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.”