Are we witnessing the end of left-wing utopias?

Things aren’t exactly great right now. Climate change is becoming increasingly catastrophic, right-wing politics and national isolationism are sweeping the globe – and many people have come to terms with this. Who cares, as long as you’re not (yet) drowning yourself? Meanwhile, social standards are being scrapped and gender-neutral language seems to be a greater threat to many than the end of democracy. At the same time, war has become socially acceptable for many, and terrorist massacres for some. Authoritarian isolationism and violence are triumphing over reason and solidarity – Trump’s election victory is a particularly glaring symbol of this. We are not only experiencing a historic change, but also a social and political regression. And as if that weren’t bad enough, something that was very present in other historic upheavals is missing: a relevant left-wing utopia and movement. In Germany, Europe and the world, this exists only in exceptional cases – and is hardly strong enough to change conditions. The end of the world is closer than the end of capitalism.

Until recently, things were different. »Another world is possible« was the slogan of global protests against neoliberal globalisation in the 2010s. Here, a genuine left-wing utopia was on the table: this world could be made just. In keeping with this, there has indeed been social and political progress in recent decades. There was sensitivity to climate change and equality, there were policies against racism and for global justice. Obviously, this was neither comprehensive nor sufficient – but it was better than much of what the 20th century had to offer.

But today, mostly a worse world seems possible. Even liberals and conservatives, who just a few years ago prevailed against left-wing and solidarity-based solutions to the crisis, are now threatened by the right. No future starts today? Of course, we do not accept that. We are fighting against it. But actually, we want more than just to prevent a worse world. We want a better world.

Everything could be good

The better world would still be possible! The conditions for this are even more favourable than ever before. Never before have there been so many achievements and so much experience to learn from. People are not only aware of the horrors of war, the effects of climate change and the consequences of fascism – they also know about diplomacy and climate protection, education and solidarity. People can reach Mars and generate nuclear fusion. They can cure cancer, treat trauma and plan the implementation of climate-neutral cities in global video conferences with hundreds of experts. Artificial intelligence can prevent crop failures and overcome language barriers. Humanity has seen that US presidents don’t have to be white and that women in leadership positions don’t make any more mistakes than men. Instagram and Netflix allow us to experience other realities of life around the world – whether in the rainforest, in slums, in megacities or in Osnabrück. Not to mention that the means to feed everyone have long been available. Or to achieve climate neutrality. This world could be bursting with possibilities. A good life for everyone would be possible.

Unfortunately, it sucks

But why then is this better world not coming about? Why are we experiencing this insane regression despite enormous progress? We can think of several reasons for this: for example, the fear of individuals losing their privileges. But in particular, we believe that this progress itself contains the seeds of regression.

After all, progress usually follows the way the world works. And that’s not about a good life for everyone. It’s about functioning under the conditions of capitalism and nations. A healthcare system, for example, that connects all patients worldwide with the right experts and provides them with the best possible diagnosis and treatment quickly and free of charge – in principle, this would be possible. The means are there. The utopia is within reach. But it would completely turn the way pharmaceutical companies and national healthcare systems function upside down.

Because, of course, companies in this world have to make a profit. After all, they have to pay their employees and drive up share prices in order to remain competitive. Countries are much more interested in the health of their citizens than in the health of people elsewhere in the world. Even ordinary people would have to give up many certainties and privileges on the path to a health utopia. And that will be difficult – after all, they grew up with the way the world works. Just look at the opposition that already exists to a citizens‘ insurance scheme in Germany or health insurance in the USA. And then even more resources are to be shared with even more people? Bye-bye, health utopia.

The fact that progress does not lead to better conditions is not only due to individual malice. It is due to the way this world thinks and acts. And that is the logic of exploitation and competition, of privileges and exclusion.

Home advantage for assholes

What makes matters worse is that the right wing simply has to reinforce the fears that people in this world already have. For example, the fear of having to give up something (even if only seemingly) in the struggle for advantages.

The right-wing battle cry » Us first « serves the way this world works quite well – as does the need to shift the blame for the supposed and actual problems of this complicated world onto scapegoats. » The others¹ are to blame « is therefore another slogan of the right wing that works brutally well. The right wing and fundamentalists only need to intensify the logic of exclusion and competition. They have a home advantage in this bad world.

Hurray, the world is coming to an end

History is being made

So does that mean nothing matters anymore? Hurray, the world is coming to an end? Not at all, because there is still some good news: All of this, all of the progress, all of the unfulfilled utopias – all of this was created by people. That means it can also be changed by people. Because as bad as it may seem, neither the laws of nature nor gods prevent us from making this world a better place. What stands in the way is »only« the thinking and actions of people in a world full of boundaries, profit and inequality. So we have to fight for people’s minds.

Again and again, there are opportunities to do so. The health utopia described above, for example, hardly fits into this world, but with the coronavirus pandemic, many certainties for pharmaceutical companies and states were suddenly suspended. If a global left had been stronger, perhaps the health utopia would have been realised? In any case, history was suddenly open. And that is exactly what is happening constantly, in large and small matters.

And no, this world should not burn and perish so that it can become better. There are already enough wishes for destruction elsewhere. We are not dystopian. We are utopian, and we are very practical: We want to finally use the enormous achievements of this world for the happiness of all people. And what achievements would be possible if progress were freed from the sad way this world works and actually revolved around a good life for everyone…

Still a world to win

And more good news: With left-wing utopias, we have infinitely more to offer than all the right-wing assholes in the world put together. Because they want hatred and exclusion, thus never-ending violence. We want a good life for everyone. An end to violence.

And with that, we do not only have the more social and sustainable answer to the problems of our time, but also the much, much more pleasant one. Is your neighbour dissatisfied with the way things are? Then, for a change, don’t talk about his fear of migrants and heating laws. Talk about how this world could have long since guaranteed a good life for everyone. And that includes him: for his healthcare, for a future worth living for his children, and for whatever remains of his stunted ideas of charity or solidarity. All that is not yet lost.

No, we are not witnessing the end of left-wing utopias. We are witnessing their necessity. It is up to us to show people that they are feasible. Because they still have a world to win.

1. Optionally: migrants, queer and/or Jewish people, left-wingers, progressive climate politicians, democrats, … ︎

Why you can’t (yet) imagine a liberated society

Everything is as usual: working, renting, buying, owning. We go to work 40 hours a week, we pay with our time and energy and get money in return, we are stressed and sometimes it makes us ill. The existing social conditions seem predetermined and natural. Capitalism envelops our lives, actions and thoughts like a bell jar. It creates an atmosphere that permeates culture, work and education. Stale air that has been marketed for centuries as the best air to breathe. Fact, natural, just air. The stench of capitalism is not only seen as the only possible system. It is (almost) impossible to even imagine an alternative. The oxygen of capitalism is clearly growth and the eternal expansion of the market. Mental health and environmental resources are seen as given, endless nutrients.

The capitalist bell jar covers all social structures. Healthcare and education systems are run like businesses: bigger, faster, cheaper. But the system also depends on the cooperation of the majority. Quite »naturally«, personal decisions are also made according to the logic of capitalist thinking. So we choose the more annoying job in order to earn more money, perhaps to save money, perhaps to buy a flat one day, which may then be paid off one day. Possessions are conveyed as security, and security feels good. But it is not only possessions that are permeated by capitalism, but also needs, feelings and personal values.

Terms such as work-life balance are directly linked to self-optimisation: Once the work is done, life must be used effectively. Sport, healthy eating, gardening projects and barista courses should be planned. And if you have difficulty doing so, there are life coaches you can pay for with your work money to make your life better. Great!

»Bad romance«

Even in love, relationships are calculated, compared and tested for their usefulness. Dating apps encourage us to market ourselves and pack our complexity into a scroll moment for an anonymous audience. And we, too, consume people like an assembly line, weighing up whether height, the desire to have children and the cute dog in the third picture are right for us. The recipe for success for many matches is a linguistically inventive text and a physically conventional appearance. The selection is huge. To be more efficient, emojis such as peaches or flames are used, and on first dates, the same questions are asked in a script-like manner in order to be able to compare. And finally, the all-important question: Could there be anything better on the love market?

The capitalist bell jar encompasses all social conditions: Naturally, rent costs money, naturally, good grades are important, naturally, a successful career is sexy, naturally, retirement planning is important, naturally, I have to pay at the supermarket, naturally, I can pay for sex, naturally, some people have more power than others, naturally, countries need to arm themselves and people need passports, naturally, there are forest fires and floods, naturally, there is the police, naturally, there is racism, antisemitism, ableism and sexism in Germany, naturally everyone is closest to themselves. Naturally, it can’t be any different.

»It’s me, hi, I’m the problem, it’s me.«

Even leftists are not immune to this apparent lack of alternatives. Many have lost hope and no longer even try to change anything politically. Or they make political demands, but only aim for small changes in the big picture – no longer as a supplement, but as a substitute for revolution. It’s like politics under a bell jar: The dome remains, but perhaps the smell underneath can be made a little more bearable. Others devote themselves to blind activism: In the face of the current crises and catastrophes, they kick wildly at the dome in the hope that something will happen – and in doing so, they only break their own feet. The impossibility of a completely different world has also been internalised here.

We are all part of capitalism, which we live in and which has been modelled and taught to us from an early age. Just as we learned to walk, we also learned to buy. But according to the motto »Don‘t blame the clown if you are in a circus«, it is worth questioning this social reality. It is worth taking a break, taking a deep breath and asking ourselves whether the air isn’t actually making us sick. Whether what is declared to be normal is also natural. Spoiler: It is not. So what is real and what is just being sold to us?

»Love the way you lie«

A moral critique of capitalism, according to which only its symptoms such as war and poverty need to be combated, is futile. The core idea is not questioned in this way. The same applies to criticism of individuals who are used as the face of impersonal and abstract capitalist processes. Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos may be hard to bear, but if they were gone, the system would still be there. Instead, it is important to unveil the supposedly natural status quo and reveal the actual reality. Conditions do not have to be the way they are now, and expectations of people are constructed.

What is real, for example, are environmental disasters, the climate crisis and the impending end of natural resources. The problems are concrete and frightening: forest fires, floods, extinction  of species and ever-growing danger zones. Only in a fantasy world can these challenges be overcome with electric cars, green electricity and caps that are secured to plastic bottles. But the fact is: Environmental disasters are increasingly man-made, will not simply stop, and cannot be treated with capitalist band-aids.

Equally real are mental disorders such as depression and burnout, which have become commonplace. Precisely because they are commonplace, it is important to politicise them and highlight how great the quality of life under capitalism really is. Instead of questioning why so many young people suffer from stress, anxiety, negotiation and competition, the individual is held responsible. The source of happiness lies within you! But in reality, it’s different: You can’t always succeed just because you really want to. And those who suffer from physical illnesses such as ME/CFS, which completely incapacitate those affected, are literally silenced. Anyone who becomes useless in the capitalist apparatus is out of luck. But in reality, it’s different: You are not only worth something if you work.

»The rest is still unwritten«

We won’t be able to deliver a sophisticated utopia or a single master plan. This is also due to the nature of utopia itself, which is constantly evolving and therefore not a fixed plan. It is more about questioning the naturalisation of circumstances in order to be able to think about alternatives (again) in the first place.

In addition to questioning the status quo, however, it also helps to recognise the possibility of utopia. A look at the past shows that what was once considered impossible seems feasible today or has even become reality. women’s suffrage, for example, or travelling to the moon. And vice versa: What once seemed realistic is now seen as impossible. In 1918, a liberated society seemed much closer than it does today, as you can read in this article.

Ultimately, the most important thing for all these approaches is to create spaces for exchange with one another. This can happen in organised groups as well as in conversations with friends. To take small steps in the right direction, it helps to think big, speak up and allow yourself to dream of something better. The capitalist bell jar could crack if many people think about fresh air.

For further reading:

Mark Fisher: Capitalist Realism. Is There No Alternative? 2009. €12.

Eva Illouz: Cold Intimacies. The Making of Emotional Capitalism. 2007. €17.

You need a change of scenery but don’t know where to start? We’ll show you how to transform your dingy flat into a dream palace with great DIY ideas. Bring utopia into your living room! Tip 6 will surprise you.

1. Take stock of your old hoarder’s room

Take a look around: Your room is outrageously small and yet so expensive that it eats up all your money. The kebab around the corner now costs ten euros and you can’t afford to go clubbing at the weekend anymore. Everything is getting more and more expensive anyway and you have to watch where you stand. You’re too exhausted from work, school and university to enjoy the fun things in life. You scroll through social media for hours and already suspect that neither new skincare ranges nor air fryers will be a real lifesaver. You don’t even watch the news anymore because it just depresses you. At the end of the day, you feel lonely, overwhelmed and helpless. Is everything shit? Yes – but not everywhere. And there is help.

2. A fresh coat of paint for your four walls

Day in, day out, running up against a wall – which seems to be getting bigger and bigger – with our utopian ideas is extremely exhausting. Access to alternative spaces helps you to see beyond this huge wall. For example, if you realise at your local self-managed centre that you are not alone in your desire for a better world, then you can start to take action. In the house project in your neighbourhood, you can get involved in politics, let your creativity run wild and sometimes even get a place to sleep at a fair price. At the weekend, you go to self-organised concerts, parties and festivals where everyone looks out for each other and can be themselves without fear. It is projects like these that give us hope and show us that we can live together in a completely different way. Where people try to counter all the shit with a collective response and create alternatives themselves. You need people around you who don’t care about social expectations and prefer to support each other rather than compete with each other. Why shouldn’t we anticipate on a small scale what we want on a large scale?

3. Furnishing your new free space according to your needs

In the best case scenario, we learn a lot about how we want to live together and show other people how beautiful life could be without competition and exploitation. And yes, this only ever happens on a limited scale, but that doesn’t mean it should be dismissed: because people who initiate and defend such projects create places where we can organise ourselves and learn from each other. Open, shared spaces make it possible to build, maintain and network left-wing structures in the first place.

4. Let your creativity run wild

These small utopias can make a concrete contribution to distributing resources and care work more fairly right now, for example by organising childcare collectively. There are quite a few things that can be shared: finances, cars, workshops, responsibilities, gardens, jobs, skills, housework and refrigerators. Kitchens for all, for example, where you can get food at cost price or even cheaper, prove: It is not a law of nature that you have to sell your last shirt for a hot meal. It is not just about charity, but also about self-empowerment: We form gangs in these spaces, seek advice from each other and protect each other from repression. We sing together in choirs and build neighbourhood networks. In craft collectives, we work on our own terms. Art collectives also enable those of us who weren’t born into rich families to express ourselves creatively. Essentially, we can create the little utopia that we’re missing. Many of these free spaces are also desperately needed safe spaces, especially for refugees, queer people and left-wing activists.

5. Cottagecore is out

So we all move into housing projects and everything will be fine?! Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. As leftists, we should not be content with creating cosy islands of retreat for ourselves. Being able to retreat to these free spaces is important, but it is also a privilege that many people, such as those in need of care, are often denied. Even in rural areas, house projects or left-wing centres are usually nowhere to be found. And even in the most progressive house project, we will never be completely safe from sexism, antisemitism and racism as long as the house project is part of this society, which is sexist, antisemitic and racist. What is certain, however, is that what often awaits us there – endless plenary meetings, antifascist machos and dusty cleaning schedules – can also be quite stressful. In trying to somehow compensate for everything the state fails to do or messes up, we also run the risk of burning ourselves out.

6. When in doubt: break down the wall!

Sometimes we need three days awake or a week at the lake – but that alone won’t change the circumstances. The great need for our own little utopia is also fuelled by the widespread feeling that large, society-wide utopias are no longer feasible. It is no coincidence that we sometimes have this feeling: It stabilises the current distribution of power and property. But we should not be deceived by this impression. Even cemented conditions were once cemented – and can be torn down again with the right tools. So there is no reason not to live as much utopia in our private lives as is good for us. We even say: That’s self-care. But our goal should be not to fence off all these little utopias, but to make them big. We don’t just want a good life for ourselves, we want a good life for everyone. Of course, we fully understand that sometimes you just want to escape reality and join forces with fellow sufferers to make life more bearable and beautiful for yourself and your loved ones. But please don’t sink into the cosy beanbag. Because we only feel truly at home when the whole world has become an oasis of well-being and the streets are of sugar. You want a kebab for three euros? We want kebab for free.

For further reading:

Theodor W. Adorno: Asylum for the Homeless. In: Minima Moralia – Reflections from Damaged Life. 1951. £10.

Mia Neuhaus/Massimo Perinelli/Lucas Mielke (Hg.): Solidarität – eine reale Utopie. 2025. €25.

Enough with doomscrolling, let’s go for utopia

You know the drill: climate change, pandemic, wars, rising prices, barely affordable housing, a broken healthcare system, a shift to the right and so on. The place is on fire.
Repeatedly pointing out that it’s burning has so far failed to put the sources of ignition out. Instead, many people resign themselves, withdraw into their own four walls and repress the fact that there is a fire at all. The crises seem overwhelming, the own fate inevitable. The world is going down the drain – and we have somehow got used to it.
It’s all pretty depressing. Instead of just despairing about it, we can also think about what we want to build instead of the burning hut. These sketches of a new house are nothing else than utopias.

The builders of the world to come:  »Yo, we can do it!«

There is not the one utopia, but many different approaches and ideas: Some people dream of a city on Mars, others of a society without exploitation and still others of both. What all these ideas have in common is that they reject the status quo and seek change. The utopian aspect is that they cannot be realised overnight and can therefore seem completely unrealistic.

In some contexts, utopia in itself means something impossible: for example, places where the laws of physics are suspended and we are all able to fly. Unlike such things or religious visions of paradise, however, left-wing visions can certainly become reality – just not necessarily right now. After all, capitalism is not a law of nature, as you can read in this article. And a society in which no one has to starve, in which our freedom of movement is no longer restricted by passports and arbitrarily drawn borders, in which everyone can be different without fear and live together in solidarity, is certainly feasible – even if it may seem unattainable at first. After all, so did the moon until the first cosmonauts landed.

The liberated society will also have to take care of the production of food, the maintenance of machines and the care of the elderly. However, we can then decide together which tasks are necessary and divide them up as fairly as possible. Spoiler: Nobody will have to come up with advertising texts for mobile phone games or sweat in gigantic burger costumes anymore.

Of dream castles and creepy cabinets

Conservatives, on the other hand, are not at all interested in reorganising society: They want to leave the crooked hut as it is – after all, it’s always been there. They are happy to ignore the fact that the shed is in danger of collapsing. Instead, it’s all about who is allowed to enter the hut and who has to sleep outside the door. So conservatives have no utopia at all: Everything should stay the way it is, or else it should go back to the way it was. And anyone who longs for something better is dismissed as a dreamer or should better go see a doctor for their visions.

Because the political left wants a completely different whole instead of the existing one, it is something like the architect of a different world that we still have to build. Sometimes it is accused of having the wrong idea of the world, of having flaws in its blueprint. And there may well be something to that: After all, even ideas that started out as left-wing utopias can be inhumane, as the mass purges of Stalinism and Maoism have shown. A good architect is therefore open to criticism. Sometimes the left is also criticised for being too unrealistic. After all, the realisation of utopias cannot be forced as long as the conditions are not in place. For example, it is not yet possible to send people to Mars. And social ideas can only be realised if there is enough support for them. Otherwise, utopia ceases to be a utopia and instead becomes a justification for oppression and terror.

However, it is nonsense to accuse the architect of having a blueprint, an idea of the world to come.

Left-wing utopias differ fundamentally from fascist ideals: Where some want to build palaces for all, others rely on bunkers with huge stocks of tinned food and self-firing devices outside the entrance. The left have utopias, fascists have dystopias.

Rugs, recycling bins or revolution

Utopias start on a small scale: as individual ideas of what a different world could look like. However, if they spread and infect many others, they can become the driving force behind large movements. Utopia is therefore not just a theory, but also the justification and driving force behind practice: It motivates movements to continue taking their protest to the streets, political groups to think about their strategy and you to argue with uncle Bernd at the breakfast table.

Utopia is therefore the prerequisite for revolutionary movements: because their goals must exist before they are even realisable. Only then can you work towards them and seize the opportunity when the time comes. For example, the mutinous sailors were only able to trigger nationwide uprisings in 1918 because socialist ideas and workers‘ organisations were already widespread throughout the country – you can read more about this in this article.

It can be frustrating to think and plan for such long periods of time. But not doing so is not an alternative: because if you only tinker with little things in the here and now, you can change the decoration or the wall colour of the hut, but that doesn’t make the shed a palace. Raising the minimum wage by a few cents, for example, is better than nothing and makes a real difference to many people’s lives. However, a liberated society without exploitation will not be included in a governmental nor oppositional bill. Conditions can only be overturned by utopias.

A revolutionary movement must therefore always be one step ahead of current conditions. The left must not stop at criticising the status quo: We know that the hut is burning. But lamentation alone is not enough to extinguish it. A strong, captivating utopia, on the other hand, has the power to mobilise a left-wing movement against the trouble spots and to counter them with hope for a better society. We have nothing to lose, but a world to win.

For further reading:

Leszek Kołakowski: Der Sinn des Begriffs Linke. In: Der Mensch ohne Alternative. Von der Möglichkeit und Unmöglichkeit, Marxist zu sein. 1974.

Let’s talk about violence in protests – and violence in society

‘Anyone who thinks that violence and property damage are the same thing should try torturing a door.’

Does this quote from Thomas Ebermann sound crude? Or logical? Or both? The discussion behind it certainly isn’t. Because whenever left-wing protests cross the boundaries of what is permissible – or even just of what is acceptable – there is always a huge outcry: ‘Rioters!’, ‘Anarchists!’, ‘Terrorists!’, ‘Pointless!’.

This way, even young people who glue themselves to the streets to protest for more climate-friendly policies and better living conditions are dismissed as malicious violent criminals. However, the violence of those who drive their cars over the hands of demonstrators, drag them across the street by their hair or punch them bluntly in the face is hardly perceived as such.

Equally unquestioned is often the violence of beating cops or the violence with which migrants are driven to their deaths every day at the EU’s external borders. The outrage over non-peaceful left-wing protests gives the impression that there was once a peaceful protest culture through which problems could be resolved amicably. And that we live in what is essentially a peaceful system. According to this view, it is always ‘the others’ who are violent. All of this is nonsense and hypocrisy.

‘We didn’t start the fire’

Nothing in our society is peaceful. On the contrary, we live in a structurally violent system, even if this is widely ignored. Anyone who ‘doesn’t perform’ is considered a problem. Competition between everyone seems completely normal. Meanwhile, people who don’t have a German passport are not only expected to perform, but to perform at the highest level and submit to authority. Without an EU passport and money, people are not really allowed to be here anyway – our society prefers to leave them to the torture chambers of Libya, the Turkish military or the floods of the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, climate change is swallowing up entire regions with water or desert and displacing millions of people, while coal-fired power plants continue to operate here. Every day, new cases of violence and racism by the police come to light. Peace, love, harmony.

So violence doesn’t just fall from the sky when protest crosses some line.
Violence comes for free with the subscription to nationhood and capitalism. And then German interior ministers demand ‘non-violent protest’ against the injustices of the world? That’s not peace-loving. That’s outrageous.

Is that already militancy?

Almost every protest that has achieved positive change in established structures has had to go beyond the limits of laws and peaceful discussion. We can look back to the barricades of the French Revolution and even further back, but there are also numerous examples from the more recent past: When US civil rights activist Rosa Parks refused to accept the ban on black people sitting on buses in 1955, it was a breach of the law and a scandal – and the beginning of the end for many racist laws. The first pride was a riot, in 1969, when queer people in Stonewall, USA, joined forces and fought back against discriminatory police violence. And even Europe’s largest Nazi march, which took place in Dresden for years until 2013, was not stopped by friendly persuasion. Instead, it was the combination of colourful rallies, creative actions by schoolchildren and burning rubbish bins that made the demonstration by thousands of Nazis impossible. But what exactly is militant?

Militancy actually just means decisive action and civil disobedience, with or without physical violence, depending on how the term is used. Some people even describe passport forgery as militant. One thing is certain: Unlike hooliganism, militancy is driven by political goals, not a love of violence.

Who are you to judge?!

‘Take to the streets, you have nothing to lose!’ That doesn’t apply to everyone. Who protests, where, for what and against whom makes a huge difference. Whether as a single mother, call centre employee, asparagus picker or in a deportation prison – the possibilities for effective protest vary.

People are not equally affected by structural violence, nor do they have the same opportunities to defend themselves against it. Those who suffer most from precarious living conditions are often the least able to protest against it and even less able to decide on the most appropriate form of protest. Some cannot afford a roof over their heads or food if they do not go to work tomorrow. Calling for a strike is of little use in such cases.

‘Violence is not a solution, nor should it be’

In response to all this, some activists decide to take militant action, such as spraying paint on a Nazi pub or setting fire to rubbish bins on the route of a fascist demonstration. They hope that without a Nazi meeting place and without a Nazi march, the safety of people in the area will increase. Sometimes militancy is also used to send a symbolic message – for example, by splattering paint on the facades of employment offices, occupying a lignite excavator or blocking the ‘red zone’ of a G20 summit. As different as these examples may be, they are all transgressions, they are all illegal – they are all militancy.

Functional militancy is usually justified by its direct effect: greater security through fewer Nazi structures. Symbolic militancy, on the other hand, is often justified by the argument that conditions are so entrenched and structural violence so oppressive that protest against it must take place ‘outside’ the existing value system. This system does not deserve constructive criticism, but destructive rejection. A few rappers from Berlin once described it this way: ‘Violence is not a solution, nor should it be.’

Of course, there is a lot of discussion about all this. But there is one thing that most leftists agree on: fundamentally, our goal is not violence, but its abolition – but that requires a different society. In this sense, the call of autonomous groups for a militant demonstration on 1 May was: ‘For an end to violence.’

Machos lol

However, these forms of action and debates also lead to a ritualisation and aestheticisation of militancy. This also involves self-dramatisation and the acting out of violent fantasies: Then pyrotechnics are set off just for style or to boost one’s own status, even if other people in the demonstration block are put in danger by collective punishment or escalating police violence. Clothes with slogans such as ‘Nazi Hunter’ strike the same note, focusing solely on ‘big balls’. That doesn’t make anything better, it doesn’t even scare Nazis – it’s just annoying macho behaviour.

Violence, scandal, protest

How you protest is up to you anyway. But you should be careful not to let yourself be pushed into actions that are too much for you or don’t fit your goals. At the same time, it is worth understanding the anger or hopeless situation of others: Not everyone can choose the best form of protest for their cause – and this can result in peaceful or violent protest in a wide variety of forms. But above all: Violence does not begin when pyrotechnics are set off or paving stones are thrown. And certainly not when streets are blocked. Violence begins when profit is more important than people and people are starving in front of full shop windows. When it is quite natural that it is not about solidarity, but about competition. When people are left to their fate at the EU’s external borders and in the climate catastrophe so that we can continue to drive diesel cars undisturbed. When fascists gain power in parliaments and take all this violence much further.

This violence of normality is the real scandal. And it needs to be countered with diverse protest. Inspiration is everywhere. Just do it.

For further reading:

Straßen aus Zucker #13: HamburgHamburgYeah, Krawall & Remmidemmi. Argumentationshilfen zu ein paar gewaltigen Protesten. 2018.
Ein Gruß aus der Zukunft. Mitteilung des …ums Ganze!-Bündnis zum Verlauf der G20-Proteste in Hamburg.

O tom, že je třeba dívat se zpětně na to, jak si lidé představovali, že je možné dosáhnout osvobozené společnosti, hledat příčiny selhání a učit se z chyb.

Z našich textů by mělo být jasné, že považujeme stávající společnost za hodnou zrušení. A že si myslíme, že nestačí, když budou všichni navštěvovat více kurzů meditace, budou na sebe hodnější, sníží se emise CO₂ nebo se o 4 % zvýší minimální mzda. Domníváme se, že musí dojít ke zcela zásadní změně: konkrétně v našem kapitalistickém způsobu výroby, který je založen na tom, že lidé si musí všechny věci, které potřebují, koupit. Proto jsou vyráběny jen ty věci, za které je někdo schopen zaplatit. A proto musí všichni lidé, kteří nemají to štěstí, že by zdědili majetek, prodávat v neustálé konkurenci s ostatními svoji pracovní sílu. To ale znamená, že je třeba něco jiného než požadavek nepodmíněného základního příjmu, méně chamtivosti nebo více nerůstu. To znamená, že je třeba zrušit kapitalismus! Je třeba vybudovat komunismus! Tato hesla září na všech těch tisících samolepek a skví se na transparentech na demonstracích. Co ale vlastně znamenají? Jak by mohla vypadat cesta k zásadně odlišné společnosti?

Bylo dřív líp? Tázajíce se kráčíme vpřed
Nejsme první, kdo si tuto otázku klade. Ve skutečnosti byly časy, kdy slova jako »revoluce« a »komunismus« nezněla tak cize a abstraktně jako dnes. Pro mnoho lidí byla představa vytvoření společnosti, ve které se všichni lidé budou mít lépe, realistická. Až dosud se to ale nikdy nepodařilo. Má smysl učit se z chyb a podívat se zpětně na to, jak si lidé představovali, že může být stávající společnost nahrazena jinou. Zvláště když mnohé z těchto představ dodnes někdo zastává. Je třeba promyslet, jak dnes mohou vypadat strategie přinášející naději.

O volech a oslech
»Socialismus v jeho běhu nezastaví vůl ani osel,« mysleli si mnozí v Německé demokratické republice nebo také v dřívější sociální demokracii – jež tehdy byla ještě skutečně revolucionářská a měla poměrně málo společného s bídou dnešní SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Sociálnědemokratická strana Německa). Tradiční marxisté tím měli na mysli, že »co se musí stát, stane se«. Došli více méně k tomu, že společnost se prostřednictvím revolucí vyvíjí k lepšímu: od otrokářství přes nevolnictví až po kapitalismus, jenž se kvůli vlastní náchylnosti ke krizím zničí sám – stačí jen malá špetka politiky, a voilà, komunismus je tu! Takový optimismus byl tehdy celkem snadno pochopitelný. Až do průmyslové revoluce na přelomu 18. a 19. století tu ve skutečnosti nebylo dost bohatství, aby bylo možné zajistit pro všechny lidi materiálně bezstarostný život (ačkoliv i dříve bylo možné vytvořit vlídné vztahy). Prostřednictvím nových technických možností se to ale stalo principiálně možné – bránily tomu jen společenské vztahy. Kapitalismus samotný musel nejdříve vytvořit nezbytné podmínky pro své zrušení.
Také v dnešní době, kdy se vyrábí tolik potravin, že by nasytily 13 miliard lidí, lze dosáhnout stavu, kdy by nikdo ze 7 miliard lidí na Zemi nemusel hladovět. V současném globálním ekonomickém systému tomu tak ale není.
Vidíme, že ačkoliv je kapitalismus příčinou neustálých krizí, nevede to bohužel automaticky k tomu, aby zkolaboval. Bez naší pomoci se tomu tak zjevně nestane.

Strana, strana, ta má vždycky pravdu¹
Jedním z lidí, kteří chtěli trochu popohnat vznik komunismu, byl Lenin. Domníval se, že komunismus musí vytvořit dělníci a dělnice, protože je jejich »objektivním« zájmem odstranit společnost, ve které sice všichni produkují společenské bohatství, ale sotva za to něco dostávají. Nevěřil však, že dělníci a dělnice sami dospějí k tomuto uvědomění. Proto podle Lenina potřebovali silné vůdce (řídčeji: vůdkyně) v ještě silnější straně, která jim ukáže, jak to chodí. Tak tomu pak bylo v téměř všech zemích »reálného socialismu«. A vedlo to bohužel k mnoha věcem, nikdy však k osvobozené společnosti. Nezřídka pak až ke katastrofě.

Vždycky může být hůře
Tyto různé směry spojoval optimismus, že dějiny jsou na jejich straně, a jistota, že mnozí chtějí lepší společnost. Nejpozději během první světové války bylo ale zřejmé, že tomu tak bohužel nebylo: namísto toho, aby společně se soudruhy a soudružkami z jiných zemí odhodili stát, národ a kapitál na smetiště dějin, odmítali vojenskou službu nebo obrátili zbraně proti těm, kdo je posílali do války, vraždili se lidé v Evropě vzájemně na bojištích první světové války a zahájili genocidu v koloniích. Na pozadí toho se »kritická teorie« – uskupení levicových filozofů, k nimž patřili mj. Theodor Adorno a Max Horkheimer, které tak rádi citujeme – začala ptát, proč neuspěla žádná revoluce, ačkoliv by objektivně byla tak rozumná. Zkoumali, proč jsou lidé na této »falešné společnosti« (neboli »úplné sračce«) tak závislí. Po holokaustu a druhé světové válce byl jejich postoj k tomu, zda je vůbec možná změna k lepšímu, ještě skeptičtější. Smysluplnější je spíše zabránit ještě horšímu a prostřednictvím kritického objasnění přivést lidi do stavu, kdy budou přemýšlet o lepším světě. S tímto dilematem se musíme stále znova zabývat: Jak dosáhnout zlepšení, když velká část lidí radši volí AfD, považuje práci za skvělou věc nebo zapaluje ubytovny pro uprchlíky? Pokud komunisté nechtějí, tak jako Lenin, lidi přinutit ke štěstí, mají problém.

Vlevo v bok! Dlouhý pochod
Takzvaní osmašedesátníci, studentské hnutí, které v roce 1968 drželo Evropu a mnohé další části světa ve značném napětí, byli optimističtější. Někteří z nich chtěli obsadit strategické pozice ve společnosti – provést »dlouhý pochod institucemi«. Jejich cílem byly reformy zevnitř, po nichž by se postupně probudila jiná společnost. V Německu vstoupila část z nich k Zeleným, do strany, která chtěla všechno dělat úplně jinak. Okamžik! Říkáte Zelení? Ano, přesně ti, kteří s Joschkou Fischerem – dříve také »rebelem« – coby ministrem zahraničních věcí na konci 90. let nechali shazovat bomby na Jugoslávii. Ti Zelení, kteří v roce 2015 s ministerským předsedou Winfriedem Kretschmannem umožnili další osekání práva na azyl. Zelení (a mnoho dobromyslných levicových stran po nich) ukázali, že se dříve nebo (méně často) později přes všechny dobré úmysly zapojí poslušně do běžného parlamentního provozu. Není to náhoda: každá strana, která nechce být jen v opozici, musí přemýšlet jako správce národního státu. A to znamená starat se o to, aby se obchody hýbaly a daně tak šťastně plnily státní kasu – i když to znamená poklesy mezd, deportace uprchlíků a války.

Všechnu moc sovětům!
Komunisté se snažili najít odpovědi na mnohé tyto problémy. Už v počátcích komunistického hnutí někteří rozpoznali, že autoritářské spoléhání se na stranu a stát není řešením, ale součástí problému. Dospěli k tomu, že je třeba, aby se lidé sami organizovali na pracovištích a v městských sousedstvích, a že moc nemá být poražena prostřednictvím státního převratu provedeného malou skupinou, nýbrž prostřednictvím generální stávky a organizace shromáždění ve všech oblastech společnosti. Prostřednictvím »osekání revoluční reálpolitiky« chtěla např. Rosa Luxemburg nebo později italští operaisté v 60. letech dosáhnout toho, aby byla vybojována konkrétní zlepšení pro lidi tady a teď, aniž by se z očí ztratila perspektiva radikální sociální revoluce. Skvělá myšlenka: dokud systém nezkolabuje, je možné dosáhnout spousty konkrétních zlepšení v každodenním životě. Je tu ale problém – firmám se zpravidla líbí mazané metody, jež udržují konkurenceschopnost – mohou například propouštět lidi díky automatizaci. Kecy.

Boj o hlavy
Jinou odpověď na toto dilema formuloval italský marxista Antonio Gramsci: zdůrazňoval, že v kapitalismu se nadvláda neutváří jen prostřednictvím donucení a že je sice možné provést státní převrat ozbrojeným útokem na parlament, ale souhlas s tím, co existuje, se utváří jinde – ve školách, na univerzitách, v médiích atd. Proto si všichni myslíme, že žijeme v nejlepším možném světě. Z toho důvodu dospěl Gramsci k tomu, že k radikální proměně společenských vztahů je třeba zviditelňovat levicové myšlenky v těchto oblastech – nazval to »bojem o hegemonii«. Lákavá myšlenka: mohu také spoIupracovat na tvorbě levicového časopisu, jako jsou Ulice z cukru, a doufat, že tím přispěju k radikální změně.

Me, myself and I
Levice našla odpověď na otázku revoluce také v pozdější době: v zrcadle. Například autonomové v 80. letech praktikovali »politiku první osoby«. Šlo jim o to, vybudovat v malém, co by chtěli uplatňovat ve velkém. V obsazených domech, skupinách kritického mužství, při mobilizacích proti ekologickým a sociálně fatálním projektům jako např. proti novým atomovým elektrárnám. Tento druh sebereflexe je samozřejmě důležitý – právě proto, že jsme v této společnosti všichni, jak si všiml Gramsci, plní ideologie. Jenže když hodně malých lidí dělá hodně malých věcí, nemůžou jednoduše změnit podobu světa. K tomu je třeba také porozumění tomu, jak přesně svět funguje a jak se proti tomu všichni můžeme spojit.

Viva la lucha!
Ač se to zdá neuvěřitelné, i dnes existují lidé, kteří chtějí revoluci. Mnozí z nich stále navazují na myšlenky shora, ale jiné současné pokusy jsou mnohem rozptýlenější. Proto rozhodně není špatně, že po tolika myšlenkových konceptech toho, jak má všechno fungovat, které všechny ztroskotaly na mělčině či skončily katastrofou, máme mnoho pochyb o existenci jediného správného revolučního plánu. Zapatisté, velmi sympatické mexické guerillové hnutí, jež se v roce 1994 odhodlalo k povstání a které je inspirací pro levici na celém světě, tento stav vyjádřili heslem »Tázajíce se kráčíme vpřed (Preguntando caminamos)«.
Co si ale počít se všemi těmito pokusy (a dalšími, které jsme tu nezmínili), jež levice v minulosti vykonala? Zaprvé situace se nezlepší (ani nezhorší) automaticky. Neexistují žádné objektivní tendence k pokroku, např. že by kvůli tomu, že stroje natolik minimalizují lidskou práci, bylo dosažení komunismu jednoduché. Komunismus přijde jen tehdy, když to lidé budou chtít a vytvoří ho. A k tomu je zapotřebí politických hnutí. Zadruhé cíle není možné dosáhnout prostřednictvím převzetí stran nebo států, právě naopak. Zatřetí situace je vážná, ale ne beznadějná. Jedna z posledních bezmála revolučních situací v Evropě – rok 1968 – přišla po 50. letech, jež byly konzervativní a pokryté prachem. Tehdy by si nikdo nemyslel, že se ve Francii spojí pracující se studenty a prezident ze strachu z revoluce uprchne ze země. Začtvrté je třeba skutečné porozumění tomu, jak tato společnost funguje, jsou zapotřebí diskuse a kritické vypořádání se s existujícími teoriemi a debatami, abychom nezačínali stále znovu od nuly. Zapáté tyto boje proti kapitalismu si nemůžeme nárokovat výhradně pro sebe. O našich strategiích musíme stále diskutovat také s ostatními. Zašesté sebeurčení a sebeorganizace jsou důležité. Jde o učení se novému, jež je na cestě k revoluci i po ní nepostradatelné. Je třeba získávat zkušenosti s tím, jaké to je měnit společně s jinými vlastní životní skutečnost – zkušenost s organizací univerzitní stávky, blokováním neonacistického pochodu, provozem autonomního centra atp. I když to v tuto chvíli nevypadá, že by revoluce byla za dveřmi, je důležité začít už teď.

1První verš refrénu písně Jednotné socialistické strany Německa (SED), jež do roku 1990 vládla ve východním Německu. (pozn. překl.)

K dalšímu čtení:

Adamczak, Bini (2018): Komunismus (nejen) pro děti aneb jak vše bude jednou jinak. Praha: Neklid. [rozhovor s autorkou (nejen) o knize si můžete přečíst tady]

Bonefeld, Werner – Sergio Tischler, eds. (2002): What Is to Be Done?: Leninism, Anti-Leninist Marxism and the Question of Revolution Today. Aldershot: Ashgate.

➞ German version

Un grand espoir porté par le projet d’une société orientée par les besoins et libérée de la domination, de l’oppression et de l’exploitation, est qu’en son sein, les frontières se brouillent et disparaissent. Que l’obligation de se décider, ou de laisser des autres décider à notre place, tombe : es-tu une femme ou un homme ? Gay ou hétéro ? Mariage ? Enfants ? Devoir choisir entre amitié et amour, entre famille et société, entre désirer et être désiré, entre liberté et attachement. On peut objecter que, même dans une société émancipée, on souffrira toujours d’avoir le cœur brisé, que le nombre d’êtres-humains avec lesquels on pourra entretenir des relations significatives de proximité sera aussi limité par l’espace et par le temps. Que tout cela n’a que peu à voir avec le système social dominant. C’est vrai. Mais ne voulons-nous pas d’autant plus passer notre temps loin de cette concurrence, cette oppression et cette exploitation qui produisent des frontières, des contraintes et de la souffrance inutiles ?

Love is a battlefield

Personne ne peut dire, comment on aimera et mènera des relations dans la société émancipée. Tout comme il y a aujourd’hui mille façons de souffrir sous les contraintes et normes, il y aura, espérons-le, mille façons de mener des relations heureuses sans susciter l’hostilité. Ces multiples versions du bonheur sont déjà partiellement esquissées : une femme* peut aujourd’hui aimer une autre femme* en étant acceptée par la majorité de son entourage et, selon les lieux, avoir des enfants ; il en est de même pour les hommes. Seulement, dans la société actuelle, ces possibilités sont juxtaposées les unes à côté des autres, chacun_e doit se décider pour l’une ou l’autre, et s’heurtera toujours à l’incompréhension ainsi qu’à la haine de la part de celles et ceux qui vivent selon d’autres règles, dans d’autres communautés – et malheur à celui ou celle qui souhaite changer d’étiquette ou ne correspond à aucune d’entre elles !

Même dans les quelques lieux où une diversité relativement grande de modes de vie est aujourd’hui possible, il s’avère urgent de redistribuer les choses pénibles dans les relations telles que le travail domestique, la prise en charge des enfants, mais aussi la négociation de la jalousie et de la peur. Et partout où la sécurité matérielle est menacée par les crises inévitables du capitalisme ou par la violence qui leur est liée, sont en même temps menacé_es tout_es celles et ceux dont le mode de vie ne correspond pas à l’unique modèle toujours accepté (car il permet une reproduction sans heurts de la société) : Père-Mère-Enfant.

I wanna know what love is

Heureusement, il existe des voies vers la société émancipée. Notre favorite: nous devons apprendre à être différent sans avoir peur. Nous l’admettons, cela est un petit peu plus compliqué qu’un itinéraire Google, mais cela décrit assez bien ce à quoi l’amour pourrait ressembler après le capitalisme. Cela pourrait signifier que personne ne s’énerve plus, si les enfants ne grandissent pas chez maman et papa, mais chez maman et maman, papa et papa, ou chez Fatuma, Klaus et Sahra, qui n’entretiennent pas de « relation amoureuse », mais sont « seulement » des ami_es proches. Dans le meilleur des cas, cela voudrait dire expérimenter toute notre vie, transgresser les frontières entre l’amour et l’amitié, évoluer dans des constellations différentes et changeantes, qui se situent entre les alternatives actuelles (collocation, famille nucléaire, célibat) et qui les dépassent. Cela implique que les êtres-humains puissent, indépendamment de leur mode de vie, s’aménager plus de sécurité et, s’ils et elles le souhaitent, plus de continuité qu’aujourd’hui. Cela peut vouloir tout dire, tout ce qui vient à ton imagination ou correspond à tes besoins.  

Nulle peur pour personne

La description suivante donne d’autres indications sur la façon dont nous allons vivre après le capitalisme : dans la société émancipée personne ne doit avoir peur. Celui qui applique cette belle phrase à l’amour et aux relations, constatera que beaucoup de choses vont disparaître : la peur de ne pas être reconnu_e parce qu’on ne correspond pas aux normes. La peur de la perte qui se concentre sur le seul partenaire vraiment important qu’on a le droit d’avoir. La peur de la proximité, parce que la sécurité émotionnelle est aujourd’hui, en règle générale, aussi liée à la dépendance matérielle. La peur, de devoir vieillir tout_e seul_e. La liste peut facilement être poursuivie. Il est plus difficile de s’imaginer l’amour et les relations dans la société émancipée si l’on ne veut pas être dans la simple spéculation et penser qu’en fonction des restrictions et de la rudesse qui déterminent la vie actuelle.

Malgré la difficulté, nous devrions des fois essayer. Pour se prouver à soi-même et aux autres que ces frontières ne sont pas éternelles, mais fabriquées par l’être-humain et transformables – pour éveiller l’envie d’une autre société, plus douce. Une société, dans laquelle nous ne nous sentirions pas si souvent seul_es, incompris_es et confus_es. Dans laquelle la concurrence et l’oppression cesseraient de nous empêcher d’être là l’un_e pour l’autre. Dans laquelle l’amour ferait moins mal.

Pour aller plus loin :

Adorno, Minima Moralia, et plus précisément les chapitres 49 et 110.

Eva Illouz, Pourquoi l’amour fait mal, Paris : Edition Le Seuil, 2012 pour l’édition française.

Musíme je chtít?! O sociálních nerovnostech a roli, kterou při tom hraje naše vzdělanost.

V dětství a mládí se učíme nejrůznější věci a dosahujeme různých úrovní vzdělání, finanční situace a životního prostředí. To znamená, že sociální nerovnosti existují. O těch se ale příliš nemluví a dělá se, jakoby všichni lidé mohli v určitém věku dělat to, co všichni ostatní, kdyby jen chtěli. Avšak tuto normu vytvářejí ti, pro které je dosáhnutí vysoké životní úrovně nejjednodušší.
Pondělí ráno, 1. hodina: Písemka z matiky.
Samira se v neděli učila s maminkou, která pracuje jako fyzička, skvěle se v matice vyzná a může jí dobře pomoc. Dobře vyspaná, poté, co se zdravě nasnídala, jde Samira v dobré náladě ráno do školy.
Jasmína musela o víkendu hlídat svoje dva sourozence, protože její rodiče byli v práci. V noci skoro nespala, protože její sestra je nemocná a hodně kašlala. Poté, co oběma připravila snídani a odvedla je do školky, přichází těsně před zvoněním do třídy. Tak a teď lineární algebra? To nebude jednoduché.

Připravit ke startu, pozor, teď!
Aby Jasmína a Samira dostaly dobrou známku, musí dosáhnout stejně dobrých výsledků. Nejen v této písemce, ale ve škole vůbec a později na univerzitě jsou výkony znám‑ kovány. Měřit všem podle stejných kritérií, před‑ pokládá, že všichni začínají na stejné startovací čáře. Aby však všichni dosáhli stejné úrovně, musí mnozí vynaložit daleko víc práce než druzí a musí také překonat daleko více překá‑ žek. Upřímně, kdo z nás by na Jasminině místě měl lepší výsledky?
Děti akademiků a akademiček budou mít s velkou pravděpodobností vysokoškolský titul, kdežto děti z nižších společenských vrs‑ tev budou mít „pouze“ maturitu. Nedokážou to vysvětlit ani údajný talent a vlohy, ani píle a vůle. Aby se člověk mohl dobře učit, potře‑ buje čas, peníze a sebevědomí. Je jasné, že roz‑ hodující pro úspěch ve škole jsou sociální a eko‑ nomické podmínky žáků a žákyň. Často však slyšíme, že největší vliv na školní výsledky mají píle a údajná „přirozená inteligence“. I když to tak není, má to velký vliv na to, co si o sobě lidé sami myslí.
Několik příkladů k lepšímu porozumění: Kdo jako mladý člověk zažil častěji, že je jeho příspěvek k rozhovoru u večeře s dospělými brán vážně, tomu přijde jednodušší přihlásit se ve škole a říct něco před celou třídou. To je něco úplně jiného, než když jsou pokusy o zapojení do rozhovoru odbyty odpověďmi typu „jojo“ nebo „to je přece jasné“. Kdo hodně četl nebo mu jako dítěti dospělí hodně četli a dokáže se školním systémem dobře vyjít, ten má lepší předpoklady pro to, aby obstál ve škole, než někdo s vědomostmi z ulice, které zde nikoho nezajímají. Kdo přijde v Německu do školy a již předem si je jistý v jazyce, ten se spíše odváží pokládat otázky, či na ně před celou třídou odpovídat. Kdo se dříve naučil jiný jazyk, musí si nejprve osvojit vyučovací jazyk. Když ti rodiče již předem vysvětlili, že Němcová a Jirásek jsou TĚMI hvězdami české literatury a že 17. listo‑ pad je významný národní svátek, a tak dále, tak víš už hodně o tom, na co se ve škole ptají a máš tak enormní náskok. Jinak to mají ti, kteří se starali o svoje malé sourozence, nebo je rodiče kvůli nedostatku času prostě posadili před tele‑ vizi a nebo si rodina nemohla dovolit zaplatit dětem doučování.
Zmínit je třeba také fakt, že rodiče často předpokládají, že jejich děti dosáhnou stejné úrovně vzdělání jako oni sami. To se týká výběru typu školy – zda půjdou na maturitní nebo učební obor. Proto jde dcera, pro kterou je brzy jasné, že bude jednou studovat stejně jako její máma a táta, do třídy s úplně jinou před‑ stavou, než ti, jejichž rodiče ani pořádně neví, jak to na univerzitě chodí, protože se tím sami nikdy dřív nezabývali.
A aby s ostatními „udrželi tempo“, musejí za tyto všechny rozdíly lidé pykat. Co to je ale za blbost?

Stačí se jen snažit!?
Gender, migrační historie, zdravotní posti‑ žení, zázemí pro učení! Je velké množství fak‑ torů, které určují průběh našeho školního života. Německý vzdělávací systém není pří‑ liš schopen kompenzovat sociální původ žáků a žákyň.
I kdyby bylo skutečně možné nastavit něco jako „rovnost příležitostí“, takže by všichni měli stejné vědomosti a schopnosti, v kapitalismu by to znamenalo pouze formální rovnost příle‑ žitostí: Lidé si s větší námahou vybudují lepší pozici do budoucího boje se všemi ostatními o lépe placenou práci.
Nejdůležitější je samozřejmě, že chceme také studovat, i když nám to naši rodiče nena‑ plánovali, nezažili to, či nám to neumožní. Poža‑ dovat jen rovnost příležitostí ale nestačí. V kapi‑ talismu vždycky budou „dobří“ a „špatní“ žáci a žákyně. Někdo bude mít maturitu, někdo střední vzdělání bez maturity a někdo nedo‑ končí ani to. Pak jsou všichni přesvědčení, že se musí akorát více snažit. A když to nefunguje, tak je to pouze jejich chyba.
Samira pravděpodobně patří k těm, kteří to mají jednodušší, protože její rodiče mají více času se s ní učit a sami také studovali vysokou školu. A pak jsou tu ti druzí. Pro ně zbývá pouze práce ve špatně placeném sektoru, kterou nikdo jiný nechce dělat. Šance, že Jasmína udělá matu‑ ritu je malá, protože musela doma převzít příliš mnoho odpovědnosti a škola pro ni byla až na druhém místě.
Je jasné, že vždycky budou lidé, kteří pře‑ skakují třídy – a to jak ve škole, tak ve spo‑ lečnosti. Je možné, že někdo bude studovat na univerzitě, přestože jeho rodiče pracují již 15 let v továrně, nebo obstarávají vlastní farmu. Lidé, kteří podobné překážky překonají, budou potřebovat mnoho trpělivosti a budou muset překonat těžké chvíle, ve kterých jim bude od ostatních vždycky zdůrazňováno, že k nim nepa‑ tří – že jsou vlastně výjimkou.
Dokud se nebudeme moci učit, co chceme, jenom proto, že to chceme, bude tu pro každého z nás spousta dobrých důvodů, proč se nechtít učit vůbec.

K dalšímu čtení:
Katrňák, Tomáš (2004): Odsouzeni k manuální práci: Vzdělanostní reprodukce v dělnické rodině. Praha: SLON.

SaZ sprach mit der großartigen Amanda Palmer, die gemeinsam mit ihrer Band The Grand Theft Orchestra auf ihrer dritten Europa-Tour in Berlin landete.

SaZ: Hi Amanda! We are big fans of yours, and we are quite amazed that all of your music is available as a free download. You once said “Don’t make people pay, let them”. How does this work?

Palmer: I generally think this is the correct philosophy because digital is free and everyone knows it. The big problem musicians have to face is how to educate your audience that if they don’t help you, there isn’t some other magical force that’s going to pay for your music. The statistics for who does pay for the music, when given the opportunity, are pretty staggeringly disappointing. Especially for an artist like me: I’m the poster child who invites help openly and who has a very open dialogue with my fans. And even then the majority of people take the music for free.

SaZ: Do people think that you are so big and well off?

Palmer: There are a lot of weird ideas around it. I also encourage people who take the music for free to come to a gig to make sure that the income comes back to me somehow. I think it generally works, but I’ll continue to experiment with how I price music.

SaZ: But are you able to pay your rent and other stuff?

Palmer: Well, my situation is a little complicated, because I am married to Neil Gaiman (Anmerkung d. Redaktion: Science-Fiction- und Fantasy-Autor) who is really rich. That means I have a safety net that other artists don’t have. If I do some huge experiment and it crashes and burns, I don’t have to go to the band to borrow money, I can easily sponge off my husband. It’s important for me to remind people that that’s a reality of my life, but not of the other musicians on tour with me. That has been difficult for me to come to terms with, I felt guilty about this advantage. It’s interesting to be open and to talk about it, because usually everyone’s just like “Eeew, such an uncomfortable topic”. But why would I not be open and honest about it? It can also be an advantage if I’m trying to help the musicians around me by taking the risks that others can’t, because they can loose their money. They have to pay the rent.

SaZ: As a feminist, did you have a problem that there is a certain dependence on your husband?

Palmer: No, because I’m not dependent on my husband, I could make so much money if I wanted to that I don’t worry about it. I know I can go to every city and get ten grand for a gig. I think if I didn’t have that freedom, it would be too hard for me. Neil and I had this struggle all over our relationship, because we are both powerful in our own worlds, but he is ahead of me by 16 years and has been doing his career for much longer. We look at each other and try to figure out how we can help each other. To me, that doesn’t have anything to do with feminism because I know that there is a lot of things that I do for him and help him with that he couldn’t do by himself. We support each other, and sometimes it’s money and sometimes it’s energy and sometimes it’s signal boosting and sometimes it’s emotional. As a feminist, I was struggling even getting married to him. I thought I might lose all my feminist credibility, that all my emboldened independence and my “Fuck the Men” credits could go down the toilet if I get married.

SaZ: Why?

Palmer: I really never wanted to get married. I’m not a huge fan of the institution, I think it’s an outdated bullshit structure. But we were very practical about it, and a big part of it for Neil was that he wanted people to take me seriously in his world. I am in my world with my punkrock musician friends, they don’t give a shit whether I’m married or not. But he wanted to fast-track the “Taking Amanda Palmer serious” part, especially because of our age difference. For him to be able to say “This is my wife”, not “This is the hot rock star chick that I am banging this week” really makes a giant difference. People treat me differently, with more respect. Is that fucked? Of course it’s fucked, it’s a stupid system, but it’s also a reality. I love to think that people come to the point where they don’t have to marry to get that point of freedom. But in our case it just made everything so much easier.

SaZ: Speaking of feminism, you wrote on Tumblr that being a feminist can also be apolitical. Isn’t feminism always and by definition political?

Palmer: Isn’t everything political? Isn’t being apolitical already political? I think there are too many parts about feminism that are bullshit. That’s pretty much how I felt all my life. I didn’t want to get trapped in the bubble of feminism, because most feminists are so irritating to me. They are so narrow-minded about what freedom is. I don’t think you’re able to talk about feminism without talking about freedom for everybody. Which then winds up including everything like racism and classism and pretty much all sexual-issues thrown in one pot. You can’t go out there saying: “I want women to be happy and equal.”

SaZ: Which other irritating parts do you mean?

Palmer: The kind of anti-men “Fuck the Patriarchy”, the kind of anger and closeness that you see in a lot of feminist rants. I don’t believe that’s progress. I don’t believe you get there by yelling and I actually think that’s counterproductive.

SaZ: But is change actually possible without also being bold and aggressive?

Palmer: Sure, I’m not saying there isn’t a place for anger! If you are being oppressed you have every right to be angry. But it’s not sustainable. If your goal is like mine, to make everybody happy, you can amp the anger up, but you also have to do it compassionately enough that you’re not slashing and burning the field while you’re also trying to fix and balance the situation.

SaZ: In your song “Dear Daily Mail” you mention an article in that newspaper which didn’t talk at about your music but only about your boobs. How do you deal with sexism in the music industry?

Palmer: Things like that don’t make me angry because they are so silly. Nothing about this article is gonna hurt me. It was this obvious tabloid-sensational thing, all these people in the newsroom going like: “Oh, look a boob”. It’s just so infantile.

SaZ: But the same infantile behavior is a big problem for a lot of women who don’t have the cultural or financial means to speak out against it.

Palmer: That is is why the internet is so powerful. And why sites like everydaysexism.com are great. It’s great to see teenage girls getting this alternative education, because they are so slammed by the general mass media about what’s acceptable, what’s expected, what’s normal. It’s this giant underground network of women fighting a mass media oppression, by simply sharing information. Because information is so powerful. And since the internet gives us free access to each other, it will be or already is the next wave of feminism. Normally you could only chat with your friends and you had to rely on the TV and the radio and the newspapers to tell you what was going on. Now we hear what’s going on directly from each other. And that is obviously different from what we are being fed. We really start to see the schism, and that will create a change hopefully.

SaZ: Yes, the internet gives us the possibility to communicate, but it also produces a lot of normative images of how boys and girls should be like.

Palmer: Well, it’s up to the people using it which side they want to be on. The tools are so new, the etiquette is barely in place and our little brains are exploding. It will take some time to settle and hopefully in a positive way.

SaZ: To continue our talk about feminism: You worked as a stripper for a while. At the moment there are debates in Germany and France about banning sex work. What do you think about that?

Palmer: I think you have to normalize it and make it very very safe. If you ban it, then you wind up in a more fucked-up situation and you wind up having sex-slaves. There aren’t a lot of women hiring prostitutes, but there are definitely a lot of men. If you ban it, I don’t think men will be like “Oh, okay”. They are going to do it illegally and it’s gonna be very dangerous for the women involved. It already is. And so, deal with the reality. If the reality is that men want to pay for sex, make it as safe as possible for the women. So these women don’t live a life of horror. My assumption is that if you can normalize and make prostitution safe, you’d probably see crime and abuse go down, like with normalizing certain drugs. You would actually fix some endemic social problems.

SaZ: Thanks so much for this lovely conversation!