Wars, the pandemic and the climate crisis, combined with poverty and growing social inequality, the shift to the right and crises of social reproduction: we are living in an age of permanent crises.

The climate crisis threatens the livelihood of all human societies. Heatwaves, floods and desertification have been a bitter reality in the Global South for a long time now. The devastating effects of climate change become impossible to overlook in the Global North as well. Ecological instability and social inequality have grown as a consequence, and so have violence, exclusion and isolation. This changes the conditions for left-wing and radical left-wing politics. Even if the climate crisis can no longer be stopped, every tenth of a degree of global warming means the difference between life and death for millions of people. There is no shortcut and the fundamental issue is more urgent than ever: the abolition of capitalism has become a matter of survival. There is no prospect of liberation or overcoming exploitation in the 21st century if this condition is not met.

At the same time, wars such as the Russian aggression against Ukraine or the Gaza War endanger the lives of millions of people. The geostrategic conflict between the USA and China, which is currently carried out as an economic war, barries the potential for a global escalation. The false hope of an era of peace is shattered. Power blocs have long again been vying for global influence. The EU and Germany are increasingly involved in this, although they like to hide behind rhetorics of democracy and human rights.

In the context of power politics and against the backdrop of the massive crises, state intervention in the economy has gained in importance again. In Germany, this includes the "special funds'', which have been used several times to mobilize large amounts of capital, partly to cushion the repercussions of crises such as the coronavirus pandemic, partly to finance the expansion of its military by providing 100 billion Euros for the German military.

In belligerent states, we see the introduction of war regimes, i.e. ruling by decree, the dismantling of the welfare state and a general increase in authoritarian measures. This also reinforces aggressive-authoritarian masculinity and traditional patriarchal structures in societies. The population is urged or forced to take a clear patriotic stance. Voices that speak out in favor of peace and international solidarity are marginalized or suppressed.

The logic of war, the militarization of society and friend-foe distinctions are not limited to states directly involved in wars. The so-called "New Era" has gripped all of Europe: In Germany, rearmament, the export of weapons to crisis and war zones, nationalism and militarily conceived geopolitics dictate the public discourse.

Conventional capitalism is working less and less: Large portions of global capital cannot be utilized as investments in the means of production anymore. Capital therefore seeks new areas for profitable investments on the capital markets, without a viable new accumulation regime having emerged. Thus, capital flows primarily into the privatization of land or resources, in the financialization of areas of life such as housing, health, care services and social security for senior citizens and digital communication. This leads to an increasing amount of people losing access to clean drinking water, healthcare and even food. As a result, impoverishment, hunger and the amount of refugee migration are on the rise globally.

The ruling class's strategies for adapting to the global multitude of crises appear to be chaotic and divided. They shift between a supposedly progressive green-capitalist modernization in regard to civil liberties on the one hand and an openly authoritarian, right-wing conservative to fascist concepts on the other. As contradictory as these strategies may appear, in both cases a small minority isolates themselves and their exponentially growing wealth, while the majority has to bear the consequences of the crises. Yet, neither of these two strategies addresses the obvious contradiction between the interests of global capital and mere survival for humanity at large.

Hope cannot come from above, but solely from revolts, struggles and movements from the bottom. Black Lives Matter, #niunamenos or Fridays for Future are global movements against the unbearable conditions. Their protests have been joined by more people than ever in the last decade. Additionally, many struggles do not transcend national borders but are similar in form and content.
In the global movement cycle of the early 2010s, we could see a common framework: The uprisings and movements of the Arab Spring, the Spanish Indignados, Occupy or Gezi related to one another in their demands for real democracy, their practice of occupying squares and permanent assemblies. In Germany, during the Blockupy actions against European austerity policies, we articulated this as follows: "They want capitalism without democracy - we want democracy without capitalism!”

The current movements also have a common denominator, although it is much more difficult to grasp: Everywhere, matters of life and survival are central. Movements against femicides, against racist murders, against the failure to take action against the climate crisis are united in their focus on survival as their central demand. What starts as a stubborn “no” to the murderous status quo includes the utopian notion of a better world. Despite the unequal conditions and contradictions, our struggles here, "in the heart of the beast", are part of the global movement cycle: in the climate justice movement, the (queer) feminist movement, the anti-war movement or the anti-racism movement: the aim is always to go beyond national boundaries and adopt a transnational perspective of global solidarity and liberation.

The global crises are now also being felt directly here in Germany. But despite summer heatwaves and deadly floods, despite the shift to the right, growing social inequality and austerity policies the left seems to be paralyzed, inhibited, but above all invisible. Apart from waves of outrage and short-term mobilizations, there are barely enduring protests or resistance. The disorientation and division within the left as a whole contribute to this. The central, underlying causes are the paradoxically power-stabilizing effects of war and crises, which coincide with the impact of neoliberal individualization, from which we, as the radical left, are not immune. The fragmented left finds it increasingly difficult to respond adequately to the acceleration of political events and to develop counter-proposals to the conditions of everyday life.

Colonial exploitation, cheap natural resources and fossil extractivism have made the capitalist centers of the West rich and powerful. This is what made the class compromise in industrialized societies possible after the Second World War; it enabled large sections of society to participate in consumption and prosperity. To this day the imperial mode of living can only be realized in a small part of the world. Its cost is neo-colonial exploitation and the unrestrained consumption of resources and fossil fuels. Of course mainly the rich and wealthy are those who benefit, while social inequality is also growing within the capitalist centers. Many people here perceive changes in these conditions as a threat to their way of life; partly because change under the prevailing power relations does not occur at the expense of the rich, but rather of the majority of the population. This mechanism presents a huge obstacle to broad-based resistance against border regimes, institutional racism and for serious climate policy.

The unignorable moments of escalating crises such as the Ahrtal flood, the coronavirus pandemic or the current wars have paradoxically contributed to the stabilization of existing power relations. By successfully addressing the need for security and stability, social contradictions in these situations could be leveled out in favor of seemingly general interests or clear friend-foe distinctions. The invocation of a community of fate has caught on. Varying degrees of affectedness and responsibility no longer play a role. Spreading crises converge with the accelerated attention economy of the digitalized public sphere. Political debates become increasingly moralized, one wave of outrage follows the other, countless political uproars are strung together at ever shorter intervals. But what is burning today is already forgotten tomorrow. What remains is the perception of an all-encompassing crisis and a profound sense of insecurity, which at the same time encourages to retreat into the private sphere, to a lack of solidarity and commitment to the security promises of those in power.

At an individual level, far-advanced neoliberal subjectivization presents a major obstacle to solidarity, collectivity and thus to the development of social counter power. Subtle or open mechanisms of disciplining and sanctioning with the simultaneous reduction in social security set people back to their very survival. They are forced to fight their struggles on their own. This coincides with the omnipresent pressure to take advantage of their own opportunities for self-development and -realization - supposedly in line with personal well-being and appropriate self-care. Through this poisoned but powerful promise of freedom, people subject themselves to the logic of personal responsibility and competition.

A radical left that wants to shake up social relations is therefore faced with a central challenge: to spread the critique of neoliberal subjectivation while simultaneously developing counter-models of collectivity and comradeship that are tangible.

We frequently use the terms fault lines, ruptures and cracks within our lingo. We refer to the varying degrees of contradictions within capitalism that, when made visible and experienceable, can expand and deepen. To some we refer to as large rupture lines, while other contradictions may start as fault lines or cracks with the potential to grow. They are interconnected and as a whole form a threat to the system that is capitalism.

Even if the power relations here seem relatively stable: The contradictions of capitalism are also at work in the "heart of the beast". Recognizing these cracks and rupture lines to understand their dynamics and deepening them further is the task of a social radical left. Rupture lines become areas of conflict, which then give rise to concrete struggles that we want to advance and develop in such a way that they point beyond the existing conditions. The most important lines of rupture that offer opportunities and necessities for political intervention and further development of our practice are outlined below.

False promises of neoliberalism

For large sections of society, the promises of neoliberalism – freedom, self-realization, prosperity and consumption - are no longer being fulfilled. Social guarantees and infrastructures have been dismantled, Hartz IV (now “Bürgergeld”) has been introduced, trade union organizations weakened and many areas of life are commodified. More and more people have less and less: less pay, less social security, less money for food and housing, less participation in society. Instead of realizing  themselves, they experience relegation and devaluation. They struggle from crisis to crisis with insecure jobs in the low-wage sector. Women, inter-, trans- agender and nonbinary persons and migrants in particular are pushed into precariousness.

Social and spatial inequality has increased massively. Expensive cars and luxury districts characterize the inner cities. At the same time, poverty and homelessness are on the rise and entire districts and regions are left behind. The latter are often regions in eastern Germany, but also western German cities and rural areas are characterized by precarity and poor infrastructure. "Blooming landscapes" have remained an empty promise - in eastern Germany, but also elsewhere. Cuts and privatizations destroy public infrastructure. Additionally, individualization, pressure for optimization and the need to adapt to new situations even more quickly lead many people to feel overwhelmed and lonely. More and more people long for an escape from the dynamic of acceleration and more community.

More equality and more personal freedom were the promises of neoliberalism. There have also been steps towards liberalization and the recognition of different ways of life and measures for more gender equality. However, people experience every day that more visibility and diversity may only exist if this fits an economic logic. Neoliberal recognition policies do not eliminate social inequality and oppression. Patriarchal, queer and trans-hostile violence and homicides continue, as do right-wing and racist murders.

Not even with regard to its hard ideological core, the functioning of the economy, the state and public finances, can neoliberalism keep its promises in times of permanent crisis. Whether it is corona aid, the energy crisis or the necessary investments in climate protection: the state requires significantly larger budgetary funds than it is allowed to spend according to the debt brake and the austerity policy that has been preached for decades. This does not only lead to tangible conflicts within the ruling class. When a snap of the fingers is enough to mobilize astronomical sums as "special funds" for armament or economic stabilization as if out of nowhere, it no longer seems credible that there is supposedly no money for social and societal needs.

This undermines consent to neoliberal rule. It offers a variety of points of departure for left-wing class politics that advocates for social solidarity, social security and the actual realization of opportunities to challenge existing relations of power and domination.

Struggles for social reproduction

Social reproduction means all the activities and areas that are necessary to restore human life and human labor power as the basis of capitalist production. The organization of social reproduction is closely intertwined with the hegemonic ways of life and relationships - and thus in particular with the prevailing gender relations. This affects us all fundamentally in our everyday lives: it is about food and drink, housing, illness and recovery, care and support, energy and mobility, education and training. These are questions of life and survival.

Social reproduction is clearly in a crisis since neoliberal policies have been pushing capital valorization in more and more areas of life and public infrastructure. Social institutions, such as daycare centers, hospitals and retirement homes, are increasingly affected by economization and privatization. The rate-per-case system (Fallpauschalensystem) in hospitals is a well-known example. It leads to a deterioration in care and increases the pressure on employees. And there are many such examples: even now almost a sixth of all employees in Germany work in the healthcare sector.

The socially necessary care work remains patriarchally organized. Despite all the feminist struggles of recent decades including their indisputable successes, unpaid care work in everyday life is still predominantly carried out by persons with a female socialization - often as an additional burden to paid work. Those who can afford it, outsource the additional burdens of everyday life to others, often precarious migrants. However, this merely shifts the problems between the classes, because the care workers' own reproductive work in their families and their countries of origin does not disappear.

Resistance to these conditions is growing. The hospital movement of recent years has provided important impulses for unionized labor disputes. The struggle for the working conditions and wages of nursing staff is directed against the capitalist exploitation of care work as well as the massive gaps in the financing of healthcare and nursing. It is also a feminist struggle. The employees have organized themselves, developed new forms of self-empowerment and created perspectives for socialization. Struggles in this field always have the potential to go beyond immediate demands. They show cracks in the system that enable the challenging of not only the working conditions in the health care sector but also of the organization of our society as a whole.

In the strikes on March 8th, these new struggles against the exploitation of care work have been united with the general feminist critique of the heteronormative nuclear family, the gendered division of labor and patriarchal and anti-queer violence. The common denominator is the questioning of male domination as a whole, i.e. the entire patriarchal-capitalist social order. Unfortunately, the feminist strike that has moved and organized millions in Argentina and Spain has had limited success in Germany.

The crisis of social reproduction is also evident in other areas of social infrastructure, such as the increasing capitalist pressure to exploit housing, food, water and energy supplies. We all feel this in the form of exploding rents, increased costs of energy or food and increasing displacement from city centers. As a result, participation in rent policy struggles has grown, especially in Berlin and other large cities. The demand for public ownership and grassroots democratic management of housing, i.e. for expropriation and socialization, has gained broad support and even the ability to achieve political majorities. We aim to transfer this concrete anti-capitalist perspective of socialization to disputes over energy and water supply.

Struggles in the climate crisis

The climate crisis is no longer abstract, no longer limited to the Global South, but can also be felt right here. In the hot summers, access to cool living spaces becomes an existential question, especially for the elderly. Periods of drought make energy and water scarce. The number of victims of extreme weather events and floods has increased drastically. The risk of pandemics and new pathogens increases. By now, the climate crisis is at the center of social debate. This applies to the incipient distribution struggles of climate adaptation, but even more so to the struggle for the necessary and radical restructuring of the economy and infrastructure. This will be a central battlefield in the coming years and decades.

Society, and even individuals, are divided. A large part of society is fundamentally in favor of taking serious action against the climate crisis, as the mass demonstrations by Fridays for Future have shown. Under the current social conditions, however, this position enters into competition with social interests and calls into question the continuation of the established way of life. Who will bear the costs of insulating buildings or replacing gas and oil heating systems with heat pumps or district heating? Can buses and trains ensure our mobility if the private car has to disappear? Can the gain in time and quality of life outweigh the loss of consumer goods? These questions are even more pressing for employees in the fossil fuel industries, such as in automobile production and their supplier industries. Many of their jobs will inevitably disappear in an ecological structural change. Precisely because these jobs have been secure and above-average paid up to now, the fears of social relegation by the employees have a real basis.

A mass social movement against capitalist climate destruction is nevertheless possible. This requires a class struggle escalation attacking those responsible for the climate crisis. Instead of denying the necessary ecological conversion and job losses in the industrial sector, we must demand and enforce that the costs of this are borne by fossil fuel capital and the rich.

There are not only fears of decline and change, but also a desire for a different way of life. Many people want streets and cities that are not clogged by cars nor polluted by their exhaust fumes. They want to reduce their working hours, to be able to carry out self-determined care work, to experience a sense of community and to slow down their lives. From here, an alternative idea of the good life can be developed. Such a radical socio-ecological transformation is tied to the long-term interests of the majority of people. Yet this social alternative is not a feel-good program: given the climate crisis, its implementation needs the antagonistic intensification of the struggle against fossil capital and its political allies. We will not just be given a future worth living.

Migration, border regimes and (anti-)racism

For centuries, global capitalism and its imperial world order were based on the exploitation and subjugation of people in the Global South. Their livelihoods have been systematically undermined and destroyed in the process. The permanent crises of the present - above all the climate crisis, but also the increase in geopolitical conflicts and wars - are exacerbating this situation even further. Millions are on the run, global and regional migration is on the rise. However, the people who cross borders on often life-threatening routes are not just victims: by fighting for their share of global social wealth and their right to a safe life, migration movements practically challenge the existing order.

The escalating, often deadly violence at Europe's borders is intended to defend this order and the unequal distribution of wealth. Yet the capitalist economy of the countries of the North is always dependent on new workers. The result is a complex and contradictory system of closed borders, disenfranchisement, control and exploitation that is largely organized along racist lines. At the same time, migration is the "mother of all societies" and the immigration society is a reality in Germany that can no longer be denied. This has given rise to at least two areas of conflict in this country, where cracks and fault lines of domination are becoming visible.

First, the expansion of "Fortress Europe" - from Frontex to deportation prisons on our own doorstep - leads to a reorganization of the political spectrum. Leftist-liberal and supposedly progressive parties and actors are increasingly adopting right-wing positions and putting them into practice. Here, in particular, there is a huge contradiction between the humanist rhetoric and the reality of dehumanization at the borders. This policy is based on an alliance of fear with large sections of the population. Many people mistakenly believe that fending off migration can mitigate the threat of restrictions to their own standard of living - and accept violence against the "others" and their deaths in exchange for an illusion of their own security and prosperity. In contrast, the advocates of the universal validity of human rights and the right to global freedom of movement often seem to be in the minority. But this division is neither clear nor stable. There are opportunities for new alliances and new struggles. We want to lead them offensively - together with all those who have become alienated from the double standards of "Western", "European" or "green" values, who are campaigning locally against deportation and disenfranchisement or who have organized themselves as affected refugees. They are all ready for the conflict against Fortress Europe.

Second, it is social racism itself that constantly gives rise to new contradictions, areas of conflict and struggles. Whether it is institutional racism on the job and housing market, racist police violence, right-wing agitation in the media, attacks and assaults or everyday racism: attributions, discrimination, exclusion, threats and violence remain part of everyday life for many people in this country. The public dismay following the deadly attacks in Hanau has done nothing to change this. The white-dominant society and its parties blame immigrants, residents of migrant neighborhoods in large cities and Muslims for social problems.

At the same time, social production and reproduction in this country would collapse without the work of migrant workers. Whether in care, agriculture, logistics or the emerging platform economy, the proportion of migrant workers is particularly high in these areas with high workloads and precarious employment. It is no coincidence that it is precisely in these areas of the economy that new forms of strike and protest have emerged and an increasing collective political self-awareness has developed among employees. Class struggles and anti-racist struggles overlap in these disputes. Here, just as in the struggles against everyday racism and racist violence, we see a further rupture line that needs to be deepened by fighting confidently and uncompromisingly against racism, exploitation and for a migration society based on solidarity.

In today's neoliberal capitalism, we observe two competing political projects. They are vying for hegemony and supremacy. At first glance, their plans for dealing with the global multiple crises appear distinct and their values diametrically opposed. The bourgeois-liberal project of "green" modernization stands against an openly authoritarian, at times, fascist project of fossil backwardness. The former wants to modernize capitalism with a new accumulation regime, i.e. with new technologies, changed production methods and flexible working conditions, in order to reconcile it with the migration society and climate protection. The latter relentlessly clings to the old industrial society and aims to turn the clock back decades in socio-political terms. It aggressively defends the unequal distribution of means of production and resources between North and South, citizens and immigrants and between genders.

At second glance, there is a great deal of overlap between these two hegemonic projects. Both want to preserve the capitalist mode of production and way of life, as well as the global imperialist relations of exploitation. Both are intertwined with neoliberalism in different forms. The transitions are fluid and political actors move between the lines, complicating clear affiliations.

As a result of the strong right-wing formation of recent years, a modernized fortress capitalism emerges as a compromise between these two capitalist hegemonic projects. It aggressively distances itself from the outside world and increasingly resorts to an authoritarian form of politics on the inside. At the same time, there are still concessions to a liberal way of life and the rules of parliamentary democracy continue to apply. There are signs of a society that undertakes just as much climate protection and modernization as is feasible without major resistance from fossil capital and its henchmen. At present, there is no strong left-wing bloc that can intervene in this balance of power - but this can not and must not remain the case. To intervene effectively, we need an understanding of the similarities and differences between the supposedly green-progressive and reactionary projects.

The green modernization

The project of "green capitalism" promises to successfully solve the climate crisis through ecological modernization and at the same time open up new profit opportunities. Through this approach, the capitalist way of producing and living could be maintained in the long term and the ecological foundations of life would be preserved. The core of this false promise is to decouple economic growth from resource consumption through technological progress and ecological structural change. The project of green modernization therefore does not have to ignore or completely deny the causes and consequences of the climate crisis, as the right-wing project does. For this reason, international institutions such as the UN, WTO and EU predominantly support this perspective.

In the capitalist centers of Western Europe and North America, the project of green modernization is closely linked to "progressive" neoliberalism. Agreement is primarily achieved through recognition policies that take up aspects of demands coming from social movements, but weaken and reinterpret them in a way that they are compatible with the capitalist logic of exploitation. Thus, modern capitalism portrays itself as a defender of individual liberties and liberal values, which play a central role in the self-image of the green-progressive bloc.

However, the rescue of the capitalist narrative of progress into the 21st century cannot work in practice: A system that is fundamentally built on the maximization of profit and permanent growth must also subject natural resources to private control. It cannot respect ecological and planetary boundaries. The decoupling of economic growth and resource consumption remains a theoretical notion that does not stand up to empirical scrutiny. There is no and there cannot be a truly green capitalism.

The defense of liberal values and the supposed progressive politics in this project remain hollow. After all, capitalism and the imperial way of life cannot be maintained without closed borders, racist inequality, armament and repression. This stands even more true in light of the already inevitable consequences of the climate crisis.

The current failure of the German government to meet its own minimal standards clearly demonstrates this. Small improvements that cost nothing, such as the abolition of §219a, or half-hearted liberalizations of citizenship law are contrasted with a practice of closed borders, social budget cuts and the assertion of Germany as a dominant political power. Hidden behind phrases such as "European solidarity", the right to asylum is undermined. There is little left of "feminist foreign policy" apart from arms deals with dictatorships. Climate targets are missed year after year and the fossil fuel infrastructure expands.
Any hopes of a green modernization of capitalism are therefore in vain. A real socio-ecological transformation does not come from above but must be anti-capitalist.

The formation of the right

Conservatives and market radicals, right-wing and even fascist forces have formed an independent right-wing project - in varying constellations depending on the country - that fiercely competes for hegemony with the progressive-green project. In Germany, this development has been delayed but has now fully arrived with the electoral successes of the AfD and the CDU's shift to the right under their current leader Friedrich Merz.
Despite the multiple crises and increasing insecurity, the right-wing project promises that everything can remain as it is through a mixture of isolationism, climate denial and the defense of patriarchal privileges. For this false promise of stability, the racist, sexist, anti-semitic and anti-queer attitudes that have always existed in the population are purposefully mobilized and radicalized. In traditional and social media, the right wing is presenting itself as a supposedly resistant voice. They benefit from the fact that large parts of the media and party landscape adopt right-wing narratives, thereby normalizing their misanthropic positions.

After the “summer of migration” in 2015, the main focus was on racist agitation. In recent years, an anti-feminist and queer-hostile "culture war" has also gained importance. In this attempt to roll back the progressive, socio-political achievements of 1968, anti-semitic undertones become ever louder. As a result, a right-wing social bloc was created and broadened across opposing interests.

In Germany, it is the AfD that plays the central role in organizing this right-wing bloc. It has been able to establish itself as a right-wing party with a solid voter base, expand the financing of right-wing structures and network the right-wing on a national and international level. The AfD is a rallying point for extreme right-wing actors and an interface to openly activist neo-Nazis. At the same time, the transitions to parts of the established conservative parties and media become increasingly fluid. The likelihood of parliamentary alliances and even government participation grows.

Neoliberals and right-wingers do not merely share individual ideological ideas. Their cooperation goes beyond temporary alliances. This was particularly evident with the corona-denying “Querdenker*innen” (broad movement of “critics” that started protesting against the measures taken against the Covid pandemic and soon included protests against “woke” politics. The literal translation is lateral/unconventional thinkers). Here, neoliberal ideology takes an authoritarian turn: self-centeredness and an individualistic understanding of freedom lead to aggression against any collective solidarity. In this way, the diffuse union of authoritarian libertarians and conspiracy theorists has expanded the basis for the right-wing project. In addition, religious fundamentalists have been able to greatly expand their structures in recent years and are increasingly forming alliances with parts of the right-wing bloc.

The threat posed by the right-wing authoritarian project begins long before the AfD joins the government. The racist, anti-semitic, misogynistic, queer and trans-hostile fantasies of violence do not remain in the virtual space of social media but lead to real, often deadly violence. This was clearly demonstrated by the murders in Halle in 2019 and Hanau in 2020. The police, secret services and military remain a magnet for right-wing authoritarian characters. They are breeding grounds for racism and Nazi terrorism. Right-wing networks still exist in the German security apparatus, which has never been consistently denazified, posing a major threat to migrants in particular. The state can therefore not be relied upon to fight right-wing structures. It barely shows initiative unless it deems its monopoly on the use of force threatened. For anything else, a strong anti-fascist movement would have to force the state.

Despite the self-righteous portrayal of Germany as a country that has learned from history and is now reformed, anti-Semitism comes from the "center of society". It is neither reducible to the past nor an isolated case, nor is it a problem imported through migration. Anti-Semitic conspiracy narratives form ideological bridges from the extreme right to the so-called “Querdenker”, from reactionaries to parts of the peace movement.

In Eastern Germany in particular, right-wing and fascist structures, parties and individuals are deeply rooted in society, while a (leftist) liberal civil society often barely exists. The threat of a regional right-wing hegemony is already a reality in many areas. One explanation for this is the experience of decline and devaluation that many citizens of East Germany had since 1989. The far right was able to cleverly build on this with a politics tailored to the East. The state-based anti-fascism of the East German Regime was, although in a different fashion, just as superficial as it was in the West. Racism and authoritarianism lived on beneath the surface of socialism and internationalism. After the collapse of the DDR, there was understandable skepticism towards left-wing positions and organizations. This was another reason why the right had it relatively easy in East Germany. Today, we have to take these particularities into account when formulating a strategy and practice for our anti-fascist politics.

The threat from the right-wing authoritarian bloc is acute and real. Broad anti-fascist alliances are necessary to counter this. At the same time, the green-progressive project itself is part of the problem because it allows itself to be driven by the right. Effective anti-fascism only works in the long term with a left-wing, anti-capitalist perspective.

The situation on the left is contradictory: time and again, there are impressive mobilizations by the climate justice movement, Black Lives Matter, Migrantifa, Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen or against the AfD. More young people are influenced by feminist, anti-racist, ecological and other left-wing struggles than we would have hoped a few years ago. At the same time, these movements often remain selective, develop only short-term shifts in discourse and are rarely able to assert their concrete demands. Above all, they are unable to change the lack of strategy and weakness of left-wing and radical left-wing organizations.

The coronavirus pandemic, with its omnipresent risk of infection, lockdowns and restrictions on the right of assembly, has prevented many people from taking the streets in protest and resistance. Like society as a whole, our own structures and those of our allies have suffered under the conditions of social isolation. This has exacerbated the neoliberal isolation of people. At the same time, the coronavirus crisis has exposed deep contradictions in the social and radical left, which have prevented joint positions and effective practical interventions.

Similar helplessness and contradictions were evident in the assessment of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and the subsequent inflation and energy crisis. What does an anti-militarist stance look like that remains antagonistic to German and Western militarism without denying or unwillingly supporting aggressive Russian imperialism? With whom do we stand in solidarity and what does this mean, for example, for our position on arms deliveries? How do we reconcile the demands for affordable energy and the need for radical climate protection? The Interventionist Left has argued a lot about these questions and found too few answers.

The division in the Left Party is the result and most severe expression of the contradictions in the social left. Between nationalist and vulgar anti-imperialist provocations and bland reformism, the emancipatory forces in the party found themselves in an increasingly difficult position. With the separation now complete, there may be opportunities for a movement-oriented reset. For the IL, the Left Party has always been an important strategic ally, but never a space for political intervention. Our project is and will remain the independent radical left organization.

Trade unions and associations have opened up to social movements in recent years and for example, sought cooperation with parts of the climate justice movement. Overall, however, they remain in their established, social partnership-oriented paths. They are therefore selective partners for alliances and cooperation but largely fail to act as a driving force for radical change.

In the radical left, two forms of politicization have been particularly popular in recent years. First, power-critical identity politics: The latter deals with the various dimensions of discrimination, above all racism, patriarchy and queer- and trans-hostility. The focus lies on one's own positioning and morally correct individual behavior. As a result, identity politics typically has an instructing character, but creates few collective approaches to overcome oppressive relations.

Second, a large number of "red groups" have emerged, with varying degrees of regional strength. They serve the widespread need for political orientation and ideological clarity. Their dogmatic Marxism-Leninism focuses on the growth of their own organization and a radical habitus. They do not see the diversity of the revolutionary left and movements as an opportunity, but primarily as a problem to be overcome through unification and the correct ideology. Consequently, they often appear as a homogeneous bloc and copy their revolutionary role models of the 1920s in terms of ideology and aesthetics. Their choices of alliances usually remain selective and instrumental.

What identity politics and the red groups have in common is that they offer orientation and supposed clarity for the diffuse challenges of the present. Both tendencies - albeit for different reasons - reject the search for a common ground, which often makes the alliances, that are nevertheless necessary, difficult.

Parallel to these developments within the social left, the competition for attention and political positions is increasingly taking place on social media. A few left-wing publicists and influencers use the virtual battlefield to provide impulses for politicization. They offer opportunities for identification and help marginalized positions gain visibility. At the same time, the fleeting nature, individualism and often abbreviated debates on social media represent limitations for processes of collective change. So far, large parts of the organized left have struggled with platforms because they provide a poor environment for long texts and anonymous groups. We want to rise to this challenge by developing more of our own channels and formats that strike a balance between collective speech and the necessary personalization. In doing so, we will not forget that it is not the virtual space that ultimately decides, but the very real street.

The big questions are on the table: how do we need to reformulate the strategies of the social and radical left in the face of multiple crises? How do we not only identify areas of conflict but also become capable of acting within them? How do we update our tactics and forms of action? What is missing for mobilization successes to also lead to material successes? What are collective forms of organization for the 21st century? In short: How do we build social counter power?