NEUE EINHEIT Internet-Statement #2/1998 The Development of Our Organization's Position Concerning the 'RIM' (Short outline) Rejection of libels connected with past efforts to get organized internationally Over the years 1996/7 our editorial staff issued a whole lot of statements concerning the international revolutionary movement. This followed in particular from attacks against our organization. In the process, however, a certain gap remained to be closed, which here we want to deal with. Actually, the question poses itself as to our position towards the RIM ("Revolutionary Internationalist Movement") during the whole time and, speaking more generally, to the development of our examination of this coalition which then at any rate comprised quite a number of parties. We do not need to shy away from describing this development and the reason, for instance, why it did not come to a debate essentially earlier. In doing so we have to deal with some circumstances of the international debate but also with some questions within our organization. We think, however, that this deserves general interest as well. There are some symptomatic points here. Some attacks by Rolf Martens who posted a host of statements against our organization to the Internet and developed a world-wide correspondence, should also be commented, even if this person has been sufficiently proved wrong by his flagrant contradictions. Of course, the question poses itself why our organization did not react to the RIM for such a long time. Didn't it know about it? How at all did it come that it did not participate in the discussion, for instance, of the two declarations of 1980 " To the Marxists-Leninists, the Workers and Oppressed of All Countries" and 1984 "Declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement"? In the beginning of the eighties *it was only by rumour* that we heard of a joining together pushed ahead with the leading participation of the RCP/USA and the TKP/ML, without any further information. We did not receive an invitation to discussions whatsoever although at least the TKP/ML and probably also other parties knew the activity of the KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT), via their foreign connections. And this was done although it was known that the KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT) had been defending socialist China and Mao Zedong, and right from the start had been opposing those who acknowledged the so-called new course in China under Hua Guo-feng as well as the fundamental slanderings from the Albanian line. And this was done although in Germany the so-called tone-setting parties which had been thoroughly criticized by the KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT), during 1979/80 literally were shipwrecked and disavowed themselves completely. There was not a single attempt to officially approach our organization about the intention of an international joining together and at least to ask its opinion. At first it has to be stated that there was no willingness on the part of a part of the organizers of this conference to form a connection, and that any information was withheld from us. All that happened after ten years of our struggle against phony trends in our country which exactly in 1979 in a macabre way found a confirmation by the aforementioned parties' self-liquidation and denounciation of their previous activity. This, however, is not the only aspect as there are some further points which make the matter interesting up to the debate of today. It was not before 1984 that the organization finally looked at both the above-mentioned declarations, and that its components could be studied authentically. (A special story of this process is formed by the KABD - the latter MLPD - which in 1979 did not participate in t h i s switch, in its place, however, already earlier had declared war against the foundations of revolutionary politics by an open standing up for the leadership of the trade unions and by completely watering down revolutionary principles. The KABD subsequently conducted a policy of muddling up the politics of Mao Zedong which it formally acknowledged with the politics of the 'DKP' and the 'Greens'. It partly occupied the position of the completely compromised parties mentioned above. The KABD/MLPD, at a close look, is working in really rightist positions unbearable for a revolutionary. In many cases it has been educating its members in a manner of cadaveric obedience.) Also occurrences within our organization In the end of Dec., 1984, it came to a detailed inner-party investigation against a member and a close cooperator of the organization because, as it had turned out, essential documents which already much earlier could have brought clarity had been withheld from the organization as a whole and from its chairman, without any discernible reason. This occurrence provided agitation for weeks, it had become clear that these circumstances had prevented us from giving our opinion about certain things at an earlier date. Already in 1982 a member had travelled to the USA and, as arranged, purchased many documents about parties, newspapers etc. in order to hand them out to the organization at home. Among these was also the declaration "To the Marxist-Leninists, Workers and Oppressed of All Countries" as well as materials of the RCP/USA and many more materials. The entirety of these materials, however, was simply locked away by a responsible comrade, Dietrich Jobstvogt who received them, and was not passed on to the comrade Klaus Sender. In explanation the person concerned gave the disgusting "personal cult of Bob Avakian" for his excuse which, he stated, characterized these publications,. Of course it was pointed out immediately that only this could not provide a reason to withhold these publications from the organization. In order to understand the far-reaching implications of this occurrence one has to comprehend that our organization here in the beginning of the eighties virtually led an isolated battle to defend revolutionary China led by Mao Zedong, and issued numerous publications about this. Our organization defended the different aspects of Mao Zedong's politics, the revolutionary people's war led by him during its different stages, the socialist construction, the polemics, in particular the great Cultural Revolution and the foreign policy of the People's Republic of China led by Mao Zedong, which follows the Cultural Revolution and is closely connected to it. In this process, by the way, we also argued with the positions of the Turkish organization ATIF. We were busy with these questions particularly in the years 1980/81 to 1983, as reflected by the then editions of the NEUE EINHEIT. In the face of these facts that member getting materials in the hands which on first sight showed to come from an organisation which at least claimed to defend Mao Zedong, had had to pass on these materials immediately. It could not be overlooked that these were important materials. In spite of this the materials were not passed on. Also a single statement of 1980 in German was passed on amidst big piles of other materials, without further notice, so that it was not found. Only in the end of 1984 when we already had learned about the second declaration founding the "Revolutionary Internationalist Movement" we learned about the existence of these materials. A major investigation by our organization was carried through. Two years later, in the end of 1986/1987, the whole was discussed once again at a conference together with a series of occurrences which went into the same direction. After looking into the materials which had been withheld from the leadership of the organization and comrade Klaus Sender, we were able to see which implications were carried by this withholding. A host of parties in 1980 apparently had held a conference and a very general declaration had been passed there in such a way that our organisation could have signed it quite well in the essence. This declaration is lacking in several subjects which already then, at the end of the seventies, were catching one's eyes. The whole international reaction the way it had developed particularly since the overthrow in China, more exactly since 1974 and especially since the end of 1976, was not grasped. 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. Rolf Martens knows the organization. He himself took part in a conference in that December 1986/January 1987, at which the matters were brought up in detail, including the evaluation of the declaration of 1980 as a most incomplete one on the one hand, but, after all, a quite acceptable one, and of the declaration of 1984 as a not acceptable one. Rolf Martens knows these evaluations, took part in the discussion and neither then nor later demanded that we give our opinion about RIM. Neither in his so-called paper of criticism of September 1990, this is mentioned by a single word. Therefore, his utterances in this question are nothing but demagogy and later covering-up of his behaviour in 1990. In 1996/7 he feigns something, basing on the fact that the internal relations of our organization could not be known to the outer observer and reader of his writings. The PCP which anyhow signed the RIM-declaration and belongs to its decisive upholders, for a long time was given prominence by Rolf Martens as an exemplary organisation, even as a decisive one on a global scale. Conversely, our organization is disparaged by him, because we do not publicly condemn this declaration, although he knows that we refuse it. This underlines his infamy recorded by us already in other context. Maybe our organization then did not scrutinize all aspects of the matter; also one may bring forward things possibly missed by us - but anyhow Rolf Martens is the last to fabricate such reproaches against us from that. In general The experiences in the relations between the parties and organizations as well as within our organization, as illustrated just by one example, should make us pensive. We probably have to assume, that reaction employs great energies to split the organizations apart. In all of the organizations there are people fighting who really want revolution, but we also have to assume that by mistakes as well as by conscious sabotage connections are prevented, discussions are prevented, that reaction always considers it as one of its primary tasks to lead the organizations into an infertile, wasting, splitting squabbling by this or that method instead of a propellant debate in which at the same time unity is emphasized. Mao Zedong, for instance, following the law of development, never grew tired of stressing the splitting of the previously unified, and, in politics, the two-line struggle. But he also knew another fundamental sentence without which the revolutionary communist party never could have achieved its victories: "Unite to win still greater victories!" Without a maximum striving for unity and joining together of the forces in order to advance against the true center of reaction there can be no question of a really revolutionary work. The questions of the cooperation of revolutionary organizations and of their ideological debate naturally are important for every organization. In no way we are dealing with this as of secondary importance. But in doing so one has to consider the facts in full extent. This is why we attach importance to these additional obervations about the then circumstances and about the libelings of Rolf Martens. The question why we did not immediately give our opinion on the then declarations will occasionally pose itself again; we hope to have answered it by this contribution. The main approach of our organization We also want to explain here, however, why dealing with the RIM subsequently didn't need to be to the fore for us at any rate. For our organization it has always been essential to have the connection to the situation in our country and to the fundamental changes of the last decades which stand in the closest tying together with it, that is to say to the material development taking place here. We directed our primary attention to keeping pace with it by theoretical realization. Such a connection is a most important source of strength. We had to clarify questions which resulted from practice, from the connection to our concrete reality. This was primary as compared to a debate with international forces which, in our opninion, themselves had gone into unacceptable combinations and had presented us with faites accomplies. Most of the affiliated parties were out of reach. At most, one could have tried to send them a letter via RIM to which the answer would have remained completely uncertain. As it is known the RIM played off the war led by the PCP within its country as a decisive point and practically put it on top of its whole propaganda. It was obvious that our organization would have difficulties to evaluate this struggle as it naturally had only few information about it at its disposal. Only now several questions about it could be clarified. The further course of development has shown that the basic way of our organization to concentrate upon the analysis of the really important questions was correct. For example there are some fundamentals of Klaus Sender's analysis of Mariategui, being based on essential components as presented by him in "Leninism and Civilization" . In conclusion Though one always can say afterwards that something or other could have been done better, it must be stressed that our organization rejects possible reproaches that we did not give our opinion about this or that. On the contrary, our organization instead refers to what it has achieved since then. In the middle of the eighties comrade Klaus Sender could explain within our organization that it is necessary to start a criticism also of the foundations of Leninism and subsequently also of Marxism and to clearly criticize some insufficient positions, and, of course, to prove this in detail, to let the new experiences leave their mark on the discussion which had turned out from the development. For an organization like the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) it is impossible to deal with all questions simultaneously. It was correct that we had to throw ourselves into those primary questions which are of the foremost concern for us, and not to seek a debate in which it was not even clear if we would reach the addresses at all, at the same time paying the price of shelving other vital tasks. Also the discussion we have to undertake today, on which we have to concentrate today, should be about grasping the new international development of today, about taking up the fruitful tasks of forging together the international working class and all progressive forces of the world, about analyzing the situation of today, also about recognizing what in former "classical" understandings has been proved as very relative or wrong, and in doing so to clear the way for mastering the tasks of the 21st century. Editorial staff of NEUE EINHEIT concluded january 29, 1998