The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Solidarity from Brandenburg farmers in times of corona

Why this article? I decided to write this article in an attempt to bring a voice of encouragement and cohesion, as well as a voice from the farming community, to the table, given the fear and confusion now being experienced by so many. There is a simple explanation why I am writing as a farmer: […]


25/04/2020


Why this article?

I decided to write this article in an attempt to bring a voice of encouragement and cohesion, as well as a voice from the farming community, to the table, given the fear and confusion now being experienced by so many.

There is a simple explanation why I am writing as a farmer: when we as a society come under such enormous pressure that it raises existential questions, like the spread of the COVID-19 pathogen is doing, we have to reflect on what we really need in such a crisis.

We must think about how we can act in solidarity and for everyone’s benefit, even in difficult times. The most essential things to my mind are above all medical care and the supply of healthy and sufficiently abundant food, as well as a transparent flow of information that is comprehensible for everyone.

I will deal among other things, with possible reasons for the outbreak of epidemics such as corona, initially raising structural questions and then offering practical considerations. In this context, I will deal with how we can help each other and what is important from the point of view of regional agriculture, the main task of which is to contribute to the food supply.

It is about the questions I think we need to be addressing. It is infuriating when powerful people in politics, business and government use the crisis to advance their personal political agendas.

At the same time, it comes as no surprise. Economic aid is swiftly promised to large corporations, while at the same time the burden of lost work is borne by workers. It could be a political agenda directed against the population – even after corona – to prop up a system that does not provide universal health coverage, as in the USA, for example.

That, coupled perhaps with a lack of labor-law protections, means that many people do not dare to get themselves tested, or they continue to work despite being sick. Repressive regimes and some neoliberal western governments have often denied the onset or downplayed the danger of the coronavirus outbreak in their countries, thereby helping to spread it on a much larger scale without taking any action.

To disclose my political agenda up front: even though I personally am an organic farmer, this article is explicitly not about promoting the kind of organic farming I support, but rather about all of us in regional agriculture.

A crisis like the one with which we are now confronted shows us incredibly clearly that much of what we have taken for granted can quickly falter. It is high time that systemic relationships are questioned. Anyone who has not yet understood this may be able to see clear evidence of it right now during the current crisis. If they can’t understand this, they are beyond help.

Farmers have been drawing attention to their precarious economic situation for years. The loss of several thousand mostly medium-sized family farms in Germany every year for decades and the trend towards increasingly concentrated agricultural units, as well as towards the upstream and downstream sectors, are developments that we as a profession have so far been facing largely on our own and for which we receive little social attention.

The “grow or perish” principle affects our industry on a large scale and has long been a bitter reality. For many of us, this means loss and poverty – and countless personal fates of farmers. In France, an average of one farmer a day commits suicide.

We know that our markets are incredibly dependent on a flow of goods that must constantly grow. The free-market economy creates an intensification of agriculture to which farmers fall victim – and nature, the environment and biodiversity right along with them.

As our regional agriculture in Europe, Germany and Brandenburg has increasingly lost the character of small-scale farming, we farmers have consequently lost our existence. This means that we have been forced into a situation in which many of my colleagues can only survive if they switch to this type of production and go along with the trend towards intensification. Agriculture in our region is increasingly geared towards farmers producing for the world market instead of for regional supply, with all the disadvantages that this entails.

Buyer prices are now so bad that even farms with a few hundred dairy cows can no longer be maintained. Land cultivation in Brandenburg hardly yields any profit; a lack of processing structures in the region means that there is no purchaser for many products, or that a few retail customers can simply set the lowest prices thanks to their market power.

Wherever this kind of market concentration happens, farms automatically take a hit – as does biodiversity. There can be no broad and diverse crop rotation in the fields of Brandenburg unless there is also an equally broad and diverse purchasing structure.

Instead of strengthening our regional agriculture, we have relied on imports. Much of what could be cultivated here is imported more cheaply from elsewhere. Much of what we take for granted in stores is brought to us every day in containers by sea, road, rail and even by air.

In other words, we import the fruits of others’ exploited labor every day while at the same time sacrificing our own operating structures. To name just two examples familiar to most non-farmers: instead of growing enough legumes at home, we import three million hectares of soya for livestock farming each year from Latin America alone. Instead of relying on domestic oleaginous fruits, there are hardly any products that do not contain palm oil.

Regarding COVID-19, there is a heated debate whether it was pangolins or bats that brought us the virus. But simply looking for the original host that transmitted the virus to us falls far short of the mark. The questions are: why are these types of infectious diseases becoming more common, and why are they able to spread so rapidly across the globe?

The mode of transmission is already well known and probably requires no detailed explanation here. We know that our planet is circumnavigated millions of times each day by travelers and goods.

It is precisely here that the links with infectious diseases, such as those that are increasingly emerging, cannot be denied.

Some types of disease are transmitted by animals in agricultural production: these include not only avian and swine flu, but also MERS-CoV and other coronaviruses that have existed in the past. I mention both because it is important to me to argue objectively without making sweeping statements.

MERS-CoV was originally transmitted to humans from dromedary camels and was not the result of intensive animal husbandry. However, this also meant that this dangerous and fatal disease did not spread very rapidly and that the number of cases remained relatively low.

Avian and swine flu are far more dangerous in terms of disease propagation, because they are spread by animal species that are intensively farmed and bred, in conditions that hardly guarantee the genetic resistance or health of the animals. Intensive livestock production poses a great danger, not to mention the moral implications.

Recently, it has also become increasingly common for dangerous infectious viral diseases to be transmitted to humans from wild animals. But here too, the way we farm globally and the way we treat land and natural habitats play a central role.

One example of such an infectious disease is the Nipah virus, which caused a dangerous epidemic in Malaysia that killed 70% of those it infected. It could only be contained with drastic measures: culling more than a million pigs, over half of the Malaysian pig population.

Like many other pathogens, the origin of the Nipah virus can be traced: in this case, to bats. However, the actual habitat of these bats was the primary forests of Indonesia. After Indonesia cleared three-quarters of its forests for palm-oil production, the bats that lost their habitat moved to the fruit-tree plantations of neighboring Malaysia.

Here, pigs were infected and, primarily via workers in slaughterhouses, other people were infected as well. By endangering the vulnerable balance of ecosystems, humans also alter the transmission chains of viruses.

As evolutionary biologist Rob Wallace [1] explains well, the outbreak of COVID-19 is not an isolated incident. The sudden increase and spread of this type of virus is closely linked to the way we organize our global food production, which in turn is linked to the profitability of multinational corporations.

An elementary component of their functioning is the rapid flow of goods and people around the globe. As Wallace goes on to describe, it no longer takes a long time to go from bats in the hinterlands of one continent “to killing Miami sunbathers.”

Infections transmitted by wild animals often only come to humans from pathogens that were previously hidden deep in natural habitats, because humans penetrate them. Genetic diversity is increasingly limited due to industrial agriculture’s intensification of genetic monocultures of specific species and breeds, as well as the destruction of naturally biodiverse habitats, with the result that there is a dwindling restraining effect to slow the spread of these kinds of viruses.

Professor Rodolphe Gozlan [2], head of research at the IRD (Institute of Research for Development) in Marseilles, has noted: “Biodiversity is not something that humans can look at from the outside. Man is part of this diversity, whether he likes it or not. We scientists are aware of one thing: the protection of the environment or of biodiversity is not some romantic ideology; there is a very concrete link with the fight against infectious diseases.”

In short: global environmental protection is also global health protection.

In my view, the only answer to this can be real solidarity. The origin of the disease, the speed with which it can spread across the globe, as well as our means of countering its spread, can only be tackled together. It cannot be in our interest to look at and study individual outbreaks and regions only reactively and in a sensationalistic way.

For me as a farmer in the region, the facts that we produce too little for the region locally, that many well-trained specialists in our profession often only earn between EUR 1100-1300 net a month for a fulltime job in agriculture, and that farms are financially crippled even despite this self-exploitation, all go together.

For me, any discussion of solidarity must also include the fact that poorly paid cleaning staff working for a Charité Berlin subcontractor had to stop their strike because their work is so incredibly important – especially during the corona epidemic. Their strike was stopped for security reasons.

Nowhere in the discussion about corona and its consequences do I hear anyone advocating for all of these people, who are there every day to care for us, to immediately receive much higher salaries in recognition and, in the case of this outbreak, possibly even hazard pay.

The neoliberal restructuring of our health system on the basis of flat-rate payments per case, which has led to a situation in which a country as prosperous as Germany may not now have sufficient surplus capacity, is no different than what we see in agriculture and in many other working environments.

Whether it is overworked, tired, poorly paid caregivers who are accused of being unfriendly because they barely have the strength to respond to the many people they must care for, or farmers who across the board are accused of poor treatment of animals or nature – in essence, it’s the same problem.

In reality, the sick and the elderly are often treated unkindly, and it is also true that animals, soil and nature are often treated negligently. All of this happens within labor and marketing contexts that feature invoicing down to the euro/cent. The people who work in this sector are of course also affected. There is therefore no getting away from asking questions about the bigger connections and, as we do so, we should start from a basis of solidarity.

Our anger is not directed at workers, but at who sell us ever-increasingly intensive production as the only alternative, who make us dependent on large corporations. They and their demands are the ones responsible for making us all – whether in the global North or the global South – struggle for a world market that clearly brings us nothing but suffering and misery at both regional and global levels.

The agricultural industry is so blindly profit-oriented that even the “collateral damage” of short-sighted decisions inevitably made under the sole criterion of profit maximization can be as devastating as we are currently experiencing: a virus has emerged – and not by chance – a pandemic that could cost an incalculable number of people their lives.

COVID-19 is already having economic consequences that are raising comprehensive questions about these profits and – much more importantly! – everything that affects our lives. As long as “the shop” ran undisturbed by the virus, the externalized costs were borne virtually uncomplainingly and unnoticed by the animals, the environment, the agricultural workers, the consumers, the state, the healthcare system, and many more.

They have never been included in agricultural operating costs, and those responsible have never had to pay for them. Had that happened, this form of agricultural industry would not exist at all. Even now, with the immense costs caused by the coronavirus outbreak, that will not be the case. In the end, we will have to shoulder those costs.

This is all the more reason for us to see the current crisis at least as an opportunity to challenge these injustices once and for all and to look for ways to bring about profound change – together.

Racist exclusions cannot have any room in this discussion. Those who would allow them have not understood anything structurally, let alone the fact that they condone the violence racism represents. Healthy living conditions, good food and medical care are a universal right. In addition, the virus does not know these boundaries.

Anyone who would discriminate against and exclude others has therefore not understood that the risk of falling ill increases exponentially the worse these “others” are provided for in our global society. When it comes to diseases and epidemics, marginalized people have always been and are being stigmatized, victimized and – in the systemically unavoidable, barbaric competition for increasingly scarce resources – presented as a threat.

To put this briefly into context in relation to some of the infectious diseases of recent history: anti-Chinese racism related to the coronavirus epidemic is as wrongheaded as it is right to recall that the various avian and swine flu epidemics originated in Europe and the US, and that here, too, the governments covered for the agribusiness that was responsible. Regionally widespread diseases such as Ebola in West Africa and Zika in Brazil were greatly exacerbated by post-colonialist poverty and dependence on multinational exploiters.

Our own government resists with all its might a supply chain law that would make exploitation by German companies abroad a criminal offense. Conversely, this means that products produced under such conditions will continue to dominate our market, and that domestic producers will have to compete against these cheap prices while at the same time being economically ruined by them.

This is one prime example of how more unites us than divides us, across all borders of the globe and all differences in living and working conditions. The countries and people of the global North have long been the winners of these exploitative conditions, but the plight of the farmers and the people who are increasingly forced to slave away in precarious working conditions here as well shows that this injustice is also growing rapidly in the global North. Playing off marginalization against marginalization is a blatant ploy to divide us. We will not allow this to happen.

It is the same governments that, with the help of the employers’ organizations, have for years prevented the supply chain law and pushed for free trade agreements like Mercosur, who now, as part of the planned agricultural package, want to immediately enforce regulatory measures against farmers without giving them sufficient time or creating a framework to enable them to make the changes they need to make.

Protection against over-fertilization and a high use of chemical pesticides is essential for future-oriented agriculture. That is beyond question. However, it is cynical when politicians do not call into question the system that they have installed over decades in the interests of the agricultural industry, and expect farmers to be able to fix it on their own.

To take a regional example and put it in the context of the coronavirus crisis:

How do we intend to deal with a situation in which certain products are now becoming scarce, but we as a society know that short-term protection against the spread of the coronavirus is best achieved if people and products are not constantly moving from region to region?

In our region, a whole range of products have not been grown for a long time because there is a lack of processing capacity: fruit, vegetables, root crops like potatoes. We import the majority. Germany grows only 27% of its own vegetable requirements, because growing vegetables requires manual labor, often in combination with intensive use of pesticides, and all this can be done much more cheaply and with far fewer restrictions abroad.

We have created a system in which everything is simply imported if it increases short-term profits. These exploitative structures already impact the marginalized workers who toil in southern Spain for a large part of European vegetable production, including for German supermarket shelves. Due to the coronavirus crisis, the pressure on them to work is increasing immeasurably, with 15-hour-plus workdays being reported.

Labor struggles by the trade unions were interrupted there precisely because of the coronavirus, as were those at the striking Charité hospital in Berlin. Protective measures at work in terms of proper distancing or masks do not exist, even for workers in the packing halls. If they fall ill, the solidarity we have lacked for years could affect us in the form of a stagnating flow of goods or increasing numbers of infections. If the people who are in contact with the products we need to live are sick, our risk of getting sick increases.

Our region will also be severely affected by the losses that will occur in our special domestic crops due to unavailable (cheap) seasonal workers from abroad. The federal government has recently adopted an agricultural package that acknowledges the relevance of this workforce while at the same time further relaxing worker protection.

It is now permitted to employ seasonal workers for up to five months without making social security contributions. What is needed is a package that would financially support companies in employing people properly.

When will there be a change in thinking so that working people finally receive recognition and solidarity? How are we, as regional farmers, now supposed to quickly create structures to ensure our region is supplied? And yet that is our task, which we want to and shall fulfill with pride and passion.

We must try to ensure that, even in a crisis situation, all members of the population have access not only to durable dry goods but also to fresh produce rich in vitamins. Above all, fruit and vegetables provide vital immune power, which means that we need them more than ever.

If imports fail, these products will become scarce, and this will hit the poorer segments of the population first and foremost, who will lose access to them. We need to discuss how we can ensure that we do not just decide who gets what based on a profit motive, but that we create structures that are also based on solidarity.

Surely the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear by now how important regional agriculture is. The crisis must be used as an opportunity to ensure that farms are provided with all necessary means to continue to exist and operate in the short term. This must be implemented in part through guaranteed purchase prices and the creation of processing and distribution stations.

Transport drivers and sales staff involved in distribution must be properly remunerated. They are among those who – like those working in cleaning, emergency services, medical care and many other areas – are ensuring that we all get through these difficult times.

In the long term, it must become clear that it is regional added value that protects us all. It must be understood that the basis of our food supply, the agricultural land, belongs in the hands of regional farmers and not in the hands of investors and supra-regional or non-agricultural companies. This must apply to our region as well as to all other regions of the globe (or: all other regions worldwide). Agricultural land must not be an object of speculation, neither here nor in the global South.

We need an agrarian structure model and resulting consequences, which will lead to the emergence of a large number of young, sustainable and medium-sized farms in our region. We need targeted support for vocational training in the food-processing industry, coupled with the creation of a large number of companies in this downstream sector.

It is unacceptable that a lack of entire product categories in processing should mean that they are scarcely to be found in the region’s fields. Nor can it be the case that the market power of a few dairies or slaughterhouses leads to a situation where, in case of doubt, the supply of the population is not guaranteed, or where farmers are operating on the fringes of existence due to the price pressure arising from concentration.

Just as we must act locally and think globally, we must now, against the backdrop of this threatening disease outbreak, manage to act in solidarity in the short term and in the long term.

In the long term, the structural question must be asked and tackled in concrete terms. Otherwise, this outbreak of COVID-19 will continue to be treated and seen as an isolated event. We will endure the pain of loss and grief; we will at best take good care of each other, and afterwards politics and the media will return to the unspectacular everyday life of injustice – until the next catastrophe.

In the short term, we have to see to how we can now act as a community. Local initiatives for mutual support are already emerging in cities and smaller communities. Childcare, shopping, rides and much more are being offered in solidarity.

We as farmers in the region will do everything we can to fulfill our role for everyone during this time. In order to meet our responsibility, we will certainly also need some support here and there.

We need to realize that any further rapid spread of the virus, should it affect us and make us sick, can also lead to job losses in our sector. That in turn would put a strain on regional supply. So in no way is this commentary about us demanding greater protection than anyone else, or being in any way more vulnerable. It is, however, about considering when in doubt how we can minimize as far as possible the risk of infection across entire the value chain: from production on our farms, through processing, to the distribution of food.

It is also a matter of considering how we can keep our businesses afloat when the economy around us is falling apart. All of us in the region have already come under massive pressure as a result of the past several years of drought, not least because of decades of failed agricultural policy.

In Germany, thousands of farms are lost every year. The last few months have been marked by the justified protests of thousands of farmers. We, like the cleaning staff of Charité, will stop our protests so that we can ensure the food supply as we all face this difficult situation.

Many of us who farm have been working in this sector for a long time with a great deal of idealism and self-exploitation. Our work is taken for granted yet in reality this has not been the case for a long time. If food shortages occur due to a lack of imports, we will do everything we can to continue to produce good food for the people in our region.

I hope I speak on behalf of my entire profession when I say that we will not allow ourselves to be provoked by a situation of scarcity in to making our products available only to people with the requisite financial means. We will ensure that food is available to all people equally, regardless of financial resources, origin, education, language or culture. Our work will be driven by solidarity, not by profit.

We will have to consider even more urgently than we are already doing how to address the social issues surrounding food prices and accessibility, but we will need the support of the broader society to do it (with or without the coronavirus).

Greetings of solidarity to all of you:

to those working in the medical sector, including and explicitly also to cleaning staff and those doing vital work in similar areas; to those working in public transport and in transportation; to those in the skilled trades; to food vendors and pharmacists; to people in the education sector who are making sure that education continues to be available online; to people in childcare; to undocumented workers; to poor people; to lonely people; to immunocompromised people; to people with preexisting conditions and elderly people; to people who are trapped in contexts where social distancing for their own protection is not possible, such as in overcrowded refugee camps or in prisons; to children who cannot meet their friends and may not get out to play for a long time – and to their parents; to homeless people; to people in nursing homes, hospitals and hospices who are now without visitors; to people who get sick from the coronavirus and who lose people they love during this time; to people who are plunged into financial ruin by this situation; to people who are mentally ill or have difficulty dealing with the fear that such a situation engenders; to the workers who are unionized and those who are not and, of course, very warmly to all of my professional colleagues in agriculture.

Julia Bar-Tal is a farmer in the Märkisch-Oderland district of Brandenburg and a member of the nonprofit Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft e.V. (AbL: Working Group for Rural Agriculture). This article first appeared in German on the AbL Website. Translation by Julie Niederhauser. Republished with the author’s permission.

 

Footnotes

1 www.theleftberlin.com/post/what-are-the-causes-of-the-coronavirus

2 www.arte.tv/de/videos/096140-000-A/umweltzerstoerung-beeinflusst-epidemien/

Exit Strategy of the German Federal Government

Hot Air and Wrong Priorities


22/04/2020


By Marx21 editorial office

 

The German government has decided to gradually end the partial »lockdown«. However, it is setting the wrong priorities with its exit strategy and risks a renewed increase in infections. From the marx21 editorial office

The federal and state governments on Wednesday decided on a series of steps easing corona-related restrictions in Germany. The government claims that the health of the population is the highest priority. But the medical and social measures in the text of the resolution do not do justice to the seriousness of the situation.

Germany lacks the most basic materials to provide essential health protection for the population and especially for risk groups, such as health workers. There is a lack of billions of FFP masks and protective clothing, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of disinfectant, millions of test kits and reagents to enable mass COVID-19 testing, respiratory equipment and adequate staffing and funding for the health system.

The government’s social measures are also insufficient. They help corporations more than employees. Unlimited loans are being made available to corporations and social security contributions are being waived. But there is no real social rescue package for the people. Millions of people cannot live on short-time work benefits. These must be increased immediately to at least 90 per cent.

There is also a lack of a danger bonus and more staff in systemically important professions. And as long as schools and daycare centres are closed, parents who look after their children need a wage guarantee.

Too early to exit

While these giant construction zones are not being tackled at all, or completely inadequately, by the German government, the epidemiological situation in Germany remains highly dangerous. Although the exponential growth of the virus seems to have stopped for the time being, the number of cases continues to rise. It is not yet possible to speak of a containment of the coronavirus.

The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) also still classifies the risk to the health of the population in Germany as high, and very high for risk groups. Scientists from the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI) also believe that »it is too early to relax restrictions«. They write: »Here, the stricter the measures, the faster the target value will be reached«. With its »exit strategy«, the federal government is risking the emergence of a second wave of infection and thus thousands of deaths again.

The imbalance begins with the setting of priorities: It is wrong to introduce an exit strategy now, because the medical and social prerequisites for it are lacking. The fact that the federal government is now planning to resume school operations of all things is just as counter-productive as allowing business operations in the retail sector.

According to preliminary figures from the Federal Statistical Office, school closures due to the corona pandemic affect about 8.3 million pupils at general education schools and 2.4 million pupils at vocational schools. In a recent study, the RKI found that the closure of schools and shops has been an effective measure against the further spread of the virus. Now these measures are to be eased.

The German Education Union (GEW) warns against premature school opening

But the schools are currently not at all prepared to operate under corona conditions. Nurseries, primary and special schools cannot be operated while maintaining distance from the children.

The GEW therefore demands that schools should only be opened if minimum health standards are guaranteed. These include: liquid soap, warm water, disposable towels and disinfectants, as well as protective clothing such as high-quality face masks, advice and precautions for employees, as well as regular basic cleaning and the renovation of toilets. As emphasised by GEW chairwoman Marlis Tepe:

»If these standards cannot be guaranteed, the schools must not be opened,«

At the same time, it is true that many families, especially those with low household incomes, suffer from the closure of schools and daycare centres. They must not be left alone with the double burden of work and childcare. Emergency care, social services, advice centres and state support must be expanded quickly, taking into account infection prevention. Possible losses of income must be compensated for by state guarantees of remuneration.

Economic interests vs. health protection

The population must be protected from the social distortions caused by the »lockdown«. Social interests and health protection must not be played off against each other. But the federal government obviously has other priorities. Recently, parts of the economy had exerted massive pressure to end the partial »lockdown«. Contrary to the warnings of the HZI, the federal government has now given in to the pressure.

This sentence by Angela Merkel at the press conference was significant: »We did not stop economic activity, only where there was public traffic«. This is exactly the line the government is continuing to take. The text of the resolution says: »Even in the pandemic, we want to make safe work possible as comprehensively as possible in industry and small and medium-sized businesses«.

The federal government is acting in a highly contradictory manner because it somehow wants to reconcile the interests of industry and the health protection of the population. However, this does not work, as the resolutions reveal. The successful fight against a pandemic is robbed of its effectiveness if it follows the logic of capital.

Important measures now, and before the »lockdown« is gradually ended, would be to massively increase testing capacity, to equip health authorities with considerably more staff and to really minimise the chains of infection in workplaces. This is the only way to get the pandemic under control, because: a) people infected with COVID-19 can be detected in the first place, b) contacts can be traced and medical care provided and c) no new sources of infection arise.

While at the press conference these measures played almost no role, the detailed text of the resolution gives more details. However, these do not cast a good light on the federal government’s crisis strategy.

Far too little test capacity

Keyword test capacities: The government claims that laboratories in Germany can perform about 650,000 COVID-19 tests per week. Apart from the fact that the reports of the RKI have so far only stated test capacities of 390,000 per week at peak times, the figure of 650,000 is still far too low.

The Association of Towns and Municipalities has demanded that tests be increased from the current 60,000 to 500,000 per day by the end of May. That would mean 3.5 million tests in one week: an increase of 438 per cent. But even this number is still far too low for mass testing.

Epidemiologist Tim Colbourn of the UCL Institute for Global Health in Great Britain comes up with quite different figures in his calculation of necessary test capacities. He calls for »laboratory capacity and the reagents necessary to perform 10 million PCR tests per day (one per week for 68 million Britons)«. For Germany, the number of necessary capacities for mass testing would therefore be about 12 million per day.

In the text of the federal government’s resolution there is basically only hot air. There is neither a concrete target nor a date by when the test capacities should be increased by how many samples. At present, test capacities are not even close to sufficient to test even risk groups on an ongoing basis, for example employees in the healthcare system.

In 2018, there were about 5.68 million employees working in the German healthcare system. If the German government were to have these people tested for COVID-19 on a regular basis, it would be able to test exactly seven per cent of employees every week with available capacities.

An epidemiological impasse

Already, only people who show symptoms are being tested. All others are being rejected. In addition, it is not certain how testing capacity will develop. The laboratories lack material: This starts with the test kits (swab tubes and swabs) and ends with the so-called reagents needed for the tests. Andreas Bobrowski, Chairman of the Professional Association of German Laboratory Doctors (BDL), concludes (31.03.2020): »The desirable area-wide testing is currently illusory«.

The federal government is aware of the problem, but obviously does not want to make a big deal about it. The resolution states without obligation: »The federal government secures additional testing capacities for Germany by purchasing test equipment and – as far as possible in the current world market situation – by securing individual kits, reagents and consumables through tripartite contracts with the participation of the federal government as a guarantor of acceptance«.

This is more than meagre. The federal government is apparently unwilling to do everything necessary to be able to carry out mass tests for COVID-19. This is an epidemiological dead end and a public health scandal.

Broken health departments

Keyword health authorities: The health authorities responsible for infection control have been cut to the bone in recent decades. Since 1995, the number of doctors in the health offices has fallen by 33 per cent. Warnings from employees that the authority can no longer guarantee protection against infection due to a lack of staff have been ignored.

The federal government now promises to create considerable additional personnel capacities in the local public health services. The text of the resolution talks about at least one team of five persons per 20,000 inhabitants. This would mean 20,000 additional jobs for the whole of Germany.

But even that is far too little. Epidemiologist Tim Colbourn reckons with one responsible person per 1,000 inhabitants. In terms of the whole of Germany, that would be 80,000 additional jobs.

He writes:

These people may be laymen who are unemployed, including those who have been laid off due to the lockdown, such as in the travel, entertainment or sports industries. No prior public health experience or skills beyond a minimum level of education and knowledge of the local environment are required, provided they have been resident in the area for at least one year.

The federal government now intends to use the Bundeswehr for this purpose. This deployment of the Bundeswehr in the interior is to be rejected. The military budget has been growing disproportionately for a decade – by more than ten billion euros in the last five years. This money is lacking elsewhere, for example in healthcare or disaster control.

While the Bundeswehr is specifically named, the resolution also lacks a concrete agreement on when and how many people are to be employed by the health authorities. This is irresponsible and negligent.

Health protection for employees

Keyword: chains of infection in workplaces: The »lockdown« initiated by the federal government was from the beginning anti-social and coloured by the needs of the capitalists. Therefore, chains of infection are not all interrupted, especially in the factories.

This leads to grotesque situations: It is forbidden to meet with acquaintances, even with masks and hygienic distance. However, if your boss decides that you should continue to work in the factory or office, it is allowed to use public transport and to work without a mask and hygienic distance. After producing the added value for the capitalist, »social distance« is the order of the day again.

The federal government remains committed to this capitalist line. The resolution hardly mentions any concrete points on the question of health protection for employees. Appeals remain: »Employers have a special responsibility for their employees to protect them from infections. Chains of infection that arise in the company can be quickly identified. For this reason, every company in Germany must implement a hygiene concept based on an adapted risk assessment and company pandemic planning«.

Horror at the absence of profit

How are chains of infection that arise during operation to be quickly identified when test capacities are so low? This is sheer nonsense! While there is a catalogue of fines for violations of the ban on contact in private life, entrepreneurs are not obliged to actually implement health protection.

With the planned opening of shops and the maintenance of production even in non-systemically relevant economic sectors, the employers‘ associations have prevailed. The most important demand of the car industry was: »Car dealerships open again soon!« A quotation from the man with the long beard fits this demand of the car industry:

»Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. (…) and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged«.

A worker would have to work 157 years to earn the average annual income of a DAX chairman. In this country, the richest 40 people have the same wealth as the poorer half of the population. The 1% risk our health for their profits. They find their advocates in the media, scientific institutions and of course in the federal government. Welcome to the neoliberal pandemic fight!

This article first appeared in German on the marx21 Website. Reproduced with permission.

Schulpflicht in Times of Corona is Racist – and Murderous

Even when there isn’t a deadly virus roaming the streets and the U-Bahn, the German school system is still racist af


21/04/2020


So, the thing is, it’s not like the schools I went to were particularly brilliant or anything (no offence, Miss Burt!). They were bog-standard, run of the mill state schools. My junior school had outside toilets and loo roll that was so cheap and hard, it could’ve been used as tracing paper. My senior school had more temporary classrooms than ones in buildings (nice drama studio though, huh, Miss, and one famous pupil – Lady Mary from Downton Abbey!).

And you know, it’s not like we never had ANY racist, sexist or classist teachers ever – not gonna name names, here, we had a few, if I’m honest….but they were in the minority, and about to retire. Every single racist teacher I had retired the next year. I never met a German PoC who could say the same thing.

But here’s the big thing, the biggest thing, the most important thing: our teachers LIKED us. They liked us, they were interested in what we thought. They wanted to know our opinions. They argued with us till they were blue in the face about was Shakespeare really funny and entertaining („He’s actually really funny and entertaining, if he was writing nowadays, he’d write comedies, or maybe for Eastenders!“) or was the Merchant of Venice an antisemitic play or not („It’s a play ABOUT antisemitism!“) They liked us, not all of us, and not all of them, and certainly not all of the time – but most of the teachers who taught in my schools liked me, liked most oft he pupils, and were interested in what we had to say.

Maybe they were racist. My infants and junior schools were both, I’d say, 90% non-white, I think my seniors was more like 50% non-white. Maybe our teachers were secret racists. But they managed to hide it enough at work to make us think they liked us.

I’ve always suspected that German teachers hate their students. I was twenty when I came here, back in the year 2000, and I was horrified at what I saw on my internship as part of an exchange programme. I was working as a language assistant at a primary school in Wilmersdorf, and it just seemed to me like these German teachers, who were officially so anti-racist, so anti-nazi, didn’t respect their students of colour WHATSOEVER.

I’ll never forget one time, in the staff room, when a teacher told another teacher that a child of Arabic origin was meant to go to Gymnasium. They both laughed. The teacher explained the joke to me: The parents think they are German! But they’re actually Arabs!

Now I might be wrong, I might be wrong, I might be completely wrong: but I don’t think our teachers laughed at us in that way in the staff room. In fact, I think they wanted the best for us. I was clever, they wanted me to go to uni, some of them even nagged me to go to Cambridge – but even the naughtiest boys in the school, even them: I do not believe our teachers laughed at them maliciously for daring to think they belonged to the country they were born in. Even the naughtiest, naughtiest boys, the really naughty ones: I think our teachers hoped they wouldn’t end up in prison.

I have been in Germany for twenty years and nothing has happened to make me think German teachers like their pupils or want to teach them. All they EVER do is complain about them on talk shows or write books about them, maybe they would have more time for marking papers if they took some time out of their busy slagging off their students for not being exact replicas of them schedule.

And there is no affection there, when they complain, no affection, no humour, no delight. Just absolute horror that some pupils don’t do their homework (dur) or spell das „dass“. (I think I might have got that the wrong way round.) The spoddy, unbearably unoriginal and uninspiring books they write! Those books grassing their students up, especially the so-called Migrationshintergrundler, for not being quite as absolutely unimaginative and uninteresting as they are.

Like for fuck’s sake, GET OUT OF TEACHING IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH. I am being harsh. I think most German teachers would be really good at teaching, really – if there weren’t any students involved.

I feel like my schools, which were far from perfect, underfunded, overstretched – my primary school was considered the worst in the borough because so many of the pupils didn’t speak English at home – were, for all their problems, despite all my problems, ultimately more good than they were bad.

I had to conform, I had to fit in – we even had to wear uniform and yet the curriculum was, on some level, designed just for me, designed to find out who I was, to teach the person I was in the classroom. The teachers probably found us kids frustrating at times – I grew up in Essex, the white kids celebrated their ignorance, their dumbness, like it was an achievement, and all of us, we swaggered with confidence and generally rebelled.

I remember walking into Science once and smiling at our Science teacher, an Indian woman „Hello Miss!“ She took one look at me and handed me the card for the withdrawal room. The funny thing is, I think now, she was probably in the right. But all of them, they tried to make lessons exciting and fun, tried to meet us where we were, as wanky as that sounds, and make us actually learn.

I remember our History teacher telling us which parts of the History book she thought were made up propaganda, I remember our English teachers trying to convince us to rewrite Shakespeare as a soap opera, I remember people TRYING. I remember our German teacher and a music teacher crying because we were dicks to them (sorry). And I remember the teachers fighting amongst each other – I remember the Geography teacher coming up to me in the corridor and telling me he had fought for me to be made prefect.

I once told a German friend a story about how awful it was, growing up in Essex, the home of ignorance, how we had started reading our set text, Wuthering Heights, I‘d finished it in the holidays, and after two lessons our teacher realized it was going to be too hard, the rest of the class wasn’t going to finish the book, and we changed to Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit. My friend stared at me in silence for a few seconds and then he said: „The teacher changed the book, because she thought it was too hard for you? To a text that she thought the class would be more likely to read?“  „Yeah,“ I said, shrugging with disappointment. „Such a typical Essex thing, race to the bottom.“

„No, that’s amazing,“ he said. „That’s so amazing. She thought it was too hard, and students wouldn’t get anything from it, so she changed the set text to a book from the 20th Century?“

„Yeah.“

„That’s just amazing, no German teacher would ever do that. I don’t think they’d be allowed to, but even if they were, they wouldn’t want to.“

German schools are so inflexible. The whole point of them is not to actually teach anything, but just to fill the students with the necessary information to pass tests. In a way, Schulpflicht is racist really. You take these inferior people from inferior cultures and you squash enough information into them to make them kinda German. It’s about taking people’s personalities and squashing them into little German shapes.

It’s interesting when you talk to Americans and British people about Schulpflicht. They see Schulpflicht as a kind of negative thing, you know? You can’t really translate the word Schulpflicht – compulsory school attendance? When you speak English, it’s better to say: home educating your kids is banned in Germany.

I’m going to be honest: I have always thought the German education system was racist. Therefore, it stands to reason that not being allowed to opt out of this racist system must be racist too. Not being able to educate your kids at home, yourself, with your own ideas, with their own ideas. But I never cared until kids would die for it.

Until corona, I always believed the propaganda that the benefits of Schulpflicht – school as a great equalizer,for example – outweighed the bad. But this insistence that kids attend school even when it might kill them has opened my eyes. It’s not about making kids equal. It’s about making them conform.

It has been decided, by white people with power, that Schulpflicht is worth dying for – or at the very least worth killing your grandparents and Krebskranke in the U-Bahn for. Or, to be more exact: EXAMS are worth dying – and killing for.

The fact that Abitur kids in Berlin were sent back to schools before Maskenpflicht (compulsory mask wearing) was introduced is a disgrace. The fact that MSA kids were told they would have to go back before they knew that a Maskenpflicht would be introduced is a disgrace! And the fact that kids are going back at all is, to be frank, a fucking disgrace – but the worst thing of all is that they have to go back, because Schulpflicht hasn’t been abolished.

What can these ever learn at school – what lessons about enzymes or caterpillars or Kant or algebra – will ever be worth the lesson which Germany is teaching these kids now. That not all human life is sacred, and that people with medical conditions are second-class citizens. That people who live in the same household (often migrants) are less than human. That pieces of paper with numbers on them are worth more than people’s lives. What lessons are we teaching them, and how do you sleep at night, you cunts, who are enabling this. Not just enabling – enforcing this.

I have total solidarity with the school strikers in Nordreinwestpfalen, and nothing contempt for the people who have put them in this position. Yeah, I realize that it would probably not be doable to keep them off school for 18 months – although it should absolutely be an option and home education should be legalized, just for the duration of this pandemic.

But sending them back NOW? With just DAYS to prepare the classrooms, the class sizes, the lessons? Before they’ve got used to wearing masks in public? Putting them through exams in the midst of a deadly pandemic? Just a matter of mere days after they were told not to go meet their family for Easter to SAVE LIVES? You are scum if you think this is a good idea, and to be frank, murderous scum at that.

Look, I know forced home-schooling is driving parents, especially mums, insane. You might think because I am against Schulpflicht I am in favour of home education but actually I just think it should be an option for parents who want to do it! To be honest, I don’t think ANYONE should be forced into home-schooling against their will.

Because, this, I think is the most important thing: Germany could have – and should have – put German children’s emotional health above their academic achievements. Home-schooling should have been optional, and the absolute dickheads, emotionally dead cunts running this country, should have admitted to themselves, to parents, and to the teachers that there would be consequences to this pandemic.

THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES TO THE ECONOMY AND THERE WOULD BE CONSEQUENCES TO EDUCATION. You can’t fight off this deadly virus in your spare time – there are only 24 hours in a day. What childishness, what vindictiveness, what pathetic spite, to pretend that Germany would suffer no consequences! So childish, so silly.

Of course there will be consequences: and the German teachers and education ministers should have told the kids and parents of this country that all that matters now is the kids health – mental and physical. But they weren’t emotionally adult enough to do that.

And now we have burnt out parents, burnt out, traumatized kids – and those kids are about to travel on public transport to sit exams. It is so pathetic I cannot fathom how anyone can be stupid and evil enough to think this is in anyway an acceptable idea. Shame on you, Germany.

The people who made the decision to reopen schools – the Leopoldina schools, the education ministers, all of them – they all know that the kids who live together with their grannies and grandads in one household will be the Migrationshintergrundler they so despise for spelling dass with one S.

Guess what, Germany. You despise them for not spelling dass properly? You don’t think being bad at spelling is slightly less despicable than sacrificing our children for no reason whatsoever? For promising us one minute us you will be capable of protecting our kids from corona – and then the next that online classes are so difficult to organize that you’re not even going to try.

Like all decent human beings, I am absolutely disgusted at this decision and the complacency about the literal destruction it will cause. I really really fucking hope Schulpflicht gets abolished in time for the next deadly pandemic.

Because although you don’t actually learn nothing in school, we have all been learning some important lessons recently: we know now how much Germany hates their schoolchildren. We know how much Germans hate their children, collectively, and yes, individually. We know kids often survive (although the kids who have died in Britain and the States have been, I want to add, non-white).

We don’t know yet, we cannot know yet, what quality of life those kids will have afterwards. We could have given them a month off school and found out. But Germany hates children, and would rather stomach the idea of orphaned children with permanent lung damage than a teenager having a lie-in on a Tuesday. Shame on you.

The German school system is designed to produce robots, memorizing meaningless information and repeating it at the correct moment in fucking time. It’s not designed to produce human beings who actually think human life is sacred, that non-white people are human too, or that laziness is less of a vice than murder.

And it obviously hasn’t, or the outcry over this horrific decision would be louder – and the solidarity with the students whose lives and health have been endangered far, far greater. Shame on you. Shame on you all.

This article first appeared on Jacinta Nandi’s taz blog. Reproduced with permission.

The Problem of Pablo Picasso

Introduction   Picasso poses a problem for the supporters of Marxist-Leninist view of socialist art. What ideology – both subjectively and objectively – did he represent? What are the advocates of realism in the arts to make of Picasso’s love of gross anatomical distortions? How do most people react to his, perhaps most famous work […]


20/04/2020


Introduction
 
Picasso poses a problem for the supporters of Marxist-Leninist view of socialist art.
What ideology – both subjectively and objectively – did he represent? What are the advocates of realism in the arts to make of Picasso’s love of gross anatomical distortions? How do most people react to his, perhaps most famous work – Guernica – and what does it signify? And finally, what was his relation to the Communist Party
We contend that Picasso’s story is one of a gifted artist, who was situated at a major turning point in history, between the time of the ‘pure, isolated individual’ and a time that history was rushing forwards because of the consolidated action of masses.
 
At this time, artists (like everybody else) were confronted with a choice. Many took the wrong turn ‘ towards an isolationism, towards a ‘renunciation of reality’.
One art historian explains this as the end of approximately 400 years of art history that had been till then, steadily moving towards a goal of more and better ‘reality’. In its place was substituted a ‘form of existence surpassing and incompatible with reality’, an existence that is ‘ugly’:
The great reactionary movement of the century takes effect in the realm of art as a rejection of impressionism change which, in some respects, forms a deeper incision in the history of art than all the changes of style since the Renaissance, leaving the artistic tradition of naturalism fundamentally unaffected.
It is true that there had always been a swinging to and fro between formalism and anti-formalism, but the function of art being true to life and faithful to nature bad never been questioned in principle since the Middle Ages.
In this respect impressionism was the climax and the end of a development which had lasted more than four hundred years. Post-impressionist art is the first to renounce all illusion of reality on principle and to express its outlook on life by the deliberate deformation of natural objects.
Cubism, constructivism, futurism, expressionism, dadaism, and surrealism turn away with equal determination from nature-bound and reality-affirming impressionism.
But impressionism itself prepares the ground for this development in so far as it does not aspire to an integrating description of reality, to a confrontation of the subject with the objective world as a whole, but marks rather the beginning of that process which has been called the “annexation” of reality by art (Andre Malraux: Psychologie de l’art).
Post-impressionist art can no longer be called in any sense a reproduction of nature; its relationship to nature is one of violation. We can speak at most of a kind of magic naturalism, of the production of objects which exist alongside reality, but do not wish to take its place.
Confronted with the works of Braque, Chagall, Rouault, Picasso, Henri Rousseau, Salvador Dali, we always feel that, for all their differences, we are in a second world, a super-world which, however many features of ordinary reality it may still display, represents a form of existence surpassing and incompatible with this reality.
Modern art is, however, anti-impressionistic in yet another respect: it is a fundamentally “ugly” art, forgoing the euphony, the fascinating forms, tones and colours, of impressionism.” [1]
We will argue that Picasso took the ‘wrong turn” – rejecting realism – only to partially correct himself under the influence of a political realisation of the horrors of war ad capitalism.
 
Picasso forsook his earlier brilliance in works of a realistic nature, to ‘invent’ Cubism. Both Cubism, and other related art movements such as Surrealism, and Dadaism were pained attempts to come to terms with a rapidly changing society in the midst or the wake of the catastrophes of the First World War.
 
It was the expression of an intense “hopelessness” of man’s possibility of changing anything, for example, averting the First World War. It was also explicitly anti-rational:
It arose from a mood of disillusionment engendered by the First World War, to which some artists reacted with irony, cynicism, and nihilisim…. the name (French for ‘hobby-horse’) was chosen by inserting a penknife at random in the pages of a dictionary, thus symbolizing the anti-rational stance of the movement.
Those involved in it emphasised the illogical and the absurd, and exaggerated the role of chance in artistic creation…… its techniques involving accident and chance were of great importance to the Surrealists and … later Abstract Expressionists [2]
In the 1918 Berlin Dada Manifesto for instance, life is characterised as where:
Life appears a simultaneous muddle of noises, colours, and spiritual rhythms, which is taken unmodified, with all the sensational screams and fevers of its reckless everyday psyche and with all its brutal reality [3]
Dadaism involved a “nihilism” 4. The nihilism of these movements “not only questions the value of art but of the whole human situation. For, as it is stated in another of its manifestos, “measured by the standard of eternity, all human action is futile”:
The historical importance of dadaism and surrealism (lies) in the fact that they draw attention to the blind alley at the end of the symbolist movement, to the sterility of a literary convention which no longer had any connection with real life ….
Mallarme and the symbolists thought that every idea that occurred to them was the expression of their innermost nature; it was a mystical belief in the “magic of the word” which made them poets.
The dadaists and the surrealists now doubt whether anything objective, external, formal, rationally organized is capable of expressing man at all, but they also doubt the value of such expression. It is really “inadmissible” – they think, that a man should leave a trace behind him. (Andre Breton: Les Pas perdus, 1924).
Dadaism, therefore, replaces the nihilism of aesthetic culture by a new nihilism, which not only questions the value of art but of the whole human situation. For, as it is stated in one of its manifestos,”measured by the standard of eternity, all human action is futile.” (Tristan Tzara: Sept manifestes dada, 1920).” [4]
Paradoxically, contrasting to the Dadaists, at least in some ways, Picasso exalted the individual. One can also see in him the epitome of the bourgeois view of an artist as someone obsessed by not only “art”, but of acting the part of “an artiste” – so that their life story is in itself a ‘work of art’.
 
So Picasso said of artists that what was important was “who they are, not what they did”:
It is not what the artist does that counts, but what he is. Cezanne would never have interested me a bit if he had lived and thought like Jacquestmile Blanche, even if the apples he had painted had been ten times as beautiful.
What forces our interest is Cezanne’s anxiety, that’s Cezanne’s lesson; the torments of Van Gogh – that is the actual drama of the man. The rest is a sham.’ [6]
Berger perceptively places Picasso’s exalted view of ‘artistic creativity’ – as a remnant of the Romantics of the 19th century, for whom ‘art’ was a ‘way of life’. Berger goes on to show that this was a form of a reaction to the bourgeois, monied ‘Midas’ touch ‘ a touch that changes all relations including artistic relations ‘ to one of a mere commerce.
While this exaltation of ‘creativity’ was of value to the Romantics, in the 20th century nexus of individual versus masses, this self-centredness could be and was, hideously out of place:
Pablo Picasso ‘ Early Years
Picasso was born in Spain, but lived and worked most of his life in Paris. His artistic mediums included sculpture, graphic arts, ceramics, poster design, as well as fine art. He was probably the most famous and prolific artist of the 20th century.
 
As a son of a painter, he was a precocious master of line, even as a child. It is said that as a baby, is said to have been ‘lapiz’ – pencil. His work incorporated a number of styles, and he denied any logical sequence to his art development:
The several manners I have used in my art must not be considered as an evolution, or as steps toward an unknown ideal of painting. When I have found something to express, I have done it without thinking of the past or future.
I do not believe I have used radically different elements in the different manners I have used in painting. If the subjects I have wanted to express have suggested different ways of expression, I haven’t hesitated to adopt them. [7]
At this early stage (1900-1904) Picasso expressed artistic sentiments on behalf of the under-priviliged. For example, during his “Blue Period”, he painted several examples of a realistic and moving art:
he took his subjects from the poor and social outcasts, the predominant mood of his paintings was one of at bottom opposed to the irrationalist elements of slightly sentimentalized melancholy expressed through cold ethereal blue tones (La Vie, Cleveland Museum of Art, 1903).
He also did a number of powerful engravings in a similar vein (The Frugal Repast, d 1904).” [8]
By 1904 Picasso now in Paris, was influenced by the Fauvist movement, as well as African sculpture and Cezanne’s works. He began to distort anatomical forms, in order to “disregard any conventional idea of beauty” (“Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” (MOMA, New York, 1906-7).
 
At that time, these results were not viewed favourably, and “d’Avignon” was not publicly exhibited until 1937. But it marked the start of Cubism, which Picasso began with Braque and Gris from 1907 up to the First World War.
 
Developing Cubism
So what was Cubism? It was a movement begun by Picasso with Braque, and later Gris, and was named after their tendency to use cubic motifs, as can be seen above:
Movement in painting and sculpture was originated by Picasso and Braque. They worked so closely during this period – ‘roped together like mountaineers’ in Braque’s memorble phrase – that at times it is difficult to differentiate their hands. The movement was broadened by Juan Gris,
The name originated with the critic Louis Vauxcelles (following a mot by Matisse), who, in a review of the Braque exhibition in the paper Gil Blas, 14 November 1908, spoke of ‘cubes’ and later of ‘bizarreries cubiques’. [9]
The cubists rejected an “apparent” reality to be conveyed by normal rules of perspective and modelling. They aimed to show all sides of reality, by displaying a moving history of how objects look over time, and from simultaneously observed but differing, vantage points. It was a “cerebral” exercise therefore, and it rejected any simple notion of how “an object looked”:
Cubism made a radical departure from the idea of art as the imitation of nature that had dominated European painting and sculpture since the Renaissance.
Picasso and Braque abandoned traditional notions of perspective, foreshortening, and modelling, and aimed to represent solidity and volume in a two-dimensional plane without converting the two-dimensional canvas illusionistically into a three-dimensional picture-space. In so far as they represented real objects, their aim was to depict them as they are known and not as they partially appear at a particular moment and place.
For this purpose many different aspects of the object might be depicted simultaneously; the forms of the object were analysed into geometrical planes and these were recomposed from various simultaneous points of view into a combination of forms.
To this extent Cubism was and claimed to be realistic, but it was a conceptual realism rather than an optical and Impressionistic realism. Cubism is the outcome of intellectualized rather than spontaneous vision. [10]
As a movement, following its’ birth with “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon”, it rapidly evolved into other movements ‘ but it was one of the key sources of abstractionism in art:
The harbinger of the new style was Picasso’s celebrated picture Les Demoiselles d`Avignon (MOMA, New York, 1907), with its angular and fractured forms.
It is customary to divide the Cubism of Picasso and Braque into two phases-Analytical’ and ‘Synthetic’. In the first and more austere phase, which lasted until 1912, forms were analysed into predominantly geometrical structures and colour was extremely subdued-usually virtually monochromatic – so as not to be a distraction.
In the second phase colour became much stronger and shapes more decorative, and elements such as stencilled lettering and pieces of newspaper were introduced into paintings …
Cubism, as well as being one of the principal sources for abstract art, was infinitely adaptable, giving birth to numerous other movements, among them Futurism, Orphism, Purism, and Vorticism. [11]
But all these new movements propound a view of life that is “form-destroying”. Picasso thus easily flips in and out of several art movements, all the time exploring ever more “un-real” and deconstructed forms.
At the same time, he is intent upon eroding any sense of a “unity” whether of personality, of styles, view of the world etc. All reflect the deep contradictions of 20th century capitalism:
Cubism and constructivism, on the one side, and expressionism and surrealism, on the other, embody strictly formal and form-destroying tendencies respectively which now appear for the first time side by side in such sharp contradiction. …
Picasso, who shifts from one of the different stylistic tendencies to the other most abruptly, is at the same time the most representative artist of the present age. …
Picasso’s eclecticism signifies the deliberate destruction of the unity of the personality; his imitations are protests against the cult of originality; his deformation of reality, which is always clothing itself in new forms, in order the more forcibly to demonstrate their arbitrariness, is intended, above all, to confirm the thesis that “nature and art are two entirely dissimilar phenomena.”Picasso turns himself into a conjurer, a juggler, a parodist, …
And he disavows not only romanticism, but even the Renaissance, which, with its concept of genius and its idea of the unity of work and style, anticipates romanticism to some extent. He represents a complete break with individualism and subjectivism, the absolute denial of art as the expression of an unmistakable personality.
His works are notes and commentaries on reality; they make no claim to be regarded as a picture of a world and a totality, as a synthesis and epitome of existence. Picasso compromises the artistic means of expression by his indiscriminate use of the different artistic styles just as thoroughly and wilfully as do the surrealists by their renunciation of traditional forms.
The new century is full of such deep antagonisms, the unity of its outlook on life is so profoundly menaced, that the combination of the furthest extremes, the unification of the greatest contradictions, becomes the main theme, often the only theme, of its art. [12]
Since Picasso is so adept technically, he can continue to simply adopt and then drop styles as he pleases.
 
In 1917 Picasso went to Italy, where he was impressed by Classicism, and incorporated some features of so-called “Monumental Classicism” into the work of the 1920’s (Mother and Child), but he also became involved with Surrealism, and with Andre Breton.
 
The surrealists were interested in “irrationalist elements, and exaltation of chance, and equally to the direct realistic reproduction of dream or subconscious material.” [13]
 
During this time, he explored images of the Minotaur, the half man half beast drawn from Cretan mythology. Now, the Spanish Civil War erupted. This led to his most famous work, Guernica (Centro Cultural Reina Sofia, Madrid, 1937), which was produced for the Spanish Pavilion at the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1937 to express horror and revulsion at the destruction by bombing of the Basque capital Guernica during the civil war (1936-9).
 
By this time, Picasso had already become a very rich man already:
Picasso was rich. Dealers began to buy his work in 1906. By 1909 he employed an aide with apron and cap to wait at table.
In 1912, when he painted a picture on a whitewashed wall in Provence, his dealer thought it was worthwhile demolishing the wall and sending the whole painted piece intact to Paris to be remounted by experts on a wooden panel.
In 1919 Picasso moved into a large flat in one of the most fashionable quarters of Paris. In 1930 he bought the seventeenth-century Chateau de Boisgeloup as an alternative residence. From the age of twenty-eight Picasso was free from money worries. From the age of thirty-eight he was wealthy. From the age of sixty-five he has been a millionaire.’ [14]
Guernica ‘ The Bombing
On 26 April 1937, the German air force was asked by General Franco to bomb the city of Guernica. This city was the ancient heart of the Basque nation, an oppressed nation within the multi-national state of Spain. It had resisted the Francoite fascists, and Franco was determined to subdue it. The city had no defences, and no military importance.
The correspondent of ‘The Times’ reported on the destruction:
Guernica, the most ancient town of the Basques and the centre of their cultural tradition was completely destroyed yesterday afternoon by insurgent air raiders.
The bombardment of the open town far behind the lines occupied precisely three hours and quarter, during which a powerful fleet of aeroplanes consisting of three German types, Junkers and Heinkel bombers and Heinkel fighters did not cease unloading on the town bombs. And incendiary projectiles.
The fighters, meanwhile, plunged low from above the centre of the town to machine gun those of the civil population who had taken refuge in the fields.
The whole of Guernica was soon in flames, except the historic Casa de Juntas, with its rich archives of the Basque race, where the ancient Basque Parliament used to sit.
The famous oak of Guernica, the dried old stump of 600 years and the new shoots of this century, was also untouched. Here the kings of Spain used to take the oath to respect the democratic rights (fueros) of Vizcaya and in return received a promise of allegiance as suzerains with the democratic title of Senor, not Rey Vizcaya.” [15]
Perhaps however the real measure of the horror is best given by the first eye-witness account, from a priest ‘ Father Alberto de Onaindia:
We reached the outskirts of Guernica just before five o’clock. The streets were busy with the traffic of market day. Suddenly we heard the siren, and trembled. People mere running about in all directions, abandoning everything they possessed, some hurrying into the shelters, others running into the hills.
Soon an enemy airplane appeared … and when he was directly over the center he dropped three bombs. Immediately airwards we saw a squadron of seven planes, followed a little later by six more, and this in turn by a third squadron of five more. And Guernica was seized by a terrible panic.
I left the car by the side of the road and we took refuge in a storm drain. The water came up to our ankles. From our hiding place we could see everything that happened without being seen.
The airplanes came low, flying at two hundred meters. As soon as we could leave our shelter, we ran into the woods, hoping to put a safe distance between us and the enemy. But the airmen saw us and went after us.
The leaves hid us. As they did not know exactly where we were, they aimed their machineguns in the direction they thought we were traveling.
We heard the bullets ripping through branches and the sinister sound of splintering wood. The milicianos and I followed the flight patterns of the airplanes, and we made a crazy journey through the trees, trying to avoid them. Meanwhile, women, children, and old men were falling in heaps, like flies, and everywhere we saw lakes of blood.
I saw an old peasant standing alone in a field: a machine-gun bullet killed him. For more than an hour these planes, never more than a few hundred meters in altitude, dropped bomb after bomb on Guernica.
The sound of the explosions and of the crumbling houses cannot be imagined. Always they traced on the air the same tragic flight pattern, as they flew all over the streets of Guernica. Bombs fell by the thousands. Later we saw bomb craters. Some were sixteen meters in diameter and eight meters deep.
The airplanes left around seven o’clock, and then there came another wave of them, this time flying at an immense altitude. They were dropping incendiary bombs on our martyred city. The new bombardment lasted thirty-five minutes, sufficient to transform the town into an enormous furnace.
Even then I realized the terrible purpose of this new act of vandalism. They were dropping incendiary bombs to convince tie world that the Basques had torched their own city.
The destruction went on altogether for two hour. and forty-five minutes. When the bombing was over the people left their shelters. I saw no one crying. Stupor was written on all their faces. Eyes fixed on Guernica, we were completely incapable of believing what we saw.” [16]
Colonel Wolfram von Richthofen, commanded the Condor Legion, and planned that first blast bombs would destroy all city-centre buildings; then that the townspeople would be strafed with machine-gun fire; and finally, that incendiary bombs would set fire to the rubble. Four days later, he reported his success:
Gernika literally levelled to the ground. Attack carried out with 250-kilogram and incendiary bombs-about one-third of the latter. When the first Junker squadron arrived, there was smoke everywhere already [from von Moreau’s first assault]; no, body could identify the targets of roads, bridge, and suburbs, and they just dropped everything right into the center. The 250s toppled houses and destroyed the water mains.
The incendiaries now could spread and become effective. The material of the houses: tile roofs, wooden porches, and half-timbering resulted in complete annihilation….
Bomb craters can still be seen in the streets, simply terrific. Town completely blocked off for at least 24 hours, perfect conditions for a great victory, if only the troops had followed through.” [17]
Russell Martin points to the innovative strategy that was utlized of air-raid induced terror:
The three-hour campaign had been efficient, accurate, highly effective, and it was precisely what was proscribed in German military strategist M.K.L. Dertzen’s Grundsdtze der Wehrpolitik, which had been published two years before and which von Richthofen had taken very much to heart:
If cities are destroyed by flames, if women and children are victims of suffocating gases, if the population in open cities far from the front perish due to bombs dropped from planes, it will be impossible for the enemy to continue the war. Its citizens will plead for an immediate end to hostilities.” [18]
Guernica: The Painting
Picasso had not been especially political up to this time, although as a youth in Barcelona the vigorous anarchist movements there had influenced him. But with the onset of the Spanish Civil War, Picasso took sides. In May 1937 he made his position clear in a public statement:
The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death?
When the rebellion began, the legally elected and democratic republican government of Spain appointed me director of the Prado Museum, a post which I immediately accepted. In the panel on which I am working which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art,
I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death [19]
No: painting is not there just to decorate the walls of a flat. It is a means of waging offensive and defensive war against the enemy. [20]
He immediately did a pair of etchings entitled Sueho y mentira de Franco (‘Dream and Lie of Franco) which he issued with an accompanying poem. In January 1937, the Republican elected Government, invited Picasso to paint a mural for the Spanish Pavilion in the International Exhibition of Paris in 1938.
 
Following the bombing of Guernica, Picasso worked in a frenzy completing the huge work in ten days.
Blunt describes the large canvas as follows:
The painting is on canvas and measures 11 ft. 6 in. by 25 ft. 8 in. It is almost monochrome, that is to say, it is executed in various shades of grey, varying from a completely neutral tint to slightly purplish and bluish greys at one extreme, and brownish greys at the other.
The scene takes place in darkness, in an open space surrounded by schematically indicated buildings, which presumably stand for a public square in the town of Guernica. At the top is a strange lamp in the form of an eye, with an electric bulb as the iris.
The actors in the scene fall into two groups. The active protagonists are three animals – the bull, the wounded horse, and the winged bird just visible in the left background-and two human beings, the dead soldier, and the woman above and to the right, who leans out of a window and holds out a lamp to illuminate the whole stage.
They are accompanied by a sort of Greek chorus of three women: the screaming mother carrying a dead baby on the left, the woman rushing in from the right, and above her one falling in a house which is collapsing in flames.
These figures – human and animal – and the symbolism attached to them were not evolved at a single blow but have a long and complicated history, not only in the work of Picasso himself but in European art of earlier periods. [21]
Apart from a general sense of horror -what does it all mean? What are the bull and the horse doing here so prominently?
As regards the meaning of the picture, Picasso has only supplied a slight clue about the central symbols. The horse, he said in an interview, represents the people, and the bull brutality and darkness. When pressed by his interlocutor to say whether he meant that the bull stood for Fascism, he refused to agree and stuck to his original statement. ‘
These indications are tantalizingly slender, but it is possible, by a study of Picasso’s previous work, particularly in the 1930’s, to deduce more about the symbols used in Guernica and about the artist’s intentions in general. The central theme, the conflict between bull and horse, is one which has interested the artist all his life.” [22]
Prior to Guernica, Picasso had long been depicting battles between good and evil, where the Minotaur takes a prominent place. But these symbolic interpretations are much less important than the overall first impact ‘ of the weeping women.
 
There can be little doubt that any spectator who is first shown this picture more likely reacts immediately to the wailing women one with an obviously dead child, one in a burning house, and the dead or gravely injured soldier holding a weapon who is being trampled by a terrified horse. The general effect is one of a terrible searing scene.
 
Moreover, an original draft had an equally potent image: a clenched fist:
In… the drawing of 9 May… the main interest is now focussed on the dead soldier, who fills the whole left-hand part of the foreground, lying with his head on the right, his left hand clasping a broken sword, his right arm raised and his fist clenched.
That is to say, Picasso has taken the theme of the raised arm with clenched fist, which in the drawing played a quite minor part in a corner of the composition, and has given it a completely new significance by attaching it to the central figure of the composition.
The arm of the soldier now forms a strong vertical, which is emphasized by the axis of the lamp, continued downwards in a line cutting across the body of the horse, and by another vertical line drawn arbitrarily to the left of the arm.
The vertical strip thus formed is made the basis of the geometrical scheme on which the composition is built up
However Picasso then removed the raised arm. Why? What we can be sure of is that at that time Picasso was not associated with the Communist party, and the symbol of the clenched fist was and is – an explicitly communist one. Therefore, the overall sense of the painting remains one of a horror ‘ and not that of a RESISTANCE to the hells of war.
 
And naturally, the “distortions of forms” ‘ the late Picasso speciality ‘ remains. But ‘ having said that – what impact has the painting had on the numerous people who have seen it or its reproduction? An interesting experience is to watch those who are looking at this gigantic painting ‘ they are mesmerised and yet, horrified at the same time.
 
There is absolutely no doubt that the picture has become iconic in its symbolic rejection of war and the brutal inhumanity of war.
 
For those who might still be sceptical of this viewpoint, it should be remembered that during the prelude to the inhumane, and illegal 2003 war against Iraq, a tapestry copy of Guernica that hangs in the foyer at the United Nations HQ at New York, was shrouded during televised interviews.
Why does it seem that this painting evokes such resonant feelings? After all, it is in its form-distortions ‘ anti-realistic. In fact “abstract” painting rarely evokes a “positive” audience reaction.
 
Recall for instance the furore as the “critics” – the servants of the capitalist classes waxed eloquent about the piles of bricks at the Tate ‘ the public roared its’ incomprehension and its’ disapproval. But this has not ever happened with “Guernica”. Why?
 
It is possible that people have become simply more visually sophisticated than they used to be ‘ under the influence of mass printings. Or possibly the knowledge of what happened at Guernica is so widespread ‘ that people can make a quick connection between the intent of the painting ‘ despite the distortion of forms.
 
But, a third point has to be made. That is that perhaps despite the bias of the painter, whose loyalty to “form-distortion” was so deep ‘ it is in fact pretty “realistic”. The horse screaming in agony is ‘ evidently just that. The women howling ‘ can be heard. The heat on the woman burning the bomber house ‘ is felt scorching us. The sounds of the horse trampling on the dead soldier ‘ are bone-jarringly “real”.
 
Maybe Picasso was a “cubist”. But he left his intellectualised system to one side when he painted this picture.
 
Picasso also made other great paintings that attacked war, [See “The Charnel House”; MOMA, New York, 1945] and the later Korean War [ “Korean women and children being butchered by white men – Massacre in Korea”]
All show marked ‘form-distortion’, but they nonetheless, do convey a clear message. In fact, the non-realistic pictures do resonate. The editors of the ‘Oxford Dictionary’, claim that:
In treating such themes Picasso universalized the emotional content by an elaboration of the techniques of expression which had been developed through his researches into Cubism. [23]
Clearly, these works are not ‘realist’ in any usual meaning, but their meaning is surely explicit. So ‘ are these propagandist posters, or are they art? We would argue that they are more within the realm of progressive propaganda. But, the boundary line is certainly very narrow.
Impact of Picasso and Guernica on Russian Discussions Upon Socialist Realist Art
A mythology prevails, that there was no discussion – nor knowledge of Western art movements in the socialist years of the USSR (up to 1953). But this is patently false, as there is absolutely no doubt that the Russian artistic scene, was affected by currents in the West.
 
Indeed, the height of knowledge and sensible debates about these various movements is the lie to the general bourgeois line that “there was no debate” and “purely dictatorship” in the USSR. Artistic events in the West were treated very seriously and openly. Undoubtedly post-Second World War there was a renewed debate about the principles of ‘Socialist Realism’:
At the ninth plenum of the orgkomitet (Organising Committee of the Union of Soviet Artists) held May 1945, some of speakers from the floor brought up the question of innovation in painting, suggesting a new openness to questions of form….
Even court painters and official spokesmen of socialist realism appeared with new faces. The critic V Gaposhkin made a visit to Alexandr Gerasimov’s studio and praised highly his unfinished painting of ‘A Russian Communal Bath’ – a major composition of female nudes with no ideological pretext (plate 230). ..
That the mood among some artists and critics, was distinctly rebellious may be may be gleaned from a lecture, entitled ‘The Problem of the ‘Impressionism & the problem of the Kartina’, delivered by Nikolai Punin to the Leningrad artists’ union on 13 April 1946 – and from the reaction to it.
Punin’s address was an attempt to install impressionism as the basis for the work of Soviet painters; it amounted not only to a revision of the attitude to impressionism which had been imposed in the art press after the debates of 1939-40, but also to a rejection of some of the entrenched principles of socialist realism.
He stressed the variety apparent in the painting of the impressionists extolled them as ‘honest’ and ‘contemporary’. He criticised the characterisation of impressionism as some kind of a system..’. [24]
Picasso and his evident partisanship, as expressed in ‘Guernica’ became a part of the debate in the USSR:
At the discussion on 26 April the artist Petr Mazepov pointed out that impressionism led to the formalist art of cubism and fauvism, in which ‘there is no social struggle, the class soul, the party soul, the great soul of the people is absent’.
At this point Mazepov was interrupted from the floor: ‘And Picasso?’ ‘And Cezanne?” And “Guernica, he’s a Communist, a party member.” A little later Mazepov was interrupted again: ‘An artist doesn’t have to take up a proletarian position to express his idea’.
Over the course of both days’ debate, Punin received broad support from well-known Leningrad painters such as Pakulin and Traugot, and from voices from the floor. He summed up on 3 May: ‘If we take cubism or futurism, if we take the work of Picasso, then I personally do not see any formalism in this’.’
Punin’s denial of “formalism: in the works of cubism, or futurism – is untenable. Punin was using the works of the 1930’s of Picasso, that had already mutated away from “non-realistic” painting. Actually, it is very telling that the argument “What about Guernica?”ould be used in the midst of this discussion.
Even the staunchest supporter of the principles of socialist realism in the USSR, simply had to concede that the painting had emotional power. But the use of Picasso’s open allegiance, by various revisionist sections of the French Communist party even more blatantly.
Post Second World War – ‘Becoming a communist, Picasso hoped to come out of exile’.
 
Already, his painting of Guernica had shown that Picasso was a republican. During the war years, he stayed in Nazi occupied Paris. On the liberation of Europe, Picasso was to show very publicly his allegiance to the Communist party:
On October 4 1944, less than six weeks after the liberation of Paris, Pablo Picasso, then 63, joined the French Communist party. To his surprise, the news covered more than half of the front page of the next day’s L’Humanité, the party’s official newspaper, overshadowing reports of the war..
Shortly after, in an interview for L’Humanité, Picasso claimed that he had always fought, through the weapons of his art, like a true revolutionary. But he also said that the experience of the second world war had taught him that it was not sufficient to manifest political sympathies under the veil of mythologising artistic expression.
I have become a communist because our party strives more than any other to know and to build the world, to make men clearer thinkers, more free and more happy. I have become a communist because the communists are the bravest in France, in the Soviet Union,as they are in my own country, Spain.
While I wait for the time when Spain can take me back again, the French Communist party is a fatherland for me. In it I find again all my friends – the great scientists Paul Langevin and Frédéric Joliot-Curie, the great writers Louis Aragon and Paul Eluard, and so many of the beautiful faces of the insurgents of Paris. I am again among brothers.
Five days after joining the party Picasso appeared at a ceremony at the Père Lachaise cemetery, organised as a joint memorial for those killed during the Commune of 1871 and in the Nazi occupation of Paris.” [25]
Elsewhere he rhetorically asked:
Have not the Communists been the bravest in France, in the Soviet Union, and in my own Spain? How could I have hesitated? The fear to commit myself? But on the contrary I have never felt freer, never felt more complete.
And then I have been so impatient to find a country again: I have always been an exile, now I am no longer one: whilst waiting for Spain to be able to welcome me back, the French Communist Party have opened their arms to me, and I have found there all whom I respect most, the greatest thinkers, the greatest poets, and all the faces of the Resistance fighters in Paris whom I saw and were so beautiful during those August days; again I am among my brothers.’ [26]
His allegiance extended to numerous art-related activities. His efforts were recognised by a Stalin Prize, for his famous Poster for Peace, using the image of a dove.
He also presided over the infamous gathering of the Comité Directeur du Front National des Arts, which drew up the list of artists to be purged for collaborationist activities during the occupation.
In 1950 he was awarded the Stalin prize for his involvement in the Mouvement de la Paix, for which he had designed the emblem of a dove. The movement, was inaugurated in Wroclaw under the aegis of Andrey Zhdanov, secretary of the Soviet central committee’. [27]
In addition he was lavish with his money:
‘he generously donated time and money to the FCP and associated organisations. He marched with the Front National des Intellectuels and the Front National Universitaire and accepted honorary positions on boards and in organisations.
His contributions mostly took the form of paintings donated for sale. In November 1956 alone, the dealer Kahnweiler wrote that he gave on Picasso’s behalf a cheque for FFr3m for Christmas gifts for Enfants des Fusillés de la Résistance, FFr500,000 for the Comité de la Paix, FFr300,000 for the Patriote de Toulouse, FFr750,000 more for the children of war victims and FFr3m (half a million more than the previous year) for a yearly Communist party event.
(To give some perspective to these figures, Chrysler bought Picasso’s Le Charnier in 1954 for FFr5m.) [28]
So upon Stalin’s death, it was not un-expected that he would be asked to paint his picture. He had pervasively been asked ‘ on Stalin’s 70th birthday ‘ and refused. This time he agreed.
 
However an orchestrated campaign of vilification suggested that the portrait was ‘an affront to Stalin’ as it ‘neglected to reflect the emotions of the people’. Picasso had wanted a portrait of ‘a man of the people’.
The French Communist Party was of course under revisionist control at this time. As we have previously described, the revisionists wished to perpetuate a ‘cult of personality’. Picasso had reverted to a ‘realistic’ style, at a most inconvenient time for them, and in a most inconvenient manner. He ‘had to be rebuked’:
‘In 1953 ‘Stalin died on March 5. Aragon and editor Pierre Daix were preparing an issue of the communist journal ‘Les Lettres Françaises’ when the news broke. Aragon immediately sent a telegram to Picasso. .. requesting a drawing of Stalin.
Daix and Gilot knew that Picasso, who until then had successfully foiled any hope that he would paint a portrait of Stalin, could not refuse this time.The artist’s homage for Stalin’s 70th birthday in 1949 had been nothing more than a drawing of a glass raised to the dictator’s health, which had shocked the party faithful with its breezy caption, “Staline à ta santé”. ‘
He seems to have used old newspaper photographs as a reference. The portrait shows the young Stalin, face framed by thick, cropped hair, mouth partly hidden under a bushy moustache. The eyes under the strong eyebrows are those of a dreamer and offset by the prominent jawline.
Picasso told Geneviève Laporte that he had wanted to show Stalin as a man of the people, without his uniform and decorations. Aragon and Daix were relieved to find the portrait to their liking. Daix opted for the neutral caption “Staline par Pablo Picasso, March 8 1953”.
The first negative reaction came from the employees of France Nouvelle and L’Humanité, the two papers that shared the same building as Les Lettres françaises, who were appalled by what they considered an affront to Stalin.
Daix suspected – correctly, as it turned out – that this was instigated by the party leaders, who saw publication of the portrait as an incursion against the personality cult, and by Auguste Lecur, hardline party secretary, who welcomed this opportunity to chastise Aragon and Les Lettres françaises for the relative independence they claimed…
From the moment the paper appeared at kiosks on March 12, the editorial offices were flooded with outraged calls. On March 18 1953, a damaging communiqué appeared in L’Humanité from the secretariat of the French Communist party, “categorically” disapproving publication of the portrait “by comrade Picasso”.
Aragon was obliged to publish the communiqué in the following issue of Les Lettres françaises, as well as a self-criticism in L’Humanité. The major reproach was that the portrait neglected to reflect the emotions of the public – “the love that the working class feel for the regretted comrade Stalin and for the Soviet Union” – and that it did not do justice to the moral, spiritual, and intellectual personality of Stalin. [29]
But Picasso refused to rise to the bait, and refused to attack the party.
Picasso, besieged by journalists eager to have him admit that his portrait sought to mock Stalin, refuted any such suggestion. nor did the attacks against him entice Picasso to disparage the party, as some had hoped.
Despite various reports that quoted Picasso as saying that one did not criticise the flowers that were sent to the funeral or the tears that were shed, Gilot [Picassos’ then lover / editor] recalled a more detached attitude. According to her, Picasso replied that aesthetic matters were debatable, that therefore it was the party’s right to criticise him and that he saw no need to politicise the issue.
“You’ve got the same situation in the party as in any big family,” he said. “There is always some damn fool to stir up trouble, but you have to put up with him.” [30]
In private, Picasso gave a rather amusing ‘ if somewhat coarse ‘ attack on the bureaucratic slavish mentality behind this imbroglio:
 
‘In conversation with Daix, who was sent by Aragon to appease him, Picasso speculated:
Can you imagine if I had done the real Stalin, such as he has become, with his wrinkles, his pockets under the eyes, his warts. A portrait in the style of Cranach! Can you hear them scream? ‘He has disfigured Stalin! He has aged Stalin!'”
He continued: “And then too, I said to myself, why not a Stalin in heroic nudity?… Yes, but, Stalin nude, and what about his virility? … If you take the pecker of the classical sculptor… So small… But, come on, Stalin, he was a true male, a bull.
So then, if you give him the phallus of a bull, and you’ve got this little Stalin behind his big thing they’ll cry: But you’ve made him into a sex maniac! A satyr!
Then if you are a true realist you take your tape measure and you measure it all properly. That’s worse, you made Stalin into an ordinary man. And then, as you are ready to sacrifice yourself, you make a plaster cast of your own thing.
Well, it’s even worse. What, you dare take yourself for Stalin! After all, Stalin, he must have had an erection all the time, just like the Greek statues… Tell me, you who knows, socialist realism, is that Stalin with an erection or without an erection? “
When in the summer of 1954 (after Stalin’s death)
Picasso, thinking aloud, asked Daix: “Don’t you think that soon they will find that my portrait is too nice?” On another occasion, he reflected: “Fortunately I drew the young Stalin. The old one never existed. Only for the official painters.” [31]
What is even more interesting is that despite his ‘saison en enfer’ (season in hell) Picasso never recanted his allegiance to the party. Even with the social-imperialists attacks on both Hungary (1956) or Czechoslovakia (1968):
Picasso later called the year 1953 his “saison en enfer” his season in hell. He admitted to some friends how shaken he had been by the accusations and humiliations of the scandal. The year is widely believed to signal the end of Picasso’s political commitment.
Yet while his cooperation with the party was never again as close as it had been in the years 1944-53, his commitment did not stop. He continued to produce drawings for the press and for poster designs, made supportive appearances at party events, and readily signed petitions and protest declarations initiated by the party. He also never discontinued his financial support.
While many left because of the party’s attitude during the Hungarian uprising in 1956, Picasso reaffirmed his loyalty. In an interview with the art critic Carlton Lake in July 1957, he once again confirmed his belief in communism and his intention never to leave the party.
In 1962 he was awarded the Lenin prize. In August 1968, speaking with friends, he deplored the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, but failed to do so publicly. At the end of that year, he refused once again to speak out against his long-held political beliefs.’ [32]
He clearly believed the lies of the revisionist Khruschev, given out at this so-called ‘secret speech’. But he asked whether ‘And the workers, are they still masters of their factories, and the peasants, the owners of their land?’:
After Khrushchev’s “secret speech” at the 20th congress of the Soviet Union’s Communist party, in February 1956, in which he reported on the crimes of Stalin’s tyranny, it became impossible for anybody to claim ignorance.
Picasso apparently was appalled: “While they asked you to do ever more for the happiness of men… they hung this one and tortured that one. And those were innocents. Will this change?
Picasso’s response to detrimental news from the Soviet Union was: “And the workers, are they still masters of their factories, and the peasants, the owners of their land? Well then, everything else is secondary – the only thing that matters is to save the revolution’. [33]
His answer was the workers were still in charge. Of course he was tragically wrong. But then ‘ he was an artist, albeit a flawed one, always twisting away from reality. In the end he was somewhat ‘straightened’ by his late found political allegiance. But he was still only an artist – and not a political theorist or leader of the working classes.
What in an artist is excusable ‘ is inexcusable in those who claim to be ‘leaders of the vanguard of the working class’. Therefore we will agree, if we are charged that we view Picasso with a benign eye. We would simply counter that this is the same ‘benign eye’ that Marx turned on artists in general, saying of the poet Ferdinand Freiligarth for instance:
Write Freiligarth a friendly letter. nor need you be over-careful of paying him compliments, for poets, even the best of them, are all plus au moins [more or less], courtisanes and il faut les cajoler, pour les faire chanter [one must cajole them to make them sing]….
A poet, whatever he may be as an homme (man), needs applause and ADMIRATION. This I believe , peculiar to the genre as such. you should not forget the difference between a “poet” and a “critic”. [34]
Equally, we cannot accept the line of John Berger, who writes:
But as an artist with all his powers he was nevertheless wasted.
Oddly, Berger writes this despite having already pointed out that Picasso had renewed himself by joining the party:
As a result of Picasso’s joining the Communist Party and taking part in the peace movement, his fame spread even wider than before. His name was quoted in all the socialist countries.
His poster of the peace dove was seen on millions of walls and expressed the hopes of all but a handful of the people of the world. The dove became a true symbol: not so much as a result of Picasso’s power as an artist (the drawing of the dove is evocative but superficial), but rather as a result of the power of the movement which Picasso was serving. It needed a symbol and it claimed Picasso’s drawing.
That this happened is something of which Picasso can be rightly proud. He contributed positively to the most important struggle of our time. He made further posters and drawings. He lent his name and reputation again and again to encourage others to protest against the threat of nuclear war.
He was in a position to use his art as a means of influencing people politically, and, in so far as he was able, he chose to do this consciously and intelligently. I cannot believe that he was in any way mistaken or that he chose the wrong political path.’ [35]
Well, Picasso bloomed anew with the power of the peoples vision. How can Berger recognising this, then say that Picasso was wasted artistically? In the last period of his life, apart from the posters and the variations on the dove of peace he did, Picasso really only painted upon the ceramics made by others.
 
In contrast to Berger, we might suggest that it was his political artistic work, that kept him ‘artistically alive’.
Conclusion
 
We argue that Picasso ultimately was on the side of the working classes. A “champagne socialist” he may have been but he did not need to do what he did.
 
As to the worth of his art – where he retained realist images and forms, he showed a power that people understood. But he was constantly reverting to decadent forms and images that placed at an immediate distance between the people and his art. At his best, he moved people.
And in that troubling work ‘ “Guernica” ‘ he undoubtedly, has moved and affected generations who have seen it. Again ‘ it is patently, not a piece of “socialist art” ‘ but despite its obvious anti-realist forms, it conveys a very real, and realistic message:
“Down With War!“
Bibliography
Used In this article
  • Berger, John.’The Success & Failure of Picasso’; New York; 1980
  • Blunt, Antony. “Picasso’s Guernica”; Toronto; 1969.
  • Chilvers, I; H. Osborne, D. Farr. “Oxford Dictionary of Art”; Oxford; 1977;
  • Cork, Richard “A Bitter Truth ‘ Avant Garde Art & The Great War; London 1994;
  • Cullerne Bown, Matthew. “Socialist Realist Painting”; New Haven;1998
  • Hauser, Arnold. “The Social history of Art” ‘ Volume 4: ‘Naturalism, Impressionism, The Film Age'”; New York; nd;
  • Martin, Russell. “Picasso’s War. The Destruction of Guernica, and the Masterpiece that Changed the World”; 2002, New York.
  • Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer, January 16, 1852. Volume 39: Collected Works; Moscow; 1983.
Recommended:
  • Utley Gertje R “Picasso: The Communist Years”; Yale University Press, 200
This article first appered on the ml-review Website. Reproduced with permission
Footnotes
 
1 Hauser, Arnold. “The Social history of Art” ‘ Volume 4: ‘Naturalism, Impressionism, The Film Age'”; New York; p. 229-230.
2 I. Chilvers, H. Osborne, D. Farr. “Oxford Dictionary of Art”; Oxford; 1977; p.147.
3 Cork, Richard “A Bitter Truth ‘ Avant Garde Art & The Great War; London 1994; p.257.
4 “total rejection of current religious beliefs or morals.. A form of scepticism, involving the denial of all existence,” “Shorter Oxford English Dictionary” Volume 2; Oxford 1973; ; p.1404.
5 Hauser, Arnold op cit p.232-233.
6 Berger, John.’The Success & Failure of Picasso’; New York; 1980; p.5; quoting Alfred H. Barr; ‘Picasso: Fifty Years of His Art’; Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1946.
7 I. Chilvers, H. Osborne, D. Farr op cit p. 431.
8 Ibid p. 431.
9 I.Chilvers, H. Osborne, D. Farr op cit p. 144.
10 I. Chilvers, H. Osborne, D. Farr op cit p. 144.
11 I. Chilvers, H. Osborne, D. Farr op cit p. 144.
12 Hauser, Arnold op cit p.233-234.
13 I. Chilvers, H. Osborne, D. Farr op cit p.431.
14 Berger, John op cit p.5.
15 Antony Blunt. “Picasso’s Guernica”; Toronto; 1969; Oxford & Toronto, p.7-8.
16 In Martin, Russell. “Picasso’s War. The Destruction of Guernica, and the Masterpiece that Changed the World”; 2002, New York; p. 40-42.
17 In Martin, Russell op cit p. 42-43.
18 In Martin, Russell op cit p. 42-43.
19 Barr, Alfred. “Picasso: Fifty Years of His Art”; New York; 1946; p.202; cited by Blunt A; Ibid; p. 9.
21 Blunt, Antony op cit p.13
22 Blunt, Antony op cit p.14.
23 I. Chilvers, H. Osborne, D. Farr op cit p. 144.
24 Cullerne Bown, Matthew. ‘Socialist Realist Painting’; New Haven;1998; p.223.
26 Berger, John op cit p.173.
27 Gertje R Utley op cit
28 Gertje R Utley op cit
29 Gertje R Utley op cit
30 Gertje R Utley op cit
31 Gertje R Utley op cit
32 Gertje R Utley op cit
33 Gertje R Utley op cit
34 Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer, January 16, 1852. Volume 39: Collected Works; Moscow; 1983; p.8. See also Marx and Engels on Art
35 Berger, John op cit p.173-5.

Please stop telling me that everything‘s fine in Germany

Reports that Angela Merkel’s government is dealing well with the Covid pandemic are not based in reality


07/04/2020


It’s happened again [1]. A message was sent to a pro-Corbyn chat group, asking us to sign an open letter to Angela Merkel  [2]. The first paragraph of the letter (addressed directly to Merkel) goes like this:

“Throughout the coronavirus outbreak – as so many times before – you have shown leadership for your country. Both as a chancellor and as a physicist you grasped the depth of the sanitary emergency and the challenges it represents to Europe as a whole.”

This is a fairly typical reflection of a narrative that has been developing around Germany’s response to the Coronavirus. The group has also seen Twitter messages boasting that “Germany has got testing spot on.” [3] On another Facebook page, someone posted a photo of Angela Merkel with the caption “The real leader of the free world”.

These groups and Facebook pages identify themselves as left-liberal and were mainly set up around Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign. Their members generally reject everything that Merkel’s neoliberal party, the CDU, stands for. And yet, at the moment, the German government seems to be beyond criticism.

This view appears to be shared by German citizens; Merkel’s popularity has sky-rocketed, so much so that she is reconsidering her decision not to stand for re-election [4]. And yet, the casting of Merkel as saviour both ignores the very real problems that are largely shouldered by working class people, and lets off the hook the neoliberal structures which are chiefly responsible for where we are.

Look, on one level, I totally get it. The blond buffoons in the White House and Downing Street have handled the situation with such arrogance and ineptitude that almost by default the situation in Germany is better than in the States and Britain. Instead of Johnson and Trump banging on about “herd immunity” (Eugenics for beginners), they should be protecting their people. But do we really want to set the bar so low that we will accept any leader who is not quite as bad as them?

Testing – the impressive statistics…

If we want to look at how things really are in Germany, let’s start with the testing. At first glance, the statistics look good. Germany has the highest number of Intensive Care Units (ICUs) outside the US (according to Der Spiegel, there are 40,000 [5]).

The relatively small number of seriously ill patients means that the German system has been able to cope so far, and was even in a position to offer beds to patients from Italy and France (although this is changing, and the Green-led State government of Baden-Württemberg is now refusing to accept patients from neighbouring Alsace [6]).

Germany is also currently second only to the US in critical care beds per capita. [7]

According to some graphs which have been widely publicized [8], the number of tests per million people carried out in Germany does look impressive, especially when compared to some other countries.

…and the grim reality

And yet the widely accepted belief that everyone in Germany is being tested is simply not true. One friend’s young child had bronchitis for three weeks and was denied a test. Another friend showed all the symptoms but was told to just stay at home.

Still other friends report similar stories. One says,

“A friend of mine was at Kater Blau in early March, the weekend someone who tested positive also attended. The clubgoers from that weekend were advised to get tested. After spending 5+ hours on hold each day for over a week, with over 2 dozen doctor’s offices, health centers, and government offices in Berlin, not ONE of whom picked up, my friend simply got sick (and then better) assuming she had the virus.” [9]

These anecdotal reports reflect a wider truth that most people are still not being tested. Even now, the Berlin Senate Department for Health recommends testing only for people who meet the following requirements:

if you have even mild symptoms, such as a cough, sneezing, or a sore throat, and

… you had contact within the last 14 days with someone who has a confirmed case of COVID-19, or

… you have an underlying medical condition and/or your respiratory symptoms get worse (shortness of breath, high fever, etc.), or

… you work or volunteer in a place in which you come in contact with people who are at higher risk (e.g., the elderly, people with underlying medical conditions).” [10]

(emphasis in original)

This stands in contrast to some other countries. In the New York Times, Matt Apuzzo and Selam Gebrekidan have reported on the successes in Asia:

“In that same period [late January], Singapore was setting up health screenings at airports, issuing work-from-home guidelines and releasing plans to monitor travelers returning from abroad. Independent labs in Korea were rushing their tests out the door.

‘They were ready, and they just churned out the kits,’ said Dr. Jerome Kim, of the International Vaccine Institute in Seoul.” [11]

In contrast, report Apuzzo and Gebrekidan, “many countries have tightened restrictions on who gets tested. In Germany, where the first approved test was developed, only doctors can prescribe one.” [12]

The Icelandic government has announced that it is allowing everyone to be tested and isolating people quickly if they test positive. [13] This is a world away from the current situation in Germany.

According to worldometers.info, Germany has tested just under 1.1% of its population (10,962 per million). This puts it 25th on a list of countries for which the statistics are available [14]. The fact that countries like China are missing from the list could suggest that the real position is even lower. In short, while it can’t be denied that Germany is doing much better than some of its neighbours, there is still a long way to go.

What is to come?

Germany has still not seen the worst of the virus. According to the much-reproduced graph from the Financial Times (below), while the daily death rate is sinking in Southeast Asia and levelling off in Southern Europe, in Germany (as in the UK and US), death rates are still rising. [15]

Kate Connolly in the Guardian reported that a leaked confidential scientific study commissioned by the government estimates that “around a million people in Germany – which has a population of just under 83 million – were likely to become infected, and around 12,000 would die”. [16]

Connolly quotes Lothar Wieler, the head of the government’s main public health advisory body, the Robert Koch Institute: “The fact is that Germany started testing early on and has tested broadly. That way, many cases but also milder cases have been detected, and they did not generally include the elderly.” [17] According to Wieler, this has distorted the figures so far.

It seems that the German figures have been further distorted because the first recorded cases affected tourists returning from ski resorts like Ischgl in Austria [18]. These people were tendentially in better health and wealthier than those affected in other countries. This meant that they were physically better equipped to combat the virus and got first dibs on testing and higher quality treatment. Time will tell how much these factors have skewed the statistics.

Connolly goes on to report that “many working on the testing frontline report concerns about a lack of materials and inefficiency, as well as a shortage of staff, forcing many people to work seven-day weeks.” [19] And this is where creeping privatisation comes in.

German hospitals have suffered decades of privatisation, and health workers and patients are paying the price. Government investment has also been cut. This year, when nearly every part of the German budget was increased, the health budget was reduced by nearly 5%. [20]

Health trade unionists in Berlin were recently compelled to issue a series of demands [21], which include sufficient protective clothing and equipment, testing of health workers and refinancing of the health service. And while the German system of health insurance works more or less for people who are insured, it lacks the egalitarianism of the NHS. Many people are not covered at all.

Officially 80,000 people in Germany have no health insurance, meaning that they would be personally liable for all treatment costs. Many of these people are homeless or “illegal” immigrants [22]. A report by Zeit Online suggests that the true figure of people without insurance may be ten times as high as the official statistics [23].

The “everything’s going fine in Germany” narrative undermines the campaigns here for safe working conditions, for health coverage for all, and for the right of sick people not to risk further infection. These are demands which directly challenge the policies of the Merkel government.

Dealing with the crisis

If you look at how the German government has dealt with the COVID-19 crisis, the similarities with places like Britain and the US outweigh differences. Although there is much talk about social distancing, non-essential workers are still forced to commute to work on overcrowded transport. As little as possible is allowed to get in the way of profit.

As in other countries, there are two countervailing tendencies in the discussion around lockdown. One comes from a government with authoritarian tendencies, whose Home Secretary is still Horst Seehofer, a man who once claimed that Turkish and Arab migrants are no longer needed in Germany and that “we do not need any more migrants from other cultural centres.” [24]

(While we’re on the subject, it has helped “Mutti” Merkel to play good cop alongside more authoritarian figures like Seehofer and former finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, the man who ruined Greece. She gains the international plaudits for liberalism while repressive politics are still carried out on her watch).

The German government is keen to use the police to control people’s movement. And, not for the first time, German police are paying particular attention to darker skinned people. In scenes familiar to anyone who uses the Berlin transport system, people of colour are regularly singled out for harassment.

On the other hand, it is seen as being perfectly fine to work hand-by-jowl alongside people who may well be already infected. Many “non-essential” workers are still expected to work, and it is up to employers to decide whether to allow home office work. [25] Even in workplaces where workers have been infected by the virus, the supervisor has the last say on whether workers must go in. [26]

In one aspect, the situation in Germany is much worse than elsewhere. If you’re sent home from work in Ireland, Denmark, or the Netherlands you still get 100% of your salary. Even Boris Johnson offered to pay laid off workers 80% [27]. In Germany you get just 60% (67% if you have kids). [28] Many bar and restaurant workers, who earn most of their pay in tips, will be receiving much less.

There are some German jobs where this so-called “Reduced hour compensation” (Kurzarbeitergeld) is much higher. Workers at H&M and Primark receive 100% compensation. This is not down to government benevolence, but because they, through their trade unions and works councils, have successfully fought for themselves and challenged their management’s policies and a bosses’ government which has always sided with big business against trade unionists. [29]

The Coronavirus and Gentrification

One of the first victims of the Coronavirus lockdown was the campaign against gentrification. A mass demo had been planned for 28 March, organised by Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen [30], a well-supported anti-gentrification organisation. This demo was reluctantly, but understandably, cancelled, and a planned popular referendum in Berlin, calling for the expropriation of the big landlords, must reassess its strategy.

And yet the attacks on tenants’ rights go on. Many people who have been laid off cannot afford to pay the rent. They do not have the economic weight of companies like H&M, Adidas and Deichmann, who unilaterally decided to stop paying rent. [31]

Just before the crisis started, the Berlin government passed a new law – the so-called “Mietendeckel” or rent cap. This came into force on 24 February, and should have forced landlords to reduce rents. Nevertheless, Berlin news service rbb reports that “even after the law took effect, over 90% of rented flats in Berlin are being offered for prices above the rent cap.” [32]

As a result of the Coronavirus, another law has been passed limiting the ability of landlords to evict tenants [33]. But, as Thom McGath from Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen says: “They should have just had a rent moratorium and cancelled rent instead of putting the burden on renters to still be obligated to pay the rent back later. How are they supposed to pay that with so many people in Kurzarbeit?”  [34]

People in Germany are looking at rent strikes organised in Spain [35] and the USA [36] with interest, but so far we haven’t managed to emulate these great campaigns. We’re noticing that landlords are profiting from the crisis while tenants struggle to scrape their rent, but there’s little real organised resistance yet. But these are still early days.

Will the EU survive?

The Coronavirus crisis also has implications for German leadership in Europe. Germany was the country which profited the most from the Euro crisis, making billions from the enforced bankruptcy of Greece [37]. Until very recency, German hegemony within the EU was virtually unquestioned.

Yet when Angela Merkel refused to even contemplate Eurobonds to deal with the Corona crisis, she was denounced by Steffen Klusmann in Spiegel Online for putting the EU into an “existential crisis” [38]. Now I have no love for either the German state or the neoliberal EU, but until recently both seemed indomitable. Now, neither is able to offer a clear way out of the crisis.

Whatever happens, we’re not in Kansas any more. The narrative that developed during Brexit that an EU under German leadership was both necessary and inevitable, is long gone. As the EU seems prepared to abandon Italy, even the Financial Times is reporting that “there is a rising feeling among even its pro-European elite that the country is being abandoned by its neighbours.” [39] Whatever happens, when we come out of the Coronavirus crisis, the whole discussion about international solidarity and the role of the EU will have shifted.

As Pater Kapern said to the German World Service, Deutschland Funk:

“In the Corona Crisis the EU countries have decided on going it alone nationally instead of cooperation and sharing interests. This is the absolutely wrong path. If it carries on like this, it could be about sheer survival – for the European Union.” [40]

Conclusion

Angela Merkel may come across as a more reassuring authority figure than Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, but her government is driven by the same dash for profits. To see her as a role model is to obscure the real divisions in society. Hers is still a neoliberal government which prioritizes the protection of big business at the expense of people’s health.

To my friends in Britain and the States, please continue your fight against the reckless Johnson and Trump governments. But Angela Merkel is not your friend. The left-liberal articles about how great Germany is are reminiscent of the special pleading which urges people to support Joe Biden because it’s better to have “our” sexual predator in the White House. We deserve much better than that.

As Tina Lee, editor of the Migration Voter [41] website says:

“Yes, Trump and Johnson are nightmarish fascists, but Germany’s response has also revealed a great deal about the dividing lines in this society and it’s not very flattering. The idea that is better here than in e.g. USA is very similar to the argument that misogynists use to shut you up complaining about sexism: ‘At least you’re allowed to drive! Try living in Iran and see how you like it!’”

“It’s not a race to the bottom, and Germany has something UK and USA don’t: the largest surplus in the world. (UK and USA have the highest deficit.) And yet we are expected to show gratitude for not being murdered on mass. This is really moving the Overton window on the right about what we can expect from our elected governments.” [42]

It is wonderful that people are congregating on balconies to show their support for the British – and German – health service workers. But this should not devolve into uncritical support for our neoliberal governments. Safeguarding health requires us to concentrate instead on struggles by health workers to improve the conditions in hospitals, and to reject a system which is only motivated by profit.

Phil Butland is a British socialist who has lived in Germany for 25 years. He is joint speaker of the Berlin LINKE Internationals group. This article was written for www.theleftberlin.com.

 

Footnotes

1 Thanks to Noemi Argerich, Elizabeth Berman, Georgiana Darcy, Charlie Hore, Anja Ilić, Tina Lee and Emily Pollak for comments on an earlier version of this text.

2 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfDXCKkjL42ybtQcgDK76JNjfC6HUnY0jMbCbqVBFiM_rd_5w/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1

3 https://twitter.com/profkarolsikora/status/1244566715251515395?s=12

4 https://www.merkur.de/politik/coronavirus-angela-merkel-kanzler-deutschland-soeder-merz-laschet-roettgen-kanzlerschaft-news-zr-13639261.html

5 https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/corona-deutsche-kliniken-haben-nun-40-000-intensivbetten-a-ffab4acc-e38f-4be4-a48d-ce5101e8599e

6 https://bnn.de/nachrichten/politik/befristetes-zeichen-der-solidaritaet-mit-elsass-corona-krise-kliniken

7 https://www.statista.com/chart/21105/number-of-critical-care-beds-per-100000-inhabitants/

8 https://ourworldindata.org/covid-testing

9 Personal correspondence

10 https://www.berlin.de/corona/en/faq/#faq_1_52

11 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/world/europe/coronavirus-testing-world-countries-cities-states.html

12 Ibid

13 https://www.businessinsider.com/iceland-coronavirus-pandemic-approach-could-help-other-countries-2020-4

14 Source and graphic: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

15 https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

16 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/germany-told-it-needs-to-massively-increase-coronavirus-testing

17 Ibid

18 https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/ischgl-austria-a-corona-hotspot-in-the-alps-spread-virus-across-europe-a-32b17b76-14df-4f37-bfcf-39d2ceee92ec

19 Ibid

20 Source: German Bundestag

21 https://www.theleftberlin.com/post/coronavirus-protection-of-employees

22 https://www.finanzen.de/news/80000-menschen-deutschland-haben-keine-krankenversicherung

23 https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2015-10/krank-ohne-versicherung-selbstaendigkeit-abstieg/komplettansicht

24 https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/world/europe/12iht-germany.html

25 https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/arbeitsrecht/11971-corona-alles-zu-krankschreibung-kurzarbeit-home-office.html

26 https://www.verdi.de/themen/recht-datenschutz/++co++37f4d360-58b0-11ea-8408-525400b665de

27 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/20/government-pay-wages-jobs-coronavirus-rishi-sunak

28 Source and graphic: Hans-Böckler Stiftung https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/pm_wsi_2020_04_01.pdf

29 https://www.verdi.de/themen/recht-datenschutz/++co++37f4d360-58b0-11ea-8408-525400b665de

30 https://www.dwenteignen.de/

31 https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/mieten-corona-adidas-deichmann-100.html

32
https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/thema/2020/coronavirus/beitraege_neu/2020/04/wohnungsbesichtigungen-infektionsrisiko-mietendeckel-.html

33 www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgbeg/art_240__2.html

34 personal correspondence

35 https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1134981.mietenstreik-in-spanien-kein-geld-mehr-fuer-die-miete.html

36 https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/30/coronavirus-rent-strike-advocates-major-cities-demand-waiver/5088716002/

37 https://www.thelocal.de/20180621/germany-made-billions-on-greeces-debt-crisis-berlin-confirms

38 https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-must-abandon-its-rejection-of-eurobonds-a-e5f7c467-dcf6-48fd-b4e0-71e1b84e315e

39 https://www.ft.com/content/f21cf708-759e-11ea-ad98-044200cb277f

40 https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/eu-und-coronavirus-jeder-gegen-jeden.720.de.html?dram:article_id=472736

41 https://migrationvoter.com/

42 Personal correspondence