable to violence. 

Until the immigration law is reformed, the Istanbul Convention cannot be fully implemented in this regard. It is imperative that Germany assume responsibility here and show that legal protection cannot be dependent on personal background, or on immigration status. 

How do you regard the portrayal of immigration and gendered violence in the media and by other public representatives? 

The portrayal of migration and migrants in the media and by public representatives is often problematic and riddled with negative stereotypes. Topics which are reported in relation to migrants or non-Germans often revolve around crime, such as the so-called gang wars or knife fights. Even the language used around these topics — terms like “illegal” or “irregular” migration — is discriminatory and dehumanising. 

How should people who are fleeing from war, violence or prosecution come to Germany or Europe “regularly”? There are no regular escape routes. It brings up that historical question: what regular ways did those who had to flee from the Nazi regime have? Did they just go to embassies totally regularly to get a visa before they could flee to a safe country? Of course not. These double standards and the lack of safe escape routes for people who seek refuge are unacceptable.

Another big problem is the instrumentalisation of gendered violence by far-right parties. Femicides or violence against women are often used to stigmatise migrants or refugees. These depictions obfuscate the fact that gendered violence is a structural problem which affects all parts of society, irrespective of personal or cultural background. This instrumentalisation prevents us from taking an expansive perspective regarding the causes of violence and the scale of gendered violence in Germany. 

Gendered violence is, unfortunately, not taken seriously in Germany, and it is often instrumentalised with regards to migration instead of protecting the women that are affected.

A nuanced and humane media portrayal and political discussion — which strives for structural solutions instead of seeking to blame certain groups — is desperately needed. The media and society must acknowledge that all women, regardless of their background or immigration status, must be protected. 

How can we combat these depictions and stereotypes? 

Several steps are necessary to combat stereotypes and simplistic depictions. 

First of all, we must change public debates by speaking about the causes of migration, why people seek refuge, and gendered violence, in a nuanced way. Of course, better educational programs, public campaigns and dialogue between a multitude of groups can also be helpful in breaking down prejudices and fostering empathy. 

But media portrayals are of primary importance. 

The media has an enormous responsibility. They are the ones who help create the images that come into being in our minds, and they are also the ones who can correct these images. They can publish nuanced stories which show the complexity of such topics and the viewpoints of those affected, instead of simplistic and sensationalist stories. Journalists should be encouraged to avoid discriminatory language and depictions. The media must reflect the diversity of society. This applies to both the media employees and broadcasting corporations themselves, as well as the choice of topics and type of reporting. Migrants and women should not only be depicted as criminals or victims, but also as active agents which contribute to, strengthen, and innovate society. Both economic and social progress would be impossible without immigration and the influence of these groups. 

It is incredibly important to combat populist narratives — whether in political discussions, media or in society. Only through countering discriminatory narratives can we achieve a change in society.

Migration and female-focused organisations such as DaMigra play an important role here as well, because they shed light on the perspectives of those affected and provide substantiated information on these topics. As such, their financial security must be ensured, and they must be integrated more prominently into public debate and political processes. 

We can only combat these stereotypical depictions if we change narratives, systemically shed light on issues, bolster migrant voices and display diversity. This is a task for the whole of society, which requires courage, engagement and lots of perseverance. 

Photo Gallery – Until Total Liberation Demonstration on International Women’s Day

Saturday 8th March, Oranienplatz to Hermannplatz


All photos: Cherry Adam

Not One Person and Not One Cent for Militarism!

Germany’s new government wants to amend the constitution to spend half a trillion euros on weapons. The ruling class wants cannons instead of butter


In 1887, Wilhelm Liebknecht, the founder of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), put out a flyer for the Reichstag elections: “Not one person and not one cent for militarism!” As Liebknecht explained: “Militarism is incompatible with the freedom and the prosperity of the peoples.” For many decades, until 1914, the social democrats refused any support for the government’s budget, even when increased social spending was offered as bait.

Now, some 140 years later, the always amusing dialectic of history has turned the SPD into Germany’s biggest proponent of military spending.

As the social democrats prepare to form a government with Friedrich Merz’s CDU, they have announced plans to amend the Basic Law. While maintaining the debt brake that mandates balanced budgets and permanent austerity, the emerging “Grand Coalition” wants to create two exceptions. Firstly, military spending will be exempted from the cap on borrowing — they are talking about 500 billion additional euros in the next decades. Secondly, a special trust of up to 500 billion euros for infrastructure will also not be counted as part of the regular budget.

In other words: all the parties, but especially the CDU, have insisted that there is no money to repair schools, to properly staff hospitals, or to keep the trains running. Yet in a few days, they conjure up a trillion euros (more or less) for weapons. The Nazis had a slogan for this: the nation needed “cannons instead of butter.”

Cynical in the extreme: CDU and SPD want to pass this constitutional reform at high speed, before the recently elected Bundestag constitutes itself on March 25. In the old parliament, they have the necessary two thirds majority together with the Greens; in the new parliament, with the FDP ejected and Die Linke strengthened, they would need support from a fourth party.

Cannons Not Butter

Half a trillion euros for infrastructure might sound like a good thing — but while there is talk of spending on schools, hospitals, and digitalization, much of the money will go to building Autobahnen and subsidizing fossil capital in other ways. And as previous wars have shown, highways and rail infrastructure are also part of military readiness.

Depressingly, a recent poll shows that rearmanent is quite popular, with 76 percent in favor. Even among supporters of Die Linke and BSW, two parties with (undeserved) reputations for opposing war, majorities support militarism. But this will shift as austerity, already underway, makes itself felt in people’s daily lives. Prices will continue going up as social services crumble, to pay for tanks and fighter jets.

The only good news is that no one wants to put their own bodies on the line. The Bundeswehr, like almost every imperialist army, faces extreme difficulties finding new recruits. As a Forsa survey from 2025 shows, some 60 percent of people in Germany could not see themselves fighting for their country. And why should we? This is a state of billionaires, by billionaires, and for billionaires — are we supposed to risk our lives for a system that doesn’t even give us decent housing?

Stop Putin? Defend Freedom?

The capitalist propaganda machine is running at high gear, telling us that if we don’t tighten our belts, Putin’s tanks will soon occupy Berlin. Watching the Russian army’s lackluster attempts to seize a sliver of Europe’s poorest country, this is not particularly convincing. 

Think of the historical precedent: as the European powers launched ever-greater armaments programs in the early 1900s, they promised their citizens that battleships and artillery would guarantee peace. Yet it turns out that they do not spend this much on weapons with no intention to use them. The First World War cost some 20 million lives.

It is ominous that Gregor Gysi of Die Linke has called for class collaboration between workers and capitalists to “defend our freedom” — this is an echo of the social democratic traitors who voted for “national defense” in 1914. Jan von Aken has also been signaling willingness to negotiate about more money for the Bundeswehr. Tens of thousands of young people joined Die Linke in the last few months — and they need to campaign against the army.

As capitalist governments inch toward new imperialist conflagrations, they can barely offer an explanation for what they’re fighting about. This is just a competition for which billionaires get to rule over the globe, and they’re not even bothering to hide it.

If they were really interested in “defending our freedom,” they could create a people’s militia — as Liebknecht proposed 140 years ago — under the control of working people, and not ordered around by capitalist officers. Opportunists will say it’s not possible to oppose militarism when majorities are in favor. But in 1887, the SPD, with its hard no to military spending, got 10 percent of the votes — its best result to date, and not much worse than the SPD today.

Red Flag is a weekly column on Berlin politics that Nathaniel Flakin has been writing since 2020. After moving through different homes, it now appears every Friday at The Left Berlin.