Mr. Alfred Grosser, being of German-Jewish origin is considered an outstanding French intellectual by Wikipedia. This learned political publisher deserves respect as an upright conservative. On several occasions he spoke out courageously commenting dangerous developments in Germany. It was him who introduced the term "Berufsverbot" into the French vocabulary, when he spoke out against limitation of civil rights under Willy Brandt and his socio-liberal government at the time. It was then the prize to be paid for the re-birth of a new communist party DKP, while the traditional KPD has been sentenced illegal in 1956 and still is. The NPD (neo-Nazis in clear terms) can, however, move unhindered. Communists and people labelled as such were refused access to public office in that period.
Alfred Grosser has not only been defending civil rights but also lately dared to side with Günther Grass for his brave poem "What need to be said", where the nobel literate declared Israel's policy as a danger to world peace. The pressures on Grass and Grosser were enormous.
We need to therefore thank Mr. Grosser for the withdrawal of his signature under a pamphlet that falsely sails under the flag of a peace-loving writer 's association.
Not many personalities would take such step. Whereas I assume that most of the signatories had signed in good faith, without having thoroughly read the document before. However, we must encourage such an attitude that shows readiness to step back if one can see ones mistake. Mr. Grosser's gesture and that of the sing a song writer Konstantin Wecker, too, who also withdrew from another harmful pamphlet needs to be set as an example. May others follow their brave step.
The example shows, how easily we can be manipulated. We must learn that anything that touches big politics needs careful reading. We must acquire a full and global comprehension of a conflict at stake, before we take sides. And of course the old fashioned question "whose interests are at stake?" is a good one to raise.
Yes, I did call the signatories "ignorant", I could also have called them naive, because they let themselves be fooled into siding with a very dangerous war policy. There is a need to step back and study the deep implications of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. We must learn anew how to use our own brains! The basic pre-condition of course is access to unbiased information, which is sometimes difficult to get in a society which relies on brainwashing and buying off its intellectuals .
The signatures of politicians like Andrea Nahles (SPD), Claudia Roth (Green Party) and Katja Kipping (Die Linke) are much more scandalous, they should intuitively know better and they sure do. Their signatures reflect a development that has begun a while ago, it shows the leaning of the "Left Party"/DIE LINKE towards Social Democracy with all its fatal consequences. In history such policies led in 1914 into World War I by accepting the war budget. In 1933 such policy blocked a dearly needed unity between the working class parties who together could have prevented the rise of fascism. The socialdemocratic SPD has long ago made their peace with power, helping only their rank and file into careers. The Greens under Joschka Fischer have consented to the unprovoked war of aggression against Jugoslawia. By doing so, they have lost their innocence in 1999. Since spring 1999 their leading personnel has been striving only for powerful positions in the apparatus. Unfortunately this is true for the Left Party leaders too. Katja Kipping is among the most opportunistic LEFT-leaders, siding with neoliberal policies and defending Israel's aggressive war policy. There are, however, better representatives, like Oskar Lafontaine and Sarah Wagenknecht who represent much more the feelings of the grass roots Party membership. They are famous, their analysis is valid, their rare speeches draw a big audience but their influence is being kept limited.
This is why, I am sorry to say, that the attitude of the mentioned signatories represents relatively well the leading circles of what ever you may or may not want to call the "LEFT" in Germany. Such lack of political leadership of course has had enormous impact on all grass rootes movements, not only on peace policy issues. In the field of war and peace such tendencies are particularly desasterous, however. The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is highly affected by them. Next to RLF the pro-zionist Bak Shalom circle within the Left Party has great influence on "LEFT"-policy, although it is being played down as tiny. However, the remnants of a once powerful peace movement bear the brunt of opportunism. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for individuals or a small group like the "Arbeitskreis für Friedenspolitik - atomwaffenfreies Europa" (Working Group for Peace Policy - Nuclear Free Europe") to act within any one of the given frameworks, which seem to be coined forever and whose "leaders" are not elected in many cases.
The same is of course true on the Parliamentary level. Fortunately the Left Fraction has voted against the deployment of patriot missiles in Turkey and a handful of courageous deputies have held brave anti-war-positions, but this does usually not go unchallenged within their own rank and file. Generally the positioning of DIE lINKE is too soft and half hearted. For example do they not connect the militarization in general with the social question, they do not show how military expenditures, as well as sending patriots to Turkey undermine our economy. Such acts of support for war deprive money from socially important structures and so forth. German peace forces do not point out how NATO - missiles, ironically called "patriots", will destabilize the entire region and expose Turkey rather to a new war threat. They do not challenge the enemy image which is the key factor in justifying war fare. Whereas the German people, like others, do not want to be involved in such acts of aggression, there are unfortunately enough intellectuals who are ready to assist into brainwashing others.The intelligentsia is not very intelligent due to their class bias.
By the mainstream in my country, Turkey is considered a highly suspiscious ally with a strong element of Islam and of course with respect to the Kurdish problem and its record of human rights violations. That "we" now side with "the Turks" as partners, creates frictions of a new kind. It poses a new explanatory problem for those in power. The term "imperialism" or "aggressive imperialist strategies" does not occur anywhere, such language is considered dogmatic, biased and not analytical, in other words intellectually unacceptable.
Yes, there is, unfortunatelly, a widespread tendency among German scholars to accept the mainstream explanations according to which "we" export democracy. In this view, biased by colonialism, Islamic countries cannot develop democracy on their own behalf. Because Islam is considered as anti-democratic to the core and therefore the Orient is generally looked upon as un-enligthened, untouched by "modern democratic and human rights values". Israel is therefore considered the only democracy in the Middle East. The colonial implications of this attitude is largely not understood, in LEFT- circles neither. My personal views are not representative at all. I had, however, an opportunity to give a talk last April, where I outlined that the Arab Spring is "neither". In clear language this is to say, that the so called revolutions in the Middle East, hailed by imperialism, are in reality inspired by the reactionary Empires of the North. In other words they were mostly instigated, preventive actions to stop real revolutionary transformations from occuring at its very cradle. To my understanding religion is being used by those in power, as an extremely dangerous weapon this time, with the intention to split the masses. (We only remember too well the enemy image that was coined for another generation and was then called the allegedly subhuman Jew.) Today it seems more complicate, but only at first glance. Today, on the one hand Western powers are involved in an ongoing war against terror, a war against Islam mostly. On the other hand, Islamists are being fed by imperialism whose needs they serve in reality. Latest example Syria. The war threat allegedly coming from this country is a projection. Syria and Iran are both pictured as a threat to peace, whereas the real threat is not seen, which starts here in our world, in the West. More correctly expressed:
The real name of the war threat is imperialism.
Imperialism is capitalism in its latest stage. We, the people must organize everywhere against this growing threat, as people of other generations once did more successfully.
Let us overcome our barriers and work together for a more peaceful future which can only be if based on justice.
Berlin Dec.19th 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment