In the past year, 1998, a deep break had occurred by the fact that for many millions of people the illusions about a capitalism which would "bring happiness", as praised by the human rights activists and "reformers", went to pieces. The crisis which, after having begun already in 1997, erupted in large states like Indonesia and Russia in the summer of the past year, contains many indications that it will lead into a more comprehensive world crisis, in spite of the gigantic efforts to meet it by all the tricks of financial technique and regulation. So far there is nothing indicating that the leading forces of capitalism and of the financial oligarchy are able to correct anything.

It became obvious that the fundamental laws of capitalism, as explained by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, which celebrated its 150^th birthday in 1998, are still highly topical. All the laws about capitalism, the concentration of capital and the contradictory attitude of capital with regard to the social reality which it itself produces, are being demonstrated more drastically than they ever were in the capitalism of old Europe from 1850 to appr. 1950. All social scruples are being thrown overboard by the centres of capital, the exploitation is being carried through with all its manifestations known already by Manchester capitalism, as soon as the impression had risen that the international proletariat and the people do not have a real representation of their interests any more. The protective role of the bourgeois democracy for the people, for the workers‘ interests, however, is proving to be almost nil. Capital is certain of its cause in such so-called democratic countries, and it can be certain, because it conservates such parties in power which certainly one can alternately elect, which, though, vie with one another in servility for the international order which represents today‘s world capitalism.

If today one names the criterion for progressivity one first of all has to erect two touchstones:
First: is the force concerned ready to stand up to this new international order with finance capital at its head, and second: does this force also represent the element of modernity, the element of a society which is more progressive than this imperialist and capitalist "super order" of today which it is facing.

Today there are many ways of opposition against this capitalism and imperialism. Some people are dreaming of a capitalism as it was still existing some decades ago, in which certain capitalistic forces but also a considerable part of the labor aristocracy were living in relatively orderly conditions. Or some are dreaming also of an anarchical society in which all ties are allegedly dissolved, and production also is pulled down to a much lower level. Some are talking away about a so-called alternative order, about a deliberate limitation of the control of nature and about man‘s obligation to be content with little, leaving untouched the central forces of today‘s international capitalist rule. In order to make clear one thing: such aims as just mentioned, if they were to come true, would be many times worse than the present ruling order and its probable development. Opposition against capitalism is not the same as opposition against capitalism. There are worlds separating each other.As Lenin correctly said, in continuation of Marxism, imperialism is progressive against all preceding forms of capitalism, and the same is true with regard to the further development of the capitalist imperialist world which so impressingly took place during the last 25 years.

Capitalism of today makes use of every social tendency in order to keep itself in power, in order also to further develop itself in other countries. Among those in particular the different fundamentalist campaigns are to be mentioned, some of which assert they are criticizing capitalism; actually they do not the slightest damage to the rule of today‘s capitalism and imperialism. There was the alleged movement for the conservation of the natural conditions on the globe (ecologism), which today has almost completely been integrated into capitalism. There were fundamentalist campaigns upon a religious base, the new Islamism, for instance, which also roamed about under the key-signature of anticapitalism but not at all did criticize capitalism. At most it threw peoples into misery as in Afghanistan, for instance. Wherever Islamic fundamentalism is ruling it does so also in perfect symbiosis with the international capital. Capitalism is pragmatic. It uses every possible method which it thinks suitable. Yesterday it came in the form of authoritarian regimes -say of a Ronald Reagan type of authoritarianism or of an authoritarianism as represented by the classical Catholic church-, today however it comes in the form of liberalism, the alleged liberty of anything and everything, actually the liberty of purposeful exploitation and the liberty of destruction of any kind of social coherence and substance, the propagation of the drug culture or of complete sexual unrestraint included, the criticism of which it then attempts to push away into the category "church attitude", having itself openly supported the authoritarian church still yesterday. Everything is right for capitalism if it is only useful for suppression, for diversion, for undermining.

Some people will, at this point, answer that also communism threw the people into misery, and they point to Russia or other countries which decades ago had a communist or near communist system of society. To this it has to be objected that the revolution of 1917 and the socialist construction from the twenties to the fifties gave the impulses to the entire development of the 20^th century, gave new basic standards which allow all men happiness. The socialist construction was magnificent, it impelled capitalism itself to make great efforts, and also it made the Marxist insight and the will to further develop mankind the fundamental, the dominating current during most of the time of this century on a world-wide level. We still today are profiting from it. Capitalism has, as already mentioned, thrown overboard all alleged social principles as soon as it thought communism overcome. Finally the great construction in China, the people‘s war from 1927 to 1949 which developed incredible powers of the people and inflicted the first big historic defeat on capitalism‘s biggest power, the USA, is another central event of this century. The ideas for the socialist construction in China were already learning from the experiences of the Soviet Union, and they brought into play the historic power of the oldest and largest nation in the world. Even if in China today, after the radical change 1976-78, a capitalist way is being pursued the protagonists of which make use of several one-sidednesses of the former development, which, though, also uses the political momentum of the revolution for its aims, the transformation of China is perhaps the most outstanding mark of the second half of the 20^th century.

The Soviet Union‘s socialist construction, until it fell into revisionism and freezing, has given an immense treasure of experiences to mankind, by practical example, by positive example, by negative example, because only by practice such a social order can be plumbed. Also the socialist revolution in China and the foundation and continuation of the People‘s Republic could be achieved only because the Soviet Union was so resolutely defended during Stalin‘s epoch.

By the nineties, by the development of completely new productive forces, there was also a new stage of internationalization, although at first, under the key-signature of the alternative movement 20 years ago, one had intended to revert to production on a small scale. The new means of communication also bring about a revolution in information and thus new possibilities for democratisation. There are some ideologists of capital who point to it that the old communist systems as under Stalin or Mao Zedong could not have endured under the conditions that such a new international revolutionary communication exists. And although we hold the historic importance of these two systems in such a high esteem we want to concede that certain elements of clumsiness and isolation, as then existing, really would be incompatible with this modern development. But this is only one side. The other is that also capitalism deeply fears information, and it is still very much the question who is better able to argue in the end, and will have the masses and thus the decisive political forces on his side. In fact, there was not a small part of communists who have a reverse orientation, who are enemies of a modern technology and who not by chance today are to be found on the side of the Alternatives and the conservationists, ore even have become apostles of the anti-growth-ideology. They actually form a dead end. But the ideas of the great socialist leaders do not at all stand in contradiction to this modern technology, as in a debate which reaches as far as possible they ultimately see also a foundation of a deep-going socialist movement. Mao Zedong would not have feared such a development, and he would have initiated a culture of revolutionary developments in China, which where possible would have applied this technology on a large base. It turns out, by the way, that certain tendencies, as existent with the so-called gang of four, which found their expression in a low regard for technology and fundamental research, would have been doomed to failure in history.

For the socialist ideas, therefore, the preconditions are better than before, and in a certain sense one could postulate: socialism is really starting only now. The pionieering deeds of the 20^th century certainly some day will be understood as laborious works of breakthrough. As such they are, of course, already very important and will stay in men‘s memory. Also other fundamental social achievements of mankind developed only in a laborious back and forth, some even in a much more complicated way than in the case of our century.

The situation of today contains dangers as well. The modern social contradictions are developing in countries with a lengthy feudal or asiatic tradition in which there was little democratic culture. Capitalism would not be capitalism if it did not attempt to make use of this for himself and to strengthen mentalities of fatalism and self-denial. Where resistance develops, it will try to again desert the proletarians and to carry the exploitation into new strata and regions, to leave the former working force to itself or to decay, and thus by making use of the human reservoir to perpetuate its rule.

Upon the working class in the developed countries today the tendency only insufficiently to worry about the exploitation of these countries and to accept labor aristocracism, fully is striking back Today new starting-points must be created among the people who bear the consequences of this new development. There is no single process which characterizes the whole of the past three decades more than the transfer of whole branches of production out of developed and capitalistic countries, and the worldwide creation of new relations of production (in the word‘s true sense). The split more than ever refers to whole regions in the world. It is the task of communists of today to point out the connection with this exploitation in the Third World to the people, that is of course to say: to the progressive people, and to win them over for the support of the proletarian struggle in this international meaning and for the regeneration of the socialist parties in the old capitalist countries. The connection between both will be the key task for the international socialist parties of today.

Our organisation in the first place attaches importance to the necessary tasks which arise from the concrete practice, the continuation of the movement, the theoretical comprehension of today‘s reality, etc. This is sufficient and fully occupying for a group like ours. Commemoration days are only of secondary importance for us. We don‘t belong to those communists who celebrate every birthday and every anniversary, but in the substantial tasks are completely lagging behind. Unfortunately, the latter type occurs quite frequently. As the years 1998 and 1999, partly even jointly, have so many anniversaries we now want here to go into some essential aspects, especially as some of them stand in a very concrete connection to today‘s development.

First, we remember the 150. anniversary of the revolution of 1848/49. This revolution was the first all-European revolution, in which in many centres in short intervals usually the burghers as well as the workers rose in order to throw off the aristocratic and finance-oligarchic yoke which had developed since the French revolution. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in this revolution analyzed very clearly the role of the different classes, of the haute-bourgeoisie, the industrial bourgeoisie, the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie. In their famous writings about the revolution in Germany and the class struggles in France they for the first time produced a detailed analysis of the class relations (In their analysis - this must not be forgotten - they presupposed the structure of the European civilization as the basis.) February 1848, which marked the outbreak of the revolution, was at the same time the date of the publication of the Communist Manifesto, which for the first time formulated in a programmatic and popular form the historic role of the proletariat and also the transitoriness of the bourgeoise. Amidst the unfolding of the bourgeois forces a fundamentally different view became vocal, the historicallly conscious working class. This happened through the then most advanced intellectuals who had broken with the bourgeois regime. Since then a world-wide struggle full of changes has developed from this small sparkle in Europe. The communists since then have had to cope with many different social formations at the margins of Europe or beyond this continent, and to produce numerous new analyses.

Our country in particular also remembered the year 1648, as 200 years before those events of 1848, in Muenster and Osnabrueck the Westphalian peace took place. After 30 years of an extremely devastating war an international treaty occurred which politically gagged and, at least to a considerable part, really enslaved our country. This, however, was not only a treaty to end the Thirtie Years‘ War, but basically a keystone of a civil war of 130 years which had occurred since the upheaval of the great peasants‘ war of 1520. Germany had been knocked down as a historic force. More than 350 single states, mostly under the leadership of small potentates, could conclude treaties on their own authority, foreign powers could bustle around within Germany as they thought fit. Through Germany went the split between the confessions which dominated the whole continent. The country was left to the hands of the treacherous Habsburgian power in the South. This had betrayed any role in the national question and even had laid a hand on those who had dared to work for the connection of the country. On the other side a new big power was heralded, Brandenburg-Prussia, which equally longtime denied any all-German role, worked for the split, and only by the Napoleonian wars and above all the industrialization of the thirties and forties of the 19^th century finally made the German unification in a limited fashion its aim. On Germany then weighed heavily its own past. Formerly the leading feudal power in Europe during the time of the high Middle Ages, it had politically fallen back exactly because of its feudalism and now had been put offside. Only in some single German states the development caught up the modern bourgeois development as it took place in the Netherlands and England. Only the revolution of 1848 started to put an end to these conditions from within. It was much to weak, though, to do away with the divisive powers. The bourgeois revolutionaries of 1848 were not able to declare war to the Prussian-Austrian double regime in Germany. And forces like those lead by Marx and Engels also could more or less only propagate this aim. The historic heritage of the special development has weighed heavily upon the further revolutions and our development. And it is still today weighing, albeit under very different international conditions, upon us. The fact should be recalled that Friedrich Engels called the German petty bourgeoisie the fruit of a failed revolution (namely of the 16^th century).

Eighty years ago, however, starting with November 1918, the German proletariat rose after the First World War. The November revolution, an expression by which usually the revolution of November 1918 until appr. January- February 1919 is described, is actually only the first phase of a revolutionary civil war which in several waves was dragging on until 1923 and even, if you want, until 1933. It should be the subject of a different longer study. In any case this is the most important revolution which we have in a developed capitalist country in the form of armed struggle of the proletariat as well as in the form of political-propagandistic struggle within the bourgeois republic. The experiences of this struggle have not yet been sufficiently described until today. Between the years 1918/19, exactly 80 years ago, the KPD was founded. This happened in a great hurry, out of the necessities of the situation. We know today that the KPD did not really manage to criticize social democracism, and in spite of the best intentions and revolutionary dedication did not sufficiently overcome the shortcomings and the treacherous elements sticking to social democracy.

In the most brutal way in those days the workers were suppressed. Thousands lost their lives already in January-February 1919, revolutionary leaders, among them Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, were murdered by ultra-righitist organisations acting on behalf of the Social Democrats and bourgeois parties. As very significant one can take a situation which occurred in a congress of the workers‘ and soldiers‘ deputies in December 1918. The majority social democracy which had supported Germany‘s imperialist war, and a part of which now apparently supported the pacifistic phrases, accused the new revolutionary party of representing a new militarism. What an incredible slander! We do not, however, meet it only then.

The year 1998 had one more famous precursor, the year 1898. It was called the start of the imperialist age at that time, the age of the capitalist powers struggling for the distribution of the colonies and for powerful influence. The sign for that was the Spanish-American war by which the USA finally secured its rule over the whole American continent, but also started to display its dominant role with regard to other continents. In the present time, in which the USA, partly in decisive connection with financial-oligarchic groupings which extend to Great Britain and other states, is the only world power, it is valuable to remind of the start of this development.

Finally there should be a remind of the so-called Movement of 68 which 30 years ago became a starting point of a new revolutionary development. Calling it the so-called Movement of 68 is important because, if you are particular about it, the student‘s movement stretched from already 1966 to appr. 1972.
1968, however, was a year when internationally and within the country a new quality developed in these struggles. The enormous socialisation of production, the concentration of the working class was forming the most succinct feature of that times within the european countries, but since the putting down of the revolutionary movement in 1933 it had not gained recognition any more. In these times it was recalled to the public mind. All at once Marxism obtained again a rapid and popular spread. This is one side of the "red" sixties. But by far it is not the only one.

In addition to that there were quakes putting the so-called western democracy under strain: the barbarity of the Vietnam War, the revelation that "democracy" does not mean a free decision for the communism of a people or within a country.
Further there are to be mentioned the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Marxism-Leninism represented by Mao Zedong which made clear that the Chinese revolutionaries were determined to draw the obvious conclusions from misdevelopments in the past - a people‘s revolution was taking place under the conditions of communism and for its maintenance and improvement.
Though we are knowing that this Cultural Revolution like every revolution produced a series of unintentional eruptions dominated by onesidedness, it represents an attempt of the revolution, setting new standards, to produce new continuers of the revolution in practice, to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. After nearly 50 years of revolution and after various revolutionary campaigns Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China under Mao Zedong showed that they were willing not to leave the revolution on the then achieved, and to declare war to the regeneration of the exploiting classes. With no doubt they also leaned themselves on the dimensions and on the long reaching cultural tradition of this country which were favourable factors, but this thing, though with certain variations, was universally valid, it caused a shaking of the whole world.

Not only revisionism, the way it was represented in the Soviet-Union, was devastatingly hit, also the west was tottered. Didn‘t they before pronounce everywhere that the degeneration was inevitable, that the communist revolution was not sensefull, now they were seen everywhere busy with backing all negative developments, on the other hand with securing for themselves all of the international connections, if possible into all of the socialist states, and in the same time with denying the revolutionary historical awareness which is showing the way forwards.

The west was swept by a cultural crisis, which naturally had to manifest itself in another way. An extreme individualism came up on the basis of historical traditions as well as on the basis of the extra-profits flowing to these countries in large scale. This partly exalting individualism was massively backed, was used especially against the new collectivistic ideologies gaining ground. Of course this development thoroughly had its positive, revolutionary side, because the liberation of sexual love from conventions also is such a revolutionary objective. Refusing a progressive materialistic conception, refusing revolution, finally turning to mysticism and finally to an undermining culture of drugs were the stages of a development gaining ground more and more which predestined the final genuflection of this movement before the established imperialism.

One can see by this how much in that short period different things were lying over each other. Never in that short period of "disorder" a solution for everything could be found.

In Europe laws of an arrangement of the USA and the Soviet-Union appeared, the latter long since being in a capitalist development. With the occupation of the CSSR the arrangement about the hegemonial interests between the USA and the Soviet-Union appeared. That also lead to protest of masses.

The year 68 also is the year of the foundation of the Rote Garde (Red Guard) and other Marxist-Leninist organizations. At the 50^th anniversary of the KPD‘s foundation there was the foundation of the KPD/ML, which wanted to tie to the own revolutionary history as well as to the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Therefore we presently have the 30^th anniversary of this foundation. We also stem from there. (See:"Decision to alter the organization’s name")

Finally one word about the Movement of 68, which in the last weeks and months hardly was remembered by detailed contributions, and this is for a reason. Indeed, the biggest part of the Movement of 68 is integrated in the state long since. Those who separated themselves from it and, especially during the year 1969, tended towards a really revolutionary opposition were suppressed rigorously and isolated in the time following. We ourselves came from the latter source. In the movement of 68 there were very contradictory components. Movements like the so-called alternative movement, anti-industrialism, anarchism and the so-called fundamental opposition against modern society were already existing to some degree within the students‘ movement. With the last months we are facing the proven fact that these components today in the form of the green movement very well can be integrated into the state and into the NATO and into the imperialist system on the whole. Trained revolutionaries don‘t wonder about that, they had predicted it long since, but today it is an obvious historic fact. Finally there is to remind that the "Club of Rome" which propagated the alternative movement from the top, so to speak from right at the top of capitalism, also is a "68er". Thus right from the start the other side had become vocal.

Group Neue Einheit
98/12/31 / 99/01/01

See also our article:  "The 25^th Anniversary of 1^st of May, 1972, in Berlin"