Kosovo: German Greens prove why Leninism necessary by MC5 In World War I, it was the "Social-Democrats" of various European countries who went back on their windbag speeches and resolutions and supported the war. Today, the role of key warmonger may fall on the German "Green Party." The Greens are a grab-bag of various environmentalists, pacifists, anarchists and ultrademocrats. The average Green is a foggy friend of the proletariat. However, the Green Party leadership is in favor of the NATO bombing of Serbia. In the May 15th MIM Notes, we reported some internal strife in the Green Party over the issue, but thus far, the majority appears to support the leadership. Just as in the main right-wing bourgeois party the Christian Democrats, 68 percent of Greens support the bombing. Apparently two out of three NATO citizens support the bombing and the average Green is no different. Over two-thirds of all Germans do not believe bombing will work, but it does not matter what party one is in on that question. Likewise, the members of all parties oppose sending ground troops. Of note on the question, the Social Democratic Party has above average support for sending ground troops; although the article does not explain if the difference is "statistically significant." The Social Democrats currently rule in Germany in an alliance with the Greens. Hence, the Green Party leaders can only oppose the NATO bombing by quitting the government and pushing along new elections or a different marriage partner for the ruling Social Democrats. To the credit of the PDS (ex-phony communists), only 27 percent support the bombing. Given that party's history of supporting the Soviet Union, we cannot be too sure there is much principled in that political opposition either. In former East Germany, the majority opposes the bombing. Thus the ex-communists may make some headway in bourgeois elections there. The Greens can be a falling domino against bourgeois stability if they come out against the war. If the rank-and-file managed to change course in the May 13th meeting or its aftermath, the leaders would have to withdraw from the government. Next, the Social Democratic Party may feel some pressure from public opinion, not to posture too much against the Greens by warmongering. From MIM's point of view, the German situation is again one where war clarifies political reality. Trailing off into "deep ecology" religion, witchcraft and other unscientific and petty-bourgeois philosophies, the Greens just do not have an intellectual basis for opposing the war. 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. Source: The Economist 24April99, pp. 50-1. Pan-slavic unity shows in imperialist polls by MC5 The ancient idea of pan-Slavic unity appears to be holding true. Opposition to the bombing of Serbia is nearly universal in Russia (94%) and the Ukraine. It is also running three to one in Slovakia. Most telling of all, although the Czech Republic joined NATO, opponents of the bombing there outnumber supporters by 20%. Hungary also joined NATO, but its population is almost evenly divided. Italy is evenly divided (which has nothing to do with pan-Slavism but does demonstrate some difficulty for NATO). Of note, the people of Croatia are heavily in favor of the NATO bombing, almost as much as the Russians are opposed. What intrigues the phony communists of the ex-Soviet lands about all this is the possibility of using pan-Slavic unity to restore the Soviet Union. One of the main reasons this approach has such credibility is the failure of the people of the Western imperialist countries to oppose their own ruling classes. If there were a strong and genuine communist element in each country of Europe, specifically ethnic strategies of rebuffing NATO would receive less attention, even by bourgeois politicians. Thus, the weakness of the proletarian internationalist movement means bourgeois nationalist responses arise to bourgeois nationalism. Opportunist politicians always arise to reflect the political brokering that is possible in any concrete situation. Right now a truly internationalist proletarian revolution does not seem to be in the making in any of the countries concerned, so the bourgeois nationalist politicians move in to fill the gaps. However, despite the weak position of the proletarian camp, the politicization caused by Kosovo is still of benefit to us. We must hold our internationalist stance as the only possible solution. Bourgeois nationalism will expose its weaknesses yet again and turn the people toward communism, hopefully in time to avert a nuclear showdown. Source: The Economist 24April99, pp. 50. World War: Not just MIM thinks so by MC5 Majorities of the United $tates, Russia, Slovakia, the Ukraine and Poland now believe that world war is likely in the next ten years. The percentage of those believing "very likely" is highest in the United $tates and exceeds 20%. Overall, Russian and U.$. opinion are quantitatively similar. Imperialist countries with at least 30% of its citizens believing world war "very likely" or "quite likely" in the next 10 years include Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Canada. MIM believes World War III has been going on for some time. The imperialist countries have waged war against oppressed nation peoples even after World War II ended. Nonetheless, in this context, the meaning is that people expect another war amongst "Great Powers." Of course, such a war could easily mean the end of the species. Mostly, we must take all the talk of world war as a bad sign. The silver lining is that where war is thinkable, revolution must also be possible. They may not admit it yet, but if the peoples of the imperialist countries are thinking war is likely, they must also admit that revolution is possible. When it comes to world war of this intra-European variety, two strikes should have been out. The people should not tolerate this third one the imperialists are bringing. The peoples of the imperialist countries are guilty of being too generous to the ruling class in letting it risk everyone's lives. The people must now buckle down and pay the whole price for a real solution to the problems of war--communism. We need predictable stability and harmony, not predictable world wars three times every hundred years. Source: The Economist 24April99, pp. 50.