Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 07:51:32 EST
Subject: M-G: NEUE EINHEIT on 'RIM'  (Segment 2 of 3)


The Development of Our Organization's Position Concerning the 'RIM'
______________________Article Segment 2 of 3________________________ 


Among all that there has to be named in particular the new wave of 
reaction, attacking the whole modern development of the productive 
forces in general, under the overall control of US-imperialism, the 
role of political ecologism, which above all in the  developed 
countries was taken up as in a "thunderstorm" by the official media, 
together with its very fundamental rightist-pessimistic world outlook 
which by its ultimate consequences is directed against the development 
of man and corresponds to the fanatic thinking of a class doomed to 
perish,  furthermore that all this at the same time had been standing 
in close connection to the then modern revisionism, above all of the 
Soviet Union.
There were phenomena of a new reaction,  as for instance the so-called 
fundamentalism, which many bourgeois leftists but also alleged Marxists 
went down on their knees to. Where in this declaration are such things 
mentioned at all which in the end of the seventies did affect the 
political landscape? Furthermore, where at all were economic processes 
mentioned in this declaration such as the radical transfers of 
production which then rightly touched the minds in many countries and 
which were connected to the aforementioned in general? All of these 
subjects absolutely would have needed to be taken on. 

Many more essential questions such as, for instance, the more detailed 
evaluation of the developments in China were left open in this 
declaration. Anyhow, it would have been a starting point for further 
discussions. Under the then conditions it could have been taken as a 
starting point for joint actions and propagandistic pushes against the 
rising total slandering of socialism; contentious experiences could 
have been discussed, such as the evaluation of the importance of the 
sciences, the national question etc.. We are thinking that in doing so 
we could have substantially contributed to the debate.


Although the inner-party occurrences were existing it has to be 
stressed on the other hand that the main reason for not involving our 
organization rested with some parties of the later RIM themselves. Our 
organization always had an easily accessible address, our activities 
such as in 1980 were well known to party supporters of Turkish 
organizations. There was a directly hostile attitude and a fear to 
include us into the discussion because those concerned were in lack of 
arguments. This went so far that, when our party proposed joint actions 
against the Turkish military dicatorship of 1980 and the role of the 
Federal Republic of Germany as an accomplice, we received the answer 
from those people that we were "adherents of the theory of the three 
worlds" and therefore were denied any kind of unity. Shortly afterwards 
the same people did not shy away from forming a coalition with the KBW 
["Kommunistischer Bund Westdeutschland"], with people who openly 
sympathized with the overthrow in China, decidedly defended Deng 
Xiaoping in 1980 and subscribed to his variant of theory of the three 
worlds. The whole was nothing but a pretext to keep us out by any means 
- us who had so decidely defended revolutionary China and, for 
instance, had decidedly criticized labor-aristocratism - even if it was 
about the struggle against the military dictatorship in their home 
country.

De facto certain people of the international coalition continued 
exactly the role already previously played by phony leftist 
organizations within our country, the role consisting in the following: 
to occupy all international intersections if possible, to prevent any 
true discussion, and in particular to eliminate those who aquired 
special knowledge about the international relations. From all 
experience we cannot assume that we were the only forces which were 
kept away in this manner. It might be interesting to hear the opinion 
of other parties which likewise were not involved in the then 
discussion.

Probably it has to be perceived as follows: the main initiators of the 
later "Declaration of the RIM" were not at all willing to debate with 
our organization because it would have been able to give a great number 
of arguments for the defence of Mao Zedong and of Marxism-Leninism in 
those questions of Marxism and of Leninism, of the national question 
and of the democratic program of the revolution which are 
systematically fought in the declaration of 1984. They did not want 
this discussion in order to avoid, very simply, unpleasant questions. 
This is the heavy accusation one has to raise against decisive parties 
which contributed at least to the declaration of 1984. They knew the 
debate about the theory of the three worlds, about the foreign policy 
of Mao Zedong, themselves leading, in the "Declaration of the RIM", a 
more or less open attack against Mao Zedong and against the democratic 
program of Marxism. In doing so, these people at the same time are as 
presumptuous as to simply declare themselves "Maoists" after having 
discarded essential elements of the politics of Mao Zedong. It is 
rather evident that some things would have developed in a different way 
if we had become part of the discussion. This, however, was not to 
happen. Of course we are executing all of these considerations  in view 
of our then    existing position, our then existing theoretical 
knowledge.

Rolf Martens has tried to fabricate in numerous contributions that our 
organization at the latest in 1987  had learned about the RIM and the 
CPPeru, that we had not given our opinion against the RIM, and by this 
he tried to stigmatize our organization. Unscrupulous suppression of 
the actual facts and of the discussion as it then, between 1984 and 
1987, took place with us, are the essence of this way of action. 
Already in earlier contributions we have criticized his completely 
contradictory behaviour; the point, however, that he himself knew the 
discussion in detail is of import here. Although the RIM meanwhile 
hardly plays any role any more we think it worthwhile to give the 
actual facts of the then situation.

Rolf Martens knows all of the considerations of the then epoch. Which 
situation did we find when in 1984 we found out the facts and analyzed 
them? We had to see that an international coalition had formed itself, 
and that apparently considerable efforts for an international coalition 
had been undertaken since 1980 - actually with the main emphasis on the 
Asiatic and Pacific region and the American continent -  which, as we 
are doing, defended the Cultural Revolution and the People's Republic 
of China in general, but that now by the declaration of March 1984 a 
declaration had been passed as an obligatory basis which very 
pronouncedly spoke in favor of the so-called "gang of four" and, beyond 
that, decidedly attacked the foreign policy of Mao Zedong during the 
whole final phase since 1970. These were attacks such as we actually 
already had heard from the Albanians and as we could accept by no means 
in this way. The hope remained that the concrete concerns of 
international politics would give reason to a renewed reconsideration 
of the situation, these concerns being in the first place the worldwide 
questions, the regrouping of the working class, the gigantic radical 
changes in Asia, the structural changes within the capitalist 
countries, the hollowing-out of revisionism, the change within labor by 
the development of the productive forces (computers), the purposeful 
energy policy of US-imperialism, the extortion from the Third World, 
and last but not least the weakness of the workers' movement in the 
developed capitalist countries. All that raises indispensable questions 
for a seriously working party or group. We noticed that the declaration 
of 1984 was inacceptable, and for the time being we filed it away. 

((continued in article segment 3 of 3))
_____________________________________________________________________
                           neue  einheit
           Zeitschrift fuer Politik, Oekonomie und Kultur
_____________________________________________________________________
          copyright 1997 Verlag NEUE EINHEIT (Inh.H.Dicke)
            Koernebachstr.50, D-44143 Dortmund, Germany 
                  or D-10973 Berlin, Postfach 309, 
          Phone:   +49-231-838932    resp. +49-30-6937470


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