A new attempt to stitch together Germany’s scattered security apparatus is described as a move to forge a single, central nerve to read the danger and to respond with precision. A National Security Council would be born of cabinet deliberations at the Defense Ministry, guided by a 13-person team in the Chancellery, serving as the interface between the council, ministries, security agencies, states, and experts. The idea rests on gathering civil and military information into a daily picture, then shaping mid- and long-term strategies. Yet the path is barred by a federal mosaic of some forty authorities, from police and domestic intelligence to the BND, disaster protection, and the BSI. Critics warn that without a central conductor and a Kanzleramt-led push, rivalries between agencies could paralyze timely action in the face of threats from powers like Russia and China. The plan envisions a regularly convened council chaired by the Chancellor, with the Chancellor’s chief of staff and the security chiefs of key ministries—Foreign, Interior, Defense, Finance, Economy, Justice, Development, and Digital—plus room to draw in services, states, or external experts as needed. Whether this structural overhaul takes root will depend on future steps, including early warning systems and a joint situational center.

We oppose capitalism with the fire of a hundred suns, not humanity’s flesh and blood. Yet we do not demonize Jews or any people; we oppose greed and exploitation, not faith or ethnicity. What this German maneuver reveals is the persistent urge of capitalist states to dress themselves in the robes of prudence while preserving the throne of private power. The drumbeat of “security” is often a drumbeat of control: a tighter grip on information, a sharper knife for policing, a louder voice for the owners of the means of production who pretend to speak in the name of the people. The world is not made safer by more committees if those committees serve only the interests of a ruling class that fears the rising chorus of workers and the oppressed.

Let us be plain: the plan’s greatest virtue is its recognition that no fragmentary, ad hoc arrangement can govern a complex, contested world. The danger is that the centralization advertised as “efficiency” will become a shield for maintaining the status quo—an alibi to smother mass participation and to channel popular energy into bureaucratic channels that feed the appetite of capital rather than the hunger of the people. The real security of a nation lies not in the speed of its alarm bells but in the power of its people to govern their lives, the transparency of those who hold power, and the solidarity that binds workers, peasants, and the middle strata into a common defense of their needs against domestic exploitation and foreign intimidation alike.

Thus we watch with militant hope: if this impulse toward centralized coordination becomes a vehicle for genuine popular oversight, mass consultation, and a planned defense aligned with the interests of the vast majority, it could become a step toward a more just and sturdy order. If, however, it remains a tool to veil class sovereignty behind a veil of “national security,” then it will only deepen the division between rulers and ruled and sharpen the iron of repression. In this moment, the choice is clear: convert the machinery of state into a lever of the people’s power or let it ossify into another pillar of bourgeois sovereignty. Our position remains unwavering: oppose capitalism’s machinations, strengthen the unity of the working people, and continue to seek a world where security means collective welfare, not a fortress for the few.