A New Socialism for a New Century?https://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/KTB-roundtable_On-socialism-pdf-724x1024.jpg7241024Susann SchmeisserSusann Schmeisserhttps://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f0e7200cc21fefd51a4d524c4f4492b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g
with Christine Berry (Trustee of Rethinking Economics), Axel Honneth (Jack C. Weinstein Professor for the Humanities at Columbia University New York), Bhaskar Sunkara (editor of Jacobin Magazine), hosted by Rahel Jaeggi
There is a deep uncertainty concerning the outline of a left-wing societal alternative. Towards the end of his recent Benjamin Lectures Axel Honneth admitted: “I always viewed myself as a socialist—even though, today, I do not any longer know what a full blown socialism would look like.” At the same time, “socialism” has resurfaced as a left-wing code in the Anglo-Saxon world: young partisans want to influence the traditional Social-Democratic parties by the means of grassroots movements, pressure them to take positions further to the left, and to fight for a “socialism” which starts right here and right now. Hence, we would like to discuss what the democratization of the economy could mean today; which role market and state should play in the process; and how this new socialism relates to left-wing struggles for emancipation and against discrimination. The question is: What social visions will replace those old Social-Democratic promises and approaches, that have lost all their credibility, in the years to come?
Christiane Berry is one of the most prominent proponents of the socialist rebirth in the UK and co-author of People Get Ready!
Axel Honneth is the author of The Idea of Socialism
Bhaskar Sunkara is the founder of Jacobin magazine, which presents socialism in the US as an intellectually exciting current and author of The Socialist Manifesto
Roundtable on “Foundations of Solidarity”https://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ktb-roundtable-solidarity1024-1.jpg7241024Susann SchmeisserSusann Schmeisserhttps://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f0e7200cc21fefd51a4d524c4f4492b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g
In this round table event we discussed with Hauke Brunkhorst, Stefan Gosepath, Asad Haider, Sabine Hark, Serene Khader, Stefan Lessenich, and Frederick Neuhouser. Organized by the Humanities and Social Change Center Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) in cooperation with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and the New School for Social Research (Alice Crary).
How can the materialist foundations of actual solidarity be rethought without falling back into tacit assumptions of social homogeneity? Class, gender, race, nation, and even humanity have all lost their status as matters of course. Given the effects of sexism and racism, theories of solidarity have to take into account the complex contradictions of capitalist societies which divide subaltern and exploited groups on the domestic level as well as globally. Appeals to solidarity hence run into an uncertainty concerning the foundations of solidarity. Is solidarity the result of a shared form of life or of collective practices? Does it stem from similar experiences or a common situation? Is it marked by adversity or a common enemy? Or is it the effect of a shared devotion to a common cause?
Hauke Brunkhorst (Europa-Universität Flensburg)
Robin Celikates (Freie Universität Berlin)
Stefan Gosepath (Freie Universität Berlin)
Asad Haider (New School for Social Research)
Sabine Hark (Technische Universität Berlin)
Rahel Jaeggi (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
Serene Khader (City University of New York)
Stefan Lessenich (Universität München)
Frederick Neuhouser (Barnard College, Columbia University)
Walter-Benjamin-Lectures with Axel Honneth on “The Working Sovereign: A Democratic Theory of the Division of Labor”https://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HU_Benjamin3_23Feb21-pdf-723x1024.jpg7231024Susann SchmeisserSusann Schmeisserhttps://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f0e7200cc21fefd51a4d524c4f4492b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g
On June 16th, 17th, and 18th, 2021, Axel Honneth held the Benjamin Lectures on “The Working Sovereign: A Democratic Theory of the Division of Labor”.
One of the greatest shortcomings of almost all theories of democracy is the tendency to repeatedly forget, with a certain stubbornness, that most members of the loudly invoked sovereign are also always working subjects. As much as one might like to imagine that citizens are primarily engaged in actively participating in political debate, this is wrong in social reality; almost all of those we are talking about do paid or unpaid work on a daily basis for many hours at a time, which, due to the effort and duration, makes it impossible for them to even put themselves in the role of a participant in democratic decision-making.
This blind spot of democratic theory precedes its object and yet penetrates it down to its finest capillaries: a social division of labor that arose on the basis of modern capitalism and assigns each member of society a place in the structure of social reproduction, determining his or her scope of influence and options for participation in the process of democratic decision-making. The task of the Benjamin Lectures is to investigate the connection between democracy and the social division of labor. We will examine (I) which normative connection exists between the goal of civic participation in democratic decision-making and social labor, (II) what is the actual distribution of social labor today, and finally, (III) what possibilities seem feasible today for eliminating existing disadvantages.
The lectures took place in Berlin at the open-air cinema Hasenheide.
Rassismuskritik nach Hanau mit Vanessa E. Thompson und Serhat Karakayalihttps://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/KTB-in-context-–Rassismuskritik-nach-Hanau-page-001-1-724x1024.jpg7241024Susann SchmeisserSusann Schmeisserhttps://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f0e7200cc21fefd51a4d524c4f4492b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g
Nach dem Terroranschlag von Hanau am 19. Februar 2020 haben vor allem die in der Initiative „19. Februar“ organisierten Opferfamilien dafür gekämpft, dass es kein Zurück zu einer vermeintlichen Normalität geben darf. Hanau muss zur Zäsur werden in der deutschen Auseinandersetzung mit Rassismus – einer Zäsur, die zugleich auf das Kontinuum rassistischer Gewalt, Diskurse, Strukturen und Subjektivierungen verweist. Wir fragen, wie sich dieses Kontinuum historisch und theoretisch fassen lässt, wie sich soziale und politische Diskurse über Rassismus verändert haben und wie sie sich verändern müssen, welche theoretischen und politischen Perspektiven der Rassismuskritik hierzu produktiv beitragen können, und wie diese sich zu aktuellen Kämpfen verhalten, von #BlackLivesMatter bis zu migrantischen Bewegungen.
Dr. Vanessa E. Thompson ist wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin am Lehrstuhl für Vergleichende Kultur und Sozialanthropologie an der Europa-Universität Viadrina (Frankfurt Oder). Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte sind kritische Rassismus- und Migrationsforschung, Black Studies, Gender Studies, postkolonial/dekolonial-feministische Theorien und Methodologien sowie transformative Gerechtigkeit. In ihrem Postdoc-Projekt untersucht sie Racial Profiling in Europa und alternative Formen der abolitionistischen und feministisch-transformativen Gerechtigkeit.
Dr. Serhat Karakayali ist Soziologe und Leiter der Abteilung Migration am Deutschen Zentrum für Integrations- und Migrationsforschung (DeZIM). Er forscht u.a. zu Migration, Geschichte und Gegenwart illegaler Einwanderung, Praktiken und Medien der Solidarität in der Migrationsgesellschaft und der Transformation von Integrationspolitiken.
with Gregg Gonsalves, Rahel Jaeggi and Robin Celikates
In this roundtable, Gregg Gonsalves discusses with Rahel Jaeggi and Robin Celikates how to fight the denial of truth by right-wing movements and authoritarian governments without falling for the naïve belief in the objectivity of value free science. Drawing from his rich experience as an AIDS/HIV activist, Gregg Gonsalves describes the vital role of social and political movements such as Black Lives Matter, both for establishing a democratic system of public health beyond technocracy and for the global distribution of vaccines needed to end the pandemic. As Rahel Jaeggi sums up at one point, the position of Gregg Gonsalves is best described as: “The medical is the political.”
Gregg Gonsalves has been an AIDS activist for over 30 years. He is a global health activist and assistant professor at Yale School of Public Health.
Whose City? Urban Struggles in the Age of Gentrificationhttps://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/in-context-whose-city-768x1086-1-724x1024.jpg7241024Susann SchmeisserSusann Schmeisserhttps://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f0e7200cc21fefd51a4d524c4f4492b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g
with Lisa Vollmer, Mustafa Dikeç, Christian Volk and Robin Celikates
Gentrification and neoliberalization have shaped the cities we live in but also given rise to urban struggles, from uprisings to social movements advocating for rent control and tenants‘ rights. What are the dynamics shaping the city as both a field and object of social and political protests and movements? What possibilities and limitations characterize the various forms of urban struggle, and to what extent are they able to create concrete alternatives and to transform urban politics? And how can urban struggles overcome the many cleavages that characterize the modern city and develop counterstrategies to neoliberal individualization and state repression?
Lisa Vollmer is a researcher and lecturer at the Institute for European Urban Studies at Bauhaus-Universität Weimar and a member of the Berlin-based political initiative Stadt von unten/City from Below. Her research interests include urban social movements, gentrification and housing. Among her recent publications is Strategien gegen Gentrifizierung (Schmetterling, 2018).
Mustafa Dikeç is Professor of Urban Studies at the École d’urbanisme de Paris (EUP) and researcher at Malmö University. His work is located at the intersection of space and politics, urban uprisings, and temporal urban infrastructures. His most recent book is Urban Rage: The Revolt of the Excluded (Yale University Press, 2017).
Enteignen und dann? (ein Gespräch mit Sabine Nuss und Hans-Jürgen Urban)https://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ktb-in-context-nuss-urban-725x1024.jpg7251024Susann SchmeisserSusann Schmeisserhttps://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f0e7200cc21fefd51a4d524c4f4492b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g
Mit Sabine Nuss und Hans-Jürgen Urban (Moderation: Christian Schmidt). Im Anschluss an die Podiumsdiskussion können Teilnehmende Fragen stellen.
Je größer die Verwerfungen auf dem Wohnungsmarkt, je größer überhaupt die ökologischen und sozialen Krisen werden, die die freie Marktwirtschaft produziert, umso lauter werden auch die Stimmen, die nach radikalen Lösungen rufen. Mit der Berliner Kampagne „Deutsche Wohnen & Co enteignen“, aber auch mit den Forderungen nach einer „Sozialisierung“ von BMW und ganz generell Unternehmen, deren Geschäftsmodell auf der Förderung und Verbrennung von fossilen Energieträgern beruht, ist die Enteignung von privatem Kapital wieder in die politische Diskussion zurückgekehrt. Doch was bedeutet „enteignen“ eigentlich genau? Verstaatlichung, Rekommunalisierung, Überführung in gemeinschaftliches oder genossenschaftliches Eigentum sind hier gängige Antworten. Und nach den Erfahrungen mit der Planwirtschaft des „realexistierenden“ Sozialismus wird regelmäßig hinzugefügt, dass es natürlich um die demokratische Bewertung von Bedürfnissen und kollektive Entscheidungsformen gehe. Wie diese genau aussehen und ob sie einen Sozialismus zur Voraussetzung haben oder sich auch im Kapitalismus verwirklichen lassen, ist das Thema des dritten Gesprächs in der Reihe Über Sozialismus reden, das zugleich an den Eigentums-Workshop im Dezember 2018 sowie das Barrikadengespräch zur Wohnungsfrage (mit Canan Bayram, Jenny Weyel und Daniel Loick) anknüpft.
Sabine Nuss ist die Geschäftsführerin des Karl Dietz Verlags in Berlin. In ihrem Buch Keine Enteignung ist auch keine Lösung (Dietz Berlin 2019) plädiert sie für kleine und große Wiederaneignungen der gesellschaftlichen Produktion.
Hans-Jürgen Urban ist geschäftsführendes Vorstandsmitglied der IG Metall und Permanent Fellow am Jenaer Kolleg Postwachstumsgesellschaften. Er plädiert dafür, wirtschaftliche Entscheidungen schrittweise zu demokratisieren und die Zivilgesellschaft in sie einzubeziehen.
Die Krise der Sorgearbeit überwinden (ein Gespräch mit Frigga Haug und Julia Fritzsche)https://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Krise-der-Sorgearbeit_Haug_Fritzsche_2020-724x1024.jpg7241024Susann SchmeisserSusann Schmeisserhttps://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f0e7200cc21fefd51a4d524c4f4492b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g
Für einen kurzen Augenblick konnte es so scheinen, als habe die Corona-Pandemie endlich das breite gesellschaftliche Bewusstsein dafür geschaffen, wie wichtig Pflege und Sorge für uns alle sind. Zu wichtig, um genau zu sein, um sie weiter unter so schlechten Bedingungen wie gegenwärtig zu organisieren. Das Home-Schooling im Home-Office, der Pflegenotstand in Krankenhäusern und Altenheimen schienen endlich die nötige Aufmerksamkeit für die Belastungen und prekären Bedingungen alltäglicher Sorge zu erzeugen. Eine Tarifrunde und einen Kinderbonus später stellt sich Ernüchterung ein. Wir wollen deshalb mit Frigga Haug und Julia Fritzsche diskutieren. Beide sagen seit langem, dass mehr Pflegekräfte und eine höhere Bezahlung allein, die Krise der Sorgearbeit nicht überwinden werden. Gebraucht werde vielmehr ein neues Verständnis menschlicher Tätigkeit und gesellschaftlicher Arbeitsteilung. Aber wie soll sie konkret aussehen, die Sorge und Pflege in einer Gesellschaft, in der sie weder zur unbezahlten Domäne von Frauen privatisiert noch professionalisiert, aber dafür den Gesetzen der Ökonomisierung unterworfen werden?
Frigga Haug hat als marxistische Feministin den besonderen zeitlichen Charakter von Sorgearbeit herausgearbeitet und mit dem Vier-in-Einem-Konzept schon 2011 einen radikalen Vorschlag für ein neues Verständnis von Arbeit gemacht, in dem Sorge, Kultur und Politik auch einen Platz haben.
Julia Fritzsche plädiert in Tiefrot und radikal bunt (Nautilus 2019) für eine neue linke Erzählung, die den Wunsch nach anderen menschlichen Beziehungsweisen auch auf dem Gebiet der Sorgearbeit artikuliert und wirkmächtig werden lässt.
“Working humans are so much more than ‚resources‘. This is one of the central lessons of the current crisis.“ Theworldwide political call of several thousand scientistswho are taking the corona pandemic as an occasion to demand changes in the world of work begins with these words. The initiators argue for a „democratization“, „decommodification“ and „remediation“ of work by: 1. giving work councils the same voting rights as supervisory boards, 2. distributing and organizing work not exclusively as a commodity and via market mechanisms, but by creating a job guarantee, and 3. implementing these goals in line with a „Green Deal“ that takes into account the current ecological challenges. Depending on the understanding of democracy that underpins these demands and what exactly is meant by decommodification, the transformation of the world of work is less or more profound. As part of our series of events “In Context” we will discuss the arguments behind these demands with three of the main initiators of this call – Neera Chandhoke, Isabelle Ferreras and Lisa Herzog.
The list of problems and contradictions that the corona pandemic has made visible in the current world of work is long. First of all, the pandemic has shown that it is difficult to speak of a world of work at all. On the one hand, there is the relatively protected world of highly qualified employment, which largely corresponds to the normative standards of modern working societies. On the other hand, there is the world of underpaid, precarious work, which runs counter to these standards. The boundaries of these different worlds are largely determined by the political and social inequalities that run along the lines of class, race and gender. In the pandemic, it is precisely the underpaid and precarious fields of activity that have proven to be „systemically relevant“. Furthermore, the pandemic has made visible how strongly western industrial nations are dependent on workers and products from countries whose citizens are simultaneously denied legal migration and access to national labor rights. How far must the transformation of labor relations and their institutions go to enable a more just distribution and organization of work? Do we simply need more effective political means to enforce the normative standards already recognized? Or should we question the understanding of work that shapes our normative standards and labor institutions?
Neera Chandhoke is National Fellow at the Indian Council of Social Science Research and was formerly Professor of Political Science at the University of Delhi. In her last book Rethinking Pluralism, Secularism and Tolerance. Anxieties of Coexistence (2019) Chandhoke examines how people of different languages, religions and ethics live together with a degree of civility, dignity and mutual respect.
Isabelle Ferreras is a sociologist and political scientist and Professor at the University of Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). In her book Firms as Political Entities. Saving Democracy through Economic Bicameralism (2017) Ferreras suggests to organize firms in a “bicameral” structure that grants the same rights to workers as the ones held by capital investors.
Lisa Herzog is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and the Center for Philosophy, Politics and Economics of the University of Groningen. In her book Die Rettung der Arbeit. Ein politischer Aufruf (2019) Herzog argues for a political shaping of the present and future world of work that sees work as an essential source of social integration.
Borders and Solidarity in Times of Coronahttps://hscif.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Plakat_Barrikade_Juni2020-pdf-724x1024.jpg7241024Susann SchmeisserSusann Schmeisserhttps://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f0e7200cc21fefd51a4d524c4f4492b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g
with Manuela Bojadžijev and Muhammad al-Kashef, moderated by Robin Celikates
While the coronavirus pandemic in a way affects us all, recent developments have made it abundantly clear that not all are affected equally. Both the spread and the impact of the novel coronavirus are profoundly mediated by social and political inequalities that structure societies along the lines of class, race and gender. These inequalities are, among others, upheld, reproduced and intensified by the international border regime. The current pandemic has obscured the plight of refugees around the world as much as it has exacerbated it. Refugee camps – at the borders of the EU and elsewhere – have become the crucible of this crisis just as much as they condense the structural violence of the border regime more generally. While campaigns such as #LeaveNoOneBehind have mobilized some public attention, the catastrophic effects of the pandemic continue to be especially harsh at the border, in a form that is intensified by the border.
In this conversation with the anthropologist and migration scholar Manuela Bojadžijev (HU Berlin) and the researcher and activist Muhammad al-Kashef (Watch The Med Alarm Phone) we will explore the changing dynamics of borders and solidarity in times of corona: How does the total closure of borders affect migration and especially the situation of refugees at the borders of Europe? How does this closure relate to the demand of contemporary capitalism for ‘cheap’ migrant labor e.g on German asparagus farms? What prospects are there for solidarity in a time of disaster nationalism? Which practices and mobilizations can redeem the promise of solidarity to create a relation of symmetry in contrast to the asymmetries of humanitarian help?
