The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Red Flag: Berlin’s Biggest Women’s Day in Decades

“March, lick ovaries!” This slogan will make sense by the end of Nathaniel Flakin’s weekly column.

Nathaniel Flakin
11/03/2026

When I went past the statue of Käthe Kollwitz a few weeks ago, I didn’t understand why it was covered with floral arrangements. Had I missed some anniversary? No, it turned out this was an advertisement for a flower shop offering cheap bouquets for March 8.

This was not, by a long way, the worst misappropriation of International Women’s Day, a holiday launched in 1910 by Clara Zetkin and other socialist women.

This year, the German army offered Tiktoks and “diversity as strength” factsheets. Women soldiers of Israel’s genocidal military proclaimed: “I’m not here to watch history from the side. I’m here to build it.”

The future that imperialists are building could be seen in Minab, where graves for over 150 schoolgirls were being dug; in Teheran, where burning oil rained down on millions of women; or in Gaza, where tens of thousands of women have been massacred, and many more lack food, hygiene, and health care.

Women can now commit genocide alongside men—the glass ceiling has been smashed forever!

Two Demonstrations

Despite imperialist attempts to co-opt Women’s Day, the revolutionary foundations of March 8 can still be seen. Berlin saw not one but two massive demonstrations.

When I moved here over 20 years ago, Frauentag had almost disappeared, with only tiny events. This year, some 30,000 people came to the demonstration at Oranienplatz (somewhat bigger than last year, which was already huge). Feminism is channeling a lot of rage against austerity, imperialist wars, and the Rechtsruck (shift to the right).

The march to the Red City Hall was organized by different unions, including the confederation DGB and the service sector union ver.di, but there were also big contingents from political groups, ranging from radical leftists to the Green Party.

As speakers pointed out, Germany remains a deeply patriarchal society. On average, a woman is killed every 72 hours by a partner or ex. Women earn 16% less than men. Abortion, while decriminalized under certain circumstances, remains illegal.

Many speeches expressed solidarity with women in Iran, yet often in vague terms denouncing “war” and “oppression,” without saying directly that it is the U.S. and Israeli bombings that are killing Iranian women. This kind of both-sideism amounts to neutrality in the face of a horrific imperialist attack—and this is why the Green Party felt welcome, even though their “feminist foreign policy” consists in justifying the bombing of hospitals.

A second demonstration in the afternoon, starting just a few hundred meters away, tried to fill that gap. As in previous years, the Alliance of International Feminists called on people to “Rise in Rage” against imperialist war and occupation. This demonstration went through Kreuzberg and Neukölln, accompanied by heavily armed police.

These thugs were more restrained than last year, when images of cops punching women in the face went around the world. The legendary Kitty O’Brien was detained again, clearly not intimidated by police violence that previously put the Irish activist in the hospital.

March Lick Ovaries

All of Germany has been talking about a slogan from the school strike against militarism last Thursday. An 18-year-old was arrested for the sign: “Merz, lick eggs!” I’m too old to know exactly where this phrase comes from, but the meaning is clear enough, and thousands of kids were shouting it at the demonstration. Thanks to the repression, it’s now got its own domain: merzleckeier.de

On March 8, we saw a feminist version: “M*rz, leck Eierstöcke!”, with “egg-sticks” being the German word for ovaries. The asterisk leaves some ambiguity: This could just as easily be the month of März as the Blackrock manager Friedrich Merz. The woman carrying this sign was grabbed by police after she left the demonstration, as she reported to me. Two hours earlier, people had overheard cops talking about detaining her, but they waited until she had left the crowd to pounce. “In the wheelchair I’m less likely to vanish,” she said.

Is it actually a criminal offense to tell a politician to lick eggs, right before Easter when the whole country is full of colorful candy eggs? I suspect charges will be dropped, as the embarrassment for the state grows. This shows that the German state, in its quest to become a world power, is nervous about the extreme unpopularity of militarism.

Thus, March 8 in Berlin combined women workers’ protests against exploitation with anti-imperialist solidarity and fights against militarism. It’s just what Clara Zetkin and Käthe Kollwitz would have wanted—despite florists and IDF social media managers.

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

International Women*’s Day 2026 Demonstration

Rise in Rage. Build in Struggle

Cherry Adam
10/03/2026

All photos: Cherry Adam

16 March 1968 – My Lai Massacre

This week in working class history

Phil Butland

On 16 March 1968, the US Army’s Charlie Company murdered hundreds of unarmed civilians in a planned attack on the Vietnamese village of My Lai. Homes were burned, wells poisoned, and villagers tortured. US soldiers carved the words “C Company” into some villagers’ chests. Even US government figures admit that over 20 women and girls—including 12-year-olds—were raped by US soldiers, including gang rape and sexual torture. Estimations of the death toll vary between 347 and over 500.

The My Lai Massacre came a few weeks after the Tet Offensive demonstrated that the US was losing the US-American War (as the “Vietnam War” should really be called). The night before the My Lai attack, Captain Ernest Medina said it would be: “A time for us to get even. A time for us to settle the score. A time for revenge—when we can get even for our fallen comrades.” When a soldier asked Medina if they should kill women and children, Medina replied: “kill everything that moves.”

The media reported a victory against Viet Cong troops. Colonel Oran Henderson, the brigade commander, falsely stated that “no civilians were gathered together and shot by US soldiers.” It was only 18 months later, following letters from former soldier Ronald L. Ridenhour, that some media outlets, including Time, Life, and Newsweek, published photographs by army photographer Ronald L. Haeberle and a critical report by Seymour Hersh.

Some soldiers were forced to stand trial. All were acquitted except Lieutenant William Calley, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. Three days later, President Richard Nixon intervened and ordered Calley’s release under house arrest. The revelations of My Lai increased the unpopularity of the Vietnam War among both the US population and soldiers themselves. However, the war dragged on until US troops were forced out of Saigon in 1975.

The My Lai Massacre was ordered from above and subsequently covered up. It was official US Army policy. As historian Nick Turse concluded, My Lai and other atrocities were “not aberrations but operations.” This pattern continues with US military interventions today. As the US government stumbles into another “War of Choice”, we can expect more My Lais unless we stop them.

From Greece to Germany

How the new German asylum legislation codifies the practices deployed on the EU’s “hotspot islands” for years

Noa Paul

Amidst these days’ horrifying news, the German parliament was able to pass the most severe tightening of asylum legislation in Germany since 1993 almost unnoticed. The adoption of several pieces of legislation which implemented the New Pact for Migration Asylum passed on February 27th with the votes of the CDU/CSU and SPD, except for one. This brought the EU-level reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) into German law. While most of the EU legislation can be directly applied, each EU state reserves some level of discretion when implementing the reform. This article seeks to highlight some of the main consequences for people on the move in Germany that will follow the adoption of the Pact into German law.

The EU Pact, to put it simply, exacerbates the use of mass detention, deportations, surveillance, and externalisation in order to make it as hard as possible for people who arrive as asylum seekers to actually receive asylum, as I have analysed more thoroughly here. The German implementation, as the following analysis will show, furthers this process by moving the very deterrence and control strategies deployed at the EU borders to Germany.

Background: The New Pact on Migration and Asylum

The reform process of the common European rules on migration and asylum was initiated in 2016 by the Commission after the previous rules had proven dysfunctional and led to the catastrophic reception conditions that people on the move face in places like the Greek islands. After a lengthy negotiation process, the Commission, European Parliament, and the Council of the EU adopted the new legislation in April and May 2024.

The Pact was officially framed as a historic step to render the European asylum system more efficient and fair, as illustrated Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in April 2024:

“It will be making a real difference for all Europeans. First, more secure European borders. […] Second, faster, more efficient procedures for asylum and return. This means that those with no right to asylum will not be allowed to enter in the European Union, while those escaping war or persecution can count on the protection they need. […] And third, more solidarity with the Member States at our external borders. Because they manage the pressure from illegal migration.”

Following the Pact’s adoption on EU level in May 2024, member states had two years to develop implementation plans and transpose the reform into national law. Germany published its plan in December 2024, followed by last week’s vote on the legislation.

What is in the laws adopted by the German parliament on February 27th?

“Our goal remains clear: to regulate migration, limit secondary migration, and strengthen confidence in the rule of law’s ability to act,” comments Günter Krings, Vice Chairman of the CDU/CSU fraction in the parliament, on the CEAS reform passed on February 27th.

That day, the Parliament adopted two pieces of legislation: The ‘GEAS-Anpassungsgesetz’ (‘CEAS-adaptation law’) and the ‘Änderung des Ausländerzentralregistergesetzes in Folge der GEAS-Anpassung (AZRG)’ (a change to the central foreigners register), 200 pages of text that put together a list of changes that will be implemented in the already existing German legislation, especially the asylum and residence law.

Even more ‘Lager’

At the new legislation’s centre is the introduction of so-called Sekundärmigrationszentren (‘secondary migration centres’). These are used to house people who apply for asylum in Germany but have already applied for asylum elsewhere according to the so-called Dublin procedure, or have been granted asylum in another EU state. As those individuals are deemed unlikely to receive asylum in Germany, their deportation shall be facilitated through concentrating them in one place. Germany is not even legally required by the EU to introduce these centres, but is pursuing its own migration policy priority to curb so-called secondary migration towards its territory. Those affected will be obliged to live in these centres until their asylum application is being decided or they are being deported, the default timeframe being 24 months and 12 months for families.

If one wonders what a place like this will look like in practice, one can have a look at the already-existing centres (called “Lager” by many of those subjected to its violence) in Germany – desolate places in isolated, remote areas, lacking basic living standards. The Lager in Eisenhüttenstadt illustrates this, as it was built as a Dublin deportation centre solely to house those subject to deportation to another EU country. There, people report dire inhumane conditions such as a lack of food and psychological violence by the authorities. These conditions regularly spark resistance by the residents.

Widespread detention disguised as mobility restrictions

Moreover, Germany attempts to expand its control over asylum seekers through the widespread, systematic, and default use of detention. Both during the normal asylum procedure and for those residing in secondary migration centres facing deportation to other EU countries, the authorities can impose a ban on leaving the facility for up to 12 months. An exception is given for families and children who can only be required to stay inside between 10pm and 6am. Requirements are few – the ban needs to be proportionate and a risk of escape needs to be given. However, the law states that the risk of absconding will be assumed by default and the respective person needs to prove there is no risk (“Die Fluchtgefahr ist widerleglich vermutet”) through their ‘personal circumstances and social relations in Germany’ – what this means in practice remains unclear.

What is clear, however, is that it serves as a free pass for de facto detention for up to 12 months. Because even if the facility’s doors are technically open, the person is likely under strong psychological pressure to remain inside, especially given the possible sanctions for violating the ban. These sanctions include the decrease of benefits under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz), with the possibility to cut all benefits altogether in certain cases, leaving the person effectively starving.

This phenomenon of applying detention through the backdoor is not new, but has been applied in the EU migration regime systematically for a long time, notably on the so-called hotspot islands in Greece and Italy. There, most asylum seekers are obliged to remain on the islands throughout their often years long procedures and moreover underlie a curfew limiting their possibilities to leave the isolated, dire closed camps. The detention character is exacerbated by the prison-like infrastructure including containers and fences with turnstiles, as well as the ever-increasing surveillance infrastructure of drones, 24/7 CCTV, body checks, biometric data checks, and AI-based motion analysis. The rationale of detaining migrants de facto is to effectively control and immobilise them without having to apply the safeguards and formalities that would arise if a deprivation of liberty is officially (de jure) imposed as detention, such as legal assistance and remedies. Many survivors of these practices at the EU borders have reported severe mental and physical health impacts resulting from the year-long combination of deprivation of liberty and dire living conditions.

Expanded asylum procedures at the borders in closed facilities

Germany will expand the application of asylum border procedures at its airports and seaports: therefore those places where Germany ‘borders’ so-called third world countries outside the EU. There, certain people, among others those whose country of origin has an overall acceptance rate of less than 20% will have to undergo their asylum procedure at Germany’s ports and airports. Because of the 20% criterion, a large share of applicants will probably have to undergo the border procedures. During the border procedure, asylum seekers will be considered outside EU territory. This so-called fiction of non entry is an often-used trick in EU migration management to reduce legal obligations towards asylum seekers.

While these border procedures are already being carried out in German airports (‘Flughafenverfahren’), they are going to be expanded and prolonged. In the future, more than 300 people can undergo the procedure at any time, and its maximum length will be prolonged from 19 days to 12 weeks. How exactly these facilities will look remains unclear – in its national implementation plan, Germany envisions to carry out a pilot project in Frankfurt, Berlin and Munich airports. The effects of this can, again, be seen in the EU’s migration policy laboratory, the external border zones. The current Greek hotspot approach including the asylum procedures and the closed camps’ infrastructure served as a blueprint for, and are codified by the reformed border procedures. These are characterised by an absence of legal safeguards and systematic pushbacks.

However, in one point the reformed border procedure even exceeds the severity of the EU external border practice: the new rules allow for migrants illegally staying in the country apprehended anywhere in the territory at any point of time to be subjected to a screening and subsequently a border procedure if they fulfill the conditions. This means that potentially, one can have spent months in Germany, only to be apprehended by the Police and brought to a closed facility to do an asylum procedure there under de facto detention.

The newly introduced Asylverfahrenshaft (asylum procedure detention) – also for children

Moreover, possibilities to detain people during the normal asylum procedure have been expanded (Asylverfahrenshaft). Detention is possible for up to two months, and the requirements are very low, for example if someone breaches the obligation to remain in a reception centre, as discussed earlier, or if a risk of absconding is being presumed. Even children can be detained under certain circumstances if it “protects” or “is in the best interest of” the minor. This provision lacks clarity on the grounds for detention, leaving plenty of room for arbitrary application.

Deportation detention

Deportations will be facilitated directly from the border for those who have undergone an asylum border procedure and received a rejection through the newly-introduced Return Border Procedure. This direct link between the asylum and the return procedure codifies what EU officials have been envisioning on the hotspot islands by the EU Türkiye Statement. EU states may now detain rejected asylum seekers for a period up to 12 weeks. Hence, someone rejected during an asylum border procedure and subsequently subjected to a return border procedure may undergo a period of six months of de facto detention in a closed facility at Germany’s border for the sole reason of having asked for asylum.

All of this will be accompanied by more restricted access to asylum counselling and legal support, as well as increased surveillance and data storage further hampering the possibilities to escape the system’s violence.

How have the new laws been received in Germany?

While the ruling parties CDU/CSU and SPD celebrate the new laws as a milestone, all opposition parties have voted against. While the AFD unsurprisingly argues that the reforms do not go far enough to control migration, Lukas Benner (Alliance 90/The Greens) commented that the coalition had used every discretionary power “to make this law even harsher.”, and Clara Bünger (The Left) calls the reform a “European isolation regime” entailing “detention, camps, and disenfranchisement” in Germany. The criticism from the Greens seems somewhat cynical, given that it was the coalition of the SPD, Greens, and FDP that, after unsuccessfully advocating for some improvements in the treatment of minors, agreed to the reform proposals in 2023.

Among NGOs working on migration, both the Pact and the German implementation have sparked vast criticism. The two largest groups, ProAsyl and Amnesty International, called on the Parliament to stop the adoption. They argue for a human-rights conform reworking of the draft, including the removal of mobility restrictions, asylum procedure detention, and the reduction of possibilities for border procedures.

What’s next?

Most elements of the reform will enter into force on June 12 2026 – only three months from now. Once it’s implemented, the system’s current loopholes that sometimes allow people to slip through will get increasingly closed off through. Therefore, activists should resist the normalisation of violence, and closely monitor and fight against the ever-increasing crackdown on people on the move that very practically impacts the lives of thousands of people here in Germany. Alliances such as the O-Platz Berlin Refugee Movement, the Welcome United Network and other self-organised and solidarity structures fight every day against the living conditions in the Lager and to provide alternative housing and support structures. They should receive more support before repression gets even stronger.

Which side are you on?

Response to “Red Flag: Defend Iran, but don’t support the theocracy!”

orwellsky
09/03/2026

History does not always offer a variety of stances one can take. For instance, what to do in face of imperialist attacks on a country whose internal politics and system of governance we do not quite like? If one is inclined to assert her political convictions, she is inevitably faced with some hard choices. Such choices are especially uncomfortable in the age of indefinitely customizable consumption of goods and information. We are not used to compromises; we just have to customize and optimize each choice down to the last detail.

Of course, ambivalence is always a way out. “Well, it’s too complicated.” It is, however, frowned upon among progressives.

The other way out—more popular, gratifying and utterly dishonest—usually entails intricate intellectual gymnastics, but can be narrowed down to “Yes, but…” statements. A recent piece by Nathaniel Flakin for The Left Berlin on the US-Israeli attacks on Iran is a prime example:

“[…] while we support the resistance against imperialist attacks, as socialists we also fight for the political independence of the working class. This means we never give political support to capitalist governments […].”

Marx and Engels would roll in their graves were they to hear of such gross abstraction in their names. Like it or not, we live in a world of nation-states. And in the case of Iran, like it or not, the “resistance against imperialist attacks” is organized and delivered by the state. The Iranian state enjoys wide—and currently increasing—support from the general population, including the working class. That is despite serious grievances and ongoing struggles and contrary to Flakin’s claims as well as the skewed image one might get from the Iranian lumpen diaspora.

The core problem is simple enough: a country is attacked by the genocidal forces of imperialism. Which side are you on? At this level, there is no distinction between the country, the state and the nation. And it matters not what the state is formally called and/or how we choose to describe it—the Islamic Republic, the regime, a capitalist anti-communist theocracy etc. etc.

The principled anti-imperialist stance would be: we stand with the country (i.e. the nation and their state) and we unequivocally reject the imperialist aggression. Period. That would also be the strategically wise position, as it allows a potentially broad coalition with all those who agree on that principle. Alas, strategically wise positions are not Marxists’ forte, and Flakin’s piece reads mostly like an attempt to bash the author’s least favorite Marxist organizations around the world.

Aside from the fellow Marxist bashing, the article has passages bordering on nonsensical, typical of such pseudo-progressive gymnastics:

“A handful of socialist groups in imperialist countries […] go beyond the elementary need to stand with Iran’s resistance—they say the working class should give political support [to?] the Islamic Republic. This [?] spreads illusions in a semi-colonial bourgeoisie and ultimately weakens the struggle against imperialism [emphasis added].”

I have read that passage several times and I still have no idea what it means. But if there is anything bourgeois to point out here, it is Flakin’s deference to Financial Times (for Marx’s sake!) on Khamenei’s culture and literacy.

The more troubling aspect of the piece is the utter ignorance it channels through a grossly orientalist gaze:

“This government draws its legitimacy from god, even though Iranians do not appear to be very religious.”

As already mentioned, the political mythology (theology) of the Iranian state does not matter here and now. Iran—the land, the nation, the state—is under attack by imperialists. Which side are you on?

Moreover, the claim that Iranians are not religious simply betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iranian culture and history, and the central role of religion (spirituality) throughout the millennia of the Iranian civilization, including before Islam.

Finally:

“ ‘The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward [emphasis added] countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form.’

“That’s the Marxist and Leninist policy today—and it’s defended by Trotskyists.”

Aside from invoking the Marxist deity (who’s being religious now?), that passage betrays Flakin’s ultimate ignorance about Iran, a country that was never colonized. I shall not indulge the ultimately colonial adjective that follows.

Perhaps all of that could be ignored as secondary at this time, but the graphic published with the article reveals, perhaps coincidentally, the troubling nature of its supposedly anti-imperialist stance, which is hard to ignore. The photo shows a US Navy ship firing a Tomahawk missile on the first day of the attack. Taken from the ship’s helm, it is literally the imperialist perspective.

Sometimes history has only binary choices to offer.

Which side are you on?