The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

The Paradox of Self-care as an Act of Care Community

Second Part of an article about dealing with activist burnout


31/07/2022

You can read the first part of this article here.

Let’s replace the toxic paradigm of self-sacrifice with the liberating paradigm of self-care. But first we need to reclaim care for the self from the industry of self-care. Are you familiar with that famous Audre Lorde quote: self care is an act of political warfare? A whole industry of self-care has appropriated this emancipatory principle and has been supplying the bourgeoisie with endless pretexts for covering up their complicity and finding excuses for their ignorance, passivity, and lack of commitment in the face of the violence of exploitative, oppressive systems.

We have long been criticising this situation on the left, but let’s stop and ask ourselves to what extent this is emancipatory criticism and to what extent it is simply a manifestation of the belief that we are not worthy of care, space, and recognition? In the way that it was understood by Lorde and other radical activists alongside her, self-care, as a revolutionary act, means saying NO to capitalist time. And, implicitly, to say no to chasing after results and assigning value to your work based on productivity. If capitalist time is focused on visible results, revolutionary time is unpredictable and, most of the time, it is also lengthy. The consequences of our work can become visible in a shorter time than expected or over numerous years. Building rebel communities and anti-authoritarian social movements takes time and, at the end of the day, to ensure that we have the patience that this time demands, we need to take care of ourselves.

Self-care doesn’t necessarily have to lead to individualism or consumerism. Once we start seeing our bodies and hearts as more than just resources, to see them instead as repositories of our histories and as sources of wisdom that go beyond rationality, they become very precious. Understanding ourselves in such a way, we open the door towards also seeing other people in the same way, thus getting closer to an ideal of mutual care. Mutual care, according to iox, is a form of collective strength in the face of exploitation and destruction.

What I used to call rest consisted mostly of stopping due to exhaustion, rain checks or procrastination…rather they are interruptions in the accelerated and urgent rhythm of life in capitalist adversity…

Slowing Down and Resting

Let’s compare a slow, fluctuating time to the time of capitalism, to speed, productivity, and flow. Slowing down does not mean a break and it does not mean postponing, but is a real change of rhythm, which brings your body to the present and closer to your soul. When you slow down, you manage to hear your own breath, the beating of your heart, the silent and sustained rhythms of your body. You can understand and learn about all those places within you where your body has bandaged a wound, has replaced pain with pleasure or has locked away suffering. By slowing down, you can learn to rest.

The big revelation that burnout has brought me is that up until recently I actually had no idea how to rest. What I used to call rest consisted mostly of stopping due to exhaustion, rain checks or procrastination. Sometimes, in order to protect myself from intense and unreasonable work rhythms, I would just bail. All these ways of stopping were not really planned and, sometimes, I was not even aware of them. Often, I needed the legitimation of other comrades who would say: just go to sleep, it’s too late to be working now, or you are allowed to have fun or screw work, even if it’s activism. When this is what most of your breaks look like, you can’t call them rest. Rather, they are interruptions in the accelerated and urgent rhythm of life in capitalist adversity, where sleep is functional and purely pragmatic.

Burnout has forced me to slow down and stop. The following were deafening at first: intrusive thoughts, restlessness, stifling anxiety. Fear, guilt, shame, guilt, fear; they all come crashing down when you stop. I was scared about what will other people think, if I stop doing this? And, in truth, this is possible; you will disappoint. By facing this fear, I realised that, first of all, I needed to be kinder to myself. And if people around me do end up disappointed, this is also part of love outside of punishment.

Through kindness, I discovered that, for me, rest is first and foremost a change of inner rhythm. From the fast and disciplined rhythm of work, I moved on to a disorganised rhythm, one that more closely follows my inner occurrences. Rest became a place of not only physical but also psychical regeneration, in which I am trying to learn what is truly restorative for me, outside of the model of normative society. When I manage to do it right, rest is a space of daydreaming, regardless of whether these dreams are realistic or truly fantastic.

In fact, it’s not moments of indulgence that make you lose your motivation – burnout does.

Pleasure, Pleasure, Pleasure

Three times pleasure because it’s like we are even ashamed to say this word. I sometimes think that we completely internalised capitalist and consumerist bullshit. We believe that pleasure is some sort of bourgeois indulgence, a matter of consumerism, shopping and entertainment. I noticed about me and others that we cannot allow ourselves to feel pleasure, as if that would make us so indulgent that we would forget our motivation, our revolution and everything else. Since when is indulgence almost synonymous with perpetuating oppression? Could it be that it’s been so ever since capitalism has convinced us that being lazy and wasting time is a bad thing?

In fact, it’s not moments of indulgence that make you lose your motivation – burnout does. I lost not only my motivation, but also my hope and even my sense of self; you can no longer tell why you’re doing the things you’re doing, what used to drive you, what your motivation was, where your satisfaction used to come from in your day to day and in the long run. If you’re a little bit like me, then your motivation is strongly bound up with your narrative about yourself: who you are, how you think of yourself, how you relate to other people. By losing these fundamental milestones, you end up de-personalised.

In slowing down, in rest and extended time, you can listen to your body and allow it to show you (again) who you are. Pleasure can be a way to anchor yourself, a way to allow your body to remind you of who you are, what brings you pleasure. Going beyond hedonism or immediate satisfaction, pleasure is that place where your spirit feels at home and happy hormones are not there to cover up negative experiences, but to heal them. Such an experience can teach you to listen to yourself, to hear what your body, your heart, your intuition are saying. This way, you can reach what you really wish for, going beyond immediate or medium-term goals, beyond normative family-home-career scenarios.

I was always of the opinion that it’s a good thing to fight my limits, but this way of thinking has led me to live a life of hardness, has almost turned me into my own guard.

Tenderness, Gentleness, and Sweetness

When political work has no room for pleasure, it means that anger and pain are its sole driving forces. Satisfaction becomes marginal, subsumed within this anger. My anger has served me well, has even helped me survive, but it has also harmed me greatly.

This is not my first burnout. The other two times this happened, I was even more disconnected from my own body, even deeper inside this paradigm of anger and excessive energy. This constant activity and the complete depletion of my body’s resources even led me to hallucinations one time. It was only then that I realised I was experiencing a burnout. That time, it hadn’t been any series of unfortunate events in combination with excessive work, but simply uninterrupted, draining, high-paced and high charged work. Anger was my main affect at that point. I learned to spit fire, to grow sharp fangs, to bite and not just bark – all these are things I’ve had lovingly said to me by friends. All this fierceness has probably helped lead me somewhere in life, but it’s also cost me my tenderness and my gentleness.

Here I mean mostly tenderness towards myself, and not other people. That, and having understanding for yourself, seeking regenerative rest and rediscovering pleasure, kindness, and tenderness towards yourself are essential not only to avoid a burnout, but also to overcome it. I was always of the opinion that it’s a good thing to fight my limits, but this way of thinking has led me to live a life of hardness, has almost turned me into my own guard.

Sometimes, however, it might be that we deny ourselves kindness and push on with extreme work in order to stop ourselves from feeling things. Because we know, more or less consciously, that those feelings waiting to come up are endless deception, and a very broken heart. A very broken heart however needs exactly that kind of tenderness and sweetness: allowing yourself physical and emotional comfort, with great care for all the small things they can bring you. Living everyday alongside small, necessary evils is not a virtue. Being your own guard and exploiter does not lead to progress. But there are ways in which you can contribute to the political change you are dreaming of while also being kind to yourself – which, to me, sounds like a great success.

In the end, the care I received has made me more modest and more trusting in my communities

On Collective Practices

Having had the privilege of working in anti-capitalist environments, my colleagues understood my burnout and I enjoyed their support while it was happening. Their camaraderie meant less guilt and the reassurance that, eventually and despite everything, it will all be ok.

These people around me understood burnout as an aspect of mental health and so instituted good practices from the domain of anti-sanist activism. It’s important to remember that a person doesn’t choose to experience a burnout, and cannot choose to get over it. In my case, my healing, my recovery after this profound crisis took six months. This means that, for about half a year, I’ve had to diminish my workload from 9-10 hours a day to about 2 or 3. This change which has allowed me to heal would have been almost impossible in normative work environments.

In the big bad world, you can only allow yourself change of this magnitude if you are a boss or a CEO. Otherwise, for precarious workers, reducing your workload to a third of it means also reducing your income and benefits accordingly, and creating professional hardship in the long run. On this note, it is important not to forget the material aspects of our work. Even if they are not the focus of this article, it would be impossible to stop work or to heal without integrating them in our planning. So, next time we are thinking about the (re)distribution of resources in our collectives, we should keep in mind that it might become necessary to cover for the temporary withdrawal of our members.

The support and understanding that I enjoyed have also meant that I didn’t feel so alone. That might actually be one reason why we sometimes keep postponing a long-needed break: we fear the loneliness, we fear the loss of connection with our comrades. We’ll lose track of the last social media debates, we’ll lose track of all the projects, travelling, organising. Ideally, however, a break away from work should not lead to isolation and solitude. One important thing that I was lucky to receive therefore has been the reassurance that my burnout will not exclude me from the social life and the emotional rhythm of political work. That I’ll still be part of the gang, so to say.

There, in my burnout, I understood that one of the toxic drives of my extreme work ethic was the fear that if I allowed myself a break, if I changed the way I worked, I would no longer be loved, appreciated, seen. Even before, I knew that appreciation was important and that it is not a damnable thing to seek and need recognition for our efforts, especially when it comes to our communities. However, it was only when I reached my limits that I realised that it wasn’t clear to me to what extent people around me liked me beyond the work I did. Even if this is a terrifying perspective, burnout leaves you with no other choice but to find out.

This is the moment when you can allow yourself to fall back into the arms of your community, to let show your frailty and vulnerability. By stretching out your hands full of all your accumulated pain, you can learn to ask for and receive care. Asking for and receiving care are hard to imagine and live for many of us. For me, at least, it’s a very fragile and painful emotional space. Don’t be like me, learn to practice care before you reach an acute crisis. In the end, the care I received has made me more modest and more trusting in my communities: a kind of increased self-assurance, but anchored in those who I know love me.

…it’s important to have workspaces which strive towards eliminating the pressure of productivity, of always delivering and towards dismantling the moral hierarchy that exists between those who work more and those who work less…

What My Burnout Has Taught Me

In the world of activism, where we have more autonomy and self-organisation and less power hierarchies than in other fields of activity, we have more control over our work conditions. Looking at this from an anti-capitalist perspective aiming to prevent burnout, it’s important to have workspaces which strive towards eliminating the pressure of productivity, of always delivering and towards dismantling the moral hierarchy that exists between those who work more and those who work less. And then, based on my experience, once the burnout has happened, it is essential to receive reassurances that everything will be well, that you’re not to blame, that you will not be alone, to receive continued material support and recognition. And you, the person going through the hard time, need to make an effort to learn how to ask for and receive care and then you need to forgive yourself.

Forgive yourself, it’s very important that you forgive yourself! Even is those around you are acting nicely, even if they are offering you care and support, even if you manage to give yourself time, to slow down, to find pleasure, to rest, at the end of the day, you might still be left with some guilt. And there, in that painful place within yourself where you believe you’re not worthy of rest or pleasure, that there is no recognition outside of much work, that’s where you need to forgive yourself.

We become embittered if we don’t forgive ourselves. We collect resentments and they stay with us, turning into alienation and cynicism, even if we do manage to allow ourselves breaks. And then we return to helplessness, we lose the motivation that drives our fight. The forgiveness I speak of might be a longer and more complicated process than overcoming burnout. Rummaging through your soul and facing debts and guilt that have been there for who knows how long is hard, to say the least. In the first stages, forgiving myself has shown me that I no longer have to prove anything to anyone and that a little extra modesty, in the form of taking a step back, is very liberating. Becoming vulnerable and trusting those around you allows you to let go in a liberating way, in this form of modesty and taking a step back. And this step back means both taking on a background role which allows other to bring about new version of your collective utopia, and believing in your communities, who know where to go even beyond what you can offer them.

The article first appeared in Romanian on the CUTRA website. Translation: Anisia Petcu. Reproduced with permission.

Can documenta15 still be saved? An Open Letter

Open Letter to the documenta15 supervisory board, the German government and the media


30/07/2022

From Werner Ruf, Ingo Wandelt & Rainer Werning

We, the signatories of this “Open Letter”, are worried that the internationally renowned art exhibition documenta is possibly taking place for the last time in its current form. Ruangrupa, this year’s Indonesian curators of documenta followed the ambitious goal of finally allowing the “Global South” of the planet a voice. They are trying to take a look at a post-colonial world, which was previously characterized by imperialism, colonialism, racism and other forms of oppression and exploitation. The central idea wasLumbung”, the rice bard as a refuge for a socially managed and used resource of life. That could serve as a vital intercultural communication.

The laudable idea of letting people of the former Third World to speak for themselves naturally contains the “danger” that unnoticed facts in our own writing of history, kept persistently secret and suppressed – may suddenly become relevant. Who owns the prerogative of interpreting what happened and happens “down there”? If “the Southerners” attain the power of interpretation, does this lead to questioning “our” world view, previously cultivated over centuries together with claims to power?

The Indonesian artists’ collective ‘Taring Padi’ displayed a banner made out of many hundred pictures, created two decades ago. Since then, it was shown in many places without provoking protests. Two of the images found on this banner formed the justification for the hasty political instrumentalisation of documenta 15; and to denounce the banner as “anti-semitic”. This resulted in their condemnation – lock, stock and barrel. Even the demand that the exhibition be immediately cancelled. High-ranking German politicians believed that they these images were a threat to the existence of the State of Israel, while others consciously avoided visiting Kassel [the site of the exhibition].

The artists’ collective of Taring Padi declared early on that: “The banner installation ‘People’s Justice’ (2002) is a campaign against the militarism and violence that we experienced during the military dictatorship of Suharto for 32 years in Indonesia; and its legacy up to the present day. Therefore, the depiction of military figures in the banner expresses our experiences. As such, all figures depicted in the banner reference commonly-known symbols within the Indonesian political context, for example: corrupt bureaucracy, military generals and their soldiers – which are symbolised by pigs, dogs, and rats; to criticise an exploitative capitalist system and military violence ()

The pig’s face with a helmet containing the word MOSSAD is thus just one of similarly helmeted figures with abbreviations like KGB, CIA, INTEL, 007, which as a whole stand for international secret services. These served as the bones of the régime of (1965-1998). The weekly paper Die Zeit’ wrote the following on 3rd November 1967 – about Suharto’s bloody anti-Communist military campaign:

“The avenging army has not hesitated in realising the one-off chance of exterminating its only rivals. With official approval, carried out by the army, by militant Muslim youth groups, and by the PNI (Partai Nasional Indonesia), probably the largest mass murder since the days of Hitler began. There was a pogrom of the CPI [the Communist Party of Indonesia, at the time the third largest Communist Party worldwide – Authors note] supporters which would eventually get out of hand and turn into a national killing spree, whereby private feuds and general social conflicts were settled under the comfortable cloak of anti-Communism.”

The second incriminating image shows a face with sharks’ teeth, the cigar of a capitalist in its mouth, head covered with a hat, on which you can see SS insignia. The shape of side curls [as worn by Orthodox Jewish men – translator] are also discernible. Does this stand for the “hateful, greedy Jew” or a cunning broker, who symbolically represents finance capital which sells off the wealth and natural resources of Third World countries at the stock exchange? The SS insignia is clearly aimed at the inhumanity and brutality of the accused colonial system. Is “the Jew” being attacked here or the international finance system? The problem is more about an interpretation by the Western – specifically German – viewer, than that it is an unambiguous statement about “the Jews”. Also relevant is that the incriminated figure wears European clothing. The Israeli sociologist Moshe Zuckermann refers to this as a “purely German scandal”. Both incriminated images are not intended as antisemitic pieces, but are strictly anti-Suharto images. This basic intention of the banner clearly is not once visible to Western eyes.

The SS figure is placed in close proximity to the zombie-like creatures, also shown with fangs. The overall context strong indicates this really deals with an SS figure, and in no sense reduces “the Jews” to a particular incarnation of evil. A crony of Suharto, who was also his biographer, was no less than the hardened Nazi, SS-Obersturmbannführer and war criminal Rudolf Oebsger-Röder. Under the name O. G. Roeder, he was responsible for managing the image of Suharto at home and abroad as the constantly “smiling general”. After the Second World War, Röder, with others, was responsible for the Organisation Gehlen’ (hence the O.G. before his name) – the forerunner of the Bundesnachrichtendienstes [BND – German Federal Intelligence Service]. He later worked in Jakarta, both for the BND and also as a correspondent for the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

“We see things not as they are, we see them as we are”, wrote the author Anaïs Nin once. “We” have mixed “here” a dangerous cocktail from pre-judgements, hate-filled rejection, deeply reactionary reactions, political opportunism and vandalism.

What this leads to is that foreign guests, even curators and artists of this year’s documenta were physically endangered. This has not just introduced serious damage to this international art show. In addition, loud calls are chiming for curtailment of artistic freedom censorship. In Summer 2022!

Following 70 year’ diplomatic relations between the German Bundesrepublik and the Republic of Indonesia, it is time to open the archive to look at the wider ranging (West) German support for the Suharto Terror régime. This would follow the sense of the government’s sworn transparency and “value-based foreign policy.”

In particularly, we request that the documenta 15 supervisory board immediately use all its available powers to shape orderly modes of behaviour and a culture of dialogue that deserves its name. This means holding corresponding open forums, and an active exchange of opinions for the remaining time of documenta 15. We expect moreover an advisory body which contains at least one scholar from South-East Asia.

Edermünde/Wuppertal/Königsdorf am 27th July 2022

Prof. Dr. Werner Ruf (former political scientist and peace researcher with a main focus on international relations)

Dr. Ingo Wandelt (ethnologist and Indonesian scholar)

Dr. Rainer Werning (social scientist and political commentator focussing on South-East and East Asia)

Translation: Phil Butland. Reproduced with permission

Running on Fumes: Burnout in Activism

Veda Popovici elaborates how neoliberal work habits become virtuous within anti-capitalist activist groups in the first of her two part essay.


28/07/2022

Last year I suffered an intense burnout. What does that mean? It means that, at the end of a series of unfortunate events and against the backdrop of an intense work rhythm, I reached the limits of what I had to give. And by that I mean the limits of my soul, body, heart and brain. Perhaps the best translation of the term burnout into Romanian is an extreme usage of the self. It’s not “just” exhaustion or depression, it’s pushing yourself so hard for so long that you end up burning all your inner, emotional, and physical resources. A car running on fumes, which is you, left with nothing else besides anxiety so deep it borders on terror, broken and invasive thoughts, chaotic emotions that have taken over and an aching body, shaking and sometimes delirious. And, what’s worse, when you’ve been burned out or excessively used, it becomes almost impossible to refill your tank of inner, emotional and physiological resources.

As scary as it seems – and is – burnout is in no way unusual. It’s a frequent occurrence in capitalist work structures and is, unfortunately, also very present in activist work environments, where self-sacrifice, adversity and constant, intense work are part and parcel of your everyday work rhythm. Over the last years I witnessed several such episodes of my comrades’. This helped us begin to understand, to educate ourselves about what was happening to us. What seems most important, however, is to begin by critically analysing the mechanisms which constantly push us to ignore our limits, while at the same time normalising practices of mutual, individual and collective care. If I were to summarise the challenges of these efforts to one fundamental question, it would be this: how can we convince ourselves that self-care, understanding and reinforcing (instead of forcing) our limits are essential for the sustainability of social movements?

The constant chase for results and the constant evaluation of the worth of our work as a relation between our expectations and results are capitalist values.

Burnout and Work in The Big Bad World

Out in the big bad world, by which I mean in normative society, burnout is already accepted as a given. Having already been a subject of study for a long time, the World Health Organisation has also recently recognised it as a professional ailment, a sort of work disease. In a likewise normative fashion, the excessive usage of the self is even more present in jobs where the individual motivation stemming from moral concerns and the emotional investment are bigger. In other words, in those jobs where we speak of good and evil, where you are emotionally invested in your work. Activism is such a field of activity.

Setting aside the fact that even normative society recognises the extreme burden of political work, we all understand how hard it is to simply live everyday being acutely aware of the immense discrepancy between the hurt and injustice of the world, and what we would like to see happen. This distance between what exists and what we would like it to be can sometimes become smaller, at times even significantly so, but remains the same most of the time. Of course, this pushes us and gives meaning to our political work, but when the results are small for long periods of time, it’s easy to feel constantly emotionally overwhelmed and to lose our motivation. We end up asking ourselves: what’s the point of all this?

However, we also need to ask ourselves, what if this logic is, on some level, reproducing or created by the capitalist ethic?

The constant chase for results and the constant evaluation of the worth of our work as a relation between our expectations and results are capitalist values. Capitalism teaches us speed, productivity, flow. Capitalist time is time in which your efforts are planned in quick succession, where each effort has to lead to palpable results and each result in quantifiable: you’ve “invested” time and work, what are you “getting” out of it? Capitalist time is rationalised: all your efforts are planned, all results get measured and all the goals you achieved had been previously measured and temporally situated. Deviations from this schedule or changes in rhythms both produce chaos. And nobody wants chaos in capitalism.

…the neoliberal model normalises a colonisation of the worker’s life by the employer… you get all those teambuilding and socialising events… through which the corporation sneaks into your soul.

Work Equals Life and…

How did I end up with a burnout? In short, it was a background of intense work that didn’t yield many results, to which a series of urgent events were added: death and fear of it, disease and fear of losing autonomy, losing worlds and losing people: solitude and more solitude and a broken heart, sustained violence against me and people I care about. When that which you do is political work, your life is pretty much one with your work. It becomes unclear where a task you’ve taken on ends and where your simple day to day life begins.

I was lucky enough to have grown up in an anti-work mentality. My parents used to often tell me in all seriousness: never do one minute of overtime if you are working for a boss. never do anything extra that you are not getting paid for! However, their experience is based on the Fordist work model: a 9 to 5 job, after which you get to go on and take care of your life and do your own thing once your shift is over. Your job is separate from your life, and the job you do is not really connected to your life. Of course, this is an aspect that gets criticised as alienating from a Marxist perspective: your working self ends up being so divorced from your individual and social life that you start experiencing anxiety and inauthenticity. The trick however is that neoliberalism considers this model obsolete and, by appropriating the critique of alienation, it says no to alienation and combines work and personal life. “Combines” is, however, not the right word. In fact, the neoliberal model normalises a colonisation of the worker’s life by the employer, the loss of privacy and the dissolution of measurable work norms such as work hours; instead, you get all those teambuilding and socialising events, informal language etc., through which the corporation sneaks into your soul.

Against the backdrop of our insecurity about our own value… we fall prey to a work model that very much resembles the neoliberal one, in which self-deprecation is used to serve the logic of productivity.

the Personal is Political

Even though I live in communities, groups and collectives with anti-capitalist commitments, where we harshly criticise this neoliberal model and strive to organise our lives and work in liberating terms, a measure of this model still seeps into our lives. Merging your political work and your individual and collective life is seen as valuable in leftist environments. The personal is political. The permanent effort of reflecting your principles in your everyday life is a way of living authentically and without subordination. More importantly, it is a way through which we can bring our much dreamed-of utopia closer to ourselves and the present moment. What do you do however when this merging between life and work starts to be weirdly like the neoliberal model? When the fundamental motivation of your work is so intimately bound to your definition of yourself, borders start to disappear, and it becomes very easy to lose yourself.

This time I wasted today could’ve been used doing this, that or the other – all of which would have been good for other people or groups. Or how can I call myself a member of a movement if I am not constantly contributing to it? These or any number of similar rhetorical questions, even when not explicitly formulated or not formalised as set intentions, can become everyday credos that replace the main motivation. Against the backdrop of our insecurity about our own value, we become our own guard and in doing so, we fall prey to a work model that very much resembles the neoliberal one, in which self-deprecation is used to serve the logic of productivity.

By which I mean – the normative world has taught me to hate myself and I therefore know that I am not worthy of recognition, that I have almost no intrinsic value and that all my self-worth comes from this work and its results. A derivative of a neoliberal model, this work logic will quickly create in us the need to become heroes, saviours whose value resides in how much they can sacrifice themselves: the more and the longer you do it, the more valuable you are for the movement.

…those people who have been involved in social movements for many years… work more than the newcomers of the different projects and collectives… you start to observe that this brings them a lot of informal power and authority.

Self-sacrifice

Both self-exploitation and self-sacrifice are normalised in normative activist environments, namely in the NGO industry. Because it is work with supposedly noble motivations, the constant expectation is to set yourself aside, to postpone or ignore your needs and force your boundaries. This way of thinking is so widespread, that we reach a culture of martyrdom in which whoever is capable of the biggest self-sacrifice becomes better, more valuable, a role model. However, self-sacrifice in the service of political work is a paradox: it seems selfless, but it is, in fact, truly selfish.

Oftentimes, those people who have been involved in social movements for many years and who have contributed to many key moments in the respective movements’ history, are also the same people who work more than the newcomers of the different projects and collectives. Even if it seems natural that the former be the ones to carry the heavier load, they also do it because they are better adjusted to an intense and prolonged work rhythm – a rhythm better integrated in their own lives, accompanied by internal motivation and external recognition which are closer to their own wishes. Add to this the fact that these people were there for the various key moments of the moment, and you start to observe that this brings them a lot of informal power and authority.

Unintentionally, their intense work rhythm becomes a kind of “model” of activism that the other people in the group start aspiring towards as well. I have seen this many times and, to a certain extent, I have also lived through it: the good activist is the person who can work 9, 10, 11 hours a day, every day, who is simultaneously juggling several initiatives and who even has time for political commentary or a social life. The kind of recognition that this situation brings, alongside the informal power and authority, can easily become the main motivation, even if they had not been intended as such. And in this situation, self-sacrifice becomes selfish.

Even if we do not wish to and do not do it intentionally, whenever such a work model becomes the aspiration, we end up reproducing the neoliberal version of productivity. And simultaneously (and equally unintentionally), we can reproduce oppressive dynamics (sanist, classist etc.) through the way in which we distribute work, resources and recognition.

The article first appeared in Romanian on the CUTRA website. Translation: Anisia Petcu. Reproduced with permission. Part Two of this essay is available here.

Both this text and the artwork that accompanies it are part of the series of texts on precarity and anti-exploitation, curated by Adina Marincea, as part of the project Situated Knowledge – feminist affinity groups in the digital space. Situated Knowledge is a collaborative project created in partnership with the Spam Index platform, bringing together five affinity groups: Queerness (LGBTQAI), Maternity, Minority: between language and ethnicity, Precarity and anti-exploitation, Diaspora-Migration.

The illustrator Thea Lazăr works and lives in Cluj-Napoca and is a member of the Here There Collective. Her practice is mostly digital, but meant to live offline, in installations which wish to tell stories about the environment and socio-political situations, bringing to life local or unknown stories. @thealazar

Marx, Wagner, and Anti-Semitism: A Review of the Exhibition ‘Karl Marx und der Kapitalismus’

A new exhibition of the life and work of Marx raises many interesting questions, not least his attitude to anti-semitism


27/07/2022

Marxists are used to seeing society’s institutions misrepresent Marx and Engels. So it was with some scepticism that I visited this exhibition. This is not unwarranted.

We read in the free brochure, Raphael Gross, the President of the Museum, intoning: “Marxism became the ideology in states that committed torture and murder in the name of communism and socialism”. There is no nod that the ideology of Bourgeois Democracy has done that for longer and to far more people world wide, than the harms by a mis-respresented “Marxism” as in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. That Democracy continues today to wreak its toll world-wide.

Moreover the Museum explicitly couples this Marx exhibit with one entitled “Richard Wagner Und Das Deutsche Gefühl”, — translated with a wee bit of license as “Richard Wagner and the Nationalization of Feeling”. Perhaps one can see where this coupling is headed…?

Here is the web description of the Marx exhibit: “The focus is on topics such as criticism of religion and society, Jewish emancipation and anti-Semitism, revolutions, new technologies, nature and ecology, the economy as well as struggles and movements in Europe.” Here is the corresponding blurb for the Wagner Exhibit:

“Richard Wagner experienced and shaped the 19th century in very different positions: as a composer and court music director, as a revolutionary and exile, as a bankrupt and as a protégé of wealthy patrons and a king… Wagner’s pronounced anti-Semitism and his nationalism were closely linked.”

True, both Marx and Wagner participated in the 1848 attempted bourgeois democratic revolution in Germany. But I think the real link the curators aim to make is that of anti-Semitism. That charge certainly sticks firmly on Wagner. Even so, it should be recalled that many great musicians praise Wagner’s music. For example in a 1998 conversation with Edward Said, Daniel Barenboim says: “I think that Wagner’s anti-Semitism is one thing, and the things that we have been forced to associate with his music are another. “

But does the charge stick onto Marx? I will return to this.

Nonetheless, the Marx exhibition itself ultimately rises above the dubious linkage its’ curators target. One caution – it treats ‘Marx’ and not ‘Marx and Engels.’ Engels is regrettably not treated as a fully equal figure in this exhibition. This follows the now well worn historiography of Georgy Lukacs who denigrated Engels. True the exhibit notes the seminal work ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England‘ (Marxist IA). But it does not elucidate that as Marx had praised it, it was a “brilliant essay on the critique of economic categories”. Lenin, Ronald Meek and others have assessed it as containing several “germs” of Marxist theory (Bland).

Cavils aside, overall the exhibition is a great experience in my view, both for those wanting to learn about Marx and for those who already have some knowledge of him. For the first, a well organised guide to the life and work is presented. It takes a chronological course and especially with the audioguide (German or English – well advised but with an extra Euro 3) is comprehensive. Apart from biographical information, it progresses from Marx’s early insights into the process of the workers alienation from society and its inhumane seizure of workers rights. From there Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune then leads onto presentations of his theory of Capital. A particularly vivid illustration of the concept of surplus value involves a working machine. The viewer is asked to work on a lever, which pumps water – largely into a big vat (employers profits) and a tiny dribble into a small wee cup (wages). Other vivid illustrations includes an 1880 botanical pressed leaf page which illustrates the pollution effects on leaves of the industrial revolution. At periodic intervals the disconcerting thunder of a ‘Spinning Jenny’ echoes through the hall. Presumably to remind viewers of the all pervasive effects of the Industrial Revolution on workers’ bodies. The role of women, and the First International is not forgotten.

Those more familiar with Marx will also be intrigued. For instance by numerous pictorials and creative ways of illustrating the period. Apart from those already described are paintings. For example, “The Silesian Weavers” by Carl W.Hubner (1846) described by Engels as having “made a more effectual Socialist agitation than a hundred pamphlets might have done. It represents some Silesian weavers bringing linen cloth to the manufacturer” [Collected Works; Volume 4; Moscow; 1975; pp. 229-233]. Or Robert Kohehler’s monumental ‘Der Streik” (1836). The treasurers box of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (1855) with multiple locks to be turned by different office-holders. A board game “Strikes”, one of which the Marx family owned, involved how to fight the employers in negotiations — is made into a large interactive table game.

So well and good. What about this alleged, very old canard of an anti-Semitic stance of Marx? The charge made in the exhibition is that Marx identified capitalists as the same as Jews. One fundamental problem is that this was not seen differently by leading intellectuals at the time. Most striking for instance, was Moses Hess (1812-1875) — acknowledged as a key father of Zionism (Hess). Ruchwarger (1979) quotes Hess: “society was a “huckster world”, a “social animal world”… (where-Ed) “the priests of ancient Judaism (are) the hyenas of the social animal-world… (with) their :”common quality as beasts of prey, as bloodsuckers, as Jews, as financial wolves.”

Leaving this parallel aside, Marx in fact argues for the emancipation of Jews from the oppressions of society. Following the French Revolution, Jews had been granted civil rights in France. But in then-Germany the Prussian landowning aristocracy rejected the emancipation of the Jews, and allied with the peasants and guild members against this. However the independent professions and merchants were more open to this (Ruchwarger). By 1843, the chamber of deputies of the Rhineland Province asked the king of Prussia to remove all restrictions that “prevent equality between the Jew and his Christian subjects in civil and political matters”.

By 1840 Marx had advocated civil right for Jews. However he argued against the ‘Young Hegelian’ Bruno Bauer, who contested civil-political equal rights to Jews. Bauer advocated instead a societal “emancipation from religion”. Bauer said since no one in Germany was free – demands that Jews obtain “civic political emancipation”, were “egoistic” – as it placed them somehow above non-Jews. Furthermore Bauer argued that emancipation could not be given by those who are themselves “not free”. Marx summarises Bauer’s position:

“The German Jews desire emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they desire? Civic, political emancipation. Bruno Bauer replies to them: “No one in Germany is politically emancipated. We ourselves are not free. How are we to free you? You Jews are “egoists” if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule. “Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

Marx, understood that Bauer denied a real, daily oppression. Bauer wanted instead an “abolition of religion” – but this was postponing resolution to some eventual, uncertain future. Moreover Bauer in reality denied that secular questions were the basis for religion. As Ruchwarger argues, for Marx: “The real foe is the distorted social order of which, religion is only the “spiritual aroma” (Ruchwarger). Marx depicted Bauer’s prescription as follows:

“How, then, does Bauer solve the Jewish question? “We must emancipate ourselves before we can emancipate others. The most rigid form of the opposition between the Jew and the Christian is the religious opposition. How is an opposition resolved? By making it impossible. How is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion.” Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

Pointing to North America, Marx could show that separation of state and religion was possible, without the ‘abolition’ of personal religion, these were different:

“If we find that even in the country of complete political emancipation, religion not only exists, but displays a fresh and vigorous vitality, that is proof that the existence of religion is not in contradiction to the perfection of the state. Since, however, the existence of religion is the existence of defect, the source of this defect can only be sought in the nature of the state itself. We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. It is possible, therefore, for the state to have emancipated itself from religion even if the overwhelming majority is still religious.”

Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

Hence in sharp contrast to Bauer, Marx argued the distinction between political and civil freedoms. Marx argued that Jews should benefit from political freedoms, while yet seeing that this was not “human” emancipation – i.e. the struggle for human rights transcends the ‘Rights of Man’ as seen by bourgeois democrats. Those should not be eschewed – but they were only a step towards a full “human” emancipation:

“Therefore, we do not say to the Jews, as Bauer does: You cannot be emancipated politically without emancipating yourselves radically from Judaism. On the contrary, we tell them: Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation. If you Jews want to be emancipated politically, without emancipating yourselves humanly, the half-hearted approach and contradiction is not in you alone, it is inherent in the nature and category of political emancipation.”

Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

Indeed, Marx reminds Bauer that:

“The privilege of faith is expressly recognized either as a right of man or as the consequence of a right of man, that of liberty. Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, 1791, Article 10: “No one is to be subjected to annoyance because of his opinions, even religious opinions.” “The freedom of every man to practice the religion of which he is an adherent.”

Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

This was relevant since unlike Bauer, Marx also believed that Jews should be endowed with the “Rights of Man.” It is quite true that Marx did not support a separate nation for Jews. And that he saw Jewry as having become enmeshed in money and capitalist relations:

“The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.”

Karl Marx 1844: “On The Jewish Question”

But we have already seen that others (including Moses Hess) analysed the situation similarly, and just as bluntly. In any case, a close reading of Marx himself puts a lie to the old canard – namely that “Marx was a Jew-hating anti-Semite”.

In the end even the exhibit notes half-heartedly agree that Marx was on the side of democratic rights for Jews in Germany as elsewhere. However the exhibit persists in claiming that Marx’s view of the capitalist was made in the image of a stereotyped Jew.

While the rest of the Exhibition is extremely good and can be recommended, I’d suggest the visitor read their copies of Marx beforehand.

The Exhibition Karl Marx and Capitalism is showing in the Deutsche Historisches Museum, Berlin until 21st August.

 

A new book views Berlin from Below

Review: Revolutionary Berlin: A Walking Guide (Nathaniel Flakin)


25/07/2022

Germany is barely 150 years old, and yet the country, especially Berlin, teems with history. If we just look at the twentieth century, we see war and revolution, rule by Fascists and Communists, the squatters’ movement and the one the brought down the Berlin wall. Above all, we see people organising from below – socialists against the First World War, workers against DDR repression, students against police murder, and migrants against racism and poverty.

In Revolutionary Berlin: A Walking Guide, historian and occasional tour guide Nathaniel Flakin, tells the capital’s history based on nine walking tours. Unlike some historians, Flakin does not attempt to hide his bias. He stands firmly on the side of the workers, the oppressed, and most importantly the people who take history into their own hands and try to change it.

Tour One: (Anti)Colonialism

In 1884, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck invited representatives of 14 countries in the Global North to his palace. The Berlin Conference, as it is now known, carved up the continent of Africa among the colonial powers. No-one from Africa was invited to attend. Germany as a country was only 13 years old, and therefore had significantly fewer colonies than many other attendees of the conference. Between 1884 and the First World, Bismarck did his best to make up this deficit by colonising significant parts of Africa.

Tour One walks us through Germany’s colonial history: we visit the Reichskanzlei, site of the Berlin Conference, before viewing the legacies of German Colonialism. There is M-Straße, whose street name and U-Bahn station is unquestionably racist. After the Black Lives Matters demonstrations of 2020, the Berlin Senate promised to rename the street, but 2 years later, it remains.

There exists a history of resistance as well: the League Against Imperialism and the League for the Defence of the Negro Race, which were both part of the Communist International, and the DDR’s Cold War-fuelled support for Namibian independence. Even today, there is an ongoing campaign to rename streets of Wedding and other districts that have been named after colonialists. Germany’s support for colonial imperialism has always been contested.

Tours Two and Three: November Revolution and Rosa Luxemburg’s Berlin

In 1919, inspired by the Russian Revolution and the privations of war and poverty, German workers rose up. Tour Two starts at Potsdamer Platz, site of the first anti-war mobilisation on 1 May, 1916, the first step towards the German Revolution 2 years later.

We move to the sites of discussions within the then Marxist SPD, from the Reichstag, where most SPD MPs voted for war credits, to the offices of dissident MP Karl Liebknecht and the Spartakist Bund who opposed the war and would go on to form the German Communist Party. Then we visit the SPD headquarters from which the party, now in office, used the proto-Nazi Freikorps to put down the workers’ uprising.

Tour Three tells the life story of Rosa Luxemburg, the most important revolutionary leader alongside Liebknecht. Although Luxemburg has since been appropriated as an icon by reformists, lifestyle anarchists and Stalinists, she stood for a quite different type of politics in her lifetime – of socialism from below, of revolution, not reform.

We visit Luxemburg’s various homes, learn about her friendship and animosity with the Kautsky family, and the prison where she spent time for organising against the war. We learn about her participation in the November Revolution, and her flight from the Freikorps, which ended with her corpse being thrown into the Landwehrkanal. Her grave is now in the Gedenkstätte der Sozialisten (Memorial of the Socialists) in Lichtenberg.

Tour Four: Neukölln will stay Red

Two of the next tours tell the history of two of Berlin’s districts with the most radical reputation – Neukölln and Kreuzberg. Both areas have a high number of residents from a non-German background, and both have historically seen widespread support for both the Communist and Social Democratic parties.

The Neukölln tour uses the area to discuss wider Berlin, starting in the village of Rixdorf in 1871, and moving forward through time to show how the industrialisation of Berlin provoked the fight for workers’ voting rights – a fight which was ultimately won, not through reforms but by the revolutionary wave after the First World War.

We also hear about prominent socialist Neuköllners like Leo Jogiches, Ruth Fischer and Olga Benario, and witness the 1929 Blutmai, when the Social Democrat government banned all 1 May demonstrations, then deployed police to massacre anyone who defied this ban. We conclude by looking at the legacy of gentrification and the eviction of the Syndikat left-wing pub by Berlin’s Red-Red Senat.

Tour Five: 1968 in West Berlin

Compared to some other cities, Berlin had a quiet 1968. There wasn’t the Night of the Barricades and general strike of Paris or the mass uprising in Prague which was put down by Soviet tanks. Nonetheless, there was drama around the police murder of Benno Ohnesorg and at least one charismatic socialist leader Rudi Dutschke.

Ohnesorg was killed by police following a demonstration against the Shah of Persia on June 2nd 1967. He was beaten by police near the Staatsoper, then shot in the back of the head. No-one was convicted of his murder. Ohnesorg’s murder, the growing international movement against the Vietnam war, and a repressive SPD-CDU government radicalised a generation, resulting in the student SDS and a new extra-parliamentary opposition (APO).

Germany never mobilised as many people against the Vietnam war as other countries, but February 1968 saw 6,000 people attending the International Vietnam Congress in the TU. In April of that year, a week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., SDS leader Dutschke was shot and seriously injured following a smear campaign against him by the right wing press.

Tour Six: Riots in Kreuzberg

Kreuzberg, like Neukölln, is an area with a high number of migrants and an undeserved reputation for being a “problem area”. It was also a peninsula almost entirely surrounded by the East, which was largely populated by Gastarbeiter, students and poor workers, and as such became the focus of radical West Berlin.

This tour visits centres of the radical movement, like the Rauch Haus, part of the former Bethanien hospital, which was occupied by squatters in 1971. The nearby New Yorck is still a centre for activists. We continue to the 1987 Lausitzer Platz uprising, after a street festival was suppressed with police water cannons and tear gas. This paved the way towards the Revolutionary 1 May Demonstration which still takes place every year.

But Kreuzberg is not just the home of the white radical Left. It saw Turkish workers organising in trade unions, refugees in Oranienplatz demanding freedom of movement within Germany, then occupying an abandoned school in Ohlaer Straße, and a migrant led tenants organisation. Kreuzberg has always been the heart of multicultural resistance.

Tours Seven to Nine: The East is Red, Queer Berlin and Berlinerinnen

The final three tours were, in the author’s words, newly created for this book. While the first six chapters are based on tours that he has already given, these are ideas for future tours, conceived during lockdown.

Tour Seven looks at government and resistance in the DDR: the 1953 workers’ uprising, Berthold Brecht’s Berliner Ensemble, and the punks and churches who opposed the DDR. We visit Bösebrücke, where confusion among border guards caused the border to be opened in 1989, the Stasi museum, and the area of No-Man’s land which was briefly squatted by the opposition. We end in Samaratinerstraße to remember Silvio Meier, murdered by Nazis in 1992.

Tour Eight explores Berlin’s rich Queer history: from the nineteenth century campaign against the ban on gay sex, through the pioneering research of Magnus Hirschfeld and Wilhelm Reich to the post-1968 gay and lesbian liberation movements in the West and in the East. We finish in Berlin’s gay district and see how, more than ever, gay Berlin and opportunities for victims of oppression are determined by class.

The final tour introduces some of the women of Berlin: from support for early strikes in Moabit and riots in Friedrichshain to pioneering socialists like the artist Kathe Kollwitz, the politician Clara Zetkin, and Black women like Audre Lorde, May Ayim and Angela Davis. We follow the ongoing fight for reproductive rights in West, East and united Berlin, where abortion is still formally illegal, and thousands of fundamentalist Christians still march every year.

Review and minor criticisms:

The tours in the book are perfectly structured. With the exception of one of the new tours, everything is rolled out chronologically, so we see that history is not just a jumble of random events, but that decisions made at one time affect what happens – and what can happen – later. As someone once said, we make history, but not under conditions of our own choosing.

This is particularly clear in the tours around the German Revolution: the revolution was neither bound to end in glorious victory nor doomed to failure. Its outcome depended on the bold moves and the mistakes, the premature actions and the dithering of actors on all sides – revolutionaries, reformists, and putative Nazis. Here we see what happened, but also what could have happened if the balance of forces had been slightly different.

In the Introduction, the author Nathaniel Flakin addresses the possible regional chauvinism of his tours: “Why is there a chapter on Red Neukölln and not Red Wedding? Because I live in the former, and the latter is really far away.” In a sense, fair enough, and the book can’t cover everything, but as someone who lives in Wedding (far away from Neukölln), I think that the area’s relative absence leads to a deficit, particularly around the history of the workers’ movement and the Blutmai.

In Wedding, the Blutmai was even more intense than in Neukölln. The SPD-controlled police shot 12,000 rounds of ammunition, much of it into the windows of residential buildings. At least 33 people were killed. Anyone wanting to understand why the German Communist Party took the suicidal decision to refuse to unite with the SPD against the Nazis can understand this better by looking at Wedding’s bloody history.

Wedding was also the centre of many workers’ actions at the beginning of the twentieth century and a chapter on this important history would complement the description of resistance by migrant workers in Kreuzberg. But of course, a book has to stop somewhere, and maybe there’ll be a sequel that gives Wedding’s proletarian history full justice.

Some snarky asides are unjustified. To say, for example, that the rosa luxemburg stiftung is “a reformist organisation” which presents Luxemburg as “a democrat and a pacifist who would have supported the modern capitalist régime” downplays the role that the organisation has played in supporting international revolutionary organisations.

All in all, however, this is a book which shows how ordinary people can make a difference. It’s written in an engaging style, full of anecdotes that would be irresponsible to reproduce here, so best buy the book to read them for yourself. .