|
NEUE EINHEIT - Internet statement 2003-11
How has it historically
come to today's US' monopoly of power? How at all could it come to it that today the US has such a monopolized power? This leads to the question of modern revisionism. It was the modern revisionism of N.S. Khrushchev and his successors which for decades made possible the cooperation between the US and the Soviet Union and simultaneously produced a rivalry between them; both cooperation and rivalry were bound to make the sources of socialism in the world run dry, at any rate to a considerable part. The monopolized position of the US results from nothing else that, firstly, this help from the part of modern revisionism took place, and that finally modern revisionism has driven the Soviet Union itself as a revisionist power into dissolution, so that the US has been left with the complete monopoly. It has influence on a very large portion of the governments of the world, it sits everywhere in the revisionist so-called workers' parties with its agents, its influence, its money and its ideology and prevents the necessary corrections from taking place. This particularly clearly comes to fruition now, when we have in fact mass movements directed against the US war, and suddenly there are some so-called leftists appearing from every corner who warn that now there could be a German-French imperialism, a matter which is in fact theoretically basically correct, but completely wrong in today's situation. For today it is not about whether such an imperialism theoretically is possible in the future, but quite concretely about putting the brakes on an imperialistic hegemonic power which represents a dangerous war threat for the world. Therefore it is good if it is achieved that such a power as represented by Bush is checked by a united front of the most various forces, also of states. Socialists who oppose it automatically hold out their hands to Bush. This modern revisionism is the decisive thing for comprehending how at all it has been possible that the US has reached such a dominant role. If modern revisionism led by the Soviet Union hadn't developed historically in this way, then the competition between the capitalist states would be much stronger today; under the conditions given, however, it just takes more time till adequate rival powers can form at all which break this single monopoly of power. For the labor movement it is the worst situation of all, if one single power exists which terrorizes and checks all the others. The practical furthering of such a monopolization of power corresponds to Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism which holds that it is the logical product of imperialism that at the end one such single power exists. We don't share this view at all. The law of rivalry must inevitably win through also between the different imperialists. But in the present situation we just have the dominance and the hegemony of the US imperialists. Opposed to this, we of course also further it if forces like the Chinese revisionists offer resistance against the US-imperialistic hegemony at the present time, although we criticize them in the strongest terms what concerns their domestic policy, although we further the class struggle within China against them and know that the fall of revisionism is unavoidable. We welcome it that France and Germany, for example, bar the war, at all events partially bar it as far they can afford that at all. That such representatives like Angela Merkel (chairwoman of the German Christian Democratic Union) literally offer the US their services, is rightly met with disgust by the predominant majority of the population here. And then so-called leftists come and say, this united front is bad because it promotes the potential German-French imperialism. This is a complete distortion of what is necessary here. This is like certain Trotskyites in France who in the situation of the confrontation with Nazi-Germany proclaimed "the main enemy stands in our own country", therefore we now have to fight the military, that is to fight the resistance against the Nazi-facist army. This is the Trotskyite-fascist variant of the wrong doctrine that this is always the task. In reality, it is not always the same situation as 1914. In the propaganda of certain "leftists" today also the absurdity can be found, that Lenin's criticism of imperialism, that is of financial capital, is "antisemitic", and there are overtones like that Marxism, too, finally leads to antisemitic propaganda. This is already an indication of a direction in the political attempts of the imperialists we have to reckon with. For in the last consequence, Bush and his cohorts push into a direction which depict every form of socialism and all the more the irreconcilable class struggle basically as potentially terroristic and dangerous for the US' development. This logically implies the attack on Marxism, and here one can see what it means if certain groups now behave like that. In several theorems of his, for example against "militant visions of class, nation, and race" Bush takes phrases we have longtime known from independents ("Autonome"). We have to realize that the extreme point of this evil opportunistic swamp as always points into the direction of what imperialism intends soon. -Klaus Sender-
translation from the German original by wgr. |