Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 08:41:34 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: UNITE! Info #12en: 2/6 China - NE (Germany), '75-'77


UNITE! Info #12en: 2/6 China - NE (Germany), '75-'77 [Sent: 08.07.96]


[Continued from part 1/6]

II.

The representatives of the 'KPD' sometimes try to justify 
themselves by pointing at the 'Roter Morgen'. They in this
however on purpose are overlooking its conflict with the KPD/ML
(NEUE EINHEIT) and the entire two-line struggle that took
place within the KPD/ML. This struggle was carried out relatively
thoroughly, and the so-called 'KPD' with its "party idea" precisely
thrust into that conflict concerning the Party.

Such an inner-Party struggle was absolutely necessary and
should, if possible, have been fought out within the domain of
such a party. A grouping such as the 'KPD' cannot draw any
justification from the fact of the degeneration of the 'Roter Morgen',
even if it also has stated some correct things in relation to the
'Roter Morgen', because it at the same time itself was very active
in taking part in the suppression of the correct line in the KPD/ML
and at certain points of time even distinguished itself as a
prominent perpetrator of this suppression, tolerated splittists
and bad elements in its ranks and considered the isolating of
the correct representatives of Marxism-Leninism to be a quite
particularly important part of its activity. (Note 1.)

	[Note 1, p. 28:] The refutation of the 'Roter Morgen' was 
	not, for instance, something for which the 'KPD' should be 
	given the credit. The 'Roter Morgen' was at an early stage 
	and on matters of principle criticized by forces within the 
	KPD/ML and within the Rote Garde. Our Party precisely in 
	the early stage of the Party carried out a basic and 
	deep-going struggle with the 'Roter Morgen', as can be
	seen on the hand of various documents and analyses (for 
	instance "Die linkssektiererische Linie in der KPD/ML" 
	["The 'Left' Secterian Line in the KPD/ML"] of the summer 
	of 1970 or the article "UEber die Hinterlistige Falle, die die 
	Roter-Morgen-Clique, ergaentzt durch die Rote Fahne-
	Clique, dem Marxismus-Leninismus in Deutschland stellt" 
	["On the Crafty Trap Which the Roter Morgen Clique, 
	Complemented with the Rote Fahne Clique, Is Posing to 
	Marxism-Leninism in Germany"] of the autumn of 1972, 
	which the 'Roter Morgen' has never been able to refute),
	and also on the hand of a series of further, later, 
	documents.

	[Note 1, ctd:] "The 'KPD', on the contrary, not seldom has
	protected the 'Roter Morgen' against our criticism, and 
	also did the 'Roter Morgen' very often make concessions 
	to the 'KPD' and went together with it against the KPD/ML
	(NEUE EINHEIT). "Unity" debates there, characterisically, 
	existed only between those two organizations, but never 
	with our Party. [End of Note]

Also the so-called 'RAF' campaign of the bourgeoisie is in the
last instance, if you look at its kernel and at its real perpetrators,
a reflection of the striving of the bourgeoisie to get at the Marxist-
Leninist movement. The Marxists had, on the basis of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution, on the basis of the thorough
criticism of revisionism, weapons in their hand which, on
principle, made access to the masses possible for them. This
is an important fact of principle. 

This movement was an unwritten leaf; it was, from this aspect, not 
much touched by social-democratism. It had the radicalism of the 
youth and student movement and attacked with extreme toughness 
the bourgeois society. It was, to put it briefly, characterized by the 
'most radical break', had, in the last instance, the 'Communist 
Manifesto' by Marx and Engels as its foundation and also, once
more, linked itself up with their work. It wrote on its banners the
liberation of the entire mankind from exploitation and oppression
and was also able to present such a thing as a - first, diffuse and
later, more exact - general plan.

This movement was not of little importance. This movement's
breaking out marked and caused, on the part of the bourgeoisie,
a considerable lifting-up of a portion of the German workers, the
importation, increased by leaps and bounds, of foreign workers
and the preparation for what later was carried out on a large
scale, the relocation of production into foreign countries and the
"shunting-off" of German workers - in its essence, an economic
"flight forwards" by the bourgeoisie in order to escape from the
revolutionary movement.

The youth and student movement (which the bourgeois 
propaganda and the phoney"Marxists" are trying to lie away or
to demote to the role as solely a perpetrator of a certain change
of government) was the heralding of a general revolutionary
agitation in society. What was unique with this movement was
that it arose on a developed capitalist basis and did not, at
least not in the main, emerge from social-democratism. It had
>from its very beginning clear elements of demarcation against
revisionism, namely, the criticism of the exploitation of the
oppressed peoples and nations and the critcism of that 
comparative parasitism which is connected with this and which 
emerges in these countries. 

It developed a completely new radicalism, which permitted 
Marxism to be adopted very quickly and on a mass scale. If you 
were to reduce the struggle with the 'KPD' t its kernel, you could 
also say that the 'KPD' during the its whole existence has strived 
to contain once more this 'radicalism', while we are seeking in all 
circumstances to keep it and to make it go further.

These facts no 'KPD' nor any 'Roter Morgen' clique can whisk
away. The 'KPD' has no right, in order, in the last instance, to
conceal its own evil role, to denigrate the entire struggle of that
time as unimportant and to shove it aside.

				*

This basic differentiation you cannot disregard when making
considerations concerning the essence of the Party. Are these
points concerning the history of the Party correct or false? You
cannot say that this today doesn't matter any more. Of course it
matters what point of deparure a party has taken, also because
in the development, this differentiation likewise has made
itself felt in important international questions and has decided,
who stood where in them.


III. ON THE QUESTION OF THE CLASS DIFFERENTIATION
AND THE "THEORY OF THE THREE WORLDS"

The basic class differentiation between these parties all the 
time remained in existence. The KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT)
waged a relatively extensive struggle with the 'Roter Morgen'
concerning basic ideological questions, and in this struggle,
comlpletely new forces of Marxism-Leninism managed to carry
the day against people who themselves don't know how on
principle to apply Marxism-Leninism and who are utilizing the
masses and the actual representatives of Marxism-Leninism
for their own purposes.

The political line of the KDP/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) above all
also therefore was Marxist, because it succeeded in making a
Marxist analysis of the situation and in particular completely to 
comprehend the importance and the role of labour
aristocracy and various historical movements, such as the
repudiation of Nazi fascism and the struggle against Soviet
revisionism. This from the very beginning was on the agenda
in connection with the formation of the KPD/ML(NEUE 
EINHEIT). In this, Klaus Sender played a particularly 
important role.

The KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) from the very beginning wrote
the connection with the masses on its banner and worked
concretely on carrying this out, on various points and to the
extent that this was possible. The basic idea from the beginning
on was, as self-dependent party to wake to life once more
the experience of Marxism-Leninism, that of our own workers'
movement and that of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,
of Mao Zedong Thought, and, by defeating revisionism, make it
possible once more to anchor Marxism among the masses. In
this, the various attempts by the opportunists absolutely to 
'integrate' our Party again, by any means however questionable, 
constituted an important part of the struggle with opportunism 
during the first two years of the Party and in the struggle for the 
Party.

The KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) on various points refuted the
'KPD' and the 'Roter Morgen'. Never did they in any serious
manner go into the questions of these refutations, but they
very visibly, in a manner unmistakable for anyone who followed
these things, adapted themselves to the criticism, and indeed
took it up themselves, in part literally, and presented it as their
own. Plagiarianism is a basic element of these parties.

The salient point with these people from the very beginning 
has consisted in their trying, supporting themselves on the
bourgeoisie, to force the Party on to its knees, to utilize the
advantage resulting from the bribery and the bourgeois
propaganda in order to get the upper hand and to incorporate
the genuine causes and driving forces of that movement, on
which they in reality are floating, into themselves, something
which is the most basic interest of all of opportunism also in
general.

The KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), therefore, necessarily carried
out a propaganda relying on its own forces. It proceeded from
the principle that, if it developed the propaganda itself, to the
extent that it was able to do this by itself and with the correct
leadership (i.e., that those people who develop this 
propaganda also have the actual leadership) carrying these
organisatorical conditions to the masses, then it would
inexorably carry through also against these forces. That 
means, the testing in practice of what is correct and what is
false. And this was carried out in this manner too. And step
by step, our Party succeeded in gaining groud, is spite of the
fact of its organizational disadvantage in relation to these
other parties, in spite of the fact that its existence was limited
to only one city.

The KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) accordingly developed a 
theory and a knowledge of the entire role of the bribery and
of that social revolution which was taking place within the
working class. And this was no wonder, since of course it
became confronted with all these problems at the very 
moment in which each of them started to have effect. It also
corresponds to all this experience that today the KPD/ML
(NEUE EINHEIT) has at its disposal a fairly surveyable,
clear and correct economic analysis.


*This drove the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) further and further
with the objective of enforcing an open ideological struggle*,
and in this, it came to be confronted by the most violent counter-
reaction. The "RAF" campaign, which the bourgeoisie developed, 
precisely parallell in time to the conflict within the
Marxist-Leninist movement, clearly and unmistakably has the
Marxist-Leninist movement as its object of attack, which has
in some places in the public propaganda been stated directly
too, again and again. All this had relatively little effect. 
Finally, the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) was subjected to a regular
siege by a mass of spies and agents; the suppression of
1 May 1972 consituted a climax. [See later note on this. - RM]

That practical revolutionary work, however, which was undertaken,
the propaganda and the firmness in Marxism, prevented an
actual breakdown and made it possible for our Party to achieve
an analysis of the international connections of things, *based on
those experiences which we ourselves had made in our country*,
of course based on the analyses by the People's Republic of
China but also based on our own analysis of the international
connections and on the observations of the events in detail,
so that our Party finally came to the same conclusions on the
international level as Chairman Mao in China and developed
almost an identical concrete policy, relying on our own forces.

As early as in the Grosser Maiaufruf (Grand May Call) of 1972
there are clear elements which were more or less identical to
that political line developed by Chairman Mao and that 
particularly sharp differentiation as against social-imperialism  
which was necessary at that time, only from another, but at
least equally important, side, from the situation in the centre of
Europe, in which the various contradictions are tying themselves 
together into a knot.

The development and the standpoint of the "Theory of the Three
Worlds" make sense only if you consider class struggle to be the
key, only if you yourself stand firm on the line of the dictatorship 
of the proletariat; if you don't, it's pure swindle. In the final 
instance, for instance, the contradiction between imperialism 
and the oppressed peoples and nations is a contradiction
derived from the one between the bourgeoisie and the 
proletariat, even if in practice four basic contradictions dominate
in the international situation and are considered to be on an
equal level to each other. In the last instance, the contradiction
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is the *most basic*
contradiction of all, which is *propelling history forwards*.

The whole construction made up of such ideological views as
"Theory of the Three Worlds", differentiation into intermidary
zones etc, exists only as a superstructure on top of the theory of
Marxism and is a constituent part of it, is a certain expansion of
it for a quite particular situation, as are many other analyses.
So it's the stand taken as to the dictatorship of the proletariat,
the stand taken as to labour aristocratism (of course for the
repudiation of it) and as to the entire internationalism of the
proletariat, that is basic for the correct view of the international
situation. 

Only in this way can you understand the entire international 
situation. If you pass these things over, then you'll also go wrong 
on the whole international situation, respectively, then a certain 
image, a certain taking over of certain elements of foreign policy, 
is a pure swindle which serves to confound the principal aspect 
with secondary aspects and to suppress the correct theory.

The KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) developed a basically correct
standpoint concerning the international class struggle, as has
been put forward in the publication "Die internationale Lage,
Europa und die Stellung der marxistisch-leninistischen 
Parteien" but also in other writings of the years '73 and '74 and 
also in later years. 

	[This important article referred to was written by Klaus 
	Sender here in Malmoe, Sweden, and published as 
	"NEUE EINHEIT" No. 1 /1973. A Swedish translation, 
	made by me and a German comrade, was published by 
	me in 1974 and an English translation, made by me in 
	cooperation with others in 1975, was eventually published 
	in 1976, as more or less the only document in English 
	from that party at that time, under the title "The 
	International Situation, Europe and the Position of the 
	Marxist-Leninist Parties". I intend to post it at some
	later date. - RM]

These publications supported the struggle of the Third World,
they supported the element of differentiation into Three Worlds,
respectively, into intermidary zones, they supported the struggles
of the medium-sized and small countries, they supported the
general movement in the direction of democracy on the
international level, which was a result of the revolutionary class
struggles of the peoples, including those of the Marxist-Leninst
parties in our countries, including those of the youth and student
movement, which precisely had made preparations for this 
movement and which has the considerable merit of having
contributed to the formation of this situation.

[Continued in part 3/6]



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