File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1996/96-11-06.061, message 12


Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 19:10:42 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #12en: 3/6 China - NE (Germany), '75-'77


UNITE! Info #12en: 3/6 China - NE (Germany), '75-'77 [Sent: 08.07.96]


[Continued from part 2/6]

IV.

In the years 1973 to '74 there was at hand a situation as follows:
Social-imperialism already was posing a very powerful threat
against the West European countries. With this, there already
existed the danger of a military aggression. The 'KPD' and the
'Roter Morgen', as also the 'KBW' and all other phoney"Marxist"
cliques, but in particular the 'KPD' as key link among all the
phoney"Marxist" parties, in a truly fabulous manner supported
the doings of social-imperialism, concealed the facts of the 
situation, concealed the threat and diffamed us, who exposed
the existence of this threat, as "agents of the Federal German
government", "agents of U.S. imperialism" etc - this we still
have ringing in our ears - precisely because we stood for the
differentiation into Three Worlds, precisely because we
correctly treated the class standpoint of the proletariat as an
international class standpoint.   

If you take the 'Rote Fahne' [paper of the 'KPD'] of the years 
1973 and '74 as an aid, you'll see how, out of the revisionist, 
Trotskyite standpoint and the standpoint of blending together 
revisionism and Marxism which the 'KPD' represented in the 
years 1970, '71 and '72, there grew the standpoint of actual 
support of social-imperialism, while out of the standpoint of 
irreconciliable class struggle, the struggle against social-
democracy and against the trade union apparatus, there 
grew the standpoint of supporting the struggle of the Third 
World - out of the repudiation of the labour-aristocratic 
corruption.  

Our Party could therefore precisely really support the 
independence of the Federal Republic [of Germany], for 
instance, as also that of the other West European states, 
proceeding from the standpoint of the proletariat and as
a representative of the international proletariat, without in this
making a kneeling to the bourgeoisie, while it is no coincidence
that the phoney"Marxist" parties precisely opposed this.


				*

Before we now arrive at dealing with the basic turn of 1974/'75,
we shall here also briefly mention some further aspects which
should be considered in connection with the position of the
'KPD'. These are the activities in which that party engaged in
in 1973 and '74 in the direction of dissolution of the workers'
movement, at the time when the bourgeoisie made some basic
decisions concerning the transference of production, how
dissolution-promoting and in the last instance also how much in
favour of social-imperialism the 'KPD', for instance, acted
in connection with the important strike movement of the foreign
workers. Take a look, for instance, at what happened at that
time in connection with the Ford strike, how the 'KPD' acted then,
how it at first actually constituted its leadership and then really
quite rabidly betrayed the whole thing. Everything which these
organizations undertake in practice leads to defeat and never to
the full use of the masses' potentialities. (Note 2)

	[Note 2, p. 28:] As a further example should be mentioned 
	the occasion of the visit by Brezhnev in May 1973, when the 
	'KPD' in contradiction to our Party declined the correct line 
	of attack against social-imperialism and by its approach 
	contributed to the undermining of all united struggle against 
	social-imperialism. These things are extensively treated in 
	the "Erklaerung des Zentralkomitees der KPD/ML(NEUE 
	EINHEIT) vom 17.6.73 - UEber die landesweiten Intrigen 
	der 'KPD' und Roter-Morgen-Clique im Fruehsommer 
	1973 anlaesslich des Besuches Breschnews in der 
	Bundesrepublik Deutschland". [I'll not translate the title of 
	this declaration since it will probably be understood by 
	English readers anyway. - RM] [End of Note 2]

There are a whole series of further points which one should not
fail to consider. For instance, the 'KPD' also refused to go into
a united front with us, on the occasion of the war in the Middle
East, against Israeli Zionism and both superpowers.


V. THE TURN IN THE YEAR 1975 AND THE INTERFERENCE
BY THE INTERNATIONAL LIAISON DEPARTMENT

Now what took place at the turn of the year 1974/'75? At that point 
in time, we experienced that  - since the international situation had 
become acute to the point when the threat by social-imperialism 
became publicly obvious, that our propaganda despite everything 
did make some cuts into that whole silence of the phoney"Marxists", 
that the bourgeoisie itself already was calling the threat by its proper 
name and was making resistance to it and finally that the People's
Republic of China was making an unequivocal propaganda in this
direction - the complete isolation of the 'KPD' with its propaganda
came out as a result. When then Chairman Mao Tsetung, in the
circumstances at that time, received the Chairman of the CSU,
Strauss, and by this the absurdity of the 'KPD':s whole general idea
of things was underlined indeed, then at long last they were forced
to make a turn in their standpoint.

But in what way did they make that turn? They made a turn in their
standpoint in such a way that they went over from saying "Nothing 
to be achieved by the united front" to saying "Everything to be 
achieved by the united front", so that they now started saying 
that everything had to be subordinated to the struggle against the superpowers. 

At that time, you had to ask yourself: In which way is this turn in
fact taking place? What is a characteristic distinguishing mark of
this turn? A characteristic distinguishing mark of this turn was the
fact that they in no way mentioned the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT),
in no way mentioned the previous struggle, that they tried to
conceal the entire background of the previous struggle and now
started to paint themselves out as if they had always been the
vanguard of the struggle against the superpowers, completely
ignoring the facts and completely twisting the history. This can
be proved quite unequivocally. For this, you only have to pursue
the 'Rote Fahne', which in this respect really is a good instrument,
and for comparison to this to pursue the 'Neue Einheit', then you'll
see very clearly who was the one showing the direction and who
was trailing behind and then tried to reap the fruits of this struggle
for himself.

	[Note: A more recent example of a "turn" like this, which 
	some phoney forces at long last have found themselves 
	simply obliged to make, if their cover is not to be blown 
	entirely, was the "turn" made by the so-called "CoRIM" in 
	March 1995 on the question of opposing the reactionary 
	CIA/SIN "peace letters" fraud against the people's war in 
	Peru. The "CoRIM":s silence on this, which in practice 
	meant their stabbing that people's war in the back, at that 
	time had already been under public attack by El Diario 
	Internacional, for instance, and by other forces too, for more 
	than a year.] 

	[Note, ctd.: So when finally the "CoRIM" in March '95 found 
	themselves forced to issue the statement "In Defence of 
	Our"(!) "Red Flag Flying in Peru", it wasn't too difficult for El 
	Diario Internacional editor comrade Luis Arce Borja to make 
	people see the utter hypocracy of this by comparing it to the 
	actions of someone coming forward to "volounteer" in the 
	war against Hilter fascism - in 1947, two years after that 
	war had already been finished victoriously.  - The 1974/'75 
	"turn" by those phoney forces in Germany however was not 
	quite so obviously easy for everybody to see through, in the 
	conditions then existing. - RM]

But not only this was inherent in this turn. There was also
something else in it. With the passing of time, the class
contradictions on the international level had sharpened further,
both in China and also in this country, so that the time in fact was
ripening for a coalescing of those forces which, on the
international level, correctly were representing the two-line
struggle. At that time, this had to be so. But instead of such a
connection, the opposite of it came about. From this point in 
time on, there moved certain forces in China, who since the end 
of 1974 massively have supported the phoney"Marxist" 
parties and massively have engaged in international splittist 
activity.

As a further basis of the turn in the beginning of 1975 there also
was a sharpening of the contradiction between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat. And precisely at that point in time when there
was this sharpening of the contradiction between the bourgeoisie 
and the proletariat, these people now adopted the standpoint of
"Subordinate everything to the struggle against the superpowers".
This was obvious both in the totality of their approach and also
in a series of theoretical expressions. 

For instance, it was stated in a declaration of the Standing
Committee of the Politbureau of the so-called 'KPD': "We must
put the struggle against the two main perpetrators of war, U.S.
imperialism and the at present more dangerous Soviet social-
imperialism, at the centre of our efforts. In the light of this task,
all questions of the present class struggle in our country must
be seen." ('Rote Fahne', 6th annual volume, No. 15, p. 3.) And
at another point, for instance, it was stated: "In the stand taken
as to the superpowers there shows up the difference: Marxist-
Leninist or revisionist!" ('Rote Fahne', 6th annual volume, No.
17, p. 12.)

This precisely is erroneous, since class struggle remained and
remains the key. These people, thus, at that point, after they
earlier precisely had sabotaged the struggle against the
superpowers and this struggle despite this had carried through, 
now tried to confound the key point and to *achieve a confusion
as to main and secondary aspect*, so as once again to weaken
the struggle, only from the other side.

And we can clearly point out that they were exposed by us in
this. For at the decisive moment, when the social-imperialists
made the threat in the Bay of Luebeck, then the KPD/ML(NEUE
EINHEIT) was there for the counterattack and not the 'KPD'. At
that point, the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) issued a fundamentally
correct call, while the 'KPD' (and likewise the 'Roter Morgen')
at first in fact were silent about the matter and undertook nothing
decisive against it.

	[Note: The text of the important leaflet "Eine Drohung der
	Sozialimperialisten in der Luebecker Bucht" ("A Threat
	by the Social-Imperialists in the Bay of Luebeck"), of
	24.04.1975, was actually telephoned to Berlin(West)
	by Klaus Sender from his exile here in Malmoe, Sweden, 
	at the time. In this connection, at that time some unusual 
	events, to say the least, took place in Sweden which 
	constitute a rather long and quite instructive story by 
	themselves. It would carry too far to go into them here. 
	I'll save that for some other posting. - RM] 

The position of the 'KPD' was characterized by opportunist
irresolution. And it must be pointed out here that they, despite
their exposure at this point, were wholeheartedly supported by
the abovementioned forces in China, that at a quite particular 
point in time, when the weakness of these organizations showed
up in a quite unprecedented way, suddenly, like a wedge of 
attack, those revisionist elements in China came forward and
supplied these people with fire support. In this connection it is
necessary to name the International Liaison Department of the
CC of the Communist Party of China, the 'Hsinhua News', the 
'Peking Review' and also Yao Wen-yuan.

These forces massively intervened in the two-line struggle,
supporting alternately the 'Roter Morgen' and the 'KPD'. 
The 'Gang of Four' had an important hand in this. But it seems
to us that they were not the only forces but that there were
also certain other elements, leaning towards Right opportunism
and today supporting the 'KPD', who engaged in this policy.

At the hands of these people, of the 'KPD' etc, this political
line - *their kind* of political line of support of the idea of the
Three Worlds - became an idea of liquidation of the proletarian
revolution, became an anti-means against the proletarian Party,
once again. While on our part it had been a conclusion drawn
>from the proletarian class struggle, on the part of these people
it was now the other way around, it was a conclusion in order
to combat the proletarian clas sstruggle. While at that point in
time it was already very necessary absolutely to uphold class
struggle and in a correct manner to connect the idea of the
Three Worlds to this, these people were now using it to
suffocate the class struggle. That, by the way, precisely is 
characteristical for the 'KPD'. It used the idea precisely in the
wrong way.

Our Party at that time asked itself the question: What character
does this turn really have? Does it serve actually to augment 
the struggle against the superpowers, or does it serve to keep
phoney"Marxism" on its feet under all circumstances and to
help the superpowers now in other circumstances and to
undermine the struggle against the superpowers by a fake
opposition? That was a very important question for us. And
our Party took up such a position after this turn that it said:
At those points where those organizations are actually 
combating the superpowers, we will go together with them,
at those points where they are obstructing the struggle, we
must combat them - in order to test the truthfulness of the
declarations they had made.

Our Party very soon got an opportunity to test this. At a meeting
in Frankfurt in May 1975, the 'KPD' declined going into any
united front whatever, in the struggle against the superpowers 
as well, with us, who were the ones who had led the struggle
against the superpowers. Now what character does such a turn
then have? It of course has no other character than that of an
attempt once more to occupy the Party, in a new way, after
this had been very much endangered for these people because
of the international questions. 

It must be stressed here that the International Liaison Department
and similar Chinese organs, with complete disregard of the facts
mentioned concerning the development of the struggle, in that
situation where the thing to do precisely was to test these
organizations as to the veracity of their statements, massively
have supported these organizations and decisively have helped
them at a weak spot, at which in fact their entire construction
started shaking under their feet. These forces have massively
intervened here and have gone against our Party in a way which
no other revisionist was able to do.

Our Party at this point was deprived of the fruits of its combat,
when we had recently been saying: *The position of the 'KPD' will
inexorably expose itself in its contradiction to the masses*. So
it has done too, since they during two years have stood in
contradiction to the correct line in international questions and
have actively combated it. And at this point, when we issued
the call on the occasion of the threat by the social-imperialists
in the Bay of Luebeck, things had developed so far that we could
say: 

Now we will dictate to the 'KPD' a unity with us, to the extent 
that they must now give up their standpoint of ignoring and 
combating our Party. We however will demonstrate that the
correct line will carry through and that one must perservere in the
construction of the Party also as a small organization in relation
to such forces, that is, it is also a question of bourgeoisie or
proletariat whether an organization like the 'KPD', which here is
continuing to occupy the movement, until its next dastardly crime,
carries through or whether finally we, because of the correctness
of our cause, do so. 

[Continued in part 4/6]



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005