by Interventionistische Linke (Germany)
The continuous rise of fascism, the intensifying climate crisis, and a new era marked by war and militarization – the world is undergoing dramatic and unsettling changes. This polycrisis is taking a heavy toll on the left. When we began our journey, we were inspired by a world of uprisings and hope, shaping our strategies and tactics around that mindset. While some of these approaches may have yielded results, others fell short, united by a common challenge: the lack of tangible, material change.
At the same time, the left seems to have entered a state of paralysis. In the wake of the pandemic, many movements have gone silent, grassroots groups have dissolved, or – as in the German context – placed their hopes in a mid-left government that has yet to deliver on transformative promises. On a transnational level, we see similar patterns: fragmentation, fatigue, and a growing disconnection from the urgency of the crises unfolding around us.
Yet, as the walls of the capitalist system close in, the need for meaningful change has never been more pressing. This paradox – a paralyzed left against the relentless march of capitalism – calls for a critical response. Now more than ever, we see the need to unite with our comrades, to come together and confront these immense challenges.
The following document is not the full picture but rather a summary of the paper we have published [find the full text in English here: https://interventionistische-linke.org/sites/default/files/zsp_english.pdf and in German here: https://interventionistische-linke.org/zwischenstandspapier-2] – a starting point for broader discussions and deeper analysis. We offer it as a framework for dialogue, not a final answer. We do not claim to have all the solutions, nor is this a fixed agenda. Instead, we see this as the beginning of a collective process – an invitation to come together, to reflect on the crises shaping our world, and to reorient ourselves in their midst. We have gone through a long process of discussion and writing, at the end of which this document stands. It was written before the collapse of the German government and some things might already seem outdated. The situation is constantly changing, and we need new answers to new questions.
We know that we cannot face these difficulties alone. This is why we are publishing this document on the TSS website. Particularly in these times, transnational dialogue offers us a unique opportunity: to move beyond national silos and uncover the shared challenges, strategies, and solidarities that can connect us. By finding common ground across borders, we can strengthen our ability to confront the crises we face and envision new possibilities together.
This is not just a moment of reflection – it is the start of a process. We look forward to you joining us, critiquing with us, and shaping this journey together.
1. Ten years since becoming an organization, the world has changed significantly, and so has the radical left. After years of strong political movements, we now see a paralysis of the left, including within our own ranks. Our strategies and tactics no longer seem suited to the world we live in. Therefore, we need to re-evaluate our analysis, strategy, and tactics to continue the fight.
Our aim has always been to get out of the bubble and into the heart of social conflicts. The Interventionist Left began its work with this ambition almost 20 years ago. We sought to build a radical left embedded in society: to be visible and approachable, to fight for political hegemony, and to organize counterpower.
Today, the Interventionist Left is one of the largest radical left organizations in the German-speaking world. We have evolved from a loose association of local groups into an interregional organization based on principles of direct democracy. Yet the current outlook for the future is grim, and the left is on the defensive in many parts of the world.
What we need right now is a left-wing alternative that offers hope and direction. It is high time, therefore, to re-evaluate our strategies and practices. We have deliberated on many questions and debated them extensively. Nonetheless, many of our discussions are still in their early stages. This paper represents the results of our dialogues thus far.
Those seeking easy answers here will be disappointed. A new reformism that, in the face of the shift to the right and the climate crisis, dares only to tackle what current institutions can address is too simplistic. Superficially turning back to the working class—an approach that often devolves into dogmatism and authoritarianism—is too simplistic. Likewise, identity politics that fixates on identities rather than questioning them, with little encouragement for a common struggle for a better world, is too simplistic. In contrast, we want to be a radical left that continues to uphold the possibility of changing everything, even in dark times. A radical left that is organized and present in everyday life, that recognizes opportunities and seizes them decisively, that expands small ruptures into large ones, and takes the gamble on revolution. We hold firmly to this aspiration and promise. This is why we organize ourselves.
Organizing helps us overcome individual powerlessness and fosters self-empowerment. It enables new, collective forms of connection that are essential for building a society beyond capitalist competition. Through organizing, we rise above the chaos of the present and fight for a better future. Hope cannot come from above; it can only emerge from revolts, struggles, and movements from below.
Black Lives Matter, #NiUnaMenos, and Fridays for Future are global movements against intolerable conditions. Their protests have drawn more people than ever over the past decade. Many struggles do not transcend national borders but are similar in form and content. Today’s movements also share a common theme, though it is difficult to define precisely: everywhere, matters of life and survival are at the forefront.
2. The world has become a place of overlapping crises, all bound together by the shared struggle for survival. In response, we see the rise of authoritarian and militaristic states, led either by supposedly progressive parties or right-wing anti-democrats. Yet, neither approach offers viable solutions. Paradoxically, power has generally solidified within the central states, as capitalism has normalized its own existence. However, the cracks and fault lines within capitalist production persist, with the potential for these fissures to expand.
Wars, the pandemic, the climate crisis, alongside poverty, growing social inequality, the shift to the right, and crises of social reproduction: we are living in an age of permanent crises. The climate crisis threatens the livelihoods of all human societies. Ecological instability and social inequality have intensified as a result, along with increases in violence, exclusion, and isolation. This shift profoundly impacts the conditions for left-wing and radical left-wing politics.
Simultaneously, wars—such as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine or the conflict in Gaza—threaten the lives of millions. The geostrategic rivalry between the U.S. and China, currently conducted as an economic war, harbors the potential for global escalation. The illusion of an era of peace has been shattered.
Conventional capitalism is functioning less and less effectively: large portions of global capital can no longer be invested profitably in the means of production. As a result, capital seeks out new areas for profitable investments in financial markets, though no viable new accumulation regime has emerged. Thus, capital increasingly flows into the privatization of land and resources, as well as the financialization of essential life areas such as housing, healthcare, care services, social security for the elderly, and digital communication. This trend is depriving an increasing number of people of access to clean drinking water, healthcare, and even food. Consequently, impoverishment, hunger, and refugee migration are all on the rise globally.
The ruling class’s responses to the global multitude of crises appear chaotic and fragmented. They waver between supposedly progressive green-capitalist modernization efforts, which pay lip service to civil liberties, and openly authoritarian, right-wing conservative to fascist policies. Despite the apparent contradictions, both approaches enable a small minority to insulate themselves along with their exponentially growing wealth, while the majority must bear the consequences of these crises. Neither approach, however, addresses the glaring contradiction between the interests of global capital and the basic survival needs of humanity as a whole.
Colonial exploitation, cheap natural resources, and fossil-fuel extraction have made the capitalist centers of the West rich and powerful. This exploitation enabled the class compromise that took shape in industrialized societies after World War II, allowing large portions of society to partake in consumerism and prosperity. To this day, the “imperial mode of living” can only be sustained in a small part of the world, supported by neo-colonial exploitation and unrestrained consumption of resources and fossil fuels. It is, of course, primarily the rich and wealthy who benefit, even as social inequality within capitalist centers continues to grow. Many people in these centers view any shifts in these conditions as a threat to their way of life, partly because such changes, under the current power dynamics, affect the majority rather than the wealthy. This mechanism poses a significant obstacle to building broad-based resistance against border regimes, institutional racism, and efforts for meaningful climate policy.
3. In today’s neoliberal capitalism, two competing political projects vie for hegemony: a liberal project of green modernization contrasts with an openly authoritarian, sometimes fascist, project rooted in fossil-fuel dependency. While the former seeks to modernize capitalism through a new accumulation regime, the latter clings to an older societal structure in both economic and socio-political terms. As capitalist and globally imperialist regimes, these transitions are fluid, with political actors often moving between them.
The project of “green capitalism” promises to address the climate crisis through ecological modernization while creating new profit opportunities. By this logic, the capitalist modes of production and lifestyle could be sustained long-term, while preserving ecological resources. Central to this false promise is the idea of decoupling economic growth from resource consumption through technological advances and ecological restructuring. Consequently, green modernization does not need to ignore or deny the climate crisis, as the right-wing project does. For this reason, international institutions such as the UN, WTO, and EU predominantly support this perspective.
In the capitalist centers of Western Europe and North America, green modernization aligns closely with “progressive” neoliberalism. It gains support primarily through recognition policies that adopt aspects of demands from social movements but dilute and reinterpret them to fit capitalist logic. Modern capitalism thus presents itself as a defender of individual liberties and liberal values, which are central to the self-image of the green-progressive bloc. However, the defense of liberal values and supposed progressive politics within this project remains superficial. Ultimately, capitalism and the imperialist mode of living cannot exist without closed borders, racial inequality, militarization, and repression—a fact made even more pressing by the inevitable consequences of the climate crisis.
In contrast, conservatives, market radicals, and even right-wing and fascist forces have formed a distinct right-wing project. This coalition, with varying formations depending on the country, competes fiercely with the progressive-green project for dominance. In Germany, this shift has fully taken hold with the electoral success of the AfD and the CDU’s shift to the right under current leader Friedrich Merz.
Despite pervasive crises and rising insecurity, the right-wing project promises stability by advocating isolationism, climate denial, and the preservation of patriarchal privileges. To sustain this false promise of stability, longstanding racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, and anti-queer biases are deliberately mobilized and intensified. In traditional and social media, the right presents itself as a resistant, outspoken force. It benefits from the adoption of right-wing narratives across much of the media and political landscape, normalizing their harmful ideologies.
Neoliberals and right-wing actors share more than occasional ideological overlap; their cooperation extends beyond temporary alliances. This was especially evident during the “Querdenker*innen” movement (a broad coalition of critics initially protesting COVID-19 measures, which later incorporated opposition to “woke” politics; literally translated, the term means “lateral thinkers”). Here, neoliberal ideology took an authoritarian turn: extreme individualism and a self-centered understanding of freedom gave rise to aggression toward collective solidarity. In this way, the diffuse coalition of authoritarian libertarians and conspiracy theorists has expanded the base of the right-wing project. Additionally, religious fundamentalists have significantly strengthened their networks in recent years, increasingly forming alliances with segments of the right-wing bloc.
The threat posed by the right-wing authoritarian project begins long before any formal government involvement by the AfD. Racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and transphobic fantasies of violence do not remain confined to the virtual world but lead to real and often deadly violence. This was tragically demonstrated by the murders in Halle in 2019 and Hanau in 2020. Right-wing authoritarian figures continue to find a foothold within the police, intelligence services, and military, which remain rife with racism and Nazi-linked extremism. Right-wing networks still exist within the German security apparatus, which has never been fully de-Nazified, posing a significant threat to migrants in particular. The state cannot be solely relied upon to counter right-wing structures, as it rarely takes action unless its own monopoly on force is directly challenged. A strong anti-fascist movement would therefore be required to push the state into action.
4. However significant the polycrisis may be, our goal remains the revolutionary rupture.
We are driven by everyday rage against the oppressive structures of capitalism and a desire for a world that provides a good life for everyone, according to their needs and capabilities. Such a world cannot exist without abolishing capitalist private property, dismantling class structures and exploitation, and overcoming patriarchal and racist oppression and violence. Without a break from capitalism and its profit-driven logic, there can and will be no solidarity-based solutions to the existential crises and threats of the 21st century—neither in Germany and Europe nor globally. A radical democratization of all aspects of life is necessary to halt the systematic destruction of our basic foundations of existence.
We view revolution as a process through which the bourgeois state and its institutions are gradually overcome. In this context, parliamentary politics and majorities may, at best, play a secondary role. The system cannot be fundamentally altered without breaking its rules, and attempts to do so have consistently failed. Parties such as Die Linke, Syriza, and Podemos serve as examples of this failure. While we acknowledge the importance of political parties in a left-wing hegemonic project and collaborate with them in concrete struggles and campaigns, our ultimate objective is the long-term construction of societal power outside the state through the integration of revolutionary organizing and social movements.
Revolution transcends the mere overthrow of the existing economic and political order; it entails profound changes in our subjectivity and in our social relations in everyday life. Today, neoliberal individualization and indifference to suffering in other parts of the world are pervasive. It seems challenging to envision how we might interact and determine our lives in a liberated society. This highlights the urgency of transforming our relationships and ourselves on the path to liberation—so that isolation, masked as sovereignty, becomes collective freedom grounded in solidarity and interdependence.
5. While seeking to regain a more hegemonic stance, we must acknowledge that the radical left in the capitalist centers remains in a minority position.
One reason for the current crisis of the societal left is the absence of counterpower. We understand counterpower as the capacity to disrupt the decisions and policies of the ruling class while also implementing our own solutions. This requires collaboration among various groups on the left. The plurality of movements and organizations is not a problem that can be solved through the leadership of a single organization. We emphasize the strengthening of left movements as a whole, fostering connections and trust among them. Our task, as the organized radical left, is to sustain the experiences of the movement and elevate them to a new level. This sets us apart from individualistic and moralizing approaches within the left, which tend to focus on personal behavioral change without developing a collective vision for overcoming oppressive relations.
However, the radical left is structurally positioned as a minority in the capitalist centers. This situation impacts our relationship with the Global South as well as our connection to many interests of the majority of society here. Both dimensions are exacerbated by the fact that the capitalist promise of perpetual progress is reaching its limits in the wake of the climate crisis. The material conditions necessary for global justice are diminishing. As a result, the desire for security, authoritarianism, and closed borders is growing, driven by right-wing narratives—at the expense of people in the Global South, as well as migrants, women, intersex, transgender, and non-binary individuals here. In contrast to the green modernization project or reactionary initiatives, we do not promise endless growth in material wealth or that individuals can maintain their current way of life unchanged. Anyone who does so is deceiving themselves and others, and (sub)consciously aligning themselves on the wrong side of the barricade. We must confront the majority society on this issue if we want to seriously fight for global climate justice and against the rise of fortress capitalism.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that the conditions here are not devoid of potential rupture lines. Therefore, we do not retreat into a supposed radical position of pure criticism, even in light of our minority status. This is because rupture lines can be deepened by radical yet accessible politics. The climate crisis, pandemic, and war indicate that the Global North is no longer an island of stability where most people can continue their lives undisturbed. Here too, contradictions exist within the hegemonic mode of production and living. Here too, the question arises of who will bear the costs of these crises. We live in the midst of a planetary crisis. Under these conditions, a revolution is the only viable path to ensure a good life for everyone. Instead of adhering to moral indictments, we must intervene—assertively and radically. To do this, we need to seek alliances with those affected and with individuals who still value humanity and solidarity.
6. On a tactical level, there is a strong need to build new connections with those who are suffering in the polycrisis. Finding ways to fight alongside them is our major task for the future, whether through new forms of alliances or mass struggles such as strikes. This is not about better unions, but rather about politicizing the strike movement and demonstrating on a subjective level that fighting can be successful.
Working in alliances will continue to be a substantial part of our practice moving forward. Particularly in Eastern Germany and rural areas, left-wing politics are unthinkable without these alliances. In the face of the rise of the right, it is a matter of survival to come together in solidarity. We must develop the ability to secure victories against reactionary attacks and prevent further deterioration. In the future, we aim to scrutinize the merits of specific alliances and withdraw when they become ends in themselves. At the same time, a multitude of crises affect an increasing number of people—whether it be poverty, drought, or displacement due to war. Traditional alliances are reaching their limits in addressing these issues. We seek alliances and forms of organization that bring together those who are affected and those in solidarity with them.
The refusal of labor is a powerful material lever. Hard-fought grassroots strikes can be more than just a struggle for wages and labor conditions; they disrupt capitalist normality and can create spaces for collectivity, politicization, and organizing. Such struggles can connect and foster practical solidarity. To extend this leverage beyond collective bargaining, we must advocate for political strikes as a viable option in the medium term.
Together with other networks and groups, we have supported and accompanied labor struggles in solidarity over the past years, for example, in the health sector, public transport, and at Amazon. While we were able to contribute to the politicization of strikes, we have often remained in a supportive role. The full-time structures within trade unions regularly obstruct this progress. At the same time, we have attempted to establish the social strike as leverage in social movements, such as the feminist and climate strikes. Although this has strengthened the idea of political strikes within the movements, the concrete implementation has been largely unsuccessful so far. A broad societal base is still needed to give political strikes the necessary impact.
When refusal and disruption manifest at various points in society, they give rise to a real potential for counterpower that must be built and unified. Our perspective is clear: we want to create stronger links between different strike movements, politicize collective bargaining strikes, and strengthen both the material and social foundations of social strikes—from wage strikes to rent strikes to metropolitan strikes.
7. In some areas, we observe that the needs of the masses align with our political interests. Examples include socialization efforts to combat the housing crisis and initiatives to address the climate crisis. In such cases, we believe that more open and potentially militant tactics are likely to be recognized, leading to tangible material interruptions.
Actions of mass disobedience have been and continue to be a central component of our practice. We emphasize the importance of openly articulating our actions and following through with our commitments—encouraging each other to engage in resistant and radical struggles without being intimidated by the state and its institutions. We are capable of realizing this ambition: mass disobedience has been established as an independent practice within many social movements.
However, the past few years have also revealed our limitations. The periodic nature of actions has led to their ritualization, making them easier to control and, consequently, less impactful. The focus on discourse and the desire to appeal to a broad audience have overshadowed the radicalization and self-empowerment of participants, hampering the formation of resistant subjectivities. Consequently, actions have devolved into large-scale choreographies, often limited to sitting blockades and the smooth execution of these events. We seek to lift this restriction on our ability to act.
We agree on the necessity of adjusting our actions to more directly disrupt the operational procedures of companies and everyday life. This also means expanding our repertoire of mass civil disobedience beyond sitting blockades. In this context, the choice of tactics cannot be divorced from the societal balance of power. In selecting targets and asserting our legitimacy, we strive for communicability. However, this does not mean we must please everyone at all times. Instead, we must forge new links between different levels and forms of action, create space for the new and unpredictable, develop militant subjectivities, drive the radicalization of social struggles, and enhance our long-term capacity to act. We no longer want to simply sit in front of power stations or factories while the capitalist catastrophe continues. Together with the masses, we must disrupt, appropriate, and dismantle.
8. Acknowledging the global scale of the crisis and the destructive role of German politics within it, transnational struggle becomes essential, without overlooking the local aspects of our fights. Our analysis and strategy cannot be complete without incorporating the perspectives of our transnational comrades and those from the Global South. Revolting against the global structures of inequality is not merely an act of solidarity but a necessity in the heart of the beast. We have not yet fully defined our role in this context, but we remain open and willing to learn alongside our global comrades.
In a global system of exploitation and oppression, the struggle for liberation must be equally global. From a decolonial perspective, we seek to learn from the struggles around the world, questioning and transcending the national boundaries of our political actions. We particularly wish to relate ourselves to uprisings and revolutionary projects, such as the self-administered structures in North and East Syria (Rojava) and the Zapatista region. The destructive role of Germany is evident: on one hand, it supplies weapons and conducts military missions to support dictatorships, while on the other, it destroys livelihoods in the Global South through its economic model and in Southern Europe via European crisis policies. We understand that revolting against this imperial devastation and organizing the broadest possible resistance is not merely an act of solidarity. We are at the heart of the beast, which brings both a special responsibility and the power to act.
Our analyses and strategies would be incomplete without overcoming Eurocentric notions and integrating the perspectives of our comrades from the Global South. It is our task as the organized and radical left to create spaces for critical and solidaric negotiation and reflection. Additionally, we must consider how to provide resources and practical support for organizing processes, particularly when our Eastern European comrades forge transnational and feminist alliances under adverse conditions—not as an act of charity but as a means of positioning ourselves within these struggles. The growth of local counterpower is vital for a left-wing hegemony project, both globally and locally. The question is not whether the focus should be international or local; these dimensions are inseparable. Capital operates across borders, and relations of exploitation are transnational. The same applies to the emergence of fractures and fault lines within the capitalist system.
The crisis protests against European austerity policies were an important experience for us. Within the context of Blockupy, we fought for our struggles on a European level. However, we have not successfully initiated a more binding and transnational organizing process under the framework of the Commune of Europe. A significant reason for this was that our political determinations remained nationally grounded, with internationalism often perceived as a north-south solidarity. The Transnational Social Strike platform was also founded during this period. Despite the decline of crisis protests, the platform has succeeded in maintaining transnational structures. It is here that we reconnect with many of our former companions and new comrades, primarily from Europe but also from other parts of the world. Moving forward, we will primarily seek linkages between our struggles to develop a foundation for transnational practice in the coming years. We also aim to forge closer ties with those who are asking the same questions we are and who share a political understanding with us. Additionally, we will strengthen and intensify our processes of learning and exchanging ideas with our comrades from the Kurdish liberation movement, who already operate on a transnational scale.
More information:
