Before the start of SCC 25, we, the people organizing the camp (Camp-Orga), would like to take a stand on a few controversies that influenced the last camp. These include

• the Israel/Palestine conflict
• authoritarian behavior
• the presence of certain symbols such as national flags
• the points at which we cannot and do not want to be responsible for content and actions at the camp
• the red lines that we generally do not want to see crossed
• how we would like everyone at the camp to deal with these issues

We hope this will provide clarity for all participants and contributors, set the right expectations, and help us find a better collective way of dealing with difficult issues.

Last year, conflicts arose at the camp around the issue of Israel/Palestine. In this context, we as organizers were accused of being anti-German, Zionist, racist, and anti-Semitic, or of acting in such a manner. We as camp organizers made mistakes last year. We see these mistakes, among other things, in our insufficient collective preparation for possible conflicts, a lack of clear solidarity with the people of Palestine and parts of the Palestinian solidarity movement, and a lack of clear distancing from anti-Semitism and active solidarity with Jewish people in our movement, including at least a rough definition of what we understand by anti-Semitism. Without attempting to reconstruct all the details and situations in which we or others did not act in accordance with our standards, we would like to apologize for this!

The fact is that situations arose at the camp that were hurtful to people with different positions and political views, and for different reasons. At this point, we would like to acknowledge our responsibility as camp organizers and at the same time emphasize the open and collective nature of the camp. The camp organizers cannot and do not want to control everything at the camp. Instead, we want to create a collective space at the camp where different positions within rather broad red lines can be discussed and where everyone takes joint responsibility for what happens at the camp and how others feel about it. We want to create a space for discourse and believe that for a space for discourse to exist, it must be broad enough to accommodate even contradictory positions. Our goal is to strengthen commonalities and promote the ability to tolerate contradictions.

At the same time, we naturally have a certain set of values that frame the camp and the space we are opening up, and which are necessary for us to be able to work together. However, the SCC Orga is an open and therefore constantly changing and heterogeneous association of people with different backgrounds and positions, which means that this set of values is not consistent in all its details. At the same time, the vast majority of people in the Camp Orga are currently white, Christian, and German, in addition to other privileges. This means that many important experiences with various forms of discrimination and liberation struggles are missing, and with them important perspectives. At the same time, the Camp Orga is also a place where those affected by the issue are represented. Despite these limitations, we would like to name a few values and attitudes that we want to stand for:

We stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine and support movements that aim to end the genocide perpetrated by Israel’s far–right government and the German government’s support for it. We want the camp to contribute to those parts of these movements that are in line with our core values and red lines. We hope that the camp can also be a space for solidarity with Palestinians and condemn the criminalization of the Palestine solidarity movement in Germany. For us, it is clear that an end to the current genocide can only be a beginning and does not end the injustice of the long-standing and repeatedly deadly occupation, expulsion, and discrimination to which Palestinians are subjected.

At the same time, we clearly oppose anti-Semitism and condemn the instrumentalization of genocide as a justification for hatred and anti-Semitism towards Jews. There is a lively debate within (German) left-wing movements about the definition of anti-Semitism, which is also reflected in our organization. Many in the camp organization are guided by the JDA (Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism) and criticize the IHRA definition (International Holocaust Remembrance Association) for failing to distinguish between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli policy. Some criticize the JDA in particular for its wording on Israel-related anti-Semitism. We believe that we do not necessarily have to agree on every point in order to work together politically. We agree that both declarations are part of nationalist structures and believe that therefore neither declaration enables the creation of a liberated world. Furthermore, in our experience, the definition of anti-Semitism that is applied often plays a secondary role in specific cases of anti-Semitic discrimination at the camp. Nevertheless, we hope that this rough overview provides some guidance on the range of opinions on this topic represented in the camp organization.
We also recognize that anti-Semitic attitudes are widespread in parts of the Palestine solidarity movement. We condemn the continuity and current rise in anti-Semitic violence and the lack of solidarity with Jewish people in Germany and many other places. We also condemn the massacre carried out by Hamas and other groups on October 7, 2023. We do not consider this type of violence to be a form of legitimate resistance. 

We invite people to come together, learn from each other, and engage in debate. We especially invite participants who are white, Christian, otherwise privileged, and not directly affected by marginalization (which certainly includes non-white people) to listen and try to build bridges and discuss within the limits of their personal boundaries, rather than prematurely ending conversations with slogans and accusations of structural violence. We are aware that the topic is very emotional and personal for many people and therefore wish for a mindful discourse that does not simplify or generalize, but rather does justice to the complexity of the situation, does not hide behind academic language, and values all human lives equally. 

The SCC is intended to be a space for learning that is open to people from different backgrounds and with different levels of knowledge. Unfortunately, this means that it will probably be unavoidable that discussions about Israel/Palestine will lead to situations that may be hurtful—especially for people who are themselves affected and exhausted by constant confrontation with violent realities. We therefore ask everyone to be mindful of their own boundaries and those of others. We hope that this year we will all be able to better navigate major conflicts between individuals and/or groups at the camp, and we therefore invite all participants to take it upon themselves to ensure that discriminatory/hurtful behavior does not occur in the first place. If you experience overwhelming situations, you can contact the Awareness Team. The Awareness Team can provide emotional support and help you find ways to deal with the situations you have experienced, but is not responsible for conflict mediation or solutions at the camp level.

Should conflicts arise, we would like the parties involved to try to find a solution among themselves. For support in conflict discussions, you can contact the mediation team, which will try to assist you within the limits of its capacity. The camp organization is not the right point of contact for such situations. We neither have the necessary capacity nor the expertise to mediate in cases of conflict, nor do we see our role as being authoritarian. We only intervene if the red lines we have defined are crossed.

We represent an anti-authoritarian stance. We are against any kind of oppression and violent hierarchies. We want to show solidarity with grassroots resistance and left-wing and/or anarchist emancipatory forces in Palestine, Israel, and everywhere else. Since we feel that in the past our anti–authoritarian stance has been misunderstood as a lack of solidarity with various political struggles with which we are indeed in solidarity, we have formulated our current position on two specific issues, national flags and authoritarian behavior at the camp:

The people who organize System Change Camp are a diverse group of many different groups and individuals. We do not have the capacity or the ambition to discuss political issues in all their complexity and reach a consensus. This takes place in other contexts in which we are organized. There is a high turnover in the group, and our joint work is shaped by the necessities of organizing a large camp.

The System Change Camp aims to open up spaces for discourse. We believe that solidarity–based debate on political issues is important, and we have the impression that the willingness to engage in such debate is declining. We consider it important to promote a culture of solidarity-based debate and are aware that it can be challenging to be confronted with other political opinions. We see ourselves primarily as a group that offers space to various movements through the organization of the camp. Our goal is to strengthen commonalities and promote the ability to tolerate contradictions.

In the program, the descriptions of the contributions are usually the only thing we know about the content of a submission. We cannot afford to do background research on every contribution. At the same time, it is also important to us to open up spaces for discourse at the camp and to talk to each other as leftists. We want to have more and more diverse opinions than is the case elsewhere. However, the groups and speakers themselves are primarily responsible for the specific content, and therefore criticism of the content is best addressed there.
But it is also important for us to know if groups/speakers or contributions that oppose the struggle for a liberated society have made it into the program. In such a case, we will address the criticism in order to learn from it for the coming years and draw any necessary conclusions.

At the same time, we have red lines regarding the program that takes place at the camp and the visibility of groups, but these are very broadly defined. Last year, for example, we rejected only two submissions from authoritarian groups out of more than 300 submissions. In another case, at the end of a process in which we made several mistakes, the speakers of one contribution decided to give a different workshop than planned.

The red lines arise primarily where, in our opinion, there is no shared basic understanding of certain values or ideas of transformation and/or utopia. In other words, if philosophical and theoretical positions are too far apart, solidarity-based political debate is not possible for us, at least within the framework of a camp. Red lines can also arise from our experiences in practical work. If we have repeatedly found in the past that constructive cooperation has not been successful, this can also represent a red line for cooperation for us.

In this context, another point is relevant:

Some people in the camp organization often work at their limits for weeks and months, and the period immediately surrounding the camp and the camp itself are particularly stressful. Our goal of creating a diverse and therefore controversial space and the experience that escalations can push people involved in the organization beyond their limits and seriously endanger their mental and physical well-being represent an area of tension for us. At this point, we expect all participants to show solidarity and take into account that we are not willing to exhaust ourselves so that every conflict can be fought out in the short period of time that the camp lasts. We understand that this can be painful and difficult to bear, especially when there is the impression that the issue in question is not being given the space it needs elsewhere either.
As mentioned, there is a tension here between our desire to open up spaces for controversial discussions and our lack of capacity and ability to do so at every point. We are grateful for the numerous other camps, conferences, demonstrations, etc. that can open up spaces with more specific focuses than ours.

We would like to clarify some of these red lines here. This list does not claim to name all of our red lines, as these only become clear in specific situations. However, it is intended to provide guidance to all involved parties regarding what we as Camporga do not support or take responsibility for:

We advocate an anti-authoritarian stance and fight for a world with fewer hierarchies. We expect the same from all camp participants.

The camp is a place for discussion and pluralistic exchange. Different groups should be able to occupy space here on an equal footing and are welcome to make themselves visible to others through symbols and/or conversations. However, no group should dominate the discourse or overly influence the character of the camp by displaying organizational symbols or flags excessively. We want to treat each other honestly and as equals.

If organizations exploit the camp for their own purposes and instrumentalize or hijack camp processes, this crosses a clear line for us. We do not want our own group or ideology to be permanently and aggressively promoted, for example through the intrusive distribution of flyers or the disproportionate domination of discussion groups. We reject the recruitment of people for an organization at the camp without the people from the organization being honest about what this means for these people.

We do not tolerate manipulative or hurtful verbal behavior, physical violence, or the disclosure of real names.

Our work as SCC Orga is not a service. We try to present a diverse program and cannot guarantee that problematic behavior will not occur.

We want to see self–organized interaction, a healthy culture of debate, and equality. We want to create a space at the camp where people can make conscious decisions.

The SCC advocates for a world without borders and against the glorification of nation states.

We believe that nationalism or nationalist movements as ideas lead to more violence, war, oppression, and hierarchies. The SCC organizing team therefore wishes for a camp free of nationalism and nationalist symbolism, including national flags.

At the same time, national flags are often a symbol in anti-colonial struggles to draw attention to oppression, and flags can represent emancipatory struggles that go far beyond the significance of nation states.

We ask all participants to be sensitive to this tension and, in the event of conflict, to critically examine for themselves which symbols with which history are to be seen at the camp. In doing so, we would like to draw particular attention to the fact that flags have different meanings for different people and can be triggering. We therefore ask for a cooperative approach to one another in this context, so that different needs can be accommodated. We stand in solidarity with people’s struggles against oppressive, violent, and hierarchical structures.