Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

December 6, 2011

German autonomen: morality police

Filed under: autonomism,black bloc idiots,ultraleftism — louisproyect @ 7:56 pm

(Second in the series of posts on the black bloc. The first is here: https://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/shining-a-light-on-the-black-bloc-part-1-italian-autonomism/)

Although clearly influenced by Italian autonomia, the German autonomen differed in two major respects. First of all, it made much less of an attempt to link itself with the Marxist tradition, even something as heterodox as Toni Negri’s “refusal to work” brand. Secondly, it was much more of a “scene” or a life-style and more particularly a kind of blend of the punk sensibility with ultraleft militancy—sort of half Sid Vicious and half Mark Rudd circa 1970. A rather unappealing mixture in my view.

The other major difference, of course, between the Italians and the Germans is that the latter group gave birth to the black bloc tactic that has become fairly ritualized ever since its introduction in the early 80s. The tactic had always been around in one form or another since the late 70s at least but it took German ingenuity to effectively patent it.

Ironically, it was the German cops who first coined the term referring to the “Schwarzer Block” in a raid in Frankfurt on July 28, 1981 against squatters and other “subversives”. The cops did not view the schwarzer block as a tactic, but as a group even if was ill-defined. In fact it was so ill-defined that charges were eventually dropped against those arrested.

But as pointed out earlier, the tactic predated its naming by the cops and its enshrinement as a permanent tactic by the autonomen. In the late 70s, a wing of the radical movement donned helmets, masks and black clothing when they went out to fight neo-Nazis and the cops. It should be mentioned at this point that such activists had little use for exploiting peaceful demonstrations. There was such a deep hatred toward the German state in this period that the black bloc tactic could summon thousands of activists into battle. Only a few years earlier the Red Army Faction, led by Baader and Meinhof, could count on support that the American Weather Underground could only fantasize about. Fully one out of four Germans supported their activities and one out of ten said they would hide an RAF member from the cops.

Despite his proud identification with autonomism, Georgy Katsiaficas’s treatment of the German movement is decidedly ambivalent in “The Subversion of Politics”. He views the widespread choice of black as a “style” preference rather than an indication of any kind of deep ideological affinity with anarchism:

The black leather jackets worn by many people at demonstrations and the black flags carried by worn by many people at demonstrations and the black flags carried by others signalled less an ideological anarchism than a style of dress and behavior — symbols of a way of life which made contempt for the established institutions and their U.S. “protectors” into a virtue on an equal footing with disdain for the “socialist” governments in Eastern Europe. Black became the color of the political void — of the withdrawal of allegiance to parties, governments and nations.

In a manner somewhat reminiscent of the clash between “mods” and “rockers” in Britain a decade or so earlier, the German left became a battleground between the punkish black leather favoring Mollis (those who threw Molotov cocktails) and the more laid-back hippy types called Müslis, after the breakfast cereal.

The primary arena for struggle by the “molli” faction was defending squats. In places such as the Kreuzberg neighborhood of West Berlin, thousands of empty apartments and stores had become occupied by the autonomen and turned into both places to live and cultural centers embodying their values. On a much smaller scale the same thing happened in the Lower East Side of Manhattan around the same time.

Serving as morality police in Kreuzberg, autonomen activists punished any and all violators of the group ethos as Katsiaficas points out:

In response, autonomous groups seeking to preserve the independence and character of their neighborhoods intensified their attacks on yuppie entrepreneurs, leading to a widespread perception of the Autonomen as little more than neighborhood mafias (Kiezmafia). Seeking to create a “dead zone for speculators and yuppie-pigs,” groups waged a concerted campaign against gentrification in Kreuzberg. They vandalized upscale restaurants catering to professionals — in some cases throwing excrement inside — torched luxury automobiles costing in excess of $40,000, and repeatedly damaged businesses they deemed undesirable.

They were also as set in their ways about culture as the Taliban. When a small theater called Sputnik decided to show the film “Terror 2000”, a low-budget anti-Nazi satire, a group of activists sprayed the projectionist with teargas, and used butyric acid to destroy a copy of the film, which they considered “sexist and racist.” Afterward, they threatened to return and “destroy everything” if the movie was ever screened again.

Katsiaficas is rather mealy-mouthed when it comes to this incident, writing “I find it difficult to fault completely those who attack neo-Nazis and films like Terror 2000 in which gratuitous violence and sexual objectification reproduce within the movement the very values which it opposes.”

I wonder how he would react if some hard-core Albanian Maoists took it upon themselves to visit Dr. Katsiaficas’s office and spray him with teargas because they objected to his autonomist deviations. In general, I don’t think it is very useful for leftists to use violence to suppress ideas they find objectionable.

Apparently, the Kreuzberg autonomists had a big thing about “politically incorrect” movies. In a “Letter from Europe” devoted to the Kreuzberg scene that appears in the November 28, 1988 New Yorker Magazine, Jane Mayer reports on another incident:

The Eiszelt is a little theatre on the Zeughofstrasse that shows underground movies , and last spring it was showing a movie called “Fingered,” directed by a Lydia Lunch, which some Kreuzbergers considered pornographic and some sexist and some violent—although apparently not too pornographic or sexist or violent to have shown a few weeks earlier at a theater in town. Twelve masked men and women broke into the Eiszeit during the movie’s run to deal with “Fingered”. They destroyed the projector, and the film in the projector (which turned out to be some other movie), and then they emptied the cash register and fled.

Supposedly the cash receipts were funneled to either a lesbian feminist or anti-imperialist group, but nobody knew which one.

Mayer goes into considerable depth describing the events leading up to the excrement attack on the “upscale” restaurant mentioned in passing by Katsiaficas. You might get the impression from his use of this word that it was one of those joints reviewed in the NY Times with the $200 per person tasting menu. In actuality, the restaurant—called Maxwell—had much more in common with the sort of places opened up in Park Slope by a husband-and-wife team.

In the case of Maxwell, the husband was Hartmut Bitomsky whose values were decidedly opposed to the Style section of the NY Times. His wife Brigitte loved to cook and decided to open a place on the Oranienstrasse, a main drag in Kreuzberg where autonomist values had to be followed to the letter. Not long after Maxwell opened, the Bitomsky’s discovered that they were on a hit-list. They didn’t have to worry about their lives, but their right to open a restaurant was being decided by the morality police.

Twenty years before the Bitomsky’s opened Maxwell, Hartmut was occupying in protest the German Film and Television Academy in West Berlin which he and seventeen other students renamed the Dziga Vertov Academy in honor of the Soviet documentary filmmaker. He was expelled for his efforts.

That did not prevent him from becoming a major figure in the left film world. He wrote what Mayer described as a book of “Marxist aesthetics” on film that was titled “The Redness of the Red in Technicolor” and began making decidedly uncommercial films in Berlin. Becoming obsessed with “German images” like forests, superhighways and blond braids, he reworked them into a film critique of Nazi totalitarianism. His best known work is “B-52”, a documentary on the bomber that the NY Times reviewer described as follows:

”B-52” has grimly detailed accounts of other broken-arrow accidents in Greenland and Spain. A tour guide talks about the Spanish one while showing off a portion of a bombshell at a museum, and a civilian investigator is seen still checking water samples in Goldsboro for signs of nuclear contamination more than 30 years later, mentioning ”a small piece of a nuclear weapon they were unable to recover.” There are horrific stories about the bomber’s use in Vietnam by veterans of that conflict. When Mr. Bitomsky isn’t being glib and uses his interviews to subtly tear down the wall of propaganda about the plane’s efficacy, ”B-52” is absorbing and clear.

None of the black leather clad morality enforcers cared about any of that. All they knew is that Maxwell typified the Schicki-Micki threat to Kreuzberg, a term that means Mickey Mouse chic. It can be likened to “gentrification” in New York and particularly the “yuppie” threat to the Lower East Side in the 1980s that the local counterparts resented even though they never threatened to drive any restaurants out of the neighborhood. In fact, I was friendly with a French chef named Bernard Leroy, who opened a restaurant on Avenue C, the Lower East Side’s equivalent of Oranienstrasse. (He also had a show on WBAI at the time, when it was still very listenable if not compelling radio.) In 1988, the very year that Mayer filed her report, the NY Times reviewed Bernard’s restaurant:

Slum chic may be the next fad in French bistros, what with the success of Bellevues, the Gallic diner on a tawdry block of Ninth Avenue near 37th Street, and now Bernard Organic French Cuisine, at Ninth Street and Avenue C, a scary, drug-plagued neighborhood that makes the Port Authority Bus Terminal’s environs look like Scarsdale.

The creation of the 31-year-old French-born Bernard Leroy, the year-old restaurant is packed nightly, testimony to the resoluteness of trend-seeking Manhattan diners. Mr. Leroy says he uses organic produce and meats ”as much as possible,” doing most of his shopping at the Union Square Greenmarket. He worked at restaurants in France before moving to New York 10 years ago and taking jobs at the caterer Glorious Food, the SoHo Charcuterie and La Petite Ferme. He chose the Avenue C location because, quite simply, ”I could afford it,” he said.

I believe that most local denizens welcomed Bernard into the neighborhood. Maybe that’s a function of their not having been indoctrinated into proper autonomist values. As far as I can remember, they were also big fans of Lydia Lunch, a resident of the neighborhood, as well.

Brigitte Bitomsky’s sole intention in opening Maxwell was to allow people to eat healthy food, like crisp vegetables and fresh fish with interesting spices, an offense in some eyes equal to nuclear power or gang rapes. The restaurant had one room with seven wooden tables and thirty wooden chairs, simple enough. Their mistake, however, probably was using linen tablecloths and napkins, which surely betrayed support for American imperialism.

They opened for business on Christmas of 1985.

In the summer of 1986, the Bitomsky’s figured out that they had become the “enemy”. After furious fighting between the cops and the “mollis” on May Day and in ensuing months, things had become polarized between the hard core left in Kreuzberg and just about everybody else. On one side you had the autonomen in black leather, on the other side you had people who drove SUV’s, Ronald Reagan, the neo-Nazis and Brigitte Bitomsky’s restaurant. People would stop Hartmut on the street and ask him about the ratio between wages and profits in the restaurant, or its “infrastructure”.

Late one night when there were only four customers in the restaurant, nineteen men and women clad in black leather and wearing Doc Martens stormed into the restaurant, started throwing beer cans and turning over furniture. The Bitomsky’s first reaction was to think that they were dealing with neo-Nazis. Some people who ran a soup kitchen down the street told them that they had been victims of the Redskins, a hard-core autonomist gang. They were advised to offer them payoffs, just as if they were characters in “The Sopranos”.

The Redskins came back on Sunday and instructed the Bitomsky’s that they were going to stand trial. They were denounced by an autonomist Vishinsky who demanded to know: “What are you doing in Kreuzberg? You are destroying the infrastructure of Kreuzberg”. Yes, the poached tilapia was certainly a threat to humanity.

Brigitte told Mayer what happened next:

It was hot, and August, and we had only four customers—plus Hartmut, sitting by the door, waiting, and, of course, the whole world watching. But they took us by surprise when they came. You see, we were watching for motorcycles and boots and bomber jackets, and this time it was different. There were only three of them, to begin with. Three men with dark sunglasses and woolen caps pulled low on their foreheads—and carrying buckets. Three men carrying three buckets full of shit and emptied the shit in my restaurant and then they vanished. At that moment, it was all over. We cleaned up and closed the restaurant for good. Who would ever want to eat at Maxwell again?

I will conclude with Kastiaficas’s insightful take on the blind alley that this movement had marched into. Keep in mind that he is one of the foremost defenders of autonomism in the academy, along with John Holloway.

No matter how heroic its members, the existence of an oppositional movement does not necessarily mean that a new psychological structure has emerged which stands in contrast to the unconscious structures of the old social order. By themselves, combativeness and a constant willingness to fight, are not revolutionary attributes — indeed, they are probably the opposite. Even at a moment when the Autonomen were the only public force in Germany directly to oppose the fascist wave of violence which swept across the country in 1992, fights broke out among those who went to Hoyerswerda to stop the pogrom. Internal dangers are all the more real since there are elements to the Autonomen containing within them the seeds of aggression and destruction. “Punk rules,” once a popular slogan, has counterparts today in equally absurd ideas: “Germany-all downhill now” and “Fire and Flames.” The pure nihilism present to some degree in the movement is expressed in a variety of ways. Indications like the combat boots and black leather jackets worn by many militants can be disregarded as superficial, but equally obvious characteristics of the scene merit attention: a scathing anti-intellectualism, an overt and often unchallenged “male” process of events, and random violent clashes among members of the scene. To put it mildly, the movement often fails to establish peaceful and supportive community, and it also contains a dose of German national pride. Both the Greens and the Autonomen have been widely criticized for focusing too much on the German movement’s needs and not enough on the international movement. On these levels, they have not broken with some of the worst dimensions of their cultural tradition.

When you keep in mind that these are the very people who are widely regarded as the inventors of the black bloc tactic, some deep thinking about its role in mass protests has to take place.

In a series of posts to follow, I will take a close look at what happened in Seattle in 1999 and other landmark battles involving the black bloc.

21 Comments »

  1. As you no doubt know, Fassbinder had much to say in his films about how Germans, including leftists, internalized many of the autocratic practices of German fascism, “The Third Generation” comes to mind, as does, more subtly “Mother Kusters Goes to Heaven”. Unfortunately, the German autonomen are a real life instance of this phenomenon. I suspect that you are in agreement with one of the main themes of “The Third Generation”, that groups like the Red Army Faction facilitated the emergence of the current police surveillance state.

    Comment by Richard Estes — December 6, 2011 @ 8:16 pm

  2. I have to check out “The Third Generation”. I view Fassbinder’s “Berlin Alexanderplatz”, along with Godard’s “Weekend” and “Sansho the Baliff”, as one of the 3 greatest movies ever made.

    Comment by louisproyect — December 6, 2011 @ 8:18 pm

  3. Coming of age as a punk rocker in the US, the only thing that was taboo to my friends and I was censorship of any kind. While we did have some absolute rules, i.e. never associate with racists or neo-fascists, the trashing of culture such as perpetuated by the autonomen would have left us nothing short of horrified. Our scene was more about building community than destruction. Of course, destruction of the system was the ultimate goal, but we believed, naively, that building a strong, inclusive counter-culture would eventually lead to the collapse of capitalism and the state. Not that a vibrant cultural alternative isn’t still worthwhile; I just know now that it takes a bit more than organizing rock shows to change the world. Even in my most radical anarchist days, I had little use for futile acts of violence or property destruction. My view on, say, smashing a Starbucks window was that it really wasn’t going to put a hurt on the company financially to replace it, and that it damn sure wasn’t going to be the CEO or even the store manager cleaning up the mess.
    I will make an admission on the subject of excrement. We did play a few pranks involving biological expulsions on some of the local college frat houses. Not because we were anti-intellectual, mind you, but because a lot of those guys were just plain dicks.

    Comment by Rob — December 6, 2011 @ 11:34 pm

  4. The biggest enemy of the punk movement I grew up in the 70’s was corporate rock.

    Music at that time was heavily dominated by bourgeois major record labels and punk was very anti long guitar solo corporate rock.

    Radicalism then and radicalism now. The music was great, so anarchist.

    Times change but the message is pretty much the same.

    I was just a radical in the making then. Took many more years of fine tuning to get it right lol.

    ode to mr. rotten.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — December 7, 2011 @ 1:17 am

  5. Wow, so you’re a fan of Alexanderplatz, eh? It’s about my favorite movie of all time.

    Comment by Doug Henwood — December 7, 2011 @ 1:42 am

  6. Berlin Alexanderplatz was a tv show, not exactly a movie.

    Comment by Chuckie K — December 7, 2011 @ 1:45 am

  7. Richard: As I see it, Fassbinder’s relationship to the RAF was a bit more complicated, as can be seen from the beautiful piece he did for the movie “Germany in Autumn” a collective project of many of the leftist German filmakers to which he contributed a part. In 3rd Generation there is indeed the line that “Capitalism invented terrorism in order to better protect itself,” but that is spoken somewhat musingly by one of the characters — though I would agree that much of the film tends in that direction. Nevertheless, I think Fassbinder’s relationship to the RAF as well as to the German Left of the time can better be seen as wrought and pained than condemning or belittiling. I just read your blog post on Fassbinder, and I do agree that his movies are quite important for understanding exactly what’s going on in Germany at the moment. There’s probably quite a lot more to be written there.

    Louis: frankly, taking a couple passages from a book which seem to fit your desired image of German autonomism, while providing virtually no context at all about the context in which the movement emerged, its achievements and its limitations, seems closer to liberal moralizing than historical materialism.

    Comment by micah — December 7, 2011 @ 2:20 am

  8. There is no context for spraying a projectionist-a god-damned worker no less-with teargas.

    Comment by louisproyect — December 7, 2011 @ 2:24 am

  9. micah: I think that “wrought and pained” is a fairly accurate assessment of Fassbinder’s relationship to the RAF. As you probably know, Horst Sonnlein was briefly associated with Fassbinder’s anti-theatre in Munich in 1968 before departing to participate in an anti-consumerist Department store arson shortly thereafter, an action that indirectly appears (sans arson) in “Love is Colder than Death”. Fassbinder related to the emotional turmoil and social motivations of people like Sonnlein, and the radical left more generally including those in the RAF, while considering their behavior personally self-destructive and politically counterproductive. Juliane Lorenz, on the “Third Generation” DVD, makes so fairly pointed comments about how Fassbinder considered the RAF to be the misguided consequence of a kind of “Bonnie and Clyde” machismo.

    Comment by Richard Estes — December 7, 2011 @ 5:54 am

  10. Look, the district in Kreuzberg that you refer to was slated for South Bronx treatment, with the old buildings being knocked down and replaced with a freeway. Years of struggle prevented that from happening, struggles in which autonomes played a big role. One doesn’t have to agree with vandalizing a restaurant, but in this case I think it’s relevant that this restaurant could never have been built in the first place if it weren’t for the previous achievements of ultra-leftists.

    Comment by micah — December 7, 2011 @ 11:59 am

  11. Didn’t Third Generation get the same response as this Terror 2000, namely acid and an assaulted projectionist?

    Comment by vsm — December 7, 2011 @ 1:58 pm

  12. another vote for berlin alexanderplatz

    Comment by jp — December 7, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

  13. vsm: yes, Third Generation did get that sort of treatment, and it is a problematic film for some people to watch

    for example, I first saw it during the 1997 PFA Fassbinder retrospective in Berkeley

    as I was entranced by the unfolding narrative, one that implicitly indicted the middle class for its vicarious recourse to violence to address its day to day dissatisfactions, I felt an increasing tension in the nearly sold out theatre, so much so that it seeemed like people couldn’t exhale

    after the typically abrupt Fassbinder ending, and the lights came on, the tension remained, as if people didn’t know how to react to something that exposed the psychosexual politics of many of them 20 years later

    then, someone applauded, as they used to do in those days, two hands clapping, and then I, and a number of others joined, creating a smattering of applause in an otherwise silent theatre of patrons

    I’ve never had the experience, before or since

    oh, by the way, agree wholeheartedly on Alexanderplatz, probably my all time favorite, and, agree on “Sansho the Bailiff”, too, something that must be seen on a large theatre screen if possible

    Comment by Richard Estes — December 7, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

  14. I’m beginning to find myself more sympathetic and open to autonomy.

    The idea of self government and independence is appealing.

    I’m definitely reconsidering my position.

    Things are so bad in this country, perhaps we could learn something from the Germans and other autonomes in Europe.

    Comment by Deborah Jeffries — December 7, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

  15. There are so many lies and charicatures in this ‘article’ that i couldn’t even begin to correct them. The idea that Kreuzberg in the 1980’s would look like a war between ‘the blacks’ and ‘everybody else’ is ridiculous. Of course there were some nasty incidents, and some radical feminists can be pretty dogmatic, but thank god there were and are people ready to organize and fight the cops and the nazi’s. Anyway it is way outdated. Since heiligendamm G8 in 2007 and things like the Schottern-actions against nucleair waste transport in Gorleben, militancy found new forms and alliances. you guys in the US could sure learn a lesson or two from that

    Comment by charlie from Holland — December 7, 2011 @ 11:10 pm

  16. The idea that Kreuzberg in the 1980′s would look like a war between ‘the blacks’ and ‘everybody else’ is ridiculous.

    I did not say that it was against “everybody else”, only those found guilty of spreading the schiki-micki infrastructure. Death to artichokes!

    Comment by louisproyect — December 7, 2011 @ 11:25 pm

  17. The German Autonomen are a party of history now, the “reunification” (really an Anschluss) of FRG and GDR was the end of the entire era of Fordist capitalism in the GDR

    Phenomena like the Autonomia in Italy or the Autonomen in Germany in the late-70s and early-80s were an ephemeral phenomenon made possible by the specific constellation of Keynesian welfare statism in Europe, which actually made it possible for a large section of youth to drop out of the mainstream of society, opt out of wage-labor, and construct counter-institutions that lived off of the fat of welfare-statist social democracy. I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that these movements died out as neoliberalism became ascendant. It’s a testament to how blinkered the participants of this milieu are that they are unable to reflect how their own condition of existence was due to the hegemony of the post-war social compromise, of which they were a mere epiphenomenon.

    That’s also, BTW, why I think North American black bloc-ism is just poseur machismo, trying to imitate a European phenomenon where the social conditions for it are non-existent (unless I’m just completely unaware of the vast network of squatted houses, alternative pubs and youth centers in North American cities).

    Of course in Germany there are still young people in the radical extra-parliamentary milieu who still refer to themselves as “Autonomen”, but this is just an exercise in political nostalgia. A couple of left-wing cafes and bars exist, a handful of bookstores, and some legalized former squats, but it’s not comparable to the 1980s. It’s just a catch-all term now for anyone who isn’t a party-Marxist or Green or Social Democrat.

    Comment by negative potential — December 10, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

  18. D’oh, typo: “the entire era of Fordist capitalism in the GDR”

    Of course I mean to say FRG.

    Comment by negative potential — December 10, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

  19. […] German autonomism […]

    Pingback by The black bloc and the Battle of Seattle « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — January 11, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

  20. […] Occupy must disempower the forces of repression, strategically. Let Lao Tse, Buddha, Jesus, Te Whiti and Tohu, Emmiline Pankhurst, Gandhi and Martin Luther King be amongst your highest role-models. Right-individualist anarcho-opposition asks Where does peaceful protest get us? arguing Why pacifism is morally indefensible with NYPD goes after OWS protester’s tweet by German autonomen: morality police? […]

    Pingback by #OccupyMayDay 2012 #Occupy #Christchurch #M1 #OWS #GlobalSpring #GeneralStrike #M1GS #Chch « Rik Tindall blogs — May 22, 2012 @ 9:41 am

  21. […] que intentasen asentarse en los barrios que estaban bajo su influencia (en el artículo German autonomen: morality pólice se menciona el caso de Kreuzberg). No eran simplemente hijos de la anarquía, también eran hijos […]

    Pingback by La táctica del Black Bloc | El desván — May 5, 2015 @ 6:27 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: