MIM Notes 189 July 1 1999

GERMAN GREENS DISSIPATE STRUGGLE

MIM Notes reported in the June 1, 1999 issue on the crucial 
support of the German Green Party for the bombing of Yugoslavia. 
Without the Green Party, the government of Germany would have 
collapsed and NATO may not have had support to bomb Yugoslavia or 
at the very least there would have been a delay. 

The New York Times Magazine of May 30, 1999 has filled in some of 
the biographical details. The German Green leader who is Germany's 
Foreign Minister was a member of a revolutionary organization in 
his youth and turned to the Green Party in a quest for power as a 
"realo." "Realos" argue against principle and for compromises 
within the electoral system.

The bourgeoisie calls them realistic, because they compromise with 
the bourgeoisie which will supposedly rule forever and supposedly 
does not face any power struggle from sources outside the system. 
From the proletariat's point of view, much more gets done in a 
revolution or revolutionary struggle that is independent of the 
bourgeoisie.

In a common pattern among European parliamentarians, Fischer 
belonged to an organization called "Revolutionary Struggle" in his 
youth. In fact, he never finished high school, but he did become 
associated with revolutionary violence. Neither he nor his friends 
will deny that he was associated with actual violence during the 
Vietnam era. 

As if lacking in other training grounds, many of the leaders of 
legislatures and governments in Europe are former Maoists and 
revolutionaries. In 1976, Fischer suffered arrest in connection to 
the firebombing of a police car. Indeed, the possibility existed 
that he would face charges for attempted murder. He won that 
battle.

Apparently Fischer believed anti-Semitism was rampant in the 
revolutionary movement and he left it on its account. The pro-
Palestinian German rebels who hijacked a plane to Entebbe, Uganda 
in 1977 convinced him of anti-Semitism or so this sell-out says. 

Of note, the Green sitting on the parliamentary committee called 
"Bundestag's Defense Committee" responsible for militarism also 
points to the Holocaust to justify German militarism. "Guarding 
the peace and protecting human rights ... are two Green objectives 
that cannot be realized simultaneously at this point," said 
Angelika Beer.

MIM agrees with Beer to the extent that Green objectives cannot be 
achieved simultaneously, but mainly because they are too foggy. 
"Human-rights" and "guarding the peace" are vague ideas. The 
notion of "guarding the peace" is particularly reactionary given 
the constant state of war this planet is in. Real anti-militarists 
do not talk as if peace actually exists in 1999.

It is chauvinism to believe war only occurs when imperialist 
country troops are directly involved. Nor do "human-rights" 
already exist. They are merely vague concepts that can be drawn on 
verbally for power struggle. We see now what happens when a 
party's platform is left to be as vague as the Green Party one. 

The Green Party was simply a half-way house for Fischer and Beer--
an excuse to leave the revolutionary principles of youth. It is 
quite evident there is nothing separating them from being Social 
Democratic Party bureaucrats now. It should serve as a warning to 
what will happen after coming up with some excuse for the 
relaxation of revolutionary principle held as a youth. Fischer 
fixated on one real or perceived flaw in the revolutionary 
movement and turned to the Greens. From there he became an 
outright imperialist. 

The following discussion occurred on alt.politics.greens between 
MIM and the people on the list. We omit the discussion with the 
Green defending the Yugoslavia intervention.

MIM said: MIM Notes 187 June 1 1999 "It is easy being green, but 
it's best to be red: German Greens prove Leninism necessary."

A Green critic of MIM said in response: "No they don't. If 
anything, what has happened is an example of them becoming more 
Leninist/Maoist in terms of the idea of the heroic leader. Nothing 
in the dictatorship ideas of Mao or Lenin will prove any sort of 
solution."

mim3@mim.org for MIM replies: So you consider the German Green 
leader Joschka Fischer a heroic leader? You consider your 444 
votes by the Green delegates for the bombing of Yugoslavia 
(NYTimes Magazine, 30May99, p. 31) to be proof there is no need 
for Lenin? Marxism has been around longer. We have experience. 
Those people should have been purged from the party before they 
ever got a chance to be such hypocrites, before they got a chance 
to lend the legitimacy of the Green Party to the militarist state. 
Now all the work of the German Greens is not only not good, it is 
counter-productive. The reason is that the Greens were 
intentionally foggy on principles including the need for 
centralism. 

A Green responded to the following MIM comment: "The Greens are a 
grab-bag of various environmentalists, pacifists, anarchists and 
ultra-democrats. The average Green is a foggy friend of the 
proletariat."

The Green response to MIM on alt.politics.greens: And the average 
maoist/leninist has no knowledge of or exposure to the proletariat 
as anything more than a romantic ideal. Your parties are a 
collection of children of activists, cut off university academics 
and assorted hangers on.

mim3@mim.org for MIM replies: The Maoist membership in China alone 
would dwarf all your imperialist country Green party membership 
combined.

Better watch your imitators, because the New York Times just 
labelled the German Greens as "50-somethings" many "wedded to 
statism." (NY Times Magazine, 30May99, p. 33.)

Without fail, the reactionaries attack WHO people are instead of 
WHAT they are saying. It's for the simple reason they cannot win 
an argument, so they change the subject.

MIM had already said: "It is further proof that vaguely populist 
strategies do not work when the chips are down or when it counts. 
There is no short-cut to social change; the painstaking work of 
Leninism is necessary--building a party and coming to a scientific 
understanding of imperialism and war.

Green critic of MIM said: And then throwing it all out the window 
and obeying the great leader, whoever that great leader is 
revealed to be. That's how you always work. You build up an 
organization that in the end carries out the will of one man 
blindly.

mim3@mim.org for MIM replies: You have read too many bourgeois 
fiction novels. All your pseudo-rebellion against leaders did not 
prevent J. Fischer from speaking for you. You let him, because 
your ideology allows it. 

Post-script: MIM has strict principles of anti-militarism in the 
imperialist countries. The 444 people who voted for bombing 
Yugoslavia never could have belonged to MIM. Our work will not be 
hijacked in that way. We must also struggle against "revisionism"-
-the revising of original principles, because it is true that 
people will lie and carry out imperialism in the name of socialism 
too. Purges are also necessary against revisionism.

For people who have nothing at stake in politics of a life-or-
death matter (or who do not realize they do because they live in 
the decadent imperialist countries) the notion of kicking people 
out of a party (purging) seems overly harsh. For many, politics is 
just talk, a sort of recreation and nothing is really at stake.

For those who understand the lack of a future possible under 
capitalist militarism or even just for those with common sense, 
there is no desire to put in years of activist work only to have 
that work claimed and taken over by those who will legitimize 
imperialist war. That means there has to be clear principles, 
purging, clear leaders and a means of accountability through a 
clear structure, such as MIM's party congress system. It is not 
more "democratic" to have vagueness and opportunist politicians 
ride the work of others to power and end up selling out original 
principles. For these reasons, Lenin's teachings on party 
structures and organizing are necessary.

Note: New York Times Magazine, "A Peacenik Goes to War," 30 May 
1999, p. 30.