Re: Re: [Marxism] Antideutsche, once again

[Henning Böke <Henning.Boeke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Johannes Schneider wrote:

> Sorry to correct you here. The KB does not longer exist. So as an
> organisation it can only have any relation to "historic" and not to
> contemporary debates.

Yes, I forgot to mention that the organization was broken up after
the 1990 split.  I use this occasion to add that there had already
been a first split in 1980, when the "Z faction" quit the KB
membership in order to support the radical left wing of the newborn
Green party.  Protagonists like Thomas Ebermann and Rainer Trampert
left the Greens after 1990 and continued their political work as
independent radical leftists; they are against the new German Reich
as well as against imperialism.  Another prominent figure is Jürgen
Trittin who became pragmatic, aligned himself to the Green
"Realpolitik" line and finally became minister for environment under
Gerhard Schröder.  Trittin often annoyed the conservatives and
liberals with his unpatriotic behaviour, in particular with his
sneers on the Bundeswehr (when journalists revealed nazi activities
in the army, Trittin said something like "No wonder in that troop").
Some months ago, the right-wing CDU hardliner Jörg Schönbohm
complained about Trittin in a TV talk show because in his official
letterhead Trittin writes: "Member of the Bundestag" instead of
"Member of the German Bundestag" - how unpatriotic!

In general, I would describe the situation in contemporary Germany
like this:  If you are for social justice and against neo-liberalism,
the united neo-liberal front will say that you are a backward
"populist" who in vain is trying to escape the iron laws of
"globalization," and they will not miss any occasion to compare you
to neo-nazis because these are also against globalization.  If you
are for socialism, they will say that you stick to an outdated
totalitarian ideology which has been falsified by history.  In both
cases, they will say that you are absolutely unrealistic and have no
chance to make any real contribution to solve problems.  But if you
reject black-red-gold, if you disturb the debates on "patriotism" and
German "Leitkultur" (guideline culture), they will regard this as a
serious threat.  The reason is simple: Everybody knows that during
the last decades the Federal Republic of Germany functioned as a
democratic State without "patriotic values," which now are required
for a neo-liberal imperialist project.  Around 1970, the German
president Gustav Heinemann (a moderate social democrat) said, "I love
my wife, not my State."  Nobody complained about this sober
statement.  But today, no politician dares to speak like this -
except ex-KB militant Jürgen Trittin who had to bear many insults for
his "unpatriotic" attitude.

> After all you write it yourself that the KB initiated the anti-German current.

I said that the KB minority faction played a major role in the
"anti-German" trend of 1990, which must not be mixed up with the
Bahamas ideology after 1994.  There is not "the anti-German current,"
there have been different currents.  The "Germany never again"
campaign of 1990 was against the rebirth of an imperialist Germany,
the contemporary Bahamas ideology is against islamic immigrants.

Let me add one important historic detail.  In 1990, I witnessed the
discussions preparing the "Nie wieder Deutschland" demonstration in
Frankfurt.  The organizers were KB minority members and some other
radical leftists.  The mainstream leftists (left socialists,
communists, Trotskyists, Maoists and other class struggle commanders
without army) criticized them saying that the slogan "Germany never
again" was "sectarian", "against the masses" and so on.  But
nevertheless, then they all took part in the demonstration.

Finally, the difference lies in what you can call the "class line" -
in an ample sense.  The KB members were political grassroot activists
with a background in trade unions, anti-war movement, struggles
against nuclear energy and initiatives against racism.  I think this
can be called a "proletarian line" because the basic interests and
motives of these people lay in resistance against exploitation,
oppression and discrimination.  You might argue whether their policy
was right or wrong, but anyway they were committed to class struggle.
The Bahamas guys were young academics who obviously never cared for
interests of average working people.  Of course, you can call them
"petty-bourgeois" (but if we use such terms, we should always explain
what we mean).

> Leading anti-Germans are former KB-members.

To clear this question, you should say whom you mean.  As far as I
know (please correct me if I am wrong), Matthias Küntzel is the only
former KB member who still belongs to the Bahamas gang.  In 1994 the
Bahamas magazine was taken over by a group which never had any links
to the KB.  In 1992, I visited some members of the Gruppe K (i.e. the
former KB minority) in Hamburg, who had just begun to publish
Bahamas.  None of them is still supporting this platform.  The
protagonist of the "anti-German" discussion within the KB had been
the Frankfurt group which never supported Bahamas.  Detlef zum Winkel
(KB Frankfurt until 1990) even quit his job leaving the editing staff
of "konkret" in 1991 because he did not want to serve as a fig leaf
for chief editor Hermann Gremliza's bellicist pro-US line.  You
should take note of this: there is a clear distinction between the
"anti-German" trend of the radical left in the early 1990s and the
pro-imperialist ideology of "konkret" and "Bahamas".  I also
mentioned Jürgen Elsässer: He is the only really prominent and
influential ex-member of the former KB minority.  But today he is no
longer anti-German, now he works for the daily "junge Welt", which is
hostile to anti-Germans.  In general, most of the former KB minority
members have retired from politics, i.e. sometimes you meet them at
demonstrations as individuals or perhaps as members of some local
initiatives, but none of them has influence in a political
organization or current.  I know a former KB member in Frankfurt who
always has been committed in Palestine solidarity.  He still is, but
he is not an "anti-zionist."

>  For the Arbeiterbund it is different: They still exist today as a
> tiny organization, mainly here in Munich. As such they are the core
> of the anti-Germans here. While you are correct to point out they
> are rooted in orthodox Leninism and thus ideologically very distant
> from the anti-German mainstream, they are still able to dominate the
> local anti-Germans from an organizational point through their front
> FDJ.

If you report this from the Arbeiterbund centre Munich, of course I
believe you.  I know some Arbeiterbund activists in Frankfurt - their
cabaret performances, focused on attacking the right-wing CDU of
Hesse around Roland Koch, are not bad, but I do not see links to
anti-Germans.  Well, the FDJ - perhaps, I do not know them enough.
Arbeiterbund members mainly work in trade unions.

I suspect the following: Veteran Arbeiterbund members of course know
that their organization needs fresh blood for survival.  They also
know that with their nostalgic Stalinist core ideology,
Thälmann-style rhetorics etc. they will not attract young people
(young Stalinists rather join the German Communist Party DKP, in
which serious tensions between a pragmatic and an orthodox wing have
emerged).  So it is no wonder that the youth organization FDJ chooses
another strategy.  In other words: In the 1970s there were principal
ideological differences between DKP (pro-Soviet, Brezhnevist) and
Arbeiterbund ("anti-revisionist", Stalinist-Maoist).  These
differences have blurred: The orthodox DKP current has adopted some
elements of "anti-revisionism", whereas Arbeiterbund has repudiated
former doctrines on "social imperialism" etc.  So the "anti-German"
component is decisive for the Arbeiterbund's organizational profile.

> The FDJ shares the anti-German dogma of equating anti-zionism and
> anti-semitism. See:
> http://www.fdj.de/pdf/nahost.pdf

The relation between anti-semitism and anti-zionism is a really
complex matter which I do not want to discuss comprehensively at the
moment.  It is a matter of context.  I oppose to people who generally
and automatically equate them.  This is absurd, because there are
enough jews who reject zionism.  For instance, a few weeks ago Rudi
Segall died in Frankfurt, an old Fourth International militant who
lived in a kibbutz in Palestine in the 1930s, but returned to Germany
after 1945 because he did no longer want to support a movement which
oppressed the Arabs.  It would be ridiculous and dangerous to call
such a sincere jewish leftist an "anti-semite," as the Bahamas
crackpots etc. use to do.  But there are some other aspects to be
taken into consideration: there are contexts in which anti-zionism
does serve as a masque of anti-semitism, and this should by no means
be supported or tolerated.  Since 1945, almost every anti-semite
always says, "I am not against jews, but ..."  I have enough
experience with this.  It does make difference whether you criticize
zionism in Israel or in Germany, Russia or elsewhere.  "Anti-zionist"
propaganda, even if it may have "correct" left-wing motives, will
always attract people who understand it in a bit different manner.
Unfortunately, dogmatic Stalinists, Trotskyists etc. are resistant to
this experience.

Now I see that for you the question of anti-zionism is the decisive
element which makes you regard as different groups as KB,
Arbeiterbund and Bahamas as components of one common current because
they all criticize anti-zionism (but they do/did it in different
manners), and this is why you dislike them.  This seems to be the
crucial point of our differences.  As a Marxist, you say that class
orientation is decisive, right?  But now the criterion by which you
sort your friends and enemies seems to be the question of
anti-zionism.  The Arbeiterbund is a proletarian organization, but
suddenly this does not seem to matter.  In my view, the Arbeiterbund
is a funny bunch, their nostalgic ideology cannot be taken seriously,
but they are committed to class struggle and must not be mixed up
with people like the Bahamas staff.

> Seeing anti-semitism everywhere will make you blind for the real
> cases of anti-semitism.

In general I agree, but anti-semitism does not start only with
explicit attacks on jews.  Seeing anti-semitism only where jews are
openly attacked as jews will make you blind for the real soil in
which anti-semitism grows.  The mushroom you see is only a part of
the subterranean rhizom.

> Out of curiosity: because of your passionate defense of KB policies,
> are you a former member?

No.  But I had many discussions with the KB group in Frankfurt in the
1980s.  I learnt much from them. - In general, I am not interested in
justifying the policy of whatever group in the 1970s.  My judgement
on the KB is not intended as a "passionate defense," I only want to
point out in what they were different from others - and a bit more
realistic, even if their "fascization" doctrine proved to be as
mistaken as the revolutionary optimism of others. - Nowadays I often
write for "ak - analyse + kritik", the former KB paper
"Arbeiterkampf".

> But in my eyes any Marxist analysis of an ideological current as to
> start from its relation to the class struggle and its position to
> the working class.

Not wrong, but "working class" is in itself a concept to be explained.

Best regards

Henning

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism