In the struggles of the last years, we have primarily achieved discursive successes. Left-wing forces have managed to increase the support for progressive positions in many areas of society. This enabled us to win individual concessions, such as the abolition of §219a (§219a of the German criminal code forbade to advertise abortions. This also included informing on abortions as a medical service by doctors), i.e. the abolition of the ban on advertising abortion. At the same time, material successes were rare, real counter power was barely developed. Instead of creating small ruptures, buzzwords from our struggles are symbolically taken up and appropriated by the supposedly green modernization project. The global rise of the right shows how willingly these concessions are nullified to stabilize the ruling class. All the more reason to develop the ability to defend our successes against attack.
In this sense, from a radical minority position, we want to combine short-term capacity for action with the long-term organization of counter power that does not remain symbolic nor pleading. Shifts in discourse remain a relevant part of our practice. Yet they must be measured by their potential for small ruptures and real change. We need to systematically expand the organizing and disrupting elements of counter power, if we want to advance a left-wing hegemony project. Only then can we enforce changes. In the past, our approaches often remained unconnected. Areas of tension emerged time and again: between winning majorities and fighting as a radical minority, between being anchored in society and the necessity for escalation, between rebellion and transformation. In the future, we must therefore improve in putting our different strategic approaches into a productive relationship with each other.
To determine this relationship, we need productive debates, within and outside of our organization. In the following sections, we therefore update our strategic and tactical compass. We did that for the first time in our “Zwischenstandspapier” in 2014 (Our interim paper “IL on the move”). Some of our approaches are still valid, others have been added or gained more relevance in our organization. The result is not a finished program, but a mixture of evaluations, new agreements, challenges and the collective seeking for answers to open questions.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
For us, organizing ourselves means to weave networks of solidarity and collectivity, developing a common attitude and culture of comradeship. This involves friction and conflict but also the promise of fighting together for liberation from the oppression that pervades us. Building such relationships of solidarity is not merely another aspect but permeates through all of our politics: How do we become revolutionary subjects together? How can a perspective of global liberation be organized transnationally? How are politics at eye level possible in the context of inequality?
In a global system of exploitation and oppression, the struggle for liberation must also be global. From a decolonial perspective we want to learn from the struggles of this world, question and cross the national boundaries of our political action. We especially want to set ourselves in relation to uprisings and revolutionary projects, like the self-administered structures in North and East Syria/Rojava and the Zapatista region. The destructive role of Germany is obvious: weapon supplies and military missions to support dictatorships on the one hand and the destruction of livelihoods in the Global South through the German economy model and in Southern Europe through European crisis policies on the other hand. We understand revolting against this imperial devastation and organizing the broadest possible resistance not merely as an expression of solidarity. We are at the heart of the beast. From that accrues a special responsibility but also the power to act.
Neither our analyses nor our strategies would be complete or even sufficient if we do not overcome Eurocentric ideas and integrate the perspectives of our comrades from the Global South. It is our task as the organized and radical left to create spaces of critical and solidaric negotiation and reflection. Moreover, we must ask ourselves the question of how we provide resources and practically support organizing processes, for example when our Eastern European comrades forge transnational and feminist alliances under the most adverse conditions - not as a charity but as a way to self-position us within these struggles. At the same time, the growth of local counter power is important for a left-wing hegemony project, globally and locally. It is not about the question of whether the focus is international or local - the two dimensions are inseparable. Capital operates across borders and relations of exploitation are transnational. The same applies to the emergence of cracks and fault lines in the capitalist system.
The crisis protests against European austerity politics were an important experience for us. Within the context of Blockupy, we have fought our struggles for a moment on the European level. Yet it has not worked out to initiate a more binding and transnational organizing process within the framework of Commune of Europe. A significant reason was that the determination of our politics continued to be nationally grounded and internationalism was rather thought of as a north-south solidarity. The platform Transnational Social Strike was also founded in this period. Despite crises protests tailing off, the platform succeeded in maintaining transnational structures. It is where we encounter many of our former companions and new comrades once again, mainly from Europe but also from other parts of the world. Here we will primarily look for linkages between our struggles to develop an outset for a transnational practice in the next years. We also seek to forge closer ties with those asking the same questions as we do and sharing a political understanding with us. Additionally, we will consolidate and intensify processes in which we learn and exchange ideas with our comrades from the Kurdish liberation movement who already operate transnationally.
Antiracist struggles have not been this diverse and visible for a long time. They affect all dimensions of societal life and are part of global struggles for life itself. It is not just about a reaction to racist murders. It is about the interplay of institutional and everyday racism that permeates all spaces, including left-wing spaces. They are struggles of desire and rage against the state order that is enforced by cops with deadly violence in everyday life, against humiliation, against categorization. Based on the experiences of these struggles, there is a broad controversy about identity and class politics. We reject the false juxtaposition of “economy” and “culture”, “class” and “identity”. Racism cannot be reduced to an attitude or a discourse nor an instrument for the exploitation and division of the working class. Racialization is produced through images and language, as well as used by the capitalist system and institutionally organized through the distribution of rights and access. Racism is a comprehensive social question, produced in structures and inscribed in individuals.
Radically antiracist practice fights the unequal global conditions, acknowledges the interconnectedness between global and local labor divisions, defends the right to freedom of movement and supports those that practically enforce this freedom. It also affects the conditions among us, in the Interventionist Left and the societal left at large. Taking the post-migrant reality as a point of departure, the antiracist movements question the normal state of society. In doing so, they challenge their white German comrades in the radical left and make it clear: Racism is not only the problem of a few, even though it affects some more than others. To live as free and equal people we must become others. Therefore we engage with the way racism inscribes itself into us and our connections: with varying experiences regarding the police and other state institutions, with the interweaving of political ideologies and economic relations such as racism, capitalism and neoliberalism.
One thing is clear: Whoever wants to overcome the racialized and oppressive relations is dependent on including the knowledge of those oppressed. We have a critical perspective on the concept of (passive) allyship that is propagated in parts of the left. We counter this with the active relationship of comradeship. That is because the racist state of normality can only be overcome if racism also marks the struggles of those not immediately affected because they do not want to be part of a racist society. BIPoC and migrants have always been comrades in social and emancipatory struggles. We neither want to stand voiceless alongside the struggles nor dominate them. Knocking over the literal paddy wagon, fighting in solidarity, in inequality but at eye level, that is our aspiration.
Within our joint organization, we encounter each other as comrades. We share a political desire for radical political change. A long breath is needed for that. We want to enable each other to become political subjects with such a long breath. We are aware of the adversities of everyday life, the isolation and individualization, the exhaustion and the impositions that are forced upon us by the social conditions. For us, to be organized together therefore also means to promise each other to walk this path of the long breath together and collectively oppose (our) powerlessness.
We work towards a culture of seriousness that is necessary for this path. This has something to do with (self-)discipline but nothing with militant toughness. Seriousness also means being caring, warm and connected. It does not mean that, in false mindfulness, we stop letting each other make mistakes, as is suggested in the neoliberal ideology. Neoliberalism leads to the moralization of the political and places the problem in individual misbehavior. The unfulfillable demand for self-optimization leads to isolation, individualization and retreat. Instead, we want a form of collectivity in which critique and self-critique are not understood as an individual pressure to change but as an expression of solidarity, liveliness, kindness and commitment between comrades.
One aspect of comradeship is our attempt to address structural discrimination within the organization. To this end, we have created various formats in the last years and comrades have taken these on themselves. Gender-separated spaces, the internal self-organization of BiPoC and exchanges about discrimination experiences in regard to class origin are instruments for making discrimination addressable. This makes it possible to meet in inequality but at eye level nonetheless. We have collectivized the experiences with criticism of masculinity and articulated a minimum standard on that base. An important step for us as an organization was to develop a guideline for dealing with sexualized violence and creating approachable structures on the foundation of solidarity-based partiality with those affected. We are aware that neither a guideline nor coming together in certain positions can replace the political stance and responsibility of any individual comrade. It remains a constant task to fill the guideline with life and sharpen our understanding of how we want to deal with patriarchal violence and perpetrators or the concrete meaning of solidarity-based partiality. In cases of sexualized violence, we want to take collective responsibility. This includes the possibility of making mistakes when doing so. To learn from mistakes and good examples as well as being able to negotiate different assessments, we need an exchange within and outside our organization. This is the only way to create renewed and resilient networks of solidarity.
Networks of solidarity are also tied between different generations. Several generations of struggles converged into the founding of the Interventionist Left. That has always meant a concurrence of different experiences and political traditions. We view these differences in knowledge and experience as an opportunity to learn from each other. Yet in the last years, we have engaged too little in how knowledge can be collectivized and experiences made accessible. Partly because of that, we strive to expand our educational work. We hope that this will enable us to evaluate struggles, strengthen our analytical skills, better position ourselves within the societal left and develop a shared historical consciousness. This will help us to remain calm in turbulent times when events rapidly accelerate and conflicts escalate.
Especially in times of increasing repression, solidarity is more important than ever. The criminalization of political protest, the shattering of left-wing groups by the application of terrorism paragraphs and the expansion of police authority are a taste of the fierceness of conflicts to come.