The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Gen Z 212 and Youth Protests in Morocco

From the Digital Sphere to the Street


14/10/2025

Morocco is currently—Autumn 2025—witnessing a broad, youth-led mass protest movement that has brought back to the forefront fundamental questions of social justice, basic rights, the deterioration of public services, and the political legitimacy of the regime. This movement, which took the name “Gen Z 212”—after the country’s international dialing code—did not arise from a vacuum. It is the result of a long accumulation of poverty, marginalization, unemployment, corruption, and the collapse of essential public sectors such as health and education. The spark came from a tragedy at Hassan II Hospital in Agadir, where several women died during childbirth due to lack of care. That incident ignited a social uprising that quickly spread to major cities including Rabat, Casablanca, Fez, Marrakesh, Salé, and Oujda. Yet this movement is more than an eruption of social anger—it represents a new form of political action, one rooted in digital, network-based organization that moves from the virtual sphere into the streets.

What distinguishes this experience is its transcendence of traditional organizational methods, creating a new leftist horizon that merges the social with the technological. Young people relied on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Discord as spaces for discussion, planning, and collective decision-making. There was no centralized or hierarchical leadership—rather, flexible horizontal networks united by common goals. This decentralization became a source of strength and protection against repression and infiltration, allowing the movement to reorganize itself even amid arrests, account deletions, and censorship. Every time one account was shut down or an activist was detained, new ones appeared. The digital sphere turned into an open, collective leftist school that produced a new consciousness grounded in people’s daily needs, not in theoretical slogans. This is the practical expression of the concept of the Electronic Left, which views the digital realm as an essential extension of class struggle—where the internet becomes the new factory for producing awareness and resistance.

The demands raised by Gen Z 212—better education and healthcare, fighting corruption, creating dignified jobs, and achieving social justice—embody the living essence of leftist thought rooted in the needs of the working classes. Though not formally ideological, the movement carried a clearly Marxist and practical spirit: starting from concrete reality to transform it step by step in favor of the majority. It revived the dialectical and practical dimension that much of the traditional left had lost when it became trapped in theoretical debates detached from the people’s real suffering.

The state responded with double repression—physical and digital. On the streets, there were arrests, beatings, gunfire, and tear gas; online, there were account suspensions, content removal, and digital surveillance. Yet this repression did not break the movement; it made it more adaptable and aware. Youth activists developed new forms of assembly, used more secure digital tools, and shifted toward local, grassroots organizing with horizontal coordination. Thus emerged a dual consciousness of resistance—on the ground and online—illustrating what the Electronic Left calls the digital class struggle, where modern mechanisms of control collide with popular tools of liberation. The fight for freedom today is inseparable from control over technological means—and from the creation of independent, leftist, digital alternatives outside the grip of capitalist tech corporations and authoritarian states.

Despite its strengths, this new organizational model still faces the challenge of transforming spontaneous energy into a structured, radical emancipatory project. Without a strategic vision, such movements risk fragmentation. Here lies the role of a renewed, digitally grounded and real-world left: to build bridges between online and street struggles, connect immediate demands with a socialist horizon, and develop flexible, democratic, collective forms of organization that unite progressive forces around shared goals. What is happening in Morocco sends a clear message to leftist forces worldwide: the future belongs to the left that can merge technology with class struggle, the street with the network, collective consciousness with practical action.

The Electronic Left does not replace the historical left—it continues and develops it. It calls on parties, unions, and social movements to integrate the digital dimension into their strategies, to overcome bureaucracy and ideological rigidity, and to confront not only traditional capitalism but also digital capitalism, which reproduces class domination through data control, platforms, and algorithmic manipulation. A genuine left resurgence requires a dialectical balance between historical experience and digital innovation, between grassroots organization and technological flexibility, between older generations and the digital youth.

The Gen Z 212 movement shows that a left disconnected from young generations and their tools cannot influence reality. Today, class struggle begins in the neighborhood—and continues in the digital sphere.

Full solidarity with the young women and men and with the working people of Morocco who confront repression and marginalization with courage and consciousness, fighting for dignity, freedom, and genuine social justice—and with all progressive, leftist, unionist, and human rights forces that stand by them, defending the right to organize, to express, and to live in equality and dignity.

Germany’s historical responsibility is to defend all human rights and respect international law

Statement in court from a woman appealing her prosecution for Volksverhetzung

In November 2023, a woman held a sign up outside the Bundestag asking if Germany had learned from the Holocaust and pointing out that 7,000 people had (by then) already died in Gaza. She was fined €1,600 and accused of Volksverhetzung – incitement.

Last week, on 1st October 2025, she was in court again, appealing that judgement. The judge threw out the case, pointing out that it was ridiculous that a law which was originally made to “stop class struggle” (his words), then later adapted in the 1960s and 1990s to counter a growing Nazi threat would be used in this case.

In court, the woman was allowed to make a statement. This is a translation of what she said.

Dear Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Prosecutor.

In April of this year, I appeared in court for the first time and had to answer for an act that not only was I morally convinced about, but also believed to be covered by freedom of expression. Now I am back in court, because after more than two years of brutal warfare and massacres that have claimed more than 67,000 Palestinian lives, I am more convinced than ever of the question I asked in November 2023. We need to critically examine the past, because what significance does our culture of remembrance have if it is meaningless for our present? It is noteworthy that my question about the lessons learned from the Holocaust was interpreted very narrowly by the court, even though there are many references and answers to this question in public discourse as Jewish author, journalist and lawyer Ronen Steinke points out. So how can it be that there can only be one acceptable answer to this complex question, especially in view of the political and social changes? And what does it mean when public, multi-perspective discussions on this topic are thus prohibited by law?

For me, one thing has always been clear: the Holocaust was a crime against humanity and the darkest chapter in German history, which we commemorate in many ways—and rightly so. However, I do not believe in a culture of remembrance that upholsters our current perspective and our actions in the present, or worse still, serves as a justification for the suffering of others.

Our past obliges us. It obliges us to stand up for human rights, equality and democracy and against violence, hatred and war. The Jewish American-German author Deborah Feldman expressed this publicly on 1 November 2023 with the following words:

“I firmly believe that there is only one legitimate lesson to be learned from the Holocaust, and that is the absolute and unconditional defense of human rights for all.”

Two days after the Hamas attack the Israel Defense Minister Yoav Galant stated there: “will be no power, no food, no water, no fuel” for the Gaza strip. Israel, he said, is “fighting human animals and acting accordingly”—a statement that is not only deeply dehumanizing, but also violates international law. In the first weeks of the war alone, there were several thousand civilian casualties—including several children. Schools, hospitals and civilian infrastructure was bombed. The humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip worsened with each passing week. Despite urgent warnings from numerous human rights organizations about a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip and reminders from UN experts to comply with international law, the German government approved and supported the Israeli government’s rigorous and brutal actions in the Gaza Strip.

While international media reported almost daily on the war and the immeasurable suffering and destruction in the Gaza Strip, the majority of German media remained silent or justified the Israeli army’s inhumane and violent actions. Politicians and government representatives, who had condemned Hamas’ attack on Israel in clear and unambiguous words found themselves shrouded themselves in a deep silence.

Even after the first attack on a hospital on 17th October 2023, and sick, injured and vulnerable civilians fell victim to the attacks, German politicians refrained from condemning practices that are questionable/illegitimate under international law.

I remember that day as if it were a live broadcast—a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in real time in the media. And yet all that remained was a feeling of powerlessness—the feeling of having to watch an act of horror without being able to do anything about it.

These images accompanied me every day and I asked myself: where is our voice? Why can’t we find clear words when it comes to alleged human rights and international law violations against Palestinians? Why this one-sidedness?

The early calls by UN experts for compliance with international law, a humanitarian ceasefire and a sustainable solution to the conflict remained largely unanswered.

I couldn’t understand why the German government paid such little attention to the UN’s demands and continued to give its unconditional support to the Israeli government. Particularly, due to Germany’s historical responsibility because of the Holocaust, advocating for the observance of human rights and international law would be logical.

Recent developments, such as the indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court, have shown me that my question was not exaggerated. It was an expression of genuine, well-founded concern.

They have reinforced my feeling that we—especially in Germany—have a responsibility to remain vigilant.

That is why I asked publicly: Have we learned nothing from the Holocaust?

I have, and continue to assume that the previous/first judgement is based on a misunderstanding of my appeal and that I am acting within the framework of our fundamental democratic rights when I use the Holocaust as a yardstick for other crimes against human and international law. Neither of my appeals is intended to trivialise the Holocaust. I have not made any statement as to whether the current events in Gaza can be compared to the Holocaust. Rather, in my appeal, I ask about the lessons of the Holocaust. These are the universal human rights for ALL. Article 1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Every state is obliged not only to comply with international law, but also to work to ensure that other states comply with it. It is therefore our duty to stand up for human rights, regardless of who they are directed against.

Thank you for your attention.

Photo Gallery: United 4 Gaza

Demonstration from Brandenburger Tor to Alexanderplatz, 11 October 2025


13/10/2025

All photos: Cherry Adam

Photo Gallery: They Didn’t know we were seeds

All photos: Cherry Adam

All photos: Cherry Adam

France: Macronism unraveling

Interview with Susan Price on the deep political crisis in France


12/10/2025

President Emmanuel Macron stares, seemingly concerned, through a crowd.

Susan Price, from Australian activist journal Green Left Weekly, spoke to John Mullen, a revolutionary socialist activist in the Paris region, about the deep political crisis in France.


GLW: Why did right-wing French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu resign, less than a day after nominating his team of ministers, before then being reappointed PM three days later?

Since July 2024, after he lost the parliamentary elections, President Emmanuel Macron has been running an antidemocratic circus. Instead of appointing a prime minister from the largest group in the assembly—the left-wing alliance, New Popular Front, which has 193 out of 577 MPs—he has appointed a series of centre-right PMs. 

The first two—Michel Barnier and François Bayrou—each stumbled along for a few months. They relied on the fact that the far-right National Rally (with 123 MPs) and the generally social-liberal Socialist Party (with 68) would not support a vote of no confidence against Macron’s government, in the name of “stability.”

Macron’s minority governments have passed almost no new legislation over the past 15 months in the National Assembly. However, Macron’s ministers have had plenty of power, each in their own field, to ramp up repression against protesters and trade unions, attack immigrant rights and control the media agenda. This is partly why Macron is so scared of a left government with a radical left wing. 

So, when Bayrou lost a vote of confidence in September, he was replaced by Macron’s close ally, Lecornu. Lecornu made loud speeches about the importance of breaking with the past, and about the need for the French to learn the art of compromise. After three weeks of not appointing a cabinet, he admitted that his compromises in favour of left-wing ideas would not even include a modest wealth tax, nor withdrawing the hated law that last year raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. 

In early October, he named his team of ministers: all but a couple of them were the same ministers chosen by Bayrou and thrown out the previous month. But we didn’t really have time to protest, because just 14 hours after naming his cabinet—and in the face of already sharp rows within its ranks—the PM resigned. 

After Lecornu’s resignation, frantic talks between party leaders continued as Macron tasked him with a last-ditch attempt to find a basis for compromise, and a way of getting the national budget voted through before December 31. As part of this, Lecornu suggested that some of the vicious cuts in social budgets planned by his predecessor Bayrou would be abandoned. 

In a clownish move which left commentators stunned, Macron, failing after two days of talks to find a plan B, reappointed Lecornu to the position of PM on the 10th of October.

GLW: Is Macronism unravelling? 

Definitely. Aurore Bergé, spokesperson for the outgoing government, announced solemnly on October 8: “there is no question of the president resigning.” It is rarely a good sign when presidents need to have this kind of statement put out. A new major opinion poll in early October showed that only 14% of citizens have a positive opinion of Macron.

The situation is changing hour by hour, and prediction is a hazardous occupation. The new government is unlikely to last long. The 71 radical left France Insoumise (FI) MPs have signed a motion demanding Macron’s impeachment, citing his contempt for democratic process. A dozen Communist MPs and a dozen ecologists have also signed on. Perhaps more worrying for Macron, is that this week his own former PM Edouard Philippe also called on him to resign. 

GLW: How have the left forces reacted? 

Last year, in the face of the imminent threat of a fascist government, the entire left made an electoral alliance, based on a fairly radical program, and agreed on a joint candidate for Prime Minister, Lucie Castets.  Since then, the alliance has been in constant crisis, with the Socialist Party (PS) wanting out. The PS joined the alliance partly in the hope of regaining some of its legitimacy—which collapsed after Francois Hollande’s austerity presidency. This sent the PS vote down to about 6% in the 2017 presidential election. 

But PS leader Olivier Faure was begging Macron to be appointed PM this week, distancing himself eagerly from the FI and from the radical manifesto he had himself signed up to 15 months ago. He is hoping for a couple of concessions from Macron. There are rumours that the attack on the retirement age might be suspended, though right-wing parliamentary leaders insist this is unacceptable.

The FI is the most determined opposition to Macron, and has campaigned unceasingly on the question of Palestine (as I write four FI MPs have just left Israeli jails after having been kidnapped by Israel from Gaza flotilla boats). The Greens and Communists have more consistently opposed the government than the PS, but have jumped on every opportunity to denounce FI “extremism” or “irresponsibility,” and to build alliances excluding the FI, and even now they are not all calling for Macron to go. 

GLW: How are Macron’s supporters trying to present the situation?

Although the balance of forces in the country obliges TV and radio to regularly present long interviews with leaders of the ecologists, the FI, and the Communist Party, the media spend endless energy building confusion and reactionary narratives. This month they are arguing that France is on the verge of bankruptcy, that the situation is so grave that it is only common sense to unite the left and right behind Macron’s policies, and forget the idea of defending public service budgets or pensions. 

At the same time, there is a continuing smear campaign against Jean Luc Mélenchon and the FI, a campaign to which leaders of the soft left contribute. Socialist MP Jérôme Guedj called Mélenchon “an antisemitic bastard” from the stage of the PS party conference last June. The PS leadership did not object. 

GLW: Hundreds of thousands of people mobilised across France on September 10, September 18 and October 2 against the austerity budget. What social forces are being drawn into action and what challenges are facing the movement, including within the trade union sector? 

When political institutions are paralysed, strikes and street mobilisations are even more important than at other times. In recent weeks, we have seen trade-union-led mass strikes as well as grassroots direct actions set up by the “Blockade everything” (Bloquons tout) networks. The mobilisations use tactics such as wildcat occupations and blockades, which are reminiscent of the Yellow Vest(Gilets Jaunes) movement from 2018 to 2020. However, they have significant differences. They are less rooted in rural areas than the Yellow Vests. They are not yet as widespread, and the far-right has not been trying to infiltrate, as it did — initially with some success—into the Yellow Vests. 

The trade union days of action on September 18 and October 2 were big—with strikes and demonstrations in more than 200 towns. Nevertheless, the movement is being crippled by the horrendous tactics of the professional negotiators who lead the trade unions. 

Firstly, there was no national call from the trade union coordinating committee (intersyndicale) for September 10, because of the mistrust of union leaders with regard to the Blockade Everything actions. Then, after the success of September 18, rather than building on the dynamic, union leaders said they would give the government five days to respond, before calling a further day of action. But days of action every couple of weeks tend to dissipate combativity: there were 14 of them in the huge and eventually unsuccessful movement to defend pensions in 2023! 

Furthermore, the present showdown with the government had been predicted for many months, but no preparations were made by the national leaders for serious strike action. A general strike could have been built—the level of anger is sufficient—but was not. Some federations such as the CGT [General Confederation of Labour] and Solidaires are more combative than others, such as the CFDT (French Democratic Confederation of Labour). But, behind closed doors, the compromises reached in the intersyndicale mean that the whole strike movement moves, in practice, at the speed of the least combative organisation—however inspiring the radio interviews by CGT leader Sophie Binet might be.

GLW: What about the far-right National Rally? Is it trying to carve out its own space in this crisis? 

Yes, it is. The Rassemblement National [RN] candidate (in case of a presidential election), sharply-dressed young fascist, Jordan Bardella, is getting up to 30% in opinion polls. RN candidate Marine Le Pen got 13 million votes in 2022, and 11 million in the 2024 legislative elections, so it obviously represents a huge threat. The RN is far stronger in electoral terms than in the streets: there have been no mass far-right demonstrations for decades. But the power of the far-right has helped inspire recent governments to pass more racist and particularly Islamophobic laws and decrees. 

Having failed to maintain their initial influence on the Yellow Vest movement in 2018–19, partly because of their inability to denounce police violence, the fascists decided to concentrate ever more on a policy of respectability. Links with big business circles are still occasional but getting stronger all the time. 

The traditional right and the Macronists are divided on how to deal with RN. Most would prefer to win over its supporters with rabid anti-Muslim and anti-migrant measures but a growing minority would be open to an alliance with it. This week, Bardella called for a governmental alliance between his party and the traditional right-wing Republicans. This is not likely in the short term, but is a sign of the continued mainstreaming of fascism in France. 

In coming weeks we need strike movements that go further than most national union leaders want, as have been seen before, for example in 1995 and 2006. We also need to build the FI, and Marxist voices inside and around it. The régime’s crisis is far from over, there could easily be new elections before Christmas, and Macron’s obvious weakness could help encourage the majority of French citizens, who want a break with Macron, the president of the rich. 

John Mullen is a revolutionary socialist from the Paris region and a supporter of the France Insoumise. Visit his website at randombolshevik.org. This article was reprinted with his permission. Original interview here.