… alle Verhältnisse umzuwerfen, in denen der Mensch ein erniedrigtes, ein geknechtetes, ein verlassenes, ein verächtliches Wesen ist … (Marx)

Archive for 16. Dezember 2009


Posted by entdinglichung - 16. Dezember 2009

1.) Solidarität mit der FAU Berlin!

2.) Analyse, Kritik & Aktion erinnert an den 40. Jahrestag der Ermordung von Giuseppe Pinelli durch die Bullen in Milano, immer noch lesenswert dazu Zufälliger Tod eines Anarchisten von Dario Fo, mehr zu Pinellis Biographie auf LibCom

3.) Mehr zur „Unterlassungsklage“ des politischen Wanderpokals Johanna Kaschke gegen den linken britischen Blog Dave’s Part

4.) Reflexion berichtet anlässlich eines Gerichtsverfahrens in Duisburg über die „unpolitische“ Punkband SS-​Ka­liert, die sich vor allem von Antifas, VeganerInnen und dem Koran verfolgt fühlt.

5.) Immer einen Besuch wert: das Archiv von Die Zeit, heute zum Lesen empfohlen: zwei Artikel von Ernst Klee von 1987: Bibelverse wie Schlagstöcke und Ein herzensfrommer Brüderbund zu rechten Evangelikalen in der BRD:

„Der rechte Flügel des deutschen Protestantismus hält die Kritik an südafrikanischen Zuständen für Heuchelei, da die Kritiker viel größeres Unrecht in den kommunistisch unterdrückten Ländern verschwiegen. Außerdem sei der Lebensstandard der Schwarzen in Südafrika der höchste in ganz Afrika. Beweis: „In Südafrika kommen auf 1000 Schwarze ca. 50 Autos, in der UdSSR auf 1000 Weiße ca. 20 Autos.““

6.) Musik:

Posted in Anarchismus, Antifa, Blogosphäre, BRD, Britannien, Fundstücke, Gedenken, Gewerkschaft, Italien, Kirche, Klassenkampf, Musik, Punk, Rassismus, Rechtspopulismus, Religion, Repression | 4 Comments »

RSB: Towards a broad International at any price?

Posted by entdinglichung - 16. Dezember 2009

Ein lesenswerter Diskussionsbeitrag der GenossInnen des RSB zur Frage des Aufbaus einer revolutionären Internationale, gefunden auf der Webseite der GenossInnen Radical Socialist … warum ist die Fassung in deutscher Sprache noch nicht online?

Towards a broad International at any price?

RSB political secretariat, 12 November 2009

Why we reject the „Role and Tasks of the FI“ draft resolution

As we have explained during different International committee meetings, we have at least six major differences with this text:

1. We think there cannot be a single tactics for building a revolutionary organisation. Yet the text in discussion suggests that there can be a universal building line, although situations in countries may be very different and although most of the sections cannot apply the tactic of regroupment with other forces and still less apply the line of building a broad organisation. Thus “broad parties” cannot be the universal goal in building our organisations.

2. We insist on emphasising that in our opinion there is no reason to play down the difference between reformism and revolutionary Marxism. Moreover: with the current, very grave crisis of capitalism the term “anticapitalist” has come into fashion in the vocabulary of very diverse forces. However, this term is losing its concrete relevance and is no longer sufficient as a guideposts. The tasks before us have not become smaller and there is no objective common ground between reformism and revolutionary communism; on the contrary. With the loss of leeway for reformism, almost all reformist parties are becoming further and further integrated into the capitalist system. As a result, on this level our tasks have become more difficult and complicated, if we do not want to merely cling to the skirts of reformism.

3. The draft resolution fosters the illusion that in the near future we will be able to create a new international or at least a new international framework (“dans la perspective d’un nouveau regroupement international / in the perspective of a new international grouping”). To achieve this goal and facilitate this task, the text proposes to build the 4th International based on “our vision of the future”. But nowhere is this described or is what it involves laid out. Yet what are the programmatic bases we want to struggle for? Without this absolutely necessary clarification, any policy tending to force this course of regroupment and broadening can be a slippery slope towards an adventure with unforeseeable consequences. What do we mean by “21st-century socialism”? This calls for an intense debate within the International in order to learn from our sections’ different experiences and theoretical and programmatic contributions.

4. What is a “pluralistic left”? If it is an inherent value, it calls for more concrete characterisation, because in the absolute, a pluralistic organisation can be anything whatsoever. Just note: the fusion of two reformist currents, claiming to be “open” does not make this into a broad party as some of the authors of the draft resolution are imagining.

5. In the near future, there is no question of us being in a position to rebuild the international workers’ movement. We can make some slight contribution, but setting this reconstruction as a task can lead us to lose sight of what is actually possible, thereby “forgetting” the crucial lessons of the history of the workers’ movement (and our own history).

6. Finally, we need a thorough debate on the evolution of reformist parties (in our opinion, some are former reformists), in particular social-democratic parties. Indeed, it is totally unsuitable to apply a general characterization to all of these parties, as the differences are too major according to the stage of concrete evolution of their shift to the right and their integration to the capitalist order. A collective debate on the criteria to be retained would be very useful as overly rough appreciations (or those that are only orthodox at first glance) can lead us to make huge errors, or paralyse us politically (by holding us prisoner to ritualistic formulas). We have to ask the sections concerned to conduct a recent analysis of the state and evolution of social-democratic and ex-Stalinist parties in their countries. Ascribing a supposedly unchanging class nature, or a function in the current course of the class struggle that is also unchanging is in no way Marxist and can lead us to fail to take real changes into account and to pointlessly chase after reality out of ignorance. Just one example: if the adjective “reformist” is so common in analyses where it is used with no further specification, then it becomes evident that any new social-democratic formation that develops to the left of an existing social-democratic party is automatically “left reformist”. The problem with this is that if we proceed thusly, the descriptors (reformist and left reformist) lose any content. In certain cases, this can lead to profound errors in estimating concrete political evolutions.

This said, we also want to submit some of the explanatory comments we had already made to the International Committee to the Congress preparatory discussion and to the delegates:

Despite wishful thinking and repeated calls we must observe that the left is not joining together in “broad parties”. The question “what party to we want to build”, “what should be the nature of a broad party, if the participation of revolutionary Marxists is to be meaningful or “what processes of unification should we participate in” is truly the decisive question. But this very question is often forgotten.

As long as we do not debate these key questions collectively we won’t make progress. We don’t entirely share Tariq Ali’s observation that “the Left and social movements in Europe (Italy is the most recent example) are in an advanced state of decomposition” but we cannot share in the euphoria, in particular about EACL (European Anticapitalist Left) harboured by some comrades. The EACL project is the most obvious expression of a vague perspective and divergent concepts.

In our opinion the International has the best analyses and a programme that has best passed the test of history, but it is really disoriented in terms of building the revolutionary organisation.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding we insist on making the following comments:

No doubt must arise about our unshakeable orientation favouring an offensive common action policy (united front). The heart of this orientation is and must remain our work in the extraparliamentary opposition and the trade union left.

We are ardent partisans of candidacies in elections. There is no activity that has contributed as much to the dissemination/propagation of our ideas as Olivier’s candidacy.

The current debate must concentrate on the question: how can we take part in truly anticapitalist forces, coalitions or fronts? And secondly: what do we want to achieve in these? Because the process of differentiation between forces that merely fight neoliberalism and those that view themselves as anticapitalist or more precisely “revolutionary” is nowadays the most important differentiation in a good number of countries (probably most European countries).

And when matters are to be dealt with in very concrete terms, in many cases even this distinction will not be sufficient, as very diverse forces claim to be anticapitalist.

The mechanical transposition of a specific model to other countries has led many comrades in the International to speak out for an almost unspecified “broad party”, even in regions and cases where we could not really expect the creation of an anticapitalist force.

We have to draw up a frank balance sheet of our work in “broad parties” because in various countries the formation of “broad parties” has met with failure. In Italy PRC has taken a steady rightward course. In Brazil, the “broad party” project, PT, which even seemed anticapitalist at its beginnings has evolved towards a neoliberal project.

Behind the anti-neoliberal party/anticapitalist party debate, we can discern the older debate opposing reformist party and revolutionary party. One of the key points is the attitude towards the bourgeois state apparatus.

Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »

Posted in Internationales, Kommunismus, Marxismus, Revolution, Sozialismus, Trotzkismus | 1 Comment »