Our goal is the revolutionary rupture with the status quo. We are fueled by the everyday rage over the oppressive structures of capitalism and the desire for a world that entails a good life for everyone, according to their needs and capabilities. Such a world will not exist without getting rid of capitalist private property, without abolishing classes and exploitation, without overcoming patriarchal and racist oppression and violence. Without breaking with capitalism and its profit logic, there can and will be no solidaric answers for the existential crises and threats of the 21st century - not in Germany and Europe nor globally. A radical democratization of all aspects of life is needed to stop the systematic destruction of our basic foundations of life.

The democratic control over the environment, production and reproduction is blocked by private ownership over the means of production. Radical democratization must therefore start here - and ensure that all areas of society are covered and that all people receive the same rights, regardless of nationality or origin.

The nation-state and its institutions are a fundamental obstacle to this democratization. In the former, the interests of the ruling class and capital are aggregated, on the costs of the global south. Its borders serve control and expulsion and are, in consequence, always bloody. Abolishing the nation-state is, therefore, a necessity - as well as abolishing the European Union, which serves capital interests and organizes Fortress Europe.

We understand revolution as a process in which the bourgeois state and its institutions are overcome in multiple steps. Thereby, parliamentarian politics and majorities might, at best, play a secondary role in this. The system cannot be radically changed without breaking with its rules. Any such attempts have failed. Parties such as Die Linke, Syriza or Podemos exemplify this. Even if we recognize the importance of parties for a left-wing hegemonic project and as a point of contact for left-wing politics in everyday life and work together with them in concrete struggles and campaigns: Our objective is the long-term build-up of societal power outside of the state through the linkage of revolutionary organizing and social movements.

Revolution goes beyond the overthrow of the economic and political order. It means profound changes in our subjectivity and our social relations in everyday life. Today, neoliberal individualization and indifference toward suffering in other parts of the world are omnipresent. It seems difficult to imagine how we would engage with each other and determine our lives in a liberated society. This makes it all the more urgent to change our relationships and ourselves on the way there - so that isolation in supposed sovereignty becomes collective freedom in solidarity and interdependence.

This path requires patience, imagination, a fighting spirit, collectivity and the willingness for revolutionary change. In the history of the left, there have been and still are many defeats and wrong turns. The left experienced withdrawal and cynicism, treason and counter-revolution, militarization and brutal violence - from the murderous state bureaucracy of Stalin to the reformist containment of social democratic and green parties. We are aware of the historic failures of the left. Yet we are determined to learn from them and do things differently and better.

Revolutionary processes cannot be drafted on the drawing board. Nor do they fall from the sky. They result from decades of continuous work for change in the here and now, as well as from the spontaneous struggles of social movements and the utopian desires of those who rebel against the status quo. In our strategy, we refer to both: The transformative shift in the balance of power as well as acting in the short-term dynamic of concrete opportunities.

With opportunities, we mean time windows in which seemingly stable processes become erratic and volatile.  Moments and events in which, for a narrow time frame, there is much more to win but also to lose than initially expected. Such opportunities cannot be brought about by force. Yet, in times of growing instability, these opportunities emerge in higher frequency. The last years showed that the courageous interventions of activists can make a real difference. An example are the nationwide protests against the election of Thomas Kemmerich as minister president of Thuringian in 2020. However, this example also shows that we have been primarily capable of acting spontaneously, especially when it came to defensive struggles. We could prevent the worst outcome but seldom utilize these moments to advance the societal left as a whole. Important prerequisites for the latter are the analysis of societal developments, a good sense of societal situations and sentiments, close ties to relevant actors and affected groups, and the capacity to coordinate decisive interventions. To pass on knowledge and experience, a cross-generational organizing project is essential.

The challenge for revolutionary politics is combining short-term opportunities with long-term transformational strategies. The latter achieve material success, serve as examples of the feasibility of left ideas and permanently ground them within society. They enable the adoption of emancipatory social relations and provide a practical perspective beyond the tristesse of contemporary capitalism. The productive interplay of opportunities and long-term strategies makes small ruptures in the system possible.

Small ruptures are key milestones in our politics. Thereby, we mean changes that systematically enhance and broaden our scope of action and societal counter power: (1) They shift the horizon of the possible (2) They achieve a real improvement of living conditions (3) Within them, people organize in structures that are capable of acting and asserting themselves. Only by connecting these dimensions, political achievements may become fault lines within the system. Ruptures exhaust or even break the existing rules to make the unimaginable imaginable, without shaking the fundamental conditions. Not every reform we accomplish against the state is a small rupture. But, the latter is the foundation for successful revolutionary processes. The campaign “Deutsche Wohnen und Co. Enteignen” is an example of politics that point towards a small rupture: The referendum regarding the expropriation of large real estate groups makes expropriation and socialization as real prospects graspable. Its realization would mean significant improvements for renters and has in fact enforced short-term material concessions. The project is more than just a campaign because it also provides a frame for organizing tenants and urban activists in lasting structures that are capable of action.
The relation between opportunities and transformation in moments of uprising is especially complex and far-reaching. Uprisings are a specific form of opportunity. At times they mark the difference between today and tomorrow. They develop a highly symbolic and motivating power and are capable of destabilizing power relations. But they are threatened by repressive violence and the logic of military escalation. Therefore, organized structures and a societal foundation are important to pursue an emancipatory project that can reach beyond short-term dynamics.

Uprisings unfold their actual revolutionary character when they cross the boundaries of a purely social or political conflict and encompass all societal areas. In those situations, means such as blockades, sabotage and political strikes are especially important. Additionally, previously established self-governed structures can outgrow themselves, pointing the way to real change. Uprisings without such material and structural foundations remain a flash in the pan. A revolutionary uprising is a struggle fought by an overwhelming majority against the minority of the ruling class.

With this in mind, we aim for moments in which the power lies on the street. Even though it sounds truly challenging: We must recognize opportunities and do what seems impossible - otherwise opportunities will either flash by or be seized by reactionary forces. This requires us to be rebellious and ready to dare breaking with the status quo as revolutionary subjects. Yet, it is also dangerous to lose ourselves in the hope for these moments, aimlessly looking for opportunities. Such an approach can wear us down and lead to resignation. Especially in times of dynamic crises, we must handle both as subjects and also as an organization: Being open to dynamic situations while simultaneously pursuing the long-term transformation with the necessary perseverance.

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.

The unconditional commitment to global justice and the radical democratization of society are therefore often material contradictions. A transformative project can help meet this contradiction: A shared vision connects struggles and actors toward a societal block. Such a project is also an indicator: Who is included and considered in the struggle for justice? What kind of utopias are developed? Here, too, we see our task as uncompromisingly representing the interests of minorities and the oppressed without abandoning the aspiration toward a project that is capable of winning a majority.

A transformative left-wing hegemony project is currently barely recognizable. Nevertheless, struggles for the socialization of housing and other social infrastructures point towards the outline of such a project. Socialization as a transformative demand and strategy is central to the build-up of a left-wing hegemony project. It may lead out of the helplessness of the left, because it shows the possibility of a solidaric future, even under the conditions of global crises. That distinguishes a left-wing hegemony project from “green” capitalism as well as the right-wing project. The latter two only provide responses to the crises for the cost of closing borders, and ever-increasing militarization and oppression.

Socialization means the comprehensive democratization of production and reproduction by liberating it from the control of state and capital. The former operates on three levels:

1. a change of the property structure from private to collective ownership;
2. a change of the political control from privately dictated to democratic and
3. a change of the intended purpose from profit maximization to the satisfaction of needs.

Nationalization does not automatically equate to progress. Experiences with state-run companies show that they often operate under the same conditions as private capital. Socialization is thus an important transformative demand because it replaces the dualism of state or market with collective ownership. When employees, users and tenants administrate themselves and consider global interests as well as the society as a whole, the revolutionary potential of socialization is realized.

Currently, capitalism prevents democratic decisions over climate-harming production, and enforces permanent growth, emissions and resource consumption. An economy that is socialized and based on climate justice operates according to the actual wants and needs of the people, not according to constraints of growth or profit. It must be compatible with the planetary boundaries and the globally just distribution of resources.

Socialization of social reproduction is an important component of a feminist and solidaric economy, in which the care economy is strongly enhanced in status and justly distributed. Socialized, democratic administration also allows enforcing antiracist principles. Structurally racist functions would be replaced and explicit racism fought. That does not mean that the strategy of socialization solves all societal problems and oppressive relations such as patriarchy and racism. Neither does it automatically dissolve global inequality. Socialization is a starting point enabling a new way of living, producing and encountering each other.
Socialization is, from our perspective, suited to function as a central axis of a left-wing hegemony project, because as a strategy it improves living conditions and pushes back state and capital in the socialized areas for the benefit of democratic self-administration. As a transformative demand, socialization has a utopian excess. It shows how we imagine a society after the revolution. All the stronger is the resistance by state and capital against socialization projects such as Deutsche Wohnen und Co. enteignen. This strengthens our conviction that it is not enough to solely speak about socialization. We must put it into practice and fight for it - together, disobedient, and in solidarity.