Europe
German court declares Karl Marx’s teachings unconstitutional
A court in Hamburg, Germany, has stated in the details of a ruling concerning a Karl Marx reading group that Marx’s teachings may be contrary to the “free democratic basic order.”
On April 8, the “Marxist School of Politics and Culture Forum” (Masch) won its case against the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution (LfV) in the Hamburg Administrative Court.
The court ruled that the authorities could no longer classify the Hamburg-based association as “left-wing extremist.” Masch had won its lawsuit against its inclusion in the organization’s 2021 report and the revocation of its non-profit status in the same year.
Lack of ‘active militant attitude’ saved a Marx association, but…
Now, as reported by taz, it has emerged that this legal victory could backfire like a boomerang and pose a danger to all Marx reading circles in Germany.
The reason for this lies in what the Hamburg court wrote in its written decision on July 10. It is a common practice for courts to explain the precise reasons for their decisions in writing only weeks later, but the content of the decision is considered surprising.
The court affirmed its ruling in favor of Masch, declaring its inclusion in the constitutional protection report unlawful. However, it did so because its members lacked the “active militant attitude” to actually harm the constitution.
Court rules Marx is incompatible with the ‘free democratic basic order’
Masch has been active since 1981. It is best known in Hamburg for its annual reading groups on the first volume of Marx’s work Capital, but the group also publishes books and frequently organizes discussion events, often at the University of Hamburg.
It sees itself in the tradition of workers’ educational associations and Marxist workers’ schools and, by its own account, exhibits a “non-dogmatic and critical approach to Marxist theory.”
The association was deemed suspicious by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution because, among other things, it was alleged that Masch was originally founded by the German Communist Party (DKP) and still maintains close ties with it.
The court rejected this accusation in April, noting that only one of the 26 Masch members is currently a member of the DKP.
However, the written justification goes even further. The court discusses the issue of whether engaging with Marxist theory is fundamentally compatible with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The court finds that “the plaintiff’s activities, which focus on the theories of Karl Marx, are fundamentally incompatible with the free democratic basic order.”
The court states that the centrality of Marx’s works and teachings to Masch’s activities is evident from its name, “Marxist Evening School.”
According to the court, the reason this is problematic is as follows: “The social theory created by Marx may contain incompatibilities in fundamental points with the principles of the free democratic basic order.”
The court had not yet touched upon this point in its oral ruling in April.
Danger for all Marx reading groups
Ridvan Ciftci, the lawyer who represented Masch in court, finds the court’s statements “irresponsible.”
According to him, this decision implies that predominantly reading Marx is fundamentally unconstitutional. In Masch’s case, the group is not problematic only because it is “sufficiently insignificant” and not “actively militant.”
In Ciftci’s assessment, this poses a threat to all Marx reading circles in Germany. “Any association that primarily refers to Marx could therefore become a subject of surveillance,” the lawyer says.
In this respect, the decision in which Masch successfully defended itself against being classified as unconstitutional potentially appears to be a boomerang and, at the very least, a legal setback.
In fact, other courts have recently taken a much more flexible approach to the theory of Karl Marx. For example, in the case brought by the newspaper Junge Welt against its surveillance by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the Berlin Administrative Court stated that a Marxist orientation alone does not constitute an effort to overthrow the free democratic basic order and that revolution could be a “radical, yet still constitutional social transformation.”
The Hamburg court, however, looks at the matter from a different perspective. The court believes that the Marxist theory adopted by Masch aims not just for reforms but for revolution through violence.
The court does not accept Masch’s objection that its discussions are limited to a critique of capitalism. Quoting from the association’s website, the court notes that the association’s goal is to “completely transform the economic system, the state, and society.”
The main problem is the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’
The court believes that when it comes to Marx, the problem lies in the concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The court points out that the meaning of this concept “inevitably excludes other population groups from the political decision-making process and the indirect exercise of state power,” stating, in other words, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is “undemocratic.”
Masch member Michael Hopp argues that “this is a complete misunderstanding.” “The court is acting as if Marx’s texts were written yesterday,” says Hopp, who claims that Marx can “absolutely be understood as a democrat” when one does not solely refer to the Communist Manifesto pamphlet, as the court does, and that the “older Marx” emphasized that the means of change must be adapted to the historical situation.
“Marx would have recommended anything but a crowd of people storming the Bundestag today,” says Hopp.
Hopp also suggests that the court misunderstands the nature of Marx’s theory as an “analytical tool” and of Masch as “an educational institution.” “The oversimplification lies in us being accused of putting words into action. But we look at the words and reflect on them,” he says.
Is capitalism enshrined in the Basic Law?
The decision of the Hamburg Administrative Court also touches on a problem that has been more frequently discussed in recent years following the demand to “expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co.”: To what extent does the Basic Law, the source of the free democratic basic order, stipulate that the Federal Republic of Germany should be organized according to capitalist principles?
The Hamburg court did not find Masch’s argument, which referred to political scientist Wolfgang Abendroth, that the Basic Law is neutral in terms of economic policy, to be convincing.
On the other hand, according to taz, many questions still remain unanswered:
“Is every introductory course on Marx in the first semester now suspect? What exactly does ‘actively militant’ mean? Is radical social criticism not unconstitutional? To clarify these and other questions, Masch, which is currently considering appealing the decision, plans to do what it does best: organize a discussion event.”
Germany is seeking to strengthen ties with the Mercosur trade bloc and secure greater access to Argentina’s natural resources as part of an effort to reduce its economic dependence on the United States and China.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul attended the Mercosur summit in Paraguay on Tuesday before traveling to Argentina on Wednesday for talks aimed at expanding German companies’ access to the country’s natural resources, including lithium.
On Thursday, July 3, Wadephul continued his regional tour in Brazil, Mercosur’s largest economy.
Berlin hopes to increase exports to the South American bloc as it seeks to reduce its reliance on exports to the United States.
At the same time, the Trump administration is working to tighten its influence over Latin America. To that end, it is backing right-wing electoral candidates, including Flávio Bolsonaro in Brazil.
Washington is also expanding its military presence in the region under the stated objective of combating drug cartels and criminal gangs.
According to German Foreign Policy, Wadephul visited Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil this week. While in Paraguay, he also met Chilean President José Antonio Kast and Foreign Minister Francisco Pérez Mackenna.
The main focus of his trip was strengthening relations with Mercosur, the South American trade bloc with which the European Union signed a free trade agreement after more than 25 years of negotiations.
Although the European Parliament suspended the agreement on January 21 for legal review, the European Commission decided to provisionally apply its trade provisions from May 1.
On Tuesday, Wadephul attended the Mercosur summit in Asunción, Paraguay, where several disagreements among member states became apparent.
One unresolved issue is how export quotas for agricultural products allocated to Mercosur under the EU free trade agreement should be distributed among member countries.
Tensions have also emerged after Argentina signed a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States in February. The move is viewed as conflicting with Mercosur’s founding principles and risks undermining the bloc’s cohesion.
For Germany and the EU, Mercosur is regarded as a partial alternative to exports destined for the US market, making relations with the bloc strategically important.
Alongside expanding trade, another key objective is broadening Germany’s access to critical raw materials.
Argentina possesses some of the world’s largest lithium reserves. On Wednesday, Wadephul signed a memorandum of understanding intended to facilitate German companies’ access to the country’s raw material resources.
Australia is currently the largest investor in Argentina’s lithium sector, with Australian companies operating alongside firms from the US and the UK. China also maintains a significant presence in Argentina’s lithium industry.
Germany is attempting to differentiate itself from its competitors by pledging to help develop processing capacity within Argentina, a commitment Wadephul reiterated on Wednesday.
Under President Javier Milei, Argentina’s economy has shifted increasingly toward raw material exports, while its industrial sector has come under mounting pressure.
Expanding domestic processing of those resources could help alleviate some of those challenges. Representatives of Germany’s commodities industry accompanied Wadephul during the visit.
Germany’s new government has replaced the Bürgergeld citizens’ income benefit with a new basic income support scheme as part of a broader overhaul of the country’s welfare system.
The Bürgergeld benefit had been in force since 2023, replacing the previous Unemployment Benefit II. According to junge Welt (jW), the latest changes effectively mark the return of the “Hartz IV regime” introduced under former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in 2005.
Federal Labour Minister Bärbel Bas of the SPD on Wednesday described the reforms as “a strong signal against the abuse of social benefits.”
Steffen Kampeter, head of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations, backed the move and called for the “consistent enforcement of stricter cooperation obligations.”
Officials at Bas’s ministry are currently drafting legislation governing how the new basic income support will be calculated. The process is referred to as the “standard needs assessment.”
The shift from Bürgergeld to the new basic income support represents more than a change in name. The central principle is that securing employment takes priority. If low-paid jobs are available and deemed “reasonable,” job seekers registered with employment agencies will be required to accept them. Failure to do so will result in benefit reductions.
According to the Federal Employment Agency (BA), the reform’s primary objective remains placing people into long-term employment, while vocational training and continuing education are given secondary importance.
Bas has likewise described the policy as one that “promotes employment rather than benefit dependency,” adding: “Everyone who is able to work must make an effort to find a job.”
According to a statement published on Wednesday by the organization Sanktionsfrei, that characterization does not reflect reality. Of the roughly 5.5 million people receiving basic income support, nearly two million are children and young people. At least 800,000 recipients are already working but must supplement their income because of low wages.
In addition, more than one million benefit recipients are unable to participate in the labor market because they care for relatives, look after children, are in education or are ill.
The share of recipients who “completely refuse” to seek work is negligible. Even the Federal Employment Agency’s Institute for Employment Research identified only around 100 such cases last year.
The federal government also plans to reduce housing benefits. Joachim Rock, managing director of the Paritätischer Gesamtverband, said on Wednesday that the move would push recipients of both basic income support and housing assistance further into poverty.
Older people and families would be particularly affected. At the same time, the governing coalition has pledged to eliminate homelessness by 2030.
Ines Schwerdtner, co-chair of Germany’s Left Party, argues that abolishing the standard benefit entirely would violate fundamental rights and is considering filing a constitutional complaint against the reforms with the Federal Constitutional Court.
Lawmakers from across the UK political spectrum have called for the Russian-produced animated series “Masha and the Bear” to be banned in Britain.
According to The Guardian, a cross-party group of lawmakers from the Liberal Democrats, Labour Party, Conservative Party, Green Party, Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru sent a joint letter to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy.
In the letter, the lawmakers called for the cartoon to be removed from broadcast, arguing that it constitutes “covert Russian propaganda.”
The MPs cited scenes in which the main character, Masha, appears wearing military symbols associated with the Soviet era.
According to the letter, Masha wears headgear resembling a Soviet tank crew helmet in one episode, while another depicts her wearing a cap similar to that of border guards from the Soviet People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD).
The lawmakers argued that such visual elements “normalize Soviet military iconography” among the show’s global audience of young children.
The letter, led by Liberal Democrat MP Tom Gordon and signed by more than 50 lawmakers, said urgent action was needed after streaming platform Netflix acquired the rights to the cartoon’s new seasons. The MPs also described the show’s availability on ITVX in the UK as unacceptable.
Melanie Bonvicino, speaking on behalf of Russian animation studio Animaccord, the producer and distributor of the series, firmly rejected the allegations.
Bonvicino described the accusations of propaganda as “false and defamatory,” adding:
“For nearly two decades, Masha and the Bear has brought joy to families in more than 100 countries through universal themes of friendship, kindness and imagination. There is no political subtext in the series, and any suggestion to the contrary is entirely inconsistent with its content.”
Inspired by a Russian folk tale and centered on the adventures of a young girl and a bear, the animated series ranks among the most-watched productions in YouTube history.
The seven-minute episode “Recipe for Disaster” has been viewed more than 4.6 billion times, earning a Guinness World Record as the most-viewed animated video.
Entertainment industry publication Deadline reported that Netflix had acquired the rights to the series’ eighth and ninth seasons while renewing agreements for previous seasons and related spin-offs.
The series is broadcast in more than 100 countries, including the US, Canada, France, Portugal, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Nordic countries and the Benelux region.
Political criticism of the cartoon has surfaced before. In 2018, The Times described the series in an analysis as an instrument of Russia’s “soft propaganda.”
At the time, the Russian Embassy in London mocked the allegation, saying: “Are you going to put all animators on the EU sanctions list? Clearly, a determined and costly approach is required.”
Most recently, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna also criticized Netflix’s decision, saying Masha and the Bear forms part of the Kremlin’s “soft power” and calling for “moral clarity in the face of Soviet symbols.”
Germany seeks stronger Mercosur ties to diversify trade and secure raw materials
Iran rejects US proposal to drop Strait of Hormuz transit fees
US military takes delivery of radar-less F-35 fighter jets
Germany’s welfare overhaul could leave millions facing benefit cuts
UK lawmakers call for ban on Russian cartoon Masha and the Bear
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEU, US and China intensify competition over Africa’s strategic minerals through Lobito Corridor
-
Europe1 week agoFour European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
-
Asia2 weeks agoDeepSeek raises $7.4 billion in funding round, surpasses $50 billion valuation
-
America1 week agoVenezuela prepares record $240 billion sovereign debt restructuring
-
Asia1 week agoAnthropic accuses China’s Alibaba of systematic data theft targeting Claude AI model
-
Europe4 days agoBuckingham Palace updates King’s official role to focus on securing faith in multi-faith Britain
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoDefense tech startups raise $12.3 billion as investors bet on next-generation warfare
-
Russia2 weeks agoUkraine launches largest drone attack on Moscow since start of war, Russian officials say
