by J. Smith
This imperialism avoids provocation. Where possible, they absorb Third World governments into the facade of their system. They operate within the “confines of their means”—and they have more means at their disposal than any ruling class before them.
The Means at Their Disposal
They use illiteracy and hunger to control the people of the Third World; in the metropole, people are made stupid and alienated and are brutalized by television, Springer, and automobile accidents. they saw to the liquidation of the McGovern left. They use torture against the Persian, Turkish, and Palestinian comrades; against the antiimperialist left in West Germany and West Berlin, they use the BAW. In November, following on the heels of the September massacre of Palestinian freedom fighters, they will hold free elections here, having used the spectacle of the Olympic Games to divert attention away from the horror.
This imperialism only reveals its fascist character when it encounters resistance—it has no need for a late capitalist seizure of power. Its historical tendency is towards fascism, towards exploitation and oppression, annihilation, waste, defoliation, the destruction of people, and the plundering of natural resources. It has a greater potential for destruction than any ruling class in history, the potential to leave a wasteland in its wake—wherever there is nothing more to be gained, where everything is devastated, the country and the people—shattered and crippled—Vietnam.
Black September’s Strategy
The bomb attack on the Strüver Corporation in Hamburg was an attack on one of Israel’s military suppliers.
With their action at the Olympic Village, they brought the conflict between the imperialist metropole of Israel and the Palestinians from the periphery of the system into its centre—they tore off the FRG’s “constitutional” mask and revealed the true objective nature of imperialism’s facade: that they are waging war against the liberation movements of the Third World and that their final objective is strategic extermination and fascism.
Through this action, the Arab people were mobilized for anti-imperialist struggle. They celebrated the revolutionaries as heroes, and their will to struggle received an enormous boost.
That it would have been better to take Genscher hostage is something that Black September itself knows full well.1 Functioning as it does at a very high level of Marxist theory combined with revolutionary practice, Black September doesn’t need to be told this. The fact is that it would have been better to exchange the Israeli athletes for people who make up the facade of the Social-Liberal Coalition, as this would have destroyed the complicity between Israeli and West German imperialism and isolated Israel. It would have forced the contradiction between the fascism of the developing imperialist system and Israeli Nazi fascism (see the chapter on National Socialism) into the open. It would have made use of the system’s contradictions to split the imperialist forces!
These observations are not meant as a criticism of the action, but rather as an expression of our appreciation of the action. These observations are an excellent example of how practice leads to theoretical development and how theory leads to developments in practice—of the dialectic of theory and practice.
2. OPPORTUNISM
Opportunism in the Metropole
The Marxist bible thumper—equipped with quotes and not thinking any further—will argue that Marx himself said that smashing machines was “stupid.” Marx:
Machinery, considered alone, shortens the hours of labor, but, when in the service of capital, lengthens them; since in itself it lightens labor, but when employed by capital, heightens the intensity of labor; since in itself it is a victory of man over the forces of Nature, but in the hands of capital, makes man the slave of those forces; since in itself it increases the wealth of the producers, but in the hands of capital, makes them paupers…2
So it is not machinery that should be resisted, but its capitalist application.
On the face of it, it is not clear that everything about imperialist investment policy is intended to eliminate of the Third World liberation movements. “Considered alone” and not as a waste of raw materials and labor power, or as a means of war, one might even speak of military production as being a part of the civilian sector. However, it is meant to reinforce the unequal development between the imperialist centre and the countries of the Third World, which is to say, to reinforce the ongoing rule of the imperialist system.
Sabotage
The rejection of sabotage in the metropole, based on the argument that it would be better to take things over instead of destroying them, is based on the dictum: the people of the Third World should wait for their revolution until the masses in the metropole catch up.
This ignores the problem of the labor aristocracy within imperialism, first addressed by Lenin. Furthermore, this demands that the people of the Third World allow all sectors of the world proletariat—most of whom form part of the backbone of the imperialist system—to ride on their coattails. It is the rallying cry of opportunism.
The Opportunistic Concept of Solidarity
It’s no surprise that the opportunists no longer know what to do with the concept of solidarity—they betray their claim to leadership with an incorrect analysis of imperialism. They must exclude a section of the disempowered from their concept of solidarity. This is the section that rejects their leadership, and instead turns to the people of the Third World. They must exclude anyone who by “serve the people” doesn’t mean sucking up to the people disempowered by imperialism, but rather means by this that one must struggle against the imperialism which is disempowering people.
Negt—The Pig
Negt, who in Frankfurt resurrected Noske’s1 axiom “One must be a bloodhound,” thereby formulated the opportunistic position, with all the jargon, all the contempt for the masses, all the appeals to “the politicians,” and all the pleas for sound, common sense that are fundamental to it. However—like Bernstein2—without the slightest hint of an economic analysis.
Given, however, that the problem of opportunism is not objectively a question of the theoretical level he has expressed, it is necessary to engage him in debate. Objectively, it is the result of unequal development within the system, of the inequality in forms of oppression employed by the system and of the inequality of experiences of exploitation under this system.
That Negt has generally been applauded, in spite of the feeble theoretical level of his work, is an objective indication of the pressure that exists here for people to take an opportunistic position. We are dealing with Negt in the hope that his supporters will see what a crock of shit they’re being fed.
Negt on Solidarity
Negt: “Mechanical solidarity will destroy socialist politics. It is the worst aspect of the legacy of the protest movement.”
People like to “mechanically” paw for their wallets if they come across someone playing harmonica on the Hauptwache,3 and Bertold Beitz4 feels good about writing a cheque for the Bodelschwinghschen Anstalten in Bethel. 5 Solidarity is not a reflex action, as anyone who has ever acted in solidarity knows. Or does Negt, with his concept of “mechanics,” also intend to address in a backhanded way the concept of spontaneity?—“spontaneous solidarity”…?
One cannot surpass Negt when it comes to dragging the concept of solidarity through the mud, while at the same time expressing solidarity for all of those who, lacking the necessary courage and psychological stamina, out of fear for themselves, fail to act in solidarity.
Negt’s Fairy Tale
“Unbidden and often anonymous” they stood at the door—a total lie, nobody ever stood at Negt’s door, at least not without having sent their business card in advance or having used the phone to fill a Verfassungsschutz tape with babble. There they stood completely unshaven, and then they came in and made a mess of the bathroom. Is that what being revolutionary means? Where do we fit in?
Opportunistic Arrogance
Instead of offering an analysis of the connection between wealth here and poverty there—th
at is to say, an analysis of the system as a unitary whole—Negt renders a judgment based on the alleged power structure, in which he proclaims: “…that political morality is indivisible”— oh, you don’t say—“that those who tolerate or condone the genocide in Vietnam lose the right to speak in the name of democracy”—the Federal Constitutional Court read him the riot act for that one—that should clear that up for him.
The Principle of Separation
Negt makes it his primary task to prevent any awareness of the connection between poverty here and poverty there—to prevent solidarity based on an awareness of this connection. Localizing conflicts is an objective that the system pursues in every way it can.
Negt: “The politicized masses that make up the solidarity movement, the university students, the high school students, and the young workers who have broken with family drudgery and the enforced discipline of the work world and the educational institutions”—(not are emancipated, not are in the process of breaking free, not are going forward, not of wanting more, but “have broken with”)—“gradually lose the ability to have their own experiences”—(the gall of a social worker)—“always putting themselves in a position to be in touch with the most radical positions, thereby establishing a fragile and superficial identity”—(where does he get off attacking those he is talking about with socio-psychological, Youth Authority jargon?)—“based on a shameless identification with the experiences of others.”
So, the people at Bild Zeitung should only report on what they themselves feel, and only the Viet Cong should celebrate Viet Cong victories. The validity of bombs against the U.S. Headquarters depends on who lays them—or what?
“The Self-Proclaimed Vanguard”
Negt: “Self-proclaimed vanguards”—(not appointed by the Minister of Culture, not a legitimate market niche—or what?)—“lay claim to social and historical experiences”—(so the anti-imperialist struggle is not in fact occurring)—“that individual high school students, workers, apprentices, and university students can neither reconcile with their own work environments nor use as the basis for political decisions.”
How then are they supposed to develop an identity? Does Negt believe that ideas develop on their own within the mind? Apparently.
Dialectical Materialism
Mao:
Dialectical materialism regards external reality as the condition for change and internal reality as its basis—and in this way external reality conditions internal activity.
Meaning: Negt—as external reality—gained applause for his idiotic blather in Frankfurt, because opportunism has deep roots in the metropole. People want “Freedom for Angela Davis”—but they don’t carry out the struggle as relentlessly as the Viet Cong, or as Black September— never that—so great is their despair about the system, so uncertain are they about their cause, that they abandon the cause and embrace hopelessness. Enter Negt, saying that none of that is necessary; we’re already doing what needs to be done—they are relieved, they applaud.
In opposition to this stands the RAF—as sure of our cause as the people of the Third World, because they accept their leadership role, because they know that the struggle must be carried out relentlessly, and that is how they carry it out.
The RAF—as external reality—has found increasing support among high school students, university students, and apprentices. Negt has seen this, even biased “polls” have noted it; the leaflets, slogans, demonstrations, teach-ins, etc.
How could this occur, other than through “internal reality”? If not their own everyday working and living conditions, what else could make them see that only with this perseverance, the same perseverance with which the people of the Third World conduct their struggle, can they achieve the goal—their freedom?
Negt’s scolding proves the opposite of what he asserts; precisely because their experience of living and working conditions—internal reality—leads high school students, apprentices, and university students to begin to understand the situation of the people of the Third World, they identify with the struggle the RAF has conducted in the metropole on their behalf—as external reality.
Were it otherwise, one would not have heard a peep about the RAF, not from Genscher or Ruhnau,1 and Negt would have had to be satisfied in Frankfurt with taking a cheap shot out of the side of his mouth at the RAF—or being and consciousness have nothing to do with each other and dialectical materialism is a pipe dream.
We know that it will be an extremely slow, difficult and exhausting process to get things underway in even a few places. That they are, however, in motion indicates that the situation is “ripe” to take up the anti-imperialist struggle in the metropole—not “ripe” for revolution, but “ripe” for the anti-imperialist offensive.
Already, at this early stage of “ripeness,” there are comrades who disgrace themselves by losing sight of the realities of their lives and their liberation. Seeing this process at work, we see the system’s continuing appeal in the metropole. That there are comrades who cannot see any purpose to life outside of the liberation struggle attests to how great the appeal of revolution is. Insofar as there is not a single idea, not a thought that does not have its origin in life and in society—positive thoughts, ideas, and people have been thoroughly locked away, cast aside, excluded and treated as insane.
The metropolitan left is beginning to split into a revolutionary, antiimperialist wing and an opportunistic wing. This is not because opportunism has won the struggle on the ground, but because they’ve lost it. They still hope to win this struggle on the ground, even as the left wing gains in strength. Negt’s attacks were a rearguard action. Given that the argument he mounted can only be described as disgraceful, he has helped to unmask opportunism. He has made our work easier.
Negt as Alexander the Great
“The knots” of “mechanical solidarity,” “inferiority complexes,” “fear of isolation,” “overblown perceptions of reality,” and “self-delusion” “must be cut” (he’s right about that)—and can no longer be resolved “through polite engagement.”
Which means: allowing the fascists to liquidate the growing left wing of the socialist movement. Which means: Marxist theory and serious discussions constitute “polite engagement”—one is spared socialist discussion with Negt’s fatherly advice and his seminar pedagogy.
Marx and Freud could only say in response to all this: Pardon me?
A complete nut, a truculent, self-confessed petit bourgeois—this Negt. If one did not know that being determines consciousness, one might begin to think that through these thoroughly corrupted rats “corruption has claimed the day.”
The Objective Role of the Opportunists
Regarding his own profession, Negt—bluntly—stated: “One should beware of attempts to push left professors and teachers out of the high schools and universities” they being the only ones who, “through routine overtime and small organized groups,” keep this catastrophic institution “running.” The students of the Berliner Gegenuniversität 1 fought tooth and nail against exactly this system-stabilizing integration of their work as “overtime”—in this way the opportunistic cat comes out of the seminar Marxist bag.
The Core: Scholarship for the Bourgeoisie
Bourgeois scholarship still remains the practical core: “If a fraction of the money spent fighting crime was used to fight the causes of crime, one could count on a long-term impact; a society that cannot guarantee this minimum has lost its authority”—(leave it to Negt and everything will soon be running smoothly).
The investment strategy of multinational corporations is based on this kind of long-term use of money rather than on military adventures.
And to finally accomplish his true goal, Negt tosses the entirety of Marxism-Leninism overboard: “There is no clear and objective criteria for the distinction between right and left.” Why is this stupid pig still called a “socialist”?
Rosa Luxemburg on Bernstein:
What? Is that all you have to
say? Not the shadow of an original thought! Not a single idea that was not refuted, crushed, reduced into dust by Marxism several decades ago! It was enough for opportunism to speak out to prove it had nothing to say.2
Negt need only come out into the open for all to see that he is in bed with the fascists—his “qualification,” most probably an “unqualified tool.” (R.L.)
Lenin:
The most dangerous people are those who do not want to understand that the struggle against imperialism is empty and meaningless if it is not unreservedly connected to the struggle against opportunism.
Just as the oppressed themselves could smash this entire “catastrophic institution,” the system could well collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. The consciousness that says we’re all in the same boat, ties opportunism and the system together. They prattle on about socialism, but they mean the system. They ask no questions; they miss the answers. Setbacks for revolutionaries fill them with glee; once again they’ve backed the right horse.
The Revolutionary Subject
The problem with opportunism is that by making use of it Negt reveals things about himself, but nothing about the world. Having analyzed the system, the revolutionary subject bases his identity on the knowledge that the people of the Third World are the vanguard, and on an acceptance that Lenin’s concept of the “labor aristocracy” regarding the masses in the metropole cannot be discounted or dismissed. On the contrary: everything starts from that point.
The exploitation of the masses in the metropole has nothing to do with Marx’s concept of wage labourers from whom surplus value is extracted.