It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, July 04, 2023
Screengrab from Facebook post by Padre Island National Seashore.
Mitchell Willetts
Sun, July 2, 2023 at 11:26 AM MDT·2 min read
A blob-like creature covered in polka dots recently washed up on a Texas beach, but don’t let its soft and squishy appearance fool you, experts say.
The dotted blob is a “not-so-welcome” discovery, Padre Island National Seashore said in a June 30 Facebook post, sharing an image of the sea-faring critter splayed out on the sand.
It’s an Australian spotted jellyfish and it’s a long way from home, officials said. The jelly is native to the Pacific Ocean but began appearing in the Gulf of Mexico in recent years.
The spotted species grows big, up to 20 inches wide, and travels in large packs, the post said. But unlike many other types of jellyfish, it can’t harm people — at least not directly.
“They have a mild venom, and are not considered a hazard to people. In fact, their venom is so weak they can’t use it to stun prey,” officials said.
So they’re big, squishy and harmless. Sounds like a OK blob, right? Wrong.
Since arriving in the Gulf, they’ve been feeding on “large quantities of zooplankton, making it hard for local marine wildlife to find food,” the post said.
Experts believe the species may have sneaked its way over to the Gulf of Mexico by latching onto the hulls of ships while in the form of polyps, according to the Texas Invasive Species Institute. The spotted jelly can live up to five years in the polyp stage of its life cycle before graduating to the adult “medusa” stage, at which point they generally live for another two years, according to the institute.
“In the Gulf, this invader has formed huge swarms in recent years,” the institute said. “Each jellyfish can clear 50 cubic meters (roughly 1,765 feet) of water filled with plankton in one day, making dense aggregations of Australian spotted jellyfish dangerous.”
While the jellies can have a harsh impact on the Gulf’s ecosystem, there isn’t much the average person can do if they come across one.
“The best thing to (do) from an individual’s perspective is to just leave them where you found them” and let nature do the rest, officials said.
Georgina Rannard - Climate reporter
Mon, July 3, 2023
A person drinks water during hot weather
The UK had the hottest June on record, the Met Office has confirmed.
The average monthly temperature of 15.8C (60.4F) exceeded the previous highest average June temperature, recorded in 1940 and 1976, by 0.9C.
Climate change made the chance of surpassing the previous joint record at least twice as likely, scientists also said.
Records were broken in 72 of the 97 areas in the UK from which temperature data is collected.
As well as the overall UK June record, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each recorded their warmest June since the Met Office started collecting the data in 1884.
Chart showing temperatures recorded in June since 1890
"It's officially the hottest June on record for the UK, for mean temperature as well as average maximum and minimum temperature," said Met Office's Climate Science Manager Mark McCarthy.
"An increase of 0.9C may not seem a huge amount, but it's really significant because it has taken the average daytime and the night time temperature for the whole of the UK," Paul Davies, Met Office chief meteorologist and climate extremes principal fellow, told BBC News.
Government climate action 'worryingly slow'
World likely to warm beyond key 1.5C limit by 2027
A really simple guide to climate change
"That's significant in a warming climate and because of the consequential impacts on society," he added.
He also said that while the UK recorded a higher one-off temperature of 40.3C last summer, the difference last month was the sustained heat both day and night.
The west of the UK was often hotter than the east, which had increased cloud levels suppressing daytime temperatures, the Met Office said.
Map showing temperature records broken in UK in June
Rain was also in short supply for much of the month, with just 68% of the average June rainfall.
Wales was particularly dry, with just over half of its average monthly rainfall.
The Met Office used a supercomputer to analyse the temperatures and identify the fingerprint of climate change on the weather.
"We found that the chance of observing a June beating the previous joint 1940/1976 record of 14.9°C has at least doubled since the 1940s," explains Mr Davies.
"Alongside natural variability, the background warming of the Earth's atmosphere due to human-induced climate change has driven up the possibility of reaching record-high temperatures," he added.
Hottest June kills UK fish and threatens insects
Climate change is driving extreme weather events around the world.
The world has warmed by about 1.1C since the industrial revolution about 200 years ago.
Greenhouse gases have been pumped into the atmosphere by activities such as burning fuels, which have heated up the Earth's atmosphere.
Last year the UK recorded temperatures above 40C for the first time. Scientists said that would have been "virtually impossible without climate change".
Dr Richard Hodgkins, senior lecturer in physical geography at University of Loughborough says it is notable how the warm weather "fits expectations of a changing climate in the UK".
He said researchers have been predicting patterns where weather appears to get "stuck", which would mean longer heatwaves.
The hot June was "somewhat like a typical weather event for the UK, but stretched out in time much longer than normal," he added.
The dry and warm weather last month affected wildlife and nature with environment groups warning of fish deaths and flowering plants wilting.
Nature is being "pounded by extreme weather without a chance to recover", the Wildlife Trusts told BBC News.
Coco Liu and Faseeh Mangi
Sun, July 2, 2023
A $30 Billion Disaster Is Just the Tip of a Deadly Climate Cycle
(Bloomberg) -- When night falls in the refugee camp outside Karachi, Shanawaz Khoso worries about snake bites. The 38-year-old and his seven children sleep in tents alongside 5,000 other displaced villagers, partially exposed to the elements and to creatures that include scorpions and venomous snakes. When the sun rises, stifling heat and mountains of untreated sewage turn the camp into a breeding ground for disease. Fever and stomach pain are prevalent, but there are no doctors and there is no medicine.“We are living here out of necessity,” Khoso says. “Nothing is coming here now. We’re terrified.”
With monsoon season fast approaching, Pakistan has already seen heavy rains and strong winds resulting in dozens of fatalities, hundreds of injuries and damage to roads, houses and farmland. This year, though, the rain is falling on a country still reeling. Just 10 months ago, severe flooding in Pakistan killed over 1,700, displaced 8 million and cost the economy more than $30 billion.
Now crop shortages linger, thousands remain homeless and the country is struggling with rebuilding, food supply, health care and debt. Relief aid has largely dried up. As new rains threaten the same areas hit by last year’s floods, Pakistan finds itself at the mercy of a pernicious pattern: Climate change is driving more intense rainfall, which drives more intense flooding, which stymies recovery from past floods.
It’s a paradigm familiar to the other eight countries in what’s known as the Third Pole, which is facing the impacts of warmer air on both monsoons and melting mountain ice. Glaciers in Asia’s Hindu Kush Himalayan region could lose 80% of their current volume by the end of this century, according to a recent study, threatening the livelihoods of as many as 2 billion people downstream — roughly a quarter of the world’s population. Without effective mechanisms to finance their own recoveries, let alone prepare for future climate crises, developing nations are particularly unprepared. “Pakistan is an avatar for what happens when climate-vulnerable countries that are not climate-resilient are in the firing line of changed weather conditions,” says David Miliband, president of International Rescue Committee, a humanitarian aid group. “They’re on the front lines of something that’s going to be faced by other countries.”
Khoso and his family moved to the refugee camp last August, after his hometown of Shikarpur was inundated. But within two months, relief aid to the camp started to run out — first food supply dwindled, then electricity was shut off, then the two health clinics closed. Located roughly 65 kilometers (40 miles) from Karachi, the camp is too far for Khoso to find work on foot, but returning to Shikarpur isn’t an option: The rice paddies on which his family depended were lost in the flood.
“We use money from one crop to invest in the next one,” Khoso says. “That cycle has been broken.”
While Pakistan is no stranger to monsoons, 2022 was unprecedented. Flooding lasted more than four months, and at its height left a third of the country submerged. The worst climate disaster in the country’s history, the floods were responsible for an economic hit of more than $30 billion, or roughly 10% of Pakistan’s 2021 economic output.
In many regions, little has improved since. Across Sindh province, where more than half of schools were damaged by the flood water, children continue to study in the open, Pakistan’s foreign minister, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, said at a conference in May. Stagnant water has fueled the worst malaria outbreak in the country since 1973, according to the World Health Organization. Few rural clinics remain standing to provide much-needed medical treatment.
Among all the challenges, though, the biggest might be food. The flood’s impact on livestock and farmland has limited Pakistan’s ability to feed its citizens: 10.5 million people, or about 5% of the population, are experiencing acute food insecurity. The Pakistani rupee’s 30% decline against the dollar over the past year has also made imported food more expensive.
“Pakistan is facing a nutrition crisis,” the United Nations warned in a report last month. The country’s rate of severe acute malnutrition is twice the average for South Asia and four times higher than the global average, according to the UN.
“I’m very concerned that 33 million impacted [people] is not a number that any country has ever had to deal with as a single disaster,” Pakistan climate minister Sherry Rehman tells Bloomberg Green. “It is going to be very tough to rebuild even in three years.”
Many blame the lack of progress on a lack of funding. The World Bank estimates that Pakistan will need at least $16.3 billion for reconstruction and rehabilitation. Donors pledged $10 billion in relief at a UN conference in January, but it’s unclear how much of that money has been allocated. Out of 20 million Pakistanis in need, only 7.7 million have received disaster relief of some sort, according to UN data.
“Developing countries are repeatedly hit by climate-led disasters and the quantum damage is barely understood by international communities,” Rehman says, adding that financial institutions’ preference for loans instead of grants is complicating recovery efforts. Other troubled nations — war-torn Ukraine, earthquake-hit Turkey and drought-stricken Kenya — also compete with Pakistan for aid, which international donors say is shrinking amid wider economic uncertainty.
One of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, Pakistan is responsible for just 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That disconnect has put it at the forefront of conversations around “loss and damage,” shorthand for a program where developed nations compensate poorer nations for suffering linked to climate crises. World Weather Attribution, which researches the link between extreme weather and greenhouse gas pollution, found that climate change made rainfall in Pakistan 75% more intense last August than it would have been otherwise.
While Pakistan played a key role in getting UN climate negotiators to establish a loss-and-damage fund at last year’s COP27 climate conference, almost all of the details still need to be ironed out. It’s unclear how much of that will happen at COP28 later this year. Attendees at preparatory meeting in Germany last month came away concerned about unclear goals and inter-country bickering.
“It is still unknown when any funds might actually be made available to countries like Pakistan through [the loss-and-damage] mechanism,” says Lisa Dale, who researches climate-change adaptation at Columbia University.
A separate climate summit in Paris last month brought together more than 100 heads of government to address financial scarcity as the biggest impediment to climate action. A set of proposals known as the Bridgetown 2.0 agenda would create currency exchange guarantees, add disaster clauses to debt deals and foster more multilateral lending. But its political feasibility remains largely untested.
Pakistan’s slow recovery is creating a vicious cycle. Crop shortages caused by the flooding drove up food prices, then the government raised taxes and energy prices in an attempt to meet the terms of a loan deal with the International Monetary Fund. That pushed up inflation, which hit 38% in May compared to a year earlier. Pakistanis started cutting back on spending, and job opportunities dried up. In June, the country secured initial IMF approval for a $3 billion loan program, lowering the risk of sovereign default but increasing pressure to maintain fiscal discipline.
In a village near Jamshoro city in Sindh province, it’s not uncommon to see roofs made of plastic bags or houses missing walls. Five villagers there tell Bloomberg Green they haven’t received any funding for reconstruction, and none can afford to make repairs.
“I am just desperate. What can I do?” asks Fateh Mohammad, 70, who supports a family of 18 by doing odd jobs. Five years ago, Mohammad earned a daily wage of 500 to 1,000 rupees ($1.76 to $3.52); now he makes less than 300 rupees a day, barely enough to buy 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) of flour.
Not far from Mohammad’s shelter is one housing Gulsher Mallah, 22, who lost his goats to the flood and now works at a roadside restaurant. “There is hardly any business at the restaurant now,” he says. Over the course of a morning, he might sell a single bottle of water.
As a changing climate makes rainfall and other extreme weather more intense, experts say Pakistan’s experience will be replicated elsewhere. Any country’s recovery efforts depend on how quickly and effectively authorities can marshal resources, allocate funds and complete the work of rebuilding. That puts developing countries at a self-perpetuating disadvantage.
“They lack resources, both financial and technical, to help them buffer a shock like flooding,” Dale says. “These pre-existing conditions contribute to higher risk and longer recovery when a natural disaster does occur.”
Although Pakistan is highly vulnerable to climate change, experts say the country has yet to establish a robust disaster-response system. Rehman argues that the scale of destruction from last year’s floods is unprecedented, making rebuilding a Herculean task. But even small adjustments could better prepare Pakistan for its next emergency, whether that means more coordination across aid organizations or rebuilding specifically with climate catastrophes in mind.
“The infrastructure has not become more climate-resilient,” says Adnan Khan, an Islamabad-based advisor at the nonprofit Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre. “Those communities have not been trained on how they can adapt to climate change.”
That’s where Yasmeen Lari comes in. In 1980, the 82-year-old architect co-founded the humanitarian organization Heritage Foundation Pakistan, which today has two training centers offering villagers free courses on building climate-resilient homes. Since 2010, Lari says Heritage has helped put up roughly 55,000 houses across Pakistan.
At the Heritage training center in Pono village in rural Sindh province, villagers learn to build octagon-shaped homes from bamboo, sand and straw. Each single-room structure takes about a week to put together, with construction costs roughly a tenth of those for a conventional concrete home. The houses are slightly elevated and thus suited for heavy rain: When the flooding hit Pono village last year, all 70 of its octagon houses held up, even as many conventional homes collapsed.
Since then, the village has become a place of pilgrimage. About 500 people have received training there over the past 10 months, and each is asked to share what they learned with 10 more villages after returning home. “It’s the poor helping each other out,” says Naheem Shah, project manager for Heritage’s Pono village center.
Heritage is part of a small but growing grassroots movement to make climate adaptation more accessible to Pakistanis. Climate activist Rida Rashid, who lost five members of her extended family to the 2022 flooding, is building an online platform with features that include climate change literature translated from English to South Asian languages and on-the-ground footage of climate disasters. Innovate Educate and Inspire Pakistan, a nonprofit based in Islamabad, has expanded its offering to include a climate education program for teachers.
But time is of the essence. Each monsoon season stands to exacerbate the aftermath of the last one. At the camp outside Karachi, Khoso says he dreads every raindrop that hits his family’s worn-out tents.
“We used to entertain guests,” he says of life before the flood. “Even if 10 people came, we didn’t have any problem serving them food. Our fortunes have completely changed.”
During April’s Eid holiday, an important Muslim festival for which wearing new clothes is custom, Khoso and his wife managed to dress up their children with donated outfits, but for the first time skipped their own. Having accumulated 30,000 rupees in debt since arriving at the camp, Khoso says they didn’t have the financial means — or the inclination — to celebrate.
“We are just sitting here now at God’s mercy,” he says.
Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
EJ Montini, Arizona Republic
Mon, July 3, 2023
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes
Colorado has a law on the books that says, in simple terms, a business open to the public can’t discriminate against gay people.
The radical right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling last week saying that, yes, it can.
The court took the side of a web designer in Colorado who said it was her First Amendment right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.
Arizona has a law much like Colorado’s.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced in no uncertain terms that her office is determined to enforce it.
The Supreme Court be damned.
Mayes calls ruling 'woefully misguided'
After the court announced its decision in the Colorado case, Mayes issued a statement that read in part, “Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans.
“While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor — the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is ‘profoundly wrong.’ ”
Mayes is referring to a dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in part, “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”
Another view: Mayes goes extreme because GOP lets her
She added, “By issuing this new license to discriminate … the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”
Not in Arizona, according to Mayes.
She will 'continue to enforce' Arizona's law
She said in her statement, “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.
“If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”
The extremist majority of the Supreme Court appears willing to nudge the country into a modern day Jim Crow era.
For now, however, members of the LGBTQ community in Arizona do not have to sit in the back of the bus.
Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.
For more opinions content, please subscribe.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Attorney General Kris Mayes tells Supreme Court to shove it
Our sister site in France, Révolution Permanente, interviewed Left Voice member Enid Brain about the attack on trans rights in the United States. Enid covers how the crisis of neoliberalism drives the attacks, the role of the Democratic Party, the need for a class independent approach and organization to fight the attacks, and more.
Enid Brain June 30, 2023
Over the last few months, we’ve witnessed a growing number of major anti-trans pushes in the United States. What are they, and how are they linked to the crisis opened up by the Trump presidency?
This is a really key discussion, I think. There’s often this idea that reactionary notions just kind of arise at random or purely as the result of social phenomena. You see this logic put forward a lot by the liberal sectors of the anti-trans movement, that this anti-trans backlash is happening because there are more trans people now or that we are more prominent and visible. And, of course, social phenomena are a factor — and the growth and visibility of trans identity has certainly been a factor on why there is more public interest among the masses in trans identity — but there is a really key political component here.
The U.S. is in crisis — a crisis of hegemony internationally, a developing economic crisis, a crisis of social reproduction, and a political crisis where institutions of the regime are at all-time low approval ratings among the masses. This crisis opened in 2008 and was deepened by Trump’s ascendency. The attacks on trans rights and other democratic rights have to be understood in this context of crisis.
On the one hand, we can understand these attacks on trans rights as part of a project of building political unity post-Trump. Trump sent the Republican Party and the whole political establishment into crisis, running and winning as an opponent of the establishment, some elements of the regime, and certain elements of neoliberalism. These factors, in addition to Trump’s quite distinct foreign policy as compared to other presidents, really put the Republican Party in a difficult situation after 2020. Trump is the most dominant figure of the Republican Party, and he is very much the leader of the base. Trump united many disparate sectors of the conservative movement into “Trumpism,” and keeping these sectors within the Republican Party is key for the Republicans to retake power in the next election. The contradiction of this, however, is that the establishment of the Republican Party, sectors of capital, and much of the regime are deeply opposed to Trump and elements of Trumpism. So what emerged to resolve that contradiction (or at least to try to) is what we have called “Trumpism without Trump,” where the idea is to pick up certain elements of Trumpism and merge them with more mainstream Republican politics in order to move the party past Trump.
A key element of “Trumpism without Trump” is a reliance on social issues — what we’ve called “the New Culture Wars” — which allow the Republicans to run against “the establishment” (broadly defined) and elements of what Nancy Fraser calls “progressive neoliberalism” — the process where neoliberalism brought sectors of the oppressed into the mainstream and gave some limited concessions. Rather than have to argue about the deep internal political differences around the economy and international politics, the Republicans can unite their entire base and keep the Trumpist base in the party by running primarily on a question of social issues, which they can use as a mirage to pretend to speak to wider discontent about neoliberalism.
Florida governor (and Republican presidential hopeful) Ron DeSantis is a useful example here, as he has made his entire political profile almost exclusively based around social issues, with trans rights taking a huge prominence. DeSantis has coined the phrase “the war on woke” to describe his political project, and he presents himself as a figure who can restore American “values” in the wake of progressive neoliberalism and has unleashed some of the country’s worst attacks on trans people, immigrants, workers, and many others. This social-issue politics serves to hide the huge gaps in the rest of DeSantis’s program. As two examples: after Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, DeSantis’s response was to say that the bank failed because it was too focused on “wokeness,” completely obscuring both the economic reasons the bank failed and the potential consequences of the bank failing. By leaning on social issues, DeSantis was able to speak to wider discontent about banks and corporations without actually putting forward anything that would address the economic crisis. As another example, after he announced his presidential campaign, DeSantis was asked by a reporter for his stance on the war in Ukraine — an issue the Republican Party is deeply divided on. DeSantis answered that the first task was to get “gender ideology” out of the military. Once again, we can see how the “war on woke” politics serves to hide the lack of (even incomplete and insufficient) solutions from this sector of the Republican Party.
The effectiveness of this strategy is an open question. Poll after poll shows that these attacks are unpopular and that the majority of the country doesn’t feel like these are the central concerns. But these attacks are still advancing because they can mobilize a base that, in the hyperpolarized world of American politics, is what is needed to win elections. There is an open question about how effective nationalizing this politics will be. DeSantis currently tails Trump in polls pretty significantly, and he is struggling to make his “war on woke” as effective as Trumpism. But the impact of the rise of this politics is that it has pushed the overall political situation to the right. Trump is taking up a more hardline stance on social issues to attempt to flank his opponents from the Right, and Biden and the Democrats are walking away from support for the trans community in hopes of dialoguing with a sector of the center who are being moved by this politics.
The question of the center is also incredibly important. There is a sector of voters — white middle-class women mainly located in the suburbs — who are among the only group that is “up for grabs” in any given election, given how polarized the overall voting population is. This center is being catered to by both the Republicans and Democrats by putting forward a specific politics around schools, children, families, and any number of other “kitchen table issues.” The specter of trans identity is used to tell these parents that they are losing control of their children, that the schools are “cultural Marxist indoctrination centers,” and that trans rights have “gone too far” and now present a danger to women and children. This is, of course, all based on lies, misinformation, and reactionary scare tactics. But the political logic is to take the discontent this sector feels due to their worsening living conditions, the crisis of social reproduction, and instability more generally and shift it away from an ideological break with neoliberalism and toward a belief that the issue is that sectors of the oppressed have won concessions.
Theses pushes started during the Trump era but are continuing and deepening with Biden. Can you elaborate on the Democrat’s role in the ongoing institutional wave of transphobia?
The Democrats are responding to the same crises that the Republicans are responding to and they’re trying to court many of the same voters. But the Democrats have to walk a more precarious line of always seeming like the lesser evil so that they can use that to push people to the polls and co-opt social movements. So they can’t court these swing voters by being explicitly anti-trans because that would cause fallout from sectors of their base. So, rather, they are basically — at the national level — not talking about the attacks on trans rights other than in the vaguest possible terms. For example, in his yearly State of the Union speech to Congress, Biden spent only nine seconds on trans rights — simply saying that trans children deserve “safety and dignity,” but not offering any programmatic promises or commitments to how to ensure that. The midterm elections in 2022 featured barely any mention of the spreading anti-trans politics from the Democrats, and they haven’t made it any sort of legislative priority in the current Congress.
Rather, at the national level, key figures, including Barack Obama, have been trying to distance the Democratic Party from “excess wokeness.” This is in keeping with the political conclusions of sectors of the Democratic Party establishment after Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, which was an overfocus on “boutique” issues like trans rights. Now, the idea that Clinton was overly focused on trans issues and that’s why she lost — that is laughable, but that logic has become popular with the Democratic Party, and they are trying to move themselves away from social issues that are more controversial — most notably trans rights.
This is the exact same arc as we saw in the Democrats’ response to BLM. They began by offering a lot of “support” — even as they oversaw repression across the country — and then made themselves the party of BLM in order to win the election and then blamed every subsequent electoral setback on being overly focused on BLM and have now made themselves into the party that fights for more police funding. Once they co-opt and demobilize the movement, they abandon the performative support and drop the concessions they offered in exchange for support. Because the Democratic Party’s support for the specially oppressed is based on political gain and expediency rather than any actual commitment.
So, in this sense, the role of the Democrats is to allow these attacks and to help shift the situation to the right. By arguing against “excess wokeness” (whatever that means), they are giving space to the feelings that trans rights have “gone too far.” By not taking this up at the national level, they are effectively leading the acceptance of a country where trans rights vary greatly state by state. So the choice that is being offered to trans people is the choice between a country where trans rights are illegal federally (which the Republicans offer) or one where they are just illegal in half the country (what the Democrats offer). This is a common logic for the U.S. — after all, the country was founded on an agreement where rights varied state by state to the greatest level — and one that the Democrats hope to use to paint themselves as saviors of the trans community.
In the midst of anti-trans and anti-gay attacks, we’ve seen reproductive rights put into question and recede in a number of red states. How can this joint attack be explained in the current political landscape?
In addition to the political elements I described above, I think an important piece of context to understanding these attacks in the crisis of social reproduction. Neoliberalism has sent the U.S. into a major crisis of social reproduction as workers have to work more and for longer hours, social services have been privatized or eliminated, and increased stress on workers has caused a growth in social crises like drug addiction, suicide, and school shootings. This crisis is acute and can be seen in many areas. From the ongoing shortage of healthcare and education workers to the low marriage rate to the low birth rate to the previously mentioned social crises, this overall crisis of social reproduction has developed into a meaningful challenge for capitalism — especially in the U.S., where a key strategic discussion is about how to orient toward competition with China.
A key impact of this crisis is that it has placed a great deal of strain on the nuclear family — which is a vital institution of capitalist social reproduction. Through the ravages of neoliberalism, people are getting married less and later, having fewer children, and struggling to be present for those children as parents were able to be in an era when only one parent had to work or parents worked shorter hours. These attacks on both abortion and trans rights are, in my view, an attempt to address this problem — in addition to the political calculus I discussed in a previous question. The logic is that through more state intervention, the nuclear family can be recentered as the primary place of capitalist reproduction — including ideological reproduction. The family and the schools are historically where the ideology of capitalism is instilled in young people, but, due to the weakening of these institutions and the growth of the internet — giving young people unprecedented access to information — they have become less central in actually, for lack of a better word, indoctrinating young people into the ideology of this system. So we are seeing more and more young people discover their identities, radicalize (to both the left and right) around political questions, and put forward a greater questioning of capitalism. These are concerning trends for the regime and capitalism, as they show that the ideological hegemony of capitalism in general and neoliberalism specifically is weakening, particularly among the youth — who we’ve seen at the vanguard of both social movements and labor struggles. So the attempt is to recenter the nuclear family and give parents more control of their children and also to restructure school curriculum to more effectively serve the ideological needs of capitalism.
To connect this to abortion, we can see that the attacks on abortion are part of a generalized attack on bodily autonomy, an attack that recenters the state as a key actor in deciding what we can and cannot do with our bodies. This is a deeper intervention of the state into private life, which is necessary — from a capitalist perspective — to begin to resolve the ongoing crisis of social reproduction, given that the state and capital can give fewer concessions in the current moment due to the crisis of accumulation. Fully funding social programs, reducing working hours, and any number of other potential ways to address the crisis of social reproduction aren’t really on the table for capital at the current moment. So a greater intervention of the state in an authoritarian way is needed to reestablish and recentralize these vital capitalist relationships.
On a wider scale, we’re observing that a part of the Right is joining forces with more reactionary forces of the American Far Right, for instance with the gender critical protest where Nazi salutes were witnessed.
This is a really interesting question, one I am still trying to study. The strange unity between sectors of so-called radical feminism with the Far Right (including the explicitly fascist Far Right) is an international phenomena that demands a deeper analysis than I have right now. But I think this is the logical conclusion of the key theoretical problems that Marxists have been raising with radical feminism for years. Radical feminism obscures the state and ignores class to only focus on gender relations, which they understand in a hyperbinary way. They don’t recognize or acknowledge the role that the state and capitalism play in maintaining and enforcing patriarchy and instead see patriarchy as a social contagion that lives somewhat independently in the hearts and minds of individuals. Because of this, they can deeply misunderstand trans identity as being an accommodation to the patriarchy and, somehow, an attack on womanhood, which must be defended. This bizarre conclusion leads them to take up increasingly reactionary positions on the trans question.
These reactionary positions lead them into the arms of the Far Right and into the state. Rather than looking at patriarchy as empowered and protected by capitalism — as the oppression of women and other gender minorities is central and foundational to the capitalist system — and then institutionalized and enforced by the state, they view the fight against patriarchy as a struggle between men and women. So, given this framework, they view people transitioning from one gender (a fixed point within their framework) to another as either an attempt to infiltrate womanhood or an attempt to escape it. This is why these sectors frame feminine people as “predators” and trans masculine people as “victims.”
In this framework, given the conclusions about the supposed insidiousness of trans identity, it makes absolute sense that radical feminism would look to the state to protect women as they don’t see how the state is itself an instrument of women’s oppression. This turn toward the state to “protect” against trans identity puts them in total alliance with the Far Right, which seeks to use the state to repress minorities of all stripes and use state power to enforce a warped understanding of “morality.” These sectors, of course, don’t stand for the liberation of women at all, but these sectors of the so-called gender critical movement are being profoundly opportunist and attempting to build a broader alliance against trans people in order to implement their reactionary agenda. The fact that these sectors have the audacity to call themselves feminists — and some sectors of gender criticism, like Posie Parker, have begun to walk away from this self-characterization — shows the need for a socialist-feminist wing of feminism to emerge and really clash with these reactionary false feminisms and establish that trans people are not the enemy in the fight against gender oppression. Rather, trans people, like people of all genders in a capitalist society, are victims of institutionalized patriarchy that limits and represses our genders, sexualities, self-expression, and bodily autonomy in order to keep us within what is useful, profitable, and productive for capital.
Each Pride month, we are used to seeing capitalists adorning the Rainbow flag. This year, a few of them didn’t choose to pinkwash, and some even took back their products from their shelves, as Target did. What is your analysis on this?
This is an interesting question that, to me, reveals what those of us on the Left have been saying for years: that the shift toward rainbow capitalism was purely opportunistic and that they would abandon it as soon as it wasn’t profitable. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing. These corporations who drape themselves with rainbows when it can distract from their terrible labor practices and sell Pride merch when it’s profitable are beginning to cut and run when there’s even a little pushback from the Right. It shows us that these corporations are never our allies and are only interested in supporting the queer community when it’s profitable for them. Rather, our allies are the workers at these corporations. A perfect example for me was when Disney — a major capitalist agent in Florida — basically refused to take a stand against DeSantis until after their workers staged a walkout to force the corporation to take a stronger stance. These workers are the true allies of the queer movement, not the corporations that market to us in order to take our money and hide their mistreatment of their workers.
In recent years, we’ve seen the rise of a new political generation in the youth and in the working class, with the important strikes in Amazon warehouses, that led to the theorization of Gen U. From LV’s perspective, what place should this generation have in the struggle against state transphobia?
I’m so glad you asked this, because joining the new union movement with the trans rights movement is central. Gen U, as we’ve termed this new phenomena of young workers reinvigorating the union movement, shows that the age-old lie of the working class as just being straight white cis men in hardhats is a lie. The working class is diverse, multiracial, multigendered, and queer. And Gen U represents that, we’ve seen a lot of union drives (at Starbucks and elsewhere) being led by queer workers who are fighting, in part, for better conditions for queer and trans workers. This new generation is very conscious of the larger political climate and is beginning to realize that attacks on democratic rights and the struggle for better working conditions and wages aren’t disconnected. Rather, they are part of the same struggle against the system that both exploits and oppresses us. While these conclusions are still nascent, the role of the Left in the current moment is to fight for these new unionists to join the labor movement with the social movements in an organization of our own that can fight the entire capitalist system. These Gen U workers can demonstrate this to the rest of the union movement by using their unions to fight the attacks on trans rights through workplace actions, standing in solidarity, and even striking to break these laws.
LV and its feminist group, Bread and Roses, joined forces with NYC trans youth during the Trans Visibility March on March 31. Why did you think this alliance was important?
NYC Youth for Trans Rights was a new organization that sprang organically out of the murder of Brianna Ghey, and these young people got together online and with their friends and decided that they couldn’t let this murder stand. So they walked out of school and held a protest. And we — as LV and Bread and Roses — went to their first action, which was really small, and built a relationship with the organizers that we developed as we went to their future actions. As Trans Day of Visibility approached, both us and NYCY4TR felt it was very important to not let the day pass, in the current moment, without a mobilization. So we organized a pretty sizable march — the only one in NYC — to demonstrate that we can and must build a movement for trans rights independent of the Democrats and the NGOs.
It was important for us to join with the queer youth vanguard because they have really been at the forefront of defending against these attacks. They’ve been walking out of schools around the country, staging protests, and agitating around the defense of these attacks to a much greater degree than basically any other sector of the queer movement — which, in the current moment, is really dormant because it became so bound up in the NGOs and Democratic Party, which are actively working to disorganize resistance to these attacks in favor of just pushing everyone to the polls and political fundraising. These queer youth are showing the first signs of a way forward to defend against these attacks, and we wanted to really engage in that experience with them.
The logic of self-organization against these attacks is the same logic we used when we built a “labor and the left for trans rights” contingent for the NYC Queer Liberation March. We brought together a broad sector of the Left and many unions to stand together to show that we believe that we need self-organization and a united front to really defend against these right-wing attacks. As Left Voice, however, we are trying to go a step further in our argument for this queer vanguard. We think we need to build our own organization — a working-class party that fights for socialism — so that we can unite our struggles and organize not just defense but also offense against the system that allows these attacks to emerge. We are attending the NYC Queer Liberation March at the head of the left and labor contingent with banners that call for us to organize a party of our own, as that is the only way we can truly defend trans rights and go further and win queer liberation.
In this article, we look back at the birth of the homosexual movement in Germany, its ties to socialism, and the lessons of this alliance — in its victories and defeats.
Camille Lupo June 30, 2023
Although Marx and Engels had already mentioned homosexuality in some of their writings — as well as reflections on gender, sexuality, and the family — it was the demands and actions of organized revolutionaries during the first attacks on LGBTQ+ people across Europe that demonstrated the potential of the alliance between the LGBTQ+ movement and the revolutionary Left. Here we look back at the birth of the homosexual movement in Germany, its ties to socialism, and the lessons of this alliance — in its victories and defeats.
Precursors of the Homosexual Movement in Europe
In Sexuality and Socialism, Sherry Wolf paints a portrait of Edward Carpenter, one of the first openly gay men in the public eye. An influential English socialist in the 1870s, Carpenter had a background in the anarchist and utopian branches of English socialism. He wrote extensively on women’s emancipation and class society. At a time when homosexuality was illegal, Carpenter’s writings and public speeches linked the Victorian climate of sexual repression to an economic system based on competition. Dialoguing with his German predecessor Karl Ulrichs, Carpenter defended the idea that there exists within everyone a homosexual potential.
Ulrichs, a German jurist, is perhaps the most well-known forerunner of the homosexual movement. His work represents the largest collection of texts on homosexuality in the 1860s. In 1862, he published writings that first used the term uranian (Urning in German). The concept aimed to designate gay and lesbian people as a “third sex,” which he believed was defined by the presence of a female spirit in a male body for gay men, and vice versa for lesbians. While Ulrichs’s ideas may appear outdated today, and his conceptions are rooted in essentialist assumptions about gender and sexual orientation, suggesting they are psychologically and biologically predetermined, they nevertheless marked advancements for the time. His ideas remained influential for decades in the early stages of the homosexual movement in Germany and beyond, including England and the rest of the European continent, in no small part thanks to Ulrichs’s persistence. Despite public insults and even imprisonment, he was one of the first gay men to come out publicly, and he wrote for years against repressive laws targeting homosexual people.
Ulrichs maintained regular correspondence with Karl Maria Benkert, a German-speaking Hungarian writer known by the pseudonym Karoly Maria Kertbeny, who also moved in literary and philosophical circles influenced by Marx. He is credited with coining the term homosexual. In 1869 he wrote an open letter to the German minister of justice in defense of homosexual rights. Like Ulrichs, he expressed concerns that a Prussian law criminalizing male homosexuality (limited for the time being to that state, which was not yet unified with the rest of Germany) could become national. In his letter, he argued that the French Revolution and Napoleon’s Civil Code in France had already decriminalized homosexuality, and that such a law would be a step backward for Europe as a whole.
The core of his argument asserted that sexual freedom for homosexual people would not pose any problems to society at large since, according to the logic of Kertbeny his contemporaries, homosexuality is innate and natural, in contrast to the then-prevailing view that homosexuality is a “perversion.” His aim was to reassure the majority and conservative institutions by showing them that there would be no risk of homosexual “contagion.” This concern echoes in the moral panics and arguments of today’s queerphobic reactionaries. The second part of his argument sought to highlight the respectability of homosexual people throughout history. He provides a detailed list of historical and literary figures who were purportedly homosexual — from Shakespeare to certain kings of England — with the aim of discouraging the Ministry of Justice from locking up homosexual people.
This pressure to be “respectable,” as well as the desire to adopt a stance aimed at reassuring conservatives or reactionaries, is a theme that persisted throughout the early years of the homosexual movement. But the contributions of Kertbeny and Ulrichs also questioned the logic of “good morals.” Drawing on the state of research on sexuality at the time, they sought to demonstrate the scientific inconsistencies of bourgeois moral clichés. Kertbeny also pointed out one of the underlying functions behind the persecution of homosexual people: since this persecution was neither scientific nor natural, it must serve a social and political purpose — to create societal scapegoats.
While Germany witnessed the beginnings of what would become the theoretical foundations of homosexual activism, in England, the trial of Oscar Wilde unfolded, which would come to symbolize the persecution of gay men in Europe and catalyze the need for a movement for homosexual rights.
In Germany, in the journal of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), Eduard Bernstein published an article in defense of Wilde. As a leader and theorist of the SPD, Bernstein outlines in this lengthy two-part article, cited in The Early Homosexual Rights Movement by John Lauritsen and David Thorstad, a materialist critique of the sexual norms of the bourgeoisie and the moral framework that surrounds them. He explains his logic as follows:
Although the theme of sexual behavior may not be of paramount significance for the economic and political struggle of social-democracy, the search for an objective means of assessing this side of social life as well is not irrelevant. It is necessary to discard judgements based on more or less arbitrary moral concepts in favour of a point of view deriving from scientific experience. The Party is strong enough today to influence the shape of state law, its speakers and its press influence both public opinion and members and their contacts. Thus the Party already has a certain responsibility for what happens today. So an attempt will be made in the following to smooth the way towards such a scientific approach to the problem.
Throughout his article, Bernstein argues for a historical and social understanding of sexuality, in contrast to the absolute, idealistic, and psychiatric understanding used by conservatives, whom he describes as “reactionaries.” This position was unprecedented in society at the time, but it also represents the most advanced analysis of the intersection between sexuality and politics within the socialist movement of that period.
The Humanitarian-Scientific Committee
In 1871, the law that concerned Ulrichs and Kertbeny went into effect without any debate, enshrined in the Penal Code of the Second German Reich. Paragraph 175 criminalized “unnatural sexual acts,” effectively encompassing any sexual act between two men, as interpreted by legal precedent. When the law was passed even after Kertbeny’s letter and Ulrichs’s efforts, it took over 20 years for a genuine homosexual movement to finally emerge in Germany.
Two years after Ulrichs’s death, Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee in 1897. As a medical doctor and SPD member, he maintained correspondence with Wilde during his years in prison. He remained the committee’s leading figure throughout its 35 years of existence. In one of its early publications, the committee defined its goals as follows:
1. To persuade the legislative bodies to abolish the anti-homosexual paragraph of the German penal code, Paragraph 175;
2. To enlighten public opinion about homosexuality;
3. To engage homosexuals themselves in the struggle for their rights.
To achieve these goals, the committee’s work focused on influencing elected officials (through discussions, open letters, scientific literature, etc.) and spreading its ideas to the general public through conferences, public speeches (mainly conducted by Hirschfeld), and regular publication of magazines. The committee’s main activity, however, was a petition campaign over several years to collect signatures from influential figures against paragraph 175.
From its inception, the SPD was a driving force behind the petition. In 1898, August Bebel, one of the main leaders of the SPD, addressed the Reichstag (the German Assembly) as an elected representative to encourage his colleagues to sign the petition. This sparked a commotion in which Bebel was booed by the rest of the members except for the SPD representatives who supported him. Bebel then ridiculed the law, stating that if the police were actually to imprison all homosexuals in the city of Berlin alone, they would need to “build at least two new prisons” to accommodate them, because homosexuality “concerns thousands of people from all walks of life.” Bebel debated the conventions of bourgeois morality of the time, which painted homosexuality as a rare, mysterious phenomenon that only affected a few “deviant” individuals.
The last aspect of the committee’s activities was scientific research. In 1903, before Kinsey’s research, which would later become the reference for the taxonomy of sexual behaviors, Hirschfeld undertook the first statistical research on homosexuality. The study was based on a questionnaire sent to 3,000 students at the University of Charlottenburg and 5,721 metalworkers (though its methodology and content would now be considered questionable). After the study was published, a Protestant pastor and six students filed a complaint against Hirschfeld. He was fined for encouraging “perverse tendencies” in young men, even though, as his lawyer pointed out, none of the over 5,000 metalworkers interviewed felt aggrieved.
In 1905, the committee stated in one of its publications that it had accomplished one of its essential tasks: making the issue of homosexuality visible.
One thing has been achieved, and it is not the least important. The period in which the issue was kept silent and disregarded is definitively over. We are now in a period of discussion. The homosexual question has become a real issue — one that has given rise to lively debate, and one that will continue to be discussed until it is satisfactorily resolved.
The issue was widely picked up by the bourgeois press and discussed in the country’s main newspapers. In 1908 the committee estimated that over 5,000 gay men had participated in one way or another in its activities. In the Reichstag, the SPD did not waver in its fight against paragraph 175 and participated in the committee’s efforts. Drawing on their writings, August Thiele, an SPD representative, once again denounced paragraph 175 as an example of “priestly cruelty and intolerance,” which is “reminiscent of the Middle Ages, when witches were burned, heretics were tortured, and dissidents were tried with the wheel and gallows.”
In 1907, the year of the Reichstag elections, the committee sent a first-ever questionnaire to candidates asking them to take a stand on homosexual rights. It received 20 responses. In the next election of 1912, it received 97 responses, only six of which refused to support the committee’s demands. Out of these 97, 37 were elected, and 24 out of those 37 belonged to the SPD, which remained the main political force supporting homosexual rights.
World War I marked the first blow to the committee. Just as the SPD lined up behind the German bourgeoisie and chose to support a reactionary war, leading to a rupture with a significant portion of socialists who had been active within its ranks, the committee was not immune to the rising patriotism of the time. Its publications mixed idealistic calls for peace with patriotic writings in support of the “German cause” and the “deep affection for our brothers at the front.” Hundreds of committee activists, along with thousands of its supporters, went off to war, some of them dying on the front lines.
In 1915, the committee wrote in one of its journals: “We must be, and we are, of course, prepared for any eventuality. What is necessary, however, is for the committee to be able to resist and be present when — after what we hope will be a swift and victorious end to the war — national reform efforts are revived, and consequently, the struggle for the liberation of homosexuals resumes.” A pious hope that, despite a resurgence in the committee’s activities during the 1920s, would not be realized. The rise of Nazism would roll back the progress made at the beginning of the century, and the activity of the powerless committee would decline until Hirschfeld went into exile to escape Nazi persecution. Paragraph 175 would ultimately be abolished much later, after a new wave of the LGBTQ+ movement: in 1968 in East Germany and in 1994 in the West.
For the SPD, World War I meant a definitive break with revolutionary ideas. The notion of gradual change in society brought about by the institutions of bourgeois democracy, however, was already present in an embryonic form in how the SPD, under Bernstein’s leadership, envisioned the struggle for sexual liberation. Despite taking correct positions in the Reichstag and conducting unprecedented analysis of sexuality for the time, these ideas never reached the consciousness of the SPD’s predominantly working-class base. This opened the door, decades later, to serious homophobic tendencies within the SPD itself, which attempted, in their publications (like other left-wing forces), to weaponize the homosexuality of certain high-ranking officials in the battle against Nazism.
After the betrayal of the SPD at the start of the war, the torch of the revolutionary struggle for sexual liberation was taken up by the Bolsheviks. In 1917, two months after the revolution, Russia became the first country in the world to decriminalize homosexuality.
First published in French on June 24 in Révolution Permanente.
Translation by Emma Lee
In the 1920s, a fancy Berlin villa was home to a gay Jewish doctor who facilitated the very first gender-affirming surgeries. In the same building, communist leaders held secret meetings with anti-colonial guerrilla fighters. The Institute for Sexual Science was like something out of a Fox News fever dream.
Nathaniel Flakin
Originally published in Exberliner.
Today only a small plaque along the Spree commemorates the villa where Magnus Hirschfeld carried out the first ever gender-affirming surgeries, and where secret anti-colonial communist meetings were held in.
In the 1920s, a villa in Tiergarten sat on the banks of the Spree, near where HKW now stands. It was home to Magnus Hirschfeld, the gay Jewish doctor who facilitated the world’s first gender-affirming surgeries. In the same building, communist leaders held secret meetings with anti-colonial guerrilla fighters. This was The Institute for Sexual Science, like something out of a Fox News fever dream.
On February 27, 1912, a 19-year-old was arrested in Weißensee for walking around in women’s clothing. The suspect was charged with Grober Unfug (public nuisance).
At the police station, the suspect had to be released. It turned out that Gerda von Zobeltitz, who had been assigned male at birth, was in possession of a so-called Transvestitenschein (transvestite pass), a permit from Berlin’s police chief allowing her to wear dresses. She had gotten a medical certificate from Dr Magnus Hirschfeld explaining that it was in her nature to wear dresses. In the language of the time, she was a “transvestite personality”, and even the Wilhelmine police had to admit that arrests wouldn’t change that.
The incident prompted a half-dozen Berlin papers to report about the “boy in women’s clothing,” who made news again when she married a woman at the civil registry office.
Way back in the 1890s, Hirschfeld had made a career out of treating people who didn’t fit into the rigid gender and sexual norms of imperial Germany. Hirschfeld’s Scientific Humanitarian Committee (WhK), the world’s first gay-rights group, launched a petition to abolish Germany’s law against male homosexuality, the infamous Paragraph 175.
The Institute
In 1919, with the new Weimar Republic loosening the screws on queer people ever so slightly, Hirschfeld bought a villa in Tiergarten. The large house – or a small palace, really – on the corner of In den Zelten and Beethovenstraße had been built for the Hungarian violinist Joseph Joachim. Now, it became home to the Institute for Sexual Science. There was space for consultation rooms, an enormous archive (including plenty of pornography) and an apartment for Hirschfeld and his partner. Anyone could get professional help for their sexual problems – those too poor to afford the fees could help out in the office instead. Two years later, Hirschfeld bought the building next door to add to the annex.
Hirschfeld treated patients from all walks of life and even went to colonial exhibitions to interview people from distant cultures about their sexuality. Based on his research, Hirschfeld saw that gender and sexuality manifest themselves on different levels: sex organs, other physical characteristics, sexual desire and other psychological characteristics. On these four scales, each person can be situated somewhere between male and female. Instead of two categories, men and women, Hirschfeld emphasised the importance of seeing each person’s unique gender and sexual identity.
When power was handed over to the Nazis in 1933, Hirschfeld – a gay, Jewish, socialist doctor who questioned social hierarchies – was their prototypical enemy. On May 6, 1933, Nazi stormtroopers trashed the institute; a number of Hirschfeld’s books went up in flames in the state-sponsored pyres four days later. At that time, he was outside of Germany for a speaking tour and never returned – he died in exile in 1935.
The Commies
But the Nazis had another reason to hate the Institute for Sexual Science. The villa was also a nest of secret communist activity – a hangout for Pinks but also for Reds.
Hirschfeld himself was a Social Democrat, but in the words of Babette Gross, he “had a heart for communists”. Gross had moved into Hirschfeld’s building in 1926 together with her partner, Willi Münzenberg. He was the Communist Party’s larger-than-life propaganda chief, known as the “Red Millionaire” for running one of the biggest media empires in Weimar Germany. In reality, Münzenberg never had any money himself. Only at age 37 did he settle down in a furnished room in the Tiergarten villa
“The many corridors were plastered with the sexual symbols of primitive peoples and other relevant photographic material,” Gross recalled. “And visitors to the institute wandered through our corridors as well.” Officials of the Communist International came to appreciate the building, not just for its exotic collections, but also because it was ideal for conspiratorial meetings. With people going in and out of the institute constantly, it was impossible for police spies to keep track, so anyone could slip through a connecting door for a meeting with Münzenberg.
Gross and Münzenberg had a WG with another leading Communist, the boyish and bookish Politbüro member Heinz Neumann, famous for his slogan “Beat the fascists wherever you meet them!” The Indian Communist M.N. Roy, busy planning armed insurrection against the British Empire, lived in those rooms as well, but Hirschfeld didn’t only rent to Reds. The British author Christopher Isherwood also lived at the Institute, which is likely how he came to immortalise Münzenberg with the only lightly fictionalised character Ludwig Beyer in his novel, Mr. Norris Changes Trains.
Hirschfeld never joined the Communists. He was, at the end of the day, a wealthy doctor with no interest in the nationalization of the healthcare system. But at least one researcher at the institute was a commie: Richard Linsert, besides publishing about male prostitution, took on leading roles in the Communist Party’s paramilitary wing, the Red Front Fighters League, as well its spy service, the Antimilitarist Apparatus. While the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) campaigned for the abolition of Paragraph 175 (which only happened in 1994), there were limits to its progressive views: Linsert never made it onto the Central Committee, due to concerns that a gay man would be subject to blackmail.
The Legacy
Just a few years after the Nazis had destroyed the Institute, bombs demolished the villa as well. It took a while before Hirschfeld reentered the German public consciousness. Today, a brown metal box marks the spot next to the Spree river. Except: the location isn’t quite right. The villa would have been on the other side of Haus der Kulturen der Welt. When the plaque was installed in 1994, the new Federal Chancellery was being planned, and they didn’t want the small monument getting stuck in the middle of a construction site.
The memory is kept alive by the Magnus Hirschfeld Society, which became active in 1983, when West Berlin was commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Nazis seizing power. As the society’s co-founder Ralf Dose recalls, “the official commemoration didn’t include many different victims of fascism: the Communists of course, the Sinti and Roma, especially not the so-called Asocials, but also the gays and lesbians.” So activists from Berlin’s gay liberation movement organised their own lecture series. Over the last 40 years, the society has expanded its focus beyond homosexuality, since Hirschfeld’s institute also offered counselling for straight people, including contraception and abortion. Dose has since written a biography: Magnus Hirschfeld – The Origins of the Gay Liberation Movement. Currently, they are looking to build a queer archive in the old Kindl Brewery, next to SchwuZ.
Remembering this long history is important when confronting homo- and transphobia today. When people spread conspiracy theories about trans people being part of a nefarious plot by “cultural Marxists” to destroy civilization, it’s kind of ridiculous. But there might be a kernel of truth: both queers and communists seek to overturn patriarchal capitalist hierarchies and create a society where everyone is free and equal. The villa in Tiergarten is a reminder of how intertwined these two liberation movements were and still are. Communists of the 1920s were not just the avant garde in politics, but also painting, music and sexuality. It was the Stalinist counterrevolution that cut off all that emancipatory potential.
Nathaniel Flakin
Nathaniel is a freelance journalist and historian from Berlin. He is on the editorial board of Left Voice and our German sister site Klasse Gegen Klasse. Nathaniel, also known by the nickname Wladek, has written a biography of Martin Monath, a Trotskyist resistance fighter in France during World War II, which has appeared in German, in English, and in French. He is on the autism spectrum.
The work-technology nexus and working-class environmentalism: Workerism versus capitalist noxiousness in Italy’s Long 1968
Theory and Society volume 50, pages815–835 (2021)Cite this article
Abstract
This article traces the trajectory of theory and praxis around nocività or noxiousness – i.e., health damage and environmental degradation – drawn by the workerist group rooted in the petrochemical complex of Porto Marghera, Venice. While Porto Maghera was an important setting for the early activism of influential theorists such as the post-workerist Antonio Negri and the autonomist feminist Mariarosa Dalla Costa, the theories produced by the workers themselves have been largely forgotten. Yet, this experience was remarkable because it involved workers employed by polluting industries denouncing in words and actions the environmental degradation caused by their companies from as early as 1968, when the workerists had a determining influence in the local factories. The Porto Marghera struggles against noxiousness contradict the widespread belief that what is today known as working-class environmentalism did not have much significance in the labour unrest of Italy’s Long 1968. The Porto Marghera group’s original contribution was based on the thesis of the inherent noxiousness of capitalist work and an antagonistic-transformative approach to capitalist technology. This led to the proposal of a counterpower able to determine “what, how, and how much to produce” on the basis of common needs encompassing the environment, pointing to the utopian prospect of struggling for a different, anti-capitalist technology, compatible with the sustainable reproduction of life on the planet.
READ ON/DOWNLOAD PDF:
With hints of "Sweeney Todd," the show follows a masseuse who returns to a gentrified neighborhood after 16 years in prison.
July 3, 2023,
By Associated Press
When Justina Machado returns home to her native Chicago, she barely recognizes it. Machado grew up in Chicago’s inner city, in the neighborhoods of Lincoln Park, Humboldt Park and Logan Square — all of which she says have been gentrified.
“You love the good restaurants, you love all this beauty, but you’re sad that your people get pushed out because who doesn’t want great restaurants and great places and safety? Who doesn’t want that? The problem is, a lot of my people get pushed out ... Taxes and property are like three times what you could buy in the ’80’s, ‘90s and early 2000s. It’s sad to watch.”
Gentrification is also a catalyst for Machado’s new dark comedy series “The Horror of Dolores Roach,” debuting Friday on Amazon Prime Video.
Machado plays Roach, a woman who has spent 16 years in prison on marijuana charges. When she gets released, the world around her looks completely different. Told she has “magic hands” as a masseuse in prison, Roach opens a massage parlor in the same building as an empanada shop. She has the best intentions and wants to live a normal life, until one day she has to use her special hands to save herself from a dangerous situation. The story unravels from there and those empanadas occasionally feature a mystery meat that patrons find delicious.
“Dolores says, ‘I’m just like you, if everything went wrong,’” said Machado. "You empathize with her. Part of the reason that you have compassion for her is because you see this girl that gets 16 years of her life stolen for something that now you can buy in every corner with dispensaries. One day she’s just let out and she has nowhere to go. She has nobody. And that’s more of a common story than we like to think about because it’s too hurtful to think about what happens to someone after they get out of jail and they have to survive. You don’t want to think about those things.”
“The Horror of Dolores Roach” began as a one-woman play written by Aaron Mark and is inspired by the fictional story of “Sweeney Todd.”
“I was a playwright in Washington Heights. I lived there for 10 years,” said Mark. “I was watching the neighborhood gentrify at the speed of light and I felt like I was watching this neighborhood cannibalize itself. Really, That was the image. I felt like, ‘Oh, my God, I’m watching a community feed on itself.’ And that, sent me to 'Sweeney Todd.' I thought, ‘OK, there’s a cannibalism story to be set in this neighborhood. And what better cannibalism tale has our species ever produced than 'Sweeney Todd'?”
Mark wrote the play as “a contemporary ‘Sweeney Todd’ set in Washington Heights” with Daphne Rubin-Vega in mind to play Roach. She agreed and the play was staged off Broadway in 2015. Mark then pitched the story for TV where, he says, “people thought I was out of my mind. I was laughed out of rooms.”
He then decided he had enough material to make a serialized podcast with Rubin-Vega. One month after the first season of the “Dolores Roach” podcast was released, Mark says there was a bidding war for the TV rights. Mark is now a co-showrunner and co-executive producer on the series.
“In the casting process, we had a Zoom with Justina and she said to me, ‘I’m Dolores Roach. This is my part. What do I got to do?’ And I just remember thinking, ‘What do you have to do? We’d be lucky to have you.’ You put the camera on Justina’s face and innately we love her.”
Machado has appeared in many memorable roles including “Six Feet Under,” “Jane the Virgin” and the remake of “One Day at a Time,” but “Dolores Roach” is her first real lead role.
“I was in every scene and every shot because this is told through Dolores’ gaze. This is her P.O.V. So when Dolores walks out of the scene, the scene is over. If I wasn’t on set, I was in my trailer or in my apartment in Toronto learning lines, so it was a much different process. A lonelier process, to be quite honest,” said Machado.
Leaning in to the madness of Dolores’ situation, though, was fun.
“It’s so fun to play something that is outrageous and out there. There’s no boundaries. There is no limit to what she does. It’s just the rawness in even the way she looks... I mean, I didn’t love it so much when I saw it later,” said Machado with a laugh. “I was like, ‘Oh, God!’ But, everything was just free, Barely any makeup, just hair crazy, I loved it. It was very, very freeing.”