Internet Statement 2016-20
When sometimes we consider the depts of all of the countries - all of them have depts, more or less - one gets the impression that they mortgaged their own people with these debts.
Really, no idea is too perverse than that it could not be produced by current state leaders or other ruling cliques in these countries. Mr. Erdogan, current Minister of Turkey, has to find a solution for his vast refugee problem and to empty his refugee camps, and perhaps incidentally, in addition, still a few European ones, and so he came to the following idea: A so-called refugee town in Syria should be built in which then the whole refugees will be quartered. One wonders whether this man still has all his marbles. And somehow I can not help thinking that something like that is reminiscent of the Nazis, with their concentration camps. But of course, how can it be otherwise: EU bureaucrats and other are all ears and recognize this as a good idea! To be paid, by the way, from EU funds.
One should really consider whether such criminal ideas (suggestions) should not be punished and those people who even are tabling such a proposal, first of all aught to be excluded from the international community. Whatever is going to happen next? First, the whole country is bombed broken, the people being cut off their livelihood, everything is destroyed, so that the people have fled to a large extent, and then they may, in their own country, get built one single city, where they can then live!. Really, such a proposal seems to be unique so far.
But the reaction of the politicians really was not unique, among others those of our country, who are taking it up with enthusiasm: Yes, yes, we do! No. There really needs to happen something completely different, so this type of machinations can be eliminated.
Know-how ... how to outsmart the other one! Mrs. Merkel wants no upper limit, but refugees from Greece, for example, she does not want, too. So what is that? Ist the next „u-turn“ already looming?
There is a saying, and it says: "The mills of God grind slowly, but infinitely fine." The grain of idealism it is of course not the interesting here, but what does it mean materially. Namely therein lies a truth, namely, that the truth comes to light, even if it takes a little longer. At times, first one has to put things back on its feet, to move forward.
The refugees themselves, though, apparently are the last thing interesting for the representatives of certain governments. It was reported that Erdogan had threatened weeks ago, just so, to put refugees in buses towards Europe! What has happened heret is playing with people with an incredible audacity, and in each case the respective power, which has the say, uses the events for playing poker in order to draw the most profit from it.
On the question of integration
For true integration, one must first of all recognize that there are conflicting sides. Or at least different sides. If you really want to integrate, you should know this, and you should know it before. If we don't know it, but we pretend to, and at once we just start the so-called integration, then it cannot be successful anyway. This is also shown by the history of our own country, the history of the last twenty to thirty years, which is all too clear in this respect.
Differential and Integral - whether in mathematics or in society - are effectively two sides of a coin. Forget one of them, and things are going wrong.
Why all the talk by the bourgeoisie in this country about the alleged integration is a lie.
Looking at the history of our own country, for example, the recent history of the last 50, 60 years, then one might wonder: in which way it has developed here? The development of both, the own people and those people that have come from other countries and other cultures? Is there an integration or is there a segregation? While one has to look differentiated at it, because that is not the same everywhere, but in many major cities, take for example Berlin or even the major cities in the Ruhr region or Frankfurt, there one has to ask: how is it with the integration actually there? As for Berlin, one can say that there are just various districts here, not small ones but sometimes very large ones, where it does not look much like integration, but rather like a sometimes quite stark segregation of the population. This is nice, if you said that the conditions in Neukölln for example or in Wedding or in Moabit are those of an integration, if already more than 90 percent of the population are coming from elsewhere, and also the offspring comes from another directory. How can anyone call this integration? Who has since actually integrated into what? Into an original population which is dying off slowly? One finds on the street there, above all, people from different countries and different cultural areas, of different age groups. What is to be found of the own original cultural area and the own people that are 90 percent old people. What a fine integration!
This of course is not the same everywhere in this country. Above all, in the areas of the former West this is the case, in quite an extreme way. In the areas formerly dominated by the East, it is less the case. There, however, the resistance against the current refugee invasion - whether it suits someone or not, I also use this term, because it just is one, thanks to Mrs Merkel - was the strongest, has even mainly developed only there.
Other issue: What should those people actually do, who are deeply dissatisfied with the current policy? They possibly should not join Pegida or AFD, because of their lack of differentiation from rights and neo-Nazis. But whom then? The Left Party is fully on government course, the Greens anyway. So what can be done, whom ever can we vote for in elections? Passivity is not an option. Certain people are seeing this clearly, see the name they have given themselves. And we? While we can make analysis and give good tips, but we are situated on the edge. Although we provide the analysis we do not gain anything therefrom. And those who want to do something against it do not gain anything, too. How to change that?
If you look at our statements from the second half of last year, for example, then you can see: we carry out the wise analyses, but others draw the benefits in their own way, implement them in practice, in their own way. This is very, very unsatisfactory and must be changed.
On the question of nation
You can not just wipe out the entire development of nations and behave as if it would be worth nothing, like some pseudo-revolutionary forces are doing it yet. They only stress the proletariat as the significant historical force, the future of mankind, which it is of course. But it's just not so simple, and above all, it cannot be treated such one-dimensional and also not in such a one-sided way. If one acts like that, then one is a metaphysician and an idealist, and this is known as reactionary.
The different nations, not only in Europe but around the world, have included so much of history, of cultural development, assertiveness and of values that were created, that it is just an act of complete ignorance, simply to wipe them away. Certainly there will exist at some time in future something like a global society. At least that's very likely, but that will not originate in one fell swoop, and in no case it will arise in such a way as simply denying what has been developed hitherto on the field of culture in the different countries, their cultural and scientific and social experiences and insights. That would not work at all. However, if one looks at some of today's elaborations on the concept of the international proletariat, then you have to say: yes, certainly, in a sense, it exists already and there is all the more so the further globalization of capitalism promoting it. But that's just not all. This international proletariat must also find its structure, and it must find its ways to develop further. One can not simply wipe away everything that already exists in this regard in different countries.
The different nations in the world, or even states, whatever you want to call it, on the various continents, they were brought forth within such different historical contexts, and therefore it is completely ignorant, if all of them are just tarred with the same brush. How and in which forms such an international society will be forming itself, this all is not yet foreseeable. This will emerge in the further course of development, during the intensification of the contradictions and the consequent further revolutions or wars. Thereof to assume - as here some are trying - that these waves of refugees from various African countries, from the Middle East, from Asian and Near Eastern countries, that they all are to be seen, so to speak, as a kind of precursor of such a world society, that is absurd. And that is why we must not ignore the contexts from which these people come, the social or religious beliefs or habits they bring with them, and which sometimes differ considerably from the local. That would lead to a complete dissolution of the hitherto existing society in Europe, a conflict, a mutual self-chopping to a kind of chaos, from which only certain international superpowers and potentates seek to benefit which already everywhere draw their honey from the chaos, which they inflict themselves.
There are such forces which are internationally speculating on all of that. They are well known. To surrender to them, by ignoring them, this is so stupid. And that will not bring any success in that. It has nothing in common neither with the revolutionary theory of Marx and Engels nor with that of Lenin or Mao Zedong, nor any other in the sequence. On the contrary, it leads to consequences which the ostensible enemy wants, imperialism wants and necessarily needs for the continuation of its exploitation: segregation, a chopping of existing societies, a kind of de-culturing of the latter, for example of the European nations.
The great revolution in China, land of billon, never went forward by ignoring history. Mao Zedong for example, also others, always have attached value on a critical analysis of the various historical components that have played a role in the formation and development of the Chinese nation, their culture, their customs, their historical background, also for the Chinese revolution. One cannot do it in another way. Should one ignore and discard all that what has been developed in the past, what was created, the findings collected? In the will of whom? For what actually? It is obvious that such a thing represents a concept of nihilistic, reactionary, counter-revolutionary forces, which want destruction. This direction has always been an expression of a weakness in the revolutionary movement and must be overcome. It's right to proclaim: the worker has no fatherland. But in what sense not? For the fact that in the fatherlands, and today also mainly internationally, there is an exploiting class that seeks to divide the workers in these countries and seeks to play them against each other. In this sense it is correct to proclaim this. But not in the sense of cultural, scientific, historical and social achievements which play a role for all the different people in the world, the various proletarians of these societies, all of which are intended and willing to cooperate against the exploiter’s dreadful conditions, national as well as international ones. This one cannot simply deny. On the contrary, we have to fulfill the requirements of these differences, we must use them for exchange and further development, for mutual advantage. And this we will also need because otherwise the cohesion, the union of proletarians, regardless from which society, can never be accomplished. How should it be possible at all to arrive at a kind of leadership of an international movement of workers, a kind of world society, if you are not already acquainted with the individual cultures, or even trample on them? This can never work.
Also in this question, as in all other matters, the method "one divides into two" is indispensable. The wrong has to be discarded, so that the real can arise. And since people are different, have undergone various developments, there will be a very complicated struggle in this respect, a rather complicated interactive arguing until anything like a global society can prevail. Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish oneself. But even more difficult it can be, to unite on the right foundation and in mutual conviction. Sometimes something like this takes a lifetime - or even a short time, as the case may be.
The current international refugee movement - a harbinger of an international global society?
„So comrades, come rally - And the last
fight let us face - The Internationale unites the human race“ This
song is basically correct. But it may take a little longer and include
many, many intermediate stages. And how they will look and by what kinds
of wars they will be accompanied, or if it even will need to start again
from scratch, nobody knows today. The inconsistency in the world, however,
speaks a very eloquent speech in this regard. Both, idealism - detachment
from reality - as well as metaphysics - unilateral extension of a once
achieved state - are instruments of the bourgeoisie, the exploiting class.
But the proletariat should by all means adhere to the revolutionary dialectics,
the doctrine of "one divides into two". Incidentally, it is
also useful to keep this in mind in everyday practice.
(In addition:) Even the Nazis exploited elements of the existing culture of their own country in order to realize their barbarism, and at the same time to destroy this culture. There are even things like that. And certainly it has not been the last time, and it's not for sure that their barbarism and brutality could not be exceeded. For example, if you look at how US imperialism, today's US government dares, in Africa, just so to kill 150 people, like a duck takes the water, of course per drone, solely on the suspicion that there might be planned an attack, then you know what is possible. These 150 people who perhaps in their majority are not responsable in any way will never wake up. They are gone, erased by a power that usurpes the alleged right to do everything. What if this becomes widespread and would become daily life? Nazism was the last of this kind and cannot be surpassed in respect of brutality? Nothing of the sort! The number of victims of US imperialist world power aspirations is already in the millions. Just only take the recent history, the various Middle East wars, the war in Yugoslavia. And if you look at the currently increasing international tightening of this "superpower’s" relations with with others, such as China or Russia, then you know what can come. It wiil be still a hard struggle, and no one knows how many decades or centuries it will take. The pseudo-leftist muddleheads shold not behave as if the current wave of refugees already represents socialism on the march. With low-cost blueprints we will not get the way forward. This requires a little more effort.
When Russian President Putin, for example, expressed
his lack of understanding for Lenin on the question of secession of different
nationalities, it shows that he has just not understood exactly the revolutionary
dialectics. For achieving a close connection, above all, the freedom to
do this or do it not is required.
When Rosa Luxemburg said: "Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters", then we must not forget that the dissenter may also be the enemy of the own freedom. So this is not to be understood as absolute, but it depends on whose freedom should be enforced and whose must be suppressed to this end. You are what you are, and this precisely is also relevant for your ability to fight, how you can fight or how you maybe cannot. So one has to endure, as a penace, some results for the rest of life. For my part I have certainly learned my lesson in this regard. Hartmut Dicke criticized me already in 1977 for being too slow and he meant that reactionaries must connect him with me, in order to delay his activities. This was confirmed in a very macabre way: In fact, I was too slow. Two days earlier he had warned me that reactionaries would try to play us off against each other. This is exactly what happened on the said Sunday evening when another member of our organization obtained a kind of an initializing function for a dispute between me and him, which actually was completely useless, and which otherwise never would have occurred, and led to just the discord which then hindered that I could help him at the crucial point.
Back to national question. I count myself as one of those who have needed a relatively long time to understand this question. For me always the social contradictions were in the focus. But the social contradictions do not develop in a vacuum. They develop in concrete social conditions. They develop in various social formations and these, in turn, present themselves in different social units, which can be described as nations. The Formation of the Nation is a social progress, not a step back. Because it exceeds to a certain extent the barriers of ethnicity and creates an overarching economical-cultural social and historically developed connection. So far, this historical and social progress found its most concentrated expression in the French Revolution of 1789, which was followed by other states in Europe in the subsequent period, especially the nineteenth century, which constituated themselves as nations, as modern nation states. Since then the social contradictions in their differentiation have further developed and long since there have emerged new formations of this social model. The communist revolutions in Russia and in China are an example for that, although here the dialectics of history had its effect and there have been setbacks, but it also has led to new developments and results. That does not mean at all that temporary setbacks are irreversible. That would be a reactionary view of history, as it is intrinsic for the reactionary classes and relationships. The current structure of property, which so far has reached a global dimension, and not only concerning a specific part of the capital, the speculative part, they prove that more upheavals are inevitably on the agenda. The contradiction between superstructure and basis has exacerbated with increasing extent, also globally, and finds its manifestation and characteristics in various forms of expression, also induced by the individual nations. The US capitalists, which have concentrated in their hands the most destructive potential, also represents the most conceited shape thereof, although this contradiction finds its expression also in other larger or smaller nations or groups of nations. The division into three parts, which Mao Zedong made, into first, second and third world, to some extent still describes reality, in that the first world precisely is represented mainly by the global financial capital, which mainly is concentrated in the US, the second world consists of the intermediate countries like Europe, also Russia and other countries. In China it is not quite sure which category is valid today. This is perhaps not yet fully decided. And the third world, the world of African, Asian and South American countries, at least in their majority, which are under development, but partly also under a capitalist one. This differentiation is important to note for the development of an international strategy of progress, also nowadays. Finance capital as the most aloof capital, which mostly represents the exploitation of the whole world and benefits the most from it, still mainly is concentrated in the US, which does not mean on the other side, however, that parasitic phenomena cannot also gain the upper hand in other states -- take Russia, China and others, also European countries, the EU as a whole is concerned and interwoven more or less with this.
Today's world is complicated. For the revolutionary ambitions it is necessary to comprehend this complexity correctly and to factor it into strategy, in order to make the right decisions on the issue of which coalitions can be made and which ones must be avoided or better rejected entirely.
The current African-Arab-Asian migration towards Europe effectively creates a novelty, whereby it is not yet clear how to evaluate and how to associate with it, or, on the other hand, how it also will be subject to criticism. This is complicated and thus the revolution has to face new tasks. Basically, however, the question is still allowed here: Why the forces who want social progress should leave their continent to achieve this elsewhere? Why they cannot try to enforce this on the own one?
Europe, in a way, is a dying continent, which is manifested especially in the development of the population, not only in Germany. So why should forces from elsewhere awaken a continent back to life, which exploited them for centuries and threw them back socially, instead of developing their own? But maybe we should just try both, in mutual support! Or has the current class differentiation become a continental matter?
The question of how to meet these new challenges, however, is one which is actually moving all progressive forces.