The struggle for a future of solidarity must be fought together on many levels and in many different ways. We will only be able to shift the balance of power and successfully raise questions of power through the cooperation of various left-wing forces in a social block. We are a long way from that. To create such a block we are active in a multitude of movements and struggles, often in the form of alliances. In the last few years, the character of these alliances has changed. Out of typical summit-alliances or alliances against the far right that were mostly composed of delegates of organized groups, hybrid forms have evolved with many individuals and few organizations. There are various reasons for this, some of which are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Established actors of the societal left are significantly weakened. This coincides with political subjects that are rather involved in the short-term and as individuals, than in the long-term and collectively. Partly in response to this trend, other organized collectives have emerged that show little interest in building broad alliances. This challenges our practice in alliances.
In the past, our practice in alliances was often focused on campaigns coming to a head. We struggled with creating structures and places of solidarity that outlast short-term peaks in mobilization. Long-term organizing, which incorporates material interests to a greater extent, and the creation of sustainable (infra-)structures have become increasingly important for us to build counter power. Nonetheless, to converge and accelerate political struggles, moments of escalation are still necessary. These moments can be seeded in prepared campaigns, but also emerge during opportunities that require courageous interventions. Strengthening the spontaneous ability to act, while simultaneously being anchored in the long-term is the tension that we have to operate in.
Strategic Alliance Orientation
In the last ten years we repeatedly succeeded on the local and inter-regional level to participate in, or even initiate, broad alliances. We could repeatedly realize our ambition of bringing together various actors and being a point of connection for a broad spectrum of left-wing actors. In this way, we were able to organize effective interventions such as Blockupy (Blockupy was an anti-austerity alliance that included groups and organizations from Germany, Spain, Greece and other European countries. The alliance organized protests from 2012 to 2016, most of which were held in Frankfurt a.M. with the explicit aim to use civil disobedience to disrupt and block the daily business of the European Central Bank and other financial institutions) or Unteilbar (Unteilbar was a broad anti-right alliance consisting of about 100 groups and organizations that organized large protests from 2018 to 2022. The largest protest was held in October 2018 in Berlin with about 240,000 participants) through the interplay of various left-wing forces. But, the strategic orientation for alliances becomes more complicated and challenging due to societal developments and the restructuring within the societal left.
Self-critically, we have to acknowledge that, within alliances of established groups, we have too often taken on the role of a project manager: Often we are rather occupied with maintaining alliances not meaningful political interventions and taking left-radical politics to the streets. It becomes increasingly common for us to be the only radical left-wing group in alliances. Civil society actors have disappeared during the multitude of crises. Other partners in the alliances have withdrawn, were partly integrated into the green modernization project or pursued a different political approach regarding alliances.
Newly emerging spaces offering politicization and organization often pursue a different approach to alliances. For the so-called “red groups” that have gained relevance in the last years it is more important to lead struggles, rather than strengthening varying actors in their entirety. They focus on their own self-assurance as a radical force by distinguishing themselves from moderate left-wing forces and supposedly turning towards the working class. Apart from a lack of willingness to make compromises, we have made the experience that they primarily enter alliances when they are able to dominate them. The other tendency are contexts with a strong focus on identity politics and the critique of power relations. Some of them are partly unwilling or unable to negotiate political differences. Diverging political positions are only perceived as lacking awareness or being morally problematic.
This distinction between the so-called “red groups” and contexts with a focus on identity politics got visible around the organization of the feminist strike. It also accompanies us in other struggles. Considering these changed conditions, we renew the promise of our political approach: We take a stance for a pluralistic left that finds its point of departure in the vitality of movements as a force for social change. It comes together in common struggles instead of appropriating movements and instrumentalizing them for its own organizational interests.
Our practice in alliances is also complicated by the shifts among the ruling class. The Green Party and (environmental) NGOs have largely committed themselves to the project of modernized fortress capitalism. As a result, they have become political opponents in some areas of practice. As in Lützerath (Lützerath was a hamlet in a lignite region in the west of Germany between Aachen and Düsseldorf, that had to be eradicated to make way for the expansion of the opencast lignite mine Garzweiler II. In an attempt to prevent that, Lützerath was occupied from 2020 until its eviction in January 2023. About 2000 People joined the protest and tried to prevent the eviction.), for example, it is important to deepen the fractures within this block and not to abandon its social basis. Other organizations such as trade unions may be more open to social movements but tend to be caught up in the distribution struggles of the economic transformation and see their own power dwindle.
Working in alliances will continue to be a substantial part of our practice in the future. Particularly in the East of Germany and in rural areas, left-wing politics are unthinkable without them. Facing the rise of the right it is a matter of survival to come together in alliances. Here we must develop the ability to secure successes against reactionary attacks and prevent further deterioration. In the future, we want to take a closer look at the merits of a specific alliance and withdraw ourselves before it becomes an end in itself. At the same time, a multitude of crises affect an increasing amount of people - whether it is poverty, drought or people fleeing war. Traditional alliances reach their limits here. We look for alliances and forms of organization that bring together and involve those who are affected and those in solidarity with them.
Campaign platforms
Within alliances, we encounter fewer delegates from groups and increasingly more individuals. Over the years, this development has evolved into a distinct political form that we call campaign platforms. We have contributed to the emergence of platforms such as Blockupy, Ende Gelände, the Feminist Strike, and Deutsche Wohnen und Co. Enteignen. Our politics mostly consists of a combination of organizing and working within alliances. These political spaces are often used for concrete political projects. They do not require being part of a group and provide a low threshold for participation. For many people, they are a (first)offer to organize themselves. This enables important emancipatory experiences that go beyond traditional meeting spaces in alliances. In fact, throughout the last years, many of our comrades have politicized themselves within these campaign platforms, have then joined us or have done a significant part of their political work in these spaces. These platforms create a stronger organizing element in our campaigns. This is necessary for building counter power and therefore greatly benefits us. With and through campaign platforms we have therefore achieved a lot.
Yet these platforms also challenge us. Conflicts are innate between individuals, for whom the platforms become the first or primary organization, and delegates of groups. This is because discussing positions that are determined outside the alliance tends to be the exception and often leads to perceived or real hierarchies. As an independent organization, they also become a place for strategic discussions and decisions for some of our comrades. Positions are then no longer worked out together within our organization, but rather brought back to our notice. This shifts the place of political determination and practice to the platforms. The fact that we as organized left-wing radicals are not identical to the movements is lost in the process. This difference is prone to become blurred in the new form of alliance.
The open character simultaneously is a strength and potential weakness. It is difficult to involve and retain large numbers of activists, some of whom just loosely associate with the platform. That is because the projects, their practices and structures have formed in the wake of a specific moment in the movement. The political spaces created are volatile in comparison to conventional political organizations. Resilient and lasting relationships are rare. We recognize these platforms as organizational forms of their time: Considering their low entrance and exit barriers, they match broader societal tendencies. At the same time, they cannot replace the commitment in traditional political organization. We must ensure that we do not simply use platforms to build up our future allies and thereby conceal both the weakness of the level of organization within left-wing movements and the crisis of the left.
On top of that, more political links are needed between the mostly monothematic platforms. An overarching interpretation and strategic orientation is necessary. The latter has to manifest itself through concrete connections in common struggles and events. Lately we have not lived up to the challenge of this task.
Organizing and campaigns
To build up societal counter power that enables revolutionary processes, we must become better in creating long-term and left structures. These must last independent of movement cycles and enhance our social base. Based on this insight we have expanded a practice in the last years that is often referred to as organizing. So far we are mainly active in neighborhood initiatives, tenant organizations and struggles in the health sector.
The point of departure are struggles that are rooted in the everyday life of people and depart at material interests or a shared desire. The experiences with the multitude of crises of our time generate contradictions. They arise in conflicts around (un)paid care work and labor as well as struggles in regards to housing, health, the care industry and energy or in struggles against discrimination, for self-determination and jurisdictional equality. Here the objective is to expand the fault lines into whole areas of conflict, in which people politicize and organize themselves. In that way, counter power can be built up through self-empowerment and committed social relations.
Increasingly more left radical groups turn towards this strategic approach. At many places initiatives emerged that focus on long-term organizing, e.g. in neighborhoods, and reject campaigns as a mere reaction to events. Such long-term work at the base is important as a transformational strategy. It accomplishes real achievements, proves the feasibility of left-wing ideas, creates social anchoring as well as solidaric social relations and shows an alternative future. At the same time, we see the threat of mimicking the role of social workers and our practices therefore becoming a sort of damage control. In order to give organizing processes hope, perspective and real ability to assert oneselves - to create ruptures - we need campaigns that come to a head. They open up perspectives beyond organizing and direct organizing processes towards collective disobedience.
We see a good example for a productive relationship between campaigns and organizing in the campaign Deutsche Wohnen und Co. Enteignen. The Referendum is based on organizing tenants in the houses of large real estate groups for years, and therefore on the potential of real political power. At the same time, the campaign is a good example of the challenges when working towards counter power. Right from the start, the initiative aimed to further advance the organization of tenants. The urban political movement in Berlin should be in a better organizational position than before the campaign, even in the case of electoral defeat. Its visibility however, is owed precisely to it operating in institutionalized political processes. Without the prospect of actually enforcing its goals on the level of the state, the popularity of the campaign would have been unthinkable. The situation of Deutsche Wohnen und Co. Enteignen describes our strategic search very well: We have to learn to build up counter power ourselves, to increase our independence from parties and parliaments.
Spaces of solidarity
Spaces of resistance that address people's everyday lives and needs and organize solidarity despite all adversity play an important role in building counter power. In social centers, tenant assemblies, neighborhood stores, or poly clinics solidarity is experienced, shaped and lived. In contrast to the usual logic of individualization, isolation, competition and exclusion an idea of what could be emerges. Ideally, these places are the material foundation for revolutionary subjectivities and the coming post-capitalist infrastructure.
So far, our practice in this regard is severely underdetermined. But especially in times of exacerbating crises and extreme individualization and isolation, it is important to organize spaces of resistance. The debates around social centers were briefly rekindled in the wake of the European Financial Crisis and the lived examples in Southern Europe. Beyond individual contributions to the debate regarding seed forms (New, alternative forms of interaction emerging within the old system) and Commoning, there has been little collective communication since. Our own role in building these structures is not settled, even though we help to shape, found and use them almost everywhere. In addition, we often experience that comrades pursue setting up these structures, for example a poly clinic or housing projects, disattached from the political practice in our organization. Occasionally the time spent on these initiatives competes with the time used for our own organization. To some degree, because our kind of strategic understanding is of little use in these meticulous build-up processes.
What role do spaces of solidarity play in our strategy? According to what criteria do we weigh our support and how do we attain the necessary resources? How do we prevent the retreat into niche projects and the mere cushioning of welfare-state budget cuts? How can places of solidarity be asserted against powerful interests and protected from attacks? What is the relationship between solidarity and protest at these places and what possibilities to link them are there that do not undermine their function in regards to solidarity nor significantly endanger the existence of these spaces? These questions need to be solved in the coming years. In the face of a defensive situation and escalating crises, they are a matter of survival for the radical left.