Disrupting and actively resisting societal normality is the starting point for deepening the fault lines in power relations. Disobedience is the prerequisite for a radical upheaval of the status quo. For that, we rely on a politics of self-empowerment of the exploited and oppressed. Such politics is not concerned with the legality, but rather with the legitimacy of its own actions and thereby disputes the state's monopoly on the use of force. As we have already stated in our interim paper from 2014, the possibility and communicability of mass disobedience as a potential radicalization of the many is especially important for us in this context. Nonetheless, we have also experienced that some forms of action are reaching their limits. To build more actual counter power in the coming years, we have to assess our experiences and further develop our forms of action: Has our practice become ritualized at some point? Have we thereby forgotten how to act decisively in open situations? How can we connect actual disruptions with broad political resistance in the new strike movements and thereby radicalize these struggles?
Civil disobedience
Actions of mass disobedience were and are a central component of our practice. Openly saying what we do - and doing what we say. Encouraging each other, fighting resistantly and radically. Not to be intimidated by the state and its institutions. We can live up to this ambition: Mass disobedience has been established and has become an independent practice in many social movements. What only a few people used to do is now en vogue. That is a good thing. In the climate justice movement in particular, mass actions have radicalized the movement. They have given strength and courage not to give up and continue fighting, even if the escalation of the climate crisis cannot be stopped.
Yet the last few years have also shown us our limits. Due to the periodic character of actions, they became ritualized. The actions were easier to control, and thus, less powerful. The focus on discourse as well as the wish to appeal as broadly as possible have pushed the radicalization and self-empowerment of those involved, and hence the formation of resistant subjectivities, into the background. The actions became large-scale choreographies that were often limited to sitting blockades and the smooth execution of those. We want to lift this restriction on our ability to take action.
That does not mean mass blockades cannot be a tactical instrument anymore. In many cases - whether it is blocking a Nazi demonstration or the headquarters of a corporation - they are still a radical practice to perform mass action. Yet in fields such as the climate justice movement, that has broadened and grown while receiving large support at times, we think it is necessary to adjust the means to disrupt more effectively and be less controllable. We are not alone with this realization. The drawn conclusions differ significantly, though. Some have largely discarded their political contents in favor of addressing as many people as possible. A radical left critique of society falls by the wayside, the political antagonists are no longer named. Others, like the last generation, focus on creating incalculable moments rather than doing mass actions. With the determined actions of a few, they disrupt the everyday lives of many people. They count on convincing broad parts of society of the urgency of the climate crisis through an orchestrated sacrifice and subsequent repressions. Pursuing those in power to give in with such a strategy? This bet does not seem to pay off. It misses the simultaneous organization of mass support and a political communication that provides a left alternative to the status quo.
We agree on the necessity to adjust actions more towards the direct disruption of operating procedures in companies or everyday life. This also means expanding the repertoire of mass civil disobedience beyond sitting blockades more frequently. In that matter, the choice of means cannot be detached from the societal power balance. Both in the choice of targets and in our claim for legitimacy, we struggle for communicability. Yet that does not mean to please everyone at all times. Rather, it must be about forging new links between different levels and forms of action, giving space to the new and unpredictable, developing militant subjectivities, driving forward the radicalization of social struggles, and also making ourselves more capable of taking action in the long run. We no longer want to solely sit in front of power stations or factories while the capitalist catastrophe continues. Together with the many, we must disrupt, appropriate, and dispose.
Open Situations
In our search for ruptures and fault lines, we keep coming across the unexpected or the unknown. In the age of crises, this tendency is massively increasing. The last few years have only given us a first impression: A pandemic that turns our every-day-life upside down within a few days and massively limits our ability to act; the climate crisis that becomes a real threat in the Ahrtal (The Ahrtal is a valley in the south-east of Germany, that fell victim to a major flood in July 2021. The flood left a trail of destruction killing 12 people and destroying several buildings and large parts of the infrastructure), raising questions of practical solidarity; the election of Thomas Kemmerich as Minister President of Thuringia through the votes of the AFD as a first glimpse of future dam breaks; or new, digitally initiated forms of mass mobilization and turmoil on the streets. The latter are currently often influenced by conspiracy theories and are openly right-wing, and yet also bear the possibility of being protests against poor working conditions, rising energy costs, femicide, or racist police violence.
There is no magic formula for these spontaneous and dynamic situations. In the past, we were not always able to keep pace with the developments nor to communicate sufficiently to use these situations as political opportunities. We were primarily able to act spontaneously when it came to defensive struggles. We could prevent the worst but seldom use moments to advance the societal left as a whole. In many other situations. we were surprised and allowed ourselves to be surprised. Hence, one task for the future is developing, stronger than before, a form of determined attitude and radical subjectivity to be able and willing to act spontaneously in such situations. This requires courage, spontaneity and conviction as well as intuition and the ability to weigh chances and risks. We can use our strengths for that: Our experiences in organizing processes, mutual trust, our knowledge and networks with various actors. At the same time, there are questions that, especially in open situations, must perhaps be answered anew or at the very least very consciously: With whom do we fight, with what means and what does militancy mean for that? Instead of giving ideological answers in advance, a concrete analysis of the given situation and what potential objectives it entails is needed. That is the only way to meaningfully determine what applies more than ever: With all means necessary.
Strike
In many areas of capitalist reproduction and production, especially in the precarious service sector and public services, the contradiction between the capitalist pressure for exploitation and the needs of the ones employed there has escalated in recent years. In particular in the care work and labor and the public transport sectors, but also the educational sectors, powerful strikes and protests emerged - the seeds of a new strike movement.
The refusal of labor is a powerful material lever. Hard-fought grassroots strikes of workers can be more than a fight for wages and labor conditions. They disrupt capitalist normality and can create spaces for collectivity, politicization and organizing. Struggles can connect and foster practical solidarity. To use this lever beyond collective bargaining, political strikes must be enforced as a possibility in the medium term.
Together with other networks and groups we have supported and accompanied labor struggles in solidarity throughout the past years, for example in the health sector, public transport or at Amazon. We were able to contribute to the politicization of strikes, but could barely get out of the support role. The full-time structures in the trade unions are a regular obstacle to that. Simultaneously, we have tried to also establish social strike as leverage in social movements, for example in the feminist strike and climate strike. Although this strengthened the idea of political strike in the movements, the concrete implementation has barely been successful so far. A broad societal base to give political strikes the necessary impact is still lacking.
When refusal and disruption develop at various points in society, it gives rise to a real potential for counter power that must be built up and brought together. Our perspective is clear: we want to create stronger links between different strike moments, politicize collective bargaining strikes and strengthen the material and social basis in social strikes - from wage strikes to rent strikes to metropolitan strikes.