The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

What now for the Spanish Left?

The right-wing and conservatives are hurrying to declare the Spanish Left to be dead. It’s not as simple as that


11/06/2021

His hair – they were all talking about his hair. After his electoral coalition Unidas Podemos (UP) became the weakest force in the next Madrid parliament after last May’s elections, Pablo Iglesias announced his retirement from politics. A couple of days later, his mane was chopped off. Now in the smallest Spanish village, where – in danger of dying out because of migration and an ageing population – the new haircut of the figurehead of the Spanish Left was the topic of conversation of the Spanish Left. Pablo Iglesias’s pony tale had long become a thing in its own right. It was the symbol of a new political understanding in Spain, and from the beginning a subject of public discussion. Even in “serious” television debates, Iglesias was time and time again “the one with the ponytail”.

The haircut should have gone a long time ago, admitted Iglesias after numerous inquiries. It was an annoyance, not least because his own children kept pulling it. What would votes think if he entered an electoral coalition with the Social Democrats of PSOE and shortly afterwards got rid of his trademark? A prophetic symbolic act of future good conduct? In a way, he must have felt himself trapped in his own picture. And his opponents? They would have happily and maliciously mocked him, inventing new lies about him without any legal consequences. Just as they had again and again in the previous seven years, since he was first elected as a Member of the European Parliament and later as the vice-president of the first coalition government since the end of the Franco dictatorship.

Alberto Rodriguez, Podemos’s outgoing organisation secretary and MP for Unidas Podemos also changed the picture from the Congresso de los Diputados with his dreadlocks. Others provided diversity: with his wheelchair, the speaker of the UP fraction, the scientist Pablo Echenique, demonstrated that the plenary hall in which decisions are taken is not accessible for the disabled. Isolated from his fraction, he had to sit in his wheelchair at the foot of the MPs’ benches. This image was shown often in the evening news. In addition, the Podemos MP Pilar Lima communicated solely using sign language, thus turning proceedings on their head in the senate hall dominated by grey-heads. A baby was also allowed to attend the parliamentary debates, carried by his mother, the Podemos MP and professor at Complutense University, Carolina Bescansa. This diverse group represented a new age.

This now seems to be a thing of the past. Symbolically, several media outlets have buried Podemos and their former chief with eloquent headlines: “Pablo Iglesias announces the end of a cycle” (he has never made this announcement) or “Anniversary of the protest movement 15 May: 10 years for nothing”. The headlines reflect the fact that, on ist formation on 11 March 2014, Podemos presented itself as the heiress of the protest movement. The outrage at the forced evictions during the housing crisis, the dictatorship of austerity, the unprecedented robbery of public funds to save the banks, and the generally devastating social effects of the crisis, brought hundreds of thousands onto to the streets in 2011. And Podemos reaped the rewards. In May 2014, the party stood for election for the first time. In the elections for the European parliament, they captured in one for 1.2 million votes and 5 MEPs.

10 years later, or 7 years later depending on what counts, and now with a grey beard, José Mansilla from the anthropological research centre Into urban conflict, declared the protest movement was “a mile stone in the repoliticization of society”. Depending on region, milieu or generation, the effects were sometimes more, sometimes less, “but without a doubt, that was an awakening following a period of political inertia, in which class struggle, neighbourhood initiatives and feminist or ecological movements stagnated”. What was achieved then was the break up of a social consensus that capitalism was capable of providing “liveable” conditions, that an intergenerational contract existed, that enabled the fulfilment of a certain social growth. According to Mansilla, “this hegemony is now broken.”

Even if the result is that the leading figure of the Spanish Left has disappeared along with his pony tail: “the milieu from which he came still exists” declared the experts. The social infrastructure, “the substance out of which society is made” have changed profoundly, and “that is also reflected in the superstructure and is reflected in politics, culture and justice.”

Concerning the economic structure of the country, the problems of Spaniards have got worse since 2019, although this is largely due to the contribution of the pandemic. The original plan of Universal Basic Income, which was originally planned by Podemos, and the programme for guaranteed work from the United Left (IU) has – as part of the coalition government with the PSOE – turned into a pension: much too low, much too bureaucratic, and until now only available to a fraction of those who need it. 850,000 families were supposed to benefit. According the Ministry for Inclusion, Social Security and Migration, only 210,000 have actually received this help.

Hair-raising figures prophesy poverty in Spain. There is a generation of middle aged people who have now lived through their second large economic crisis, and there are the younger people with even less hope. Nearly 40 per cent of Spanish youth have no paid employment. This is the highest rate in the whole Euro zone. In 2020, 1.5 million people were dependent on food aid. Spain’s GDP sank during the pandemic by ten per cent. No country in the EU has had to cope with higher losses. The major reason is the structural dependency on tourism.

The youth, however, have again taken to the streets. The reason for the protest was the imprisonment of the rapper Pablo Hasel and others for insulting the crown. But there was a general dissatisfaction with the political system in the air. In the centre of the criticism was above all the so-called “muzzle law” that was used against Hasel, although the government has promised to get rid of it. That was an election promise by Unidas Podemos and was also contained in the Coalition Treaty. The protests have ended for the time being, but experts believe that a new wave of mobilisations could be imminent.

Take, for example, the journalist Reiner Wandler, Madrid correspondent for the taz and regular writer for the Austrian Standard, who no longer sports a ponytail, but has accumulated abundant experience and knowledge of Spanish conditions. In 2011 Wandler experienced the protests on the Plaza del Sol up close. “That was a cry of liberation. The silent voice which shook Spanish society.” What remains for him is the self-organisation of people who have learned to mobilise on their own. “That will come again when it is necessary, and that will be sooner or later”. A banner from then will never be forgotten “I don’t know where you were in May 68, but I know where we were in May 2011.”

For the right wing and their hatred for this new type of movement, Pedro Ángel Márquez was also one of those long haired scroungers who slept several nights on the Plaza del Sol during the protests, even though he still had to write university papers. Márquez’s motto of the time was “we were asleep and now we’ve woken up”. He thought “the day has just begun we still have everything to do.” After the protests, he remained an activist in different groups. The streets were occupied and “discussing politics was part of everyday life”, explains Lola Matamala, who because of unemployment had to return to her parents’ house, although she was over 30. She talks of the achievements of the time like the platform which was threatened by mortgage payments but remains till today. But also of the quarrels from which Podemos emerged. “Podemos required the leadership of Iglesias because he was so charismatic.” Even though she finds this can be criticized, it makes sense to her why this decision was made.

In truth, from this movement without leading figures a party developed with a clear leadership – above all Iglesias and his haircut – and a much weaker basis. Many loved Iglesias and his excellent rhetoric. Others, like his friend and Podemos co-founder Iñigo Errejón, turned their backs on him and formed a new party. Mas Madrid confined itself at first to the capital city, and later under the name Mas Pais extended their activities to a national level- In Madrid, Mas Pais is still stronger than Podemos and achieved second place in the recent regional elections. In 2011, Errejón was invited by the SPD to Berlin and met with the then party leader Sigmar Gabriel – before Podemos was even founded. In Spain, however, the press could recognise fewer similarities with the German social democrats and many more with the German Green. A clear left split followed the government coalition with the PSOE: the current “Anticapitalistas” left Podemos in early 2020.

Even with trimmed hair, Iglesias continued as Public Enemy Number 1. Right wing journalists compared him with his new haircut to the young Stalin. Inexcusably, after his withdrawal from the government, Iglesias recommended as his successor as vice-president a Communist woman. And anyway: the once “neither right nor left” party Podemos has turned into a left-wing force, which admittedly addressed increasingly fewer people in recent elections. Sure, the right wing in Madrid have always won the election, but the most recent victory was particularly pronounced. Podemos now must elect a new General Secretary, and the signs are that the United Left must also settle with the party leader.

Podemos, this construct of a group from politics and sociology professors of Complutense University, which was planned on the isolated Campus of Somosaguas (an irony of fate: the Francoist authorities originally deliberately erected the building outside the city, to prevent strong resistance by students), will continue to exist without Iglesias and most of its founders, and will gather a section of the left-wing forces. The United Left containing the Communist Party (PCE) also has a stable clientele. Spaniards can thank the PSOE alone for the lack of a halfway progressive government in Spain. The PSOE waited until Unidas Podemos was weakened by four elections in four years while right-wing media and the deep state had all the time in the world to make all sorts of accusations against UP, for which no-one was prosecuted.

Mario Domingez also doesn’t have too much hair, is a professor at the aforementioned University, took part in the 15 May movement, but not in the formation of the party of his co-worker. He supports the ideas that were put forward then on the Plaza del Sol by the Grupo Analisis. Among them, a central point: “it is important for every movement that wants to effect change that these actions are the fruit of a strong collective thought process and a free debate”- The consensus should be the basis for all actions of the assemblies. “The consensus as alternative to the current system, that is based on the principle of majority rule.” Pablo Iglesias – with or without pony tail – can be understood as a victim of this thought process, as he became the symbol of this movement, and the target of right-wing hate. Alternatively, as his critics say, his charisma stifled this process.

This article first appeared in German in the Austrian magazine Tagebuch. Reproduced with permission. Translation: Phil Butland

Racism and Nationalism in Sport

It’s Great That England’s Footballers Are Taking a Stand against Racism, but I Still Won’t Be Cheering Them on the Pitch


10/06/2021

The 2020 football European Championship is finally upon us, and sport is moving to the digital equivalent of the front page. It is timely, then, that two new stories have emerged which show the effect of racism on English sport.

Cricketer Suspended for Racist Tweets

First, there’s the cricket. England bowler Ollie Robinson was suspended after old tweets of his were found, including those which said: “My new Muslim friend is the bomb;”, “I wonder if Asian People put smileys like this ¦) #racist;” and “The guy next to me on the train definitely has Ebola.”

The establishment rushed to Robinson’s defence. Oliver Dowden MP, Secretary of State for Sport, called for the suspension to be lifted, saying “Ollie Robinson’s tweets were offensive and wrong. They are also a decade old and written by a teenager. The teenager is now a man and has rightly apologised. The ECB has gone over the top by suspending him and should think again.” Dowden was supported by prime Minister Boris Johnson

In contrast, my old friend, the Liberation Theologist Dr. Anthony Reddie, commented:

“Maybe I have missed something here about the Ollie Robinson situation. 1st, he was 18, not 10 or 5. 2nd, he made racist and sexist remarks; remarks that were as repugnant then as they are now, as they were when I was aged 18, a long time ago. It’s not as if he was living in an epoch that had different values and perspectives (the excuse White historians make for racist actions and statements made during the age of empire and colonialism). I find it irritating, therefore, that we are STILL talking about education for White people about racism. 9 years ago was 2012, not 1812 or even 1912…

So we continue to make excuses for White people holding views that no one has any excuse to hold at this juncture in history. We’ve had a Race Relations act in 1965, an updated act in 1968, another Race Relations act in 1976, an amended act in 2000 and an Equality Act in 2010. When are we going to stop making excuses for White people making racist statements?”

England Football Team Continues to Take the Knee

Meanwhile in football, England manager Gareth Southgate is insisting that his footballers take the knee at the beginning of games. This is despite Tory MP Brendan Clarke-Smith comparing the act to the England squad giving the Nazi salute at a 1938 game in Berlin. The main establishment paper, The Times also called taking the knee a gesture which “has become meaningless and divisive”.

Some racist fans have responded by booing England footballers when they take the knee. Black Nottingham Forest player Lyle Taylor joined the abuse, saying that he has stopped taking the knee because it means supporting the “Marxist group” Black Lives Matter. Taylor’s understanding of Marxism seems a little confused, as later in the interview his main criticism of BLM seems to be that it’s supported by “massive, massive corporations”.

Boris Johnson has refused to commit himself. His spokesman issued an ambiguous statement saying “the prime minister fully respects the right of those who choose to peacefully protest and make their feelings known … On taking the knee, specifically, the prime minister is more focused on action rather than gestures”.

One of Johnson’s MPs, Lee Anderson took a much clearer position, promising to boycott England games. He posted on Facebook: “For the first time in my life I will not be watching my beloved England team whilst they are supporting a political movement whose core principles aim to undermine our very way of life.”

Taking the Knee – Part of a Proud Tradition

Southgate is right. Taking the knee is part of a proud tradition of people in sport taking a stand against oppression from Muhammad Ali refusing to fight in Vietnam to John Carlos and Tommie Smith making the black power salute at the 1968 Olympics.

Taking the knee in sport is most identified with (American Football player) Colin Kaepernick. At a pre-season game in August 2016, Kaepernick refused to stand for the US national anthem as a protest against police racism. He justified his action by saying “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”. Less than a week later, he also started taking the knee.

Kaepernick’s stance was taken up by other prominent athletes like LeBron James, Serena Williams and Megan Rapinoe. More importantly, perhaps, it crystallized a growing mood of anger against violent police racism, and when George Floyd was murdered in May 2020, sports stars taking the knee became almost ubiquitous, One could argue that this has helped normalise the righteous anger, but the visible participation of beloved sports stars has contributed to a climate in which Defund the Police has suddenly become a mainstream demand.

Besides, this was not just a gesture on the part of Kaepernick, who has been forced to pay for his actions. Then-president Donald Trump called for National Football League owners to fire any player who takes the knee. This is effectively what has happened to Kaepernick. Despite being one of the most gifted quarterbacks of his generation, he has been frozen out of the game and has not played in well over 4 years.

Sport is Political

For those calling for politics to stay out of sport, I’m afraid that that ship has already sailed. Sport is part of the superstructure of society. This means that in a neoliberal society, the rich oligarchs and corrupt regimes who own clubs will try to make fans pay as much as possible. And in a society which is imbued with racism and nationalism, this racism and nationalism will also be found in sport.

Black England player John Barnes noted that after he scored a wonder goal in England’s 2-0 defeat of Brazil, a section of English fans around the National Front “kept saying ‘England only won 1-0 because a nigger’s goal doesn’t count’”. In 1995, a friendly between Ireland and England was abandoned after a riot by racist English fans. Although the racism and fascism that used to accompany England games is not as visible as it used to be, we still often endure the nasty odour of nationalism.

When England play Germany, England fans regularly sing “Two World Wars and One World Cup” – which Wikipedia quaintly explains as being “part of the England-Germany football rivalry.” And yet this harking back to England’s imperial past, when “we” were capable of winning both wars and football matches, smacks of a pathetic nostalgia for the days when inhabitants of other countries (and Black Britons) knew their place.

Nationalism in German Sport

Every 2 years there’s an international football competition, be this the European Championship or World Cup. Around this time, every other house or car in England seems to be festooned with the St George’s Flag, which is otherwise mainly seen at the head of a Nazi demonstrations. If this feels intimidating to me, I shudder to think how it would affect the victims of everyday racism.

When I first moved to Germany in 1995, the atmosphere was quite different. In Euro 96 — maybe the high point of laddish English nationalism — there was nary a German flag to be seen. The memory of Nazi rule made many Germans somewhat reticent to openly display too much national pride.

Then 2006 happened. Germany hosted the World Cup, fan miles were erected and suddenly flags were everywhere. Most of this was “harmless fun”, and yet there was a definite change of mood. Suddenly Germans felt able to do what the Brits had done for centuries and celebrate their nation.

In 2007, the “citizen’s movement” pro-NRW was formed as a dubious collection of Nazis and “concerned citizens”. Many of the members of pro-NRW found their way into Pegida and the AfD. Three years later, former Berlin finance minister Thilo Sarrazin (SPD) published the best-selling book Deutschland schafft sich ab, in which he raged against immigrants, Jews and Islam.

Now of course there is no causal relationship between flags at football tournaments, social democratic racism and the worrying growth of far right parties, but the removing of taboos about talking about national pride helped contribute towards a climate in which Sarrazin was lauded and openly racist parties could grow.

Nationalism after Brexit

The European Championship is England’s first tournament post-Brexit, where both sides of the main media discussion showed an unhealthy obsession with the place people happened to be born. One side championed “Great” Britain (usually used as shorthand for England), while the other cheered for Europe – the same Europe that is sending troops into Mali and treating refugees with racism and imprisonment.

This debate has been accompanied by equivalently bland political slogans. As the wealth of the ultra rich rose astronomically, David Cameron insisted “we’re all in it together”. Meanwhile, following the removal of Jeremy Corbyn, new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has wrapped himself in the Union Flag in an attempt to push a political vision in which nation trumps class.

Supporting “our boys” in the football isn’t the worst possible sin, but it’s part of the same process of saying that I’m essentially the same as my boss, or my landlord, or my prime minister, because we’re all “English” in a way that people from ‘less civilized’ countries are not.

This is not, by the way, the same as supporting your local team – especially in an England whose history is so tied up to imperialism. I support Bradford City, the team from the industrial multi-racial city in which I grew up. The last (and only) time they won any significant trophy was the 1911 FA cup.

For a couple of years (literally two) at the turn of the Millennium, City were in the Premier League. In the first season, when they finished 17th, one place above relegation, the local paper produced a supplement called “Heaven Seventeenth”. Since then, after the Chairman ran off with most of the money, the team has spent most of its time in the third and fourth divisions.

No sane City fan would call the team the best in the world. Compare and contrast with the way in which the England team is treated. Despite not having won any serious trophy in over 50 years, every tournament is preceded with hype that this is “our” year, followed by accusations of dirty foreigners and cheating referees when the team inevitably crashes out.

Such hubris is not unconnected to the way in which history is taught in British schools. “We” owned a third of the world, “we” single-handedly won two world wars, “we” ruled over an Empire in which racism and slavery were just unfortunate mistakes – or more likely, are not mentioned at all. Is it any wonder, that the English always seem convinced that “their” team is superior to all others?

But This Time it’s Different”, isn’t it?

But is this England side different? Never one to stop flogging a dead horse, Billy Bragg claims that Southgate’s behaviour reminds us of ‘what it means to be a progressive patriot’. Recently, Bragg reposted an “evocative” statement from Southgate on Facebook.

Addressing potentially racist England fans, Southgate wrote “Regardless of your upbringing and politics, what is clear is that we are an incredible nation — relative to our size and population — that has contributed so much to the arts, science and sport. We do have a special identity and that remains a powerful motivator.”

On one level, this is so much more than the bland statements that we have come to expect from football managers. Yet it still contains many of the same flaws that show up in Bragg’s notion of “progressive patriotism”. As I have argued elsewhere, ‘why should “standing up for the traditional value of fairness’ be seen as a specifically British quality? Are Britons really more fair than Iranians or Iroquois?”

Bragg assumes that Southgate’s act of solidarity – like that of the US-American Kaepernick can somehow be attributed to his nationality, as, presumably can the Maoism of former German player Paul Breitner or the socialism of ex-Brazil captain Socrates. Yet it is just not the case that all Englishmen – or US-Americans, Germans or Brazilians – would behave in the same way. I’ve already given enough examples of Tory MPs to show that this is simply not the case.

Having said this, we do live in interesting times. Former footballers like Stan Collymore and Neville Southall and current players like Marcus Rashford have done more to challenge Boris Johnson’s neoliberal politics than the “leader” of Britain’s Labour “opposition”.

For this reason, I want Rashford to score a hat trick in every game. There is one condition, though, and this is that England lose each of these games 4-3.

Police violence isn’t a tragic outcome – it’s a tool

Violence is a way to divide demonstrators from each other, and from the wider population


07/06/2021

The police expected violence, and they wanted the demonstrators to know they were ready to retaliate. Leaving the train at Hermannplatz on May 1st was already difficult at 17:00, due to the masses on their way to the demo. Although this station is one of the busiest in Berlin and built to accommodate hordes of people moving through it, a walk up the stairs revealed the problem: police in riot gear were blocking the exit. Some demonstrators were let through while others were pulled aside, ostensibly to confiscate the glass bottles they were carrying. Confusion was the main feeling as people tried to get out of the station – I had to push past a riot cop who served me with a death glare as I tried to squeeze between her and her colleague.

This was before the protest started. It was even before most people had started walking over to the multicolored flags and banners waving next to the organizers’ rental truck. The gruff, combative attitude of the police officers was a stark contrast to the people milling around Hermannplatz, who were drinking beer or hanging out in the sun. The positive, young atmosphere of the demo, however, had serious undertones: how coronavirus has hit already marginalized groups much harder, how anger needs to be directed not at each other, but at a repressive capitalist system focused on profit over people, how the marginalized are stronger against oppression together.

Demonstrators wanted to be seen and heard, and hoped to make a strong, unified impression on the people that they passed. But peaceful, unified demonstrators with their sights set on exposing the evils of a racist and/or capitalist system are one of the most dangerous groups in the eyes of the state. And that’s any state, not just Germany.

When do the police care?

It’s something that’s not immediately obvious to most people who have heard their entire lives that the police are around to maintain order, and peace. Examples of police violence here and there can seem random and unrelated. A friend who attended an illegal rave with around 1,000 people in Hasenheide during lockdown commented to me: “It’s so weird. The police just showed up but didn’t do anything. People were allowed to leave slowly, and some even kept on dancing.” To which another replied, “Yeah, I guess gay men are way less threatening than people protesting the closure of Syndikat.”

There was some confusion as to why the police would brutally arrest people protesting the eviction of a neighborhood staple that, among other things, sheltered local unhoused people, but wouldn’t break up an illegal party in clear violation of lockdown rules that endangered people through the spread of coronavirus. The conversation ended in shrugs.

But that friend, without completely realizing it, spoke a universal truth of the state: the threat to business-as-usual, to the capitalist order of the few with everything and the masses as wage laborers, to a people divided along race and class lines – is more salient and dangerous than any virus or act of terrorism, no matter how brutal, or heinous a crime. But how do you create a situation in which violent repression of justified dissent is generally accepted by the citizens of a country and the media? Enter, police violence.

Violence as a tool

At football games and Black Lives Matter protests and everything in between, the police are always responding to violence perpetrated by protestors. Reports will state that arrests were made after protestors clashed with police in riot gear, or that the situation turned violent after protestors threw bottles or erected barricades, etc. But is a glass bottle landing on the head of a riot cop encased in armor justification for brutally beating unarmed protestors with batons? How many people erect barricades to attack others?

Of course, there are people at protests who are looking for violence ­– there are people everywhere who are looking for violence, all the time. But how often do brutal brawls erupt at music festivals? The police need demonstrations to turn violent, so that people will write them off. So that those people who are watching from their windows will in the end say, “Oh those people who were demonstrating, they’re nothing like me. Look how violent they are!”

People, united, are dangerous to the state. And police violence provides an easy way to separate the “good” types of protest from the “bad”. Right-wing protestors don’t threaten the state (clearly there are exceptions to this!!), and neither do gay men partying to techno. But a multiracial, multi-generational, peaceful, anti-capitalist protest? We don’t even have enough police in Berlin for all the violence that will need to ensue!

Karl Marx famously said, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” The police are the enforcement arm of the landed class, the capitalist class, and the slave owners. Throughout history and all over the world, they have acted in the interests of these classes, and continue to do so. Police violence at protests that threaten business-as-usual is a tactic to invalidate the demonstrators and their message – to make it so that the people watching can’t relate to the cause. As I can’t say it better, I’ll end with the words of the organizers of the May 1 demo this year (translated from German):

“The actions of the police show that they never intended to allow the demonstration go all the way to Kreuzberg. They deliberately forced an escalation in Neukölln in order to discredit us before the eyes of the population and the press and to divide us. Because there is nothing the rulers fear more than our unity and our solidarity. Therefore, they want to specifically prevent us from uniting in struggle, within the left and with the population. They will not succeed. Now more than ever: Yallah class struggle!”

Food and political discussion for all

Why the Berlin LINKE Internationals are starting a monthly Küfa event


03/06/2021

Interview with Hanna Grzeskiewicz

 

Hi Hanna. Before we start, could you briefly introduce yourself? Who are you, and where are you politically active?

I’ve been active in various political contexts in Berlin, but I have two main political homes: I am one of the two speakers of Berlin LINKE Internationals, and I’m also part of a Polish queer-feminist collective, CoLiberation.

Earlier this year, you were elected joint speaker of the Berlin LINKE Internationals. Why did you join the group, and how has it changed since you became a member?

I joined the group probably for a reason that’s similar to many people – at some point there came a point in my life where I thought I need to do something. I couldn’t sit back and watch the world burn without trying to change it, at least in a small way, for the better.

Since I joined, the group has definitely grown and been through some significant transformations. The website theleftberlin.com has grown into its own entity, our community has been steadily growing too, and we are – at least I’d like to think so – becoming a good first stop for people (mostly migrants) to come to if they are interested in getting involved politically in the city.

Of course, we want people to stay active with us too, but we are always ready to make connections, to create a platform for groups to talk about their struggles, and to facilitate discussions.

This Friday, you’re organising an event which is advertised as being the “first monthly Küfa for activists”. For those who haven’t come across the concept, what on earth is a Küfa?

A KüFA is basically a free dinner! This is only slightly a joke, a KüFA is a ‘Küche für Alle’, i.e. a kitchen for all. It means everyone is welcome to come and have a meal for free.

What has been the reaction to Friday’s event so far?

So far it’s been very positive! The idea for the KüFA came out of our Summer Camp last year. After some difficult months in lockdown, it was really wonderful to be together for two days, to talk and eat in a relaxed setting, and I wanted to bring that back as a more regular event.

We are all missing a sense of community, and what the Summer Camp does is bring a lot of different people together to exchange and make connections. But if it’s just once a year, it’s sometimes hard to maintain these. So why not try to do something more regularly where people can get together?

The Küfa is free. But there will be a collection for Palästina Spricht. Of all the international groups which are active in Berlin, why is Palästina Spricht so important?

I imagine most people living in Berlin will know how difficult conversations about Palestine are in this country. Palästina Spricht has organised a lot of events in recent weeks, and sometimes people don’t realise that demonstrations and actions cost money to organise. So we thought we would use this chance to support them.

At least 22% of people in Berlin don’t have German passports. Many have political experience and are members of exile organisations, from Unidos Podemos to Brazilian tenants groups. How can the German Left learn from their experience?

I think they can learn a lot! We can all learn from each other, and it’s important to keep in touch and have each other on our radars. When we constantly repeat the same formats, we become stagnant, and it’s important to keep learning and questioning how we do things to make sure we are doing it the best way we can.

What is the specific role of the Berlin LINKE Internationals in international networking?

Since we are affiliated and, through our history, tightly linked with the Left Berlin – the boundaries are sometimes blurred since they came out of initially one group – we tend to be the first port of call for many people looking for leftist news and events in the city.

We also publish (predominantly) in English, and all of us are international in some sense. We see our role as people who inform, facilitate connection, community and discussion – and through the LAG (the group which is directly linked with DIE LINKE), also to facilitate links with the party and its various institutions.

For example, we have been instrumental in connecting groups like Berlin for India and Sudan Uprising with MPs and the rosa luxemburg stiftung so that their issues are raised and discussed inside German politics.

We also try to represent the views and realities of migrants in Berlin within party processes, as we believe that if we are to have policies that support migrants in the city, then migrants need to be part of the discussion.

What comes next? What can we expect from future Küfas?

If the first one goes well, we plan to theme the subsequent ones to allow people to get together when they are interested in a particular topic, and to simultaneously support groups who are active in those particular areas. We haven’t decided what they will be yet, and we are open for suggestions – and for new cooks!

Is the LINKE Internationals Summer Camp still on this year? What will that be like?

The Summer Camp is a great space to get to know different people and groups involved in the Berlin scene. As people are starting to get vaccinated, it looks like this year’s Camp will be taking place on 4th-5th September as planned.

Over the last two years we have fine-tuned our format: we run several parallel workshop sessions that cover local and internationalist struggles, as well as inviting some keynote speakers. We also cook and eat together, there is also some entertainment (a film, a reading, a bonfire) and generally time to chat and think and meet new people.

You can register for Summer Camp here.

The first monthly Küfa for activists will be taking place this Friday, 4th June from 6pm. As long as the weather is good, it will be on Oranienplatz. In bad weather, you can find us at Bilgisaray, Oranienstraße 45

Questions from Phil Butland

Why Should Expropriation Be a Utopian Dream?

Speech at the Right2TheCity Rally, Tempelhofer Feld, 29 May 2021


31/05/2021

It somehow feels like a utopian vision when you wish for everyone in this city to have a roof over their head. But why should it be?

So many speakers today have already talked about how housing is a fundamental human right. How migrants are disproportionately affected by rising rents and are consequently pushed out of their communities, out of their homes, out of the housing market completely. And how the capitalists use every opportunity they get to make more and more money, lining their pockets with an ever higher proportion of our wages.

We, as DIE LINKE Berlin’s international working group stand behind the demands of the Right to the City For All group, many of us are also part of it, and we support the entire DWE campaign to make this city a better place for everyone to live in.

Because how absurd is it that something that’s a necessity has been turned into a commodity? And how absurd is it that we, as a society, have not only turned being a landlord into a job but also one that’s immensely profitable?

How absurd is it that it is a daily concern for many of us that someone who owns the flat or building we live in might one day decide that they want us to leave, and once they do, we know they will do everything in their power to kick us out?

And we can only be thankful that we are not living under occupation, like those across Palestine, who are being forcibly dragged out of their homes by the police and the army, or whose homes were destroyed in the last attack on Gaza. With us this is not as direct, or obvious, or genocidal. Although it’s part of the same capitalist system that oppresses us all across the world.

I’ve experienced many frankly ridiculous situations related to the Wohnungsmarkt while living in this city. Among other things which show that you, as a newcomer, as a migrant, are always on the back foot, always having to compromise on something, accept conditions which are not ideal and never feel a sense of stability.

I’m far from being the only one, or even one that can claim to be especially marginalised. This is just reality. And what I know is that this shouldn’t be something that I am constantly thinking about — no one should. And it shouldn’t be something that pushes me to act selfishly, individualistically, against my politics, because I’m scared that otherwise I’ll end up moving from place to place again every few months. It’s exhausting.

This campaign has given me hope that we can live and be with solidarity with one another again when it comes to the housing market. I have been inspired by the cross section of people involved in collecting signatures and being actively in the many possible ways.

We, DIE LINKE Berlin’s international working group are a group active within a party for which most of us cannot vote in elections. Therefore we stand strongly behind the demand for full voting rights for all those living in this city, and many of us have been involved with the group. Because how can we expect migrant-friendly policies to be made if migrants are not allowed to have their say?

We believe that all those who live in the city should have a say in what happens in it. Should have an equal right to be here, and equal access to what the city has to offer. The fact that this isn’t the case even in a city where almost a quarter of its population doesn’t have citizenship is laughable. And this is on top of those with citizenship who get discriminated against for other reasons when it comes to housing.

So we believe in the right to the city for all, and fully stand behind the group’s demands. But first — enteignen!

Pictures from the Right2TheCity Rally, 29 May 2021 by Noemi Argerich, Phil Butland, Jaime Martinez Porro and Jorge A. Trujillo