The following appeal refers to the recent situation in Germany. Nevertheless, we think that its arguments and demands are relevant all over the world. This is why we translated it to English.

We call for a strike against Germany! Not simply a strike against greedy bosses, poor working conditions, and low wages. Not just a refusal to comply with draft notices and perform military service. We call for a strike in all areas that keep this state, Germany, and its interests running. The text explains our reasoning.

Over the past year, the German government has implemented unprecedentedly brutal legislative changes across nearly every aspect of life. Almost all of these legislative changes1 reveal a common underlying trend: For those who have nothing but their own labour to rely on to make a living, life is becoming more expensive, more uncomfortable, and more dangerous.

•

Labour rights are being eroded; for example, employees may be employed on fixed-term contracts for longer periods, and the process of reporting oneself as unfit for work is being made more difficult. With the requirement for a doctor’s sick note from the very first day of work, the public discourse of mistrust towards ‘lazy workers’ is being elevated to an official state level.

•

Co-payments for medicines and healthcare services are being increased. Where people are in need, the compulsory contributions made by wage earners towards health and long-term care insurance must now be supplemented to a greater extent than before by deductions from their net pay.

•

Pensions are no longer intended to guarantee a livelihood in old age, but merely to provide ‘basic protection’, more pointedly than in the past. Those eligible for a pension should, where possible, continue to work even after they retire.

•

The new basic income support scheme now means that, in the event of long-term unemployment, the tightening of sanctions places even greater pressure on people to accept any work offered by the job centre, regardless of whether it is poorly paid, harmful to health and/or a great distance away.

•

Welfare state measures and services, such as youth support or integration assistance, are under enormous pressure to justify their existence and keep costs down. In future, individual services currently provided on a one-to-one basis are to be ideally delivered in groups (‘pooling’).

•

The introduction of the new Conscription Act primarily places a duty on young people, once again, to commit themselves directly, with life and limb, to Germany. The defence of the country and German interests, or, to put it another way, Germany’s military deterrent capabilities, have become a new priority in the political agenda and demands that the population abandon its ‘expectations born of a culture of peace’ and the assumption that life in Germany is safe for both the country and its people. All channels propound arguments that the freedoms, material securities and moral values, which until now have simply been taken for granted in Germany, must now be defended and, for that very reason, scaled back for the time being.

•

Climate change is making everyday life even more difficult. Heatwaves, torrential rain, storms, crop failures and forest fires are disrupting and threatening the lives of many people; and by no means only in the ‘Global South’ any more. The numerous (albeit far too meagre and implemented with different objectives in mind) policy changes enacted by previous governments in response to climate change are being rolled back by the Merz government in

1

Exceptions include certain tax relief measures, such as the increase in basic allowance and child benefits; however, these too make it clear that the government expects wage earners to find it difficult to make ends meet on their incomes in the near future

favour of short-term ‘incentives’ for the German economy – primarily for industry, which remains dependent on fossil fuels.

Members of the government consistently dismiss the protests and demands of welfare and climate organisations, trade unions and the school pupils affected by the new military service law with the argument that Germany can no longer afford any of this (“Demographics and mathematics”; Chancellor Merz at the DGB congress). Or, with regard to the reintroduction of compulsory military service, they claim that the global political situation leaves Germany with no other choice. These are, therefore, all constraints that make the current reforms necessary.

And they are right about that. When trade unions and social organisations invoke the welfare state as the foundation of society, when climate activists repeatedly draw attention to the horrific consequences of climate change for life on Earth and remind school pupils of the opportunities for voluntary action and co-determination as responsible citizens, they invariably fail to grasp what is meant when people speak of German interests and necessities. What Germany can ‘no longer afford’, and what the global political situation is “forcing” the German government to do, has only a limited connection to the well-being and fulfilment of the needs of its residents (or the preservation of the planet). The reason for the actions of politicians does not lie in a lack of information about misery and environmental destruction. Rather, it lies in the imperatives that arise when a capitalist

state such as Germany is fighting for its own functioning and survival as a leading power in Europe or a global economic power.

Hence our premise from the outset: without calling the nation-state itself into question, that is, the

fact that all citizens are ideologically and materially committed to the success of ‘their own country’, even though they are in competition with one another and must pursue entirely opposing interests, and to address this as the actual problem, any protest against the ‘social cutbacks’ and the new military service law will remain toothless and ultimately ineffective. For the existence and functioning of such a ‘community of adversaries’ necessitates a functioning state apparatus, from the judiciary to childcare, and thus the availability of the resources needed to keep all this running – money. And in a capitalist society, money is only available through successful capitalism. More on this below:

The German state is active all over the world and sets out its demands. German interests are defended in the Hindu Kush; in the war in Iran, the dirty work is being done, which is apparently useful and commendable for Germany; in Ukraine, people are dying for German and European peace; in the war in Gaza, Germany feels obliged, for reasons of national interest, to take a clear side. At the same time, pressure is being exerted on China, the countries of South America and India to grant favourable trade terms and access to consumer markets and labour for Germany.

The fact that Germany is able to exert such far-reaching influence on the world is due to its, until recently, immense economic and political success. And it is precisely this success that is currently being called into question to an extent never before seen in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. Two factors play a key role here: primarily due to the loss of cheap Russian energy sources in the wake of the economic war against Russia, the German economy – already weakened by the previous years of the coronavirus pandemic – is in freefall. The corporate giants of the automotive industry are seeing significant slumps in profits, with tens of thousands of jobs being lost. Foreign investors are withdrawing major contracts and leaving Germany, particularly in the production of key semiconductors, out in the cold in the face of international competition.

Politically, too, Germany is facing headwinds unlike anything it has experienced before: alongside the Trump administration’s distancing of the US from the EU and from Germany as a partner in values and trade, the failure to secure a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council, for example, also marks a significant turning point in terms of Germany’s political recognition on the world stage.

The fact that Germany was able to play this role in the world, solely on the basis of its economic strength, was due above all to the ‘rules-based world order’ that had prevailed until then. Modern nation states compete with one another for the means to assert their respective claims to power: the accumulation of money within their own territory or by companies based in their own country, through the use of goods, labour and purchasing power all over the world. The ‘rules-based world order’, which the US had secured through its unchallenged military power on the world stage since 1945, obliged all states to interact with one another solely by economic means, meaning that access to resources, labour and purchasing power between states was to be organised exclusively through economic channels – via offers and/or coercion. As an economic heavyweight, Germany had many opportunities to exert influence on the terms of inter-state trade relations, and thus on the opportunities for enrichment in other states, not least with and through the EU as a supranational entity capable of holding its own against the very largest powers (the US, Russia, China).

This order has clearly been abandoned since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, since the second Trump administration, the US has made it clear that, in pursuing its own interests, it will no longer be bound by international agreements and commitments, including its participation in and funding of NATO. Whether and how it intends to deploy its military is to depend solely on the immediate benefit to the US. Germany and Europe – as is even stated in official documents – are seen in this context as adversaries rather than allies. Consequently, the EU, and Germany in particular, are being forced into a position where they must replace the US’s military capabilities if they wish to continue defending their claims against other states. Since these states (primarily Russia, but also China, India, Brazil, etc., not to mention competition within the EU) have long since ceased to feel bound by the aforementioned prohibition on the use of force, the stakes for

Germany are literally everything.

For the Federal Republic of Germany is not only (and this is a serious matter) facing a slump in its own economic growth, but also the necessity of taking on debt beyond any known limits in order to expand and build up its military capabilities. It must therefore rescue the economy – its instrument of success to date – whilst at the same time taking on debt on an unprecedented scale, which in turn has a significant adverse effect on the economy.

Consequently, the German state, which continues to assert its claims on the world, must preserve and expand its means of power in two respects. On the military front, much is already underway. However, the same cannot yet be said for the economy.

That is precisely the reason for the current reforms. Because the success of the economy—that is, the collective success of all companies in Germany—is based on the fact that, through the purchase and use of labour, money is turned into more money. And that is difficult to achieve with high wages, climate protection, social security, and good health care. At least not at the moment. Because anyone who can choose their job, who knows they’re well protected if they lose their job, or who can insist that their employer implement occupational safety measures and climate protection, won’t simply let themselves be pushed by their boss and the government into poorly paid, unhealthy, and stressful jobs. And that’s what this is all about now.

The welfare state and the healthcare system are not the foundation, but rather the means of a state that operates successfully on the world stage. It is no coincidence that social security, universal healthcare, and high standards of labour and environmental protection are, in almost all cases, characteristics of prosperous, that is, economically successful states. These nations can afford the aforementioned measures to alleviate the hardships of life under capitalism because doing so allows them to utilise their population as a labour force in the best possible way, as well as for the long term. For these nations are very well aware that the companies that (are supposed to) use the labour force have no interest in such expenditures.

However, under the changed conditions described above, economic success can obviously no longer be achieved as it has been in the past. Social spending is rising, but unlike infrastructure projects or even defence spending, it does not even have the potential to contribute to the growth of the national economy; rather, it increasingly competes with other areas of spending. As a result, the scope and quality of social benefits are under scrutiny.

The drastic reduction in labour costs, brought about by the introduction of the Hartz IV laws, had already proven successful once before. Through the restructuring of social legislation at that time, Germany succeeded in overcoming the economic crisis of the early 2000s and in creating Europe’s largest low-wage sector. It is no coincidence that the current discussion also refers to “Agenda 2030.”

The dismantling of the welfare state and the increasingly direct mobilisation of the population in the interests of the German state, such as the demand to abolish the 8-hour workday, the right to part-time work2, and compulsory military service, are therefore not the result of misguided policies or the undue influence of capital on the government. They are the result of the necessary policies of the German state under the given conditions. For everything the German state plans to do, whether in foreign policy or domestic affairs, whether for tanks, highways, playgrounds, or hospitals, it needs money, and in ever-increasing amounts. For the functioning of the state, both economically and politically, current policies are therefore entirely appropriate.

Refusal to work or to serve in the Bundeswehr can therefore be rightfully challenged by citing the necessities described above. After all, if companies in Germany no longer make a profit or make too little profit, lose market share to competitors, and/or go bankrupt, there will indeed be job cuts or a complete loss of jobs. Without, or with dwindling corporate success, economic growth fails to materialise or remains comparatively low; tax revenues decline, and with them the government’s financing options, resulting in fewer opportunities to take on debt.

If the prohibition on the use of force among states (backed by U.S. military power) no longer applies, then military capabilities are obviously needed to “deter” others and to continue to be taken seriously as a state on the world stage.

Anyone who lives in Germany, that is, anyone who relies in their daily life on infrastructure, health care, the judicial system, and, where applicable, public services, is dependent on the functioning of the state, and thus on the state having sufficient resources to ensure that functioning. So anyone who, in a world where states compete with one another to organise and exploit their people, fights for better conditions at work, in health care, and in climate protection, is forced to rely on precisely the very foundations that cause all these crises in the first place. In a world where states struggle for their position in the competition among themselves, people’s interests in (survival) are always merely a means to the state’s success. If at all, a reasonably tolerable life is possible only on the basis of a state’s economic and political success, which means superiority over and subordination of other states. Thus, the rhetoric of peace, defence, prosperity, and freedom takes on an entirely different meaning: It is about peace on terms favourable to the state in question; about defending one’s own power and spheres of influence in the world; about the prosperity of national capital, that is, its ability to continue multiplying its wealth; and about the freedom of the state in question to declare its own interests in the world to be legitimate and thus binding on all other states.

We must recognise and identify who the actors behind the capitalist organisation of societies are (the states) and how these actors, in constant competition with one another, defend their sovereignty and are willing to sacrifice the population and nature to do so.

2

communaut.org

That is why we call for refusal. Refusal against the German state, which, with its claims to success on the world stage, creates all the constraints that people here are confronted with. In a world where there are only peers, Germany must demonstrate capitalist success in order to function as a state. We call for a strike against Germany and its standards of success. To strike in industry, in healthcare, in government offices, and in daycare centres. To refuse military conscription notices or draft orders. We call on people not to confuse dependence on the state and its institutions with a community of shared interests, for whose success on the world stage people’s health and survival are to be sacrificed when in doubt.

And we hope to see similar calls from people in France, England, Russia, Ukraine, the United States, China, and all other countries around the world. This call is not intended to weaken Germany in order to give other countries an advantage. What we want is to overcome a world order in which countries compete against one another and, to that end, exploit and take advantage of their populations.

We call on all people who make a living solely by selling their labour, urging them to organise across national borders and refuse to serve the states and capital!

That is why we welcome initiatives and suggestions, letters and criticism, as well as ideas on how we can organise acts of refusal in many different areas to make it more difficult for the state and states to function. Presumably, only the organisation of wage earners across national borders can seriously counteract wars, misery, poverty, and environmental destruction.

In hope of responses,

Zimmerwald Komitee

You can get in touch with us via z-k@riseup.net