Mediaboss Marketing

National Secretary Chris Marsden introduced the Socialist Equality Partys final general election rally, held Sunday at the Indian YMCA in the London constituency of Holborn and St Pancras, by stressing its extraordinary international character.

To build a mass, international socialist anti-war movement in the UK meant breaking once and for all with the rotten, right wing, pro-big business, anti-working class, genocide enabling, warmongers of the Labour Party. But this meant recognising that all the major problems confronting the working class can only be fought on an international level.

The meetings platform featured many of the principal leaders of the party that the working class needs to wage this struggle, the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution founded by Leon Trotsky.

Darren Paxton, the SEPs candidate for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-Shire, began with an appeal to support the campaign for the release of Bogdan Syrotiuk. The 25-year-old leader of the Young Guard of Bolshevik Leninists was arrested on April 25 by the Zelensky regime, working closely with the Biden administration, for opposing imperialist-provoked war and advocating for the socialist unity of Ukrainian and Russian workers.

Paxton welcomed the freedom of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, victimised and imprisoned by US and British imperialism for opposing war and war crimes. I am one of thousands of young people worldwide who learned about Assanges case through the WSWS, he said. All of us in the partys branch in Inverness, all in our early 20s, have been educated politically in the fight for Assanges freedom.

He warned that Though Assange is free, the global capitalist offensive against democratic rights is only accelerating and the sharpest expression of the crackdown on democratic rights in the service of imperialist war is in Ukraine. Bogdan has been accused of high treason and faces life imprisonment, but by organising a global picket outside Ukrainian embassies on June 13, We have put the Ukrainian government and its NATO backers on notice that we intend to redouble our global campaign for his release.

Alex Lantier brought the fraternal greetings of the Parti de lgalit socialiste of France on the day of the first round of snap elections in that country in which the neo-fascist National Rally (RN) is in striking distance of a parliamentary majority.

Lantier explained that what unites the snap elections called on both sides of the Channel is that NATO is preparing a massive escalation of war with Russia and class war at home. The decisive question facing workers not only in Britain, or in France, but around the world is how to fight capitalisms plunge into world war and fascistic reaction.

The ruling class is discussing how to rule against the people to wage war. This could take the form of a far-right regime led by Le Pens RN, or Macron possibly suspending parliamentary democracy and granting himself emergency dictatorial powers of indefinite duration, unchecked by parliament or the courts.

Fundamentally, Workers cannot pressure capitalist politicians to find a democratic policy on the national soil, because the capitalist class does not ultimately want democracy. It wants dictatorship and war. This underlies the bankruptcy of the electoral strategy proposed by the New Popular Front coalition led by Jean-Luc Mlenchonthe French ally of Podemos in Spain, the Democratic Socialists of America, and Jeremy Corbyn.

The New Popular Front is a pro-war trap for the working class. Bringing together the Socialist Party, Communist Party, the Pabloite New Anti-capitalist Party, and Mlenchons France Unbowed, it supports Macrons war with Russia and the French police state.

Lantier explained: The rise of the far right is not the result of mass support for genocide and war. It is the product of the systematic disenfranchisement of workers by the nationalist bureaucrats that the media and the ruling class promote as the left The decisive issue is the forging an international, revolutionary movement in the working class against imperialist war and fascism, and for socialism.

Christoph Vandreier, national secretary of the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei, is the author of Why are they Back? Historical falsification, Political Conspiracy and the return of Fascism in Germany.

The partys lead candidate in the European elections explained that the successes of the far-right were not the result of a fascist mass movement, as was the case in Germany in the 1930s. If the right can also win votes among workers, it is because of the bankruptcy of the pseudo-left, which, like Syriza in Greece and the Left Party in Germany, pushed through the worst social cuts and promoted war policies in the name of left-wing politics. The shift to the right is not coming from below, but from above.

Vandreier said, It is the height of cynicism when the German elites use the fight against antisemitism as an ideological lubricant for the new war machine and the suppression of resistance to it It is not the millions of workers and young people who are showing solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians, but the ruling class that is once again taking up the brown traditions of the Nazis by rolling German tanks against Russia, declaring genocide to be a reason of state, and arming the Bundeswehr on a scale not seen since Hitler.

Vandreier insisted, Our struggle against the falsification of history has shown how important the struggle on the ideological front is. On this basis, we achieved important success at Humboldt University in the last [student] elections, winning 7.7 percent of the vote. At the same time, the German secret service stepped up its action against us and added the IYSSE [the SEP/SGPs youth movement] to the list of extremist organisations alongside the SGP The working class can only defend its rights, can only prevent the catastrophe of a world war, if it bases itself on historical truth and the lessons of history.

Joseph Kishore is the national secretary and presidential candidate for the Socialist Equality Party in the United States. Referring to the presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump as one of the most degraded spectacles in American political history, Kishore noted that media commentary has focused on the cognitive decline of the American president and his possible replacement. But what would be the aim of a change in the candidate of the Democratic Party? What policies would it be intended to facilitate?

Kishores answer was War Such are the real priorities of the Democratic Party, whether Biden is at its head or someone else. It is a party of war, of imperialism, of the military-intelligence apparatus, of Wall Street, and the corporate-financial oligarchy that is directing this increasingly reckless militarist policy.

Bidens opponent Trump, is a fascistic conman who, just three-and-a-half years ago, staged a coup that was aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 election and establishing a personalist dictatorship

That Trump could very well win the presidency in the upcoming elections is the product of, on the one hand, the turn of the ruling elites toward authoritarianism and dictatorship, and, on the other hand, the thoroughly right-wing character of the official opposition... To speak of a lesser evil between these two parties is politically meaningless. They are two representatives of a corporate and financial oligarchy that is driving the entire world toward catastrophe.

Kishore explained that We live in a period of shocks, sharp transformations, of mass protests and demonstrations, of snap elections and the downfall of governments. The situation can shift very rapidly. The critical question is the development, within the working class, of a political leadership capable of orienting the masses toward the conquest of power and the socialist transformation of economic and social life.

Tom Scripps is the Socialist Equality Partys general election candidate for Holborn and St Pancras and the assistant national secretary of the British section.

Scripps explained that Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called a snap poll because he was told to do so by Washington and those in the British state closest to the White House and the Pentagon A new government was needed to wage war, even if this meant Sunak falling on his sword. And the overwhelming choice to lead it in ruling circles is the Labour Party.

The SEP was alone in alerting the working class to these dangers. Any candidates standing to protest the genocide in Gaza, such as Andrew Feinstein in Holborn and St Pancras, who mostly take their cue from former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, do so while refusing to make the obvious connection between British imperialisms support for mass murder and ethnic cleansing by Israel and the war it provoked in Ukraine that has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and will cost far more unless it is stopped.

Scripps insisted, We oppose the Labour Party as a whole, including the handful of lefts who cry crocodile tears for Gaza while planning to take their seats on Starmers government benches. The working class, especially the younger generation, need to understand that war is the major issue on which a new socialist movement must be built.

Starmer and the Labour Party are not going to have it all their own way, said Scripps. Theirs will be a government of crisis and class struggle. Our task is to train political leaders who can intervene, educate and win large numbers of workers and young people looking for a way forward against war, austerity and authoritarianism, to a socialist perspective. That is the purpose of our campaign in this election.

See more here:
UK Socialist Equality Party election rally advances socialist and internationalist opposition to war - WSWS

The latest meeting of the Council of Ministers brought new "pearls of wisdom" from leader Miguel Daz-Canel, who once again emphasized the centrality of the socialist model in Cuba's economy.

Gathered on Monday in the halls of the so-called Palace of the Revolution, the assembly evaluated various economic issues affecting the country's macroeconomic stability, with a particular focus on the activities of the "new economic actors."

Focusing on the campaign against "crimes and illegalities," the Cuban leader addressed the "distortions" introduced by these "new actors" that complicate macroeconomic stabilization. He cited reasons such as their "violations of established norms" and the growing corruption in the country.

To them, Daz-Canel issued a warning: "No one here needs to worry if they are operating legally and doing things correctly."

"It was always definedwhen the economic and social [socialist] model was recognized by the Army Generalthat the non-state sector of the economy had to work legally, as a complement to the economy, and had to pay taxes. These three things are being violated in some way. Therefore, we need to combat this," he asserted.

However, the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) also acknowledged that state entities are also at fault for the issues with these "new actors."

"I insist, and I have always said, wherever there is a distortion of this kind, there was poor work, poor performance from the state entity that was related to that non-state entity," Daz-Canel noted.

The report from the Cuban Television News (NTV) captured another moment of the meeting during which the leader, appointed by Ral Castro, concluded with a "pearl" of his political, economic, and philosophical wisdom.

"[We are here] with the conviction that all of us are here to save the revolution and to save socialism. And remember that building socialism requires consciousness... it requires consciousness... and it requires the formation of a person who acts differently in society," Daz-Canel remarked.

To further comprehend the implications of Daz-Canel's statements during the Council of Ministers meeting, here are some frequently asked questions and their answers:

The "new economic actors" refer to the non-state sector of the Cuban economy, including private businesses and cooperatives, which have been given more space to operate within the country's socialist framework.

Daz-Canel stresses legality and tax payment to ensure that all economic activities align with the socialist principles and contribute to the state's revenue, preventing distortions and corruption within the economy.

Daz-Canel's stance fosters a more regulated and controlled relationship between state and non-state entities, ensuring that the latter operates within legal boundaries and contributes to the national economy without causing macroeconomic instability.

Excerpt from:
Cuban Leader Daz-Canel Reminds Business Owners: "We're All Here to Save the Revolution and Socialism" - Cuba Headlines

Socialist Party statement

Not just booted out. The Tories have been crushed. The electorate has punished them for fourteen years of austerity, attacks on the working class, lies and corruption. Less than seven million people went out and voted for the Tory Party, its lowest vote in a century. Ten cabinet ministers and 250 Tory MPs have lost their seats, the biggest losses ever suffered by an outgoing government in Britain. Rishi Sunaks only achievement is that there is still a Tory MP in his constituency alone among the constituencies of the last five Tory prime ministers. Over breakfast on 5 July, millions got to enjoy seeing ex-prime minister Liz Truss booted out as MP for South West Norfolk a seat which previously had a 24,180 majority.

The result, in terms of the number of seats, is a Labour landslide, just shy of Tony Blairs New Labour victory in 1997. But enthusiasm for Keir Starmers Labour was absent from this general election. The absolute vote for Labour was 9.6 million, lower than the 10.2 million vote Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour got in 2019, never mind the 12.8 million he got in 2017. Labours vote share, at around 34%, is the lowest ever for a general election victor, whereas in 2017 Corbyn got 40% of the vote, the biggest jump for a national party in one election since 1945.

The absolute vote for Labour was 9.6 million, lower than the 10.2 million vote Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour got in 2019, never mind the 12.8 million he got in 2017

The turnout, at less than 60%, was at least as low as 2001, and perhaps the lowest ever in a general election. None of this, of course, has stopped spokespeople for Labour, echoed by the capitalist media, spending election night endlessly repeating how it was only Starmers successful change in the party (in reality into pro-capitalist New Labour) that had allowed them to go from the allegedly worst election result since 1935 in 2019 to victory in 2024.

In reality, voters picked up whichever they saw as the most effective weapon they could find to defeat a government which has presided over a massive fall in living standards. In 2022/23 the government faced the biggest strike wave since the 1980s: now came the electoral follow through. In Scotland that also meant using Labour to punish the SNP Scottish government, but in England it was the Tories that were the governmental enemy. As a result, while Labours vote share in England was no higher than in 2019, many Tory seats had swings to Labour but, in seats Labour already held record numbers stayed at home or voted for other parties. In Wales the process was similar, although Labours vote share actually fell from 2019, reflecting anger at the austerity that has also been inflicted by the Labour-led Senedd: the Welsh parliament.

In other seats, particularly in the so-called Surrey stockbroker belt and the south west of England, it was the Liberal Democrats who were seen as the best means to defeat the Tories. As a result they gained an extra 63 seats, while only increasing their overall share of the vote by 0.6%.

However, for many trade unionists and socialists, the most concerning thing about the election result will be the support for Nigel Farages right-populist Reform Party. Reform won four MPs, but its absolute vote was just over four million, half-a-million higher than the Liberal Democrats. This is a warning for the future, and the danger of right-populist, racist forces stepping into the vacuum as anger with the incoming Labour government grows. Nonetheless, at this stage Reforms vote was not the breakthrough that the capitalist media are suggesting. The direct predecessor of Reform, the Brexit Party, got more than five million votes in the 2019 European elections, and its incarnation before that UKIP got close to four million votes in the 2015 general election.

Reforms vote was just over 4 million. Its predecessor the Brexit Party got more than 5 million votes in the 2019 European elections, and its incarnation before that UKIP got close to 4 million votes in the 2015 general election

What has changed in 2024 is the complete collapse of the Tory vote. Historically this was the most successful capitalist party on the planet. In the 1950s it had almost three million members, now it has been reduced to little more than a few rats fighting in a sack. Without doubt, in the aftermath of the election, there will be further battles in and around the Tory party, as the more serious representatives of capitalism fight with the Tory populist right for control of the wreckage of their party.

However, ultimately the Tories unpopularity stems from their acting in the interests of British capitalism, which has presided over falling real wages, rising living costs, and collapsing public services. Today, on 5 July, 2024, the mood of millions has been lifted by the successful eviction of the Tories, but unfortunately the incoming government has promised, in essence, a continuation of Tory policies. Sticking by the Tories fiscal rules, as Starmer has pledged to do, would mean if growth averages 1.1% per year, as it has since 2008 a black hole in the public finances of around 60 billion. In other words Starmers Labour, acting in the interests of British capitalism, is set to oversee a new era of yet more austerity, including tax rises and attacks on the living conditions of the working-class majority. That is why the Sun, the Sunday Times, The Economist and the Financial Times all supported Starmer, reflecting the majority of the capitalist classes preference for a Labour government, something unimaginable when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.

What conclusion does the workers movement need to draw from this? Not that nothing will change, but that we will have to be prepared to fight for things to change. One YouGov poll in the week of the election found that only 2% of Labour voters expect the incoming Labour to cut public services. That shows that, despite all of Starmers attempts to dampen workers expectations about how very little change he will actually deliver, it is inevitable that some hopes are raised by the Tories exit. Starmer, however, has made clear that he does not intend to restore the 40% of government funding cut from councils, or make up for the 10% plus real-terms pay cut suffered since 2010 by teachers, nurses, civil servants, doctors and other public sector workers. Nor has he pledged to renationalise steel, mail, water, or other privatised utilities.

The strike wave against the Tory government demonstrated graphically how collective action can win results, but now the trade union movement needs to prepare to fight for workers interests under Starmers Labour, rejecting the inevitable attempts of some trade union leaders to try and act as a cover for Labour when it attacks workers interests. A Starmer administration would not be the first capitalist government to, for example, increase public sector pay or to make concessions to students facing poverty and huge debts. None of this will be achieved by asking nicely, however, but will require mass workers struggle.

And the workers movement also needs to create a political voice, to fight for the interests of the working class in parliament, giving voice to the struggles in our workplaces and communities. In the run up to this election the Socialist Party fought for a workers list of candidates, arguing that even a small bloc of workers MPs in the next parliament would put pressure on Starmer from the left, and prepare the ground for the building of a mass workers party under the next parliament. Some, justifying a Labour vote, argued that the first-past-the-post system made it impossible to stand outside the major establishment parties, and that electing a handful of MPs could make no difference. Yet the election of just four MPs for both the Greens and Reform has already created waves, and gives a glimpse of what a bloc of workers MPs could have achieved.

Imagine if when, at the height of the strike wave, Enough is Enough was launched by prominent trade union leaders, and half a million people joined, it had been a new political party fighting for the working class, rather than a nebulous campaign. It certainly could have got a bloc of MPs elected. It would also have been the best means to start to cut across the Reform vote. Remember that, in 2017, more than a million UKIP voters switched to Corbyn, demonstrating the potential to win workers voting for the right populists to an anti-austerity programme.

Of course, that is not how events unfolded. The Socialist Party participates in the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), an electoral coalition which aims to enable trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists who are fighting for a new mass workers party to stand candidates against pro-austerity, pro-war, establishment politicians under a clear banner. TUSC strove to bring together different forces under one umbrella but, while TUSC stood forty candidates on a fighting socialist programme, many others stood as independents or under other banners. As a result, rather than a clear workers list in this election, we had a kaleidoscope of different independent and left candidates, which, while some got good votes, made a limited impact.

However, almost two million people voted for the Green Party, which stood on a Corbynite programme, indicating the search for a left alternative in this election. However, unfortunately the Greens are not a workers party, with no democratic rights for trade unions within it. And while there are socialists in the Green Party, they have made clear they are not a socialist party. For all they won votes by adopting aspects of Jeremy Corbyns programme, they also stood against him in Islington North. Despite this, he won his seat as an independent, offering an opportunity to begin building a left bloc in parliament that, for example, can voice the demands of the public sector trade unions and the Tata Steel workers in the coming weeks and months. If the four new Green MPs are willing to act as part of that bloc, that will, of course, be very welcome, and would allow the Greens to play a positive role in the fight for a mass party of the working class.

In addition to Jeremy Corbyn and the Greens, there were other candidates who were elected by voters who wanted to protest to the left. Across the country, Labours vote fell markedly in areas with large numbers of voters from a Muslim background, reflecting the deep anger with Starmers support for the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Despite our differences with him, it is unfortunate that George Galloway, standing for the Workers Party, narrowly lost Rochdale, the seat he had won in the by-election a few months earlier. However, in four seats independent candidates standing against the onslaught on Gaza won victories: Leicester South, Birmingham Perry Barr, Blackburn and Dewsbury. Arch-New Labourite Wes Streeting in Ilford North was also nearly ejected by an anti-war independent. The four independent victories are welcome, but if they are to be a step towards building a workers bloc in parliament it is important that the new MPs combine a battle on Gaza with all the other issues facing the working class in Britain, seeing themselves as representatives of the whole working class rather than just one section of it.

The crisis of British capitalism is increasingly being reflected in the volatility of politics. Labour have been swept to power in a landslide, but so was Boris Johnson at the head of the Tories five years ago. At the time we said it would be a pyrrhic victory, but the same will also be true for Starmers Labour. Any capitalist government will face mass opposition because capitalism is offering only endless austerity for the working-class majority. Therefore, discussions on how the working class can build its own party, armed with a socialist programme, are being posed increasingly urgently.

The Socialist Party will argue for such a party to fight for the socialist transformation of society: for the nationalisation, under democratic workers control, of the major monopolies and banks that dominate the economy, with compensation paid only on the basis of proven need. This is a vital step to breaking the stranglehold of the capitalist class, and laying the basis for the development of a socialist plan of production, where all the science and technique created by capitalism could be harnessed and developed to meet the needs of all.

If you want to take part in the fight for socialism, join us today.

See more here:
Tories smashed - build the socialist opposition - Socialist Party

I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive. These were Labour leader Keir Starmers words in May 2024 shortly after his first speech of the election campaign. Labours constitution defines it as a democratic socialist party. So, in theory, Starmer is a socialist.

But what is socialism? One concept of socialism characterises it as being about collective ownership in pursuit of the public good, over private ownership for profit.

Some see a commitment to economic equality as what distinguishes socialism from other ideologies. Others specify co-operation and community reigning over individualism as defining socialism. Or, socialism can be seen as a movement for, or of, the working class.

Whichever it is, democratic socialism is about building a society beyond capitalism.

The day after Starmer proclaimed himself a socialist, his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves was asked about his statement and responded that she was a social democrat. Social democracy is about socialism, but within capitalism rather than beyond it.

Reeves definition of social democracy in terms of equal opportunities, good public services, and secure work that pays (very much in tune with Starmers platform) does not go as far as socialism within capitalism. Others across the political spectrum could agree with the values she outlined.

Starmer was active in socialist politics in his youth. But we should decide where he stands by what he says and does now. Labours purges of socialists in the party have led some to conclude that Starmer wants rid of those who might try to hold him to socialist principles.

What do Starmers statements of values and principles tell us? In 2020 he argued for moral socialism, so an approach that is based on values as much as structures.

He highlighted injustice especially, but also inequality. Theres a left-of-centre or even socialist tone to the moral socialism he advocated then. But was he just trying to win over Corbynite members for his party leadership bid?

In a 2021 pamphlet on his philosophy as leader Starmer shifted to values of security and opportunity, which he has since continued to put centre stage. He said class holds people back, stressed community over individualism, and active government over the free market.

You dont have to be a socialist to believe in security and opportunity. However, class inequality, community, and active government have left-of-centre or socialist connotations.

But the proof of a philosophy is in the practice. Labour will set up Great British Energy, a publicly owned company to invest in renewables. Starmer says he will bring passenger train services in-house, and facilitate municipal insourcing and ownership, and more co-ops.

These are small steps to more collective ownership in the economy and public services. But social ownership could be much more widespread, especially given public support for it, including for the energy utilities, water supply and the Royal Mail.

Starmer talks about the tackling the class ceiling for working class people and about inequality, especially in policies (or intentions) on education and the new deal for working people. But the emphasis is on equal or minimum opportunities for all rather than a more economically equal society.

He will fund policies by clamping down on tax breaks for the privileged and a windfall tax on energy utilities. But significant redistributional changes to the tax structure, on income or wealth, arent proposed.

Starmer expresses sentiments of community and co-operation over individualism. But these tend to be used in relation to policies on security, devolution, localities, a more active state, or partnership with business, rather than institutions of a more specifically socialist sort.

In fact, Starmers perspective on community has metamorphosed into advocacy of a contribution society. This is used to mean varying things, such as that people and business should contribute rather than being individualistic, and that their contribution should be rewarded decently. This is about responsibility and reward as much as community in a socialist sense.

If socialism on the definitions Ive outlined isnt being proposed by Starmer, it could be that hes redefining socialism for modern Britain. If this involves new means for pursuing socialism, hes not propounding this.

If its redefining socialism as something beyond collective ownership, equality, and co-operation, thats not rethinking socialism for a new era. Its dropping what makes socialism distinctive.

If it involves a more intersectional socialism, Starmer is proposing measures on race equality and violence against women, but these match his self-description as progressive more than being socialist.

Starmer could be putting forward limited policies for the general election, only to then come out as more leftist in office. Active government could be extended to wider social ownership; opportunities for the working class expanded to a more equal structure to society, a foundation also for greater community. Starmer is not advocating such a route. But down it, he could just have a case for calling himself a socialist.

Read this article:
Is Keir Starmer a socialist? - The Conversation Indonesia

Photo: IMAGO / Frank Sorge

As you pass Schneberg on the Ring, the Gasometer towers above you. This round 78-metre-tall steel skeleton once held coal gas, and is currently being converted into an office building. The Gasometer marks the entrance to a sectioned-off neighbourhood known as the Rote Insel, or Red Island just like the Argonath, the enormous twin statues at the gates of Gondor.

This triangular part of Schneberg, marked by the S-Bahn stations Schneberg, Sdkreuz and Gleisdreieck, is called an island because it is completely cut off from the rest of the district by the train tracks enclosing it. All the way back in 1838, the Berlin-Potsdam rail line (todays S1) was built through empty fields next to what was then the village of Schneberg. In 1841, the Berlin-Anhalt line (todays S2 and S25) opened a few hundred metres to the east, creating a wedge shape. When the first part of the Ringbahn was built in 1871, the triangle was enclosed. At the time, no one but a few farmers took notice, who must have cursed when they had to cross train tracks to reach their fields.

The only way in or out involved bridges or tunnels across the tracks

As Schneberg grew explosively during the Grnderzeit era in the late 19th century from less than 5,000 people in 1871 to over 60,000 before the end of the century this cheap farmland on the wrong side of the tracks was snatched up to build cheap housing. The narrow blocks were filled with tenements, and by 1905, 30,000 people were crammed together on what became known as the Island. The only way in or out then as now involved bridges or tunnels across the tracks. To get a feeling for just how crowded it once was, today some 10,000 live in more or less the same buildings.

But why is the Island red? Thats less obvious. One theory goes back to 1878: after the 81-year-old Kaiser Wilhelm I survived an attempt on his life during an open-carriage ride along Unter den Linden, a beer distributor on Sedanstrae (todays Leberstrae) hung a red flag from his window, defying the new Anti-Socialist-Laws. This man was sent into exile, but he established the neighbourhoods reputation for redness. The Island was indeed a socialist stronghold not as red as proletarian districts like Moabit, Wedding or Neuklln, but red by the standards of otherwise bourgeois, liberal Schneberg. In 1903, some 70% of the Islands residents voted for the SPD.

But red might refer to something much more literal. At the end of the 19th century, the red-bricked barracks of General-Pape-Strae were built just across the tracks, east of the Island, where the military had enormous parade grounds. These buildings housed, among other things, the Prussian Railway Regiments who built tracks for transporting troops and weapons. Those railways proved their value in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, in World War I and in colonial expeditions in Namibia, then Deutsch Sdwest-Afrika. This was also the site of early military experiments with airships. The Railway Regiments were dissolved in 1919, but many of their buildings still stand, and have been used for a mishmash of small businesses since.

After the soldiers left, the Island was rocked by new forms of fighting. In the early 1930s, Sedanstrae was full of red flags, while just one block over, Naumannstrae was dominated by swastikas: a contrast that would soon make the neighbourhood red in another way entirely.

On September 6, 1929, up to 100 uniformed Nazis burst into a bar on Sedanstrae, demolishing the furniture and injuring numerous customers. This was no isolated incident; Nazis often violently attacked Communists as part of a strategy of tension, creating tumult on the streets and then telling the ruling class that theyd help them quell the violence. Local bartender Emil Potratzs Kneipe was the main Communist hangout on the Island. After the riot, a dozen or so Nazis were arrested, some with illegal firearms, but not one was convicted. Weimar Germanys justice system was blind in its right eye, so workers felt compelled to make their own justice. In the 10 days after the attack, 14 Nazis were injured on the Red Island.

The Nazis needed extreme measures to pacify the Red Island

The NSDAP could never establish much of a stronghold on the Island; the train tracks made it into something of a fortress. Even after the Nazis had seized power in 1933, a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Nazi paramilitary force, was shot and killed on Torgauer Strae, right past a bridge to enter the neighbourhood. For a dozen years, the red Sedanstrae was officially named after that Nazi, before it was renamed Leberstrae.

The most famous daughter of the Red Island, honoured by two different historical plaques, is Marlene Dietrich, who was born in the building that is todays Leberstrae 65 and later left Nazi Germany, becoming a US citizen in 1939 and renouncing her German citizenship. Asked whether she would return to her Heimat after 1945, the actress famously answered, Germany? Never again!

The Nazis needed extreme measures to pacify the Red Island. The SA set up a concentration camp in one of the red-brick buildings of the Papestrae barracks, just across the tracks. Hundreds of people were imprisoned and tortured there in early 1933. After the war, many people claimed they had no idea about the Nazis crimes, but the prison was and is surrounded by apartments. Since 2011, the basement has been a public memorial, the SA-Gefngnis Papestrae.

Just across the tracks, at Naumannstrae 78, the expressionist poet Paul Zech was trying to write down what he was experiencing in the first months of the Nazi dictatorship. Zech wrote what he called a factual novel, looking at how different social layers on the Red Island adapted to fascism, or tried to resist. He wrote the first part of his novel at home but soon fled to Argentina, where he finished his tome, for which he never found a publisher. Rediscovered in an archive, Zechs Deutschland, dein Tnzer ist der Tod (Germany, your dancer is death) was finally published in 1981 in East Germany.

After many of the old Communists had been imprisoned or killed, a new resident of the Island took up the antifascist struggle. Julius Leber, once a Social Democratic leader in Lbeck, had spent several years in prison. After he was released in 1937, he took over a coal depot on Torgauer Strae, next to the train tracks. While delivering coal all over Berlin, Leber also held secret meetings with leaders of different resistance groups. His shack was a real conspirators den, in the words of Theodor Heuss, later the Federal President.

Leber, now the namesake of one of the bridges leading out of the Red Island, coordinated with both Communists and the aristocratic officers who tried to assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. A Nazi judge denounced him as the Lenin of the German workers movement, and Leber was executed in early 1945. Lebers wife, Annelore, kept the coal business running after the war while publishing books about the resistance. A version of the shack is still standing and is supposed to become a memorial soon.

The Red Island was almost destroyed twice. The first attempt was made by architect Albert Speer, Hitlers general building inspector tasked with creating the World Capital Germania. Speer envisioned a massive road, the so-called North-South Axis, for military parades, lined with monumental government buildings. The southern end would be marked by the worlds largest triumphal arch.

To test if it was possible to build such a colossus on Berlins sandy ground, the Nazis put up a concrete cylinder: the Schwerbelastungskrper, or Heavy Load-Bearing Body. Speers engineers began the work of demolishing the neighbourhood, starting by moving graves at the Old St. Matthew Cemetery at the north end of the Red Island. Fortunately, they didnt get very far. Today, the cemetery is the resting place of the Brothers Grimm, the punk rocker Rio Reiser and the Afro-German poet May Ayim.

The Red Island was almost destroyed twice

After the war, post-fascist city planners continued with some of Speers ideas, hoping to build a six-lane highway from Schneberg to Moabit. The Sdtangente (Southern Tangential Road) would have cut right through the Island. But in 1974, young socialists started organising to save the Cheruskerpark, and after several decades, the plans for an inner-city Autobahn were abandoned. A freeway crossing to nowhere, the Autobahnkreuz Schneberg, is all that remains.

The most famous monument to the Red Island today is actually outside the neighbourhood. Go through the tunnel at S-Bahnhof Yorckstrae to Mansteinstrae, and youll see a graffiti-coloured apartment building also known as Rote Insel. This was occupied in early 1981 the first squat in Schneberg and has been used by leftists ever since. Standing next to fancy new apartment buildings, its a reminder that the Red Island, Berlins only fortified Kiez, has always been very different from its surroundings.

See the original post:
Assassinations, socialism and conspirators dens: Inside Berlins Rote Insel - The Berliner