[PEN-L:1964] Low-level of discussion on Marxism list?

[Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 14 Dec 1995 glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> The idea suggested the other day that the Marxism list is the forum
> through which international activists are discussing a potential  new
> "International" is ... laughable. The Marxism list, as presently
> constituted, is a mirror of all the sectarian politics that have
> discredited Marxists in the past.
>

Louis:

There a discussion taking place about the German PDS right now among the
Germans on the list. I have frequent private e-mail discussions with
these folks, as I do with list members from Australia and England. Eric
Canepa, who has written about the German PDS for Socialist Register, and who
works with the Brecht Forum in NY and who has been in contact with the
German comrades (that is how we address each other), will be joining the
Marxism list soon in order to facilitate these discussions.

I will let PEN-L make their own judgement as to the level of discussion:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:33:38 +0100
From: Thomas Atzert <atzert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply to: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: New approaches to politics (was Re: Position of COC...)

"Die Widersprueche sind die Hoffnungen", as Bertolt Brecht
said.

Therefore I have read with interest Louis Proyect's report on
"new approaches to politics in a broader, nonsectarian
framework". But at least one point astonished me. The point is
the description given on the transformation of the former SED
(United Socialist Party of Germany) to the PDS (Party of
Democratic Socialism). As it may be of some importance for the
quoted "new approaches to politics ..." (and *not* 'cos I live
in that country accidentally) I would like to add some
thoughts.

On Sat, 9 Dec 1995 Louis wrote (Re: Position of COC on Dems?):

>In at least one case however, a former CP has gone through an
>interesting evolution. That party is the Party for Democratic
>Socialism of Germany, which emerged out of the former East
>German CP.

Interesting enough the former East German Party wasn't a CP,
but an Unity Party. Out of a very strong antifascist impetus
after liberation from the Nazi regime it seemed for a moment as
if the party could try to incorporate best of working class
traditions, socdem as well as communist. To bring some light
into the story of the failure or better the impossibility of
that attempt would mean to speak of the history, especially of
the workers' movement, its politics and its theories at length:
to speak of the defeat of the revolution in Germany in 1918-23,
to speak even of the foundation of the German Reich on the
crushing of the Paris Commune, to speak of the dominance of
nationalist politics and the contradictions of antifascism, to
speak of the victory of fascism and the persecution of
communists in the Soviet Union, etc.

As far as I can see, the PDS tries to discuss at least some of
those questions, but at the same time tries to go back to an
imaginary innocent starting-point of its ancestor, SED.

Louis continues:

>As antibureaucratic struggles deepened throughout eastern
>Europe in 1989, many of the grass-roots components had a
>liberal and anticommunist complexion. This was especially
>true in Czechoslovakia where Vaslac Havel became
>president.
>
>In East Germany, however, many of the people in the
>streets considered themselves to be socialist and simply
>wanted a socialist economy combined with democratic
>liberties. The PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism)
>attracted many of these activists to its ranks after its
>forerunner, the East German CP, relinquished power.

In fact the SED and its politics brought more arguments for the
anticommunism of the masses than any other political force in
post-war Germany.

There were not mere antibureaucratic struggles in 1989 - but
maybe I did unterstand Louis wrong. The struggles had a
tradition throughout the late 70s and the 80s, cf. esp. Poland
and the history of Solidarnosc, KOR, etc. The tragedy (if you
think of socialism or social liberation) was, that the
repressive state apparatus focussed on the communist/socialist
elements of the opposition and left intact the structures of
the church mainly. Many of the further protagonists had a
strong anticommunist orientation. In the German Democratic
Republic the rise of the mass movement in 1989 went along with
the strengthening of nationalist ideology. One phenomenon that
might proof this is the changing of rally paroles: from "Wir
sind das Volk" (we are the people) to "Wir sind ein Volk" (we
are one people) and "Deutschland einig Vaterland". Leftist
"grassroot" groups like Vereinigte Linke (united left) failed
with their call for constituting Raete (counsels). The SED
itself, inmidst a process of transformation, clung to the
nation-state GDR and the state power, mobilizing last not least
also mere nationalist ideologies ("Fuer unser Land" - for our
country). One main problem of the left and communists was the
lack of any organisational and political structure beyond the
still existing but at the same time disfunctional state
apparatus.

There *never* existed a strong affinity between leftist
"grassroot" groups of some importance and the SED/PDS.
Therefore I have no idea what Louis alludes to with the
following:

>These grassroots groups called themselves "initiative
>groups". They often usurped local party organizations. The
>initiative groups included gays and lesbians, feminists,
>ecology activists and others. One initiative group, the
>"Young Comrades", played an increasingly important role
>with non-party youth. They have a vibrant oriented
>approach that has captured the imagination of many
>unaffiliated progressive youth.

The Junge Genossen (young comrades) are a current inside the
party (PDS). They may have colored hair but IMHO they are
nevertheless quite boring.

Louis' overall appraisal of the PDS ends:

>The PDS shares with the Brazilian Workers Party a
>tendency not to put forward a fully elaborated program of
>socialism that is etched in granite. It believes that such a
>program can only evolve through on-going interaction with
>the mass movement.
>
>This has led some critics to question the leftist credentials of
>the PDS. Two prominent PDS activists from the Trotskyist
>tradition, federal-directorate member Jakob Moneta and
>Berlin city deputy Harald Wolf, argue that the party's actual
>anti-capitalist politics are much more important than the
>shifting programmatic statements. Once again we find ex-
>Trotskyists playing a helpful role in a broader, nonsectarian
>framework.
>
>In a valuable article on the PDS, NY Brecht Forum activist
>Eric Canepa sums up the party's self-conception:
>
>"The programme sees a modern socialist party as a
>necessary component of a larger group of self-initiated
>grassroots movements. 'The PDS regards itself as an
>alliance of differing left forces. Its commitment to
>democratic socialism is not tied to any defined philosophical
>outlook, ideology or religion.' It welcomes both people who
>totally reject capitalist society and those who 'combine their
>opposition with the desire to change these relationships
>positively and overcome them step by step...The PDS
>believes that extraparliamentary struggle is decisive for
>social changes...Like other parliamentary activities, local
>government activities can only be agents of social change if
>they are propelled by diverse extra-parliamentary actions.'
>The PDS wants to see 'the emergence of broad left
>movements...Critically aware of the legacy of Marx and
>Engels,' the party also wants to develop a highly pluralistic
>inner-party culture."
>
>The German PDS is an important new socialist formation
>which rejects the sectarianism of the past. Its growth can
>only enhance the possibility of other socialist formations
>triumphing in the former Soviet bloc. As the realities of
>global capitalism continue to sink in on the "newly-
>liberated" peoples of the region, many will seek alternatives
>like the PDS.
>
>Recently, two non-sectarian groups have emerged in the
>United States. One, Solidarity, emerges out of a Trotskyist
>milieu. The other, Committees of Correspondence, is a
>reflection of the same type of forces that have produced the
>PDS: the crisis of Stalinism. Many members of the groups
>have dual membership in both as well as membership in
>other broader formations like the Green or New Parties.

Above all: I'm no fan of etched-in-granite-programs. But I
think the actual politics of the PDS are far away from being
anti-capitalist. Jakob Moneta and Harald Wolf know that at
heart, as well as many others who are in or near that party.
All these people (unionists, socialists, antifascists as they
are) are beyond any doubt. But if you sketch the role of the
party in terms of the political system, the PDS is integrated
and is playing the left wing of Social Democracy, while the SPD
representates no more that "leftism" (equal chances, more
democracy, welfare, nationalisation of industries, etc.) and
plays the right wing. Left wing includes to be referred to as
vaterlandslose Gesellen (an address given to the SPD by the
German Emperor Wilhelm before 1914) from time to time, but not
more.

But things are even worse. As the PDS started, it tried a
strategy of open lists and alliances of the left ("Linke
Liste"). That strategy aimed mainly to West Germany where it
gave a tradition of such alliances between civil rights groups,
environmentalists, no-nuke-militants, women's lib, and other
non-party-activists. In East Germany (after the unification of
1990) they tried a sort of identity-politics based of being
"eastern", ex-GDR, etc., that had *nothing* to do with
socialist orientations but all with prejudices. They even found
words of understanding for the (german) citizens of Hoyerswerda
who terrorized the housings of some african and asian workers
in 1992. It is that commitment to mere populism that makes that
party so unbearable from time to time. The crisis of Stalinism
shouldn't lead to politics that substitute the "Staat des
ganzen Volkes" (cf. the Constitution of the Soviet Union of
1936) only with "Partei des ganzen Volkes".


--
Thomas




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 08:42:27 +0100
From: Hinrich Kuhls <kls@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply to: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: New approaches to politics (was Re: Position of COC...)

On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Thomas Atzert wrote:

>Above all: I'm no fan of etched-in-granite-programs. But I
>think the actual politics of the PDS are far away from being
>anti-capitalist. Jakob Moneta and Harald Wolf know that at
>heart, as well as many others who are in or near that party.
>All these people (unionists, socialists, antifascists as they
>are) are beyond any doubt. But if you sketch the role of the
>party in terms of the political system, the PDS is integrated
>and is playing the left wing of Social Democracy, while the SPD
>representates no more that "leftism" (equal chances, more
>democracy, welfare, nationalisation of industries, etc.) and
>plays the right wing.

I think this description of the overall political position of the PDS is
wrong and lacks some analysis. As the next Party Congress will come up at
the end of January,  this could give us some opportunities to report and
discuss the political situation in Germany and the politics of the German
left - without the hectic rush which usually accompanies this list.

For now only some brief remarks:

1. The PDS clearly is a non-sectarian party - as far as the eastern part of
the country is concerned.

2. As in any party, there are of course different tendencies within the PDS.
In preparation of the discussion at the Congress three different
programmatic papers have been published. Commenting on these papers Thomas
is invited to show us that he is right when describing the PDS as a
non-anti-capitalist Party. My thesis: the authors of all three papers are in
favour of a radical reformist perspective which leads beyond capitalistic
market relations.

3. Given the developments since the fall of the Berlin wall and even the
more recent developments in German politics it is ridiculous to state the
PDS is integrated in the political system and only playing the left wing of
Social Democracy.

4. Defending the institutions of the welfare state against the
neoconservative forces is a political task which by no means states an
"integration" in the political system. Or are the French strikers integrated
in the political system?

5. Only the members of the PDS unanimously voted against the NATO deployment
and the participation of German soldiers in Bosnia, as Wolfgang recently
reported to this list.

Thomas - as both you and Jakob Moneta (who is one of the leading persons
within the PDS) are living in Frankfurt it would be interesting if you could
get in touch with him, show him your mail and let us know his opinion on
your post.

Hinrich Kuhls




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:52:09 +0100
From: Thomas Atzert <atzert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply to: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: New approaches to politics (was Re: Position of COC...)

Self-Criticism: I sketched the role of the Party of Democratic Socialism
(PDS) in the German political system in a single sentence stating that the
PDS is playing the role of the left wing of Social Democracy. That has been
opportunism.

On Tue, 12 Dec 95 Hinrich Kuhls wrote:

>I think this description of the overall political position of the PDS is
>wrong and lacks some analysis.

Of course. It's not an analysis, it's snotty descriptive sociology. It's the
usual way of thinking the political party-system in a given nation-state.
"Some analysis" on that field would force us to speak of mode of production,
social formation, relations of forces, CLASS STRUGGLE, composition of
working class, composition of power block, state, state power, state
apparatus, ideology etc. We could then debate on the return of bourgeois
ideology (dominant ideology, if you like) inside working class and its
political organisations, the return "der aller Welt bekannten demokratischen
Litanei" (Marx, Kritik des Gothaer Programms, 1875)

Hinrich continues:

>                             As the next Party Congress will come up at
>the end of January,  this could give us some opportunities to report and
>discuss the political situation in Germany and the politics of the German
>left - without the hectic rush which usually accompanies this list.

A party document gives opportunity to discuss that party document (and maybe
its relations with the real movement). The critique of the dominant
conditions should be ubiquitous. I'm not willing to wait for your party
directive. (Self-Criticism: That is left radicalism. End of S-C)

Hinrich:

>For now only some brief remarks:
>
>1. The PDS clearly is a non-sectarian party - as far as the eastern part of
>the country is concerned.

d'accord. It is non-sectarian. I criticized its populism, its sometimes
nationalism, its unbearable kotow to some open racist articulations.

>2. As in any party, there are of course different tendencies within the PDS.
>In preparation of the discussion at the Congress three different
>programmatic papers have been published. Commenting on these papers Thomas
>is invited to show us that he is right when describing the PDS as a
>non-anti-capitalist Party. My thesis: the authors of all three papers are in
>favour of a radical reformist perspective which leads beyond capitalistic
>market relations.

My thesis: A radical reformist perspective left alone in a Party Program
leads to reformist politics. The latter will stay "innerhalb der Grenzen des
polizeilich Erlaubten", it's effect is self-passivation, illusions etc. BTW:
"Thomas is invited to show us" sounds a bit like testing a candidate. I've
got a kind of allergy against that tone.

>3. Given the developments since the fall of the Berlin wall and even the
>more recent developments in German politics it is ridiculous to state the
>PDS is integrated in the political system and only playing the left wing of
>Social Democracy.

Sorry, I didn't want to make jokes. I spoke of the political system in that
snotty descriptive sense mentioned above. But to be precise it's not a
matter of good will or bad subjects, whether a party will be integrated.
It's a matter of relations of forces, and as far as I can tell there will
never be possibilities of "left" parliamentary politics without strong
extraparliamentary fights. The dominant notion in actual political debate is
"NATION". The PDS not only does submit itself to that dominant ideological
theme, the Party uses nationalist arguments (cf. the "Komitees fuer
Gerechtigkeit"). Again: that's not a matter of good/bad will. The left wing
of Social Democracy, btw, to me doesn't have any pejorative meaning, it's
descriptive, too.

>4. Defending the institutions of the welfare state against the
>neoconservative forces is a political task which by no means states an
>"integration" in the political system. Or are the French strikers integrated
>in the political system?

Defending the institutions of the bourgeois state may be called bourgeois
politics, doesn't it? No Means No? "Welfare state" is better than
"Manchester Capitalism" - so what? Welfare state in Germany means misery and
starvation in most parts of the world. Imperialism as usual. As long as
these relations (and others of course) aren't made clear in the political
fights (not only in parliamentary speeches), as long as the limitations of
"defending struggles" aren't made clear, much may change for better or
worse, not insignificant in detail - but the show will go on.

--
Thomas Atzert



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---