🚀 go-pugleaf

UNITE! Info #109en: 1/2 'Group NE' confirms own crime
[Posted: 10.08.99]

Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anm�rkning: 
On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / 
�UNIOS! / F�RENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series: 
See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der 
letzten Seite / Verrez information � la derni�re page / Ver 
informaci�n en la �ltima p�gina / Se information p� sista sidan.


I. 	RATTLESNAKES ARE PROUDLY POINT OUT: ONE 
        SMALLER WRONGDOING THEY DID *NOT* COMMIT.
	
	BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEN, THEY MUST CONFIRM HOW
	NASTY WAS A CERTAIN MAJOR CRIME OF THEIRS.


1.	*Exposure of rattlesnakes' crimes*

In some recent Infos, I've once again exposed and documented
the ultra-reactionary character of the so-called "Group Neue
Einheit" in Germany and the total treason, since some 10-15
years back, of that once revolutionary party from which it has
emerged.

I'm referring present readers to: "UNITE! (etc) Infos":

#104en:  Rattlesnake "NE" & the Congo		14.07.99    42 k
         (3 parts)
#105en:  Rattlesnake "NE" wriggles on		26.07.99    50 k
         (3 parts)
#106en:  More rattler "NE" writhings            30.07.99   107 k
         (7 parts)

also in German:

#107de:  "Wer ist Rolf M.?"                     01.08.99    53 k 
         (4 Teile)

and a brief article in French:			

Pardon, mais je dois "tirer" 15 fois 		07.08.99     6 k
sur un serpent! 


2.	*"We proudly present: PROOF of our INNOCENCE of one
	particular minor piece of wrongdoing!" ("And our BIG
	CRIMES - what 'big crimes'? Never heard of any such.")* 
	
On 07.08, the swindlers of the abovementioned present "group"
replied to this, with a posting which I'm reproducing (as Chap-
ter II) in part 2/2 below, subject line: "NEUE EINHEIT: Liar 
Rolf Martens - documents and audio-file"

What did they say in this "reply" of theirs?

Firstly:

	"It is not worth while to go into all details of the
	endless contributions by Rolf Martens."

Meaning, the facts of their really big and heinous crimes, which
I had pointed to in above in my 7-part Info #106en. I mentioned
there too that those people want to throw those facts into "a
bottomless [their own word] pit of forgetfulness". And this is
the same in this "reply": Not a word on those big crimes.

Secondly, and above all, they proudly and with great fanfare are
pointing to, and really documenting with an exactness "worthy of
a better cause" - not that this documentation is a bad thing at
all; on the contrary, this certainly provides some food for
thought for me, among others - the fact that concerning *one
particular relatively minor detail*, I did in my Infos #105en
and #106en make one false assertion of fact and levelled one ac-
tually false accusation against these present-day rattlesnakes:

They, contrary to what I stated in Infos #105en-106en, at least
did *not* go as far as to withhold information from me (too) - a 
"comrade" of theirs at that time, living here in Sweden - about
the very existence, from 1984 on, of the so-called "RIM", in the
time between late 1984 (when they on their part got to see the
so-called "RIM Declaration" of March 1984) and April 1990 (the
time when I exposed their party as now bourgeois and broke with
them).

This they are proudly saying, as the main theme of that posting
of theirs. They're bringing an excerpt (in English and in the
original German) from a discussion, they say, which took place
in December 1986 in which I took part too and in which the ex-
istence (at least) of the "RIM" was directly referred to.

They even are bringing, they say too, an audio recording of this
part of the discussion on their homepage, so as further to docu-
ment this thing.

And yes, this no doubt is correct. On this point, these rattle-
snakes are telling a truth - for once.


3.	*Am I "a liar"? No, I say. But two errors of mine do
	show up.*

Concerning me, and for my own reflections on things, this docu-
mentation does point to two errors of mine, one recent and one
in 1987-90. They're both relatively minor, I think, but do need
to be considered by myself, not least concerning some matters of
principle.

I "lied" (in my recent Infos #105en-106en) on this question,
these people exclaim, in their first posting line even calling
me an "extreme liar" (see part 2/2). I did not. I did not de-
liberately make a false assertion of fact and an erroneous ac-
cusation against the present-day traitors and "Group Neue Ein-
heit" swindlers.

I actually - even since a long time back - had forgotten all 
about that discussion in late 1986. And also, a more serious 
mistake, I was far too "certain" that if I really had been told
by my then "comrades", even as much as once, back in 1984-90, 
about the existence of the "RIM", I then would absolutely have
remembered it - so "certain" that I recently wrote they were 
"lying" when in their "Internet Statement No. 2/1998" they had
said that they did tell me about this on one occasion. This car-
ries with it some food for thought for me today.

Furthermore, since it's a fact, as I now realize, that I *had*
heard about the "RIM" at least once, in late 1986, I do carry
one - not very big, but anyway - part of the responsibility for
the *silence* in public, in the period from early 1987 to April
1990, on the part of my then "comrades'" party the KPD/ML(NEUE
EINHEIT), concerning the "RIM" and its 1984 "Declaration", which
was - and probably in part today still is - a not unimportant
*reactionary trap* for the leftists in many countries. 

Concerning this and concerning this period of my relations to
that then existing party, from 1986/87 (when I, as a Swede and
living in Sweden, even accepted becoming a member of that party,
a mistake, as I've pointed out earlier) to April 1990, much 
could be added, but in this context I shall just mention this:

I wrote on this subject in general in my August-September 1990
article (reproduced in German in Info #49de, 22.08.1997) criti-
cizing and exposing the then "NE" ('89 - mid-'90) as bourgeois:

	"Durch meine Mitgliedschaft bin ich f�r die w�hrend des
	genannten Zeitraums gef�hrten Politik der KPD/ML(NEUE
	EINHEIT) nat�rlich direkt mitverantwortlich. Meine eige-
	ne T�tigkeit mu� auch Gegenstand der jetztigen Kritik
	sein." [Info #49de, part 1/11], 

	or:

	"Beacuse of my membership, I of course am directly co-
	responsible for the policy of the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT)
	in the time period mentioned. My own actions must also
	be a target of the present criticism."

In fact I - among other things - in the time 1987 - April 1990
failed to put the matter of the "RIM" to further debate in the
then party (I never took part in any further discussion on this
in that time), to ask for my "comrades" to please give me a copy
of the "RIM Declaration" to read, for instance (I never did see
its entire text then but only much later, in 1993), and not 
least to suggest they (we) make a public statement on the so-
called "RIM". 

Of course, I at that time understood much less about these 
things than today, and so did my then "comrades" (which needs
to be considered in all present criticism of their actions then
too), and I failed to consider even the possibility that the
party I was now in might be degenerating at the time. Only in
March 1990 did I start reflecting on this possibility and then
very quickly came to the conclusion: "It's already bourgeois!".

Marxists always need to see this danger and to be on guard
against all possibly wrong tendencies in a party. On this sub-
ject there's a saying in German too: "Vertrauen ist gut. Kon-
trolle ist besser" - "Confidence (in comrades of yours) is good.
Control (checking-out) is better." In the '80s, I sorely missed
out on this - during some periods in that time (e.g. 1983-87)
not fighting all that well either, on the whole, and absolutely
not being in the vanguard of things but rather trailing behind,
and "just relying on", my comrades in Germany.

Just one instance of this was my not asking to be shown the
text of the "RIM Declaration" and my in fact rather soon (even
before 1990, as my criticism paper of that year shows too) for-
getting all about the "RIM", which I only "rediscovered" in
1992/93.



4.	*"Group Neue Einheit" document also, and not least,
	confirms the fact of one really big crime by that
	group and its predecessor party*

The "group" among other things brings the following part of the
1986 discussion, this part being on a certain declaration of
1980 (published in a booklet) which was a kind of forerunner of
the 1984 "RIM Declaration" (and whose text I didn't read at the
time and still haven't seen, so I cannot judge whether that
earlier, 1980, declaration was really basically correct or not):

[QUOTE:]


	[Klaus Sender (Hartmut Dicke), chairman of the party
	then - and during a long time, an important Marxist and
	further developer of Marxism-Leninism - and chairman, 
	perhaps, or whatever it's called, of the "group" of to-
	day, also then and now owner (Inhaber) of the "Verlag 
	Neue Einheit" which has the "Neue Einheit" website:]

	"Well, the content of this booklet is correct, compared
	with the development of then, this is the essential
	thing about it. And there are after all 1,2,3 [counts 
	spontanously loudly] ... 15 organisations from all con-
	tinents involved." 

	RM [me]: "Yes, it must immediately look important, yes." 

	KS: "Even a blind man with a walking stick can see that
	this is important, and that it actually has to be com-
	municated without delay." [Meaning, to the party.]

[END OF QUOTE]

Klaus Sender (Hartmut Dicke) here was pointing to (and I was
agreeing with him on) the importance of those efforts at orga-
nizing internationally which had started (at least) in 1980 and
which later led to the creation of the so-called "RIM" in 1984.

Now there obviously (as I could see later, at least, from 1993
on) were some forces of the CIA involved in these organizing
efforts, trying to bring them on to a wrong track, and these in
1984, at least, had managed to get into effective command of
the whole thing. (See earlier Infos, above all #3en.)

Klaus Sender's pointing here to the (also obvious) *importance*,
even back in 1986, of this whole international coalition-forming
confirms the fact of what a BIG CRIME, on the part of his party
and later "group", was their UTTER SILENCE in public on the 
"RIM" (and its reactionary "Declaration", which *they* had read
back in 1984) DURING MORE THAN DECADE, up until August 1997 when
they - forced above all by my "perverted scribblings" (see "NE 
Internet Statement 1/98") and "bottomless methods" (see "NE IS 
21/99", or my Info #106en) to do so - first mentioned the "RIM" 
at all, shyly mumbling in a hidden-away sentence that the "RIM 
Declaration" was "unacceptable".

That document which the "Group Neue Einheit" brings now not
least confirms the fact of its own big crime.


5.	*A silly and misleading "argument" concerning the PCP
	- and another small bit of "M-L history", to add to
	the ones in Info #106en, parts 1-2/7*

As one comment on their document from 1986, the "Group Neue 
Einheit also writes:

"This remarkable short dialogue within the discussion deserves
interest also because of the fact that Rolf Martens already here
is directing special attention to the PCP as a yardstick con-
cerning the declaration of 1980. Already then, thus, he must
have had ideas in this direction, and this is something which
completely contradicts his assertions of today, the so-called
accusations against our organisation that we had kept him away
from the knowledge about the RIM."

They're referring to this part of the discussion:

[QUOTE:]

	Rolf Martens: It is conspicuous, anyway, that the Par-
	tido Communista do Peru is not there [taking part in the
	declaration of 1980]. 

	Klaus Sender: Is  n o t   y e t  there taking part. 

	RM: Yes,  n o t   y e t.

	KS: This was at that time, namely 1980. This declaration
	was issued in 1980, and then none of us did know it. But
	in 1982 we came upon it for the first time, that is to
	say, not we [the organisation as a whole], but they [the
	withholders], and in 1983 intensively. And we did not
	learn anything about it. They have connections with such
	people from the surroundings of the TKP/ML there. They
	have discussions with them. ["They" refers to the heavi-
	ly criticized representatives , above all Dietrich 
	Jobstvogt.] 

	Rolf Martens: Yes, I think, a point against it, against
	these here would be that the party in Peru is not taking
	part, and one has to ask oneself why. 

	KS: No, understand me, that this is abstract, too. Ex-
	cuse me, but I do not ask with such a booklet at hand
	the text of which is correct; why in 1980 the PC of Peru
	[does not take part]. Do you know what the Peruvian par-
	ty advocated in 1980? I don't. Besides: what kind of a
	party is this one in Peru in general? Are you certain if
	it is completely correct? I'm not. 

	RM: Hm, yes. 

	KS: Well, there you are, therefore it cannot be made the
	yardstick. This is also a distraction. 

[END OF QUOTE]

One "argument" by these people which they've already brought
before, but which is patently wrong and ridiculous, is that *I*
would have been blind to, or would not have wanted to see, the
serious weaknesses which there were too in the line of the PCP,
as led by comrade Gonzalo, and that *I* wanted to make the then
PCP, *with* its errors, into an international yardstick for the
Marxist-Leninists.

It was practically the other way around!

I was the one who, from 1994 on, publicly pointed to the serious
errors in the line of the PCP - above the one of its endorse-
ment of the "RIM Declaration", while the "NE" during a long
time was *completely silent* on this, as far as a public stand-
point was concerned.

I also, from 1994 on (in English) advocated *support* for the
armed insurrection led by the PCP. The "NE" were silent on this
too - and later first "supported" that struggle, then *attacked*
it and then fell silent again. (See Infos #105en-106en.)

Now how did things stand on this in late 1986?

I at that time knew only two things about the PCP: 

1) Its various greetings to the Communist Party of China in the 
mid-70s, in particular its congratulatory message to Hua Guofeng
in October 1976, on the occasion of the striking-down of the 
4-gang.

And that message, I had noted later, in 1978, was one of the
politically best - next to the one by the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT),
which, as far as insight on the matters was concerned, was in
a class all by itself - sent Oct-Nov '76 to China from parties 
and organizations all over the world. It expressly attacked
not only the phony"left" 4-gang but also the "openly"-rightist
deviation of Deng Xiaoping - less than half-a-dozen organiza-
tions in the world, out of some 55, did this in their then
messages. (Even even reproduced that message, in Info #22en.)

2) Newspaper reports in, the early/mid-80s, about an armed
insurrection in Peru, led by "the Sendero Luminoso" which said
it adhered to the line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong and was
denouncing both the US imperialists and also the Soviet and
the Chinese (the Deng Xiaoping) revisionists.

I in 1986 had seen *no* documents from that - later - PCP which
was led by comrade Gonzalo. Such I only saw from 1992 on. My
"comrades" in Germany probably had some, in 1986/87 etc, but
they at least showed me no such, nor made any mention of their
having such documents.

Was/is there a difference between the PCP as "known" by me in
late 1986 and that which I got to know of from 1992 on? Yes.

In the PCP there had been an internal struggle in the late 70s,
i learned in 1992. A faction led by comrade Gonzalo had defeated
an earlier leadership, the main question being whether to ini-
tiate people's war in Peru, which was in fact initiated on 
17.05.1980.  

But also, the Gonzalo faction, while presumably right on the 
question of armed insurrection, was quite wrong on one other
point, I saw in 1992: That of the 4-gang in China. The 1976 PCP
leadership rightly had repudiated that gang. But in an article
of September 1977 in the Gonzalo faction's paper "Bandera Roja",
its No. 47/48 if I remember correctly, an article I saw (only)
in 1992/93, the 4-gang "doesn't exist" any more, and the entire
revisionism in China - now criticized - was blamed, wrongly,
only on the Deng Xiaoping group. And later, at least, the Gon-
zalo faction, now as PCP leadership, always made that serious
error (massively supported, internationally, by the CIA), of
saying that the 4-gang were - "the real revolutionaries" in
China.

From 1992/94 on, I always criticized this error in the line of
the PCP.

But back in 1986, I of course had no idea of this change of
position by the PCP, and had only that quite good impression
of that party which I had gotten by not least by its Oct/Nov
1976 message.

Of course Klaus Sender at that time was right in advocating
caution, asking me if I could really be certain that the line
of the PCP was basically correct. I had to admit: "No".

But the present "argument" by the "Group Neue Einheit", sugges-
ting that I in 1986 was "attracted to" those wrong things in
the then PCP's line, of course is quite wrong. I didn't even
know that this advocacy of the 4-gang (etc) *was* part of that
line. My "good impression" of the PCP was on account, not least,
of that *express repudiation* by it of the 4-gang, and of Deng,
which I'd seen in the Peking Review  No. 52/1976 and which I
thought was still "in force".

This "extra argument" by the rattlesnake" group in its posting
was another small attempt att misrepresenting my line. Above,
I've refuted this too. 

[Continued in part 2/2]