The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

Promises, Promises…Peruvian Reformist Politicians

New Peruvian president Pedro Castillo speaks Left but offers no fundamental change


23/10/2021

Recent Presidents of Peru were a lousy lot: Alberto Fujimori (jailed 25 years for terror); Alan García (committed suicide charged with bribery from Brazilian firm Odebrecht); Alejandro Toledo (fugitive from Obdebrecht); Pedro Pablo Kuczinski (house arrest Obdebrecht); Martin Vizcarra (impeached twice, banned from office for jumping lines for COVID vaccination). Who comes next?

After much delay, Pedro Castillo is declared to have won Presidential elections against Keiko Fujimori (Alberto’s daughter). What can workers and peasants of Peru expect of Castillo? Capitalists hope to gull Peruvian toilers again. More false promises of fighting imperialism without revolution. Previously, this dead-end led to another – isolated ‘focos’, spontaneous guerrilla-ism unlinked to workers movements. Both were rooted in misconceptions about imperialism.

1. Jose Carlo Mariátegui

As the founder of the Peruvian Communist Party, Mariategui first confronted bogus leftists when opposing Victor Raul Haya de la Torre’s Alianza Popular Revolucionaria American. APRA confused and distracted Peruvian toilers, claiming to reject ideologies from outside Latin America, including Lenin:

“Apristas argued that Lenin’s theses on imperialism did not reflect development particular to Latin American countries. Communism was essentially a European phenomenon…The anti-imperialist state would exert control over foreign capital; it would not eliminate it.” [1]

Torre was a pro-USA comprador, who argued that foreign capital could be ‘regulated’:

“Haya was critical of radicals who urged Latin America to reject all foreign capital..…. he advocated the regulation of foreign investment to ensure that it supported national goals…. APRA leaders accepted US-led hemispheric integration.” [1]

In contrast Mariátegui based anti-imperialism on Lenin. [2]:

“Profits from mining, commerce, transportation do not stay in Peru. They go outside as dividends, interest, … “Peruvian progress depends on the price of sugar and cotton in markets in New York and London. Peru’s economic dependency is felt throughout the nation.” [1]

Mariátegui argued Peru had three underlying economic elements:

“Elements of three different economies coexist in Peru today. Underneath the feudal economy inherited from the colonial period, vestiges of the indigenous communal economy can still be found in the sierra. On the coast, a (backward) bourgeois economy is growing in feudal soil.” [3]

‘Gamonalismo’ (rural bossism) landlords ruled the rural ‘latifundia’, formed by seizures of formerly communal land. Landlords felt no urge to modernize, and became ‘compradors’ to imperialism:

“The latifundistas are satisfied as foreign capital’s intermediaries in sugar and cotton. ” [4]

“The landowning class has not been transformed into a capitalist middle class, ally of the national economy. Mining, commerce, and transport are in the hands of foreign capital.” [4]

By 1950, the ‘Coidgo de Mineria’ (Mining Laws), enabled the USA to strip Peruvian raw material and assets. [5] For Mariátegui only working class and peasantry state power could control imperialism, he proposed:

“a proletarian party (of) a worker-peasant alliance… the peasant question was central with the leading role of the proletariat in the transition to socialism.” [6]

Even in the 1961 census peasant lands were minimal and marginal:

“1% of landowners held 80% of private land, whereas 83% of farmers held properties of 5 hectares or less, representing only 6% of private land.” [7]

In the 20th century, the rural, grinding poverty spurred spontaneous uprisings, from 1915 on, [8] swelling by 1964, becoming occasionally guerrilla ‘focos’. [9, 10] They prompted paltry reforms. Three large insurrections failed (Hugo Blanco; Javier Heraud and the Ejerecito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN); and Luis de la Puente Uceda’s Moviemento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR) [11] – because:

“guerrillas remained separated from the peasantry by an immense cultural and linguistic barrier… mutual mistrust … prevented effective cooperation.“ [12]

2. General Juan Velasco Alvardo (1968) – Reforms reversed in ‘neo-liberal’ era [13]

By 1968 reforms finally began in Juan Velasco Alvardo’s dictatorship. But they were to be reversed, ending in great land concentration for rural comprador capitalists. Velasco had no intent to expropriate imperialism, saying in 1969:

“The government doesn’t have any money… The country needs capital for its development”. [13]

“private investment, even if it creates economic modernization, serves as a mechanism for removing wealth from Latin America. But… Latin American development requires foreign capital.” [13]

Velasco aimed to transform comprador rural landholding bourgeoisie, into a modern bourgeoisie:

“converting agrarian capitalists into industrial capitalists.” [14]

Velasco bargained for:

“Foreign investment under forms that guarantee that our countries have a fair share in the wealth.” [29]

Limited agrarian reforms defused many peasant risings, after ‘Agrarian Law’ #17716, placed expropriated land into cooperatives. But its scope was severely limited leaving landlord-capitalists empowered. Non-agricultural businesses of landowners were untouched; and limits on land ownership were high at 165 hectares.

Yet even this was ‘too much’ for the landowning oligarchy.

Francisco Morales Bermúdez reversed in 1975, breaking up cooperatives. Later governments (Belaúnde and García) closed more cooperatives, and neo-liberal, vicious Alberto Fujimori (1990–2000) closed the last. [15] Fujimoro seized the chaos of the ‘Shining Path insurgency (whose leader Abel Guzman died in prison on October 11th 2021) to instigate army massacres of progressives.

The ‘Shining Path’ repeated prior mistakes, in an ultra-leftist, individual terrorism inspired by Mao Ze Dong. [16] Naïve authoritarianism included prohibiting peasants going to markets. [17] It descended into simple illegitimate terrorism:

“eighty peasants (were) slaughtered in Lucanamarca (for) collaborating with government.” [18]

The theory of ‘countryside encircling the towns’ justified such horrendous betrayal of workers and peasants. Senderosos became cocaine-traffic revenue extorters. [19] The peasantry turned against them using their own militia.

The repressive, murderous government of Alberto Fujimoro was enabled by ruthless steps against workers and peasants. By Alan García’s second presidency (2006–2011), “re-concentrators” of land were instituted:

“limiting land ownership to 40,000 hectares… far exceeding the largest latifundios before reform…. In re-concentration of land… 60,000 hectares was acquired by seven companies. In Piura, the Romero group – whose vast estates were expropriated by agrarian reform – owns 10,000 hectares. The transnational enterprise Maple Etanol SRL owns 12,000 hectares, to grow sugarcane for bio-combustibles industries.” [16]

Indigenous land seizures or predatory purchasing in indigenous forests by multinationals, resulted in forest “concessions” of 400 square kilometers for use over 40 years to 2010. [20] A further 64 lots ‘conceded’ 500,000 square kilometers (72% of Peru’s Amazonia) but was halted by people’s fronts. In elections in 2006 and 2011, Ollanta Humala Tasso also posed as a military reformer, but when he gained power he pursued neo-liberalism. [16]

Currently Peru ranks 42nd in inequity measures (‘gini coefficient’ of 42.8%). [21] True, OECD poverty data of a ‘minimum basket of minimum essential goods’, shows that poverty rates dropped to 2013. [22] But this is an extreme measure, and was before COVID. At 614 deaths per 100,000 population, Peru has the highest death rate from COVID. [23] Even by 2020, an alarming rise in the poverty rate by 6 percentage points in 2020 had “pushed almost two million people into poverty.” [24] Peru is typical of countries who depend on raw material export, Peru on minerals. Velasco’s bargain did not reduce imperialist hold.

3. What are the new promises?

Vladimir Roy Cerrón Rojas founded Peru Libre in 2007. As a regional governor, of Junin, he was convicted of corruption and is barred from standing for election. Pedro Castillo of the teachers’ union of 350,000 members [25] stood for ‘Peru Libre’ who won. But Keiko Fujimori, the army, and most press media alleged electoral fraud, and that Castillo and Cerron were really ‘Shining Path-ers’. After intense scrutiny Castillo was declared the winner having received 50.13% of votes against Keiko Fujimori’s 49.87%. ‘Peru Libre’ now holds 37 of 130 seats in Congress. What does Castillo stand for?

Cerron’s program calls the party: “socialist, Marxist, Leninist and mariáteguist”.[26]  It calls for a new Constituent Assembly to “dismantle neo-liberalism” in a:

“wealth redistributing state. Change of the accumulating state that favors the transnational business community by attempting to improve wages by a redistributing state of wealth favoring the national business community that improves wages.” [24]

Nationalization will achieve ‘redistribution’ by:

“renegotiating the distribution of profits, (now) the transnational companies keep 70%… up to 80% and 90% of profits… We propose to reverse the distribution of profits, 20% in favor of the transnational and 80% in favor of the State.” [24]

The word ‘expropriation’ does not appear. To further avert misunderstandings as to its limited vision of ‘socialism’ it states:

“Every revolution promotes, supports and defends their national public or private business, it is a political conspiracy to say that socialism is against them. The socialist state exercises a protective role over our private companies with respect to transnational capital.”

This is yet again – Torres’ Aprism ‘negotiating’ – as in stolen lands:

“private companies and concessionaires (in) prospecting, exploration and exploitation of natural resources in the sphere of the indigenous peoples and peasants, must comply with the binding consultation of the peoples… (in ‘partnerships’).”

True, the programme pays a certain lip-service to Lenin and Castro:

“Lenin was very right when he declared that true freedom of the press in a society is only possible when it is freed from the yoke of capital. Likewise, Fidel: “The problem is not that they lie, the problem is how we tell the truths”

But how this ‘press freedom’ is achieved is not clarified. No clear path describes how workers and peasants will take state power.

Even with such programmatic shallowness, there are rapid backslides and watering down. In his ‘Message to the Nation’ on assuming the presidency in Congress, Castillo said:

“We do not even remotely intend to nationalize our economy or make an exchange control policy.” [27]

Such open repudiations of ‘Peru Libre’ have provoked crises. As key ministers attended the Organisation of American States (OAS) meeting, the ‘Cerronist’ Prime Minister Guido Bellido announced pre-emptively that:

“(unless) the Camisea natural-gas project did not renegotiate its contract to increase the state’s share of the project’s profits, it would seek to “nationalise” the firm (consortium of six gas companies).” [28]

He was quickly contradicted by Castillo and his economy minister Pedro Francke (formerly of the Peruvian Central Bank and World Bank), and Óscar Maúrtua, the foreign minister. In his first speech at OAS, Castillo soothingly said:

“We are not communists. We have not come to expropriate anyone. We have not come to scare away investments. On the contrary, call large investors, businessmen, to go to Peru.“ [29]

Castillo has already removed members found the most ‘unacceptable’ to the Peruvian ruling class, from his cabinet:

“Guido Bellido … and Minister of Labor Iber Maraví… fell (But) … lawyer Luis Barranzuela Vite (Ministry of Interior) is of great concern… (defending) Cerrón, Bellido and Perú Libre in investigations for money laundering.” [30]

Naturally enough the bosses feel quite relaxed about matters:

“Roque Benavides, chief executive of local miner Buenaventura, told Reuters that… “I think that neither of the two candidates can impose their position and therefore I think that the idea of them making dramatic, drastic changes is very debatable,” he said.” [31]

Conclusion

While Castillo is preferable to Fujimoro, there will be no fundamental changes for the workers and peasants of Peru under his tenure. As Marxist-Leninists in Peru note, the bourgeoisie and Creole oligarchy are linked to imperialism and oppose the ‘political power of the working class, the peasantry and the other classes exploited by capitalism’:

“the political power of the bourgeoisie and the Creole oligarchy; (with) Imperialism, (and) the anti-national and anti-popular forces” where imperialist forces include “mainly North American imperialism, as well as the Chinese, Russian, Canadian, other powers and their front men”.[32]

Capitalism and imperialism transformed the rural landscape leaving it in the hands of the “parasitic bourgeoisie’ and ‘transnationals’:

“common property of the lands and territories… were seized from the Peasant and Native Communities, by the parasitic bourgeoisie, land traffickers and the mining, gas, oil, hydroelectric and logging transnationals.”

Shilly-shallying around the issue of workers and peasant power is a false promise.

 

Footnotes

1 Geneviève Dorais; ‘Journey to Indo-América: APRA; Cambridge; p.2-11

2 Eric Helleiner & Antulio Rosales; ‘The significance of the Haya-Mariátegui debate’; International Studies Review [1521-9488; 2017 Vol.19(4); p.667 -691

3 J.C. Mariategui; Problem of the Indian”.

4 Jose Carlos Mariategui, Outline of Economic Evolution

5 S.Hunt, ‘Direct Foreign Investment’; in A.F.Lowenthal ‘Peru’s Ambiguous Revolution’; Princeton 1975; p. 302f

6 T.Angotti, ‘Contributions of Mariategui’, 1986, Vol. 13(2), Perspectives Left Politics, p. 33f

7 M.Albertus, ’Land Reform’; American Journal Political Science, Vol. 64(2), 2020, p. 256

8 J.C.Grijalva, ‘Paradoxes of Inka Utopianism’; 2010; Journal Latin American Cultural Studies, 2010; 19(3), p. 317

9 Bland W.B; ‘Theory of Guerrilla Elite

10 C.Harding; ‘Land Reform’; in A.F.Lowenthal, ‘Peruvian Experiment under Military’; Princeton; 1975; p.226

11 R.Gott; ‘Guerilla Movements Latin America’; London 1970; p.231f;

12 L.G.Campbell; ‘Peruvian Guerrilla Movement, 1960-1965’; LatAmer Research Review , Spring, 1973, Vol. 8(1); pp. 45-70

13 A.F.Lowenthal ‘Peru’s Ambiguous Revolution’; Princeton; 1975; p. 4

14 A.Quijano, ‘Nationalism and capitalism Peru’; 1971, Monthly Review Press N.York; p.16f

15 Cant, A. (2021); ‘Land without masters’; p.153f

16 D.Poole; ‘New Chroniclers Peru: US’; Bulletin Latin American Research, 1991, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1991), pp. 133-191

17 CP Peru (M-L); ‘Unmask Senderismo; Unity & Struggle’; 2015; #30; p.83

18 O.Starn; ‘Maoism in Andes’; 1995, Journal LatAmer Studies; Vol.27 (2); p.399-421

19 D.S.Palmer; ‘Peru, Drug Business, Shining Path’; 1992, Journal Interamerican Studies; Vol. 34(3), p.65

20 G.Rénique’, Law of Jungle in Peru: Indigenous Amazonian Uprising’, 2009 Socialism and Democracy, 23(3) p.117

21 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country?ref=vc.ru

23 Cases and mortality by Country; Johns Hopkins; 15 October 2021

24 The World Bank In Peru’; ; Accessed15 October 2021

25 Farid Kahha; ‘ Interviewed; ‘Pedro Castillo Can Help End Neoliberalism in Peru,’ Jacobin 06.01.2021

26 http://www.perulibre.pe/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ideario-peru-libre.pdf

27 Message to Nation, five keys to his first speech’ July 28, 2021, Memesita;

28 Economist Intelligence Unit; Prime minister threatens nationalisation; Oct 4, 2021;

31 Latin America News’; ‘Peru markets and miners fear Castillo; June 8, 2021; ‘Rio Times’;

Die LINKE’s strength lies in Opposition

Die LINKE should not take part in Berlin’s next ruling coalition


21/10/2021

Last week I was at the DSA Berlin reading group. It was a lively chat, and most people agreed with each other until I made this one contribution. Michelle, the estimable host of the Spaßbremse podcast, said something like “I appreciate most of what you say, but this time you’ve gone too far.”

What I’d said is that maybe it might be better if die LINKE were excluded from the next coalition ruling Berlin. This follows a ton of analysis in the Left media saying that such a loss of “power” would be a disaster.

Typical of such commentary is Alexander Brentler in Jacobin, who claims that “it will quickly become clear that transformations of this magnitude [implementation of Berlin’s referendum to expropriate the big landlords] are not possible without socialist influence inside state institutions.”

I don’t fundamentally disagree with the argument that to change things you need to be in power, but I have a quite different analysis of where power really lies. As the SPD, LINKE and Greens announce the results of their coalition negotiations, I want to argue in this article how I think we can change the world, and why I believe that LINKE compromises in these negotiations are an obstacle to us doing so.

What the Coalition negotiations mean for Expropriation

Let’s just pause to remember what was happening alongside the elections. Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen (DWE) won a referendum to expropriate the big landlords. Over a million people – who account for over 57% of those voting – said Yes to putting 240,000 homes into public ownership. This was a lively campaign, which gained a lot of international coverage and won a clear majority.

So the big landlords will be expropriated, right? Well not according to the Coalition talks. The joint statement from the SPD; Greens and LINKE following Sondierungsgespräche (exploratory talks) promises the following:

  • The establishment of an alliance for building new housing, which includes municipal housing companies, cooperatives and private housing associations (my italics)
  • Following the principle of cooperation not confrontation (with the big real estate companies)
  • Creation of a commission of experts to test the possibilities, methods and conditions under which the referendum can be carried out. The commission (which will include supporters of the big landlords) will make a recommendation within a year as to how the Berlin parliament should proceed.

This word salad can be interpreted in many ways. This is probably the point. The LINKE Berlin leadership gleefully reported that the consultation document was a “good basis for upcoming coalition talks”, and that “the new coalition will respect the result of the referendum and guarantees a responsible approach”.

And yet the devil is in the detail.

Firstly, why establish a commission of experts for another consultation period? There have been plenty of consultations already with the big real estate companies who did everything they could to defeat the referendum. Besides which, over a million people didn’t vote for more talks. We voted for Enteignen.

Secondly, the commission is due to make its recommendation within a year. We shouldn’t expect it to report quickly. We don’t know what it will suggest, but we already know that new Berlin mayor Franziska Giffey has opposed expropriation since day one, and the Greens made clear that they would only support it as a “last resort”. So, the people who are to interpret the report are already predisposed to using its recommendations to support the landlords.

We should be clear that the consultation period has not been established to commission new ideas, but to demobilise our side. After a year of waiting for the commission to report, the hope is that the people who have been radicalised by the referendum will be too tired to effectively oppose a shoddy compromise. You can’t turn activism on and off like a tap.

Other results of the Sondierungsgespräche

The SPD/Green/LINKE consultation paper also promised the following:

  • A “responsible” financial political strategy – in other words, respect for the crippling Schuldenbremse (debt ceiling) which prevents local councils spending any extra money on necessary services.
  • The completion of the 16th stage of the controversial and environment-damaging A100 motorway. The 17th stage will not take place in the next legislative period, but it has still not been rejected.
  • More personnel in the police and law enforcement authorities, and the introduction of video surveillance.

It is also worth noting what was not promised. The privatisation of the Berlin S-Bahn will continue. Trade union demands for equal pay for health workers in all hospitals – which were in the coalition agreement of 2016 (but ignored by the Red-Red-Green government) – do not even appear this time round.

LINKE demands for an inquiry into Nazi terror in Neukölln, the lifting of the headscarf ban for teachers, and an end to deportations are not mentioned and will not be implemented by a new government of any colour. The new Berlin Senat will continue the old policies of racism and repression.

Only this week, we got a sense of what we can expect from the new Berlin government. 2,000 police were used to clear the alternative housing project in Köpenicker Straße (known as KØPI ). LINKE politicians were appalled, saying that “we tried everything we could”.

In the Left newspaper junge Welt, Simon Zeise wryly asked: “tried everything? Did Klaus Lederer [lead LINKE election candidate] chain himself to the fence on Friday? Did Anna Helm [LINKE representative in the coalition talks, who in a previous life demonstrated in Dresden with the banner “Thanks, Bomber Harris”] stand on the barricades? No. The resistance of the government socialists looks different to this.”

Similarly, the last Red-Red-Green government evicted public spaces at will – from Liebig34 to the Syndikat pub – as die LINKE politicians sat idly by. As the quote attributed to socialist author Kurt Tucholsky says: “they thought they were in power, but they were only in government”.

The point here is not to claim that LINKE politicians in government are responsible for increased racism and gentrification. It is that, particularly in the absence of strong social movements, as a minority member of a neoliberal government, they are impotent and unable to affect any serious change.

Die LINKE Delegate conference

This week, the LINKE Berlin held a delegate conference to discuss the coalition negotiations. This was the last chance for the party basis to influence any coalition agreement. At the conference, a resolution was put forward by activists, and supported by my party branch in Wedding, calling for the implementation of the Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen referendum to be anchored in any coalition agreement.

A new motion was submitted by the Berlin party leadership, including the text that it is “centrally important that an expropriation law is put forward in the implementation of the referendum.” While this is a clear improvement, it still leaves enough wiggle room for a new government to ignore the referendum results, while die LINKE remains a part of this government.

My LINKE branch also supported a motion insisting that any coalition document reject “any form of destruction and privatisation” of the S-Bahn tube service. This motion lost after insistence from the local party leadership that you can’t enter negotiations with preconditions.

But just as with Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen and the housing question, there is a grassroots campaign Eine S-Bahn für Alle (one S-Bahn for everyone) in which many LINKE members are active and to which many branches (including my own) are affiliated. Should the new coalition government go on the offensive (which is to be expected), resistance will be organised.

Ruben Lehnert, speaker of Die LINKE in Berlin-Neukölln, eloquently summarized the current situation:

“The result of the talks is fatal. It demotivates the most engaged part of our party. The comrades who since February have gathered signatures in rain and storms for the referendum are shaking their heads that die LINKE in government wants to set up a commission which will carry out an assessment for one year, after which the Berlin Senat will decide. It demobilises people who have passionately taken part in the campaign and through this have found their way to our party, but are showing little understanding that die LINKE apparently is subjugating itself to Giffey’s diktat. And, not least, it alienates from us the part of the movement with whom we must engage in current and future fights.”

Die LINKE in government

We have been here before. The reason why many housing activists distrust die LINKE is the role played by its predecessor party, the PDS, in privatising social housing in Berlin. In 2001, the PDS won an unprecedented 21% of the vote and entered a coalition with the SPD. In 2004, the SPD-PDS government sold off over 100,000 city-owned homes.

Leading PDS – now LINKE – politician Harald Wolf drew important conclusions from this experience. Quoting former left-wing Green politician Verena Krieger, he said: “the State is not a bicycle on which one simply sits and can ride in a random direction”. He, and other “government socialists” promised not to repeat the same errors. And yet, this is exactly what they are doing now.

The role of Die LINKE in the next Berlin government will be twofold. Firstly, it will be easier for the new government to sell a shoddy compromise if it is backed by the one party which has until now wholeheartedly supported the referendum. Secondly, the illusion that something is being done will be used to keep activists off the streets.

Fortunately, the party does not just consist of the politicians in the negotiating chamber, but of activists who are part of social movements. The number of LINKE party members opposing any form of coalition talks exceeded my expectations. In Wedding, we were united. To these we can add the people who honestly believe that die LINKE will withdraw from government at any sign of a compromise. The fight is not over yet.

Where our power really lies

There have been significant victories under “Left” coalition governments in Berlin. The trouble is that these have rarely had anything to do with who was a government minister.

One of the great inspirations for DWE was the referendum to stop building luxury homes on Tempelhofer Feld in 2014. Just as with the DWE campaign, the SPD led government tried to renege on the public vote. What stopped them was not clever arguments in the council Chambers but the continuation of the mass campaign that won the referendum.

Similarly, striking health workers have won better conditions. And as the FT reports: “increasing numbers of German workers are demanding higher pay amid rising inflation, with some going on strike”. The coalition agreement ensures further fights in Berlin. For example, the privatisation of the S-Bahn will continue, and will meet necessary resistance. The question is, which side die LINKE will be on in these fights.

The Red-Red-Green Coalition paper has essentially accepted the Schuldenbremse (debt ceiling). In practise, this means that the Berlin government will have two billion Euro less than in previous years. This means that it will not be able to make even the limited social reforms that it has promised without savage cuts elsewhere.

As Hanna Grześkiewicz and I argued in our pre-election call to vote:

“Die LINKE should not enter government at any price. We are not fundamentally opposed to a Red-Red-Green government on a local and national level. But this is only acceptable if at the same time Die Linke stays strong in its opposition to NATO, and does not make concessions on cheap housing or S-Bahn privatisation. We cannot enter government at the cost of our political credibility.”

Any entry of die LINKE into a Berlin government under the current conditions will mean that it will stand on the wrong side of the barricades in important fights to come (and which must come soon). I understand the disappointment that many good activists feel about us turning down the chance to take office. But we will feel much more disappointed if it is die LINKE which is enforcing cuts and opposing expropriation.

 

 

 

“You need to make a stance for what is right”

Interview with director Anne Paq about her film Not Just Your Picture, discussing Palestine in Germany, and Israeli impunity


17/10/2021

Hello Anne. Thanks for agreeing to talk to us. Could you start by introducing yourself.

My name is Anne Paq. I’m a photographer and film maker. I am from France. I am now based in the Paris area, but I’ve been living in Palestine for many years and I am a member of the Active Stills photo collective.

Palestine has been one of the core issues I work with because I was living there, obviously. And also because I’m a photographer, engaged in social and political issues and I use my work to talk about issues I care about and to denounce some injustice I witness.

Your latest film is Not Just Your Picture about the Kilani family. For people who don’t know the film, who are the Kilanis?

The Kilani family is a Palestinian family from the Gaza Strip. Mostly they live in the Northern part of of the Gaza Strip in Beit Lahiya. This is a location quite close to the border, which makes it a bit dangerous regarding Israeli bombings.

The film is centred around the figure of Ibrahim Kilani, who as a young man decided to to go to Germany to study architecture. So Ibrahim went there and he met his wife, a German woman, and they had two kids, Ramsis and Layla. After the marriage broke down in Germany, Ibrahim went back to the Gaza Strip, divorced and remarried with a woman called Taghreed, and they had five children.

The film features both the family in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian-German part of the family with Ramsis and Layla. And we follow them following the dreadful news of the killing of Ibrahim, Taghreed and their five children during the Israeli bombing of Gaza in the summer of 2014.

For the Kilani family, it’s also the story of a family torn apart because we can see the family trying to grieve in the Gaza Strip. One of their strong wishes is to be reunited with Ramsis and Layla – to see them – because for them, Ramsis and Layla carry a part of Ibrahim.

The family was also torn apart before, when Ibrahim was in the Gaza Strip and he couldn’t visit his kids Ramsis and Layla in Germany. For Ramsis and Layla, it was also impossible to go to the Gaza Strip because of the siege. So it’s a complex situation. But it’s also a reflection of almost any Palestinian family which is being torn apart because of the occupation and colonial project of Israel.

What was also striking for the Kilani family in the Gaza strip is how much they were welcoming to us and so open, even in difficult circumstances. Because of course they are still grieving and they are very much traumatised by what happened. And the situation in Gaza still is very difficult and they are struggling to make ends meet. To put it very simply, they are very, very nice and welcoming people and also very lively characters. As we can see in the in in the film. The same can be said about Ramsis and Layla who were so open to us.

How did you hear about the story and what made you want to make the film?

As a photographer, as a member of the Active Stills photo collective, I was in the Gaza Strip during the Israeli offensive of 2014. I was trying to document as much as I could see – what we can only call atrocities – committed by the Israeli bombings against civilians.

One day on 22nd of July I was with a fellow journalist. We stopped because there was a high building half-destroyed, and there were a lot of people at the bottom of the tower looking at bulldozers, basically digging to try to get out one body which was still inside the concrete. It was really a horrible scene. People told us that the bulldozer had been working for a long time. At that time, we only got small pieces of information about what happened.We only knew that there was a bombing, and that some family got killed. But this is only later that I found out that the name of the family that was killed was Kilani.

Soon after the offensive, I initiated a project called Obliterated Families, which looked at the families who were being wiped out by Israeli bombings, either entirely or partly. So I interviewed and I went to see a lot of survivors from those families to try to understand what happened, to try to understand their story.

I wanted to go back to the Kilani family because I documented the scene just after the bombings, but also because I heard that the Kilani family had a German passport. So I was very much also interested into finding more information. Why did the Palestinian family have a German passport? This is how I connected to the family in Beit Lahiya and I met one of Ibrahim’s brothers, Salah. He told me about the whole story, and why for instance Ibrahim left Beit Lahiya during the offensive to go to Gaza city. Also I found out that he has two kids in Germany- Ramsis and Layla – with whom I got in touch and then later I met them in Germany.

So why did I want to make the film? As I mentioned, the Kilani family was part of my multimedia project, Obliterated Families. This project was made by a lot of people. It was co-authored with Ala Qandil and was a huge project which took us two years to make.

We dedicated one chapter to the whole story of the Kilani family. And because it’s multimedia, we made a video, and this is how I met Ramsis Kilani in Germany. And when I met Ramsis, I really sensed that he had a lot of things to say, and he was very touching.

I was working on a video interview and it was edited by Dror Dayan who lived in Berlin and is very much involved in the Palestinian issue. So we discussed together. I was convinced that we could make something bigger out of this story than the chapter.

I did it first of all then because the characters were really touching, Ramsis and Layla, and also the family in Gaza that I met. I was also motivated because of the German passports part of the story because it exposed the European complicity in this situation.

This is why I made the film with Dror – to talk about the European complicity and its role into the continuation of Israeli impunity. And we believe that with this very personal and touching story, we could actually reach out to a wider audience than usual and talk to the people.

One of the primary targets, of course, is the German public, so we still hope it will be shown in a lot of German theatres.

As the film develops, we see both Ramsis and Layla gaining self-confidence. Initially they come across as quite shy. By the end of the film they’re addressing large rallies and international conferences. Did you notice this change in the course of making the film?

When I first met Ramsis in 2015, he came across as someone who has some political background, but as someone who was quite shy. It was the same with Layla – she was clearly less interested in politics than Ramsis. We definitely saw a change in the course of us making the film. I think this change is reflected in the film because it shows the reality of their self development.

When I think of Ramsis, the first time he made the interview and when I saw him in this event at the Brandenburger Tor, when he made a speech and said the names of his family members who were killed, he was a bit shy. Also because he was very moved by the situation. And then later we saw him back in Paris, talking in front of the big crowd and being very assertive. It was quite astonishing to witness his development. And now he’s a very vocal voice in Germany, not only for Palestinian rights, but also against racism and on different political issues. This is quite impressive to see that, and I really admire his dedication.

As for Layla, at the beginning she was very shy about talking in public, especially about her Palestinian identity or what happened to her family. And now she’s very proud and open about her Palestinian identity. The last time I saw her, it was in Berlin when we had the German premiere. And she was on stage together with Ramsis, and that was very moving for me to see and very important. She really expressed herself fully and in a powerful way, and it was great to see that. She’s also part of Palästina Spricht. So she has also taken a huge personal journey.

In the film, we see Ramsis unsuccessfully trying to sue the Israeli army and to win acknowledgement from the German government. Has he had any joy since?

Unfortunately, he is not getting any progress, and that’s led to frustration. But Ramsis has understood that there’s not much to expect from the legal system in Germany. He’s putting his full energy into the political side, on advocacy, on talking about Palestinian rights. I think this is his way to really engage himself for the time being.

Still, there is no move. The general prosecutor in Germany still has not officially opened the case, which is really crazy, as all the files have been available to him since 2014 December, and he has all the cards. At one stage, he was waiting for Israel to deal with the case, but now Israel has closed the case and dismissed the appeal. So we know that there will be no justice for the Kilani family when it comes to the Israeli courts.

It’s not a surprise, of course. There is nothing to wait for from the Israeli courts when it comes to justice for Palestinians. But the German prosecutor was arguing that he was waiting for this before he could make a move. I’m not sure how it will move forward. There is still the International Criminal Court who could deal with the case and maybe something will happen there, but how long it will take?

In the meantime, how do we cope with a denial of justice? I mean, for many years Ramsis and Layla have been waiting for some kind of acknowledgement from the German government and there is nothing. As we see in the film, there was this letter from a German representative in Ramallah, West Bank, but it was sent in a personal capacity, so it is not even official.

It’s really shameful. But it says a lot, unfortunately, about the position of Germany when it comes to to Palestine. And this is something that we all need to denounce, of course.

Do you still have contact with the Kilani family in Gaza? How are they coping with the latest wave of bombing?

I so wish that I could visit them, but it has not been possible. It’s very difficult now for international journalists to go. You need a special permission from the Israeli authorities. The Israeli press office is putting a lot of obstacles, especially to independent photographers or journalists like me. So really, I’m waiting.

I’m hoping to go to meet the family, to share the film with them of course, and to get some news. Because of the language barrier, I’m in contact with someone from the family, the son of Saleh, who is in Sweden and speaks fluent English. So I could get some news about the family from him. He’s a cousin of Ramsis and Layla.

And yes, of course, the latest bombing of Gaza was also horrible – 11 days of relentless bombing, civilians being killed. Of course I was concerned about the Kilani family. They had some bombings very close to the house. Actually the house next door had some children killed in it. So it was again very difficult.

This is a thing about the bombings in Gaza. People know it is going to happen again. So how are you supposed to overcome your trauma from the last round of bombings if you know this is going to happen again?

We really wish to see them. If the situation would be different, we would invite them to the screening in Europe. But because they are locked in this big prison called the Gaza Strip, it’s very hard to get them out. It’s almost impossible.

After the film was made, we had the sad news that Fatma – the mother of Ibrahim, the grandmother of Ramsis and Layla – had died. We can see her in the film, and it’s very sad to to think that she died without Ramsis and Layla being able to see her.

Has the search of justice for Ibrahim been affected by the large demonstrations for Gaza this Summer?

I think it’s interesting to see the latest round of bombings and what happened in Palestine, with a new wave of resistance and a display of unity. To see huge demonstrations is of course encouraging. It shows the Palestinian issue is not disappearing, and that the question of justice for Palestine is still prominent. It is important that we continue to have those demonstrations for justice and Palestinian liberation.

But this is not enough to push the governments to get to this point of having Israeli war criminals being tried internationally. So we need to push much more. And I’m already hoping that one day it would happen, and let’s hope for it.

I want to add to this question of justice, that as long as Israel enjoys total impunity for its crimes, it will continue. Why not? And if Israel has impunity, it’s because of the support of the international community. So a shift needs to happen. Or else it is just a matter of time before the next full on attack on the Gaza Strip with many, many civilians killed.

In that sense, the demonstrations are important and give a sense to the Palestinian families and the ones who suffered that some people see them and recognise them as victims and stand with them in solidarity. In that sense, the demonstrations do not help directly Ibrahim’s case , but maybe indirectly. At least the wrongdoings done by Israel are exposed by the people in the streets.

You are French, but sometimes work in Germany. Have you learned to understand the reluctance of large parts of the German Left to support Palestine and the Palestinians?

As a French citizen, when I went to Germany and I got involved in the Palestinian issue, I went to some demonstrations for Palestine. And when I found out that many Germans who claimed they are from the Left, oppose Palestinian rights, and that they blindly support Israel colonial project – it was a big shock to me.

I kind of knew about this, but really to experience this and to see it, I was very shocked actually. Because when it comes to France, for instance, for people who say that they are from the far Left, it’s pretty clear that you are anti-colonial, you support anti-colonial struggles, so therefore you support Palestinian rights to self-determination and freedom and you are for Palestinian liberation. No question about it.

it’s very strange in France if you say that you are from the far Left and say that you don’t support Palestine. So to come to Germany and to be exposed to this? It was very shocking. I could also sense a lot of Islamophobia in the group of people I encountered.

It was also pretty clear to me that only one twisted side of the story was being told. I can only see a total contradiction in saying you’re from the far left but you don’t support Palestine and you support the militaristic apartheid state of Israel.

I could feel also in Germany pressure on people not to speak out for Palestine. I think that a lot of people would support Palestinian rights, but they will not take a public stand because there would be a cost to it. But at one stage you need to make a stance for what is right. And I am really hoping that people will realise it and be more vocal for Palestinian rights in Germany.

It has been quite hard for me to understand because it makes no sense. But I think, as I mentioned, there is a lot of racism and Islamophobia at the bottom of this and those people need to be exposed for who they are.

How hard has it been to organise screenings of Not Just Your Picture? And how have audiences reacted?

The film was made by a very small team, and when it comes to organised screenings, it’s basically Dror and I. So we applied to many festivals. None of the German festivals took it, which is also very telling. This included festivals which focus on human rights.

We had some Palestinian film festivals who took it, which is nice. And yes, we are really counting on people who have seen the film and want to organise screenings to get in touch with us, because this is a way we can organise community-based screenings. If people know a theatre that would be willing to show the film, you can go to the theatre and ask and try to organise it with maybe a local groups. Palestinian Speaks is also willing to organize screenings through their local chapters and we are excited about that partnership.

Right now we have we had our German premiere, our French premiere, and we have a UK premiere soon. And more dates are being set up in France, in Luxembourg, in Germany. And yes, we are hoping that more people will be interested in showing the film.

People can contact us on on the website. As much as we can, the directors – Dror Dayan and I – or Ramsis Kilanis – would be willing to participate in a debate. Because the whole point of the film is to have a debate about Israeli impunity, and about the European states’ complicity in the situation. So we are hoping to have a lot of screenings and discussions.

You are also a member of the Active Stills photographers’ collective. Could you tell us a little about who Active Stills are and what they do?

I’ve been a member since 2006. The collective was formed in 2005, basically by a group of photographers who were going to demonstrations in Palestine and could not find a way of getting their photos to the mainstream media. The mainstream media were not interested in photos of the Palestinian popular resistance.

So the idea was to form a collective and to put the photos on the streets to reach out directly to the audience. And since then, of course, the Active Stills collective has developed annd is involved in covering many issues, mostly focussing on Palestine. And yes, we see photography as a tool to expose injustice.

We work together documenting many struggles that we care about – human rights, LGBTQ+ rights, animal rights, etc. Sometimes we have common projects. And I think also that one of the most important things is that the photos are widely used by activist groups, and also by the communities we document.

We still use street exhibitions from time to time, but our core work is to build our archives. If you go to the website now, we have more than 45,000 photos. So it’s a huge archive on struggles and human rights in Palestine/Israel.

Politically, we see the area between the Jordan River and the sea as one area. This is one important aspect of our work. Inside the collective we have Palestinian Israelis and international photographers. And we are all united in the political view that we are anti-Zionist as a group.

Do you have any future projects already planned?

To complete the film Not Just your Picture is just one part of the work and I really want to get involved in the tour. So as much as I can, I will try to go to screenings and have some debate with people about the film. This will also keep me busy for the next months.

Right now, I’ve been also documenting a local struggle in France about the Vertus workers’ gardens in Aubervilliers. This has been threatened by the building of a mega aquatic center for the Olympic Games of 2024. This has been a struggle that I’ve been following for one year – not to make a documentary, but to make a long-term photo project that is not over yet.

It deals with a destruction of nature and green space. It’s about gentrification, about projects which are done for profit and not for the well-being of people.

I’m more focussed now on French issues, but of course I am hoping to go back to Palestine soon and continue some of my documentation there.

I went back to France after many years abroad, as I’ve been interested in diving into the struggles there. The political situation is very tense and there have been many protests in France since I came back. I’m very happy to be more engaged with French issues. But even in this situation, it’s quite depressing.

How can people see Not Just Your Picture? Better still, how could they organise a screening?

People can get in touch with us to organise screenings. At some stage we will make it available for public online. But for the time being, we want to have those those screenings as this is also an opportunity to have public debates.

I believe this is an important film. This is a film with a very touching personal story. And I think it has a lot of potential to move people. So please get in touch with our website.

Finally, your film is essential viewing but the story that it tells is desperate and miserable. Do you have a message of hope for us?

Hope is always a challenge when dealing with Palestine, because we are dealing with so many horrific crimes being committed for so many years, for decades. The situation on the ground is not getting any better, if not worse. So sometimes yes – we may feel struck by despair. But we cannot. It’s a question of justice. It’s a question of solidarity. It’s important to stand out for what is right and for Palestinian liberation.

For me, the main hope at the moment is to have seen the new wave of resistance around what happened in Jerusalem through the struggle of Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood and after the bombings of Gaza. How much people rose up in Palestine, showing an unprecedented show of unity from the river to the sea and even beyond borders. This is new and this is very important. We need to highlight it and to amplify Palestinian voices which are very strong and are really giving us some hope.

For me, it was also very moving because when we did the screening in the Palestinian Film Festival in Paris – Ramsis was there. This is also exactly what he said and that we had some hope from this new wave of resistance. And this is the inspiration for me.

So yes, I’m hopeful of a new situation. It’s hard, but we can also see that some discourses are shifting. Some words such as apartheid, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, etc. are actually getting into the mainstream media. Because it’s so obvious. And because of the work of many eloquent Palestinians who are working to expose issues.

The discourse is shifting, resistance is rising up, and we can have some hope. In the film the story is utterly heartbreaking but we have tried as much to show how the members of the Kilani react, to show their humanity, to show the grief but also their strength, the love between them, the way they transform their pain and put it out there in their strife for justice . This is something I hope people can take from the film. Because this is what I have taken from spending so much time with the family.

If you are interested in organising a screening of Not Just Your Picture, you can contact Anne at info@notjustyourpicture.com. You can find out more about the film here and read Phil Butland’s review here. Please also visit the Active Stills website.

This interview will appear in German in the next printed copy of marx21 magazine.

Antisemitism is a Form of Racism

An insistence that antisemitism is not a form of racism has led part of the German Left to Islamophobic conclusions


16/10/2021

It may seem logical to an international audience that antisemitism is a form of racism, but in Germany this fact is contested. For decades there has been an attempt here to establish a “non-racist” concept of antisemitism. In this article, I will argue why we can only understand antisemitism by seeing it as analagous to other forms of racism.

As with other forms of racism, antisemitism expresses itself in the form of hostility against a socially constructed group of people, who are ascribed certain fixed and ahistoric characteristics. As with other forms of racism, not all these characteristics are necessarily negative.

For example, compare the ideas “all Black people are good dancers / good in bed!”, or “all Asians are smart and hard working!” with the idea that “all Jews are clever / rich / powerful!”

Cultural racism

As with other forms of racism, a heterogeneous group of people is racialized – defined according to unspecific vague characteristics – and homogenized. As with other forms of racism, “race” here is and was an unscientific construct. As with other forms of racism, it is of no importance whether people are racialized according to biological features like the colour of their skin or are homogonized because of cultural features like religion.

People who are racialized as Black are not all part of the same “racial group”, nor even the same ethnicity. They are diverse people and groups of people who are spread across the world and grew up in quite different cultures and contexts. The colour of their skin is imprecise. What pigmentation or concentration of melanin do you need to qualify as “Black”?

“The vague biological definition of a Jewish “race” started to be replaced by the development of a cultural definition of Jewishness in the course of the 20th Century.” Are Jewish people “a nation” or an ethnicity (with many different cultures, languages, needs, traditions, nations etc.)? Are Jewish people a religious group? What about non-religious people with a Jewish background, who were also persecuted by the Nazi régime?

As with other forms of racism, antisemitism is an ideology of inequality. As with other forms of racism, antisemitism is based on the devaluation of a group of people. For example, Jewish people are primarily racialized as being “obsessed with power”, “greedy”, “cunning” and “without virtue”. They are constructed as a group with mainly negative characteristics.

Antisemitism and conspiracy theories

As with other forms of racism, it would be wrong to depoliticise antisemitism. As with other forms of racism, antisemitism is accompanied by real power relations, and not by those imagined in the heads of racists.

As with other forms of racism, antisemitism can be accompanied by conspiracy theories in society. But not all conspiracy theories are antisemitic. Not all conspiracy theories are somehow racist. But such connections exist because both conspiracy theories and racist ideologies project real social problems onto an abstract, poorly defined group.

As with other forms of racism, with antisemitism the racified can be construed as the “secret ruling elite”.

Look at anti-Chinese conspiracy theories of the “yellow peril”. [Leaning on] this theory, secret Covid-19 viruses were cultivated in laboratories. In addition, Chinese “collectivism” was developed for Chinese world domination. This means that Chinese people are obedient and without individualism and think and act like a one-dimensional ant hill, allowing them to threaten “the West” with the world wide subjugation to the Chinese.

Similarly, Barrack “HUSSEIN” Obama is portrayed as a secret Muslim who was destroying the USA from the inside, Angela Merkel in a headscarf is secretly planning the abolition of Christian holidays, strengthening Islam and carrying out a population exchange with Muslims. According to these theories, Muslims are carrying out a “Jihad in three phases”, in which – thanks to their skullduggery (“Taqiya!”) they can gradually infiltrate and subjugate Western society, etc.

Sometimes these anti-Chinese and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are also accompanied by antisemitic theories. The population exchange is being planned by Jews, in order to “racially mix” and “stupify” Germans.

For many fascist groups, antisemitism has long served as a binding ideological element. “Anti-Muslim racism is slowly growing into a tendency of becoming the main object of the new right in Europe. This manifests itself in myths growing equivalent to the Jewish-Bolshevik world conspiracy theory, for example the French myth of Islamo-Gauchisme (Islamo-Leftism).

Jewish essentialism

Even if they aren’t a unique selling point, conspiracy theories and world-explanation ideologies have been nowhere more part of a comprehensive and persistent racist world vision as with antisemitism. But this is not because antisemitism is not a form of racism.

This conceptual framework of antisemitism is a product of a material and world-historic development in Europe. As with other forms of racism, Jewish victims of racialization are not to blame for this. As with other forms of racism, a racist ideology that can be convincing and popular requires a material fixed point in the real world.

Racist ideologies require a grain of truth, even if this is tiny. In the case of the Jewish-Bolshevist world conspiracy theory, this grain of truth was the large number of Jewish people were active in revolutionary socialist organisations and movements. This was not because of any conspiracy, but a result of the structural oppression of Jewish people and their fight for liberation. Many Jewish people saw their liberation in a movement that was committed to liberating all people.

Jews as a “trading class”

Natural living conditions forced historical groups of people like the Jews in and around Palestine to trade and to have relative regional autonomy. At other times the same factors also affected Armenians, Scots and many other groups pf people.

The corresponding historically determined special position of a Jewish trading class in European feudalism helps us understand the origins of antisemitism more closely. The relatively impenetrable feudal society and the ban on Jewish people acquiring land consolidated their existence as a trading class.

Jews in antique Palestine or those in feudal Europe who wanted to become or continue to be farmers, were only allowed to enter the production process if they received a Christian baptism, or later if they converted to Islam.

Jews in antique Palestine, or those in feudal Europe who wanted to become or continue to be peasants, received a Christian baptism eventually, or later converted to Islam in this position in the production process.

The remaining Jewish trading class now served the ruling feudal class in Europe as a sort of intermediary. The Jewish trading class thus appeared to the farming class to be a concrete class, which appeared to be materially above them and that in certain phases actually was.

The ruling class of the feudal nobility used the Jewish trading class as a scapegoat whenever farmers showed hatred of the unfair conditions. The economic basis was affirmed and consolidated on the level of ideological superstructure by the feudal nobility and church.

Post-feudal antisemitism

The anti-Jewish prejudices that developed here survived feudalism. Although Jewish people had already lost their economic special role during feudalism, prejudices were shaped by capitalist crisis, continued to vegetate and were radicalised.

In Marx’s words

“people make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honoured disguise and borrowed language.”

In dying feudalism in and crisis-ridden capitalism in its already developed imperialist stage, additional material developments played a role in the strengthening of antisemitism. Jewish people were pried put of the last pores of the dying trading class and streamed into the capitalism labour market. They began to enter the working class, the capitalist class and the intermediary classes.

For example, in trade, they came into competition with the rest of the petit bourgeoisie. As economic crisis hit, the accompanying impoverishment and danger of social relegation of a large part of the petit bourgeoisie exacerbated this competitive struggle to a struggle to the death.

Many counter-revolutionary fascist petit bourgeois movements, above all in Germany, thus shaped antisemitism. The ideology of the NSDAP emerged from a contradictory patchwork, in which the petit bourgeoisie was also pervaded by the countless contradictions of being a disappearing class between the classes.

Antisemitism offered a unifying element which was seeped in tradition. As part of their full fascist ideology, some fascist mass movements tried to extend antisemitism before and after taking power. The fascist dual state of the Nazis offered a particularly effective instrument for this.

Antisemitism today

These world-historic developments led to the shaping of the antisemitic ideology that we still experience today. This has modified its form through later developments, but the strategic thrust has not substantially changed.

Like other forms of racism, antisemitism can radicalise itself into an ideology of extermination. Anti-gypsy racism under the NS regime also led to the planned industrial mass extermination of Roma and Sinti. German colonialism also employed exterminatory racism against the Herero. General Lothar von Trotha issued unambiguous orders to exterminate in 1904. The German were able to obliterate 80% of the Herero by direct killings and concentration camps.

We must also recognise that specific forms of antisemitism can be historically explained, as can specific forms of all other types of racism. We do not have to settle for mystifying, idealist and religious sounding answers from the established bourgeois antisemitism research in Germany.

With antisemitism there are particular ideological characteristics of phenomena which also appear or can appear in other forms of racism. Constructed “unique selling points” and “fundamental differences” of antisemitism which can be used to separate it from other forms of racism do not exist.

Dogmatic reference to such differences does not come from an ingenious German-national analysis of antisemitism. On the contrary, this is based on a fully reduced and stunted understanding of racism as a whole.

Why does this matter?

Why is this question so important for the Left in German? This sort of misdirected analysis and definitions of antisemitism hinders a joint struggle of Jewish people, and other racified people on a practical level and isolates the German Left internationally. It can also lead to a moralistic super- and subordination of antisemitism on a theoretical level. It also practically depoliticises antisemitism and gets in the way of the fight against real antisemitism.

Antisemitism remains a complex phenomenon. But those in Germany who take up the cause of the “fight against all antisemitism” are unfortunately in most cases also those who have understood antisemitism the least. If we are unable to fundamentally analyse what antisemitism is and how it can emerge, we must also fail in the fight against antisemitism.

It is not the case that these German ideologies misunderstand racism, while understanding antisemitism brilliantly. They don’t understand all forms of racism – including antisemitism. This is a big problem.

 

A slightly longer version of this article first appeared in German on the freiheitsliebe website. Translation: Phil Butland. Reproduced with permission

Vivantes Hospital Strike: Workers Victorious After Month-Long Walkout

An outline agreement will see nurses compensated for understaffed shifts with cash payouts and time off


14/10/2021

The healthcare strike in Berlin is over. After one month, the state-owned hospital owner Vivantes on Tuesday said it was ready to lighten the load on its nursing staff. Vivantes was following the lead of the university hospital Charité, which had agreed an outline deal with the service union Verdi last week. Both sides now aim to hammer out a “Relief Pay Agreement” (Entlastungstarifvertrag) for nursing staff by the end of November.

Heike von Gradolewski-Ballin, lead negotiator from Verdi, said on Tuesday: “With the agreement on key points, we are a big step closer to our goal of achieving lasting workload relief for workers at Vivantes.” She said it had been possible to reach this goal “because the workforce had stood up firmly for its interests: with protests, with determination, and with stamina.” She said the agreement had not only made the healthcare profession more attractive, but also made patient care significantly safer.

Movement successful

Sylvia Bühler, member of Verdi’s national committee, also welcomed the agreement. “Today’s agreement with Vivantes is another important success for our movement for more staff and workload relief in German hospitals,” she was quoted as saying in a press release on Tuesday. She said there were now similar agreements in place for 18 major hospitals in Germany. “Once again workers in the healthcare system have shown that they will no longer be fobbed off by politicians and bosses, but will push through their demands for more staff through workplace struggle.”

The stated aim of the pay agreement is to reduce the workload of workers in nursing above all – clearly, measurably and for the long term. Among other things, the agreement sets out how many patients will be looked after by how many staff in each shift. Should this guideline later not be adhered to, workers will receive clearly defined time off in lieu.

For this purpose, so-called “Vivantes-Freizeitpunkte” (time-off points) will be given out. For example, a nurse will get a point if they have to work on an understaffed ward for one shift. From 2022, for each 9 accumulated points nurses will get one shift off or a payout of €150. A year later, this compensation will be given for just 7 points; in the year 2024, for 5 points.

There won’t, however, be an unlimited number of days off. In 2022, the number will be capped at 6, in 2023 at 10 and in 2024 at 15 days off. After that any further points will be compensated by payouts.

There should also be more support for those who want to train in nursing. Among other things the minimum duration of on-the-job training will be set out. As well as that, trainees will be given a laptop computer, for both work and personal use. At the end of the training it will then become the property of the trainee. Furthermore, trainees will get a job offer by the end of their second year of training.

Strikes as self-defence

In the end Bühler held federal health minister Jens Spahn (CDU) responsible for the strike. She said it was shameful that he had made it necessary for workers in the health system to strike for weeks on end for better staffing levels. “The strikes of hospital workers for workload relief were self-defence, because Mr Spahn has failed to set adequate staffing for hospitals into law,” said Bühler. She said the new federal government must quickly make binding arrangements for adequate staffing. A first step would be to implement the “PPR 2.0” staffing level measurement system – which was put forward by the German Hospitals Association, the German Nursing Council and Verdi at the start of 2020 – in the governing coalition agreement, she said.

Although the basic agreement has been reached with the nursing staff, the workplace struggle is not yet over. Verdi is still aiming for the public sector pay scale (TvÖD) to be applied to all employees of Vivantes subsidiaries. The negotiations will continue today, moderated by the former mayor of Brandenburg Matthias Platzeck (SPD).

The Berlin Hospitals’ Association (BKG) had already warned against this last Friday. If workers of the service companies of the state-owned hospitals were paid according to the public sector pay scale, it argued, competition might be distorted at the expense of other Berlin hospitals. It said service workers in cleaning, logistics and catering, for example, are paid according to pay scales that are typical for the respective sectors. If they were instead paid according to the public sector pay scale, workers at other hospitals might move to the state-owned ones, or make similar pay demands. The other hospitals would not be able to afford that, because their costs are not underwritten by the state.

This article appeared in German in Junge Welt. Translation by Tom Wills.