Author: IL Frankfurt
Translations: P (Plan C Friend)
In this text, the IL Frankfurt explains its thesis that we are increasingly living in a war regime as the new mode of governance. Struggles between nation states over global power relations and resources are resolved through war, this is supposed to be viewed as unavoidable, and a society fit for war is to be established. Against the backdrop of the disastrous social, economic, ecological and political consequences of this war regime for all of us, they advocate antimilitarism as the unifying element of left movements and struggles.*
—–
When Israel attacked Iran on the 13th June of 2025, Israeli bombs hit the Evin prison in Tehran and likely killed over 70 prisoners of the Iranian regime. Immediately after the Israeli attacks, the Iranian regime proceeded with a wave of repression against its critics. So whatever those who profit from wars and want to expand their spheres of power tell us, wars are never fought in the interests of human rights or liberation. On the contrary: war is always also a war against the social struggles, the grassroots movements. Whether in the escalations of wars and violence in Iran, Gaza, Ukraine or Syria: the international order established after the end of the Second World War is currently collapsing and no one seems to have an idea how to stabilise it, not even the ruling classes. They pursue their interests neither through soft power or negotiations nor within the framework of an international order under US hegemony. Instead, they assert themselves by force – increasingly without rhetorical concealment, as was still the case at the turn of the millennium.
Countries such as Iran, Palestine and Ukraine are becoming battlefields where the struggle for economic interests and international order is fought. But even in countries that are not acutely affected by war, this logic continues: in processes of the militarization of society as a whole. In Germany, since the so called »Zeitenwende« [historical turning point], the limitation of military expenditures has been lifted, the debate about compulsory military service has been stirred up, election posters promise security and rearmament, companies such as VW are increasingly focusing on military equipment, and the shares of Rheinmetall & Co. are booming. And the discourse becomes more authoritarian: Individuals are demanded to be “capable of war”, any oppositions is defamed as “naive”, events are cancelled, demonstrations and chants are branded as anti-semitic and banned. The window of acceptable debate narrows and nuances are hardly audible anymore. Simultaneously and across geographies, war is being prepared and order and discipline on the home front are ensured in a similar manner. Once again, what is happening in our streets, districts, villages and metropolises is being linked to the dynamics of a globalization that no longer speaks the language of the “one world” made up of free trade and democratic harmony, but instead the language of war and violence.
We therefore formulate a hypothesis on the development of the war regime. By the term “regime” we do not mean a specific form of government in the form of a military junta like once in Latin America, which would establish itself in a single nation state. Rather, we mean a new mode of governance and management of national and global crisis, which comes about through the joint action of state and non-state actors. This mode centers around the the law of the strongest. On the one hand, war serves to secure scarce resources, as well as to reorganize global trade routes, supply chains and neo-colonial power relations. On the other hand, war always means internal homogenization and discipline, the mowing down of social contradictions and struggles under the banner of national unity.
The War Regime: There is no alternative
The war regime connects the geographies in which actual battlefields are present with those in which they are absent. In this country as well, an entire national economy, a society is to be made fit for war – materially and discursively. The socio-psychological driver of this development is the fomented fear of evil lurking behind the walls that separate our civilization from the barbaric world. The Russian authoritarianism, the Islamist fundamentalism of Hamas, serve as the embodiment of the real evil, whereas one’s own political and social order should appear as the epitome of humanity, freedom and progress.
In view of the necessary defense against this evil, we are supposed to fall into line and believe that the innumerable crisis hotspots, inequalities and climate catastrophe that originate in the capitalist mode of production have become secondary. We are supposed to tighten the belt, accept the abolition of the eight-hour workday, swallow inflation and allow billions to be invested in armaments but not in education or health care? All this must be necessary, when “the Russian” will soon enough be at our door again and we must stand against him united. The war regime thus produces a new version of the neoliberal dogma “There is no alternative”. By constantly invoking the external threat, any objection to the rising arms budgets, falling wages or diluted social benefits is branded as naive, disloyal or dangerous. And even realpolitik alternatives – disarmament or the search for diplomatic solutions – gradually disappear from the public discourse.
The rhetoric of there being no alternatives cements not only the war regime itself, but also the neoliberal core of its policies. Austerity and militarization are elevated to the only conceivable strategy for security and progress. The increasing conversion from civilian to military production is intended to secure German jobs and profits when in the future tanks instead of train cars leave the factory halls. An increased focus on the military industrial sector becomes a means of attempting to escape the recession. Once again, the German economy benefits from dying and killing. The bellicistic austerity politics is only the beginning. Budget cuts under the guise of ever-increasing military spending will noticeably affect all areas of our reproductive struggles – from welfare to health to education. The billions from the infrastructure package [2025 infrastructure investment by the German government] will hardly be able to close the gaps that the neoliberal austerity policy has torn. Instead, this money flows primarily into the modernization and maintenance of those transport and energy infrastructure that are considered to be strategically important for war.
The war regime as the forerunner of authoritarian politics
The rhetoric of war knows only a binary and racist coded friend-enemy logic, which sees the opposite and the outside only as a threat and the absolute “Other” to its own position with which any negotiation or compromise is no longer possible. The racist dehumanization of the opponent was always a prerequisite for being able to carry out and legitimize wars or even a genocide like in Gaza. Simultaneously, the enemy is not only present on the outside, but has long since arrived in the own society. If one now considers, for example, Dobrindt’s [German minister of the interior] demands for more effective weapons for the federal police, the highly fortified external borders and paramilitary actors such as Frontex, it is once again evident that the “others” are to be kept away by military means, become increasingly precarized and have their rights further undermined. At the same time, migrants are always the “testing ground” for authoritarian practices that are to be generalized in the next step: this was particularly evident in the autumn of 2023, when the repression and interventions of the Ampel government [penultimate German government] were directed against the Palestinian solidarity movement, which was combined with debates about imported anti-Semitism and racist propaganda for deportations “on a large scale”. This resulted in massive restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the accessibility of citizenship.
This military logic of camp mentality, which allows no nuances and presents the enemy as the absolute evil, narrows the window of acceptable debate and is used to legitimize the prohibition of demonstrations, the arming of police forces and the withdrawal of funds for critical, social and/or leftist projects – all these are the emblems of an increasingly authoritarian state. This dynamic influences struggles for freedom of movement and migration immediately and initially, but not solely; Because it also leads to the political field becoming more impermeable for emancipatory demands. The process of negotiation between critical civil society and those parts of the state on which we have relied for years as a means of enacting emancipatory policies is shifting to the right or is no longer taking place.
The war regime and societal fascistization
The camp mentality of absolute contradictions, the increasing acceptance of violence as a normal means of political enforcement, the idea that evil must be eradicated by force, the active support of genocide, the crushing of opposition and the narrowing of spaces for debate, the habituation to authoritarian crisis management and the elimination of democratic principles: all this favors an additional development that already shapes our struggles and will continue to do so: fascistization. As Raul Zelik rightly writes, this does not only originate from right-wing forces, but finds its breeding ground in the liberal order.
In Germany, this is particularly evident in the expansion of the state apparatus of violence – the Bundeswehr [military] and the police – which, supported by debates about the defensibility of democracy, are not only being backed symbolically, but also massively and materially armed. And this despite numerous right-wing to far-right networks in precisely these institutions being brought to light by anti-fascist research.
Looking ahead to the next election, a confirmed right-wing extremist party will have the opportunity to take power in a presumably massively rearmed state. With the reintroduction of Veterans Day and the revalorization of the Bundeswehr’s tradition, a shift in remembrance policy is already being pushed for to rehabilitate the German military tradition and turn more people into “reservists”. Germany is supposed to once again become the leading military might in Europe and the Germans are to be proud of their country and its history.
Likewise in the fundamental attack that the war regime represents on feminist struggles, its authoritarianism is combined with the fascist dynamic. The focus is on the recurring ideal of soldierly masculinity and the emphasis on toughness and discipline. For machinery of the internal to function, peace and order must prevail on the welfare-stateless home front. For this purpose, the traditional small family is strengthened and gender roles are re-traditionalized, feminist achievements are called into question. Similarly, the logic of war is always also a logic of patriarchal appropriation. The bodies of FLINTA* become the explicit target of violence. Rape has always been a weapon of war.
Even if today the Bundeswehr advertises diversity, war is still a male business and will continue to produce men who want to destroy everything “weak” in themselves and around them. Much has been written and discussed in recent years about the fact that the fascist projects of the present, in comparison to their historical role models, do not chase a futuristic utopia and lack the war-loving, imperialist aspiration that shaped the extermination campaigns of the 20th century. Rather, the fascists of the chaotic and disintegrating world of today are more concerned about securing their island, about the bunker in which they want to hide from the consequences of 500 years of colonialism, unrestrained natural exploitation and the destruction of life by capitalism. This certainly finds its most prominent expression in the battle cry of the Trumpists: “America first”.
Nevertheless, it is naive to believe that the fascist forces of the present are not part of the war regime, the order of strong men. Trump recently pushed through the immensely increased defense spending in NATO, is rattling with his saber towards China, preparing a military confrontation in the Pacific and supporting the expulsion and genocide in Gaza. The AfD also calls for conscription, armament of the Bundeswehr and a rehabilitation of the tradition of the Wehrmacht. Meloni, in turn, is significantly driving European rearmament and is a loud supporter of arms shipments to Ukraine. Likewise Putin, Netanyahu and Modi will not be suspected of pursuing politics of peace. In any case it is questionable how long the fascist movements – whether in power or on the way there – stick to their rejection of foreign deployments and military interventions. Because even the bunker wants to be supplied with resources.
New means of political enforcement
Because: Those who not abolish the basic conditions of imperial competition under capitalism will not get around waging wars in the future either. Neither Trump’s blackmailing politics of “peace” nor the expansion of the European border regime, which combats migration flows militarily and in terms of security policy, suggest that the fascist International is indeed a project of peace, no matter how unpopular foreign deployments are among its supporters. In the face of escalating planetary chaos, political dominance, access to increasingly scarce resources, and the imperial way of life will be increasingly secured through military means. It is to be suspected that this trend will further intensify in the future by a kind of “oversized prepping” (Naomi Klein). This also applies to the protection of raw materials required for “green” technologies: the remaining projects of “green capitalism” are combined with a militarized neoliberalism, because even a capitalism adapted to “green” technologies needs access to resources and is dependent on neo-colonial exploitation. Both must be secured militarily. The catastrophic consequences of the destruction and production of death by the emergence of entire uninhabitable zones are increasingly seen as security policy issues and are thus also subject to the military logic. Finally, war also leads to high emissions and destroys entire ecosystems.
Part of our hypothesis is that, against the background of planetary devastation, war regimes and fascistization are not processes completely opposing each other, but rather there are moments of convergence of both dynamics, as well as joint multiplication. This will not happen without contradictions and the two attempts at violent control of planetary chaos – in neoliberal-authoritarian or fascist forms – are not (always) congruent. Nevertheless, we are already seeing authoritarian, fascist and warmongering rulers of various shades undermining fundamental democratic rights, attacking critical civil societies and celebrating violence as a means of political enforcement – be that by suppressing uprisings or fantasizing about deportations. Therefore our anti-fascism must become anti-militarist and our anti-militarism anti-fascist.
A left of the present must be an antimilitarist left
Not only antifascism, but all our struggles must become antimilitarist struggles. For when we hypothesize that the emerging war regime is restructuring and permeating the whole of society, we do so not as a grand theoretical gesture, but from the perspective of our struggles. The war regime is a massive attack on liberal fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly, expression and science, on critical civil society, on the rights of wage workers and on the welfare state. It is therefore also a war from top to bottom, an attack on what has already been fought for and won, an attack on all forms of resistant behavior. Or as our Italian comrades from Connessioni Precarie write: “War is another act in the now centuries-old crisis of sovereignty.”.
We therefore propose to you to desert. Not only in the narrow sense of refusing military service. We understand desertion as a practice of withdrawing oneself, the collective refusal of integration into the war regime. In practice, this would mean getting involved in all those struggles in which the spread of the authoritarian war regime is negotiated: in struggles against German support for the genocide in Gaza, in struggles against repression, in struggles against violence against queers, migrants, and FLINTA*, in struggles against social welfare cuts and austerity, against rearmament, arms shipments, conscription and militaristic indoctrination, in struggles against continued resource exploitation, in struggles against militarized external borders and deportations, in struggles against the highly armed police apparatus. Our task as radical leftists is to turn these struggles into antimilitarist struggles, into struggles against the war regime, to remove them from their isolation and to connect them with each other. It is our task to connect and collectivize moments of refusal, of desertion from the war regime. Not because apart from the war everything else becomes unimportant – on the contrary. But because the logic of war creates a new logic of power, which has its legitimacy and objective in the militarization of the whole society.
And – last but not least – all these struggles against the war regime must be conducted as transnational struggles. We need a transnational movement that refuses to fit into the rigid lines of discipline and into the demarcated fronts of the forming camps. A transnational movement that makes it clear: the border does not run between nations and fronts, but the border runs between us who die in your wars, who must tighten our belts, and you. Between bottom and top. Between the prisoners of the Evin prison in Iran and all around the world, and the powerful who imprison them and drop bombs on them. Between those who fight for life and those who build machines of death. **We cannot and will not pick any side in your wars, for they are wars against us.
***FLINTA Female, Lesbian, Intersex, Non-binary, Trans, and Agender people – originating in Germany as an umbrella term for gender minorities often marginalized by patriarchy.
