However, the elimination of sick leave by phone is far worse for wage earners living in one of the many regions with inadequate medical care. Here, our government is placing a completely unnecessary burden on doctors and patients instead of first doing its own job and ensuring comprehensive, high-quality primary care across the country.

Can this “reform” help reduce the number of sick days? Hardly! Anyone who drags themselves to work on Friday with a moderate cold—just to avoid the newly created bureaucratic hassle of getting a sick note—will ultimately ensure that even more colleagues are sick the following Monday and that their own recovery takes longer. Not to mention the long-term health consequences of letting a cold drag on.

What could really help? We actually have fairly good occupational safety and health regulations for businesses. However, there are almost never any consequences for business owners who fail to comply with them. Better enforcement of existing regulations in the workplace would be a measure that could truly help improve health.

For example, if an employer fails to take effective measures to protect workers from the heat, workplaces may have to be left empty on hot days. This could lead to a learning effect by next year and help prevent serious health consequences from working in extreme heat. However, it is clear that we cannot rely on the government in this regard!

For example, if you’re discussing ways to network more effectively within your workplace to advocate for your interests, or if you’re an individual who wants to get involved in a union and share ideas, please feel free to contact us!

If you follow the headlines in Germany, it seems that the world is becoming more dangerous by the day. And for many people in Germany and the so-called “West,” that is probably the case. Because it is not only the climate catastrophe, the erosion of hard-won labor and civil rights, and the increasingly authoritarian behavior of elected governments, including open attacks on representative democracy, that threaten people here. The possibility of open warfare and the hybrid war that is already taking place are also giving rise to discussions that many had hoped they would never have to have again.[1] This also applies to the discussion about the reintroduction of compulsory military service in Germany.

There is probably no need to explain why (physical and psychological) violence is always unacceptable, and whenever violence can be avoided, it is a success for everyone involved. However, there are situations in which violence is used that cannot be prevented or stopped by peaceful means, and in these situations certain forms of violence are necessary — for self-defense and to create a situation in which nonviolent means can be used again.

Given the current geopolitical situation, if military aggression by the Russian Federation (or more precisely by Putin and his inner circle) against another country, as is currently the case in Ukraine [2] , is taking place or at least is not unlikely, the following questions arise: Can and should people defend themselves with force? What exactly do we want to defend? And how do we want to defend it?

Is it acceptable to fight?

The first question can be answered by considering what would happen if one decided not to fight, i.e., to surrender unconditionally. The consequences would not be an end to violence, but a continuation of unilateral violence. The population in the occupied territories in Ukraine is suffering under the enormous repression of the Russian regime. Freedom of expression and assembly are being systematically suppressed. The education sector is being completely brought into line in order to spread state propaganda. Countless people are being deported, and almost 20,000 children have now been sent to re-education camps.[3]And even the killing of unarmed or even bound civilians in rows is not shied away from.[4].

Angesichts der immensen Gewalt die gegen Menschen angewendet wird, welche nicht In view of the immense violence used against people who are not fighting, it is clear that one's own non-violence is no protection against the horrors of war. The only way to escape violence is to flee, but firstly, this is not always possible; secondly, it only works as long as you have somewhere to flee to; and thirdly, it brings its own suffering, starting with the loss of your home and the difficulty of building a new life in a new place.

If you decide to defend yourself and others with weapons, you are once again producing violence. It is not without reason that there is an old left-wing slogan that says, “Workers don't shoot workers!” Because the people you wound or kill are not faceless masses like in movies and games, but human beings who, like everyone else, deserve a long and happy life. And the composition of the Russian army is not homogeneous either. There are those who fully support Putin's warlike, imperialist policies, but there are also those who do not, but who ended up in military service due to economic or other constraints. However, this does not negate the right to self-defense.

If you are attacked by an aggressive person on the street in the evening and you can neither run away nor de-escalate the situation, then you are of course allowed to defend yourself with the necessary means. And this applies regardless of the reasons why the person is attacking you. Whether the person is under the influence of drugs, becomes violent due to mental illness, or is simply a chauvinistic asshole, at the moment of the attack, you cannot change the cause; you can only defend yourself, and this requires a certain amount of physical force. The solutions to the causes of the problems are entirely peaceful: Preventing drug abuse, providing low-threshold and free psychological help, and overcoming patriarchal structures and toxic masculinity all require no violence. But just as these important and correct methods do not protect you at the moment of attack, all efforts to create a generally peaceful and nonviolent world help the population of Ukraine and other attacked countries as long as bombs are falling and troops are invading.

Should we fight?

If violent defense is morally justifiable, the question arises as to whether this also gives rise to a moral obligation. However, the decision to use violence (not to mention whether one is physically capable of doing so) is one that cannot be made for others from above, but one that should be made by each individual themselves. If the decision is then made to defend oneself against an attacker, this is not to be condemned, provided that there is no better alternative.

What to fight for?

However, the outcome of this decision also depends greatly on what is (supposedly) being fought for. If one is to believe the propaganda of the German Armed Forces and the German government, it is about “democracy,” “freedom,” and many other things that sound appealing. But when asked by a young person why he should go to war for a country that does nothing for him, Chancellor Friedrich Merz can only say that things are no better in other countries and that young people in Germany have many opportunities when it comes to choosing a career.[5]  In other words: here you have a free choice as to what kind of wage labor you are exploited by, and elsewhere it is even worse. This statement clearly shows why the debate about conscription is being held in the first place. Conscription only becomes necessary when the majority of young people see little or no point in risking their own lives for “freedom” and “democracy.” This generation sees that they are not only threatened by a potential war, but also that the climate catastrophe is destroying their livelihoods, working conditions are deteriorating[6] , and many of the small advances made in recent decades in the area of FLINTA and queer equality are under attack. So what is worth giving your life for? What is worth killing for?

Freedom and democracy are indeed important things that are worth fighting for. But when we look at the state of freedom and democracy in Germany, the situation is far from as rosy as people like Mr. Merz like to claim. After all, how free is a country where 15% of the population is affected by poverty?[7] And how free is a country in which people and organizations that show solidarity are harassed by the so-called Office for the Protection of the Constitution[8] and bullied by banks?[9]Democracy is limited to election day every four years and ends at the entrance to the workplace, where the boss reigns supreme without any input from employees.

So when people call for defense, they are defending the status quo. And thus they are also defending the interests of the rich and powerful. And no one should die or kill for that. But the status quo also includes hard-won rights and freedoms. Despite massive backlash, there has been some progress in areas such as equality and environmental protection. Freedom of assembly and expression in Germany are far from ideal, but the situation is much worse under many despots who expand their empires with military force. And even if we are exploited in a capitalist society and the rights of us workers are often trampled on, the conditions for fighting exploitation are much easier with these rights than without them. So it is also a defense of the lesser evil. This may not be as romantic as the struggle for utopia, but unfortunately it is essential.

We have already recognized this in other areas. We also fight for wage increases and small improvements in our working conditions, even though we are actually working toward the abolition of wage labor—one cannot be achieved without the other. And so it is not a contradiction to fight a war of aggression with force if it improves the conditions for a social revolution.

How to “fight”?

However, there are many different forms that such a struggle can take. Pacifists often cite social defense, i.e., a kind of general strike against the occupying power. This can be an effective means as long as the occupiers adhere to certain rules and human rights. In many cases, however, they do not. In such cases, refusal to cooperate with the military occupation forces will, at best, result in imprisonment, but more likely in execution. Especially if the occupiers have genocidal intentions, a massacre of the civilian population is much more likely than the occupiers giving up. Sabotage, sloppy work, and refusal to work are therefore important tools against occupation, but they are often not enough.

Diplomacy, which is often invoked, is also an important part of resolving military conflicts (in the best case scenario, it finds solutions before violence breaks out). However, diplomacy also depends on all parties to the conflict being willing to engage in it. If (at least) one side consistently refuses to negotiate or only accepts the fulfillment of its maximum demands as an acceptable outcome, all attempts at negotiation are doomed to failure.

Supporting structures that undermine the aggressor's effectiveness is another method of countering a military attack. Deserters should always be supported[10] , as should civil society opposition to the warring regime. At the outbreak of war, however, these structures are usually not strong enough to stop the war on their own, and the faster the regime can score victories on the battlefield, the more difficult it becomes for these organizations.

If the three measures mentioned above are not sufficient, then defense by force becomes inevitable. However, there are various forms that this can take.

Like most armies, the German Armed Forces are extremely hierarchical and authoritarian. Many may believe this is inherent to the nature of war, but history has shown that this does not have to be the case. One example is the Makhnovshchina, an anarchist peasant and partisan movement that was active in Ukraine between 1917 and 1922 during the Russian Civil War. With the goal of self-determination for peasants and workers, it attempted to establish anarchist social structures in large parts of the country. A distinctive feature of the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, as the military arm of the Makhnovshchina was called, was that it consisted only of volunteers and that the fighters elected their officers from among their own ranks.

So when people campaign for freedom and democracy, the question should be asked: why should the Bundeswehr, which is not democratically organized, be doing this? And why should compulsory military service—the opposite of voluntarism and freedom—be necessary in order to find enough personnel?

Conclusion

So instead of insisting on an idealistic and unrealistic pacifism because it is too difficult to deal with the complex and not always clear reality of war, this cannot be the solution. Nor should we participate in the warmongering arms race. Instead, we should acknowledge the difficulty of the current situation and realize that there are no clean solutions in a shitty world. We should try to promote alternative forms of defense. We should acquire knowledge about forms of social defense, but also about democratically and freely organized combat units. Otherwise, we risk remaining a pawn of the warmongering powers.

[1] In many regions outside Europe, these threats have never gone away. And even in Europe, it was less than 20 years ago that various wars ravaged the Western Balkans following the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. It is a sign of how privileged Western Europe is to have gone so long without experiencing war itself.

[2] The developments that led to the war in Ukraine are, of course, complex, and other countries in Europe, the US, and NATO are certainly not entirely innocent of causing tensions in the region, but the current war is clearly a war of aggression by Russia, and the blame for this lies squarely with the Russian regime.

[3] https://www.srf.ch/news/dialog/kriegsverbrechen-gegen-kinder-was-ukrainische-kinder-in-russischen-umerziehungslagern-erleiden

[4] https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/240415-99-680570/

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwlSDBbNUA

[6] https://www.fau.org/kaempfe-und-kampagnen/wir-muessen-weniger-arbeiten

[7] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2025/01/PD25_036_63.html

[8] https://gegen-berufsverbote.hamburg/

[9] https://debankingstoppen.de/

[10] This applies, of course, to deserters from all sides, as the decision not to fight should be available to everyone.

Currently, the government is “only” talking about compulsory military service in the event that not enough soldiers (especially male soldiers) volunteer, but even this has a number of consequences.

The backward roll in patriotism and national pride:

In order to increase the chances of more people voluntarily signing up for service in the German Armed Forces, old images are being brought back into the spotlight. Numerous posters in public spaces are currently advertising service in the German Armed Forces, appealing to or evoking patriotic feelings. The same applies to memes on social media and the dissemination of numerous videos. At the same time, an adventurous character of the service is being constructed, in which male protagonists are primarily featured in the imagery – at least when it comes to technology and weapons; female protagonists mainly act in a supportive, medical context. All these posters conceal the brutal reality of war, such as death, violence, suffering in various forms, displacement, and destruction. Despite all the romanticizing, the military ultimately serves to harm and kill the enemy. To justify this, there is a renewed reliance on mental images of homeland, nation, and now also democracy, which must be defended, or which apparently can only flourish and exist through the protection of the military.

Finally, it is proclaimed that “Germany must be fit for war.” This paves the way for the mental militarization of society, the expenditure of large sums of money on the arms industry, and the normalization of the military presence in the form of public pledges and nationalistic oaths of allegiance for a large part of society. But we ask: What about the capacity for peace, what about diplomacy and understanding? Are these not the actual cornerstones – even of bourgeois democracies?

The colorful images of the German Armed Forces

With these colorful propaganda images, both real and imagined, the German Armed Forces are conducting a large-scale campaign in schools, promoting this machine of violence and death as a normal job and an average future prospect. At the same time, students are to be encouraged to think about all possible future scenarios, including war, in class and to share this content with their families, thereby contributing to the militarization of society. With regard to training in the german armed forces, even if the deadly and destructive purpose of the military is not always immediately apparent, it is nevertheless part of this context and makes the army's mission possible in the first place. Ultimately, the purpose of training to become a soldier is to eliminate the enemy in war – in other words, to kill them. This goes hand in hand with trivializations such as saying that a soldier has “fallen.” Only in this case, the person does not get up again. They were simply killed – and no amount of euphemistic language can sugarcoat that. Here, a life was abruptly and brutally ended, personal dreams and hopes destroyed, family, children, and friends left behind in mourning. A gap has been torn in their lives that cannot be filled.

One might ask why the vivid propaganda images, both real and imagined, do not actually show the misery of trenches, battlefields, “fallen soldiers,” grieving families, and destroyed landscapes.

Your body belongs to the state

With the introduction of questionnaires on military service and the reintroduction of conscription, the state is laying claim to the bodies of young people. By making it compulsory to answer questionnaires on military readiness, the state is already hinting that it wants to know what is going on in this area and is forcing young people to deal with the issue of the military, while at the same time threatening to introduce compulsory military service, at least for biological males, if there is a shortage of volunteers.

We also know from past experience that a physical examination is by no means a pleasant experience, but rather an extremely humiliating one, and will most likely remain so. This is intentional. At the latest when the state unabashedly reaches into the private parts of the examinee, who is usually completely naked, it shows that it literally has the person in question by the balls.

During military service, your life is completely controlled by others. You live in barracks and have hardly any personal freedom. In the past, at least, the pay for military service was nowhere near the minimum wage (if such a thing had existed at the time), and it is doubtful that this would change.

In return, you have to put up with being yelled at and bossed around by your superiors, you can't go where you want, and you have to be trained to kill and expect to be called upon to do just that. The otherwise valid, or at least feigned, state guarantee of physical integrity is officially suspended here. The body of the soldier (at this point, in terms of conscription, exclusively male) serves the state as an instrument of killing and destruction. It is accepted that this instrument may be wounded, captured, or killed. The soldier is largely deprived of his civil rights.

Some parties justify the impending conscription exclusively for biological males on the grounds that biological females contribute to society primarily by continuing to perform unpaid care work, having children, and allowing the state to control their bodies through legal regulations on abortion. But instead of combating existing constraints and injustices, new constraints are simply being (re)introduced elsewhere. We therefore oppose compulsory service of any kind, the unfair distribution of care work, and the abolition of repressive abortion laws!

All legal requirements regarding self-determination with regard to gender self-determination are de facto invalid at this point. The state assumes at this point that the potential conscript is merely pretending to have a different identity in order to avoid compulsory service.

At this point, the reactionary role is being reversed in several ways. On the one hand, not only are the social advances made so far in gender issues being rolled back, but there is also a return to a purely binary gender model consisting of men and women. This goes hand in hand with traditional ideas according to which only men are conscripted into the military, while women are not subject to compulsory military service in this conservative view. We can all imagine for ourselves what further conservative ideas this will lead to....

The issue of military service and conscientious objection

Where compulsory military service is introduced, there will also be a return to so-called civilian service. There will certainly no longer be the unequal duration that existed for a long time between military and civilian service (for a long time, civilian service was significantly longer than military service, and those performing civilian service were effectively punished for their refusal to perform military service by having to serve for a longer period) (there are court rulings from the early 2000s on this subject), In the event of an emergency, it is not as civilian as it initially appears. Although those performing civilian service will not have to fight as soldiers on the front line, they will be called upon to perform services that are intended to support the army and the state in their functions in the event of war. This may well mean that these services are performed very close to the war zone and also pose a risk to life and limb, which the state is likely to be relatively indifferent to in the course of this compulsory service. The sole purpose here is to support and maintain the function of the state and the military – nothing else. Thus, even if they have served in important social fields during peacetime, those performing civilian service ultimately cannot escape the military. At least they can escape barracks life during peacetime, but ultimately they should not be under any illusions....

This raises the question of applying for alternative military service. In the past, applicants had to write an essay in which they had to explain their conscience in detail and justify why it was not possible for them to carry a weapon and shoot at others, while taking care not to appear too hostile or contemptuous of the military. A written balancing act, in other words. Regardless of whether this will continue to be the case in the future (it remains to be seen whether district military recruitment offices will really want to read masses of such applications created with the help of ChatGPT), this shows how much the state turns life upside down in the context of war. After all, it is completely nonsensical to have to submit an application stating that you do not want to kill or be violent. It should actually be the other way around, and detailed reasons should have to be given as to why someone wants to take up arms...

This shows that the logic of the military is both violent and hostile to life!

In summary and conclusion, we can only state:

The military and thus the German Armed Forces

– serve to protect the state and capital,

– are fundamentally violent, hostile to life, and undemocratic

– do not care about the individual

– stand for conservative gender roles

– consume social resources that are urgently needed in other areas of civil society

– threaten us with death and destruction

– fuel confrontation between military alliances, leading to permanent threats and crises, which in turn block social progress

We, the FAU Hamburg, hereby declare our solidarity with the school strike against compulsory military service and the education strike against compulsory military service and demand

NO COMPULSORY SERVICE,

NO MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATION,

STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF SOCIETY!!!