One reason for the current crisis of the societal left is the absence of counter power. We understand counterpower as the capacity to disrupt decisions and policies of the ruling class but also to implement our own solutions. This requires the interplay of groups across the left. The plurality of movements and organizations is not a problem that can be solved through the leadership of one organization. We place our bets on the strengthening of left movements as a whole, to connect and foster trust among them. Our task, as the organized radical left, is to perpetuate the experiences of the movement and lift them to a new level. That distinguishes us from individualistic-moralizing approaches within the left. Advocates of the latter exhaust themselves in instructions for personal behavioral change, without developing an idea of collectively overcoming oppressive relations.
Dual power develops in political struggles. When people come together not only with joint convictions but also with a shared material interest, these struggles become especially powerful: At strikes at the workplace, in conflicts around basic needs such as housing, health, care and energy, or in struggles against discrimination, for self-determination and jurisdictional equality. In these struggles for social equality and freedom arises the belief of being able to change one’s own living conditions. They enable us to appeal to broad parts of the population and, thus seek for majorities supporting radical politics.
But: The radical left is structurally in a minority position in the capitalist centers. This affects the relation to the Global South, but also the relation to many interests of the majority of society here. Both dimensions are aggravated because the capitalist promise of perpetual progress reaches its limitations in the wake of the climate crisis. The material preconditions for global justice dwindle. The desire for security, authoritarianism, and closed borders grows and is driven by right-wing narratives - on the costs of people in the Global South, but also of migrants and Women, inter-, trans- agender and nonbinary persons here. In contrast to the green modernization project or the reactionary project, we do not promise anyone the endless growth of material wealth nor that their own way of life can remain unchanged. Anyone who does this deceives themselves and others - and (sub)consciously positions themselves on the wrong side of the barricade. We need to step into conflict with the majority society over that, if we want to seriously fight for global climate justice and against the emerging fortress capitalism.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that the conditions here are not without potential rupture lines. Therefore, we do not retreat into a supposed radical position of pure criticism, even in the light of our minority position. That is because the rupture lines can be deepened by radical but conveyable politics. Climate Crisis, pandemic and war: The Global North is not an isle of stability anymore either, in which the life of most people could continue undisturbed and untouched. Here too, contradictions lie in the hegemonic mode of producing and living. Here too, the question of who will pay the costs of the crises arises. We live in the midst of a planetary crisis. Under these conditions, a revolution is the only possibility to ensure a good life for everyone. Instead of abiding by moral indictment, we must intervene - assertively and radically. For that, we need to seek alliances with the affected people and those still adhering to humanity and solidarity.
In doing so, we continually reevaluate the choice of our means. When it comes to the socialization of social infrastructure, for example, housing, our goal coincides with the interests of the vast majority. Yet, even there, a militant escalation may be necessary, depending on the situation. On the other hand, even from a minority position, a broad and conveyable project might be sensible. The Seebrücke1 may have never been capable of gaining majorities. Nonetheless, it gave many people a point of entrance for concrete solidarity. A context-dependent tendency towards accessibility and the struggles of the many does not mean a rejection of militancy. Black Lives Matter has shown this impressively: Even people who do not directly suffer from police violence can understand when a police station burns. The better we manage to create new connections and make excluded voices audible as well as approachable and tangible in concrete struggles, the more freely we can choose our means.