 |
| Gen Z protest in Berlin |
G. Link
It has been almost one year since my membership in the
ICFI was unilaterally “terminated” by the leadership of the German section of
this organization, doubtless acting with the approval or on behalf of the
international leadership. I have long wondered what to write on the
significance of this incident that has not been noted publicly before by
others, especially the authors of this website, permanent-revolution.org.
My case is another indication of the political crisis of
the ICFI, which arises out of the contradiction between its professed political
aims on the one hand and its political theory and practice on the other. The
struggle to resolve this crisis, which manifests in different forms and to
varying degrees in countless other organizations, is of chief importance to
those in the Marxist tradition seeking for a viable way forward – beyond our
present reality of perpetual war, senseless suffering and the insensate
enrichment of a tiny degraded few.
I still uphold the principles that made me seek
admission to the ICFI around 2016: Opposition to militarism, war and class
society; support for socialism, democracy and the self-emancipation of the
world’s working classes; as well as a deep commitment to historical truth,
scientific enquiry, political-philosophical debate, critique and
self-reflection.
Rosa Luxemburg is credited to have said: “Those who
don’t move do not notice their chains.” This is true for class society as a
whole, but it is also true for political life in organizations like the
present-day ICFI which, while ostensibly aiming to transcend class society,
reproduces “new” (not actually new) forms of political inequality and
exploitation within itself, thus perpetually betraying its aim.
For years, I attributed every problem I had within the
party and every criticism I had of articles published on the site to my incomplete
knowledge of Marxism or a lack of understanding on my part. I was explicitly
encouraged to see it this way. I was taught to dismiss charges of
“sectarianism” or “cultism” as politically motivated allegations coming from
individuals who reject the scientific striving for truth and any notion of
revolutionary centralism. It took real intellectual effort and internal
political struggle, brought together with my lived experience campaigning, for
me to come to grips with these conceptions.
During my time as a member of the ICFI, I engaged in
political discussions with tens of thousands of people, wrote hundreds of
articles for the World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org), ran as an election
candidate on every political level from university to European Parliament and
was in the end responsible for leading the youth organization in Germany. I was
quickly promoted to high-ranking boards and committees – e.g. the German editorial
and international meetings –, often somewhat quicker than seemed adequate to me
and without having to contest any kind of internal election.
One would think that a record of this kind would go
hand in hand with the right to have some meaningful say on questions relating
to the political line and orientation of the party. But as my experience has demonstrated
to me, this is not really the case. The political line is not determined in a
materialist way out of democratic internal discussion, but in a
pragmatic-idealist way. It is conceived of somewhere at the very top and then imposed
on the membership through the mechanism of “assimilating the line of the WSWS”.
Thus, an antagonism emerges between those who determine the line and those who
are supposed to promote or peddle it among the working class.
The leadership of the ICFI routinely condemns critics
or other political tendencies as “complacent”. But on an intellectual level, it
is hard to imagine a more complacent leadership than one which – while speaking
of an ever-deepening or escalating crisis and registering rather mixed success –
continues to declare its record to be uniquely “correct” and “vindicated”. In
this logic, to the degree that one’s political progress is deemed
unsatisfactory, the blame is placed either with the class enemy (duh!), the “objective
conditions” (but they are “revolutionary”?), destructive outside critics – or
their own membership, which should simply “act upon the objective situation”
(i.e. work harder).
Ultimately, a confluence of different factors brought
me into conflict with the leadership: 1) The unwillingness on the ICFI’s part
to shed light on the class antagonism within the Palestinian movement[i],
thus playing a role in weakening it; 2) the unprincipled expulsion of Samuel Tissot[ii]; 3) my reading
of the original critiques of Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner and realizing
that their political essence had been misrepresented; 4) resistance on the
leadership’s part to consider whether a security lapse had contributed to Bogdan
Syrotiuk’s arrest; 5) and chiefly, a practice that consistently rejected any
political self-criticism, hindered the clarification of unsolved theoretical
issues and instead placed constantly growing material demands on our political
work.
It was a situation akin to burnout that in the summer of 2024 triggered the written exchange of political differences (my initial 8-page memorandum [published below] was followed three months later by a 23-page letter [to be published later in this series] that, while seemingly “restating orthodoxy”, rejected my concerns entirely). In late 2024, following an initiative of the leadership, my employment by the party was terminated, without the differences being resolved. I was subsequently “relieved of all party duties” and barred from participation in all meetings with the understanding that I should “work the differences through”.
But the more I read and pondered, the more issues
arose. Aside from the polemics between Steiner, Brenner, North, Long and
Talbot, I reviewed writings by former ICFI members such as “Gatekeeping in the Service of Opportunism”, “My Search
for Revolution” by Clare Cowen and “The Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy” by Bob
Pitt. I also felt that it was inadequate to reject Aidan Beatty’s book “The
Party is Always Right” out of hand based on its first pages, without engaging
in a critical examination of the main body of that book which, while shaped by its
author’s opposition to Trotskyism, was not reducible to it.
In February 2025 I was told that I could not remain a member if I held the opinion that the criticisms written by Steiner and Brenner were “partially valid”. In the course of 2025, it became increasingly clear from our exchanges that I would see no acknowledgement of my criticisms nor a dialectical approach to them. In November of 2025, I received a unilateral “termination” of my membership, against which I protested in a note [to be published later in this series] sent to all members I was able to contact. So far, I have not received any feedback from active members, including the leadership.
***
Disclaimer:
Publishing on permanent-revolution.org doesn’t mean
that I share all positions and views that are voiced by individuals on this
site. For example, there are different opinions as to the political essence of
the term “imperialism” as it evolved over time and is now applied to the
present situation. I also appreciate that Daniel Lazare’s articles generated a discussion
that did not shy away from criticism. That being said, I believe it is equally
important for me to state that I do feel fundamental agreement with the major critiques
on this site and urge a serious engagement with them. This is specifically true
for the two series Marxism
Without Its Head or Its Heart and The
Downward Spiral of the ICFI.
This collection of texts is aimed at an audience within
the working class and socialist partisans, especially but not exclusively those
in and around the ICFI. All texts were carefully reviewed to not contain any
personal or otherwise sensitive information that was not yet part of the public
record. Therefore, it needs to be noted emphatically that any allegation of
“publishing damaging party secrets” in this context would be drawn from the
tradition of bureaucratic opportunism, not revolutionary socialism. As Trotsky
said when he was confronted with this kind of allegation, the truth will prove
to be stronger than all bureaucratic apparatuses – including the small ones.
[i] This
issue was brought up in my initial memorandum and was also the subject of several
subsequent exchanges that are documented in the correspondence I submitted to the Central Committee.
In an attempt to identify historical reference points for a discussion of the
contradictions of the Palestinian movement, I drew attention to the class
dynamics of national movements in countries such as Vietnam, Cuba and Sri Lanka,
where Trotskyism had a record of clearly articulating the treacherous role of
bourgeois nationalists, while defending and addressing the democratic aspirations
of the working classes in those countries.
[ii] A note of
protest to my branch leadership, in which I defended Sam Tissot’s right to
bring forward his critique, criticized the hostile conduct of the leadership
and encouraged it to engage with the issues in good faith, can likewise be
found in the correspondence files. It was sent to my branch leadership a couple of weeks after the
publication of his expulsion and submitted to the Central Committee in spring
of 2025.
Thoughts on the development of our political line and
our work
[The following was written in July 2024 addressed to
the the Central Committee (Parteivorstand) of the German section of the ICFI on
demand of Johannes Stern and Christoph Vandreier. However, it was initially
only circulated within the much smaller executive leadership group who replied
to it. Upon my demand both texts were in the end circulated within the Central
Committee.]
We are rapidly approaching a revolutionary situation.
As was recently emphasized – e.g. in the summer school contribution on the
degeneration of the OCI –, under these conditions the struggle against centrism
and any tendency towards national opportunism is crucial for building the
revolutionary party and for the success of the revolution. Therefore, to
further develop a correct perspective for the working class, we must always
strive to grasp the world situation in all its complexity and contradictions as
accurately as possible.
This is important to counteract unintended adaptations
to concepts propagated by the bourgeoisie and its ideologues. The victory of
the socialist revolution in this period depends on the working class – and thus
above all its revolutionary vanguard – correctly understanding the growth of
class antagonisms and the eruption of imperialist antagonisms that make its
conquest of power both necessary and possible.
With this in mind, I have tried to put some of my
thoughts into a more organized form. I look forward to exploring the outlined
questions and suggestions further in discussion, if you so like. The prospect
of a „multipolar world order” signals growing antagonisms between the
imperialist powers.
Perspective of “multipolar world order” signals
growing antagonisms between the imperialist powers
1. The current wars – the proxy war in Ukraine, the
genocide in Gaza, and all other international conflicts – stem from the crisis
of the imperialist world system, which is to be brought into a new equilibrium
by means of these wars. At the heart of this war drive are the imperialist
powers, above all the USA and the European NATO powers, but also countries like
Japan, Australia and Canada.
2. The crisis of imperialism currently finds political
and ideological expression in the competition between proponents of a
“unipolar” and a “multipolar world order.” Both doctrines and their various
shades have followers on both sides of the Atlantic and in every country.
3. The first of the two views represents the past of
the imperialist world system – the supposedly “unchallenged” hegemony of the USA
– and the second represents its future under capitalist auspices. The
capitalists’ means of achieving this “future” is world war, a major war between
the imperialist powers. The alternative to this future is socialism.
4. The perspective of a “multipolar world order” is
therefore, in my view, not simply a petty-bourgeois pacifist illusion, but
closely linked to the economic interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie. It can
already be found in the thinking of leading bourgeois strategists such as Henry
Kissinger[1]
and Helmut Schmidt[2]
and is aggressively advocated by Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz.[3] [4]
It is explicitly enshrined multiple times in the National Security Strategy [of
2023], the first such document of the Federal Government.[5]
5. In 2017, Gernot Erler, the well-connected former
Special Representative of the Federal Government for Russia and Eastern Europe,
delivered a lecture at the Friedrich Ebert Memorial foundation on the
anniversary of the October Revolution, entitled “From Pax Americana to the
Multipolar World Order,” which anticipated key aspects of this agenda.[6]
Herfried Münkler, whom we have identified as an
important intellectual forerunner of German imperialism, published a tome of
over 500 pages on the same topic in October of last year.[7]
Even a figure like Professor Peter Brandt has exchanged the Trotsky posters of
his youth for the “Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold” [Black-Red-Gold of the German
Republicans] and appears in close accord with openly German-nationalist forces.[8]
6. In my view, the core of the narrative of the
“multipolar world order” lies in giving expression to the perspective of German
and European imperialists and in questioning the global power claim of the USA,
simultaneously placing China, Russia and India on a level with imperialist
powers. The ideological struggle against this geostrategic view is therefore an
important task for us.
7. Our important warnings about a third imperialist
world war will gain even richer content and greater impact if we present a more
nuanced picture of the conflicting material interests of the capitalist states
involved, especially those of the various NATO powers. A world war does not
develop from the unity of the imperialist powers, but from their disunity. I
therefore believe that, in this context, formulations such as “US-NATO axis”
and “US-NATO proxy war against Russia” do not accurately reflect the geopolitical
dynamics and are prone to obscuring these conflicting interests instead of
highlighting them. For there are significant differences between the
imperialist powers, particularly regarding their views on Russia.
8. In particular, there has traditionally been a
considerable discrepancy between the German and the US views on Russia and
Ukraine. US strategists such as George Friedman have stated that a paramount
goal of US foreign policy is to prevent an agreement between Germany and Russia[9]
and to this end, they seek to instrumentalize the countries of the so-called
“Intermarium.”[10]
German capital perceives this as a threat, since it traditionally views these
same countries as its own sphere of influence, which it intends to dominate.
This conception of Germany’s role as a “power in the center of Europe” can be
traced back from government advisors like Herfried Münkler to early German
geopoliticians such as Ratzel, Naumann, Haushofer, and others.[11]
9. The prospect of dismembering Russia is currently
strongly rejected by figures such as Harald Kujat (“You can’t defeat a nuclear
power”), Kay-Achim Schönbach (“We need Russia against China”), and other
right-wing militarists. For example, Jörg Baberowski writes: “An uncontrolled,
violent disintegration of Russia is not in the interest of Europe, nor in the
interest of Ukraine. I don’t want to imagine what might happen if Russia broke
apart, warlords ruled, interethnic conflicts broke out, Azerbaijan and Armenia
became embroiled in another bloody war, or Dagestan disintegrated. We must work
towards changing Russia from within.”[12]
10. Baberowski articulates German interests not only
by advocating for regime change “from within,” but also – similar to Kuyat – by
attributing considerable viability to the Russian government system: “The
government understands how to rally the population behind it by selling the war
as a conflict with the West… Putin has sworn enmity to the West – but this oath
is directed inwards, at the Russian population. Putin knows very well that he
could not win a war against the Western military alliance. The rhetorical
staging is intended to control public opinion and strengthen the will to
fight.”[13]
Are the Russian and Chinese capitalists “enemies” or
tools of imperialism?
11. With this, Baberowski articulates the “great lie”
of the Russian elites, namely that Putin’s government is a beleaguered bulwark
against imperialism, against which a tragic and heroic struggle is being waged.
Since the same view, albeit with reversed framing, is also propagated by the
West (“Putin is attacking the Western peace order”), and all our pseudo-leftist
opponents – regardless of whether they position themselves as “pro-Russian” or
“anti-Russian” – join in on this chorus, workers around the world are
confronted with this narrative.
12. But it is not the truth. The Russian capitalist
class developed out of the Stalinist bureaucracy, which Cannon so emphatically
characterized in his “Open Letter” as a “petty-bourgeois agency of
imperialism”. By reintroducing capitalism and introducing Soviet means of
production to the world market, it increased the dependence of the formerly
Soviet economy on finance capital. The post-Soviet oligarchies are therefore
organically incapable of waging a political struggle against imperialism.
13. This applies not only to Zelensky, but also to
Putin. From the point of view of the international working class, he is less a
“victim” of imperialism as he is its henchman. His overtures to Trump and
Schröder have shown that he has no problem offering himself and the Russian
resources to imperialism. The struggle of Russian workers against Putin is
therefore not separate from, and certainly not in contradiction to, the
struggle against imperialism, but is rather inextricably linked to it.
14. This emphasis on the dependent nature of the
Russian capitalists is not intended to deny the immediate danger of nuclear
war; on the contrary, there is a very real danger that tactical nuclear weapons
will be used in Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, Romania, Belarus, and the western
part of the Russian Federation. This danger arises in particular from the fact
that the imperialist powers – above all Washington and Berlin – are competing
for control of these territories (called “Bloodlands” by Timothy Snyder). Far
from “not thinking about” what the use of Russian nuclear weapons would mean
for Europe’s security, German imperialism is deliberately seeking to create
conditions under which the damage from potential Russian nuclear strikes would
be – to Germany’s advantage – concentrated on these countries. These strategic considerations
can be clearly traced by examining the “Taurus debate”.
15. We should therefore warn with particular vehemence
that the perspectives of Baberowski, Kujat, Lafontaine and others are not an
expression of pacifism or opposition to war, but aim to instrumentalize the
Russian military apparatus for an anti-Eastern European and anti-American
agenda.[14]
16. The danger of making concessions to the
perspective of German nationalist propagandists is reflected in a sentence from
our party congress resolution, which I have attempted to criticize: “Not yet
able to stand up to the USA, the [German] ruling class fully embraced the US
war drive against Russia.” The sentence suggests – even when one considers the
context – that Germany is not primarily waging war in Ukraine out of its own
self-interest, but rather submitted to the “US war drive against Russia”. German
imperialism thus appears not as a rival, but as a kind of appendage or “vassal”
of the USA.
17. We should leave no room for this interpretation,
which is now also circulated by European think tanks[15].
It cannot be denied, of course, that German imperialism is currently militarily
inferior to the USA. But in my view, a key motive for German rearmament and the
participation of German imperialism in the proxy war in Ukraine is precisely to
“stand up to the USA”.
18. For similar reasons, we should critically examine
exactly what it entails that we routinely refer to China as the “main enemy” of
the US, or even – as in the Party Congress resolution – as the “most important
adversary of the imperialist powers”. Of course, the imperialist powers see the
Chinese working class, just as the Russian working class, as an important
adversary whose exploitation must be intensified. But it would be wrong to
designate the Chinese nation as a whole as an enemy of imperialism. For the CCP
regime is thoroughly pro-imperialist. Much like the Russian oligarchs, Chinese
capitalists in the past period have ingratiated themselves with American and
European imperialism and opened “their” countries to imperialism in order to
intensify the exploitation of the working class.
19. Here too, we should consider the rivalry between
the imperialist powers (“decoupling” vs. “derisking”)[16]
more closely to shed light on the conflicts of interest within the imperialist
camp that enable the Chinese elite to assume the pose of an opponent of US
imperialism. For the US is undoubtedly preparing for a war against China.
However, the new anti-Chinese formats such as AUKUS and QUAD show that they
cannot automatically count on the support of the European powers for such a war[17],
since a US-led war against China would affect European economic interests.
Japan’s position on this issue is also extremely important.
20. The Chinese elite as a whole is not an opponent of
imperialism, but in many respects more of an accomplice of imperialism.[18]
This is also evident in Xi’s striking receptiveness to initiatives from
European imperialists like Macron, von der Leyen[19],
and Scholz[20].
If the imperialist exploitation of the Chinese proletariat is to be
intensified, this will not happen mechanically through mere external pressure,
but rather through a political agency that develops from within the Chinese
elite itself.
21. In 1927, Trotsky wrote against the subordination
of the CCP to the KMT:
“It is a grave error to think that imperialism
mechanically, from the outside, welds together all the classes of China… The
revolutionary struggle against imperialism does
not weaken, but rather strengthens, the political differentiation of the
classes. Imperialism is an extremely significant force in China’s internal
relations. The main source of this force is not the warships in the waters of
the Yangtze River – these are merely tools – but the economic and political
alliance of foreign capital with the Chinese bourgeoisie… But everything
that mobilizes the oppressed and exploited masses of working people inevitably
pushes the Chinese national bourgeoisie into an open block with the
imperialists. The class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the masses of
workers and peasants is not weakened by imperialist pressure, but on
the contrary, is intensified by it in every serious conflict, even to
the point of bloody civil war.” (Emphasis added)
22. I think that we should clearly classify both the
CCP regime and the Putin regime as “pro-imperialist” or as agencies of
imperialism. In this manner, we would help workers in these countries
understand that their struggle against these regimes is not a betrayal of the
struggle against imperialism, but rather an integral part of it. This would
also enable us to provide leadership to the working class in the looming or
developing civil wars in Russia and China.
Political struggle against postcolonialism in the
student movement and against petty-bourgeois Palestinian nationalism
1. Since October 7, 2023, the terms “Palestinian
nationalism” and “Palestinian working class” have systematically disappeared in
our articles and perspectives, whereas this was not the case in older articles.
I would like to critically examine this and request that it be changed.
2. In discussions, the response was given that “the
Palestinian working class can currently achieve nothing”. If this means solely
that the Palestinian working class cannot defeat the Zionist regime and
imperialism without the support of the international working class, then that
is correct. However, if it means that establishing the political independence
of the Palestinian working class is not a pressing task for Marxists, then that
is wrong. The fact that the working population of Palestine is being massacred
by Zionist forces does not diminish the importance of an open reckoning with
bourgeois Palestinian nationalism, but rather makes it all the more crucial.
3. The struggle for socialist leadership of the
Palestinian masses – i.e., the struggle for the establishment of an IC section
in Palestine/Israel – must, in my opinion, begin with the observation that the
various forms of bourgeois nationalism have irrevocably proven themselves to be
tools of Zionism and/or the Arab bourgeoisie. Hamas and Fatah are not waging a
political struggle against Zionism, but are dependent on capital from Israel
and other states and are undoubtedly also infiltrated by various intelligence
services.[21]
Wikileaks documents and other publicly available sources have clearly
demonstrated how actively Hamas is infiltrated, supported, and manipulated by
Israel[22],
Qatar[23],
and Egypt[24],
among others.
4. As for the PLO/Fatah, it has demonstrated over the
past thirty years that it rejects a political struggle against Zionism. A
general strike in the West Bank, where the Zionist regime, under the
supervision of nationalists, exploits the labor of Palestinian workers, was
quickly suppressed in April.[25]
Even to address the immediate tasks facing the Palestinian masses – the
struggle against Zionism – they are forced to settle accounts with the various
factions of the Palestinian bourgeoisie, who have proven themselves impotent
and/or open agents of Zionism. We should intervene on the ground and continue
working on developing transitional demands aimed at halting Israel’s genocide,
but also at ending the broader historical and geopolitical conflict.
5. In this way, the political independence of the
Israeli working class can also be strengthened. Netanyahu’s “big lie” is that
he is waging a war “against terrorism” and for the liberation of the hostages.
In reality, the regime has no interest in freeing the hostages, nor in an end
to military attacks on Israeli territory, because that would eliminate a key
element of its “casus belli”. As the then IDF intelligence chief Amos Yadlin
explained in 2007, Israel could be “happy” that Hamas controlled the Gaza
Strip, as this provided the Israeli military with a pretext to “treat Gaza like
a hostile state”.[26]
Meanwhile, the material driving forces and war aims of the Israeli campaign of
annihilation are becoming increasingly clear – as is the complicity of the Arab
bourgeoisie.[27]
6. To the extent that we avoid a direct political
confrontation with Palestinian nationalism, we help enable bourgeois forces to
further mislead the masses and politically profit from the genocide. This
manifests itself in a continued dominance of petty-bourgeois-nationalist
perspectives within the protest movement and even growing international support
for Hamas.
As Der Spiegel writes: “A Hamas leader in
Lebanese exile is optimistic – and has good reason to be: After seven months of
bombing, the organization is in much better shape than Israel had hoped.”
(Spiegel)[28]
7. Trotsky writes in “What Next?” about the SAP
[Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei, 1931-1945]:
What distinguishes Bolshevism on the national question
is that it regards oppressed nations, even the most backward ones, not only
as objects but also as subjects of politics. Bolshevism is not content with
recognizing their ‘right’ to self determination and with parliamentary protests
against the disregard of this right. Bolshevism penetrates deep into the
oppressed nations, rises up against the oppressors, links their struggle
with the struggle of the proletariat of capitalist countries, instructs the
oppressed Chinese, Indians, and Arabs in the art of insurrection, and assumes
full responsibility for this work in the presence of the civilized executioners.
Only here does true Bolshevism begin, that is, revolutionary Marxism in action.
What remains below this boundary is all centrism. (Emphasis added)
8. I understand this remark to mean that it is the
task of Bolshevism to assume “full responsibility” for the uprising of the
oppressed masses – which, conversely, also means denying the national
bourgeoisie any mandate for such an uprising. Such an approach is incompatible
with the notion that “Hamas organized an uprising” and that the last few months
were therefore not the right time to criticize them. In reality, Hamas did not
organize the uprising against Zionism that the Palestinian masses had been demanding
for decades, but rather first thwarted it as best it could and finally – when
this was no longer possible in October – betrayed it by leaking the uprising
plans to the Israeli side and employing bourgeois-terrorist tactics aimed at
preventing a solidarity movement of the Israeli working class.
Thoughts on democratic centralism, party building and
the fight against Centrism
1. If one takes the question of dialectics seriously,
criticism of the party leadership is a prerequisite for the growth of the
movement and the broadening of its perspective – and therefore precisely the
most important task of every single member. We should therefore systematically
demand that every member criticize our political line and our work. In this
way, we prepare ourselves against impressionism and the pressure of the petty
bourgeoisie. At the same time, we strengthen our connection to the working
class and gain insight about the degree to which we are keeping up with the
times.
2. Trotsky writes in “What Next?” in connection with
the fight against centrism: “Lenin considered the control of the party masses
over the party apparatus to be the first condition for the party’s control over
the state.” I understand this to affirm the view that our political line arises
from controversial debate within the party membership. To the extent that the
leadership presents a particular new tactical orientation or practical
initiative without soliciting criticism and feedback, the danger grows that
contradictions cannot be resolved productively, but are instead located towards
the individual, where they accumulate.
3. This danger is exacerbated by a practice that,
while encouraging young members in particular to “work at the highest political
level,” does not systematically prioritize a scientific-critical study of
Marxism in daily practice. For example, at the very beginning of the European
election campaign, I had expressed the hope (albeit not very emphatically) that
the elections could be used as an opportunity to examine how Marxism had been
attacked in the various European countries during the last century. In the
countries where we have sections, this has proven important, in my estimation,
for the development of a cadre. More resources should also be devoted to the
analysis of intra-European antagonisms and class dynamics.
4. There is also a tendency to physically separate the
practice of the party youth from those of the older cadre, which is
paradoxically lamented by representatives of both “generations.” It would
instead be beneficial to take up the open questions, to specifically address
the historically transmitted impressions that weigh on the young cadre and to
respond to them by drawing on the experience and theoretical knowledge of the
older cadre. This could be done within the framework of special reading sessions
as well as in the form of joint article projects.
5. In general, ways and means should be found to
involve the entire membership even more actively in the development of
initiatives, operational plans, campaigns, and especially in the preparation of
their political substance. Consciously soliciting feedback and criticism,
possibly in writing, is essential to distribute leadership responsibilities as
broadly as possible, thereby relieving the burden on leadership personnel while
simultaneously inspiring them. Personal difficulties must be acknowledged and
taken into account when distributing practical tasks; at the same time, every
member must be expected to actively and, if necessary, critically position
themselves vis-a-vis the party line.
6. After the completion of the current historical
study courses, I would like to initiate reading projects in the medium term on
Lenin’s “What Is to Be Done?” as well as texts that, according to David North,
have played an important role in the development of today’s cadre (Slaughter’s
“Opportunism and Empiricism” and “Lenin on Dialectics”). Reading courses on
important series by David, such as “Trotsky’s Last Year” and “Cliff Slaughter:
A Political Biography”, are also still pending.
[3] https://www.spd-wirtschaftsforum.de/news/olaf-scholz-zu-gast-deutschlands-chancen-liegen-in-einer-multipolaren-welt/
[4] https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/kanzler-scholz-interview-deutschlandfunk-2127158
[5] https://www.bmvg.de/resource/blob/5636374/38287252c5442b786ac5d0036ebb237b/nationale-sicherheitsstrategie-data.pdf
[6] https://ebert-gedenkstaette.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Friedrich-Ebert-Gedaechtnis-Vortrag_2017_Gernot-Erler.pdf
[13] https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ausland/krisen/id_100278462/ukraine-historiker-russland-wird-diesen-krieg-nicht-verlieren-.html
[15] https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-art-of-vassalisation-how-russias-war-on-ukraine-has-transformed-transatlantic-relations/#how-europeans-can-rebalance-the-transatlantic-relationship
[18] https://www.gtai.de/de/trade/china/wirtschaftsumfeld/nachhaltigkeit-veraendert-deutsch-chinesische-investitionen-1080526
[19] https://www.reuters.com/world/chinas-xi-paris-meet-macron-with-trade-ukraine-talks-planned-2024-05-06/
[20] https://www.reuters.com/world/germanys-scholz-lobbies-xi-improve-market-access-pressure-russia-2024-04-16/
[21] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
[23] https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-partner-and-hamas-host-a-39579533-e4a2-400a-a78e9a8836606ccc
[24] https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/
