Why become a comrade?

Legal structure

We have cho­sen the legal form of a coope­ra­ti­ve becau­se it allows for broad par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on, which is in line with our coll­ec­ti­ve values.

Bottom-up instead of top-down

Unli­ke cor­po­ra­ti­ons, which aim to maxi­mi­se pro­fits and typi­cal­ly ope­ra­te under a top-down struc­tu­re, coope­ra­ti­ves are requi­red by law to focus on the needs of their mem­bers (as sta­ted in the »Genos­sen­schafts­ge­setz«, GenG). This means that a coope­ra­ti­ve invol­ves working tog­e­ther to achie­ve shared objec­ti­ves. The board of direc­tors and super­vi­so­ry board of a coope­ra­ti­ve work on a vol­un­t­a­ry basis. As a result, coope­ra­ti­ves have a »bot­tom-up« structure. 

If someone deci­des to start or sup­port a coope­ra­ti­ve, it shows that they care about sus­taina­bi­li­ty, the com­mon good, and reject the idea of end­less growth. They also pro­ve that it is pos­si­ble to con­duct eco­no­mic acti­vi­ty based on soli­da­ri­ty..¹

stable, adaptable, future-proof, sustainable

Thanks to the annu­al, legal­ly requi­red audit by an audi­ting asso­cia­ti­on, the grass­roots demo­cra­tic prin­ci­ples coope­ra­ti­ves are con­side­red to be par­ti­cu­lar­ly sta­ble and adap­ta­ble. The struc­tu­re of exe­cu­ti­ve board, super­vi­so­ry board and gene­ral assem­bly and the asso­cia­ted »many-eyes prin­ci­ple«, ensu­res the pur­su­it of actual­ly rele­vant goals and a cor­rec­tion mecha­nism. Ris­ky or untime­ly actions, as can occur in cor­po­ra­ti­ons due to the arbi­trar­i­ne­ss of indi­vi­du­al decis­i­on-makers, can be stop­ped more quick­ly in the case of a coope­ra­ti­ve, sin­ce decis­i­ons requi­re the appr­oval of a majority. 

krakelee eG, like many other cul­tu­ral enter­pri­ses, will depend on pro­gres­sing in the frame­work of social and cul­tu­ral trans­for­ma­ti­ons. Through diver­se par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on and co-crea­ti­on, new solu­ti­ons can be imple­men­ted more quick­ly. By working tog­e­ther and sha­ring ide­as, coope­ra­ti­ves are beco­ming incre­asing­ly important for the future. This is par­ti­cu­lar­ly signi­fi­cant given the chal­lenges pre­sen­ted by the eco­no­mic cli­ma­te and cli­ma­te change. 

Inves­t­ing in a coope­ra­ti­ve is the­r­e­fo­re also a par­ti­cu­lar­ly sus­tainable and future-pro­of investment.

No financial return, but benefit for the society at large

Even though inves­t­ing in coope­ra­ti­ves can be con­side­red safer than spe­cu­la­ti­ve invest­ment oppor­tu­ni­ties, it means a com­pa­ra­tively low or even no return for sup­port­ing mem­bers. The return is not mone­ta­ry, but idea­li­stic; the »pro­fit« is the­r­e­fo­re a (urban) social one.

krakelee eG ver­folgt pri­mär kul­tu­rel­le Zie­le. Sie hat im Sin­ne des Genos­sen­schafts­ge­set­zes (GenG) den Zweck, die kul­tu­rel­len Belan­ge sei­ner Mit­glie­der durch den gemein­schaft­li­chen Geschäfts­be­trieb zu för­dern. Das heißt, dass das wirt­schaft­li­che Han­deln der krakelee eG im Sin­ne der kul­tu­rel­len Belan­ge sei­ner Mit­glie­der erfolgt und erfol­gen muss.

The cul­tu­ral and idea­li­stic inte­rests of krakelee eG are bin­din­gly defi­ned in the artic­les of asso­cia­ti­on and the mis­si­on state­ment (»Imple­men­ta­ti­on of cul­tu­ral and dance events«, cf. artic­les of asso­cia­ti­on). For an amend­ment of the sta­tu­tes and the mis­si­on state­ment, a gene­ral assem­bly and a vote with 2/3 majo­ri­ty is requi­red. Ordi­na­ry mem­bers have a right to vote in the gene­ral assem­bly. Finan­cing mem­bers have no voting rights in the Gene­ral Assembly.

Die finan­zie­ren­den Mit­glie­der der krakelee eG för­dern durch den Erwerb von Genos­sen­schafts­an­tei­len die wirt­schaft­li­che und kul­tu­rel­le Tätig­keit von krakelee eG. Sie wer­den zu För­der­mit­glie­dern der krakelee eG. 

Tho­se who back krakelee eG show their long-term com­mit­ment to pro­mo­ting non-com­mer­cial cul­tu­re in Colo­gne.²

Culture needs urban space

krakelee eG begreift sich auch als stadt­po­li­ti­sches Pro­jekt. In Köln muss­ten im ver­gan­ge­nen Jahr­zehnt vie­le bekann­te und belieb­te Clubs schlie­ßen, dar­un­ter Jack Who, Bar­in­ton, Heinz Gaul, Ste­cken, Under­ground und vie­le mehr. Auch selbst­or­ga­ni­sier­te, sozio­kul­tu­rel­le Pro­jek­te wie das Kaf­fe Güzel, das Wan­del­werk oder der Kar­tof­fel­kel­ler muss­ten ihre Räum­lich­kei­ten ver­las­sen. Neue Räu­me wur­den kei­nem die­ser Pro­jek­te zur Ver­fü­gung gestellt. Kul­tu­rel­le Pro­jek­te wer­den man­gels Aus­weich­mög­lich­kei­ten aus der Innen­stadt ver­trie­ben, um Platz für Groß­pro­jek­te von Investor*innen zu schaf­fen. Dabei wur­den die Clubs Anfang 2020 per Bun­des­tags­be­schluss offi­zi­ell als Kul­tur­stät­ten (Anla­gen kul­tu­rel­ler Nut­zung) ein­ge­stuft.³

We are a coope­ra­ti­ve club pro­ject working col­la­bo­ra­tively and from the bot­tom up to shape the city. krakelee eG sup­port­ers are stan­ding up against the death of clubs and advo­ca­ting for them to recei­ve the reco­gni­ti­on they deser­ve as cul­tu­ral venues in socie­ty. This is cru­cial as cul­tu­re requi­res spaces, and it needs them in the city centers!

Cologne needs a diverse club scene

Of cour­se, the role of clubs as loca­ti­on fac­tors is more than insi­gni­fi­cant for many club­bers them­sel­ves. Many alter­na­ti­ve club con­cepts — of which the­re is a lack in Colo­gne — do not want to beco­me a mar­ke­ting tool and ope­ra­te far away from the over­hy­ped main­stream. Here, the para­do­xi­cal logic takes hold that many pro­jects lose their charm pre­cis­e­ly as soon as they gain popu­la­ri­ty. How uncon­ven­tio­nal a pro­ject is »allo­wed« to be in order to enjoy the accep­tance of urban socie­ty is a balan­cing act and depends on the respec­ti­ve urban con­text. Colo­gne’s offe­rings appear rather undif­fe­ren­tia­ted in this regard. An alter­na­ti­ve club con­cept, such as the krakelee club, would be good for the diver­si­ty of Colo­gne’s club culture. 

Tho­se who back krakelee eG advo­ca­te for the varie­ty of Colo­gne’s club cul­tu­re and the inclu­si­on of more uncon­ven­tio­nal ideas!

Addi­tio­nal uni­que club initia­ti­ves are neces­sa­ry sin­ce seve­ral estab­lished loca­ti­ons are unsafe for num­e­rous indi­vi­du­als. Night­clubs offer coun­ter spaces to the per­for­mance and con­su­mer socie­ty and give many peo­p­le the oppor­tu­ni­ty to show them­sel­ves in a way that they are not allo­wed or able to do in ever­y­day life. For tho­se who feel unea­sy in main­stream socie­ty, clubs can have a vital part in sha­ping their iden­ti­ty. They pro­vi­de a safer haven to express social and cul­tu­ral prac­ti­ces that are often mar­gi­na­li­zed. Nevert­hel­ess, as places of exci­te­ment, they are also pro­ne to acts of aggres­si­on and pre­ju­di­ce. The oppor­tu­ni­ties and risks of night­li­fe are tho­rough­ly exami­ned during the deve­lo­p­ment of the Krakelee Club: 

krakelee eG setzt sich gegen Dis­kri­mi­nie­run­gen ein und will es mög­lich machen, dass die Club­kul­tur auch in sich Krakelee eG stri­ves to fight against dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on and aims to pro­mo­te diver­si­ty within club cul­tu­re. Sup­port­ing krakelee eG means sup­port­ing the deve­lo­p­ment of a dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on-sen­si­ti­ve club con­cept, high­light­ing the signi­fi­can­ce of anti-dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on prac­ti­ces in gene­ral. The­r­e­fo­re, anyo­ne sup­port­ing krakelee eG is also set­ting a poli­ti­cal signal.

1 vgl. Gie­gold, Sven/Embshoff, Dag­mar (2008): »Soli­da­ri­sche Öko­no­mie im glo­ba­li­sier­ten Kapi­ta­lis­mus«, in: Sven Gie­gold und Dag­mar Emb­s­hoff (Hg.), Soli­da­ri­sche Öko­no­mie im glo­ba­li­sier­ten Kapi­ta­lis­mus, Ham­burg: VSA.

2 mea­ning: not profit-maximizing

3 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2020/kw07-pa-bau-clubsterben-678530