The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Deep cuts to hit Neukölln’s children, the homeless and addiction services

The new conservative-led government is showing a dangerous approach to austerity


02/07/2023

Only a few months after Berlin’s new conservative-led government took power, the CDU are wasting no time in enacting brutal austerity on the city’s most vulnerable residents. The district of Neukölln was the first to announce the impact of their slashed budget for 2024 and 2025, with a 22.8 million euro deficit. Its administration said it was left with no choice but to cut children’s, homeless and addiction services. 

The cuts in full: 

  • Three youth and family facilities are set to close
  • Reduced services for homeless people 
  • Addiction outreach programmes will be shut down  
  • Water playgrounds will be closed 
  • Broken playground equipment will not be replaced
  • Waste disposal in parks and green spaces will be halved
  • Trips for children from low-income families will no longer be funded 
  • The Alt-Rixdorf Christmas market will be canceled
  • Neukölln schools will have a reduced cleaning schedule 
  • Twelve schools will lose their security guard 
  • Vacant positions in the district government will not be filled 

Home to some of the most densely populated neighborhoods in Germany, and with a population of over 300,000, Neukölln is the size of a medium-sized city. It is also the most diverse area of Berlin with 40% of inhabitants having a migration background.   

Many have questioned the pointedness of this first round of cuts. The CDU came to power off the back of a racist and stigmatizing election campaign, which spread unfounded fears of youth crime and antisocial behavior in Neukölln. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the district’s young people are the first to be targeted with austerity measures. While the Berlin government has not directly mandated the targeting of these groups, the structure of district budget allocations means it is inevitable that budget cuts will hit children and vulnerable people first and hardest. 

The SPD Mayor of Neukölln Martin Hikel has made clear his strong opposition to the austerity measures. However, his own party continues to support the CDU after choosing to form a coalition with the right rather than continue its alliance with die Linke and Green parties, which retained enough seats to form a majority. Other district mayors have also expressed concern, appealing to the Berlin government to rethink this constellation.  

A demo has been organized outside Rathaus Neukölln next Wednesday 5th July at 17:00. A petition opposing the cuts can be signed here.

Rioting across France after police murder teenager

France is facing riots and protests after the police were caught on video murdering a 17 year old


01/07/2023

Nahel was a seventeen year old rugby enthusiast who worked as a delivery man. He was stopped by police as he was driving in a bus lane, last Tuesday morning, in a car with two friends as passengers. One of the policemen asked for his licence. Both of them drew their  guns and aimed them at Nahel. This is completely illegal, since the rules specify that only in a case of « absolute necessity » should guns be drawn. « Hurry up », said one cop, « You’re going to get a bullet in your head ». In response, Nahel started the car moving, and one second later was shot in the chest. He died half an hour later. One of the ambulance men, who had known Nahel since he was a small child, came across two police officers from the same brigade a couple of hours later. He shouted at them about how furious he was. Promptly he was arrested for «contempt towards a police officer » and spent 48 hours in a police cell.

The police explained, in their official report of the shooting, that one of the officers had been standing in front of the car, and that the driver had attempted to run him down, so it was necessary to shoot him. This spectacularly flimsy excuse is the classic police report in such circumstances, and was faithfully repeated on all the news channels.

But there was a video. A passerby had filmed the scene, including the threats, and social networks made sure it could not be ignored. The policeman has now been arrested and is in prison charged with murder. The second police officer, though, has not even been arrested.

Riots

On the following nights, rioting broke out in over a dozen towns around France. On Thursday night, 650 people were arrested, mostly very young. Police stations were attacked with fireworks, many were burned.  The mayor of Romainville, in the Eastern suburbs of Paris explained on Friday morning « It was calmer than the previous night, but we did have a group of sixty people attacking the police station at two O clock in the morning ». This happened in over a dozen  towns.

Some town halls and a number of cars were set on fire.  Supermarkets  and other shops were sacked. In the centre of Paris – the shops ‘Nike’ and ‘Zara’ saw all their stocks looted, as some took advantage of a situation where the police are overstretched.

The lawyer of the murderer complained on television that it was because of the riots that his client had not been allowed bail.

News channels are now inviting parents from various poor suburbs onto the TV, along with genial sociologists. The parents are asked « How can we avoid more cars being burned tonight? ». The sociologists are asked to explain how more sport and culture could help multi-ethnic youth feel more integrated into society. No one seems to be asking “How we can stop police from carrying out racist executions”, or “What sort of police training leads cops to aim a gun at you when asking for your licence?” Or indeed “What do do about the enormous fascist presence in the police force?”

Political reactions

Faced with the unrest, Macron was obliged to say that the killing was «unacceptable ». But for years he has been organizing increasing brutality in the French police force. In 2017, police engagement rules were changed to encourage the police to use their guns more, resulting a doubling of police killings. In 2022, thirteen unarmed people – almost none of them White – were shot dead by police. Thirty nine people in total were killed by police that year. Prosecutions are rare and convictions almost unheard of.

Marine Le Pen, and most of the police trade unions, have defended the shooter and claimed that he acted in self-defence. She is calling for the imposition of a state of emergency and curfews. Nazi Eric Zemmour is screaming that this is the beginning «of a race war».

Meanwhile France Insoumise MP, Clémentine Autain denounced what she called «a summary execution», and the France Insoumise is demanding a parliamentary enquiry into the murder. Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the FI tweeted «The media guard dogs say we should call for calm. We call for justice!». This  statement led to Mélenchon being denounced by right wingers as a danger to the Republic.

Macron has rushed back from Brussels to chair an emergency cabinet meeting.
The authorities are afraid that the riots could spread, like they did in 2005, after two teenagers, Zyed Benna and Bouna Traore, died fleeing the police. The riots continued for three weeks and 233 public buildings were damaged. The ruling class was shaken: over the next few years, 50 billion euros were invested to improve housing and public services in 600 of the neighbourhoods involved.

Riots are complex things, and can be very hard on the local population. Committees of parents in many poor neighbourhoods and council estates are meeting urgently to see what they can do to protect their youngsters from the police, and stop the anger from hitting the wrong targets (in one or two towns, for example, schools have been set on fire). In my neighbourhood of Montreuil, the mothers’ committee was out talking to the young people all evening.

But how much worse it would be if the cops killed our children and there was no reaction! Without the riots, the policeman would not be in prison, and the official prosecutor would not have been obliged to publicly state that police firearms rules had not been followed.

Six thousand people joined a march in Nanterre Thursday under the slogan «Justice for Nahel ». There exists already a good network of small organizations fighting police violence. But we need a broader movement with the confidence to demand that the second police officer involved be arrested, that the police be disarmed, and that fascists be expelled from their ranks. That would be, in any case, a good start.

The Departed

Silvio Berlusconi’s recent death provides an opportunity to reflect on his career and his damaging legacy.

While Berlusconi was buried in Milan, during a State Funeral on June 14 2023, the whole country was instructed to celebrate a day of public mourning. The Italian media, with few exceptions, duly threw themselves in a frenzy of commemorative praise, propelling Berlusconi into the thousand-year-old genre of hagiography. For days in a row, millions of Italian citizen-viewers were bombarded with media images of mourning and celebration for a man that, apparently, must be gravely missed.

Those interested in who Silvio Berlusconi really was may find out by reading the many articles and books written on him, or by watching the several documentaries produced about his life and career. In the past three decades, in fact, a few independent intellectuals insisted in their mission to tell and remind Italians how Berlusconi, the richest man in Italy, had earned his wealth and power. Over the years, many of these professionals disappeared from the country’s public arena, while a few resourceful ones survived and even established some independent media – a rarity over there. What these (few) brave journalists found through decades of work has very little to do with magic, and will certainly ring a bell in the mind of anyone who ever had a penchant for social equality: it is not possible to become filthy rich without ripping off your neighbour.

Berlusconi was born in 1936 in Milan to a bank employee and a stay-at-home wife. Silvio’s father would have a prominent career within his bank, where he was destined to become director. Meanwhile, young Silvio attended grammar school at the private Salesian Institute and then studied law at the University of Milan. As a student, Silvio sings in a band and sells household appliances to earn some extra cash, then, after his degree, makes his debut in real estate, propelled by his father’s contacts in Italy’s financial capital. After selling his first apartment buildings in Milan, Berlusconi makes his real exploit with Milano 2, a residential complex close to the town of Segrate, not far from Milan’s Linate airport. These are the years of Italy’s post-war economic boom, and satellite towns are a fashionable model of living for the aspiring middle classes of the prosperous industrial north. The modern, trendy satellite town even includes its own local TV broadcaster, Telemilano.

Backed by investors whose identity still remains unclear, Berlusconi becomes a rampant estate developer and launches a number of other business ventures. [1] He takes control of a constantly increasing number of regional and local TV broadcasters, with the only national one remaining RAI, the state broadcasting company. After founding Canale 5, Berlusconi buys two more channels, with their local broadcasting licenses. In 1984 his network allows him to broadcast the same programmes on three channels across the whole country. This should be a prerogative of the state broadcasting company, but Berlusconi can get away with it because he formally only owns local broadcasters. During the following 10 years, Berlusconi’s media empire grows at an impressive pace, as he takes control of Mondadori, the largest publishing company in the country, which controls not only book publishing, but also several of Italy’s main journalistic publications. In 1986 he also buys the AC Milan football club. Berlusconi thus becomes increasingly known across the country as the clever and reckless entrepreneur who converts everything he touches to gold. [2]

Berlusconi’s achievements, in reality, have a lot to do with the complacency and complicity of a wide network of personal “friends”, clients, figureheads, and political patrons who allowed him to circumvent the law. In order to build this formidable circle of mutual assistance, Berlusconi got involved with pretty unpalatable company, like the mafioso Vittorio Mangano, whom he hired as stable keeper in the 1970s, after a recommendation by his old friend and close collaborator Marcello dell’Utri. Dell’Utri, who would later be a Senator of the Republic, is eventually tried in the context of several investigations. He served a prison sentence for having collaborated with the mafia, and has since been released. [3]

In his search for “good friends” Berlusconi also entered the masonic lodge Propaganda 2, ideologically close to the most reactionary areas of Italian politics. The main objective of this convivial group of well-to-do gentlemen is to counter the rise of the left and promote the supremacy of the executive over the other democratic powers. Berlusconi’s fellow members are important people: civil servants, members of the secret services, bankers, lawyers, journalists. The rampant entrepreneur, with his media company Mediaset, is the ideal member for an organisation that aims at the ideological remaking of the country. In the space of a generation, Italy has moved from post-war poverty into fully-fledged consumerism. In the 1980s young Italians are dreaming of lives that are impossibly different from those lived by their parents, and are ready to enjoy something bolder than the polite and buttoned-up entertainment offered by RAI. The colourful and cheeky Mediaset programmes respond to the expectations of the public. The American TV series populated by blonde beauties and reckless car drivers, the exotic manga cartoons and the comedy shows decorated by scantily dressed ladies sweep up generations of viewers young and old.

Mediaset programmes shaped the imaginary of whole generations of children and young people. In 1994 these people would, together with their families, vote Berlusconi into government. At the time, Italian voters had not yet recovered from the implosion of the Italian Communist Party and from a string of major corruption scandals that had swept away the rest of the political and entrepreneurial class. Berlusconi had just lost his political patron and personal friend Bettino Craxi to the public prosecutor, and had to find someone else who could protect his interests in the political arena. And who could do this better than himself? He founded Forza Italia, presented himself as a self-made man who would make everybody as rich as he was, and a few months later he was sworn in as Prime Minister. Berlusconi was elected three times and served four terms as Prime Minister. During his mandates he carried out a systematic dismantling of the RAI public service to the advantage of his own Mediaset channels; his lawyers, who sat in Parliament as MPs, drafted a plethora of new laws aimed solely at protecting his own private interest and impunity. His far-right allies regularly passed these bills, since in return they could promote a string of repressive and unfair laws. One example of this is the infamous 2002 Bossi-Fini immigration bill, which made it extremely difficult for undocumented migrants to escape detention and greatly contributed to rising racism in Italy.

When Italians did vote Berlusconi out of office, the Parliament failed to become much of an impediment for him. Disaffected leftist voters started wondering why those who were supposed to be his adversaries were so harmless towards him. Then, once back in power, Berlusconi attempted to rewrite history, suggesting in 2009 that Italy’s Liberation day be renamed “Day of Freedom”. This because, according to him, those who died during WW2 should all be mourned, independently from their political camp. This was, first of all, a gift to his far-right allies and a clear attack on the Resistance and the anti-fascist values that had founded the Italian Republic. Secondly, his declaration constituted once again an appropriation of the value of freedom, which he always claimed as the basic principle underpinning his media, business, life, and politics.

Freedom was, according to Berlusconi, the differential unicum that made him superior to his political enemies, whom he called “the communists”. As time went by, leftist politics was gradually purged from Parliament and his tirades increasingly concerned “the judges”, often creating the illusion that magistrates, too, must be communist. Berlusconi’s media apparatus promoted a systematic delegitimating of the judiciary, whose services were not up for sale as those of the lawyers he hired. Berlusconi claimed as his privilege the freedom he had offered to television viewers: market freedom, i.e. the freedom to buy and sell anything for money. The success of his electoral campaigns relied on lies based on a transactional nature: the promise of one million new jobs, the signature of a mock “contract with Italians” during a popular TV programme, the assurance of lower taxation, etc. This was a relief for many voters, who did not want anything more than to forget about politics. For many of his critics, Berlusconi was a weird creature who did unconceivable things, like pronouncing the word “Nazi” in the European Parliament during a discussion with a German social democrat MEP. Many, both in the country and abroad, became intoxicated by his taste for making a spectacle of himself, seeing him as some kind of gifted comedian. This is rather unfortunate, as Berlusconi’s extraordinary ability to entertain both his friends and enemies was the one talent that allowed his impunity. During the last years of his life Berlusconi was ridiculed because of the sex scandals that surrounded him, yet the other side of this decadent guignol was the immense fragility of a Prime Minister who at any point in time could be blackmailed by any of the innumerable buffoons eating at his court.

Some observers have interpreted Berlusconi’s boundless ambition and his obsessive desire to embody the alpha male as a sort of “death of the father”, which would in turn herald an age of total permissiveness. However, if it is true that Berlusconi had the inclination to step over any boundary, in time his ability to do so became increasingly reliant on the limits of his viewers’ imagination, rather than on his own inventiveness. His increasing freedom to buy and sell anything he wanted went hand in hand with the loss of rights and freedoms of those living in Italy, while many of them came to see him precisely as a father figure whose authority should not be challenged.

Berlusconi’s legacy is for all to be seen: a country where, after decades of economic crisis and stagnation, the citizenry has lost all confidence in institutions. During the past 30 years the only ideological frame of reference offered by the media and the cultural industry has been defined by rampant individualism, nationalism and the cynical belittling of civic and social rights. In the meanwhile, Berlusconi’s supposed opponents abdicated their political and cultural role. As Chinese revolutionary intellectuals showed in the 20th century, imagination is key to politics. It is therefore not surprising that a large share of the Italian electorate, long deprived of any progressive ideological horizon, cannot imagine anything better than what they see: the far-right coalition led by Berlusconi’s political heiress, Giorgia Meloni.

 

 

[1] Cremagnani, Beppe and Deaglio, Enrico and Oliva, Ruben. 2005. Quando c’era Silvio. See also John Hooper’s obituary

[2] Berlusconi was first interviewed for the television by Enzo Biagi in 1986. Biagi, former partisan and the most revered political commentator in Italy, would leave RAI in 2002 after Berlusconi’s Bulgarian diktat. The 1986 interview can be seen here.

[3] Michael Day’s 2015 book Being Berlusconi: The Rise and Fall from Cosa Nostra to Bunga Bunga describes this. See also Quando c’era Silvio.

“There is an element of not knowing who our enemy is”: Interview with Elif Sarican

An interview with Elif Sarican, one of the organizers of the The Beyond Equality: Feminisms Reclaiming Life conference, happening from 30.06 – 02.07.


28/06/2023

Elif Sarican is a writer, curator, translator, organiser, host of the Pomegranate Podcast and one of the authors of the anthology “She Who Struggles: Revolutionary Women Who Shaped the World”. Elif spoke to The Left Berlin about the event “Beyond Equality: Feminisms Reclaiming Life – an Internationalist Gathering”, happening this upcoming weekend. 

Hello, Elif, thank you for agreeing to talk with The Left Berlin today. Can you start by telling us a bit about yourself, about your work and also about your connection to “Beyond Equality: Feminisms Reclaiming Life. An Internationalist Gathering”? 

My name is Elif and I’m a writer, curator and various things. I always say, etc, etc. I’m based in London, I do a lot of work on the Kurdish women’s movement. “Beyond Equality: Feminisms Reclaiming Life” came about, for me, especially through that experience, but also through some of the other work I’ve done – for example, I worked with David Graeber during my masters. And so, part of my connection to Berlin also came through the three day conference that was done at the HKW (Haus der Kulturen der Welt), based on David’s last book, which he finished before he passed away. Then, I met some of the others now on the curatorial team.

 

The “Beyond Equality: Feminisms Reclaiming Life” is curated by a collective based in Berlin that addresses the struggles in the Iranian Revolution, the Kurdish Liberation Movement, the diasporic and migrant movements, the feminist anti-extractivist and media and artistic articulations between Latin America and Germany. How did the idea for this event come about? 

Margarita Tsomou, who is the in-house curator of the HAU, brought us together and wanted to do this. It came particularly off the back of the Women Weaving the Future conference that happened in Berlin in November, which was led by the Kurdish women’s movement. There were 800 participants and women coming from 44 different territories, and that inspired all of us to want to continue some of this work.

 

This internationalist gathering is also part of the festival “¡PROTAGONISTAS! Resistance Feminisms Revolution” – can you tell us more about that? What is the difference between the two events? 

Protagonistas is the broad umbrella, while our conference is essentially the discourse curation of the broader festival. And the broader festival is different in that, while there’s still obviously discourse and discussions and debates; it also has performances, theatre and dance, and other elements of creative expression. During our conference there will also be some of that, particularly in the evenings, but what makes it slightly different is that it’s a concentrated two and a half days of discussions and debates, and giving space to collectives and movements.

 

What kind of space is HAU (Hebbel am Ufer), how is it connected to feminism and why was this the chosen place for the conference? 

The space was as a result of Margarita’s relationship with HAU, and partially also because the HAU has tried to do certain feminist work for some time. It was important that, in a way, it’s a combination of that, and a continuation of the conference that happened in Berlin in November – The Women Weaving the Future conference. So yeah, we’re very, very happy that the HAU Theatre has agreed to host this. We think it’s very important that these kinds of debates are happening in institutions as such, but also with the realisation that this is not where we take our strength or power from.

 

Feminisms seem to have entered the mainstream agenda of western countries in the last decade, but it’s been commodified and commercialised, under a concept of “gender equality” which centres individual-focused approaches and reproducing neoliberal rhetorics and practices. Why is this not enough, why do we need to go beyond the narrative of “equality”? 

We decided to call the conference Beyond Equality because we all believe in not having an equal seat at the table that is the patriarchal, capitalist, nation state system – actually, not only to create an alternative, but also supporting the alternatives that already exist. We’re not claiming to do anything new per se – what we’re merely trying to do is to make an intervention into some of the mainstream feminist discourses; a lot of these discussions already exist within movements that we’re going to be talking about throughout the conference. We see it in the last decade or so, and I think especially in Germany, with women’s equality, with this so-called feminist foreign policy, and more recently the appropriation of the slogan Jin, Jiyan, Azadî. It is not just a slogan of the Kurdish women’s movement, it’s also a political declaration for an alternative that is based on the principles of radical democracy, ecology and women’s liberation. And the reason why we believe this conference is important, as a critique to this so-called gender equality, is because we understand this strategy of liberal gender equality as an attempt to integrate certain radical elements of women’s struggle into existing systems of governance without meaningful change. And to be able to do that, these women’s struggles are made more palatable, and friendly to these systems, and the elements that don’t fit into the system are ferociously criminalised – this is exactly what we’re seeing. The so-called declaration of gender equality by some governments and states is only possible because a part of the women’s struggles are taken, and then there is an attempt to brutally crush the rest. In the case of Jin, Jiyan, Azadî, for example, the declarers of this struggle are perhaps one of the most criminalised movements in Germany. But somehow, Jin, Jiyan, Azadî sounds good to the ear and it was taken as a slogan of a friendly women’s struggle that is against Iran and therefore, is not a direct threat. This is not to say that the Kurdish women’s movement and the radical elements of it that are criminalised is a direct threat to Europe or the West, but politically and ideologically it’s clearly seen as a threat, because it’s not just about equality in this existing system – it’s about changing the system. The synthesis of all of these elements of struggle is what is seen as a threat. For Jin, Jiyan, Azadî to be put on the front of government buildings, and government funded institutions – is only possible because it’s also a way to give lip service to women’s struggle far away, and to declare that there’s no need for struggle here.

 

How do you make sure that certain parts of movements aren’t cherry picked to make them more accessible, and instead make people aware of the entire struggle?

The Kurdish women’s movement doesn’t see itself as the sole owners of this slogan, they are not territorial about it. What is important to recognise is that, to be able to develop this slogan, to be able to develop this political declaration, decades of struggle have gone into it – quite literally blood, sweat, and tears. And I think what is important is, of course, to be a part of the universalisation of this slogan. But for that slogan to be universalised in a meaningful way, that process needs to understand and recognise what the political declaration of the slogan is – that is, radical democracy, ecology, women’s liberation – and that it comes from an anti-colonial movement fighting for freedom. The important element is to really recognise and to talk about the history and the struggle of this movement. If you also believe in that struggle, in those principles, in those values, then I guess you would also want to talk about why this slogan is important. But the issue is that government ministers are chanting this, and I doubt that they believe in radical democracy, ecology, or women’s liberation, because their governments and their institutions continue to sell arms to some of these states, including the Turkish; they continue to be almost actionless when it comes to ecological destruction, and continue to repress women’s struggles themselves. So this is where the appropriation comes – when what you do, and the policies, don’t match the slogan.

You will be hosting a workshop on abolitionist feminism. In conversations about gendered violence, sexual assault and feminicide, it’s easy to end up engaged with narratives using a carceral framework, even within feminist movements. How can we speak about feminist justice, centring real transformative practices, without reproducing or enabling punitivist logics? 

These are some very difficult questions to figure out. One element that is important, when talking about abolition, is what one’s perspective of abolition is, because some schools of thought see abolition as a step towards revolution, and some as a complete refiguring of how society relates to each other and therefore as the revolution. When we talk about the latter, it’s difficult still to create reasons for carceral solutions, because you’re talking about completely refiguring how people in society relate to each other. Obviously, there’s very real issues in terms of the violence and the threats that people face, because of the state of society. One of the important things in developing this workshop was that Nazan Üstündağ will be talking about how we can reframe certain elements of abolition in terms of self-defence as well, because that is also important for an anti-carceral approach. For example, in the case of some parts of Kurdistan, there’s the reality of ISIS – and of course, now there’s many ISIS members who are also either in prison or in camps in these areas – and what do you do with this? If they are out in the world, then they’re quite literally a threat to that entire society and particularly to women (although obviously not only women). In the workshop we’ll talk a bit about how we can really think about what we call “Feminism Unchained”, and how we can start to try to think about what that can look like, where we start and what that means. It will be very interesting, in terms of self-defence, and what the others will bring, in terms of the attempts and work that they’ve done with transformative justice and how that’s worked, and how that hasn’t worked in some ways; Sabine Hark will talk about the education system, and so on. It’s not to say that no one should go to prison now, it’s to say: how do we get to a point in which society doesn’t have this? And even now, is the existence of prisons really making us safer? They will have their interventions and there’s going to be three scenarios, and we’ll all discuss how could there be an abolitionist perspective in dealing with them. It will be abolition storytime.

 

Can you tell us a bit more about your views on the current feminist struggles here in Berlin and in Germany? 

Some of the struggles I know the most about are struggles of what would be considered migrant communities, and the women of migrant communities. There’s so many elements of it, from certain migrant communities, from organising and fighting as care workers, to the Kurdish women’s movement – organising assemblies and trying to organise society in that sense. What I think is the reflection – and this is sadly the case in many parts of Europe – is women’s struggles are very fragmented; and this fragmentation is really a success of the system. To understand the reasons for this fragmentation and to really analyse it, there is of course many elements, but we can simplify in the name of trying to understand things. One of the key things is that there is an element of not knowing who our enemy is – and this is probably one of the biggest issues that keeps women’s movements fragmented. We often identify our enemies as very different things or places or institutions and so on. So there is much work to do, particularly in Europe, in terms of a systematic analysis of where we are, why we are there, or why we’re in the state or the position that we are, and this obviously includes practical and material situations.

 

About the lack of identification of the enemies, related to care work – it’s hard for people to immediately identify with care work and what it conveys, because it’s been so invisibilised. What would be strategies to bring care work to the agenda, in a way that people can relate it to their daily lives and struggles? 

The important thing is making some of the connections in terms of the class, gendered and the social reasons behind this, and understanding that care work and its exploitation in particular, are quite a fundamental part of capitalist exploitation as well.

 

How can other feminist activists, organisers and collectives get involved in your collective’s work beyond next week’s gathering? 

On Saturday evening, July 1, we will have a feminist assembly which is definitely a way to get organised. What is important about this assembly is that it’s also an avenue in which these relationships don’t have to go through us – groups, struggles and people can meet each other directly. Beyond that, we have the intention of continuing some of these discussions in a public sense, for sure. But I think what’s important to declare is that we, by no means, feel like anything needs to go through us, we’re not overstepping the function of this conference. I don’t want to say this is a big turning point – maybe it will be – but I think what’s important is that if you come to the conference, and particularly the assembly, hopefully you can meet others. If groups and movements who have never met before, and perhaps have or have not been in the same room, also get to connect, that is already a huge success for this conference.

 

Beyond Equality: Feminisms Reclaiming Life will happen this upcoming weekend, between 30 June and 2 July. The workshop registration is free, by email, as well as the possibility for childcare on Saturday and Sunday (email anmeldung@hebbel-am-ufer.de). 

What just happened in Russia?

Putin and the failed coup leader Prigozhin are two peas in the same pod


27/06/2023

Putin and Prigozhin meeting at food catering business

The oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin who founded the armed mercenary group called ‘Wagner”, is today’s Coriolanus. Similar to that Roman general in an arrogant hubris fueling a spectacular change of direction, he now only awaits his own murder. As Ukrainian Mykhailo Podolyak (adviser to President Zelensky) said, “you almost nullified Putin, took control of the central authorities, reached Moscow and suddenly… you retreat. Because one very specific intermediary with a dubious reputation (Lukashenko) promised security guarantees from the person (Putin) who ordered to destroy you in the morning“.

A recap of events

Although Prigozhin never directly called for the overthrow of Putin himself, just his Head of Defence Sergei Shoigu, the “Wagner” group’s actions were a missile aimed at Putin’s regime. Prigozhin seized military installations at Rostock-on-Don. Wagner armoured columns and troops then rolled down the M-4 motorway towards Moscow. In short – an attempted coup. Putin fled Moscow on his presidential jet. But within 200 km (125 miles) of Moscow, the armed threat was defused. What happened?

The Belarus Republic President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, offered asylum of sorts to Prigozhin. Simultaneously Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov assured Prigozhin that:

“the criminal case against… Prigozhin, would be dropped. Prigozhin will go to Belarus, Peskov said, and the fighters who rebelled with him would not be prosecuted by law given their “service at the front.” Wagner fighters who did not participate in the mutiny can sign contracts with the Russian Ministry of Defense, he said.” 

At last reporting the armoured column was turned back, and the Wagner occupation of Rostov-on-Don (the jump-off point for munitions and Russian troops) against Ukraine was ended:

“Wagner armored vehicles began leaving the military hub of Rostov-on-Don, in southwestern Russia, on Saturday night..The fighters’ departure from Rostov, whose occupation sent an image of strength, added credibility to the deal apparently reached in talks with the Belarusian leader.” NYT 24 June, 2023

Perhaps the last word of the news roundup goes to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and his message on Twitter that “today, the world saw that the bosses of Russia do not control anything.” 

How can Marxists understand these events?

Putin’s passage to power arose out of the slow destruction of the socialist USSR by the Soviet leaders Khruschev, Bulganin and then Brezhnev, and the turbulent and rapid changes of the post-collapse period. Through the 1950s to the 1980s, successive Soviet leaders created a state capitalist enterprise favouring domestic heavy industrialists. However, in the post-Gorbachev era when rapid privatisation was enacted on Russian industry, these same Russian state capitalists were enormously weakened. American capital was allowed entry and stripped previously state-owned resources to their delight. But this spurred national Russian capital to take back control and are the foundation of Putin’s political support.

In the 1990s into the 2000 and beyond, criminal gang activities took over vital parts of financial institutions, seizure of State assets and corrupt governing bodies – particularly from Leningrad (Saint Petersburg). This was Putin’s domain. From recently acquired political office he delegitimized Chechenya’s national aspirations as terrorism in the late-1990s. This justified his murderous rampages engineering false-flag explosions in Moscow, and the brutal war in Chechnya.  This enabled his militarized hold that finally established the oligarchic regime in Russia.

Russia under Putin is characterized as “a hyper-nationalist neo-imperialist state… Putin himself is an oligarch and a ruthless imperialist.” If Putin was initially just one hyena amongst others feeding off the carcass of the former USSR – he rapidly extinguished most others. Including Mikhail Khodorovsky, and Alexei Navalny.

Who is Yevgeny V. Prigozhin?

Prigozhin is a Russian businessman who until recently was a close associate of Putin. Born in 1961 in then Leningrad, Mr. Prigozhin was imprisoned in 1981 for robbery amongst other crimes. After serving nine years, he “opened a hot-dog stand, eventually leading to an entrepreneurial career starting restaurants and convenience stores.” NYT June 23, 2023 

Prigozhin was labelled:

Putin’s chef” because of his catering business, which has staged elaborate state banquets for Mr. Putin” . 

But he came more to prominence when he formed the mercenary group “Wagner”. This first saw prominence during the 2014 annexation of the Crimea by Russia:

“The entity first emerged in 2014, during Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The U.S. government has said that the organization is financed by Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, The group reportedly took its name from the nom de guerre of its leader, Dmitry Utkin, a retired Russian military officer. Mr. Utkin is said to have chosen Wagner to honor the composer, who was a favorite of Hitler’s. Despite the Kremlin’s denial of any ties to Wagner, Mr. Utkin has been photographed next to Mr. Putin.” NYT March 31, 2022

After that the Wagner mercenaries were used as an extension of the Russian state arm overseas. It enabled a plausible deniability of Russian imperialist brutality and extra-judicial murders in Syria and elsewhere, especially in Africa (NYT March 31, 2022): 

“In addition to their involvement in Syria, Libya, Central African Republic and Ukraine, Wagner operatives have also fought in Sudan, Mali and Mozambique, exerting Russian influence by proxy, doing the bidding of authoritarian leaders and, at times, seizing oil and gas fields or securing other material interests. Increasingly, they’ve become more formalized and have started acting more like Western military contractors.” 

He appeared to have a mandate from Putin for electronic disruption and media control. That led to his indictment in 2018 by a USA federal grand jury, and personal sanctions for:

“interfering in the American election through the Internet Research Agency, a troll factory that spread falsehoods and waged information warfare against the United States, in support of the presidential campaign of Trump”. NYT June 23, 2023

Wagner goes to the Ukraine

After the Putin Russian imperialists started their poorly led aggressive war of invasion in Ukraine, Wagner was sent to the Ukrainian Front. Prigozhin being familiar with Russian jails himself, recruited prisoners to fight in Wagner. Wagner’s moderate successes – achieved only at high death rates – there both swelled Prigozhin’s head, but infuriated him against the Russian army leadership. Especially after the recent, grinding senseless battle of Bakhmut – many Wagner troops died. Prigozhin accused Russian commanders of inadequate supply of munitions, and incompetence. This rapidly began a ‘tough talk’ set of diatribes:

“using social media to turn tough talk and brutality into his personal brand.. launching accusations at Russia’s military leadership, blaming it for failing to provide his forces with enough ammunition and ignoring soldiers’ struggles… Mr. Putin had not checked Mr. Prigozhin’s online accusations, despite jailing or fining many other critics of the war. Spewing vulgarities, disregarding the law and displaying loyalty to no one but Mr. Putin, Mr. Prigozhin.. became a symbol of wartime Russia.” NYT June 23, 2023

All this likely gave Prigozhin delusions of grandeur as a ‘saviour’ of Russia. It appears he even met with Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, Kyrylo Budanov. Prigozhin made extraordinary offers of treason to reveal Russia’s most vulnerable troop locations to Ukraine:

“In late January, with his mercenary forces dying by the thousands in a fight for the ruined city of Bakhmut, Wagner Group owner Yevgeniy Prigozhin made Ukraine an extraordinary offer. Prigozhin said that if Ukraine’s commanders withdrew their soldiers from the area around Bakhmut, he would give Kyiv information on Russian troop positions, which Ukraine could use to attack them. Prigozhin conveyed the proposal to his contacts in Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate, with whom he has maintained secret communications during the course of the war, according to previously unreported U.S. intelligence documents leaked on the group-chat platform Discord… Two Ukrainian officials confirmed that Prigozhin has spoken several times to the Ukrainian intelligence directorate, known as HUR. One official said that Prigozhin extended the offer regarding Bakhmut more than once, but that Kyiv rejected it…” Washington Post; May 15, 2023 

Conclusions

Obviously Prigozhin finally realized he was unlikely to prevail. Putin for his part invoked the Civil War in 1917, facilely painting that as a time of “intrigues, quarrels, politicking behind the back of the army and the people turning at end into “the tragedy of the civil war” Putin’s Speech 24 June. In reality the Civil War was far more, it was an open fight between the Bolshevik new order fighting the ex-Tsarist, pro-Western imperialists, who were trying to dislodge the Lenin Government

While there are a number of pro-Marxist and Marxist-Leninist forces in Russia today, none have reached anywhere near the point of being able to intervene with mass credibility. Until such a party emerges, anti-Putin struggles are doomed to remain largely in the realm of inter-oligarch struggles. 

In those the people have no voice. That is not to say that alliances at certain points might not be necessary. But only a principled working-class party leading the way forward can hope to dislodge the oligarchs and recreate conditions for a new socialist revolution in Russia. The same largely applies to the Ukraine. Although in Ukraine a pre-condition will be the removal and forcing back of Russian aggression. Only then can remaining reactionary forces – including their own oligarchy – can be dealt with. 

First published June 25th at Red Phoenix APL