What ensued afterwards
The 1st of May 1997 is the 25th anniversary of an event which many people today do not know any more, but which, though, had considerable political consequences, if we only regard the further development of the revolutionary parties of the seventies. This has its consequences up to today.
On 1st of May, 1972, four demonstrations took place, three of which were revolutionary ones. Solely one of them, the demonstration of the youngest, and newly rising group: KPD/ML (Neue Einheit) - Communist Party of Germany/ Marxists-Leninists (New Unity) - a demonstration of 200-300 participants was besieged by a massive contingent of the police right from the start and eventually, in spite of heavy resistance, put down twice. After that for years it came to trials which considerably restricted the political work of the organization, threatened the concerned persons with long prison sentences because of alleged "breach of the peace" and in two cases did result in two longer term prison stays.
This collision was brought about by a revolutionary organization which unambiguously spoke out as to the fake character of a number of organizations, predicting their 180°-turnabout like it did occur later. Word and deed of the leftists and revolutionaries must agree, otherwise an effect for the other side results. This organization castigated not only the society at hand, it also attacked more rigorously than any other the society of revisionism in the then "East", demanded an unambiguous argument with the currents among the workers ("working class aristocracism") and predicted the convulsions which ensue, also from the revolt of the Third World, in our society.
Although it was prematurely declared dead it was able to survive because it resolutely resisted the machinations of the then judiciary and in spite of its small number counteracted these proceedings, took precautions against encroachments of the judiciary, made the broadest possible public propaganda and was able to avert the worst threats directed against us.
Conspicuous already then that this organization put itself on the fundament of modern industrial society which at that time still was looking here very differently as compared with today, because then the great part of the own production still was in the own land, and class society in the own country thereby still was very clear, whereas today it is standing out much stronger internationally.
The documents of that time, incidentally, are to be understood only if one takes into regard the considerably different structure as compared with today. At that time, Berlin, too, was characterized by factories with strong workforce and by a revolutionary youth and students’ movement which began to join forces with the former. All this is out of the question in the present time.
Since then this organization has participated in a host of political
campaigns, has delivered theoretical elaborations and has taken up the
new challenges like those, e.g.,which ensue from the international changes.
It has always preserved its independence and exclusively leans on the contributions
of its members who work as workers or employees. One or sometimes two members
work "full-time" for this organization.
On today's occasion we want to summarize some of the achievements made after 1972. Now and again we already earlier described the events of the year 1972. The entire work we are doing today is too extensive to be included in a short description, so we concentrate on some particularly concrete and clear-cut points:
During the period 1973-1977 this organization fought in the first and leading position against Soviet social imperialism and militarism which was gaining ever increasing political and military influence at that time, outwardly forming a danger for Western Europe which could not be overlooked and inwardly ruining the Soviet union. In doing so, our organization did not submit to the so-called "democracy" of the Western states which actually is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the international financial oligarchy. It did not hobnob with it and did not glorify it. This so-called bourgeois "democracy" leads the countries into a dead end, as one can see meanwhile, and the nations and the workers into the catastrophe.
During the time 1973 to 1977, thus, the organization fought in the first
and leading place against social imperialism and militarism which then
in connection with the détente policy became a danger. It did so
agreeing with the then China but also out of its own analysis.
Was that correct? Look how morbid, how little creative, how backward Soviet economy proved afterwards, and simultaneously the then largest armament in the world was being carried through! The Soviet union during the Brezhnev period literally armed itself to death. Only partly this armament resulted from the pressure exerted by the USA.The hegemonistic ambitions were unmistakable, and if it had proved possible under the then conditions to diplomatically neutralize these countries and to play them off against each other it would have become dangerous for the West European states as well as for other regions like Africa. A society with such contradictions as the Soviet society of that time inevitably was an aggressive power. The usurpation of power, the bourgeois-bureaucratic clique in control which traded upon the socialist intentions contained danger outwardly, too.
In our activities also during that time we defended the fundamental line aiming at the elimination of all class contradictions and indirectly also opposed especially those in China who abused Mao Zedong’s political concept of international affairs for isolating the revolutionary forces via the outward apparat. And we took position against the interference by Chinese representatives (Yao Wen-yuan, for example) in favor of unmasked organizations in our country.
In 1976/77 this organization leaning on itself massively opposed the greatest overthrow of these years: the overthrow in China, directed not only against the Cultural Revolution, the climax of the revolution under Mao Zedong, but also actually putting the whole People's Republic of China into question, which after all had had so lasting an influence upon the international development from 1949 to 1976, and had in particular during the past 10 years inspired the revolution everywhere. With the applause of the entire capitalist press lead by the USA this overthrow was being celebrated, and the forces who defended the principles of revolution, of proletarian dictatorship, of people's war and also of class struggle during the socialist period were being fought and thwarted.
During the same time particularly in Germany since the end of 1974, above all since 1976 the ecologist campaign began to become effective in which the so-called K-groups ("C" groups, whereby "C" means "Communist", translator's remark) which we had fought previously formed the determined force for attack. Without these militant attack units deriving their force originally from the ML-movement the petit bourgeois "citizens movement" against nuclear energy could never have become a decisive force within this country. This alone makes clear the importance of the events of then.
In addition, in 1977 "terrorism" was forced up in this country, aggravating the situation for revolutionary organizations considerably. This KPD/ML (Neue Einheit) took extreme efforts to act against all these attacks, additionally against attacks from its own ranks..
The anti-nuclear energy movement is part of ecologism. We opposed ecologism
which since the middle of the seventies was massively being propagated
in the public by the financial oligarchy and now was being propagated by
the so-called Left as well. Ecologism is being used as a cover for deindustrialization.
The Neue Einheit organization was the only one group to defend natural
science and atomic energy in particular, which previously had been developed
under revolutionary pressure from socialism and also from Third World.
It fought cultural pessimism connected to the Greens. These attack industrial society instead of the capitalist forms of society in which it is developing. We knew how to defend the law that there is a revolution only with industrial society and not against it.
Our organization early made the transfer of production a topic, it saw the developments which today stand out openly and dramatically, it made already during the seventies the subject of the transfer of industrial jobs to so-called low wage countries a central point.
Further important tasks comprised: during 1979-81 to fight the kindling of a temporary war hysteria which served the USA to reestablish itself as the leading power.
1982/83 this organization fought, among others, against Israeli zionism and its aggression in Lebanon, and made the interests of the suppressed Palestinian people its own cause.
1984/85 it intensely took part in the 35-hours-a-week movement and furthered this movement as far as this was possible for its forces.
Starting from the middle of the seventies, it also increasingly developed
a criticism of its own Marxist-Leninist foundations. An essential criticism
was required, mistakes had to be uncovered. It enlarged the theoretical
field upon which it was standing and took pains too incorporate the new
experiences deriving from the computer industry into the theoretical economic
analysis as well. The historical experiences with the Soviet union had
to be investigated still further, this had to be put into relation to the
present Marxism-Leninism and the ideas of Mao Zedong, and thus the foundations
had to be expanded. For us the following is fundamental: anew and anew
to investigate things with the reality at hand, according to which everything
is being measured, also Marxism itself.
In 1989 the critical analysis "Leninism and Civilization" by Klaus Sender was published, which exerts some criticism of the fundaments existing up to that date, without, however, negating the Soviet revolution in its importance.
Naturally our organization welcomed German unity, without however to gloss over the process of systematically collecting the German Democratic Republic and without bowing to the corruption dominated complete take-over of the GDR economy. Following this unity the economy of the Federal Republic of Germany was unmasked. The essence of the FRG came to the fore to its full extent only by practice after the end of the challenge by the East
In 1991 this group more decidedly than any other opposed the imperialist war against Iraq by the USA which under the cover of the UN had got together a coalition also with many Arab states against Iraq. We also defended the legitimate rights of Iraq.
Time and again we wrote about the backgrounds of so-called "terrorism" which had a lot of entanglements with the state. In 1992 the article "The State-Connection" appeared.
During the past years it was not possible to build a revolutionary socialist
party. This was not caused by the failing of persons no matter who or by
single subordinate circumstances but by the economic conditions of the
period into which our activity fell. In a time when Germany as well as
several other European countries turned, roughly spoken, from an industrial
point of gravity into a financial turntable, the building up of a revolutionary
party, additionally under such difficult starting conditions, was impossible.
Since the eighties at the latest one has to look into the eyes of this
truth. On that 1st of May, 1972, though, this could not be seen yet.
In our country
The demonstration at that time has shown that it is not without danger for relatively small revolutionary groups to participate in such a "display of the forces" of the proletariat. The freedom to demonstrate exists only as long as those in power think they have everything under control. Demonstrations of that kind may also have the dangerous function to put the revolutionaries and their sympathizers in front of the organs of the state like upon a silver tablet. At that time we were more or less forced to organize such a demonstration. In the end this hard test of 1972 helped us to subsequently examine much more exactly the material forces on which we stand.
Today our work is aligned internationally in a much stronger way according to the changed situation.
It must be stressed once again that we are the only ones, the absolutely only ones who have been criticizing and uncovering this role of ecologism. This ecologism for more than twenty years has been going along with a creeping deindustrialization, and what is more, this process which is connected with the gradual setting free of millions of workers is being justified by the ecologists, who prefer to reject to be responsible, though. They play the anti capitalists, but when they enact some laws themselves, when they translate their economic agenda into practice, it inevitably turns out to be even more unsocial than with an ordinary bourgeois government.
If, for example, social democracy rightfully attacks the completely unsocial policies of the CDU/CSU/FDP-coalition one has to be aware that the so-called ecological taxation programs will intensify the unsocial policies even more.
The state has been pursuing a downright anti child policy for years, the FRG is the only country worldwide to have a negative birth rate constantly since 1971 (!), in the whole of Europe there is nothing which can be compared, the birth rate presently is appr. 50% below simple reproduction. This is caused by the extremely high rents, the expensive apartments or houses, by the taxation system favoring the childless marriage, by the extreme difficulty to simultaneously perform job and child rearing in this country, above all, however, by a cultural environment hostile to the child and to the bringing up of children. Rightfully even official organizations concerned with the protection of children state that the FRG is the most child hostile land in Europe, if not in the whole world. In behaving like this the state has gotten himself the required workers, which it normally were to get out of its own reproduction, from abroad by actual purchase of workers from other countries, either under ethnological pretexts as in the case of the so-called "Aussiedler" ("resettlers") or by various methods of migration, which systematically is played off against the existing population and by which one is able to conduct and secure the most primitive exploitation. These policies lead to an extreme parasitism hindering the entire progress in this country. When the German Democratic Republic was incorporated into the FRG one of the very first things to fall was the birth rate, in a drastic manner. By these points it becomes clear how much this regime hates the own people.
This regime which calls itself democratic suppresses by no means only the "migrants", exploiting part of them under the lowest conditions, it also hates the own people, it hates the highly societal character of production, the strong massing, the high concentration of industry, and it is nothing else but this hostility which is given expression to by the everyday green litany of virtually all political parties, of the media, TV, radio and the press and last not least by the churches. In doing so, the protection of the environment is only a pretext for quite different political measures. The bourgeoisie has a double sided position to modern industry: it needs it and fears it because of the social consequences.
The full consequences of this policy will show only during the decades
to come, some make themselves be felt already: the pensions question! But
there are also different questions like of national homogenity and of social,
historical coherence without which no country in the world can do. Also
the problem of education and the cultural system are concerned. We have
migration under the condition of a simultaneous apparently desired reduction
of the own population. This is something completely different from an "immigrant
nation" like the USA. No country of the world conducts such a parasitic
policy for nothing. The political parties of this country, though, are
unable to pull the country out of the contradictions. They are captives
of their own policy.
And again, putting the test question which alleged leftist or revolutionary organization does criticize these bad state of affairs, apart from our group, one will have to answer by a big dead loss.
Is it justified to work against all this even as a "small group" and
to defend several fundamental correct values and ideas? Yes, definitely!
Also if we shall work perhaps in different forms in the future the reason
exists to state this with regard to the past period. The 25th anniversary
is a good occasion to do so.
© 1997 Verlag NEUE EINHEIT (Inh. Hartmut Dicke)