From gipfelsoli-l at lists.nadir.org  Thu Jun 28 17:35:01 2007
From: gipfelsoli-l at lists.nadir.org (=?iso-8859-1?q?=D6ffentlicher_Verteiler_der_Gipfelsoli-Infogruppe?=)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:35:01 +0200
Subject: [Gipfelsoli Newsletter] Heiligendamm
Message-ID: <20070628173501.bnzjkhjl4nyg4wos@webmail.nadir.org>

- G8: Zwei sitzen noch im Knast
- Öffentliche Anhörung in Berlin: Repression der G-8-Proteste um Heiligendamm
rekapituliert
- G8-Anschläge
- after eiGht - eine Frage der Gewalt?
- ALB: Auswertung der G8-Proteste
- Was war super und was war es nicht?
- Tadzio Mueller & Kriss Sol: A tale of two victories? Or, why winning becomes
precarious in times of absent antagonisms
- G8-Summit Protests in Germany: Against Globalization and its Non-Emancipatory
Responses
- BlackBlock at G8-2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G8: Zwei sitzen noch im Knast

Die Rote Hilfe OG Rostock fordert die sofortige Freilassung der letzten beiden
Gipfel-Gegner, die sich derzeit immer noch in Untersuchungshaft in der JVA
Waldeck befinden. Sie waren während der internationalen Großdemonstration am
2.Juni im Zuge der brutalen Polizeiangriffe festgenommen worden, bei denen
zahlreiche Demonstrierende zum Teil schwer verletzt wurden. Ihnen wird
Landfriedensbruch und Widerstand gegen die Staatsgewalt vorgeworfen.
Einer der Gefangenen kommt aus Rostock. Die Begründung für seine immer noch
andauernde Haft ist, dass er durch seine Teilnahme an der Großdemonstration am
2.Juni gegen seine Bewährungsauflagen verstoßen habe. Bei dem anderen
Gefangenen handelt es sich um den in den Niederlanden lebenden L.Y., der
Mitarbeiter im Institut für internationale Kultur und Kunst (VEK-SAV) und
Vorstandsmitglied des Vereins türkischer Arbeiter und Schüler (TIÖD)ist. L.Y.
hat im Jahre 2002 in einem türkischen Gefängnis am Todesfasten gegen die
Isolationshaft teilgenommen und ist darauf in die Niederlande geflohen. Er ist
anerkannter politischer Flüchtling und in Folge der Traumatisierung durch die
Erlebnisse in türkischen Gefängnissen Frührentner und in psychologischer
Behandlung, die fortgesetzt werden muss.
Es ist durch nichts zu rechtfertigen, dass die Aktivisten weiter in Haft
gehalten werden. Dadurch wird offensichtlich, dass die Polizeibehörden ihren
auf Repression und Einschüchterung abzielenden Kurs während der Protesttage
gegen den G8 Gipfel fortzusetzen gedenken. Wir rufen alle linken,
fortschrittlichen Kräfte und Organisationen dazu auf, die Inhaftierten
politisch und materiell zu unterstützen und sich für ihre Freilassung
einzusetzen.

Rote Hilfe OG Rostock
rostock at rote-hilfe.de

[http://www.rote-hilfe.de]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Öffentliche Anhörung in Berlin: Repression der G-8-Proteste um Heiligendamm
rekapituliert. Veranstalter entsetzt über systematische Rechtsbrüche
Eskalation von Anfang an

Von Sebastian Wessels
"Vor Wut und Empörung war ich kurz davor, einem der Polizeibeamten eine zu
knallen." Spontaner Applaus macht deutlich, daß diese Äußerung des
Rechtsanwalts Alexander Hoffmann den Versammelten aus der Seele spricht. Für
rund sechs Stunden folgen sie am Dienstag abend Redebeiträgen von Augenzeugen,
Anwälten und Organisatoren, die in der einen oder anderen Weise an den
G-8-Protesten vom 2. bis 8. Juni beteiligt waren, und allzuoft bleibt als
Reaktion auf die Berichte nur Sprachlosigkeit. Von "erschreckenden Grund- und
Bürgerrechtsverletzungen" spricht in seinem Eingangsstatement Sven Giegold von
ATTAC, von einem "Angriff auf die Verfassung" Ulrike Donat vom Republikanischen
Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein (RAV). Etwas akademisch, aber wohl am
treffendsten charakterisiert Werner Rätz, Mitglied des
ATTAC-Koordinierungskreises und der Demoleitung vom 2. Juni, das
Repressionskonzept von Polizei und Behörden als "Situation systematischen
präventiven Rechtsbruchs".

"Lust, reinzugehen"

"Was geschah in Heiligendamm?" - Unter diesem Motto hatten ATTAC, die
Gipfelsoli-Infogruppe, das Netzwerk Friedenskooperative, der RAV und die Rote
Hilfe am Dienstag ins Gebäude des ver.di-Bundesvorstands in Berlin eingeladen.
Etwa hundert Interessierte folgten der Einladung und hörten Augenzeugenberichte
über eine Polizeigewalt und -willkür, die vielen bislang unvorstellbar gewesen
war. Unter dem Eindruck der Rostocker Krawalle vom 2. Juni waren zunächst auch
Vertreter aus dem linken Spektrum auf den Propagandazug aufgesprungen, den die
zuständige Polizei-Sondereinheit Kavala und Teile der bürgerlichen Medien
befeuerten, und hatten in einer "Pauschaldiffamierung der Autonomen" - so Rätz
in der taz vom 13. Juni - Zuflucht gesucht.
Hier hingegen richtete sich das Augenmerk auf die systematischen, oft
ungesetzlichen, willkürlichen und gewaltsamen Repressionsmaßnahmen von
Behörden, Polizei und anderen Staatsorganen. Manfred Stenner, Mitglied der
Demoleitung und Geschäftsführer des Netzwerks Friedenskooperative, resümierte,
der Polizeieinsatz scheine "von Anfang an auf Eskalation angelegt gewesen zu
sein", und betonte: "schon am Samstag waren wir es, die deeskaliert haben".
Wollte man die Rechte aufzählen, die während der G-8-Proteste systematisch außer
Kraft gesetzt waren, käme eine lange Liste zusammen. Weit oben erschiene das
Demonstrationsrecht; Paradebeispiel wäre die von der Polizei schikanierte,
bedrohte, angegriffene und letztlich spontan verbotene Demonstration am Montag,
den 4.Juni. "Kavala" behauptete, 2000 der 8000 Demonstrationsteilnehmer seien
vermummt und einige hätten "Steine aufgenommen", obwohl der Einsatzleiter der
Polizei vor Ort wiederholt bestätigte, daß er weder Vermummte gesehen noch
etwaige Straftaten beobachtet habe. Die Anwältin Christina Klemm (RAV)
berichtete, derselbe Einsatzleiter habe ihr gegenüber nicht für die
Friedfertigkeit seiner Truppe garantieren können; "die Berliner" hätten "Lust,
reinzugehen", also Demonstranten anzugreifen. Nach Stunden des Gezerres löste
sich die Versammlung freiwillig auf. Klemm hob die Besonnenheit der
Demonstranten hervor, die "viele Gründe" gehabt hätten, "sehr wütend zu sein".
Gewollter Rechtsbruch
Das Recht von Polizeimaßnahmen Betroffener auf anwaltlichen Beistand sei
"konstant und ständig verweigert worden", so Hoffmann. Die Polizei habe
offenbar unter Ausschluß von Anwälten agieren wollen, erklärte Ulrike Donat
(RAV), und das sei ihr auch weitgehend gelungen. Während es den Insassen der
"Gefangenensammelstellen" ("Gesas") verweigert worden sei, Anwälte anzurufen,
hätten diese vor der Tür gestanden und seien nicht eingelassen worden. Einen
Eindruck sowohl von der Praxis willkürlicher Verhaftungen als auch von den
menschenrechtswidrigen Zuständen in den "Gesas" vermittelte der von Jan Steyer
(Rote Hilfe) verlesene Bericht des Berliner Arztes Michael Kronawitter, der zur
medizinischen Versorgung von Protestlern vor Ort war und verhaftet wurde - die
Polizei warf ihm vor, Demonstranten durch eine Polizeisperre geführt zu haben.
Kronawitter hockte rund 36 Stunden in der Rostocker Industriestraße im
Polizeikäfig aus scharfkantigem Draht, bei unzureichender Nahrungsversorgung
und grellem Licht rund um die Uhr, ohne Waschmöglichkeit und ohne Sichtschutz.
Vorher hätte er "so etwas in Deutschland für unvorstellbar" gehalten; viele
Insassen hätten sich an Berichte aus Guantánamo erinnert gefühlt und aus
Protest gebellt und geknurrt.
Und immer wieder handelten die Berichte von nackter Gewalt. Von der gezielten,
geplanten Gewalt durch Wasserwerfer, die blockierte Straßen freiräumten, was
mindestens einen Aktivisten ein Auge kostete, bis zur chaotischen Gewalt durch
von der Leine gelassene Polizeibeamte. Ein eingespielter Film zeigt eine Szene
während der Rostocker Krawalle: Ein Demonstrant sitzt verletzt auf dem Boden,
ein anderer steht daneben. Ein Polizist kommt ins Bild gerannt, täuscht einen
Tritt an, als er den am Boden Sitzenden überspringt, versetzt dem Stehenden
einen Schlag gegen den Kopf und läuft weiter - man sieht, der Mann hat Spaß.
Ob man gegen die zahllosen eklatanten Rechtsbrüche nicht vorgehen könne, wurden
die Anwälte immer wieder gefragt. Oft können diese jedoch nicht viel tun; die
verantwortlichen Beamten sind über alle Berge, und auch Betroffene sind nur
schwer ausfindig zu machen, zumal sie oft weitere Repressionen fürchten. Und
letztlich sind die Juristen sich einig mit den Veranstaltern: Eine planmäßige
Außerkraftsetzung des Rechtsstaats im großen Maßstab, wie man sie bei den
G-8-Protesten erleben konnte, ist eine politische Erscheinung, gegen die auch
politisch gekämpft werden müsse. "Wenn man einen solchen Einsatz von der
Polizei verlangt", so Stenner abschließend mit Blick auf die beabsichtigte
Unterbindung großangelegter politischer Proteste, "dann verlangt man, das
Gesetz zu brechen".
* Eine Video-Dokumentation der Veranstaltung soll in den nächsten Tagen im
Internet bereitgestellt werden; siehe z.B.: gipfelsoli.org, attac.de

[http://www.jungewelt.de/2007/06-28/015.php]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G8-Anschläge

LANDTAG MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN Drucksache 5/509
5. Wahlperiode 31.05.2007

KLEINE ANFRAGE
der Abgeordneten Birgit Schwebs, Fraktion der Linkspartei.PDS

und ANTWORT der Landesregierung

In der Antwort auf die Kleine Anfrage (Drucksache 5/106) führte die
Landesregierung aus, dass durch das Landeskriminalamt Mecklenburg- Vorpommern
sämtliche Straftaten im Begründungszusammenhang "G8- 2007" registriert werden.

1. Wie viele Straftaten sind seit dem 01.01.2007 im Begründungszusammenhang G8
registriert worden (bitte Anzahl, Ort und Datum der Delikte angeben)?

2. Welche Bewertungsindikatoren lassen die Vermutung zu, dass diese Delikte den
Gipfelgegnern zuzuordnen sind?

Die Fragen 1 und 2 werden zusammenhängend beantwortet.
Seit dem 01.01.2007 bis zum 12.05.2007 wurden vom LKA M-V folgende 13 in
Mecklenburg- Vorpommern begangene Straftaten im Begründungszusammenhang
"G8-2007" mit G8-spezifischen Bewertungsindikatoren registriert:

1 01.01.2007 Rostock, Hanse-Job-Center Sachbeschädigung/ Tatbekennung im
Internet

2 28.02.2007 Rostock, Stadtgebiet Aufforderungen zu Straftaten mittels Flyern/
Tatbekennung durch den Textinhalt und "Auslegen einer Aktionskarte zum
G8-Gipfel"

3 02.03.2007 Heiligendamm, Seebrücke Sachbeschädigung/ Textinhalt der
Schmiererei

4 10.03.2007 Kühlungsborn, Uferpromenade Sachbeschädigung/ Textinhalt der
Schmiererei

5 20.03.2007 Heiligendamm, Kempinski Grand Hotel Hausfriedensbruch/
Personenerkenntnisse

6 09.04.2007 Börgerende, ehemaliges FDGBFerienheim Sachbeschädigung/ Textinhalt
der Schmiererei

7 13.04.2007 Bad Doberan, PI Bad Doberan Störung des öffentlichen Friedens durch
Androhung von Straftaten/ Textinhalt des Drohschreibens

8 18.04.2007 Kühlungsborn, Promenade Sachbeschädigung/ Textinhalt der
Schmiererei

9 19.04.2007 Bad Doberan, Stadtverwaltung Störung des öffentlichen Friedens
durch Androhung von Straftaten/ Textinhalt des Drohschreibens

10 22.04.2007 Güstrow, Privathaus Sachbeschädigung/ Textinhalt der Schmiererei

11 24.04.2007 Greifswald, Gebäude des Ordnungsamtes Sachbeschädigung/ Textinhalt
der Schmiererei

12 30.04.2007 Heiligendamm, Seebrücke Sachbeschädigung/ Textinhalt der
Schmiererei

13 12.05.2007 Heiligendamm, technische Sperreinrichtung Sachbeschädigung/
Textinhalt einer Einritzung

Für die Erfassung bundesweit begangener sowie aus dem Ausland gemeldeter
Straftaten im Begründungszusammenhang "G8-2007" ist das Bundeskriminalamt
zuständig.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after eiGht - eine Frage der Gewalt?

Nachdem kurzzeitig die "Gewaltfrage" nach dem Rostocker Samstag weitgehend
dominant schien und auch die Beurteilung der politischen Aktionen überstrahlte,
läuft nun in der linken Öffentlichkeit eine vertiefte Diskussion zu dieser
Frage. Wichtig ist: es wird argumentiert zwischen VertreterInnen
grundgegensätzlicher Positionen. Wir wollen uns an diesem produktiven Verfahren
beteiligen und haben zu einer Debatte eingeladen:

* Nele Hirsch ist MdB und bildungspolitische Sprecherin der Linksfraktion. *
Michael Brie ist Leiter des Bereichs Politikanalyse und Vorstandsmitglied der
RLS, publizierte gemeinsam mit Lutz Brangsch die "Standpunkte" 9/2007der RLS
"In der Sackgasse - oder: Mittel beherrschen Ziele. Eine gescheiterte
Strategie."
* Sven Giegold ist Mitbegründer von Attac und Mitglied des Ko-Kreises, zuletzt
die Debatte "Steine in Rostock waren falsch" in der TAZ v. 19.06.2007
* Raul Zelik publizierte zuletzt 2005 seinen vierten Roman "Berliner
Verhältnisse" im Blumenbar-Verlag und schrieb in unserem aktuellen
Debattenzusammenhang einen "Offenen Brief" an Peter Wahl
* Wolf-Dieter Narr, Komitee für Grundrechte und Demokratie, war als Beobachter
für das Komitee in Heiligendamm
* Susanne Große, Mitglied von Avanti. Avanti hat das Projekt Block G8
mitgetragen und organisiert.
* Rainer Rilling gehört zum Bereich Politikanalyse der RLS und moderiert.

Die Diskussion findet statt am 4. Juli 2007 18 Uhr in der Rosa Luxemburg
Stiftung Franz-Mehring-Platz 1 ("ND-Gebäude") 1. Stock Konferenzraum. Es gibt
Wasser für alle und der Eintritt ist kostenlos.

Diese aktuelle Veranstaltung findet im Rahmen der Reihe "Kritischer
Bewegungsdiskurs 2007" statt; die für den 4.7. vorgesehene Veranstaltung von
Wolf-Dieter Narr wird daher auf einen späteren Termin verschoben, der auf der
Website www.bewegungsdiskurs.de angekündigt werden wird.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALB: Auswertung der G8-Proteste

Die Proteste gegen den G8-Gipfel in Heiligendamm liegen hinter uns. Für die
außerparlamentarische Bewegung in der BRD waren sie ein Schritt nach vorn: Denn
sie waren mehr als eine Woche Protestspektakel an der Ostsee. Wir haben
mobilisiert und organisiert, haben Bündnisse geschlossen und mit unserer Praxis
interveniert. Jetzt gilt es zurück zu blicken, zu analysieren, Resümees zu
ziehen. Den nächsten Schritt auszuloten erfordert eine Debatte, die noch nicht
abgeschlossen ist. Die Antifaschistische Linke Berlin gibt hier ihren ersten
Diskussionsstand wieder.

5 Finger sind eine Faust!

Die Aktionen gegen den G8-Gipfel 2007 in Heiligendamm
Seit "the Battle of Seattle", wo 1999 eine WTO-Ministerkonferenz vor leerem Saal
eröffnet werden musste, während in den Straßen der Stadt Barrikaden brannten,
sind viele hunderttausende Globalisierungskritiker/-innen auf die Straße
gegangen: als Militante, als Blockierer/innen und als Teilnehmer/innen von
Großveranstaltungen wie den Sozialforen.
Sie sind Teil der weltweiten Bewegung, die sich Ende der 90er Jahre formierte
und deren Aktivist/-innen für soziale Emanzipation und gegen den globalisierten
Neoliberalismus kämpfen. Linksradikale Anti-Gipfel-Aktivitäten haben zum Ziel,
die symbolische Repräsentanz von globaler Herrschaft zu stören. Im Zusammenhang
mit Aktionstagen und Bündnisdemonstrationen sorgten Bilder von Riots in den
Innenstädten von Göteborg, Genf, oder Genua für eine unmissverständliche
Botschaft: Wir führen keinen Dialog mit den Herrschenden eines
menschenfeindlichen Systems.
Auch die Proteste gegen den G8-Gipfel 2007 haben Widerstandsgeschichte
geschrieben. In Heiligendamm ist es gelungen, die Inszenierung eines
G8-Treffens tatsächlich zu stören. Mehr als 10.000 Menschen verzögerten am
Mittwoch, dem 6. Juni 2007 die Anreise der Delegationen zum Gipfel. Alle
Zufahrtsstraßen waren versperrt, Gipfelgegner/innen drangen in die zum
Sperrgebiet erklärte Sicherheitszone rund um den Tagungsort ein.
Dolmetscher/innen und Mitarbeiter/innen konnten stundenlang nicht bis
Heiligendamm vordringen - einzig Luft- und Seeweg zum Badeort waren noch offen,
bis auch dort Schlauchboote in die Sichtweite des Tagungsortes vordringen
konnten.
Der Erfolg der Blockaden ist ein Erfolg der Basis der Bewegung, die mit
Entschlossenheit und Zuversicht ihr Ziel verfolgte. Das Konzept lebte von den
vielen Aktivisten/innen, die die Blockaden monatelang vorbereitet haben. Diese
Erfahrung dokumentiert eine Weiterentwicklung der bisherigen Gipfelproteste und
stärkt die Linke international. Sie zeigt, dass weiterhin mit uns zu rechnen
ist.
Wir haben uns im Rahmen des bundesweiten Netzwerks Interventionistische Linke an
der Vorbereitung und Durchführung der Proteste beteiligt. Unsere
Aktionsschwerpunkte waren die Großdemonstration am 2. Juni 2007 und die
Kampagne Block G8. Aus diesem Grund werden wir im Folgenden nur auf diese
Aktionen eingehen und nicht auf die gesamte Fülle der Anti-G8-Aktivitäten, wie
die Aktionstage globale Landwirtschaft, Flucht und Migration, gegen
Militarismus, Krieg und Folter, die Blockade am Flughafen Laage, den
Gegengipfel und Move against G8. Unser Ziel war es, große Bündnisse von
Gipfelgegnern/innen mit aufzubauen und antikapitalistische Positionen innerhalb
dieser Bündnisse stark zu machen.
An der Großdemonstration in Rostock nahmen etwa 80.000 Menschen teil. Für uns
ist dieses Mobilisierungsergebnis ein großer Erfolg. Denn es ist ohne größere
Beteiligung der Gewerkschaftsapparate und linken Parteien erreicht worden -
anders als es bei bisherigen Mobilisierungen der Antiglobalisierungsbewegung
bislang der Fall war. Die Demonstration, wie auch alle anderen Aktionen und die
für den Protest notwendige Struktur wurden vorwiegend von unten, das heißt aus
der außerparlamentarischen, nicht institutionellen, internationalen Bewegung
organisiert.
Rostock war am 2. Juni eine Polizeistaatsfestung. Hubschrauber kreisten über der
Stadt, die Bevölkerung traute sich nicht auf die Straße - monatelange Polizei-
und Medienhetze gegen "gewaltbereite Gipfelgegner" hatten ihre Wirkung nicht
verfehlt. Die meisten Lokale und Läden blieben auf Anraten der Polizei an
diesem Tag geschlossen. Gepanzerte Polizeieinheiten, vernagelte Fensterscheiben
und schweres Gerät, vom Räumpanzer bis zu Wasserwerfern jeglicher Bauart prägten
das Bild. Schon bevor der erste Stein geworfen war, hatte sich die Prophezeiung
der Gewalt selbst erfüllt.
"make capitalism history" Der "make capitalism history" Block der
Interventionistischen Linken stellte mit etwa 8000 Teilnehmer/-innen den
größten Block auf der Demonstration. Die militante Auseinadersetzung mit der
Polizei am Ende der Demonstration war ein Moment, der für eine Botschaft des
Dialogs nicht zu vereinnahmen war. Sie sorgte für eine unmissverständliche
Absage an die Vorstellung von einer an die G8 appellierenden Bewegung. Das war
nicht zu übersehen und deshalb war es auch im nachfolgenden Gewaltdiskurs für
Medien und politische Gegner um so notwendiger, den Block auf die Metaphern
"schwarz" und "gewalttätig" zu reduzieren. In Anbetracht des
ordnungsstaatlichen Gesamtszenarios und des Angriffs der Polizeihundertschaften
auf unseren Block war es richtig und eine wichtige Erfahrung, sich gemeinsam zur
Wehr zu setzen und diesen Angriff zumindest zeitweise zurückzuschlagen.
Jedoch lieferten die produzierten Bilder, wonach die enormen und monatelangen
sicherheitsstaatlichen Maßnahmen verlangten. Der reale Sachschaden und die Zahl
der verletzten Polizisten entsprach zwar nicht im Geringsten dem, was die
Massenmedien über die "Schlacht von Rostock" glauben machen wollten. Aber die
wurde Gewaltdebatte enorm forciert. Die Medien kolportierten jede
Propagandalüge, das letzte Wort in jeder Nachrichtensendung hatte der
Pressesprecher der Polizei. Das Bündnis und die Staatsmacht vor Augen gelang es
einigen Veranstalter/innen der Proteste nicht, einen klaren Kurs zu behalten. Es
häuften sich Kommentare zu den Auseinandersetzungen am Rande der Demonstration,
die als generelle Distanzierungen von Militanz und militanten Aktivisten/innen
verstanden werden konnten, oder auch so gemeint waren. Bei Sprechern von
Organisationen wie ATTAC mag dies nicht verwundern - entspricht diese Haltung
doch der politischen Linie ihrer Funktionärsriege.
Doch selbst vom IL-Pressesprecher aus unserer Gruppe hat es bedauerlicherweise
distanzierende Worte in mehreren Interviews gegeben. Wir sind in diesen Tagen
von der Wirkungsmacht des Gewaltdiskurses überrollt worden, waren vom Ansturm
der Medien und der Wucht der Hetze überfordert und sind mit einigen Äußerungen
in den Jargon von Medien und Polizei verfallen. Dies entsprach weder der
wirklichen Position unserer Gruppe noch ihrer Sprecher/-innen und wir werden
zukünftig dafür eintreten, dass weder Gruppen, noch Organisationen dauerhaft
von Einzelnen in der Öffentlichkeit vertreten werden, ohne eine ständige
Rückkopplung mit dem Kollektiv zu haben.

Block G8
Zum Gipfelstart am Mittwoch setzten wir uns gemeinsam mit zehntausend Menschen
über das Demonstrationsverbot rund um die Sperrzone von Heiligendamm hinweg.
Kollektiv trotzten wir Wasserwerfereinsätzen und Tränengas, führten die Polizei
an der Nase herum und stellten damit ein weiteres Mal das Gewaltmonopol des
Staates praktisch in Frage.
Deswegen schätzen wir die Blockaden, deren Rahmen das Bündnis Block G8
organisiert hatte, nicht weniger militant ein, als die Demonstration einige
Tage zuvor. Für die Blockaden haben sich zigtausend Leute organisiert, sie
waren entschlossen und wussten was sie tun wollten. Ihre Form setzte sich aus
verschiedenen Aktionstraditionen zusammen. In der Vorbereitung haben sich in
dieser Frage alle Bündnisteilnehmer/innen auf einander zu bewegt. Die
Vermittlung dieses offenen Konzeptes, das breite Möglichkeiten zu Beteiligung
bot, hat im Vorfeld gut funktioniert und schaffte die Basis für ihr
Funktionieren in der Praxis.
Die Spaltung in den "Schwarzen Block" vom Samstag und die friedlichen
Blockierer/innen der nächsten Woche existierte in der Realität nicht,
unabhängig von der Farbe ihrer Pullover. Die Blockierer/innen sind aktiv gegen
Verbotszonen, Wasserwerfer und Polizeiabsperrungen vorgegangen. Sie entstammten
demselben Spektrum, wie die Teilnehmer/innen der großen Bündnisdemonstration. Es
handelte sich um dieselben radikalen Gipfelgegner/innen, Antifas,
Antirassisten/innen, Friedens- und sonstigen Aktivisten/innen aus allen linken
Bewegungen Europas.
Viele Blockierer/innen aus eher moderaten Strukturen setzten sich über
Medienhetze, Einschüchterungsversuche und die Beschlüsse und Empfehlungen ihrer
unter dem Distanzierungsdruck nach rechts lavierenden Funktionäre hinweg, die
ihnen geraten hatten den Blockaden fernzubleiben. Das nennen wir
emanzipatorische Politik im besten Sinne. Die Aktivisten/innen hatten erkannt,
dass nicht die Militanten, sondern die Medien und die Sprecher einiger
Organisationen sie funktionalisieren wollten.
Der Polizei war an diesem Tag nicht an Bildern von brutalen Einsätzen der
Beamten gelegen. Das Bild einer scheinbaren Deeskalation darf aber nicht
darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass es auch an den Blockadetagen zu einer massiven
Außerkraftsetzung des Demonstrationsrechtes, etwa durch das Verbot des
geplanten Sternmarsches kam. Die Polizei suchte und fand Situationen, in denen
ein Eingreifen gerechtfertigt erschien, es kam zu vielfachen brutalen
Einsätzen, Festnahmen und etlichen Schwerverletzten. Dass die Blockaden dennoch
zu einem so großen Erfolg wurden, ist den zigtausend Teilnehmern/innen zu
verdanken, denen es gelang, das monatelang geplante Fünf-Finger-System
erfolgreich umzusetzen.

Block on
Wir haben in unserer Mobilisierung immer wieder betont, dass der Gipfel die
symbolische Inszenierung von Herrschaft sei, mit dem Ziel, die globalen
Herrschaftsverhältnisse zu legitimieren. Erfolg und Misserfolg der Bewegung
müssen sich also daran messen lassen, ob es geschafft wurde dem G8 Gipfel diese
gesellschaftliche Funktion streitig zu machen. Haben wir es mit unseren Aktionen
geschafft diesen Gipfel und damit die, von ihm auf einer symbolischen Ebene
repräsentierten, globalen Herrschaftsverhältnisse zu delegitimieren?
Unsere Antwort lautet ja. Sowohl die Großdemonstration, als auch die
Massenblockaden haben Bilder erzeugt, deren Unversöhnlichkeit und
nicht-appellativer Charakter gegenüber den G8 zur Delegitimierung des Gipfels
geführt haben. Gemeinsam haben wir es geschafft den Widerstand gegen eine
Weltordnung sichtbar zu machen, die sich die Sicherung der Funktionstüchtigkeit
des kapitalistischen Weltmarkts auf die Fahnen geschrieben hat.
Der Charakter der globalisierungskritischen Bewegung 2007 in Deutschland hat
sich durch das Nicht-Interesse von Gewerkschaftsapparaten und linken Parteien
spürbar verändert. Einerseits wurden im Vergleich zu anderen großen
Gipfelmobilisierungen deutlich weniger Menschen erreicht. Andererseits waren
aber diejenigen, die durch die außerparlamentarischen Bewegungen erreicht
wurden deutlich aktivistischer und vom politischen Ausdruck auch radikaler als
bei vergleichbaren Protesten. Diese Erfahrung wird in zukünftige Formen von
Organisierung einfließen. Sehr viele junge Menschen haben an den Aktivitäten
teilgenommen, ihre dort gewonnenen kollektiven Erfahrungen des Widerstands
politisieren und radikalisieren eine neue Generation des Protestes.
Zur Bewertung gehören auch die staatlichen und polizeilichen Maßnahmen, die
bereits mit der Änderung des Polizeigesetzes von Mecklenburg Vorpommern
begannen. Über 17.000 Beamte waren im Einsatz. Unter dem Arbeitstitel
"technische Amtshilfe" wurde die Bundeswehr im Inneren eingesetzt. Die Tornados
zur Aufklärung des Luftraumes wurden zwar im nachhinein von Teilen der
Öffentlichkeit bemängelt, generell stößt aber der Einsatz der Armee auf
bemerkenswert wenig Kritik. Während der Protesttage kam es zu über 1000
willkürlichen Festnahmen. Das Demonstrationsrecht wurde durch Verbote von zig
Versammlungen und Demonstrationen massiv eingeschränkt. Der Paragraph 129a
erfährt zur Zeit eine Renaissance. Wochen vor dem Gipfel diente der Vorwurf der
Bildung einer terroristischen Vereinigung als Anlass für eine bundesweite
Durchsuchungswelle, inzwischen finden im Abstand von wenigen Tagen
Hausdurchsuchungen bei angeblich militanten Gipfelgegnern/innen statt. Die
spektrenübergreifende Solidarität der Proteste von Heiligendamm wird in den
nächsten Monaten die Gelegenheit haben, sich in der Praxis der
Antirepressionsarbeit zu bewähren.
Endlich scheint es weit über die explizit linksradikalen Zusammenhänge hinaus so
etwas wie einen antikapitalistischen Grundkonsens innerhalb der Bewegung zu
geben. Zudem kann vom Großteil der aktivistischen Basis getrost behauptet
werden, dass er sich trotz medialer Hetze und staatlichem Repressionsdruck,
trotz der Schwierigkeiten durch die Unterschiedlichkeit der Politikansätze
nicht hat spalten lassen. Diese spektrenübergreifende Erfahrung war die
Grundlage unseres gemeinsamen Erfolges bei den Protesten gegen den G8. Dies war
auch ein wichtiges Moment für viele der internationalen Teilnehmer, von denen
wir wissen, dass sie die Übertragbarkeit dieser Anregung für ihre Bedingungen
diskutieren werden. Und auch für uns ist dieses Papier erst der Beginn einer
Auswertung der gemeinsamen Arbeit. Wir werden die Köpfe zusammenstecken und
über weitere Aktions- und Organisierungsformen nachdenken. Die von Vielen
bereits tot-gesagte, globalisierungskritische Bewegung ist zurück und
manifestiert ihren Widerstand radikaler als zuvor.

Wir sind gekommen um zu bleiben!

Antifaschistische Linke Berlin Juni 2007


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was war super und was war es nicht?

WAS SUPER WAR

WandergesellInnen
Umherziehende HandwerkerInnen, deren Traditionen bis ins 12.Jahrhundert
zurückreichen. Nicht nur, dass sie sportlich geschnittene, po-betonende
doppelzip-Cordhosen und sexy Han Solo Westen tragen, sie haben auch das
großartige Camp in Reddelich aufgebaut. Ein Lob den geräumigen Duschen, der
weitläufigen Bar und dem abgefahrenen Kinderspielplatz. Als kulturelles
Phänomen haben es die WandergesellInnen in berauschend kurzer Zeit geschafft,
voll hip zu sein.

Die Risse verbreitern (Widening the cracks)
Die Widerstandsmetapher des Tages und nicht versiegender Quell der Heiterkeit
waren diese Risse [etwas schwer zu übersetzen, weil es im deutschen z.B. nicht
die Assoziation zwischen den Arschbacken hat]. Ob es die 5 Finger waren, die
die Risse der G8 selbst waren, oder das Anarchist Teapot Sound System, dass die
Risse im musikalischen Dogma der AnarchistInnen erweiterte. Überall wurden Risse
breiter.

Die unbesungenen HeldInnen des Widerstands
Hier geht es nicht um den Ruhm der ersten Reihen: Angefangen bei dem Typ, der
jeden Abend den Müll aufgesammelt hat, über Carlos Camper, der die Presse der
Welt an den Camptoren abgefangen hat bis zu den Leuten, die an der
Klo-Hygiene-Front gekämpft haben. Nichts wäre ohne sie möglich gewesen.

Tandems - die neuen Kumpel

The Concierge - die Welcome Tents des Jahres

Zentralisiertes Spülsystem
Ein massiver Sprung nach vorn in der Camphygiene und ein möglicher Grund, warum
in diesem Jahr der Durchfall ausblieb.

Rosa und schwarze International Brigades T-shirts

DIE Kommodifizierung unseres Widerstands der Saison. Muss man haben.

Out of Action Barrio
Hat uns mit medizinischer Hilfe, einem Platz zum Ausruhen und hervorragendem
Kaffee versorgt!

Mobile Voküs an den Blockaden, um die ersten Reihen zu versorgen

Die Hedonistische Internationale
Für die Besetzung eines Extra-Camp-Stücks in Rostock, den
Old-Scool-Heuballen-Rave und für die Mobilisierung der musikalischen Kavalerie
zu den Demos und Blockaden.

Zusammenarbeit mit den lokalen Gemeinden
Kommt nie aus der Mode. Es gab nicht genug davon, aber was es gab war super.

Trockene Nächte vor den Aktionen
ERST BLOCKIEREN; DANN TRINKEN Leicht unentschlossen umgesetzt von den Bars, aber
eine super Idee

Wälder, Mohnblumen und schonungsloser Sonnenschein

Die Blockaden
Sowohl die Massenblockaden as auch die autonomen Blockaden - groß, vielfältig,
sexy, inspirierend - Que scorcio!!!!! Als die fünf Finger* in Aktion traten,
kam es zu ergreifend aufregenden Szenen, wie sich Leute umeinander kümmerten,
miteinander teilten. Geschichten von Solidarität, Würde und Größe inmitten
großen Drucks. Es hat einen großen Unterschied gemacht, einen Plan zu haben und
wir hoffen darauf in der kommenden Saison mehr davon zu sehen.

Und last but in keinem Falle least

Ein großer Fortschritt zu 2005 - das zentrale Anliegen der Veranstaltung war es,
zu verhindern, dass der G8 stattfindet, nicht dass er mehr tun soll. Super!

WAS NICHT SUPER WAR

Mangel an Queer WandergesellInnen
Macht euch keine Sorgen Jungs! Das Was war super Team ist autorisiert
mitzuteilen, dass in sechs Monaten einer zu euch stößt

Aufständische ManArchisten
Aggressiv und unverständig waren sie ständiger Quell von Streitereien in der
Bewegung. Könnt Ihr bitte mit euerm Aufstand woanders hingehen und
wiederkommen, wenn ihr einige bewußtseinsbildende Workshops über
Geschlechterrollen hinter euch habt!

Das Verwechseln von Taktiken mit politischen Prinzipien - Bezogen auf jene, die
lieber kämpfen wollen als gewinnen

Das Gender Gleichgewicht im Aufruhr - sonst wäre es auf der Super Liste gewesen
[???, Anm.Ü.]

Das Sitzen am Rande der Blockaden - Bitte companer at s!!!!!

Peter Wahl von Attac
Kannst Du Dich noch mehr distanzieren? In der Tat, ja. Bitte geh weiter weg.
Chemieklos und die Abwesenheit von Kompostklos

Die Silo-Guards
Ein Dank an die Leute, die ihre Zeit und Energie darauf verwendet haben die
strategisch wichtigen Getreidesilos zu bewachen. Nicht nur das unsere
wunderbaren mexikanischen GenossInnen dort oben nicht geduldet wurden, das
Queer Barrio ging auch einmal gegen die Wächter vor, nachdem bekannt wurde,
dass sie ihre Ferngläser während der Duschzeiten der Frauen auf die Duschen
eingestellt hatten. Nicht so super...

Queerer Identitarismus - eine Niederlage der ganzen Idee, oder nicht?

Kamera Paranoia
Da fliegen Helicopter mit einer Technologie über unseren Köpfen, die wir uns
nicht mal vorstellen können, die Bullen sind auf jeder Demo mit Myrriaden von
Kameras, und alle haben ohnehin ein Handy mit einer Kamera dabei. Warum also
werden unabhängige JournalistInnen aus der Bewegung angepöbelt und bisweilen
gar angegriffen?

Der Suicide Block
Dafür, dass er hundert Meter vom Camp ins kleine Dorf Reddelich gelaufen ist,
dort einige Gartenzäune niedergerissen hat, einen Steingarten auseinandernahm,
einige Mollies warf und dann umdrehte, um wieder ins Bett zu gehen. Oh, und die
Cops mit nach Hause gebracht hat. Eine Menge Poserei für nichts.

Den Gegengipfel dafür, dass er am gleichen Tag wie die Blockaden stattfand -
Wessen glorreiche Idee war das denn?

* Die Fünf Finger Taktik ist eine Technik, um Polizeilinien zu durchbrechen, die
wunderbar funktioniert hat. Beim Treffen auf eine Absperrung teilt sich die
Menge in fünf Finger auf, wodurch eine unregierbare Masse entsteht.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tadzio Mueller & Kriss Sol: A tale of two victories? Or, why winning becomes
precarious in times of absent antagonisms

It is nice to have our victories once in a while. Sitting at the campfire in
Reddelich with thousands of people after a week of protest we were not quite
sure whether the collective euphoria permeating the camps was simply the result
of one too many sleepless night (and day), or whether it was true that we had
won once again: won as we had in Seattle, won as we had in Prague, even in
Genoa.
To some extent, it is possible to argue that Heiligendamm was indeed a victory.
First of all, some 10.000 of us forced over 16.000 police and over 1000
soldiers to retreat to the sea- and airways, we partially disrupted the
logistics of the summit (journalists, crucial to the event, reported being
stuck on boats for several hours, delegations were delayed, etc.), and people
all around the country and the world were made aware of our actions and
blockades, in other words, of the presence and significance of our movement.
These are significant successes. First: to push the state, according to one
(conceptually insufficient) definition the institution that holds the
legitimate monopoly of violence in a given territory, away from that territory,
into a small enclave, onto boats and helicopters, is in itself highly
significant. For what could 'revolution' look like if not the constant pushing
back from our everyday lives of the power of capital and the state? How far
will they have to flee? It is only six years ago that the G8 stopped meeting in
major cities and moved to the supposedly quiet countryside. In Europe at least,
this obviously does not prevent the emergence of massive resistance. What will
be their next step? Giving up the principle of rotation and establish a fixed
G8 meeting place in the Sahara? Wherever they will go, our will to intervene
and make their meetings if not impossible, then at least very difficult, will
remain.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly: we achieved what many of us had been
hoping for in the years and months leading to Heiligendamm, namely a
'reconstitutive moment' of the conflictive potential of global movements. What
the summit protests at the end of the last and the beginning of this century
had done was to create a 'common place', a social discursive space in which
diverse struggles, movements and individuals could understand themselves as
part of a global movement, through which diverse movements could confront
collectively various crystallisation points of global capitalist rule. But in
the last few years, many of us felt that, as much as we kept invoking a 'global
movement', there in fact wasn't one anymore, for the integrative quality of
summit protests had been draining away since Genoa, as a result of repression,
cooptation, and the instrumentalisation of movement agendas by state and
capital: from 'corporate social responsibility' to the ignominious splitting
off and cooptation of the moderate wing of our movement in Gleneagles at the
hands of the Blair/Brown government. Gleneagles was merely the high point of a
process that was as much a sign of our successes (issues 'we' talked about had
to be recognised as problematic) as our weaknesses: the slow draining away of
the antagonism that had existed between our agenda(s) and that/those of the
G8/WTO/etc...
But the feeling during that last evening at the campfire was different. We felt
powerful, back in the game, people felt encouraged and empowered, positive
about coordinated action in solidarity. That however was simply the initial
sentiment around the campfire. Whether we really are 'back' depends on what
happens from now on. Seattle would not have been the myth it today is if
Washington, Prague, Quebec, Gothenburg, Genoa, etc. had not happened
afterwards, if thousands of people had not taken this event as a positive and
empowering reference point for future interventions based on this unfulfilled
promise of the past.
After euphoria: the comedown. Opening the newspapers the next day, we did not
only realize that the old world still existed, but we had to learn that the G8
was able to re-constitute its discursive legitimacy through the mainstream
media. At least the Merkel government was widely cheered for forcing the US to
agree to agree to binding agreements at some point in the future (a great
exercise in metapolitics). Germany's biggest tabloid crowned Merkel "Miss
World", she was said to have triumphed over the American dinosaur, she was the
one who got the G8 to commit to do something about climate change. Legitimation
for her, but also for the summit and the G8 as such. Suddenly, there were two
winners, the G8 and the global movements against it. How was this possible?
If we look at the four principles of the Interventionist Left (IL), one of the
radical left networks participating in the mobilization against the G8 (and a
key mover behind the BlockG8 network which in turn was crucial in organising
two mass blockades), we might get an explanation for the clear limitations of
our success. This network was based on (a) a clear delegitimation of the G8 as
such; (b) a will to materially intervene in the infrastructure of the G8
through mass blockades; (c) a construction of broad alliances and trustful
cooperation; and (d) a clear rejection of and demarcation vis-à-vis right-wing
critiques of neoliberal globalization. Presumably, these principles were not
shared by all (radical left) activists. But we do think that the first two
points are crucial for 'winning', both discursively and materially, and that
they were fairly dominant on the radical left. Starting from the end: we think
a clear demarcation from right-wing critiques has been successfully practised;
the evaluation of alliance politics we leave to the IL. But what about points
(a) and (b), what about discursive delegitimation and material intervention?
In our mind, both aims are strategically interconnected. The first goal is
rather simple and has been stated many times: the G8 is not part of the
solution, but part of the problem. They not only fail to find solutions, they
are part of creating the very inequalities we are struggling against. Such an
analysis should lead necessarily to the second goal: we should try to prevent
the G8 from meeting.
On the first point: how powerful summit meetings (in particular G8 summits)
actually are, that is, to what extent they are in fact 'part of the problem',
or merely an ephemeral spectacle, has long been a point of contention in our
movements. We contend that over the last roughly 8 years, since the Cologne
summit in 1999, and very much in tandem with the emergence of 'our' movements,
the primary role of the G8 has changed: from adjudicator of competing interests
to imperial institution negotiating the difficulties of emerging forms of global
authority. In other words: global summits, G8 summits in particular, are to a
large extent about the symbolic production and legitimation of benevolent
global authority, or rather, of global authority as benevolent. How does this
legitimation occur? In short, if people perceive a problem (say: global climate
change), a threat, and existing power structures cannot convincingly show to be
dealing with the problem, then people might just move from merely whinging
about the issue to doing something about it - something that, because the
existing structures don't provide solutions, could potentially lie outside, go
beyond, or even threaten those structures.
This is what we call the problematic of global authority, which the G8 (amongst
others) has been seeking to handle for the last few years: 'Debt' (Cologne);
'Poverty/Africa' (Gleneagles); 'Climate Change' (Heiligendamm) - all issues
which are perceived as 'global problems', to which the G8 tried to respond:
don't worry, we're the right people, sitting in the right institution, trying
to solve this problem in the right ways, through the right channels. By all
means, please don't start thinking critically, acting critically, changing the
world. The existing one is just fine, with some adjustment judiciously made by
our humble selves! Thus the process of legitimation, thus (increasingly so) the
role of the G8.
The Gleneagles summit in 2005 is a perfect example of this, where the fact that
issues of 'poverty' and 'Africa' were taken up at the summit was a clear
attempt to relegitimate structures of global governance that had been
haemorrhaging legitimacy for years. The British government portrayed itself as
the prolonged arm of the legitimate concerns of social movements. This year the
problem that the G8 had to be seen as engaging with was climate change. For
months, Merkel's government had been busy massaging expectations of what would
come out of Heiligendamm downward, so that even a small fart of agreement from
the American corner could be sold as a success. And sold as a success it was:
Germany's biggest tabloid crowned Merkel "Miss World", legitimation for her,
but also for the summit and the G8 as such. If they can agree to do something
about an issue as important as climate change at one of these summits, surely
the summits and the institution cannot be such bad things? When they went home
from Heiligendamm, Merkel and her gang surely felt something akin to what we
felt: "we are winning!"
And what about the "material intervention" into the progress of the summit?
Let's spoil the party a bit, and suggest that our blockades failed in terms of
being a successful tactical operation. Over and over again we heard (and indeed
said ourselves!) that all land-based access to the summit had been effectively
shut down, we were wondering how it happened that inside of the fence they
hardly took notice of that. Also, the media seemed to treat the blockades not
as what they were meant to be, a material disruption, but rather as cheerful
theatre for the articulation of tamed dissent (tamed because it was kept within
clearly regulated borders). There are reasons for this. First of all, very
practical ones: while accepting the peaceful mass blockades of the BlockG8
alliance at the East Gate, one of the two entrances in the fence, the police
forces could focus on keeping the road to the West Gate free of disturbances.
De-escalation was not necessary here anymore for the police since they left the
mass blockades at the East Gate in peace. Having announced that they would
blockade the summit, BlockG8 quickly realised (when we didn't get our heads
kicked in ten minutes after sitting down on the road) that the police had
decided to abandon the East Gate. Later we heard that they had abandoned the
roads altogether. For Thursday, the day of the real G8 meetings, they announced
Plan B: helicopters and the waterways. Our response? BlockG8 stayed in the
action consensus, and held the blockade. But where is the antagonism, if we do
something and the state pulls back, saying: 'sure, take this, we'll go
somewhere else - you win, we win!' Shouldn't the response then have been to go
to the fence? Physically try to go beyond the space given to our blockades by
the summit? Certainly, that would have projected a far more uncompromising
rejection of the summit.
To clarify again: we do take seriously the collective affect of winning felt in
the camps, the sense of encouragement that so many people took away from the
protests. But we do want to intervene into a discussion that, especially in
Germany, is being a little too self-congratulatory, self-referential, and
surprisingly 'un-radical'. Left radical politics are, must be, antagonistic
politics - it is that (if anything) that distinguishes them from the liberal
ameliorism of the liberal NGOs - in their relation to state, capital, and other
relations of domination. So we take the affect seriously and agree: we won,
somehow. But we have to be realistic and admit that 'they' did too. So both
sides won - which raises the question: how is that possible? Okay, the question
is rhetorical in light of what we just said, the answer obviously is this:
because there was in fact no clear antagonism between 'us' and 'the G8'.
The protest in Heiligendamm was a typical product of postmodern politics where
the political disappears because dichotomies (previously seen as mutually
exclusive) are reconciled. The result: for sure climate change can go along
with capitalist expansion and more free trade. We want to propose two answers
here to the question why we failed to construct such an antagonistic
relationship to the G8 and global governance in general. Again, these answers
are interconnected with the necessity of discursive interventions and material
disruptions.
The first answer is that we failed to construct a clear antagonism because we
were playing on different grounds. While having worked more than a year on
producing our own thematic focal points (migration, agriculture and
antimilitarism), the German radical left almost completely lacks a challenging
political story about climate change. The arguments heard within the German
left (if the question isn't dismissed out of hand as woolly environmentalism)
hardly go beyond individualist and liberal appeals to fly less, and rarely
raise the question of property and capitalist accumulation as mechanisms
inherently intertwined with the problem of environmental devastation. This is
odd for a country with a rather long tradition of environmental activism. It is
not that odd, however, for an environmental movement that has been increasingly
institutionalized and coopted during the past two decades and does not offer a
radical perspective on reorganizing our societies based on a sustainable (and
thus anticapitalist) paradigm. The top priority of climate change during the G8
summit would have offered quite some possibilities to radicalize an old movement
and broaden an anticapitalist critique through an environmental lens.
Only some years ago, when summits' headline issues were still very much about
trade, privatisation, and 'the neoliberal agenda', we had an excellent
counter-story. Our militant actions were embedded in this counter-story,
allowing them to rise beyond being mere policing matters, to being explicitly
political, because they directly interfered with the discursive field that was
being built to legitimate global authority. Today, we have no story to counter
theirs, so this production can go on undisturbed, no matter how effective our
blockades are. It may be responded at this point that direct engagement with
the summit's headline issues would add to the legitimation of an institution we
are trying to delegitimate, but this is not necessarily the case. It only leads
to legitimation if such an issue-engagement ends up making demands to the G8.
Issue-engagement could be used as well to portray the G8 as part of the entire
problem. It is fairly obvious that this year's refusal to construct a
counter-story did not lead to a greater delegitimation of the G8. More
generally, for summit protests, we need to work in advance to develop a punchy
story that relates to the summit's headline issues, within which we can embed
our actions. Otherwise the latter remain mere public order problems, and cannot
interfere with the production of global authority as legitimate.
The second explanation for the lack of antagonism has to do with our capacity
for material disruption on the streets, without which any good counter story
remains just so much self-serving radical propaganda, without any social
relevance. For sure, there has been a certain antagonism in the relation
between some protestors and the police, as all of us who were beaten, arrested,
tear-gassed, water-cannoned can surely attest to. And there has been a clear
attempt to build a broad alliance for mass blockades through the BlockG8
initiative (which included the IL, several local attac groups, but also radical
antifascist groups). Finally, we even witnessed the cumulative effects of mass
blockades and decentralized blockades following the PAULA call. However, no one
can deny that we did not hit them where it hurts. The blockades, although much
more effective then ever before in Europe during a summit, have become a kind
of mediated and contained spectacle. Such a spectacle was not able to challenge
global power structures materialized on the streets by reintroducing an
antagonist relationship through confrontational street tactics. A clearer
presence of confrontational tactics would have projected a far more
uncompromising rejection of the summit than the mass blockades with their
occasional fun fair character. But would it have allowed so many people to be
there? Would it have led to an escalation that would have left many of us
traumatised, beaten, in jail, rather than celebrating at home now? We cannot
say, but insist that every time the state retreats, we need to push it further,
rather than simply be happy in the space now vacated.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G8-Summit Protests in Germany: Against Globalization and its Non-Emancipatory
Responses

June 26, 2007
"Make Capitalism History: Shut Down the G8!"
The grassroots mobilizations against the G8 summit, held in the northern German
town of Heiligendamm in early June of this year, were organized by broad
networks of direct actionists, anti-racist groups, anti-border groups,
anti-fascist militants, queer activists, squatters, debt-relief groups, trade
unions, environmental organizations and many others. Despite the very
restrictive policy of the German state that forbid any demonstrations in a
large perimeter around the 'security fence' protecting the G8 summit, activists
successfully disrupted the G8 meeting.[i]
The tiny enclave of Heiligendamm was for two days only reachable by helicopters
or with boats from the seaside, as demonstrators blocked roads and train tracks
leading to the site of the summit. Impressive were the pictures of thousands of
people crossing fields and forests, in their effort to out-maneuver the huge
police force, and make their way to the fence.
Heiligendamm will mark another memorable moment in the alter-globalization
movement, a movement whose strength is often attributed to its diversity of
actors. But this multitude, however, should not be mixed up with arbitrariness,
as the movement itself also struggles with the challenges in developing a
critique of global capitalism that provides emancipatory possibilities.
Contemporary social conflicts, a widespread sense of alienation, deep feelings
of powerlessness, and the increasing intensity of violent conflict sets off a
whole host of resentments and oppositions to the global situation that are not
emancipatory. Many people who are deeply dissatisfied with the global political
and economic order do not gravitate towards progressive or social justice
organizations. The rise of racist, nationalist, fundamentalist and other forms
of reactionary politics emerge as responses to the global situation as well,
and they compete for power and influence on the same social terrain of those on
the Left. These are present in the discourses, policies and politics in
struggles around globalization/anti-globalization as well, and were therefore
are present in the mobilization against the G8 this year.
by Rob Augman
In Germany, with its history of National Socialism as well as uprisings of
neo-Nazism and nationalism after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the left must
struggle with and position itself against critiques of "the new world order,"
of "globalization," and even of "capitalism," from non-emancipatory positions,
including those from the (far) Right. Such non-emancipatory critiques range
widely, from proponents of economic protectionism and political isolationism
(which can be seen in Right-wing anti-war positions), to the cultural field of
"preserving cultural uniqueness from commercialism," all the way to the far
Right and its attempts to solve social questions in hyper-nationalist ways.
The scale of right-wing involvement in anti-globalization politics, or broader
sentiments of reactionary anti-capitalism, present facts that have not gone
ignored by some on the German Left and can be seen present in the anti-G8
mobilization, whether against the far-Right, the state, or as self-criticism of
our own social movements. These groups are employing various approaches, and
seeking various goals in their emancipatory aims. In their confrontation with
"globalization" on the one hand, and reactionary anti-globalization on the
other, transformations can be observed in the analyses and the practices of the
Left itself. The international mobilization against the G8 summit in Germany
provides a unique look into these struggles in order to consider how left and
social justice groups can better confront the complicated and varied challenges
we face.

The infrastructure and mobilization for Heiligendamm had been built over the
course of two years, connecting activists across Europe and beyond. A week of
protests, a counter-summit with international guests discussing major problems
of globalization, from climate change and health politics, to gender justice
and the right of free movement for all, and plans for physically blocking the
G8 summit were some of the major events. People organized three camps to house
thousands of activists, which included kitchens, security, showers, and other
provisions. Indymedia groups provided infrastructure for a continuous reporting
of the news. Information was circulated in leaflets and on the web informing
people about police tactics, border restrictions, surveillance and much else
regarding what they could expect and how they can get support in case of such a
need. Legal aid was provided by a left-wing lawyer's organization. Mobile groups
organized medic services. Additionally, activists organized a hotline in case of
sexist or sexual abuse. Groups such as the Hedonist International energized
demonstrations with their techno truck and their "Rave Against the Machine."
Self-organization was the backbone of the demonstrations and infrastructure of
the mobilization against the G8 summit. The means are also the ends, and this
included an appreciation for joy, leisure and aesthetic desire. The
mobilization displays a pre-figurative politics, a vision in practice of the
"other world that is possible."
Despite the intimidation, provocation, demonization and the police's physical
attempts at disruption, the mobilization would not be derailed. Massive
showings of dissent towards the G8 and the broader global situation was going
to appear at the gates of the G8 summit.
"Nie Wieder Deutschland!"
(Never Again Germany!)
For international activists joining or observing the demonstrations against the
G8 summit, the east German city of Rostock where the mass demonstrations and
the main convergence center were located, was no reference point at all. But
for those old enough to remember, Rostock was the site of a violent 3-day
attack on Roma and Vietnamese asylum seekers by neo-Nazis and ordinary German
citizens. It was 15 years ago, in the summer of 1992, and it set off a wave of
similar attacks across the country, on African, Turkish, Asian and other
migrants, with houses burned down and people killed. "What 1968 was for the
Left, 1992 was for the Right."[ii]
This wave of racist violence was a deeply political issue. It came at the time
of reunification of East and West Germany, the fall of the Soviet Union and the
realignment of international relations after the Cold War. Just decades after
the Holocaust, racist mobs and political groups of the New Right were strong in
Germany and Europe more broadly.
The host of economic problems following "reunification" were projected onto
migrants, as a specific social group causing these crises. This racial
skapegoating was not limited to the far-Right, but rather transcended political
boundaries, and was therefore expressed in the mainstream discourse as well.
"Bonn [the capital of former West Germany], unable to provide the ex-GDR
economy with the quick fix that it had promised, shifted responsibility for the
country's economic pains onto Germany's liberal asylum law."[iii]
Therefore, while the police brokered a deal with the Rostock mob, allowing them
four hours of free reign to attack the asylum center, state policy committed
its own attack on migrants, with restrictions that effectively amounted to a
revocation of the Asylum Law. It also instituted a hierarchical labor system
for those who remained, and sent the message that migrants are the source of
Germany's economic problems.
The new economic and political situation was articulated through a nationalist
framework by centrist politicians, by the far-Right and throughout civil
society.[iv] But this nationalist explosion and the changing political
situation also prompted responses by the radical Left. German nationalism,
racism, fascism and the history of the Shoah became major concerns. Seeing them
as deeply related, the post-'89 German Left marched under the banner "Nie Wieder
Deutschland!" (Never Again Germany!).
"We Are Here Because You Destroy Our Countries"
"We Are Here Because We Destroy Your Borders"
As part of the protest actions against the G8 summit, an action day was
organized under the slogan "Global Freedom of Movement." In the early morning
about 2,000 people took siege to the "Foreigner's Office" in Rostock, which is
where decisions are made about whether or not individuals will receive
residence permits or be deported. Informed of the activists' plans ahead of
time, the office was shut down under the pretense of "computer problems."
Activists climbed to the roof of the building and hung banners against
deportation centers, reading "No Camp - Not Here and Not Anywhere!"
After this action the activists marched to the Sonnenblumenhaus, the site of the
racist attacks 15 years earlier. "By holding this rally we want to remember the
incidents of 1992 and show how much worse the conditions for refugees in
Germany have become because of this pogrom."[v] At the gathering police
continued their repression against activists. A snatch squad moved into the
demonstration and grabbed a few black-clad demonstrators, breaking the nose of
a Cameroon refugee and injuring a cameraperson in the melee. Later in the day,
as the gathering sought to march towards the harbor in the center of the city,
it was blocked by riot cops with water cannons and armed vehicles, but after
two hours of negotiations, the march was able to continue.
These demonstrations were part of a week of G8 protests that were specifically
highlighting struggles against the regime of global migration management.
Activists from numerous countries joined the transnational network meeting,
discussing the situations of migrant struggles, whether it be mass
demonstrations and strikes by illegalized migrants in the U.S., legalization
struggles in France, Belgium, Italy and Spain, or protests to shut down
detention centers in Germany.[vi] The events and actions are aimed at
explaining that migration is part of the processes of international relations
of exploitation - whether due to privatization of resources in the global south
that makes life more and more unbearable for people in these countries to
support themselves, or due to the explicit demands for cheap (often service)
labor in the global North. Hence, the slogan, "we are here because you destroy
our countries." But simultaneously, other activists find this portrayal too
mechanical, implying that migrants are solely victims, simply set into motion
by processes that are wholly out of their control. In response to this
"Fortress Europe" position, activists from an "autonomy of migration" analysis,
argue that despite the reality of migration management by states and inter-state
systems, the barriers are continually defied and subverted by creative actors -
therefore, migration could be seen as the "most successful social
movement."[vii]
The relationship and conceptualization of migration as a phenomenon in the age
of globalization then, is transformed from a paternalistic relationship of
charity and protection into a relationship of support and solidarity.
"Globalization" then can also be seen not simply as a one-dimensional plot by
the global elite, but rather as a regime born of conflict, resulting from a
variety of sources, some of which are self-determining. Therefore, the focus on
migration at the anti-G8 mobilization highlights a structural fact of social
life despite restrictions - possibly an intrinsically anti-national movement.
It therefore emphasizes this fact of migration as a right of mobility, and
envisions the practical assertion of global social rights as part of
emancipatory transformations.
"To point out the antifascist character of the anti-globalization
movement"[viii]
In Rostock on June 2nd, while Left and progressive groups organized a huge
international demonstration against the G8 summit under the banner "Another
World is Possible," over 40 busses of neo-Nazis converged on the nearby town of
Schwerin for their own demonstration against the G8. In response to the
neo-Nazis, civil society groups, trade unions and antifa groups organized 3
different counter-demonstrations, the antifa groups with the intention of
physically preventing the neo-Nazis from demonstratin. But on the morning of
the protest, the neo-Nazi's and the antifa's permits were revoked. The neo-Nazi
busses left Schwerin for surrounding towns, holding spontaneous demonstrations,
one of which marched through the Brandenburg Gate in the center of Berlin. A
group 150 antifa activists who arrived in Schwerin, on the other hand, were
surrounded at the train station by heavily armed police and arrested.
Fifteen years after the wave of racist violence of 1992, the far-Right is still
an undeniable player in political and social life. They continue to skapegoat
migrants as the source of persistent social and economic problems.
Additionally, they have increasingly articulated their atrocious politics in
anti-globalization and anti-capitalist language. For them, the powerful
international institutions - such as the G8 - are seen in personified terms.
The complex social arrangements often simplified under the term
"globalization," are viewed as nothing other than a plot by a specific social
group. Due to the historical association of international networks with jewish
communities, the far-Right personifies this international conspiracy as the
"Jewish" rulers of the world.[ix] Against this perceived plot, they draw on an
equally imaginary force to defend themselves, the so-called "national
community."
Therefore, the strength of the far-Right has to do with intervening in
contemporary political discourses whether those raised in mainstream political
discourse, or those raised by the Left. In responding to these issues, they
regularly project social crises on specific social groups as the source for
such social problems - these groups often being migrants, Jews, or leftists.
Therefore, real grievances set off by social, political and economic problems
are a source of their support. By combining the anxiety over high levels of
unemployment in the East of the country, with a skapegoating of migrants and
"global elites" for these problems, the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of
Germany won over 7% of the vote in elections last year in the state of
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, enabling them entry into regional parliaments.
It was in this context that the antifa demonstration was organized, "to point
out the antifascist character of the anti-globalization movement."
Militant anti-fascism became a major focus of radical Left politics after 1992,
with the organizing of a country-wide antifa network which confronted far-Right
groups in the streets. Additionally, concerned about the rise of a broader
German nationalism, many took up research about the history of National
Socialism. This enabled them to better understand the discursive framework of
far-Right politics historically and its continuity (and divergences) in the
present. These analyses can be seen in the call to action for the antifa demo
in Schwerin. In their leaflet they explained the antisemitic ideology of the
neo-Nazis' as a deranged form of anti-capitalism. The Nazi analysis of society
is constructed through a bi-polar opposition of false premises. They believe
that a "real, natural, material labor" is threatened by an "abstract,
parasitic, financial elite." The antifa leaflet reads:
"On the one hand, [the Nazi] view [of capitalism] contains the idea of a
national economy and it's "honest, German" labor - the so-called "constituting
capital"; and the "money grubbing, Jewish" capital on the other hand. For the
nazis this allegedly "Jewish capital" is constituted in the sy[s]tem of
interest and the financial world, for example in banks and stock exchanges in
general, and in the "Wall Street" in particular." [x]
Failing to see capitalism as a social whole, a system from which labor itself is
constituted, they view capitalism as a foreign imposition from the outside -
especially from the U.S. Their response is then a naturalization of something
they perceive to be concrete, the imagined, "national community." This
foreshortened critique of capitalism helps explain their simultaneously racist
and antisemitic politics, on the one hand as being against the perceived
nations which are supposedly invading otherwise harmonious Germany, and on the
other hand against the perceived anti-national leaders of this world order, the
international Jewish elites which prosper from the disintegration of "real
nations."[xi]
But the electoral support the NPD gained at the polls is only the tip of the
iceberg. Their views are influential even if they're not expressed in such
crude and violent terms. Additionally, their themes overlap with some taken up
by Left associated anti-globalization groups. Popular support for an
alter-globalization movement is common when it is expressed against "American"
capital, in contrast to a supposedly more socially responsible European or
German capitalism, and when international investors are depicted as parasites
looting the "real" economy. Examples abound in Germany of left-wingers arguing
in language reminiscent of the Nazi era. These problems have led sections of
the Left to criticize the presence of foreshortened critiques of capitalism
found even amongst some on the Left.
"Capitalism is No Conspiracy, and the Hamas is not the Rebel Alliance"
The large international demonstration was composed of two feeder marches. In the
large, anti-capitalist section, one contingent was led by a coalition of groups
including the Berlin-based Theorie, Organisation, Praxis (TOP).[xii] TOP came
out of the antifa movement of the 1990s. But as the German state eventually
attempted to take over the mantra of anti-fascism, organizing demonstrations
under such a banner, the anti-fascist Left was faced with challenges. The need
to set anti-fascism within a broader understanding of capitalist societal
relations, TOP now views itself as post-antifa. Anti-fascist politics, and the
critiques that emerged within this milieu, play their part in the politics of
many contemporary anti-capitalist groups in Germany today.
In addition to organizing contingents in the demonstrations, they also engage in
the inter-Left dialogues about contemporary social issues. In this regard, TOP
distributed a leaflet criticizing foreshortened critiques of capitalism on the
Left, and how they lead to non-emancipatory positions. The pamphlet was
addressed to their fellow anti-G8 activists, and spoke also about the
ramifications of simplistic anti-capitalism on views of the Middle East
conflict. Titled, "Capitalism is no conspiracy, and the Hamas is not the Rebel
Alliance,"[xiii] the pamphlet argues against a conspiratorial view of
capitalism, and suggests instead a view of capitalism as a social system. They
write,
Capitalism is not a conspiracy of a few - neither Jews, nor the G8 or other
"leaders". It has not become as horrible as it is because of a few capitalists'
intentional plans or because of the interest rates and flow of finance capital.
The inherent logic that makes Capitalism work is that of a system that is not
oriented towards people's needs, but towards the realization of capital - it is
a game that even capitalists have to play. If we really want to attack the roots
of capitalist society we need to understand this mode of production that
commodifies every aspect of our lives under the merciless rule of value.[xiv]
Indeed, one doesn't have to search long at the anti-G8 demos to find examples of
conspiratorial, dualistic or personifying social critiques: a 911-conspiracy
theory banner, a "Bush is the #1 Terrorist" poster, or the omnipresent
G8-octopus with its outstretched tentacles devouring the Earth. The lowest
common denominator though, of anti-globalization critics, has often been an
opposition to "finance capital." This can be seen in seemingly opposite
sections of the movement: whether it be anti-capitalists smashing banks or
reform oriented groups pushing for taxation on international investment. The
"common sense" for such broad social movements might be the idea that "money is
the root of all evil."
It is exactly this view of money as the cellular structure of capitalism or
globalization that groups like TOP seek to supplant with a different kind of
anti-capitalist critique, not only because of the proximity and history of
these views to reactionary politics, but more basically, because the theories
miss their mark.
TOP argues for a focus on "the game," rather than "the players":
If the activist scene starts to question a black-and-white world view that
contrasts good "people" with evil finance "capital" it may come to realize that
- as is the case with the Middle East conflict - there is no simple dichotomy of
oppressor vs. the oppressed in the struggle for liberation and emancipation. We
need to come up with new ways and not fight the players but the whole fucking
game.[xv]
This analysis of capitalism as a social system, rather than a simple
relationship of domination, or a binary struggle between "oppressors" and
"oppressed," leads the group to find ways of expressing a different
orientation. Joining other post-antifa groups, they marched under the banner
reading "Ums Ganze" which loosely translates into "All of It!" Therefore, while
demonstrating against the G8, they reject the idea of equating the G8 to global
capitalism, and rather aim to situate the G8 as part of an international, and
conflicted system of global capitalism.[xvi]
Therefore, rather than positing a "real labor" against a "finance capital," a
"people's struggle" against an "international elite," or other such
simplifications, such groups attempt to re-evaluate the forms of social life in
contemporary capitalist society. This leads to different kinds of positioning.
As demonstrations often demand simple symbolic representations, one attempt to
intervene on this level was by using the imagery of leisure, and therefore a
picture of a person relaxing on a hammock accompanied with calls for "luxury
for all!" While anti-capitalism has been a mainstay in the alter-globalization
movement, what it means to "smash capitalism," and to "fight the G8" is an open
and contested terrain. In this way, the mobilization against the G8 is a site of
many conflicts on various levels - the analytical, the practical and the
symbolic. In these ways this mobilization shows many attempts to push against
capitalism, simultaneously grappling with the various forms of non-emancipatory
responses that arise along the way.
In Conclusion...
Despite a total ban on public demonstrations on Thursday the protests continued,
and did so with impressive success. Thousands of people from the nearby camp
grounds marched towards the fence, dragging trees into the streets to create
huge barricades, walking train tracks to prevent transportation to the summit,
and hiking through fields and woods to outmaneuver police blockades. The G8
delegates had to reach the summit by air or sea, and even the sea was not
completely secure as a Greenpeace boat breached the security zone. This is a
tremendous achievement of determination and organization.
Even the mainstream media portrayed the blockades in a semi-positive light,
showing video footage of thousands of protestors streaming through fields and
hills to reach the fence. Their favorite image were those of the clowns, of
course, and made the perfect contrast to the reporting of the heavy clashes
between police and demonstrators the day before, in which various news reports
described the protests as marred by "foreigners."[xvii]
While the mobilization was successful in disrupting the G8 summit, as was
described above, opposition to the G8 and globalization does not imply
emancipatory critiques nor alternatives. Reactionary resentments and ideologies
work through oppositional politics, placing many challenges on the efforts to
effect positive social changes. The desire to build mass social movements often
involves appealing to the lowest common denominator, but the simple populist
chant of "Bush Go Home!" brings together a wide variety of actors across the
political spectrum, including reactionaries of various types. This reality
provides challenges to building broad-based social movements with emancipatory
possibilities.
Additionally, while it is imperative to exclude the most abhorrent actors from
taking advantage of popular discontent - as the antifa demo sought to do -
non-emancipatory views are not limited to the far Right, but rather transcend
neat political boundaries. This transcendence is not simply the result of
intentionally-disguised reactionary views - though that is sometimes the case -
but often due to analyzes autonomously generating personifying analyzes of power
relations, dualistic thinking and foreshortened critiques of capitalism.
Therefore, this sets an imperative of self-criticism within our own
oppositional political movements, in order to prevent unintended support of
non-emancipatory views and currents. In this article I sought to show a few
examples of how activists involved in the anti-G8 mobilization are grappling
with this challenge in their political engagements. For activists in the U.S.,
similar challenges are at hand.
The level of anti-Bush, anti-war, and anti-globalization sentiment in the U.S.
is high. But it is found not only on the radical Left, but also in the
political center and the far Right. As these sentiments are quite broad in the
U.S., we might ask why this opposition has not produced Left gains. While some
argue that this is due to the lack of Left political parties, or the lack of
organization and institutionalization amongst Left groups, or to
"sectarianism," it might be worth considering the specific content of the kinds
of oppositional politics we experience in the U.S. A few quick suggestions in
which these issues might be explored, serve as a way for the G8 mobilizations
to provide political considerations for our further pursuit.
Similar to the hostility towards migrants in Germany is a hostility towards
Latino migrants in particular in the U.S. As the migration debate continues to
occupy mainstream political discourse, restrictive policies and anti-Latino
hostility is often founded on the accusation that migrants take the jobs of
"real Americans." The notorious Minutemen are not only against migration from
the global south, but are also against NAFTA, and "free trade."
Anti-globalization sentiments of the Right do influence public discourse, and
effect the lives of millions. Those seeking to solidarize with Latino migrants
might have increasing success when intervening additionally on this level,
critiquing the form of globalization-critique involved in the anti-migrant
hostility.
Another level in which to counter non-emancipatory critique of power, is to
confront the 911 conspiracy theories widespread in anti-war protests and
"independent media." Rather than considering the current system of power as
also containing points of weakness, and developments as highly contingent,
conspiracy theory seeks to include all social events as part of a vast
conspiracy of omnipotent power. Conspiracy theories are very close to modern
antisemitic myths, and therefore it is not by chance that the "911 Truth
movement" is regularly a magnet for antisemites. The all-encompassing depiction
of power that the conspiracists imagine, fail to see the conflicts that exist in
society. Their mission to "unmask" power has the opposite effect - it masks the
fact that current social relations are constituted by conflict and contingency.
As a result, their simplistically hierarchical worldview masks social movements
as players - both emancipatory and non-emancipatory social movements.
A final suggestion where we might consider the problematic at hand is in the
political orientation of current understandings of U.S. foreign policy. If it
is true that neo-conservatism (if the term is even useful in the first place,
and not simply neoliberalism in a more militarized form) is suffering defeat,
than we might ask what perspective is or will be its successor. One position
that has made gains in the past few years is that of neo-realism. A neo-realist
sentiment seems widespread, across the political spectrum. It assumes that a
state's foreign policy is always advanced in order to serve the state's
interests. Criticism of the war in Iraq as not serving the interests of the
U.S. state or society, has resulted in the popular thesis that U.S. foreign
policy is subordinated to Israeli interests, and is due to the power of the
"Zionist Lobby."
This position spans the political spectrum. The far Right has advanced its'
"Zionist Occupied Government" position for ages. Some in the political center
have entertained this thesis, such as that of Ivy League Professors Mearsheimer
and Walt's "The Isreal Lobby" paper. And anti-war sentiment on the Left has also
drawn on this sentiment - from Cindy Sheehan,[xviii] to Left academic James
Petras,[xix] and also in the "Palestinian solidarity" movement.[xx] If
neo-realism has or will supplant neo-conservatism, the neo-realist position
brings a traditionally right-wing position with it. Rather than seeking an
understanding of why the U.S. went to war in Iraq - an issue that still defies
simple understandings - U.S. foreign policy is viewed as simply subordinate to
foreign political bodies, and its internal foreign agents in the U.S. Some on
the U.S. Left have argued against this thesis, such as Bill Weinberg's "Blaming
'The Lobby': AIPAC Takes the Hit for U.S. Imperialism,"[xxi] but mostly, the
thesis is "common sense."
If this is true, then maybe the lack of serious Left movements and effectiveness
in the U.S. has to do with the content of anti-war sentiment. Anti-war sentiment
does not automatically bring with it an international solidarity with those most
violently effected by the war, but rather a conservativism and isolationism
instead. And this might have to do in part with a popularly problematic
analysis of U.S. foreign policy. And additionally, the Left should not take
such comfort in anti-war positions, assuming that what results is necessarily
better. We are rather compelled to fight for analyzes that do not simplify
complex social relations. Whether thinking about U.S. foreign policy, global
power relations or the reality of life in capitalist society, we have the task
of simultaneously opposing the simple responses that fail to offer emancipatory
critiques and possibilities.
If Left and emancipatory movements are going to gain strength and challenge the
current social problems, this will depend on thoughtful analyzes of the
complexity of U.S. politics, international relations, and capitalist society.
Challenges abound for activists in the U.S. and abroad. It is my hope that this
report on the anti-G8 mobilization in Germany this year, may provide some ideas
in order to better address challenges we face in our struggles for
emancipation.

Rob Augman is a member of the Free Society Collective, an anti-authoritarian
group based in Montpelier, Vermont. He currently lives in Berlin, Germany where
he is researching the topic of Left politics and antisemitism.

* Many thanks go to Martina Benz for endless ideas and editorial support.

[i] The policing operation in the Heiligendamm area was the largest security
operation in Germany since World War II. It included an enormous budget, a $17
million fence, 12km high, a wide no-protest zone, as well as air and sea
defense. This operation was also more than defensive. A month before the
summit, under the pretext of "threats by Leftist terrorists," police raided 40
private homes and social centers across the country. The raids were heavily
criticized in the mainstream press and the mobilization gained broader support
as a result. In Berlin, a spontaneous demonstration brought thousands of people
onto the streets for an energetic showing of support for the anti-G8
mobilization, and in Hamburg a huge demo erupted into physical clashes between
protesters and the police.
[ii] Free to Hate: The Rise of the Right in Post-Communist Eastern Europe.
Hockenos, Paul. P 30. Routledge. New York/London. 1994.
[iii] Ibid. P 33.
[iv] For a look into the relationships of these different social actors and the
changing situation at the time, see "Rostock: or, How the New Germany is Being
Governed." Wildcat, No. 60, October 1992.
http://www.wildcat-www.de/en/wildcat/60/w60e_ros.htm
[v] From the "Crossing the Borders of the G8" newspaper, at: www.noborder.org
[vi] Examples from the newspaper, "Crossing the Borders of the G8," published
for the G8 mobilization by No Border. www.noborder.org
[vii] For a background on this discussion, and in relation to the G8
mobilization, see the essay, "Autonomous rear Entrances to Fortress Europe:
Antiracist Perspectives in regard to G-8 Summit 2007," at:
www.nolager.de/blog/node/452
[viii] "Stop the nazi demonstration - 2nd June 2007 Schwerin."
www.schwerin.blogsport.de
[ix] In part due to criminal codes in Germany against openly antisemitic speech,
as well as the popularity of "anti-Zionism" as a public discourse, the far-Right
often calls this supposed elite "Zionist," "cosmopolitan," or "American," rather
than "Jewish."
[x] "Head Off to Schwerin - Distract The Nazi Demonstration!"
www.schwerin.blogsport.de
[xi] There are a whole host of other issues involved in neo-Nazi politics in
Germany, which can not be adequately explained in the framework of this
article. Some resources: For an analysis of Nazi Antisemitism as a form of
fetishized anti-capitalism, see Moishe Postone's "Anti-Semitism and National
Socialism" at: http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/postone1.html On
anti-Zionism, see Thomas Haury's "Anti-semitism on the Left" at:
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6705
[xii] TOP's website is at: top-berlin.net
[xiii] top-berlin.net
[xiv] From, "Capitalism is No Conspiracy, and Hamas is not the Rebel Alliance"
at: top-berlin.net
[xv] top-berlin.net
[xvi] A recent interview by ums Ganze with Michael Heinrich, titled, "There
Simply Aren't Any Easy Solutions to Which One Can Adhere," helps to explain
their attempts to reevaluate the place of the G8 in the system of global
capitalism. It was published in Monthly Review zine, here:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/heinrich220607.html
[xvii] A member of the anti-globalization group, ATTAC, also used nationalist
skapegoating to blame foreigners, saying the clashes of the protestors was
"atypical for German groups."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,486330,00.html
[xviii] In expressing completely understandable anger of her son's death as a
U.S. soldier in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan had expressed the idea that the war was
fought for Israel.
[xix] A recent review of James Petras' book "The Power of Israel in the United
States" argues against Petras' Lobby thesis here:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ruff280507.html
[xx] Mersheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby" was published on Palestinian
solidarity websites such as fromoccupiedpalestine.org
[xxi] Bill Weinberg's article is here: http://www.ww4report.com/node/1803

[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=13158]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBlock at G8-2007

Ein für die Internationalen Brigaden konzepiertes Positionenpapier um die Dinge
beim Namen zu nennnen die stattfanden in und um Rostock im Sommer 2007.
Be it as it may - whether we like it or not, There seems to be no other way - so
Let´s go on fighting pigsystem
Plan B continua - Vive la commune des brigades internationales A text written in
the hope of an empowering self-critical debate in autonomous and anarchist
circles about what happened and what didn´t happen during the protests against
the g8... one swallow doesn´t make a summer
There it was again for a moment: the exalting feeling that we really can attack
sometimes, that we are lots, at least here and now courageous and determined. A
spirited beginning, a promising prelude. besides legitimate critique of
friendly-fire-rocks thrown from row 57 (and the regret that we didn´t make it
into the inner city): after Rostock many people I met were quite pleased with
the resoluteness of the black block, a twinkle smiled at me from so many eyes.
No-one would be able to misinterpret this symbolic challenge of capitalism into
an appeal to those in power.
Not so much might have changed for comrades, who went home after that and
followed the things to come mainly through the media. They could not compare
the accounts with their experiences, they did not realise that a mean little
paradox saw the light of day. While the battle of Rostock grew bigger and
bigger in the mainstream media, while everyone was talking about the black
block and even the most ugly smear-sheets started speculating about a
renaissance of the autonomous, our own organising process quietly collapsed. No
matter no-one outside realised that - those who were there know it.
The aim of this text is to take away the power from this paradox and to reclaim
it for our own future actions. therefore I think it necessary to overcome the
multicoloured silence, that i found characteristic of the autonomous movement
as i experienced it during the days of heiligendamm - to overcome it at least
afterwards, in the evaluation of the protests. Critique is love. long, steep,
and often stony is the way.
Maybe it is not only bad having destroyed the already a bit musty-smelling myth
of the strength of the german autonomous. Aside from the refreshingly offensive
actions in rostock on the 2nd of june, we have to admit that almost all of our
practical plans failed. Also on an organisational level we did not exactly
cover ourselves in glory. The generally announced "autonomous decision-making"
inside the mixed camps that we had been discussing over and over again just
didn´t happen. Lots of internationals waited days and days for comrades of the
german Dissent! spectrum to share more detailed information with them, to get
them involved in orienting discussions.
The infosystem didn´t meet our expectations and was not able to make the
knowledge of the small insider groups available for the bigger collective -
lacking bigger assemblies our comrades now were depending on personal contacts
even more. moreover, after the press started stirring things up against the
black block only very few still dared to publicly advocate autonomous
positions. This was not the least important reason why the Interventionist
Left, being heavily under pressure, all of a sudden stood as the only voice of
the radical left - a monopoly that we would usually never accept. Instead of
coming to common evaluations and actions as autonomous, radical left and
anarchists in Heilgendamm, we preventively disappeared in more than one
dimension.
Apart from this, seen on a larger scale the protests have not been without
successes. There were many situations the police did not have under control.
Despite some unpleasant taste this is true as well for Block G8. Lacking their
own plans, lots of autonomous and anarchists supported and participated in
these actions. in the end some blockades were worked out spontaneously,
withdrawing cops from the sitting blockades. actions like the police car being
wrapped in tape and carefully deflated kept the spirits high. The sheer masses
of people sitting on the streets and roaming through the forests turned the
days into something more than the state could have wanted.
Nonetheless there is something perturbing about the "mood swing" in police
strategy that - after the show of rudeness at the beginning of the week -
occurred just in time for the arrival of the G8. The pictures of the masses of
people marching through the fields carrying pace-flags are to me far too
compatible with the self-righteous image-cultivation of germany as an oh so
democratic country. On the other hand the endeavours of the government not to
appear as a police state to the world public opened up rooms to manoeuvre that
we could have used much more effectively. Although foreseen by some, we did not
manage to collectively talk about what we want to do in this case. The
possibility to self-consciously anticipate this situation and to tow state
power into a catch 22 situation with our actions was already way off the
horizon at that time. as regards the autonomous part of the movement, protest
meanwhile came to a halt more or less completely, one just went along with the
others...or waited for the next plan that was going to fail.
Far from an entirely different entirety as you can see from this niggling, I
guess that we have to confront serious questions in the days to come. Ok, the
last thing i´m interested in is to brand personal shortcomings, the key point
is to politicise our understanding of our acting and not-acting. to first of
all grasp what happened: to think about how all the things that did not happen
are related to developments maybe not fully understood so far, to strategies of
domination and peace-keeping to which we obviously haven´t found answers yet.
Speaking less abstract this means for example: how do we counter a police
strategy that is not devoted to prosecuting per se all offences, but tries to
get some of us to cooperate, to win their support for co-management in the name
of the rationality in power? The rationality of a technique of domination that
does not depend on ideological consent as long as the flows are not seriously
interrupted. a rationality that suggests that militant anti-capitalism can go
together well with a life inside of capitalism undisturbed by the authorities
of law and order, as long as, yes, as long as "it" keeps within bounds. I guess
we all had talks like this the last days. Scissors in the mind [internalised
contradictions] - absolutely nothing new, but still, seen against the backdrop
of prevailing high-tech concepts of control and the frightening extent of
social isolation obtained in society this remains a major problem.
How can we deal with a police strategy, that again and again wants to impose
this fear in each and every one of us that eats up all collectivity - is it ME,
ME, ME targeted by the camera? is there a microphone taping my voice? - a
strategy that again and again wants to implant the timid question into our
hearts, whether the moment of liberation that i am fighting for right now will
end 10 or 20 minutes later in an arrest backed up by police videos. One answer
to that for sure still is the "just do it!" of our clenched fists. and this is
what we experienced in Rostock on saturday: that there can always be situations
where the cops run away from us, where they have to instrumentalize fire engines
to break our lines in the first place, where we manage to collectively jump
across their techniques of isolation and intimidation.
Fucking British conditions
Alas, there were also lots of moments during the following days where our
communication failed, moments where we anticipated possible repression and
denied ourselves to conspire beyond our small circles as international black
block. How much more collective fighting strength could have emerged if we had
better used the time to exchange different ideas in discussions, to develop
actions and turn them into the eminent concerns of all of us - instead of only
ordering each other to meeting points here and there in the last minute. At
this point we should really think about how to challenge our paranoia, which is
paralysing us already on the level of discussion. All the caution so predominant
in this country for good reasons must not lead into lonely anxiety and
collective silence, or else the other side has won. In order to act
collectively we have to recognise each other as militants somehow, to meet for
real here and there and to exchange. and by the way: we were talking about
street blockades. No-one planned to kill the american president. The risk was
limited.
The problem continued into the camps in general, into alliances and the wider
public: apart from the declaration of the international brigades and one
sympathising newspaper interview there was only silence to be heard from the
radical left after saturday. the black block simply seemed to no longer exist.
In the tv-show of sabine christiansen speculation was made as to whether it had
been in the forests the whole time...as amusing as it is to read expertise
articles about "what makes the hooded man tick?" in the yellow press, in the
end we were also not visible for unorganised and potentially new comrades in
the camps. The autonomous assembly that was established on the reddelich camp
on tuesday came way too late and was not really attended by german groups.
Except maybe in wichmannsdorf dissent! did not manage to establish itself any
forum, and apart from some individuals Dissent! no longer had any influence on
the debates in the Interventionist Left or the larger alliance.
Given this situation, remarkably few dissociated themselves from us. Obviously
the concept of the big alliance of the Interventionist Left bore some fruit. At
least in Rostock the vast majority of the protesters kept together surprisingly
well. Besides avoidance of repression another cause of the non-existence of
autonomous structures could be described as a kind of organisational rigidity.
In view of the 1000s of people to come it was for sure understandable, that -
as potentially nervous hosts - we initially were seeking refuge in the security
of plans. Too bad that after a while we forgot to think about some really
important questions like transport and communication. In nearly all working
groups a strong tunnel-view with a tendency to autism developed.
For sure it was due to the chronic shortage of manpower that, additionally to
all the things that needed to be done, we spent lots of time permanently
mobilising each other, to try and get each other volunteered for ever new task.
maybe we should have met in-between some day for a mid-term review [in
Heiligendamm?], to check our structures and modify them according to actual
needs. also for this we would have urgently needed an autonomous assembly. In
retrospect it can be said that some organisational things could have been
handled more easily, as a lot of situations above all depended upon spontaneity
anyway - unfortunately this was something we had quite often lost already.
Personally I was shocked about how close the situation here got already to the
preventive invisibility, that we realised in great britain two years ago.
contrary to all lessons we wanted to draw from Gleneagles, we as well were not
present in situations in a guiding way, but rather often exuded some undefined
uncertainty in our relations to our comrades from other countries, up to open
distrust. As pretty good children of the spectacle quite a few activists here
wavered back and forth between some abstract euphoric enthusiasm for using
harder means in street-fight situations than is usually common here - and the
reflex to think of everyone as more or less insane and irresponsible who than
in reality wanted to use these means close to them. This contradiction is not
always easy to understand for our comrades, could only be insufficiently
discussed in the situation and should be scrutinised more closely "amongst us"
as well. There must be some kind of way out of here asking myself where to go
from here in the time to come, I start to helplessly mumble a bit. The only
things coming to my mind are in direction of more common experiences and
discussions, less facade and less blabla. To better keep demands at some lower
levels, before we only get dizzy and everything breaks down again.
No plans anymore for the moment, and if there will be some, than very minimal
and immediate and above all meant to do it ourselves! Small things, maybe an
initiative concerning demo-culture: for example to break out of the
intimidating practice of assistance in police controls on the way to a
manifestation. My heart is bleeding each time I see comrades walking separately
with hands up to the police to get searched. We don´t have to put up with that!
If the cops were the only ones lining up at the announced starting point of the
demo, if they would have trouble again and again with unwilling protesters all
around them, they might in the long run think to stop that shit.
Another point are arrests from out of the demonstration: the cops themselves say
that this situation basically is difficult for them. Too bad we often make it
easier for them doing nothing or taking pictures, which is not better - if
people successfully resist, we don´t need videos of it that can later be
confiscated. Instead of resigning and documenting arrests we should do our
utmost to prevent them. The risk of getting arrested for "rescuing prisoners"
diminishes if a lot of people do it and anyways, so what? How much safer could
we act knowing our comrades will do their best in the situation to free us?
Besides our comparatively elaborate defensive techniques, we could think again
about how to prepare something for a demonstration. To have some spray-paint
with us just in case some opportunity arises, for example. We could think about
how we could mix or open up our rows here and there to give people protection
and support who want to do things or already did things. In Rostock the civil
police did not dare to make arrests from within the crowd, and what was
possible there will basically be possible in other places as well.
There are innumerable possibilities to get our demos out of the defensiveness of
endless debates about the length of banners. We can demand the withdrawal of the
cordon (maybe otherwise people could cause some trouble to them from outside),
we can refuse to leave central crossroads until all those arrested are out
again, we can think about ways to push back the cameras of the cops, or to quit
cooperation completely if necessary. Meaning: not to announce demos anymore if
the conditions grow too intimidating.
There are for sure a lot more proposals. the second one on this piece of paper
is to create a group-crossover-forum to enable us to discuss about things like
that, to bridge the actual split in multiple channels and organs. open meetings
are one possibility, but they bear some disadvantages. what do you think of
freely vagabondizing pamphlets, read, spread and answered all over town,
criss-crossing all scenes and teams?
If the unrealised plan B on friday in Berlin showed something, its that we as
autonomous, radical left and anarchists need to basically sort ourselves out
anew, if we want to see some collective action happening here and there.
Crossover exchange could help us to get rid of the often frustrating
halfheartedness in realising ideas that are not our own. It would be nice to
see well-received proposals of some groups vigourously turned into action also
by others, instead of taking the first chance to retreat.
Be it as it may - whether we like it or not, There seems to be no other way - so
Let´s go on fighting pigsystem
Plan B continua - Vive la commune des brigades internationales
www.myspace.com/riotqueer

[http://de.indymedia.org/2007/06/186199.shtml]



