“A Voice from the Tomb”: The Catalpa Rescue at 150

April 17-19, 2026, marks 150 years of one of the most daring episodes in Irish revolutionary history – the Catalpa Rescue. In a meticulously planned transnational operation, six Fenian political prisoners broke out of the British colonial gaol in Fremantle, and took a whaling ship to the United States. The escape immediately became a powerful symbol of Irish republicanism, and cemented the vital role of the Irish diaspora in the struggle for Irish freedom.

 

In April 1876, on a lonely stretch of Western Australian coast, six Irishmen and their rescuers fled across the sand. Behind them loomed the stone walls of Fremantle Prison – “the Establishment,” a place they had come to refer to as a tomb for the living. Ahead lay the open ocean – and the hope of rescue on an American whaling ship, the Catalpa, waiting just beyond the horizon.

 

Their escape, begun on Easter Monday, 17 April 1876, and culminating in a dramatic confrontation on the high seas two days later, would become one of the most audacious rescue operations in modern history. Yet the Catalpa Rescue was no mere escape: it was a carefully orchestrated act of political defiance, a demonstration of transnational Irish resistance, and a propaganda triumph that reverberated across continents and centuries.

 

One hundred and fifty years later, its significance lies not only in the freedom of six men, but in what it signalled to their peers and adversaries on both sides of the Atlantic: that Irish republicanism, though suppressed at home, had taken root abroad, and that this exiled rootstock could strike – even under the very noses of the British Empire – anywhere in the world.

 

Fenians: Soldiers, Rebels, Exiles

 

In a manner all-too familiar to the Irish republican movement, this story begins in storied failure: the Fenian Rising of 1867. Planned and organised by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the rising collapsed under pressure from informers, arrests, and overwhelming British force. In the lead-up to the rising, the Fenian Brotherhood had pursued a bold and dangerous strategy: infiltrating the British Army. As thousands of Irishmen serving Britain abroad returned home, the Fenians recruited them to the cause in swathes. By 1865, as many as 8,000 of the 26,000 troops wearing a British uniform in Ireland had secretly sworn allegiance to the republican cause.

 

Word of this eventually began to reach the upper echelons of the British Army, which promptly moved many Irish units abroad once more. In September 1865, British authorities then launched a crackdown, rounding up leading civilian Fenians, as well as their counterparts in the military. For the civilian Fenian leaders, the consequences were severe: penal servitude. But for the “military Fenians”, the sentence was much worse: death.

  

After six months of solitary confinement in the horrors of the infamous Dartmoor, Portland, and Millbank prisons, however, the prisoners’ sentences were commuted. For civilians such as John Devoy, it was banishment and exile from Britain and Ireland, while the ex-military Fenians had their death sentences were commuted to lifelong penal servitude in the colony of Western Australia.

 

To Hell or Fremantle

 

And so, on the morning of October 12, 1867, the final group of 20 prisoners were manacled in irons, arm and leg, and were loaded on board the prison ship Hougoumont – the last convict ship ever sent to Australia. Setting sail from Portland Harbor, it carried some 320 criminal convicts and 63 Fenian political prisoners. After a gruelling journey of nearly 18,000 kilometres, they arrived in Fremantle on January 10, 1868.

 

There, they entered a prison system designed not merely to confine, but to erase them from history and the world. Fremantle Prison stood at the edge of what was then the most remote colony in the British Empire. Its security relied not only on walls and warders, but on geography itself. To the east lay vast stretches of unforgiving and uncharted scrub and desert. To the west was the Indian Ocean, shark-infested and seemingly endless. Escape was considered impossible. It was, in effect, a natural prison, “where nature was both the jail and the jailer.”

 

The Fenian prisoners were stripped of their identity and assigned instead a four-digit code numbers, and set to hard labour – building roads, clearing land, and constructing the infrastructure of the colony that confined them. At night, they were locked into cramped cells, their days governed by strict regulations and brutal discipline. Among them were the six men who would later become known as the Catalpa Six: James Wilson, Thomas Darragh, Martin Hogan, Michael Harrington, Thomas Hassett, and Robert Cranston. 

 

A Voice From The Tomb

 

The turning point came with the escape of John Boyle O’Reilly in 1869. Unlike the later rescue mission, O’Reilly’s flight was a solitary gamble. Taking advantage of a relatively relaxed work assignment, he fled into the bush – assisted by an Australian sympathiser – before rowing 40 miles out to sea to intercept an American whaling ship. When it failed to arrive, he spent two days without food or water, adrift in the ocean, before returning to shore and – through his contact – successfully securing passage on another American whaler.

 

While his jailers were suprised at his escape, they should not have been: O’Reilly had already been the only one of the Fenian prisoners to escape England’s Dartmoor prison (although he was recaptured two days later). Upon landing in Fremantle, he promised his comrades once again to be the first to escape from “the Establishment”. O’Reilly’s journey to the United States was long and perilous, but his survival transformed the situation. He soon became editor of The Boston Pilot newspaper and began campaigning and plotting for the rescue of the remaining prisoners, using himself as living proof that escape was possible. 

 

In Irish-American circles, the plight of the “military Fenians” quickly became a cause célèbre. Letters smuggled out from the prison began to circulate, none more powerful than one from James Wilson, addressed to John Devoy, now a New York Herald journalist and a leader of Clan na Gael in New York: “Dear friend, remember this is a voice from the tomb…” The phrase captured the imagination of the Irish diaspora in America. Devoy also took up their cause as a matter of honour: these were men he and others had recruited to the Irish Republican Brotherhood more than a decade earlier.

 

Planning the Impossible

 

Devoy set about masterminding a plan. Across the United States, the Irish diaspora raised funds and a whaling ship, the Catalpa, was purchased in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and refitted for a long voyage. The choice of vessel was deliberate: a whaler could travel vast distances without arousing suspicion, its commercial purpose providing cover for a covert mission. The captain chosen for the enterprise was George S. Anthony, a Protestant American with no direct connection to Ireland. His role would prove decisive.

 

Meanwhile, two veteran Fenian operative, John Breslin from Boston, and Thomas Desmond from San Francisco, travelled to Western Australia on board the small steamer Cyphranes in November using assumed identities – Breslin posing as an American millionaire, Desmond as a wheelwright. Breslin – masquerading as “James Collins” – ingratiated himself with colonial society, meeting with the Governor and even gaining a guided tour of Fremantle Prison. There, he confirmed what he already suspected: a jailbreak from within was impossible. The only chance lay in intercepting the prisoners outside the walls. To make matters worse, delays plagued the Catalpa’s voyage, and Breslin waited months in Fremantle, his funds dwindling and the risk of exposure growing.

 

Vital Local Support

 

The operation’s success also depended heavily on local support for the Irish cause in the colony itself. By the 1870s, many Fenian prisoners who had received early conditional release for good behaviour (so-called “tickets-of-leave”) were living and working within the colony. These men formed a local support network that proved essential to the rescue effort. Breslin made contact with a former inmate who had access to the jail to open lines of communication. Meanwhile, Desmond organised transport for the escape and recruited several local Irishmen to cut the telegraph wires to Perth on the designated day.

 

Even so, the operation was nearly derailed by paranoia and poor communication. Breslin found himself crossing paths with the same two men multiple times, and began to fear the British had uncovered the plan. Eventually the men made contact – they were actually Fenian agents sent from Ireland to arrange a prison break. At the same time, another local Fenian, John King, was himself organising a rescue plan. Breslin brought the others on board, consolidating their plans into his own.

 

Local knowledge was also integral to the timing of the escape. Easter Monday coincided with the annual Perth regatta, drawing officials and resources – not least horses that might be used in any pursuit – away from Fremantle. This apparently minor logistical detail gave the rescue plan an advantage that proved to be decisive.

 

From the Prison to the Sea

 

On Easter Monday, 17 April 1876, the plan was set in motion. The morning of the escape the six prisoners were working outside the prison walls, a privilege granted because of the colony’s isolation They slipped away in small groups, with Breslin and Desmond collecting them in horse-drawn carriages, and together they began a desperate 20-mile dash south towards Rockingham Beach. The ride was frantic. The horses, pushed to their limits, collapsed from exhaustion as they reached the coast. There, a whaleboat from the Catalpa awaited.

 

Their ordeal was far from over, however. The Catalpa lay miles offshore, beyond territorial waters. The fugitives and their rescuers rowed out into the open ocean. Behind them, British authorities soon commandeered the steamer Georgette in pursuit, and the race was on. As night fell, a storm struck, snapping the mast of the escapees’ overloaded small boat and forcing them to improvise. They hoisted a jury sail on an oar and rowed and bailed through the night on the rough seas, battling exhaustion, exposure, and fear.

 

Showdown on the High Seas

 

At dawn on April 18, they caught sight of the Catalpa, with the Georgette bearing down on it in international waters. The steamer had passed within perhaps half a mile of them overnight, but had disregarded the mastless boat as flotsam. As their boat neared the Catalpa, the ship moved towards it, arousing suspicions on board the Georgette, but Samuel Smith, the first mate, manoeuvred the ship so it lay between the whale boat and the steamer, allowing the fugitive group to board. Once on board, the escapees began to loudly mock their former jailers on board the Georgette, and the steamer, low on fuel, was then forced to return to shore. But then the wind dropped, and the Catalpa was becalmed – albeit in international waters.

 

At dawn the next day, the Georgette, this time fully loaded with police and with a small canon on board. A dramatic maritime confrontation ensued. The Georgette moved to intercept, firing a warning shot across the Catalpa’s bow. Just at this moment, a light breeze began to stir, filling the ship’s sails. As the Georgette pulled up alongside the Catalpa, British Army Colonel Harvest demanded the return of the escaped prisoners. Captain George S. Anthony refused, responding: “You’re mistaken. There are no prisoners aboard this ship. They’re all free men.”

 

The standoff continued as the Georgette attempted to force the Catalpa back into territorial waters, and the wind continued to rise. Concerned at the changing conditions, Harvest gave Anthony an ultimatum: ‘I’ll give you fifteen minutes in which to heave to, and I’ll blow your masts out unless you do so.” Hoisting the American flag, Captain Anthony then called the ultimate bluff. “This ship is sailing under the American flag, and she is on the high seas. If you fire on me, I warn you that you are firing on the American flag.” Fearful of provoking a diplomatic incident, the Georgette broke off pursuit, and the Catalpa pulled away in the wind. The six Fenians were free, and the Catalpa sailed on to the United States and into the history books.

 

Across the World to Freedom

 

When the Catalpa arrived in New York in August 1876, it was met with a “tumultuous” welcome. Thousands gathered to greet the rescued heroes, while journalists swarmed on board the ship. Yet freedom had come at a cost: none of the six would return to Ireland. Like many Fenians, they lived out their lives in exile, building new identities in American cities. Their stories became part of the broader narrative of Irish diaspora – one of displacement, resilience, and support for the Irish struggle from afar.

 

In Australia, too, the memory of the daring escape has endured. The site of their departure at Rockingham is today marked by the Catalpa Rescue Memorial, featuring bronze sculptures of wild geese taking flight – a symbol of Irish exile, recalling the generations of soldiers and rebels who left Ireland’s shores to fight abroad. A ballad – parodying the better known “Botany Bay” – of the events was soon composed, and – despite attempts to suppress it, was frequently heard in Perth and Frematle well inot the early 1900s. A version of the chorus was even published in the Bunbury Herald in March 1909:

 

“Come all you screws, warders and gaolers,
Remember Perth Regatta Day;
Take cars of the rest of your Fenians,
Or the Yankees will take them away."

 

A Global Propaganda Victory

 

The true significance of the Catalpa Rescue lay not only in its immediate success, but in its lasting impact. For the Fenian movement, it was a transformative political victory. At a time when the movement had suffered setbacks and divisions, the operation demonstrated a capacity to act, sustained by a powerful transatlantic network. It showed that Irish nationalism had evolved into a global movement, capable of challenging and embarrassing the British Empire on the world stage.

 

John Devoy and Clan na Gael emerged strengthened. The rescue validated their strategy of combining political agitation with dramatic action. It also energised Irish-American support, reinforcing the idea that the diaspora had a crucial role to play in the struggle for independence, and sustaining the momentum of militant nationalism in exile. The networks, funding channels, and organisational structures that enabled the rescue would later contribute to the revival of the Fenian Brotherhood and the planning of the 1916 Easter Rising.

 

John Devoy

One Easter Morn…

 

Indeed, there is a direct line – ideological, organisational, and financial – from this Fenian activism of the 1870s to the revolutionary generation of 1916, and beyond. Figures like Devoy remained central to that continuity, supporting and shaping the movement from abroad. Devoy himself dedicated more than sixty years to the struggle for Irish freedom, and was one of very few people to have played a role in the Fenian Rising of 1867, the Easter Rising of 1916, and the Irish War of Independence of 1919–21.

 

The symbolic resonance of Easter is striking. The Catalpa escape took place on Easter Monday in 1876. Exactly, forty years later, on Easter Monday 1916, the Easter Rising would begin in Dublin, drawing on not only the same traditions of sacrifice and defiance, but on the material and moral support of the Fenian movement in the United States.

Shameful Silence

 

Even so, for all its drama and significance, the Catalpa Rescue appears to occupy an uneasy place in official Irish memory. The National Museum of Ireland does not tell its story, and the American flag raised on the Catalpa – donated to the museum in 1972 by 1916 Rising veteran and vice-president of Sinn Féin, Joe Clarke – has been hidden away for years. Even now in 2026, the 150th anniversary of the escape, it has taken public pressure for the Museum to put the flag on display for a paltry two days in the Collins Barracks this weekend.

 

No other artefacts related to the Catalpa escape held by the museum are to be displayed, and no plans are being made to do so. These include original letters from the prisoners and items from the correspondence of John Devoy. Calls from Sinn Féin Seanadóir Conor Murphy for an Irish state commemoration of the event have also been ignored, despite multiple events being held in both Fremantle and Boston. The silence from official Ireland on commemorating such an important event is deafening.

 

On a Distant Shore

 

Nonetheless, the Catalpa Rescue also endures because it speaks to something fundamental in Irish history: the power of exile to shape the struggle at home. From the cells of Fremantle to the streets of New York, from the whaling ports of Massachusetts to the distant shores of Western Australia, it is a story that unfolded across the Irish world. It was made possible by networks of international solidarity that transcended geography, and by individuals who believed that distance did not diminish obligation to fight injustice.

 

When James Wilson wrote of his “voice from the tomb,” he could not have known that it would set in motion one of the most remarkable rescue operations in history, setting in motion events spanning oceans and resonating – down through the years – into the events of 1916 and all that has followed. At Rockingham today, the bronze wild geese face out to sea, frozen in the moment of departure. They recall not only the six men who escaped, but the countless others who left Ireland’s shores in search of freedom – or were forced from them – yet refused to abandon the cause.

 

In that moment, on a distant shore in 1876, a tide turned in the struggle for Ireland. The voice of Irish republicanism, buried alive by the British Empire in a living prison on a distant shore, called out. The Catalpa sailed across an ocean to answer that call, and when it returned, it carried the seeds of hope and freedom. One hundred and fifty years on, those seeds, sown by the young men of '65 and '67 – and '76 – continue to blossom and grow.

Denmark’s Election: Blurring Political Differences

On 24 March, Denmark goes to the polls in an early election that could reshape the Nordic country’s political landscape

Earlier this year, Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was riding a modest “Greenland bounce” due to the tense stand-off with Donald Trump over Greenland. While this may have prompted her to call a snap election to save her flagging mandate, it is domestic politics that have defined the campaign, and with more than a dozen parties in the mix, the outcome is far from clear.

The results may also mark an end of Denmark’s traditional bloc politics. Since the 2022 election, Denmark has been governed by an unusual “over-the-centre” grand coalition between the Social Democrats, the liberal Venstre, and the centrist Moderates. This arrangement broke with decades of political custom, as Frederiksen chose to govern alongside her traditional rivals despite having a nominal left-wing majority available. The result has been a – predictably – uneasy and often unpopular government, caught between ideological compromise and a restless electorate.

Political Polarization

If Frederiksen’s centrist experiment was intended to stabilize Danish politics, it failed, and the polarization of Danish politics has continued to intensify. The governing coalition has overseen a noticeable rightward shift on economic, social, and migration issues – including the abolition of a popular national holiday to fund weapons for Ukraine – and this has come at a political cost. In the November 2025 local elections, both the Social Democrats and Venstre suffered heavy losses, while the Moderates nearly collapsed entirely.

The Social Democrats’ loss of control of Copenhagen – its treasured stronghold for over a century – underscored the depth of the disaster. A fragmented and polarized political landscape emerged. While the government parties experienced a drubbing, gains were made by the green-left Socialist People’s Party (SF), the right-libertarian Liberal Alliance (LA), and the two main parties of the far right, the Denmark Democrats (DD) and the Danish People’s Party (DF).

Both Sides of the Fence

Rather than interpreting these results as a signal to shift clearly left or right, Frederiksen seems to be trying to do both at the same time. On the one hand, her government has doubled down on already strict (and to many critics simply racist)  migration and integration policies, that have garnered Frederiksen praise from social democrats – and others further to the right – internationally who wish to emulate her rightward tack on migration. On the other, it has made a clear left turn on material issues, placing more traditionally left-wing economic rhetoric and policy promises at the heart of the election campaign.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.  

„Sozialismus ist keine Utopie – er ist voller Leben“

Pelle Dragsted von der dänischen rot-grünen Partei Enhedslisten spricht über sein neues Buch „Nordic Socialism“

In den letzten Jahren wuchs das Interesse am Sozialismus wieder, oft genährt durch wachsende Ungleichheiten, die Klimakrise und das Scheitern neoliberaler Politik. Doch wie sieht Sozialismus aus, wenn er bereits in alltäglichen Institutionen existiert? 

Pelle Dragsted, Abgeordneter im dänischen Folketing für die rot-grünen Enhedslisten, sieht das nordische Modell als Antwort – und die demokratischen und gemeinschaftlichen Elemente, die es bereits beinhaltet. Sein 2021 veröffentlichtes Buch „Nordisk Socialisme“ wurde in seinem Heimatland von der Kritik gelobt und regte eine öffentliche Debatte an, einschließlich einer zehnteiligen Diskussionsreihe in der Zeitung Information. Kurz darauf wurde das Werk ins Schwedische übersetzt; und nun wird es endlich auch auf Englisch veröffentlicht.

In seinem Buch analysiert Dragsted anhand der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Erfahrungen in Dänemark die Strategie der Linken und interpretiert diese neu, was zu einigen unorthodoxen Schlussfolgerungen führt. Ihm zufolge hindert die Sichtweise, dass die Gesellschaft vollständig vom Kapitalismus durchdrungen sei, die Linke daran, wahrhaftige sozialistische Alternativen zum Kapitalismus zu schaffen, und verschleiert den Wert von Einrichtungen wie Mitarbeiterunternehmen und dem nicht der Marktlogik unterworfenen öffentlichen Sektor.

Dragsted betont, dass unsere Gesellschaften tatsächlich eine Mischung aus Kapitalismus und Sozialismus seien (je nach Land in unterschiedlichem Maß) und dass Bestrebungen, den Kapitalismus zu stürzen und durch Sozialismus zu ersetzen, kontraproduktiv seien und radikalen Reformen im Wege stünden, die die demokratischen und sozialistischen Aspekte der Gesellschaft stärken könnten. Auf Grundlage dieser Analyse schlägt er zehn Reformen für eine deutlich demokratischere Wirtschaft vor.

Mit Blick auf die Veröffentlichung seines Werks auf Englisch bei University of Wisconsin Press war der Autor jüngst mit Unterstützung der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung auf Werbetour in den USA. Unterwegs sprach er mit Duroyan Fertl über sein Buch – darüber, was ihn dazu bewegt hat, und wie der Weg zu einer demokratischen Wirtschaft in Dänemark und anderswo aussehen kann.

Duroyan Fertl: Ihr Buch „Nordic Socialism“, wie es in der neu erschienenen englischen Übersetzung heißt, befasst sich mit der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Geschichte Dänemarks und anderer nordischer Länder sowie mit Projekten, die eine demokratischere Wirtschaft anstreben. Darüber hinaus greift es übergeordnete philosophische und politische Debatten rund um die Linke auf – Fragen wie Freiheit und Demokratie, aber auch sozialistische Strategie – und liefert konkrete Vorschläge zur Förderung des demokratischen Sozialismus. Was hat Sie dazu gebracht, dieses Buch zu schreiben, und was hoffen Sie damit zu erreichen?

Pelle Dragsted: Dieses Buch entstand aus einem Gefühl der Dringlichkeit. Es wird immer offensichtlicher, dass wir nicht weiter zulassen können, dass der Kapitalismus unsere Wirtschaft dominiert – nicht nur, weil er ungerecht ist, sondern auch, weil er das Fundament der Demokratie selbst untergräbt, wie wir in den USA erleben. Die für den Kapitalismus typische Konzentration von Vermögen führt zu oligarchischer Macht. Dadurch beruht politischer Einfluss nicht mehr auf einem demokratischen Mandat, sondern auf der Kontrolle über Vermögen und Wirtschaft. Das ist nicht etwa ein Mangel, sondern vielmehr ein unvermeidliches Merkmal der kapitalistischen Eigentumsverhältnisse.

Sozialismus: von der Utopie zur Wirklichkeit

Aber es ist einfach, den Kapitalismus schlechtzureden. Darin war die Linke schon immer gut. Immer mehr Menschen stimmen zu, dass unser heutiges Wirtschaftsmodell nicht haltbar ist. Warum gibt es dann keine Mehrheit für einen Wandel hin zu einem Modell einer gerechteren, demokratischeren Wirtschaft, zu dem, was wir Sozialismus nennen würden? Das liegt unter anderem daran, dass die Linke sehr gut darin ist, Kritik zu üben und pauschale Aussagen über sozialistischen Wandel zu machen, aber weniger gut darin, eine gangbare Alternative anzubieten und Antworten auf die schwierigen Fragen zu geben, die rund um die Demokratisierung von Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Teilen des Marktes aufkommen.

Zu lange wurde der Sozialismus als Utopie betrachtet und nicht in unseren alltäglichen Kampf integriert – weder in Parlamenten oder Gewerkschaften noch in Volksbewegungen. Die Motivation für mein Buch war, den Sozialismus greifbarer, verständlicher und gangbar zu machen. Ich wollte ihn aus dem Reich der Utopien in unser tägliches Engagement bringen.

Ich freue mich sehr, dass das Buch jetzt auf Englisch veröffentlicht wird. Es ist der richtige Zeitpunkt. Die Welt braucht mehr denn je eine konkrete Alternative zum Neoliberalismus der Mitte und zum Populismus der Rechten. Derzeit bin ich in den USA, wo der demokratische Sozialismus durch den Sieg von Zohran Mamdani bei den New Yorker Vorwahlen [für die Bürgermeisterwahl am 4. November] erneut in den Vordergrund gerückt ist. Wenn mein Buch demokratischen Sozialist*innen in aller Welt dabei helfen kann, wirksamer für eine sozialistische Alternative zu werben, wäre das ein riesiger Erfolg.

 Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

  

“Il socialismo non è un’utopia: è vivo e vegeto”

Pelle Dragsted dell’Alleanza Rosso-Verde della Danimarca parla del suo nuovo libro, Nordic Socialism.

Negli ultimi anni, un rinnovato interesse per il socialismo è cresciuto in tutta Europa e oltre, spesso innescato dalla crescente disuguaglianza, dal collasso climatico e dai fallimenti della governance neoliberista. Ma come si presenta il socialismo quando è già presente nelle istituzioni quotidiane?

Pelle Dragsted, membro del Folketing danese per l’Alleanza Rosso-Verde, ritiene che la risposta risieda nel modello nordico e nel riconoscimento degli elementi democratici e cooperativi già in esso incorporati. Nel 2021, il suo libro Nordisk Socialisme (Socialismo Nordico) ha suscitato sia il plauso della critica che il dibattito pubblico in tutto il suo Paese d’origine, tra cui una serie di dibattiti in dieci puntate sul quotidiano Information. Il libro è stato pubblicato in svedese poco dopo e ora, finalmente, sarà pubblicato in inglese dalla Wisconsin University Press.

Il libro di Dragsted sfrutta le esperienze economiche e politiche della Danimarca per analizzare e reinterpretare la strategia della sinistra, giungendo ad alcune conclusioni poco ortodosse. Sostiene che l’idea che le società siano interamente colonizzate dal capitalismo impedisce alla sinistra di costruire con successo alternative socialiste al capitalismo e oscura il valore di istituzioni come le cooperative di proprietà dei lavoratori e il settore pubblico non-mercatista.

In effetti, egli insiste non solo sul fatto che le nostre società sono ibridi di capitalismo e socialismo (con gradi variabili da paese a paese), ma anche sul fatto che le prospettive che mirano a rovesciare il capitalismo e sostituirlo con il socialismo sono controproducenti e ostacolano riforme radicali significative che potrebbero migliorare gli aspetti democratici e socialisti della società. Con questa analisi in mente, Dragsted suggerisce una serie di dieci riforme per aprire la strada a un’economia molto più democratizzata.

Con “Socialismo nordico” in uscita in inglese con la University of Wisconsin Press alla fine di questo mese, Pelle Dragsted è attualmente impegnato in un tour promozionale negli Stati Uniti, supportato dalla Fondazione Rosa Luxemburg. Tra una tappa e l’altra, ha parlato con Duroyan Fertl del libro, delle motivazioni che lo hanno spinto a scriverlo e del percorso verso un’economia democratica in Danimarca e oltre.

Il suo libro “Socialismo nordico” , appena pubblicato in inglese, esamina la storia economica e sociale della Danimarca e di altri paesi nordici, compresi i progetti volti a una maggiore democrazia economica. Affronta anche alcuni dibattiti filosofici e politici molto più ampi a sinistra  – questioni di libertà e democrazia, ma anche di strategia socialista  – e avanza proposte concrete per la costruzione del socialismo democratico. Qual è stata la sua motivazione per scrivere questo libro e cosa spera di ottenere, soprattutto ora che è stato pubblicato in inglese?

Ho scritto il libro per un senso di urgenza. Sta diventando sempre più evidente che non possiamo più permettere al capitalismo di dominare le nostre economie. Non è solo ingiusto, ma, come stiamo vedendo negli Stati Uniti, sta minando le fondamenta stesse della democrazia. La concentrazione della ricchezza insita nel capitalismo crea un potere oligarchico – un’influenza politica che deriva non da mandati democratici, ma dal controllo della ricchezza e dell’economia. Questo non è un difetto; è una caratteristica, un risultato inevitabile dei modelli di proprietà capitalistici.

Ma ecco il punto: non è difficile sostenere che il capitalismo sia dannoso. La sinistra è sempre stata brava in questo. Sempre più persone concordano sul fatto che il modo in cui attualmente organizziamo l’economia non sia sostenibile. Allora perché non riusciamo a ottenere una maggioranza favorevole alla trasformazione dell’economia in un modello più equo e democratico, quello che chiameremmo socialismo?

Uno dei motivi è che la sinistra è stata eccellente nel criticare e nel fare affermazioni ampie e generali sul cambiamento socialista. Tuttavia, siamo stati meno efficaci nel presentare un’alternativa praticabile e nel rispondere alle difficili domande che sorgono quando parliamo di democratizzazione dell’economia, del mondo del lavoro e persino di parti del mercato.

Per troppo tempo, il socialismo è stato trattato come una visione utopica, non radicata nelle nostre lotte quotidiane – che si tratti di parlamenti, sindacati o movimenti popolari. Quindi, la motivazione del libro era quella di rendere il socialismo più concreto, comprensibile e praticabile. Di portarlo fuori dal regno dell’utopia e di inserirlo nel lavoro pratico che stiamo svolgendo oggi.

'L’esperienza nordica ci insegna che il rapporto tra proprietà democratica (socialista) e proprietà non democratica (capitalista) non è fisso.'

Ora che il libro è disponibile in inglese, sono molto emozionato. Il momento sembra giusto. Il mondo, più che mai, ha bisogno di un’alternativa concreta sia al neoliberismo centrista che al populismo di destra. In questo momento mi trovo negli Stati Uniti, dove il successo di Mamdani alle primarie di New York ha rimesso in discussione il socialismo democratico. Se il mio libro potesse aiutare i socialisti democratici di tutto il mondo a sostenere con maggiore efficacia un’alternativa socialista, sarebbe un risultato straordinario.

I paesi nordici sono spesso visti come un punto di riferimento progressista per i loro stati sociali storicamente solidi e la relativa uguaglianza sociale, ma solitamente nel contesto di un capitalismo “più gradevole”. Ironicamente, tuttavia, il punto di partenza del suo libro è un rapporto dell’amministrazione Trump del 2018 che definisce i paesi nordici “socialisti”. Trump ha ragione ? 

Questo è un argomento centrale del mio libro: che i socialisti possono imparare dall’esperienza nordica. Abbiamo trascurato di riconoscerlo a sinistra, e questo ha reso inutilmente difficile sostenere un cambiamento socialista.

Il termine “socialismo nordico” è stato in realtà coniato da Trump. Durante il suo primo mandato, la Casa Bianca pubblicò un rapporto che metteva esplicitamente in guardia contro quello che chiamava “socialismo nordico”. Era una risposta ai progressisti americani come Bernie Sanders e Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, che avevano indicato la Danimarca e i paesi nordici come fonti di ispirazione per la loro visione di socialismo democratico.

In Danimarca, i politici di ogni schieramento hanno rapidamente respinto l’affermazione. Il nostro ministro degli Esteri l’ha definita “assurda”. Persino molti esponenti della sinistra danese hanno respinto l’etichetta. Ma uno dei messaggi chiave del mio libro è questo: Fox News, Trump e persino Bernie Sanders hanno più ragione di quanto siamo disposti ad ammettere quando associano i paesi nordici al socialismo. A mio avviso, il modello nordico contiene già forti elementi socialisti e abbracciare questa verità potrebbe aiutarci a costruire un futuro più giusto e democratico.

Potresti definire cosa intendi per “socialismo nordico” e in che modo si differenzia da altre concezioni del socialismo? 

Se definiamo il socialismo come l’organizzazione delle attività economiche all’interno di un quadro democratico di proprietà comune, allora i paesi nordici sono più vicini al socialismo rispetto, ad esempio, agli Stati Uniti. I paesi nordici hanno vasti settori pubblici – servizi di assistenza, istruzione, sanità – di proprietà e gestiti dal pubblico piuttosto che dai capitalisti. Questi settori sono finanziati attraverso la tassazione solidale, non attraverso gli scambi di mercato. Circa un lavoratore su tre è impiegato nel settore pubblico non-profit nei paesi nordici.

Ma la proprietà democratica non si ferma alla sfera pubblica. Anche il settore privato vanta una lunga tradizione di cooperative, mutue e associazioni, possedute e gestite da lavoratori, piccoli produttori o consumatori. Ad esempio, la nostra seconda catena di supermercati più grande, Coop, è di proprietà dei suoi 2 milioni di clienti. Non c’è nessun Jeff Bezos che ricava profitti quando andiamo a fare la spesa lì. Molti di noi detengono prestiti, assicurazioni o risparmi in cooperative di credito o mutue, tutte di proprietà collettiva. In Danimarca, un’unità abitativa su cinque è di proprietà collettiva tramite cooperative abitative senza scopo di lucro.

Ora, non sto affermando che questi settori siano utopie socialiste. Devono affrontare sfide reali. Ma sono qualitativamente diversi: governati democraticamente e con profitti ridistribuiti tra i membri, non accumulati da una ristretta élite. Contribuiscono a controbilanciare il potere oligarchico anziché rafforzarlo.

Quindi, in un certo senso, uso il termine “socialismo nordico” sia in senso descrittivo che normativo. Descrittivamente, le economie nordiche sono più socialiste di, per esempio, gli Stati Uniti. Normativamente, le vedo come una visione per un’economia futura, ancora più socialista, fondata sulle tradizioni nordiche di proprietà pubblica e cooperativa, che demercifica ampie parti dell’economia.

Molte delle proposte storiche più promettenti per consolidare il “socialismo nordico” esistente  – come la Democrazia Economica in Danimarca o il piano Meidner in Svezia – non sono mai state pienamente realizzate. Al contrario, abbiamo assistito a decenni di neoliberismo affermarsi nella regione nordica, indebolendo lo stato sociale e altre istituzioni democratiche e sociali.  Qual è l’attuale rapporto di forza tra neoliberismo e “socialismo nordico”? 

Il modello nordico raggiunse l’apice negli anni ’70, con lo stato sociale al suo apice e il settore cooperativo che svolgeva un ruolo significativo nell’economia. Si progettava persino una radicale trasformazione della proprietà attraverso il cosiddetto “socialismo dei fondi”, trasferendo la proprietà delle grandi imprese a fondi controllati dai lavoratori. Ma da allora, c’è stato un contrattacco neoliberista al socialismo nordico. Abbiamo assistito all’espansione della proprietà capitalista attraverso la privatizzazione e il ridimensionamento di parti dello stato sociale.

Uno dei messaggi chiave del mio libro è che il fallimento dei socialdemocratici fu la loro riluttanza a sfidare la proprietà capitalista in modo più aggressivo. Troppo potere economico rimase nelle mani di un’élite proprietaria e, quando si presentò l’opportunità, reagì. Questa è una lezione importante: quando i socialisti saliranno al potere, il nostro compito principale dovrebbe essere quello di contrastare il potere oligarchico democratizzando la proprietà in tutta l’economia.

'Senza cambiamenti nella proprietà, tutte le riforme sociali saranno fragili.'

Vale anche la pena sottolineare che, anche dopo quattro decenni di reazione neoliberista, il modello nordico non è stato completamente smantellato. Abbiamo ancora un settore sostanzialmente demercificato, con assistenza sanitaria, istruzione e cura fornite pubblicamente. E il settore cooperativo rimane forte nei settori dell’edilizia abitativa, della finanza e dell’agricoltura.

Ciò dimostra che è difficile annullare completamente questo tipo di guadagni. L’esperienza nordica ci insegna che il rapporto tra proprietà democratica (socialista) e proprietà non democratica (capitalista) non è fisso. È possibile modificare il mix e spostare l’equilibrio di potere.

Queste conquiste progressiste si sono verificate in gran parte sotto i governi socialdemocratici del dopoguerra. Oltre all’abbandono da parte della socialdemocrazia di questo zelo “riformista”, lei accusa anche l’”utopismo” della sinistra rivoluzionaria di aver indebolito le forze democratiche e socialiste nei paesi nordici. Ma va oltre: al posto della vecchia distinzione binaria riformista/rivoluzionaria a sinistra, lei sostiene un approccio che descrive come “gradualista”. Può approfondire questa idea? 

All’inizio del secolo scorso, i socialdemocratici avevano come obiettivo dichiarato un’economia socialista e attuarono riforme che li avvicinarono a tale obiettivo.

Nel corso dei decenni, questo obiettivo è stato annacquato e oggi i partiti socialdemocratici hanno abbandonato ogni ambizione di cambiare il modello economico. Ma dopo la crisi finanziaria, abbiamo assistito all’ascesa di un nuovo socialismo democratico trasformativo dalla sinistra: da Corbyn, Sanders, Podemos in Spagna e Die Linke in Germania.

Ciò che ho trovato così promettente in questi movimenti è che hanno risvegliato l’idea di riforme trasformative, non solo in termini di redistribuzione, ma anche di cambiamento degli assetti proprietari. Sia Sanders che Corbyn hanno introdotto idee di un socialismo basato sui fondi salariali di stampo meidneriano, di cui parlo nel mio libro.

Considero il mio libro parte di questa tendenza: una sorta di socialismo democratico radicale che prende il meglio dalla socialdemocrazia classica e lo combina con l’insistenza su riforme trasformative. Perché l’esperienza nordica ci mostra che senza cambiamenti nella proprietà, tutte le riforme sociali saranno fragili.

Un altro aspetto chiave della tua tesi è l’idea che, anziché due sistemi totalizzanti distinti o modalità di “capitalismo” e “socialismo”, viviamo in una società “ibrida”, con elementi di entrambi che coesistono fianco a fianco. Accusi la sinistra  – sia riformista che rivoluzionaria  – di condividere una nozione errata e inutile del capitalismo come sistema onnicomprensivo. Potresti spiegare questo quadro e cosa ti ha portato a elaborarlo?

In realtà, ho trovato l’ispirazione per questa tesi in un articolo di due marxiste femministe che ho letto 25 anni fa, scritte a quattro mani sotto lo pseudonimo di Gibson-Graham. Nell’articolo, contestano il modo in cui la sinistra ha normalmente concettualizzato il capitalismo come un sistema organico, onnicomprensivo e coerente che può essere eliminato solo da una rivoluzione, in cui un nuovo sistema onnicomprensivo – il socialismo – prende il suo posto. Sostengono che questo modo di intendere il capitalismo abbia reso quasi impossibile immaginare e lavorare per una graduale trasformazione socialista.

Suggeriscono poi una definizione più sottile del capitalismo, in cui il capitalismo occupa solo una parte della società – l’economia in cui il lavoro viene sfruttato. Ciò lascia uno spazio al di fuori del capitalismo – di diversi tipi di economia comunitaria e democratica. Uno spazio che può essere ampliato, che potrebbe essere il fondamento di un futuro socialismo. Negli anni successivi, ho continuato a rifletterci, e mi è diventato sempre più chiaro che, soprattutto nei paesi nordici, è abbastanza ovvio che non abbia senso dire semplicemente che tutto è capitalismo.

Quella fu la mia prima ispirazione. In seguito, scoprii che il defunto sociologo americano Erik Olin Wright era giunto alla stessa conclusione: che le società sono ibridi o miscele di diversi modi di produzione, e che è possibile elaborare strategie su come introdurre più socialismo in questo mix.

Questo mix include un settore cooperativo ampliato, un elemento storicamente forte in Danimarca. Le cooperative devono tuttavia continuare a operare  – e competere  – in un mercato capitalista, e le economie dei paesi nordici sono sempre state fortemente dipendenti dalle esportazioni, il che ha aggravato questa vulnerabilità.  Come possono questi aspetti dell’economia “democratica” sopravvivere, e persino espandersi, quando sono soggetti agli imperativi capitalistici dominanti, sia a livello nazionale che internazionale?

Credo che la nostra storia dimostri che la componente democratica di un’economia può espandersi, allontanando la proprietà capitalista. Ciò è accaduto per circa 100 anni, dal 1870 al 1970, nonostante la forte resistenza della classe capitalista. Non c’è dubbio che la globalizzazione eserciti una pressione sulla componente democratica dell’economia, soprattutto nel nostro settore cooperativo agricolo.

Ma per quanto riguarda le cooperative, è un mito che non possano competere con le aziende capitaliste. In realtà, numerose ricerche dimostrano che sono competitive – e persino più produttive e solide – offrendo al contempo salari più elevati. E possiamo usare strumenti politici per alimentare il settore democratico, ad esempio dando loro la precedenza negli appalti pubblici. 

Forse sorprendentemente, lei esprime un forte scetticismo nei confronti del tradizionale focus della sinistra sulla nazionalizzazione, sull’economia pianificata e sul ruolo dello Stato in generale, preferendo concentrarsi su cooperative, fondi di ricchezza sociale, socialismo dei fondi e un settore civile democratico allargato nella costruzione del socialismo.  Potrebbe approfondire questo approccio?

Ok, cominciamo dalla proprietà. La domanda a cui dobbiamo rispondere è: se vogliamo sostituire la proprietà capitalista con la proprietà comune dei mezzi di produzione, chi dovrebbe possedere le imprese, le banche, le aziende e così via?

'Ecco in cosa consiste il socialismo nordico. Non utopie lontane. Ma esperienze vissute concretamente che possiamo espandere per costruire un mondo migliore per la maggior parte delle persone.'

Storicamente, i socialisti pensavano che la socializzazione equivalesse alla proprietà statale. Ma l’esperienza con questo tipo di socialismo non è molto positiva, per usare un eufemismo. Creerà necessariamente un’enorme centralizzazione. È anche una forma di proprietà molto lontana. Le fabbriche nella Germania dell’Est erano chiamate “Aziende di proprietà popolare”, ma i lavoratori non si sentivano proprietari. Questo spiega perché ci furono così poche proteste quando le aziende statali nell’Europa orientale furono privatizzate.

Credo che forme di proprietà più dirette – cooperative, fondi comuni di investimento e altri modelli – siano più attraenti perché decentralizzate e responsabilizzano i soci. Ciò non significa che io rifiuti del tutto la proprietà pubblica: penso che dovremmo avere una proprietà pubblica molto più ampia di quella odierna. Ma rifiuto l’idea che il socialismo sia una forma uniforme di proprietà e propongo un mix di diverse forme di proprietà democratica.

Allo stesso tempo, lei  sostiene anche la necessità di preservare elementi del mercato durante la costruzione del socialismo. Potrebbe spiegarlo?

Non credo che possiamo avere un’economia efficiente nell’uso delle risorse senza ricorrere a prezzi e mercati. Ma le aree dell’economia basate sul mercato dovrebbero essere ridotte e le parti in cui utilizziamo meccanismi di mercato dovrebbero essere fortemente regolamentate per evitare le esternalità negative degli scambi di mercato.  

Un aspetto non immediatamente ovvio nel suo libro è quello dell’agenzia: chi potrebbe costringere i capitalisti a rinunciare al loro potere e ai loro profitti, e come? Lei, ad esempio, fa scarso riferimento ai sindacati come agenti di cambiamento sociale . Molte delle sue proposte dipenderebbero probabilmente anche in larga misura dall’iniziativa legislativa o dalla protezione parlamentare, correndo il rischio di un approccio verticistico e statale alla trasformazione sociale. Come potrebbero essere realizzate concretamente le riforme da lei sostenute, pur mantenendo un carattere democratico e pluralistico? 

Si tratta di domande davvero importanti e stimolanti. È ovvio che la riforma che propongo richiede un forte sostegno popolare e delle organizzazioni sindacali, non solo perché i lavoratori devono essere attori chiave nella democratizzazione del mondo del lavoro, ma anche a causa della resistenza che dobbiamo aspettarci dalla classe capitalista alle riforme trasformative. Il modello nordico non sarebbe stato possibile senza partiti sindacali e sindacati forti.

Per quanto riguarda la resistenza dell’élite proprietaria, suggerisco che le riforme dovrebbero essere graduali. Per ogni riforma che riduce l’influenza oligarchica delle élite, la successiva, ancora più radicale, sarà più facile da attuare. Ad esempio, se rafforziamo le banche pubbliche di investimento o creiamo fondi democratici per i lavoratori dipendenti che controllano grandi capitali, diventeremo meno vulnerabili alla fuga di capitali.

Il suo “Socialismo Nordico” è davvero socialismo? Il progetto esposto nel suo libro rifugge qualsiasi “rovesciamento” del capitalismo, o persino richieste più moderate di “trascenderlo” pacificamente. Piuttosto, sembra felice di accrescere gli aspetti “democratici” dell’economia, pur consentendo a quelli capitalisti di continuare a coesistere. Nel dibattito seguito alla sua pubblicazione in Danimarca nel 2021, è stato accusato da alcuni (e non solo dalla sinistra) di proporre semplicemente piccole riforme democratiche (alcune delle quali già sperimentate e fallite) all’economia  capitalista.  Cosa risponde a coloro che contestano che la società che descrive sia davvero socialismo? Lo è?

Sì. Certamente. Se definiamo il socialismo come un’economia in cui la proprietà è democratizzata e il potere nella società e nell’economia si basa sulla democrazia e non sulla ricchezza di pochi.

Rifiuto l’idea binaria di socialismo e capitalismo come due sistemi totalmente separati. Questa idea spaziale di alcune riforme “interne al capitalismo” è, ai miei occhi, un vicolo cieco. La questione è come trasferire il potere dal capitalista al popolo. Dal potere oligarchico a quello democratico. E questo passa attraverso lo spostamento della proprietà dei beni produttivi dai pochi ai molti.

È sempre un mix. Al momento abbiamo un’economia – anche nei paesi nordici – dominata da relazioni sociali capitaliste. Ciò che propongo è un’economia dominata da relazioni socialiste – da una governance democratica.

Nel mio libro, avanzo dieci proposte di riforme socialiste trasformative che si dividono in due gruppi. Il primo riguarda come democratizzare e distribuire la proprietà. Il secondo si concentra sulla riduzione dell’influenza dei mercati e sulla demercificazione di nuovi settori dell’economia, convertendo beni come l’assistenza odontoiatrica, i trasporti pubblici e le comunicazioni in diritti sociali, rendendo così le persone più libere dalla pressione del mercato.

Ecco in cosa consiste il socialismo nordico. Non utopie lontane. Ma esperienze vissute concretamente che possiamo espandere per costruire un mondo migliore per la maggior parte delle persone.

*Pelle Dragsted, portavoce politico dell’Alleanza Rosso-Verde, ha pronunciato il suo discorso durante l’assemblea annuale del partito a Copenaghen, Danimarca, nel maggio 2024.

Traduzione: Ancora Fischia il Vento 

 

”Socialism Is Not a Utopia — It’s Alive and Thriving”

Pelle Dragsted of Denmark’s Red-Green Alliance in conversation about his new book, Nordic Socialism.

In recent years, renewed interest in socialism has grown across Europe and beyond — often sparked by mounting inequality, climate breakdown, and the failures of neoliberal governance. But what does socialism look like when it already exists in everyday institutions?

Pelle Dragsted, a member of the Danish Folketing for the Red-Green Alliance, believes the answer lies in the Nordic model — and in recognizing the democratic and cooperative elements already embedded within it. In 2021, his book Nordisk Socialisme (Nordic Socialism) sparked both critical acclaim and public debate across his home country, including a ten-part debate series in the newspaper Information. The book was published in Swedish soon afterwards, and now — finally — will be published in English by Wisconsin University Press.

Dragsted’s book utilizes Denmark’s economic and political experiences to analyze and reinterpret Left strategy, leading to some unorthodox conclusions. He argues that the view that societies are entirely colonized by capitalism prevents the Left from successfully building socialist alternatives to capitalism, and obscures the value of institutions such as worker-owned cooperatives and the non-marketized public sector.

Indeed, he insists not only that our societies are hybrids of capitalism and socialism (varying by degree from country to country), but that perspectives seeking to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism are counterproductive, and get in the way of meaningful radical reforms that could improve the democratic and socialist aspects of society. With this analysis in mind, Dragsted suggests a series of ten reforms to pave the way towards a much more democratized economy.

With Nordic Socialism set to appear in English with the University of Wisconsin Press later this month, Pelle Dragsted is currently on a promotional tour of the United States supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. In between stops, he spoke with Duroyan Fertl about the book, his motivations behind writing it, and the road to a democratic economy in Denmark and beyond.

Your book Nordic Socialism, which has just been published in English, looks at the economic and social history of Denmark and other Nordic countries, including projects seeking greater economic democracy. It also takes up some much larger philosophical and political debates on the Left — issues of freedom and democracy, but also of socialist strategy — and makes concrete proposals for the building of democratic socialism. What was your motivation for writing this book, and what do you hope to achieve with it, especially now it has been published in English?

I wrote the book out of a sense of urgency. It’s becoming more and more evident that we can no longer allow capitalism to dominate our economies. It’s not just unfair, but as we are seeing in the US, it’s undermining the very foundation of democracy. The concentration of wealth inherent to capitalism creates oligarchic power — political influence stemming not from democratic mandates but from control of wealth and the economy. This isn’t a flaw; it’s a feature, an inevitable outcome of capitalistic ownership models.

But here’s the thing: It’s not difficult to argue that capitalism is harmful. The Left has always been good at that. More and more people agree that the way we currently organize the economy is unviable. So why can’t we get a majority behind transforming the economy into a fairer, more democratic model — what we would call socialism?

One reason is that the Left has been excellent at critique and at making broad, sweeping statements about socialist change. However, we’ve been less effective at presenting a viable alternative and answering the tough questions that arise when we talk about democratizing the economy, the workplace, and even parts of the market.

For too long, socialism has been treated as some utopian vision, not embedded in our daily struggles — whether in parliaments, trade unions, or popular movements. So, the motivation for the book was to make socialism more concrete, understandable, and viable. To take it out of the realm of utopia and bring it into the practical work we’re doing today.

Now that the book is available in English, I’m very excited. The timing feels right. The world, more than ever, needs a tangible alternative to both centrist neoliberalism and right-wing populism. Right now, I’m in the US, where the success of Mamdani in the New York primaries has once again put democratic socialism on the agenda. If my book can help democratic socialists around the world argue more effectively for a socialist alternative, that would be a tremendous achievement.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.  

"For reasons of conscience": fighting conscription then, and again

On November 1, 2024, my father Anton Fertl passed away on his farm in Australia aged 74. Retired, living alone among the trees, plants (not least his beloved orchids), animals, and insects, few locals knew of his youthful adventures, traveling overland from Bavaria to Australia (and back again, and then to Australia again!). These tales take quite the telling, but are for another time. Yet another achievement that he proudly carried with him throughout his years was his refusal to allow himself to be conscripted into West Germany's Bundeswehr at age 19, and the battle he fought to win this small victory for peace and reason. This is a more urgent tale - not least because of the rapid and reckless militarisation taking hold of Europe once more - but also, because in sorting through his paperwork, I've come across the key documents again, and so it seems opportune. First, however, some quick background.

In the Shadow of the War 

The Second World War ended in Europe with the unconditional surrender of the Nazi Wehrmacht on May 8, 1945. In November 1945, conscription in Germany was abolished, and the Wehrmacht itself was disbanded in August 1946. Influenced by the anti-war, anti-militarist sentiment that formally drove the development of the post-war German state, the 1949 Grundgesetz (constitution) of the new Federal Republic of Germany explicitly mentioned the possibility of Kriegsdienstverweigerung (conscientious objection), but made no such reference to Wehrpflicht (conscription).  

When the current German army - the Bundeswehr - was formed in 1955, it was promoted as a "parliamentary army" made up of "citizens in uniform", and with a revised definition of military obedience, all of which was meant to prevent future Nazi-style excesses. This new army was, however, tainted from the outset: in the late 1950s, the Bundeswehr hired 300 officers from the Waffen-SS to fill its ranks, and more than 12,000 Wehrmacht officers were soon serving in the Bundeswehr - including over 40 Nazi-era generals. 

Unfortunately, this was only one aspect of a widespread rehabilitation of Nazis in the new West Germany. At local, institutional, and civic levels, former members and collaborators were welcomed back into the fold. Military barracks were named after "good Nazis", even as the story of German collective responsibility for the Nazi horror was expounded, providing a smokescreen for the generals, the industrialists, the politicians, and others, all themselves guilty as sin of helping the fascists take - and keep - power. This has also allowed those most responsible to shift blame onto a collective "national failing", rather than face justice for their role in constructing and supporting a fascist dictatorship, of which the first victims were the West German left and the representatives of the working class. Meanwhile many elements of the antifascist and communist left were vilified, hounded, and even banned outright. 

My father's generation had few illusions in the greatness and goodness of their rulers and betters - they knew exactly who their parents, uncles, grandparents, and neighbours were - and inspired by social movements and student protests elsewhere they dreamed of a better, fairer society than the patronising, smug, suffocating capitalist one into which they had been born and raised, under the shadow of the Cold War and nuclear sabre-rattling. Simultaneously, the war in Vietnam provided a stark reminder that actual, blood-soaked, war hadn't ended with the fall of Hitler, and that imperialist violence and mass murder continued to reap a grim harvest among the world's population beyond the borders of Europe.

Cold War and Social Discontent

In the 1950s, the Cold War was in full swing, and as part of the associated military build-up across Europe, West Germany underwent a rapid Wiederbewaffnung (rearming). With the entry into force, in April 1957, of the Military Promotion Act, all West German men born after June 30, 1937, were once again subject to military service. A decade later, in 1968, this requirement was modified to allow for the option of substitute service due to "reasons of conscience", reflected in the following text enshrined in the West German Constitution:

Art. 12a [obligation of service]

(1) Men may be obliged to serve in the armed forces, the Federal Border Guard or a Civil Protection Association from the age of eighteen.

(2) Anyone who refuses military service with weapons for reasons of conscience may be obliged to provide a substitute service. The duration of the replacement service must not exceed the duration of military service.

1968 was also the peak of several years of protests and strikes across France and West Germany. In West Germany, these were led by a student movement deeply disillusioned with a political establishment heavily populated by former Nazis, worried that it was becoming increasingly authoritarian. In 1962, several journalists had been briefly arrested for "treason" for writing about the weakness of the Bundeswehr in the magazine Der Spiegel. In the fallout of the affair, the suddenly-unpopular ruling Christian Democratic Union was force to form a first "grand coalition" with the Social Democratic Party in 1966. However, the appointment of Kurt Georg Kiesinger - a former Nazi with close links to Joseph Goebbels - as Chancellor did nothing to quell fears of a quiet Nazi restoration.

In June 1967, first-time student protester Benno Ohnesorg was shot in the back of the head by a police officer at a protest in West Berlin against a visit by the Shah of Iran - a murder that further spurred the growth of the student movement and radicalised it. Then, on 11 April, 1968, German student leader Rudi Dutschke was also shot in Berlin in an attempted assassination attempt by a Josef Bachmann, a petty criminal with links to neo-Nazis, inspired by the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. only days earlier. The right-wing Springer Press was accused of complicity for its vilification of Dutschke and the student movement, and demonstrators tried to storm the Springer house in Berlin and set fire to Bild delivery vans. In Munich, a demonstrator and a policeman were killed when students ransacked the Bild editorial offices. Over a thousand people were arrested. 

Federal Chancellor Kurt Kiesinger claimed the protests had a "revolutionary character", and on May 30, 1968, the Notstandsgesetze (Emergency Acts) were passed (by a government controlling 95 percent of the Bundestag and led by an ex-Nazi). They inserted emergency clauses into the West German Constitution allowing the government to restrict civil rights (such as privacy and freedom of movement) during crises such as natural disasters, uprisings, or war. Critics drew parallels to the emergency decrees power of the Weimar Republic, which Adolf Hitler had used to establish a totalitarian dictatorship by "legal" means.

Indeed, by 1968, such was the scale of the protests, which had spread - especially in France - to the trade unions and other sectors of society - that there was discussion in both countries about deploying the army against protesters, and in West Germany there was also talk of using widespread preventive detention. In West Germany, ultimately only the police were deployed, but the fact that the police were - then, as now - deeply infiltrated by Nazis and the far-right only intensified the fear that right-wing authoritarianism was once again being imposed on West Germany's fragile democracy.

And so, in this broader context, on January 14, 1969, my 19 year old Bavarian father was called in for muster and a physical examination for conscription into the Bundeswehr, with a special Wehrpaß (military passport) quickly issued to him, dated March 14, 1969. Already on February 28, however, he had indicated his intention to register as a conscientious objector - taking advantage of the renewed recognition of that right - and he was given until April 21 to submit his justifications and grounds for refusing to serve. Submit them he did indeed, as we shall see. 

No to War and all its Trappings

Perhaps ten years ago, my father took me through his most prized papers and documents. These included various stamp-filled passports, photos from his journeys through Iran, India and South-East Asia, papers for the purchase of the farm in Australia, the charge sheet for an arrest in Munich 1970 for possessing hashish, and his official renunciation of the Catholic Church in 1973. (This letter only formalised a mundane reality that had already taken hold when he was 8, and had decided he would rather go fishing with his friends, or play table tennis in the priest's garage, while the rest of the village suffered through mass). But pride of place in these documents were his letter justifying his conscientious objection, and another (which we shall come to below) that accompanied it.

The full text of my father's letter is as follows:

Betrifft: Begründung meines Antrags

Sehr geehrte Herren!

Aus Gewissensgründen habe ich mich gegen den Dienst mit der Waffe entschieden. Krieg oder Kriegsdrohung oder schon allein die Existenz von riesigen Armeen als politisches Machtmittel erkenne ich nicht an. Denn der Krieg ist für mich das schrecklichste und folgenreichste Verbrechen, das es je unter den Menschen gab.

Krieg ist nicht nur sinnlos, sondern auch menschenunwürdig, grausam und verbrecherisch. Er ist die Summe alles Bösen schlecht-hin. Darüber erübrigt sich jegliche Diskussion.

So will ich nicht nur selbst passiv und zugleich aktiv meinen Beitrag zum Frieden leisten, indem ich mich dem Waffendienst verweigere, sondern ich versuche auch, andere von der Verabscheuungswürdigkeit des Krieges und seiner Vorbereitung in der Bundeswehr wie in allen Armeen zu überzeugen.

Die Summen, die die Kriegsmaschinerien in aller Welt jährlich verschlingen, müßten nach meiner Überzeugung besser und nutzbringender für Bildung und Entwicklungshilfe aufgewandt werden. Auf diese Weise wären sie ein Beitrag für dauerhaften Fortschritt und langfristige Entspannung zwischen der jetzigen Dritten Welt und den hochindustrialisierten Ländern.

Hauptgrund für die Verweigerung ist meine Überzeugung als katholischer Christ, daß es ein immer und überall geltendes Gesetz sein muß, fremdes Menschenleben zu achten. “Du sollst nicht töten!" gilt für mich ohne Ausnahme. (Extreme Fälle ziviler Notwehr sind Ausnahmen) Nächstenliebe und Gewaltlosigkeit sind aber nicht nur christliche, sondern auch ethische Prinzipien, die das friedliche Zusammenleben der Menschen besser garantieren als waffenstarrende und Jederzeit für das kollektive Morden einsatzbereite Armeen. Diese sind für die Zerstörung ausgebildet, nicht für den Frieden.

Es gilt also, die Armeen in Ost und West abzuschaffen. Jeder muß dazu seinen Beitrag leisten. Natürlich können das nur aufgeklärte, denkende Menschen, die frei sind von dem Wussch, ihr mögliches Groskapital mit dem Einsatz fremder Menschenleben zu verteidigen. Natürlich hat ein Staat das Recht, sich selbst zu verteidigen, aber die beste Verteidigung ist die Überlegenheit seiner Kultur, und im Notfall (an den ich nicht glaube) passiver widerstand gegen eventuelle Unterdrücker, jedenfalls kein Blutvergießen um irgendwelcher propagandistischer Fiktionen willen wie “freiheitliche Ordnung", “Vaterland", "Heimat" etc.. "Freiheitliche Ordnung" ist deshalb als Fiktion zu sehen, weil sie selbst bei uns recht relativ ist und im Begriff ist, die Ordnung zu werden, die die Freiheit der Herrschenden garantieren soll. Hierbei ist a die Jüngste Entwicklung zu denken, vor allem a die Verabschiedung der Notstandsgesetze und die Pläne für die faschistische Vorbeugehaft. "Freiheitliche Ordnung " in Opposition zu kommunistisch-diktatorischer Unfreiheit im Osten ist ebenfalls fragwürdig, denn diese Gegenüberstellung ist zweifelsohne einseitig und dient nur propagandistischer Hetze, nach der unsere Nachbarn im Osten böse und äußerst angriffslustig sind. Gegen sie gelte es aufzumarschieren. In der Tat ist die Kommunistenhetze schon traditionell und die Höhe, die sie im Dritten Reich erreichte, wurde in der Ära des Kalten Kriegs fast wieder erreicht.

Aus all diesen Gründen leite ich ab, daß das bei uns existierende Recht auf Kriegsdienstverweigerung nicht nur erhalten, sondern voll ausgenützt und sogar zur moralischen Pflicht erhoben wird. Brat wenn dies erreicht sein wird, wird es einen "ersten deutschen Friedenstaat” geben. Ulbrichts Staat ist aus diesem Grund nicht dieser erste deutsche Friedensstaat.

Der nach den Notstandsgesetzen mögliche Einsatz der Bundeswehr im Inneren gegen demonstrierende Arbeiter und Studenten stellt für mich einen weiteren Gewissensgrund dar, diesen “Dienst" zu verweigern. Wer kann es noch als Dienst am deutschen Volk ansehen, auf demonstrierende und unbewaffnete Menschen, noch dazu möglicherweise auf Bekannte und sogar Verwandte zu schießen.

Besänftigende Worte können diese reale Möglichkeit nicht aus der Welt schaffen.

Anton Fertl 

In English:

Subject: Reasons for my application 

Dear Sirs! 

For reasons of conscience, I have decided against serving with a weapon. I do not recognise war, the threat of war, or even the mere existence of huge armies as a political means of power. For me, war is the most terrible and consequential crime that has ever existed among humans.

War is not only senseless but also inhuman, cruel, and criminal. It is the sum of all evil, plain and simple. Any further discussion is unnecessary.

Thus, I want not only to make my own passive and active contribution to peace by refusing military service, but I also endeavor to convince others of the abhorrence of war and its preparation in the Bundeswehr, as in all armies. 

It is my conviction that the sums that war machines around the world devour annually should be better and more usefully spent on education and development aid. In this way, they would contribute to lasting progress and long-term détente between the current Third World and the highly industrialised countries. 

The main reason for this refusal is my conviction as a Catholic Christian that respecting the life of others must be a law that applies always and everywhere. "Thou shalt not kill!" applies for me without exception. (Extreme cases of civilian self-defense are exceptions.) Love for one's fellow man and nonviolence are not only Christian but also ethical principles that better guarantee the peaceful coexistence of people than armies armed to the teeth and ready to commit collective murder at any time. These are trained for destruction, not for peace. 

Therefore, the goal must be to abolish the armies in East and West. Everyone must contribute to this. Of course, this can only be done by enlightened, thinking people who are free from the desire to defend the potential for big business by sacrificing the lives of others. Of course, a state has the right to defend itself, but the best defense is the superiority of its culture, and in an emergency (which I don't believe we are in), passive resistance against potential oppressors, certainly not bloodshed for the sake of any propagandistic fictions like "Free [Democratic] Order," "Fatherland," "Homeland," etc.. "Free Order" should be viewed as a fiction because, even here, it is quite relative and is in the process of becoming an order that is meant to guarantee the freedom of those in power. Recent developments are important to consider here, especially the passage of emergency laws and the plans for fascistic preventive detention. "Free Order" in opposition to communist-dictatorial oppression in the East is also questionable, because this juxtaposition is undoubtedly one-sided and only serves propagandistic agitation, according to which our neighbors in the East are evil and extremely aggressive, and it is necessary to march against them. Indeed, anti-communist agitation has a long tradition, and the heights it reached during the Third Reich were almost matched again during the Cold War era. 

For all these reasons, I conclude that the right to conscientious objection that exists in our country must not only be preserved but fully used - and even elevated to a moral duty. Only when that has been achieved will there be a “first German peace state.” For this reason, Ulbricht’s state is [also] not this first German peace state. 

The possibility, under the emergency laws, of internal deployment of the Bundeswehr against demonstrating workers and students represents, for me, yet another reason of conscience to refuse this "service." Who can still consider it a service to the German people to shoot at demonstrating and unarmed people, and possibly even shooting at acquaintances and relatives?

Soothing words cannot erase this real possibility from the world.

Anton Fertl 

A father's support

Together with this letter was a shorter one written by his father in support of his case. My father and grandfather were never that close. My uncle - 8 years the senior - was their father's heir (even sharing his name), and he was similarly distant to my father, being almost of a different generation. My father, on the other hand, was his mother's son, and more a product of the post-war era. He was quickly caught up in dreams of social change, and bewitched by vistas of far-off lands - a very different worldview to his village-dwelling blacksmith father. So, to receive such a letter of support from his own father meant the world to mine, still bringing tears to his eyes fifty years later. 

Erklärung 

Ich bin politisch nicht besonders interessiert, aber soviel an elementarenn Überzeugungen besitz ich, daß ich mit der Kriegsdienstverweigerung meines Sohnes Anton vollkommen übereinstimme. Er und mein weiterer Sihn Hans haben mich von der menschlichen Notwendigkeit dieser Verweigerung überzeugt.

Ich selbst war nicht an der Front, habe aber genug Elend miterlebt, un alles war eine Folge des Krieges, den von den aufgehetzt durch die Propaganda, aber heute soll das meined Söhned ersparts bleiben und ich halte ihre eigene, verantwortliche Entscheidung für mutig und richtig. 

Auf einzelne Äußerungen kann ich mich natürlich nicht entsinnen, das wäre zuviel verlangt. Ich hoffe, daß die Gewissensentscheidung meaines Sohns anerkannt wird.

Johann Fertl 

Again, in English:

Declaration 

I'm not particularly interested in politics, but I possess enough fundamental convictions to completely agree with my son Anton's conscientious objection to military service. He and my other son, Hans, convinced me of the human necessity of this refusal. 

I was not at the front myself, but I witnessed enough misery, and it was all a consequence of the war, incited by propaganda. But today, my sons should be spared that, and I consider their own responsible decision to be courageous and right. 

Of course, I can't recall individual statements; that would be asking too much. I hope that my son's decision of conscience will be recognised. 

Johann Fertl 

My grandfather's disavowal of politics here is not quite as disingenuous as my father's invocation of Catholic values earlier, which some readers may have picked up on. The burden of the War fell heavily on Johann Fertl, who had lost his four year old daughter to Scarlet Fever because the Wehrmacht had taken all the medicines, and was later provided a very non-optional "job" (in fact a form of forced labour - Arbeitsdienst) working at a chemical weapons factory near the Austrian border. Nearby facilities included a satellite camp of Dachau Concentration Camp, which used slave labour, while more "free" Germans were also forced to work in the factories as well (under strict supervision and controls). Already a political outsider in the village for his relatively progressive politics, my grandfather's subsequent PTSD and alcoholism after the War served to further drive him, a somewhat broken man, away from politics.

Even so, he recognised the importance of making himself heard here - and not only for my father's benefit. The possibility of a civil alternative to military service, justified by "reasons of conscience", had only been introduced the year before, and my father claimed that he was one of the first (perhaps even the first) in Bavaria to avail of this avenue to avoid military service. When I asked him what he would have done had such an option not existed, he said "Go to prison, perhaps. Or leave Germany - but where would I have gone?".

So convinced was my father of the moral imperative to oppose war and militarism, he managed to convince two of his friends to make similar arguments and to refuse to serve, and claimed to have influenced his elder brother - who had already carried out his own military service, and had continued in a non-commissioned role - to abruptly end his own association with the military (indeed, my grandfather's letter makes references to both his sons in this regard). 

War drums beat once more

This, one of my proudest memories of my father, is now a core motivating issue for me too, nearly 60 years later. As I write, the German government has breached its own austerity-mad, quasi-religious spending cap to enable enormous expenditure on weapons (ensuring megaprofits for the arms companies), remilitarising in a way not seen since the Third Reich. The German government is also threatening to reintroduce conscription if enough people "fail" to volunteer for the new, expanded army reserve. 

At the same time, Germany is defending - and has helped arm - an Israeli government hell-bent of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza. Germany's own dark history has now been twisted so far by those in power that - for "reasons of state" - the population is expected to support war crimes and genocide without question, while those who call for the defence of international law, and decry the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of children, are demonised as "anti-semitic" (ironically, disgustingly even, this includes Jews in Germany and elsewhere critical of the slaughter). Recent polls show that ordinary Germans overwhemingly oppose Israel's war crimes, but the media and political elites allow no such opinion to enjoy oxygen.

The European Union, too, is beating the drums of war loudly, with its ReArmEurope agenda - ostensibly driven by the need to defend the bloc from Russia since its ongoing aggression escalated into a full-blown invasion of Ukraine, but in reality part of a larger agenda, including a resurgent European imperialism, and expansionist NATO politics. Whether Russia, under Putin's fascistic leadership, poses a threat to Europe, or not, is entirely irrelevant to this militarisation of Europe - there have long been reckless warmongers on all sides. Indeed, the European Commission's Vice President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, seems hell-bent on picking a fight with Russia anyway, calling for it to be broken up into smaller states.

The other side of my family has roots in Ireland, which - due to its centuries-long experience of colonial violence by Britain - has been militarily neutral for years (at least in the part not still occupied by Britain). But, here too, the media, government, and establishment are busily undermining the country's "triple lock", to enable the country to join in the military projects underway across the continent and further afield. The European Union - supposedly formed as a "peace project" for Europe, is rapidly being converted into a "war project", with military spending joining austerity in the hearts of Brussels' policy-makers. Even Denmark's traditionally "frugal" (that is, pro-austerity) government has recently distanced itself from its penny-pinching outlook in order to facilitate expanded military spending across Europe.

This last example is perhaps the most relevant today, for I - too - am a father, with a young daughter growing up with dreams and hopes in the relative safety of Denmark. I say "relative" with some bitterness: as of July 1 2025, Denmark's (admittedly limited) military conscription has been lengthened to 11 months and extended to include women - ostensibly in the name of "equality". While military experts, and even the Danish military union, opposed the move (many arguing against conscription entirely, for being expensive, ineffective, and damaging to education, careers, and even to democracy itself), the political class - including even the country's main radical left party - all supported the change. The dark reality, of course, has less to do with defence, and more to do with preparing the population for the idea of a coming war (when conscription would likely be extended much further, creating a generation of cannon fodder).

If Denmark's conscription law remains as it is now, and my daughter remains in Denmark, when she reaches 18 she will be entered into a lottery to serve in a military force that has joined in brutal illegal invasions and occupations, such as Afghanistan. Words cannot express my rage. Fortunately, the right to conscientious objection also exists in Denmark too - for now - and my father's words ring in my head: "the right to conscientious objection that exists in our country must not only be preserved but fully used - and even elevated to a moral duty". 

As the far-right rises in many countries once again, and the sabres rattle louder than ever, resisting normalisation of war, stopping the far-right, and putting an end to militarism and war entirely - redirecting the countless billions spent on bombs to be spent on books, beds, and a better future for all the world - must be a paramount struggle, alongside the fight to rescue a liveable climate on this small planet of ours. For my father, and my daughter, I can demand nothing less.