Martin Suchanek, Gruppe Arbeitermacht, Germany
At the Blockupy demonstration in Frankfurt on June 1, the right to demonstrate was reduced to a farce. On the flimsiest of pretexts, hundreds of demonstrators at the front of the march were “kettled” after they had only gone one kilometre. The banners were “too wide” and sunglasses, and even umbrellas, “could have been used as disguises”.
Even the mainstream press found this way of “protecting citizens”, “disproportionate”. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which certainly cannot be suspected of any great sympathy for the Left, the behaviour of some police officers was “incomprehensible”.
At the Blockupy demonstration such things have become the norm. Whereas last year the blockade was prohibited, hundreds were detained and even an overnight camp was not permitted, the repression this year clearly had other priorities. Thus, buses of demonstrators from Berlin were searched for six hours on arrival and refugees, who wanted to take part in the actions, were forced to return. At the demonstration against deportations, at Frankfurt airport, the police were particularly provocative even after having limited the number of demonstrators to just 200 people.
Why the provocation?
Many may wonder why, this year, a militant demonstration of some 15,000, half of them from the various groups of the radical left (the Interventionist Left, migrant organisations, Communist organisations, including Arbeitermacht and Revolution and groups from the “New Anticapitalist Organisation” process) as well as groups from the reformist wing of the movement (the Left Party, Attac, and trade unions) was stopped after just a kilometre.
In fact, the rally “ended” after such a short distance only after many hours during which the police refused to release those held in the “kettle” – and the rest of the 15,000 demonstrators refused to take up their “offer” of taking a different route and leaving those in the kettle behind. This act of solidarity and unity made the demonstration, despite the provocation and the repression, into a political success.
The police, and the political leaders in Frankfurt and beyond, wanted to inflict a clear defeat on Blockupy and all those working for the building of a militant movement against capitalist crisis management.
1. They wanted to divide us between the “peaceful” and the “hooligans”. On this, they were spectacularly unsuccessful. Rarely has such an attempt been so unanimously and resolutely defeated by the demonstrators as they stood their ground, hour after hour, showing solidarity with those who had been kettled and defending the rest of the demonstration against heavy police attacks using pepper spray and batons.
2. They hoped to demoralise protesters and activists by ensuring not only that the demonstration could not reach its goal but also that it broke up in disorder and confusion. They wanted to generate a feeling of powerlessness, isolation and failure. Here, too, they failed completely because the common refusal to go any further until those in the kettle were released created a sense of cohesion and solidarity whose significance could extend far beyond Blockupy itself.
3. They wanted to show that we could not defend ourselves but instead we succeeded in defending the demonstration for hours. After several hours of negotiation, the police decided to “dissolve” the demonstration by attacking those behind the kettle with pepper spray and batons. However, they were unsuccessful with this as well; we held our lines and maintained the demonstration.
As a result, despite the undeniable weaknesses in Blockupy, the outcome was a political success. We have shown solidarity but also we have shown that we are willing and able to defend our right to demonstrate. A further strength of Blockupy this year was that, alongside the symbolic blockade of the European Central Bank, on the morning of May 31, there were also actions in the city itself. In addition, there was a demonstration at Frankfurt airport against the racist deportation regime of Germany and the European Union. There were also protest demonstrations outside the banks and property companies who have profited from the crisis. In the central shopping street, there were protests against the overexploitation of the workers in the sweatshops of the “Third World” and demonstrations of solidarity with the workers who are faced with ever lower wages and worsening working conditions. We took an active part in these actions, in particular the blockade of Karstadt in solidarity with those on strike in the current wage round in the retail sector.
Nonetheless, it is clear that there are also weaknesses in Blockupy. What is missing is an overall perspective for the struggle that goes beyond specific actions. There are neither concrete demands nor any political strategy. Blockupy, like other similar demonstrations, is certainly in the position in Germany where it can mobilise 10 to 20,000 people. However, it has been unable to build a lasting movement in solidarity with the workers’ struggles in southern Europe and against the attacks from capital and Cabinet here in Germany.
The attack on democratic rights
Frankfurt was also a reminder that, under capitalism, democracy is a fair weather event. Even if the economic malaise is not as pronounced here as in southern Europe, there are struggles, such as those in retail and at Amazon, that show that even here the attacks on the working class are far from over and that a low-wage sector has already been established. Also, if the fight back here remains restricted, not least because of the “partnership policy” of the trade union leaderships, all the signs are that there will be a further worsening of the social situation after the general election in September.
The ruling class and their political and police functionaries are all too well aware that the coming sharpening of class antagonisms and social conflicts is bound to produce defensive struggles and new possibilities for the development of a real pan-European movement.
Now, if there is criticism of the police from the side of the establishment, if there is hardly a politician to be found who is prepared to wholeheartedly defend the actions of the police, this is above all because the police intervention had an “unintended” result; the strengthening of solidarity amongst the demonstrators. That is what is worrying bourgeois politicians and the media when they talk about an “inappropriate” approach.
However, the ruling class is faced with a dilemma. They are certainly not prepared to make any concessions to the demonstrators. What kind of “signal” would it be if the European Central Bank could be blockaded? asked a lead article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The further dismantling of democratic rights, up to the point where bourgeois democracy becomes a complete farce, is unavoidable if the crisis management of German and European capital is to be fully implemented to resolve the crisis of the EU in the interests of German and French imperialism. Those who are prepared to impose “governments of experts” in Greece, Italy and other countries in southern Europe in order to carry out the policy of the Troika will, of course, not stop at a further erosion of democracy in their own country.
In terms of the smoothest exercise of power, the police force in Frankfurt may have gone a bit too far. However, that is just an inevitable result of the fact that a more authoritarian policy of crisis management means ever more powers and ever less control over the apparatus of police repression.
That is why it is of the greatest importance that in future mobilisations we combine the struggle for the defence of democratic rights with the struggle for political and social demands. Limitations on the right to demonstrate, arbitrary searches, all kinds of harassment, the extension of police powers and surveillance capacity are ultimately aimed at preventing the development of an organised resistance. In the imperialist epoch and, above all, in a period of historic crisis of capitalism, bourgeois democracy becomes more and more an empty shell, even in the richest countries. The defence of democratic and social rights is not only extremely urgent, it must be done with a perspective that goes beyond the existing capitalist system in the fight for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of new, socialist society.
After Blockupy is before Blockupy
In any case, such questions now have to be openly discussed in our movement. In February 2014, the “new” European Central Bank is due to be opened in Frankfurt. We will be there again, hopefully with more tens of thousands to demonstrate and blockade. But this time we must prepare for it differently. The question of the political orientation of the movement, its international and, above all, European coordination, as well as local organisations and action committees, is now pressing. In the autumn, as soon as possible after the general election, there should be a national action conference of all the left organisations and parties, trade unions, Blockupy alliances, anti-crisis alliances, committees for solidarity with southern Europe etc. On the one hand, Blockupy 2014 must become an international mass action. On the other, it must take an important step towards the building of a movement in Germany and an international coordination that goes beyond Blockupy.