Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 19:05:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #12en: 1/6 China - NE (Germany), '75-'77 UNITE! Info #12en: 1/6 China - NE (Germany), '75-'77 [Sent: 08.07.96] Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anmaerkning: On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / !UNIOS! / FOERENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series: See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der letzten Seite / Verrez information a* la dernie*re page / Ver informacio'n en la u'ltima pa'gina / Se information paa sista sidan. AN INTRO NOTE: In this posting, I bring in translation an article originally published as a pamphlet by the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) in Germany in 1979: "Why Our Party Had to Reject the Interference by the International Liaison Department and Other Chinese Organs - Aspects -". The title of the original is: "Warum unsere Partei die Einmischung von seiten der Abteilung fuer internationale Verbindungen und anderer chinesischen Organe ablehnen musste - Aspekte -". This article IMO today still remains a quite important one for all genuine adherents of the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong, since it clarifies a number of questions of principle and of recent history on which clarity is essential. On the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), its very important role in the 1970:s and a large part of the 1980:s and its later bourgeois degeneration, see my posting of 01.01.96 "UNITE! Info #3en" and others. One question on which this article brings important further information is that of the role of the so-called Gang of Four (and also of other forces) in the overthrow of socialism in China and in the activities by the bourgeoisie to subvert the international Marxist-Leninist movement, activities which, for instance in the shape of the so-called "RIM" ("Revolutionary Internationalist Movement"), still today are being massively continued. On this group in China in the mid-'70:s, the "4-Gang", whose counter-revolutionary ideology rather precisely corresponds to that of the present-day "RIM", I've already posted 12 items of a series, "'The Four' & events in China 1976". I'm going to post item (13) of it, endline "German stands", in connection with this article, which also deals with the whys and wherefores of those different standpoints as to the "4-Gang" which in October-November 1976 were taken up by the different forces in Germany. A note in this item (13) will refer to the present reproduced article, which follows here: WHY OUR PARTY HAD TO REJECT THE INTERFERENCE BY THE INTERNATIONAL LIAISON DEPARTMENT AND OTHER CHINESE ORGANS *- Aspects -* The article i.a. contains the following chapters: - Some Points Concerning the Initial Develpoment of the Party - On the Question of the Class Differentiation and the "Theory of the Three Worlds" - The Turn in the Year 1975 and the Interference by the International Liaison Department - Once More on the Importance of the Question of the Party - What Emerged into Daylight in November 1976? - What Class Character Do These Things in China Have and in What Relation Do We See Them in Connection with the 'KPD'? (September 1977 / Beginning of 1978 / Summer 1978) Publisher: KOMMUNISTISCHE PARTEI DEUTSCHLANDS / MARXISTEN-LENINISTEN (NEUE EINHEIT) Printed: 1979 INTRODUCTORY NOTE: The following article in its fundamental idea and in its most important parts is based on an outlining speech by comrade Klaus Sender on 11 September 1977 and also on various inner-party discussion contributions from the time between the beginning of 1978 and the summer of 1978. It came out of the necessity in the then situation to combat the repeated influencing on the part of Chinese organs in the question of the Party in our country and to counter their attempts by means of the phoney"Marxists", at that time in particular the 'KPD', to act against our Party. The article summarizes the conflict with the machinations of certain forces in the International Liaison Department of the CC of the Communist Party of China from 1975 on, and in particular from November 1976 until the summer of 1977, a conflict which on our part has already on various points been mentioned publicly. It above all in its last part very importantly deals with our assessment of those forces in their connection to the 'KPD' and with the reason why we had to reject this connection. Finally, the article also deals with the complete disregard for basic Party questions on the part of these organs in China, with why we had to reject this and why we also have seen it as a means to undermine the political line of Mao Tsetung. This article by no means deals with all aspects of this conflict during that time. Quite a number of basic points, such as the connection to and the alliance with the secretly-working anti-Party subversive elements and opportunists of the type of a Maegdefessel (Otto M.) & friends, on the part of those forces mentioned, is not dealt with here. The exposition here is limited to a series of facts which were at the time already publicly known and publicly visible and which therefore it would also have been possible to take into account. In the meantime, that situation which was summarized in this article of course has changed considerably, since the conflict has gone further and the revisionists have exposed themselves further. The core points of the conflict of that time, however, which so quickly have been made, it might seem, superfluous because of their abandonment of their earlier position, in spite of this still are worth being made clear. It is not unimportant to see with what demagoguery and what manipulations these forces have been working in order to split the representatives of the proletariat and of Marxism-Leninism on the international level from each other, with the methods of wrong combining and the suppression of information. These events also are a constituent part of the background of the present development in China. G.H. WHY OUR PARTY HAD TO REJECT THE INTERFERENCE BY THE INTERNATIONAL LIAISON DEPARTMENT AND OTHER CHINESE ORGANS In the past, Chinese organs in various ways came out supporting in a totally impermissible way the 'Roter Morgen' and the 'KPD'. [Note: On these organizations, see later in the article text. - RM] Against this interference in the internal affairs of our movement which was engaged in since many years back, in a pressure- exerting and flagrant manner, and which didn't even shy away from the conscious and manipulative making of false reports concerning the struggle in our country, finally, our Party could no longer desist from defending itself also publicly, since this activity has had extremely harmful effects, had been publicly refuted and despite this was being continued with the same callousness. There are unequivocal facts concerning the two-line struggle in the Party. These unequivocal facts exist as history, as *development* in the history of the Party. These one must follow and analyze, in order to see the actual role of those parties which are designating themselves as Marxist-Leninist. If you leave this out, you cannot see anything. If you judge a party only by that which it says today, you overlook completely precisely that decisive weapon of the bourgeoisie, to have parties serving themselves which at certain points in time are saying certain things, only in order once more to betray them. This is a historical lesson, which must be drawn even from the behaviour of the opportunists during the first world war and the time thereafter, those elements who were scourged by Lenin for their recognizing the dictatorship of the proletariat, in order later to trample on it and to betray it. They were the most dangerous and evil of all of the agents of the bourgeoisie. One therefore must analyze very carefully what a party is representing and what stands it takes under the changing conditions in society, and must not content oneself with just some verbal statements which a party is making. Now what kind of a party is the 'KPD'? What has been its role in the struggles over the years? I. SOME POINTS CONCERNING THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARTY During the first phase, the representatives of the 'KPD' combated self-dependent struggle by the proletariat and indeed in general the very *idea of the Party*, the idea of a Marxist-Leninist party, which leads an unrelenting class struggle and an unrelenting ideological struggle against opportunism, and always made efforts towards blending together opportunism and Marxism. They themselves founded their party organization, basing themselves on semi-governmental organizations such as the universtities andministration and later the DGB apparatus [DGB: union of trade unions in West Germany - RM], and created their organization in connection with a bourgeoisie mob, supported by certain higher governmental organs such as the culture apparatus - to which should be added that this of course had a whole series of complications and turns and twists and didn't come about in such a straightforward manner as briefly summarized here, but in its essence it must be described in this way. The first 'KPD' members, mostly people who in their class relations had their origins in the upper and in the uppermost bourgeoisie (in contrast to those who at that time advocated Marxism-Leninism), spoke out for Marxism *only from that point in time on* when the breakthrough for Marxism had been realized. And this breakthrough, the facts show clearly, was not realized by the representatives of the 'KPD'; it was realized by other people. It was realized by the KPD/ML, it was realized by the Rote Garde, it was realized, in connection with this, by the representatives of the later KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), by Klaus Sender, for instance, who on various points defended himself against awowed Trotskyites who were sent forward by the 'KPD', and took action against their vilifications. Not a few of these first 'KPD' representatives were people who openly applauded Trotsky, while those who at that time defended Marxism-Leninism and in quite a number of questions, in the question of the Party and in that of Stalin, for instance, represented a basically correct standpoint, at first were in the minority and resolutely went against the entire bourgeois propaganda. The representatives of the 'KPD' were people who at first came out against Marxism and against materialism; they more or less openly advocated liberalism, came out with theses such as "the liberalisation of the judicial apparatus", and it was characteristic for them that they basically always denounced the entire materialist standpoint as "dogmatic". They came out with propositions such as "In Vietnam lies the centre of world revolution", with which they tried to draw people's attention away from the situation and in particular from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, for instance. They came out with various theses against us, for instance, that one mustn't characterize Soviet revisionism as social- imperialism and, as late as in connection with 1 May 1971, presented papers which they wanted us to co-endorse, in which they only accused Soviet revisionism of having capitulated to U.S. imperialism and refused the designation social-imperialism, and attacked us, when we declined this, for "splitting". A basic element in the construction of the 'KPD' out of intellectual circles, from which it in general from the beginning, and also today in the main, has been recruiting, was the then Rotzeg (Rote Zelle Germanistik) principle and in general the Rote-Zellen principle, a Trotskyite-revisionist principle, which was put up against the Party at the universities and which was even to be acted on in the factories. When in 1969 Marxism broke through in an even stronger way and when there was also an intensive two-line struggle within the KDP/ML, the representatives of the 'KPD', respectively, the representatives of the Rote-Zellen principle, suddenly changed their standpoint and with wind speed, in the beginning of 1970, constructed their party like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This can be seen from the documents, e.g. the RPK (Rote Presse Korrespondenz) of that time. The founding document of the 'KPD/AO' ('Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands / Aufbauorganisation'), which they called themselves at that time, absolutely is useful as a negative example, since it cannot even by the furthest stretch in any way be taken seriously as compared to the programmatic declaration of the KPD/ML (of 31.12.1968). It's really a bad joke, when in this document intellectuals of the big bourgeoisie are telling each other how they want to "train themselves into" applying democratic centralism and want to train discipline and point out that this prejudice and that which they have must be combated. Such a thing perhaps is not wrong as self- criticism, and it may be that many intellectuals can remould themselves in such a direction, but the publishing by some people of such a thing as a *party programmatic declaration* was an enormous presumptiosness, since the Marxist-Leninist movement at that time had already advanced much further than that, and the 'KPD/AO' representatives were, exept for the anarchists and awowed revisionists, among the most backward that there existed at that time. It is therefore no wonder that the 'KPD' has swept these documents under the rug. [Continued in part 2/6] --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005