Politics Perspektive Online
Whose violence is legitimate?
After the “Gen Z rules” protests, politicians and the media are outdoing each other with calls for harsh punishments and racist attributions. The causes of young people's anger and police violence are ble
Deutsch (original) ·Auto-translated to English
After the “Gen Z rules” protests over the weekend, a heated discussion broke out. The focus is on the riots surrounding the demonstrations. In addition to individual stores being looted in Frankfurt, there are also clashes with the police in cities such as Berlin, Cologne and Hamburg.
Whether “violent left-wing groups and migrant chaotics” (Interior Minister Dobrindt), “experience-oriented” rioters “without a political motive” (Hesse’s police chief Müller) or “lone perpetrators, always lone perpetrators” (CDU politician Röttgen) are responsible for this is something that the ruling politicians and media have not yet fully agreed on. War Minister Pistorius partially opposed Dobrindt's generalizing statements about "migrant groups" and called for a focus on "extremists" who would attack and injure the police or damage property.
There still seems to be disagreement as to whether the protests have been “infiltrated by extremists” (Cologne police chief Hermanns) and “hijacked” (Dobrindt) or have only “escalated to Gen Z” (WDR reporter Hilgers). But most people agree that a “significantly tougher approach” is needed to combat the “horrific excess of violence,” as Hesse’s Interior Minister Poseck explains. He even wants to implement bans on demonstrations and preventive detention in order to keep the upcoming protests small. Dobrindt also emphasized that he “expects that there will be harsh penalties.”
Racist agitation in politics and the media
While October 31st as the date of the protests also led to certain dynamics of the protests being combined with a generally heated atmosphere, a lot of things were thrown together afterwards - i.e. riots at the demos themselves but also the usual clashes that are a normal part of days like Halloween or New Year's Eve, at least in large cities.
This is exactly where we can start when it comes to the question of how political conflicts with the police or looting of shops are. Because all of this has a political background. Whether those who carry out these actions are all pursuing a specific political goal is another question. But the anger of young people - whether migrant or not - that is repeatedly erupted on such days cannot simply be explained by a desire for experience.
Racism and the lack of understanding of the social causes in the public debate are regularly evident on these days. This time GdP chairman Kopelke didn't hold back and said after the protests that he could always see in advance "which Talahon won't have himself under control again".
But it is understandable that young people who are socially left behind and who are not offered any prospects, especially in a time of war preparations, job cuts and massive social cuts, sometimes let out their frustration.
Education Minister Karin Prien now said that the question must be asked as to why the integration of some groups is less successful. But where does she want to integrate all these people? This can be seen, among other things, in their demand to listen especially to the young people who do not commit violence. Young people who“fed up”So it's best for everyone to keep their feet still and wait for someone to listen to them? That hasn't worked in the last few years and months, or at any other time in history. The German state is constantly pushing through new projects that have little support in society, be it expanding working hours, cuts in health care or arms deliveries to Israel.
This shows again and again that we have no real say in this system. The only voices that will be accepted and disseminated are those that operate within the boundaries of what is acceptable to those in power. Be it in the media, which are themselves large corporations and are financially dependent on them or the state itself. Or in the political committees of the legislature, in which capital representatives sit directly alongside highly paid politicians. The only way we can be heard is if we scare those in power into taking away their power - by any means necessary.
Only state violence is legitimate?
This is not about basically condoning all violence. Rather, it is important to understand that violence is part of every political struggle. The state uses violence every day, not only to contain protests, but also to achieve its own political goals elsewhere. The “executive authority”, as it is referred to in the Basic Law, uses physical force to deport people to war zones every day, evicts people from their homes or displaces homeless people. At the latest in a war situation, he will also use this violence to force young people in particular to the front, as the situation in Ukraine clearly shows.
The state also tries to contain protests with its police troops as soon as they appear to be disruptive. This starts with small harassment and restrictions on the right to assemble, but goes so far that the police, like this weekend, beat everything to a minimum. However, hundreds of injured demonstrators at the weekend were not mentioned in the media coverage; at most, the attacks on journalists such as those from ZDF appeared in subordinate clauses. In recent years, this violence has been particularly felt by the Palestine movement or anti-militarist protests. School strikes against conscription also regularly resulted in attacks and arrests - even for things like “Merz lecken Eier” posters.
However, the fact that violence by forces other than the state itself is legitimate is only accepted if it serves one's own interests. If, for example, people in Russia, China or elsewhere take to the streets violently against their government, then those in power in Germany suddenly welcome and celebrate this as a necessary means because it improves their own conditions in this competitive struggle.
If individual parts of the “Gen Z regulates” movement desperately distance themselves from any violence, this shows above all a lack of understanding of how social change occurs. With nice words, the government will certainly not back down from its plans to abolish the eight-hour day, cut costs in health care and education, and invest all the money in rearmament and reintroduce compulsory military service.
What those in power really fear
Spontaneous anger alone will not change these conditions. Because the current policy is not a slip-up, but rather follows the interests of capital, which is passing on the costs to us in the crisis. But it is legitimate. The forms of protest carried out by revolutionary organizations are just as legitimate and are now also coming under closer focus of the authorities.
There is a well-known pattern behind this: part of the movement should be integrated into the system through offers of discussion, hypocritical participation formats and the promise that people will listen. Anyone who is not prepared to do this will be labeled as “left-wing extremist” and subjected to surveillance, bans, house searches and criminal proceedings. The term fulfills a clear function. He draws a line between a “democratic” protest that has no consequences and anything that actually questions the existing conditions. The fact that there is so much talk about “left-wing extremism” after this weekend is no coincidence, but preparation for even more repression.
But revolutionary organizations are important right now because they can give direction to the anger: the perspective of a socialist society in which it is not profit and rearmament that decide, but the needs of the majority. This is what those in power really fear. Not the frustration of individual young people that goes away after a few nights, but an anger that organizes itself, anchors itself in schools, companies and districts and asks the question of who this country actually belongs to.
The postWhose violence is legitimate?appeared firstperspective.