In the context of the Rheinmetall Entwaffnen (RME) antimilitarist action camp in Cologne 2025, an open assembly came together in Berlin to organise an Anarchist Barrio in the camp. After the camp, people from the Berlin assembly who participated in the A-Barrio discussed their perspectives and experiences of the camp at evaluation meetings. This following text aims to summarize those discussions but as well support them to go deeper.
Internal Dynamics: Strengths and Weaknesses in the A-Barrio during the camp
The general experience of participants in our Berlin assembly was positive, the A-Barrio was initiated with the goal to add an anarchist and autonomous presence in a camp more generally composed of traditional leftist groups and hierarchical communist organisations. The aim was both to demonstrate the possibility of anarchist self-organization and networking. Both as a principle and a way to remedy to the lack of coordination with groups from other cities, the A-A-Barrio was conceived as an open frame for participants to take initiative and propose activities, actions and take part autonomously in the life of the A-Barrio.
This open frame of self-organization was the strength of the proposal that represented the A-Barrio at the camp as it stood in comparison to the often hierarchical and rigidly structured organising of other groups. The A-Barrio showed that self-organisation is possible in an open frame, among people who were meeting each other for the first time.
Some felt that it would have functioned better with more formal structures, others felt that on the contrary certain types of structure would cover up a deficiency. For example, a shift plan for cleaning could mask the failure of certain participants to take responsibility for the cleanness of the space and prevent the causes of this failure from being addressed. Overall, the feeling was that more preparation was needed, the communication about tasks that needed to be fulfilled could be improved, and we should find ways to distribute these responsibilities equally, without falling into the trap of assigning strict roles.
Activities and actions at the camp -whether organised by the A-Barrio or not- were generally seen as positive. However, access to the space and to various actions was criticised for being quite german-centric. Critiques ranged from the A-Barrio space being too white and not welcoming to comrades who were not white germans (a broader issue at the camp as well), to a lack of clear positioning from the A-Barrio on certain topics before the camp, such as Palestine, which stemmed from the absence of public statements beforehand. Hopefully, this was addressed through the A-Barrio’s presence and participation in actions during the camp. In addition, some actions planned by other groups, designed specifically with germans in mind and without sufficient explanation or warnings about repression, ultimately put comrades without german or european papers at risk.
In overall, there was interest in anarchist perspectives at the camp as shown for example by the visits at the info stand and the various conversations they brought. That being said, our presence was not without misunderstandings and, at times, antagonism. One aspect of this was identified as stemming from miscommunication on the side of the A-Barrio about what does autonomy mean at the camp and how it diverges from the more rigid organizing of the rest of the RME camp. This showed as well that already on the first days when setting up camp, the organizers did not know how to react to this type of more grassroots and open organization that the anarchist Barrio provided. This continued throughout the camp days, including actions for which it was expected of the A-Barrio to be able to take decisions without prior approval by our daily assembly meeting. But also, at demonstrations where organisers expected participants to blindly follow police instructions, in effect singling out the anarchist Barrio and the Revolutionary Barrios as the two ‘’more militant blocks’’.
For these reasons we consider it import to share in more details our experience as the Anarchist and Autonomous Barrio.
Setting Up the A-Barrio
Several days before the official start of the camp, people came to set up the A-Barrio in Cologne and to support the construction and defense of the camp, at the time threatened of being cancelled by the NRW police. These people did not come with a clear image of how the camp should be structured. Therefore, they did not come with a clear idea of how and where the anarchist barrio would be set up and how it would be included in the overall architecture of the camp designed by Rheinmetall Entwaffnen organizers. The word barrio meaning neighborhood it could imply that the anarchists and autonomous participants of the camp would live close to each other. But from the camp organizers’ side, the RME camp was conceived as divided in two main areas: the first half was a delimited sleeping area with (mainly) private tents, the second half was the “political” area with the pavilion tents of the different structures and groups, the big circus tent of the common assembly, and pavilion tents for the various events. For organizers of the Rheinmetall Entwaffnen Alliance, it was very clear that the A-Barrio would be in the second area. This idea could not be challenged since it had not been discussed with us beforehand. Because the other barrio, the Revolutionary Barrio, which had the experience of the previous camps, was planned to be organised in the political space, we understand that the organizational group assumed ours would by default do the same. This setting ended up defining a lot of what would become the A-Barrio’s character, from then on, the barrio looked like any other sections from groups of the alliance with their pavilion tents on the organizers side.
Our exposed position in the camp, on one side of the entrance to the sleeping area and opposite of the Revolutionary Barrio, meant that you could chose at any time to enter and to exit the A-barrio instead of really being a part of a “neighborhood”. This had some advantages, e.g. many people passing by and being interested to stay for a chat. But it also had disadvantages: no one really knew who a committed part of the A-barrio was and who was just “visiting”. It is possible that even after the camp many people had not decided, or did not know, if they had been a part of the A-Barrio or not. This led the participants, formats, and content of the A-barrio assemblies to vary quite a lot over the days. It had been decided from the get-go to have a fixed assembly every evening, which became a space of collective decisions. In the end of each of these assemblies a coordinator (moderation) was designated for the next one. It was also agreed on to communalize the materials and tents so that anyone who wanted to organize events could just do it. Additionally, a big board was used to communicate important points and to have a public schedule for events to coordinate the space and invite participants of the camp to join in our activities.
Concerning the decision of how to plan our event-program, we found it necessary to decide the events on every open assembly during the camp. As an open structure who got formed mainly during the camp days, we concluded that the decision of which events and plans would take place and when would be discussed and agreed in the open meetings. They would not be pre-decided by the Berlin preparation meeting. This decision contributed to leave but also create space for everyone who took part in the A-Barrio to decide and collectively form the program of our space through horizontal procedure. It allowed this to happen without a specific group deciding for everyone.
DIE LINKE in the RME Camp
On the first days of the A-Barrio at the campsite, it became known that a DIE LINKE member of the european parliament would be giving a talk, officially programmed by RME in their large circus tent. It turned out that this was a favor done by some of members of the RME alliance in exchange for funding from the party for the camp. It became a topic of discussion in the A-Barrio’s assembly and eventually a banner was placed on one of the Barrio’s tents saying “DIE LINKE is not welcome”. That led to some nervous reactions from some of the main organizers of the camp who demanded to take it down, pointing out to a “code of conduct” that the RME alliance had internally agreed on. Supposedly, the banner wasn’t in accordance with paragraphs referring to respectful and non-violent cohabitation of all participants at the camp. The Barrio assembly found itself confronted with a pressuring accusation by some of the big organizers of the camp while it could not be fully accountable for every opinion expressed in its context, due to the still developing participation in the first days of the camp. The issue was discussed: there was a broad consensus concerning the rejection of DIE LINKE e.g. their responsibility for forced evictions, their vote for more arms production and their support for Israel. Nevertheless, the decision was taken to remove the banner because since it was put up a lot of new people had joined the A-Barrio assembly and there still hadn’t been any collective decision whether or not content, like banners, that will be shown on the Barrio should be discussed beforehand or if everyone could just display whatever they wanted. However, it was decided to hold a discussion event some days later about the participation of parties in grassroots movements. While the intention behind the banner was only to show a political opposition to the involvement of parliamentary parties, it was perceived as a big provocation threatening the unity of the camp or even the anti-militarist movement.
It should be mentioned that the interpretation and symbolism of the provocation is quite abstract and not collectively defined. For some, provocation might be understood as an offensive towards people, as an attack, or purely naiveness categorized as so-called “unserious politics”. For others however, a direct or assertive provocation is an invitation for dialogue. Putting up a banner that makes clear your political ideas and boundaries concerning the cooperation with political parties, is neither an offense nor an attack. Whoever feels attacked by this, needs to reflect individually, collectively and politically. A banner as such, is not a personal attack on anyone. Those who feel offended by such an action must examine their own egocentrism and petty-bourgeoise residues.
Saturday’s Parade
Throughout the camp and the demonstration, it was proven that many participants did not actually seek unity with those who proposed other types of radical means of struggle, or who did not fit into a particular image of how this parade-protest should look like. Although during the march there were chants asserting the right to demonstrate “in our own way” (“Wir demonstrieren, wie wir wollen”), the demo’s registrator and others, insisted several times that in our blocks people should not mask, hold umbrellas, or take other protective measures. This was insisted upon as a requirement for the demonstration to start/continue walking, an obvious demand and pressure that came from the police. That made it clear that the A-barrio block is a reason for not starting the demonstration. To the best of our knowledge, the de-escalation team did not enforce those demands, but did intervene to “calm things down” when tensions appeared as a consequence of these divisive demands. This revealed the contradiction that the call for “unity” at the demonstration too was imposed on certain groups and individuals that had to change or suppress their practices.
This is where the issue of pseudo-unity1 becomes clear.
Unity in the demonstration required the disciplining or silencing of those who take other risks or choose different confrontational means of struggle. When unity is treated as something to be preserved at all costs, political differences are not resolved but suppressed. This leads to a fragile, unified coordination that collapses under real pressure (in this case, the streets). The outcome was an uneven distribution of vulnerability, with the Revolutionary Barrio and A-Barrio blocks left exposed to police repression.
This decision taken by the demonstration organizers, effectively divided the demonstration in two and exposed the Revolutionary Barrio’s and A-Barrio’s blocks to repression. This eventually became clear, when the police attacked and kettled only this second part of the demonstration all night until the morning.
We recognize that our self-organization model and communication did play a role in creating confusion and tension. Our decision and commitment to a non-hierarchical organization, including the absence of any sort of delegates or representatives, was not always clearly communicated, understood nor we always considered how organising non-hierarchically could work in situations like this. For some, this may have appeared sudden, unorganized, or even intentionally divisive, rather than a political position.
Additionally, we have to admit that our decision to participate as our own block in the demonstration was communicated too late. This understandably caused frustration among other groups and contributed to misunderstandings about our block’s position and coordination in the demonstration. It is important to clarify that we were never part of the Revolutionary Block. Our agreement was simply to position ourselves behind them, not to be organizationally integrated into their structure. Beyond communicating our participation too late, we also did not reach a shared, collective understanding of what our presence in the demonstration was meant to practically express. This resulted in different expectations and practices within the block itself – with some choosing to mask and bring protective materials and others not, it contributed to a certain inconsistency in how we appeared and acted together. The issue was not so much the diversity or inconsistency of practices itself, but the fact that we never collectively clarified whether we wanted that diversity or a more coordinated presence. This inconsistency only became a problem because it was not an intentional and shared decision. It also shaped our answer when at the start of the demonstration, another group forced their way, moved in front of us without discussion, effectively displacing our agreed position behind the Revolutionary Block. Instead of asserting our place collectively, we moved, projecting a hesitation to maintain our ground that originated from the same internal uncertainty and last-minute preparation. We later learned that this other group also had an agreement with the Revolutionary Block to place themselves in a similar position as us behind them. These conflicting agreements had not been properly communicated to the groups.
Additionally, it has to be mentioned that we lacked any idea of our potential of mobilization in the area of Cologne which has very short communication lines to the whole Ruhrpot. A call for the anarchist block had been published short before the demo and assumptions were made among us, that the events at the camp had already gained a lot of public attention and therefore created additional mobilization potential. Therefore, for us the critical view on what happened at the demo is very hypothetical. Admittedly, while hoping as always for a situation where things get out of control, we were not reaching even a hundred individuals and therefore practically didn’t have many operational options.
Structural Tensions Inside the Camp
We concluded that some tensions that arose during the camp or that were analyzed later in the evaluation meetings, came from two different political logics which attempted to coexist in the same space. A big part of the organized structure of the camp, followed the usual german left structure: large organizational assemblies, delegations, closed meetings and actions planned in a specific frame: closed groups centralising cordination, approval from ‘’below’’, and following a so-called “code of conduct”. Political discussions between the A-Barrio and the camp organisers were avoided, they disappeared behind structural and organisational questions or with lack of time. The A-barrio’s character was created from anti-authoritarian organizing, where collective strength was built through grassroot methods and networks, not command or delegation. It was an attempt for people to act together through horizontal initiatives without needing permission, while still caring about shared agreements and needs.
These are not just different ways of organizing. They are also distinct ideas of what total liberation means and how we fight for a better world, including in the anti-militarist struggle.
Confrontations and Learning
Models of hierarchical organizations believe power comes from unity, mass, clarity, and being seen as organized and well structured. The anarchist anti-authoritarian models that were attempted in the camp believed that collective strength comes from individual and collective initiative, from a diversity of tactics and actions without waiting to be approved by an assembly or a coordination (autonomy), but always opening a space for criticism, disagreements and discussions (collective responsibility).
That is, many of the disagreements and conflicts were not incidental. The A-Barrio did not “fail to fit in.” Its presence challenged the idea that unity must mean following one unique model of organizing. The suspicion and daily tensions that followed, showed how deeply hierarchical, centralized structures and even decentralised coordinations can see autonomy as a threat not because it harms the movement, but probably because it questions the authority of their Working Groups (AGs), their control over what they see as the “smooth running” of the camp (appropriate layout, “good behaviour” between participants), but it also disrupts a certain tradition of movement building and to some extent the continuation of their alliance (in refusing funding and support from parties). At the same time, much of the camp’s infrastructure depended on autonomous initiatives; the kitchen, sani, awareness team, coffee stand. These groups were self-organized and somewhat politically close to us, although we did not actively engage in common procedures together. We can say that self-organization was critical in creating mutual aid in moments of crisis, such as the hour-long police kettle that saw many groups and individuals organise themselves in solidarity with the kettled comrades. Their role shows that autonomy was only a problem when it appeared in forms that challenged existing structures or expectations. Nevertheless, we do acknowledge that it is also important for us to learn from the different models of organizing and politics that existed or that originated from the organization of the RME camp. We obviously do not see those days exclusively as the antagonism between movements of resistance, but also as days of exchange in this respect by keeping space for discussion to receive critiques or feedback.
It is true that A-barrio’s existence was far from perfect and that it made mistakes that may have upset some of the comrades who participated and organized the camp in the past years. That is why, we find it crucial that these comrades also reflect on their own frustration during those days in relation with the A-Barrio’s presence. We hope they can understand that when they publicly call for people to join their camp, they cannot and should not attempt to strictly frame or limit participants. It is also necessary from all “sides” to conclude in a self-reflective way, if the frustration arose either from political differences or because structurally the A-Barrio’s mode of organising wasn’t the best match for the rest of the camp organization. That is, if it was the way the A-Barrio chose to organize and structure its presence throughout the camp or if it was the consequence of broader political disagreements concerning self-organisation, relations with other groups, participants or guests at the camp, such as the presence of DIE LINKE [see page 3].
Reflection and self-reflection procedure of the A-Barrio
At this point, it remains unclear for us to which extent these tensions originated from misunderstandings or if they expressed deeper political disagreements. We do not yet have a complete analysis, in part because we still expect responses, criticisms, clarifications, or continuation of discussions from the camp organizers and other groups and individuals from other places cities (including from the A-Barrio), regarding how they perceived this “co-existence” in the overall camp and in the streets.
While we would prefer to frame many issues as misunderstandings, there were moments where it was clearly our political differences that shaped some of the conflicts. The confusion was not always accidental. A pseudo-unity has the risk to neither strengthen nor form any collective force but instead to deepen mistrust, weaken broader cooperation, and to make future organizing even more difficult.
This reflection is not an attempt to soften the political disagreements that emerged, but to take responsibility where clearer communication and earlier coordination could have reduced confusion. However, this self-criticism does not cancel our critique of pseudo-unity but rather strengthens our ability to address political differences openly and continue building collective effort without erasing them.
The evaluation meetings in Berlin concluded that planning for actions should happen ahead of time in the A-Barrio assembly rather than on the day. Additionally, there should be better coordination with the common camp assembly, to improve communication with the various groups of the camp and to find a way to confront political positions. Participants thought that the A-Barrio should nonetheless participate in the main assembly without those attending it acting as delegates who would take decisions or speak on behalf of the A-Barrio.
On the Open Frame & Self-Organization
The conflicts around the (self-)organization of a space of resistance such as the RME camp revealed the co-existence of two hardly compatible political cultures acting together in the same space. For the camp organizers, coordination and organisation meant centralizing the decision-making in the common assembly, delegation and a selective unified appearance. For the A-Barrio participants who actively participated in the formation of its character before and during the camp, autonomy and self-organization meant acting from one’s own initiative and responsibility, creating open procedures, organizing through horizontal decision-making processes, having space for improvisation, and refusing to be told how the struggle should be or look like. It is important to mention that those differences are not just “misunderstandings” but concrete differences in principles and certain political ideas.
The tension around organization and structure didn’t only appear in abstract differences or “confusion” but also pointed to deeper fundamental questions and discourses around responsibility, hierarchy, self-organization in spaces of coordinated resistance like the RME camp.
Both history and the present have proven in various socio-political circumstances that it is possible without imposed roles or exclusive central coordination to actively take collective responsibility that is rooted in a share of responsibilities, through constant and open communication based on transparency and honesty. Through a culture of collective and individual initiative that does not suppress each other’s political activity but creates room to address disagreements openly rather than blocking them through vetos or pre-defined no-gos. Struggles like the resistance against the nuclear repository site in Wendland provide a good example of self-organisation, political diversity and action camps.
However, it is a risk that when these practices become unequal, that the burden of maintaining self-organised spaces falls onto a few people, which in turn creates frustration and hierarchies (whether silent or blatant). The challenge is not just to “add more structure,” “more shift plans’’, “more delegation’’, “more hierarchies” but to attempt to build forms of shared responsibility that respect autonomy which grows from staying attentive together to what care, support or action is needed and allows it to function without making space to informal authority and control. The specific form for this type of organisation is for us an experiment, and our evaluation meetings have only identified weaknesses in the organisation of the A-Barrio without agreeing to a one-size fits all solution to all of them.
Epilogue
We remain committed to the antimilitarist struggle in all its forms. We reflect, regroup and determine together how to contribute. That is why, in order to enable further coordination between anarchists in different cities and territories, to have a broader exchange about the Barrio, and to improve on this years’ effort, the Berlin assembly proposed to organize an intercity gathering between 12-14 of December in Berlin, with other anarchist and autonomous groups interested in participating in next years’ Rheinmetall Entwaffnen Camp or coordinating in other ways around anti-militarist struggles.
The experience of the A-Barrio also offered important lessons for future self-organising. Clearer communication (both internally and across the camp) showed itself as crucial for allowing an open, autonomous space to function without unnecessary confusion. Earlier preparation and shared expectations would also make it easier to move collectively in moments where things change quickly. At the same time, the camp highlighted a desire for spaces where initiative, horizontality, and collective responsibility can develop. Strengthening these practices, while staying attentive to their impact within broader political contexts, will be an important part of our future efforts.
To everyone who took part in the actions and the Saturday demonstrations, especially those who are facing (or may still face) the consequences of state repression, the least we can do is at this point to express our solidarity.
Collective resistance won’t be silenced!
Snitches get stitches.
- Pseudo-unity in this context, refers to a situation in which a movement or coalition publicly presents itself as united, while internally major political disagreements, tensions, or conflicts remain unaddressed. This form of “unity” is maintained for the sake of the external image, often to show strength to people outside the movement. ↩︎