Interview With A Revolutionary Cell
Last year, one Revolutionary Cell (RZ) released a discussion
paper, in which they announced and explained the end of their
politics. Since then, there has been an all-encompassing discussion
of the positions of the Revolutionary Cells and their actions, one
like there has never been before. We, another RZ, one that has been
active around the refugee campaign, would like to make known our
critiques of this and to put forward our own positions. Some
comrades from Radikal have written down some questions, which we
are now writing public replies to. Our interest is that these
questions and answers be discussed further, because we feel that a
broad discussion of the refugee campaign and of the politics of the
Revolutionary Cells is very important right now. We cannot be and
do not want to be separated from people and groups who are
developing radical resistance, and who have put forward militant
politics up until today. This discussion will have an impact on our
further politics. We think that the discussions concerning the
paper "Gerd Albartus is Dead" are important as well, although we do
not touch on these at this time.
Read and discuss this text, do not be sparing in your
critique, and write something about it. Pass it around, publish it
in your media. Anyone who would like to discuss the history of the
Revolutionary Cells and the Rote Zora up until today can now get a
collection of all the assembled texts in the book "Fruechte des
Zorns", published by ID-Verlag. (from the introduction in Radikal
#147 - an illegal autonomist magazine in Europe.)
Radikal : You all do not belong to the traditional line of the
Revolutionary Cells. How did you come to the decision to call
yourselves an RZ ? In order to come into a political connection with
the refugee campaign of the traditional line and to make some
continuity from this, you could have chosen a different name. Then
you could have made it known that you are different, but still part
of the refugee campaign. Why did you decide differently ?
RZ : We need to explain something further regarding this. We are a
group of men and women who range from the autonomist to the
feminist spectrum. Even before we joined the refugee campaign as an
RZ, we were involved in developing a militant resistance. On a
thematic level, we had not established ourselves, but we always
sought to renew an internationalist outlook. We saw our actions as
part of the discussion around militant resistance. But the
hoped-for discussions never came about.
We asked ourselves the following questions : How can we bring
some political continuity to the highs and lows associated with
movement-orientation ? How is militant resistance to be envisioned
and further developed as a part of this ? The Revolutionary Cells
were and still are one attempt at bringing continuity to the
militant resistance. They never stated that militant struggle was
the only main focus. Their declared wish was always to be a part of
the movement, to take part in its positions and discussions, and to
know its strengths and weaknesses. This self-understanding, we
believe, is still relevant today.
We believe that the concept of "de-individualization" which
was propagated by the Revolutionary Cells - we call it "broadening"
namely that as many groups as possible should independently
organize themselves as Revolutionary Cells, is still correct. Every
group should decide on its own expectations for its own militant
struggle and should work on its own content in discussions. We
support this, even if we have criticisms of how this concept has
been taken up and changed around.
As late as the ’86 refugee campaign, it was not clear whether
the principle of the Revolutionary Cells was still valid. The
"de-individualization" concept was no longer propagated. For the
first time, the refugee campaign was made into a major focus,
without there being any movement within the radical-left behind it.
This, and the fact that the refugee campaign was being carried out
by a closed circle of Revolutionary Cells, raised the question in
our minds of whether it was even possible to take part in the
refugee campaign as an RZ. Based on various convictions, we decided
that it was. For us as a mixed group, it was important that we draw
on the history of both militant groupings, the Revolutionary Cells
and the Rote Zora. We realize that we cannot avoid the
contradiction of opposing patriarchal structures as a mixed group.
Only through permanent discussions can a basis for cooperation be
made in a militant group. That doesn’t mean that you must get held
up on each point. Women organize themselves independently of men
and mixed groups, partly from confrontation and the setting of
boundaries. There were problems between the men and the women in
the Revolutionary Cells, and the women drew the necessary
consequences from this.
We are part of this history in the history of revolutionary
struggle in Germany, because we sought this not only in our minds,
but also in our hearts.
We want to orient ourselves along with other militant groups
and begin a common discussion. This seemed more feasible to us
within the Revolutionary Cells, because of their long history of
resistance, than with other militant groups, whose continuity we
could not estimate. The decision to struggle as a Revolutionary
Cell was, at the same time, out contribution to the continuity and
unity of the further development of a revolutionary resistance. We
wanted to present our proposals and questions so as to advance the
refugee campaign.
We had in mind our conviction to make known this step of our
practical intervention and to begin a discussion. These attempts,
for different reasons, we’re not correct for us, and we see it as
a mistake that we did not seek this dialogue before our action,
because our goal was also to dismantle the myth of the
Revolutionary Cells. But our approach only reproduced this myth.
Radikal : What ties you all to the original concept of the
Revolutionary Cells ? Do you still follow the concept of
"de-individualization" ("Create one, two, many..."), which the
Revolutionary Cells used to propagate ?
RZ : We are tied to the original concept of the Revolutionary Cells,
which is still a useful concept for us for further developing a
form of revolutionary politics.
The quality lies in autonomist organizing, which takes into
account unsimultaneous political and structural matters, but still
allows for the possibility of common organizing so as to become a
political factor. Behind this concept is the view that resistance
should not be limited in terms of its practical action
possibilities.
This concept transports the experience that militant politics
can be developed from out of day-to-day life and the legal
associations. We continue to see in this concept the possibility
for a broadening of the slogan "Create one, two, many...". But not
conceived of as an action-model, whose means are separated from the
political content discussion. Something along these lines : action,
discussion, anchoring, de-individualization. This is too linear and
static. Discussion, anchoring, and further political development
have to be imbedded in a process of discussion and exchange. And by
political discussion, we mean more than just releasing communiques.
Radikal : Do you see yourselves as an avant-garde or as part of a
movement, in which you simply have a different praxis ?
RZ : The answer to this question depends on what political context
you use the term "avant-garde" in.
This term has its understanding in ML-politics. For our
structures, this term is useless, because we (should) have a
different political understanding, from which arises a different
form of organizing.
The problems and contradictions within our structures cannot
be understood or solved with this notion. But this notion gets
utilized nonetheless, so as to make conflicts and contradictions
clear (for example, informal hierarchies, male political
consciousness, vagueness, etc.). Even the choice between "avant-
garde or part of a movement" does not solve these problems.
When, for example, a group takes an initiative and thereby
makes political pretensions, then discussion work becomes decisive.
If this does not succeed or is neglected, then the initiative
becomes isolated. This distance is then often explained with the
notion an avant-garde. Frequently, the tension between militant and
non-militant praxis becomes a problem, because a hierarchical
valuing of methods gets applied.
Radikal : The traditional line has, to a certain extent, abandoned
this concept (de-individualization), without offering much comment
as to why. How do you envision cooperative work between the
Revolutionary Cells and the so-called legal movement ?
RZ : Over the last few years, there has been no cooperation with the
legal movement. We think this is because the process of exchange
has been abandoned, or at least not developed. This inability, to
be always present in the political process as an RZ, is something
we ALL face. The praxis of the Revolutionary Cells is only deemed
to be marginal, and their contribution to revolutionary politics
seems to be relatively modest. We don’t think that world historical
changes are what have led to the weakness of the Revolutionary
Cells, but rather our own neglect, mistakes, and unclarities, but
also the lack of reference within the movement. We envision
cooperation, but what problems and contradictions does this
involve ?
One problem is anchoring the politics of the Revolutionary
Cells in the unsimultaneous nature of left-wing struggles, both in
terms of content and methods. From this come the problems of
discussion and exchange. This isn’t simply about the fact that a
political orientation is not taken up, for example the one spelled
out in the Muenster/Dusseldorf communique in ’89. At that time, it
was increasingly clear that the left had taken up the regroupment
demand of the political prisoners as its focus, and along with this
was the solidarity movement for Ingrid Strobl’s trial. Thus, to
simply carry on with the refugee campaign and to simply side-swipe
the unsimultaneousness ("repression won’t be broken by simply
protesting against repression itself, but rather by anchoring
social-revolutionary politics") was wrong and brought no results.
The relationship of exchange between militant groups and the
movement won’t come about automatically and is not established by
simply releasing action communiques. Militant actions can’t be
monolithic features on the political landscape, and their results
can’t simply be left up to political dynamics.
To further develop a process of exchange, and to broaden it,
we see the following things as being necessary :
The movement must actively involve itself in the open discussion
which has been started concerning the self-criticism of the
Revolutionary Cells.
The militant groups must make the public discussion of their
relationship to the movement an open one.
For this, we need a common discussion forum, and Radikal, for
example, has been very helpful in this.
In general, the Revolutionary Cells need more of a presence,
and they need to take part in actual debates and events and to join
in the discussion. The Revolutionary Cells need to think about
re-activating their own communications medium ("Revolutionaerer
Zorn").
The exchange should also involve refugee and immigrant women
and men, so that the discussion can also be carried out in those
areas.
Radikal : Within the traditional line, there were never very many
concrete proposals of how to tie their own structures into larger
spaces. The authors of "The End of Our Politics" wrote : "In the
fixation on our methods of struggle, we failed to develop a
political orientation which contained more than background pieces
on certain conflicts. Our social-revolutionary theoretical
understanding was little more than a mosaic of the sum total of
commentaries and analyses of various fields of resistance, thus a
solid connection was not possible in this manner." They stated that
the method of struggle which they themselves propagated as a
"method for everyone" was, in fact, more of an action-method than
a political theory. There were times when it was massively taken up
(for example, during the anti-Startbahn and anti-nuclear
movements). But upon reflection, these really just seemed like
small tastes of rebellion, which did not develop long-term
organizing. What significance does this method have for you ? Do you
have an ideas of how to link your praxis to the organization
debate ?
RZ : It is, of course, true that the concept of the Revolutionary
Cells has not yet been able to further develop itself in terms of
organizing content. But a convincing concept of content on its own
will certainly not guarantee this further development, thus this
can be abandoned as well.
The same is true for practical matters. No developments can
come from praxis alone. It’s up to the process within the movement
itself to make it possible for a concept to be further developed,
because this can’t be thought of or adapted in a static manner. A
militant group, just like any other group, must be flexible, so
that it can react to social changes or to developments within the
left and be present for further action. That means that it is wrong
to become fixated on one form of struggle or to have it become
ritualized, because nothing is made dynamic or further developed
from this.
No group or association can avoid this process. The movement’s
organizational structure clearly shows its mess. No grouping can
assume that another group will take up content or practical
proposals, join in the discussion, or become a part of the work.
This condition has to be kept in mind when doing actions, because
a division of labour is a two-way responsibility, and not a
discussed consequence of the movement. Every group also faces the
necessity of taking all the work upon itself, which implies very
high demands and which can quickly lead to too much pressure. That
also means that campaigns which are initiated need to be reflected
upon and discussed, if the possibility exists that nothing will
develop from them.
The Revolutionary Cells also attempted to start discussions
which were not sufficiently taken up and discussed (concerning the
murder of Karry, knee-cappings/Korbmacher, Love Song). As for the
refugee campaign, the discussions should have started much earlier.
An organizational debate is also necessary and must concern
content, and not primarily methods, if a broad base is to be
sought.
There were phases when militant methods were taken up on a
massive scale, and we think this is because, from the status of the
political confrontation, more political sense was derived from the
concrete experiences which pointed to such methods. The fact that
no long-term organizing came out of this is, we think, due to the
fact that the political movement at that time failed, in that it
was not able to develop any communication of a political content or
perspective. Continuing to carry out militant actions will not
rescue a failed political situation.
Radikal : In the open discussions which have been carried out
between different Revolutionary Cells over the past year, it has
become clear that their organizing was oriented towards praxis.
Without a doubt, it is necessary to link practical concerns, but
there’s still the danger that things will fall apart if there is no
commonly-discussed content orientation behind this structure. How
do you all evaluate the contradiction between practical organizing
and content agreement ?
RZ : We don’t see things exactly as you do. At least as far as the
refugee campaign is concerned, there had to have been a content
agreement between the various groups involved.
It’s very difficult for us to come up with a satisfying answer
to this question. We have not taken part in these internal
discussions.
But, we can come up with some general criticisms, about the
"action-model", for example. But the open discussions up until this
point don’t offer much of a basis for coming up with a definitive
judgement. The clarity which is needed for this is up to the groups
involved to achieve. Various estimations regarding this, what
happened and how, have been made partially clear in previously
published papers ("The End of Our Politics", "When the Night is
Deepest...the Day is Nearest", "We Have to be as Radical as the
Reality").
For us, it’s still unclear whether these deal with fundamental
differences or belated reassessments of positions. In the mid-80s,
very fundamental discussions were carried out. The differences in
content led to consequences (the departure of the RZ that wrote the
paper "When the Night is Deepest..."). This process was made known,
in a fragmentary manner, afterwards. That makes the discussion
difficult. By going it alone, the RZ that wrote "The End of Our
Politics" probably gives a good illustration of the actual
situation regarding the internal discussions. It’s also difficult
to assess the Rote Zora and their relationship to men and to mixed
groups. We think it’s important that the Rote Zora make known their
opinions on this.
When looked at from the outside, the contradiction in the
paper "The End of Our Politics", for example, between having an
anti-racist or an anti-patriarchal focus, does not seem
irresolvable to us. Of course there’s always the presupposition
that we can never get around looking for political paths where both
common and split factors can be expressed in praxis.
But without considering the real conflicts which took place in
the content discussions between the groups, then such statements
won’t amount to much.
Radikal : You all have taken up the refugee campaign of the
traditional line. To what degree did you all link yourselves to the
"existing" common ground, where do you all see the cornerstones,
and where are your differences ?
RZ : Our positions have developed further since the time when we
decided to link up with the refugee campaign. What we are saying
here is an expression of our own present discussions.
The refugee campaign made it clear to us that anti-imperialist
politics and solidarity can and must also relate to refugee women
and men here. We share the opinion of the RZ from ’86 : "What is
happening at the moment is a gigantic restructuring of the world’s
population, whose size greatly overshadows the migration movement
of the 19th century, and whose form in the metropoles up until this
time is only the tip of the iceberg." This puts the left in a bad
light, since there has been so little consciousness of how refugee
and migration movements are the result of imperialist exploitation
and destruction politics, and since there has been so little
discussion of the situation and living conditions for refugee and
immigrant women and men here.
We see a good possibility in the refugee campaign for
thematizing on various lines of social contradiction, for example,
to make clear patriarchal, racist, and capitalist-imperialist
exploitation- and oppression-relations. There’s also the potential
that the refugee campaign can revive other thematic lines and
struggles, for example, against population politics and
sex-tourism, labour and housing struggles and neighbourhood work,
anti-fascism, and opposing European unity. Already at the time when
we made our decision, the social-revolutionary content of the
Revolutionary Cells’ refugee campaign was unclear and not present
enough. The analysis and definition of the revolutionary subject,
to which "disqualified proles, unemployed youths, and marginalized
people" belonged, is gender-neutral, and yet decided upon by men.
Women, if they are present at all, are left on the fringes.
Behind this hides the hope that a certain segment of the
population can be designated as the revolutionary subject based
upon social and economic criteria. We think this is wrong, because
the riots and revolts of this so-called underclass then get
analyzed and over-valued. We have given up looking for THE
revolutionary subject, and we do not see it in refugee women and
men.
Opting for the refugee campaign was, for us, an attempt to
seek some common ground with open groups already working in this
area. We think it’s important that political work is done on all
levels to resist imperialist refugee policies, and that cooperative
work is developed along side the refugee and immigrant women and
men themselves.
A further difference lies in our experiences in solidarity
work and anti-racist work. These things clearly influenced our
discussions and proposals. Working together with refugee and
immigrant women and men, and experiences with their own struggles,
these things forced the left (which was and is active in this area)
to discuss its own racist structures and to test out its notions of
anti-racist work. Along with this, we also had to discuss, for the
first time, the notion of racism as a fundamental pillar in the
pushing through of exploitative relations and their present-day
form. You can’t just wish your own racist structures away, rather
this is much more straining and difficult that was originally
thought.
Radikal : How do you envision a broadening of the social base
through an engagement in the refugee campaign ? The discussion of
this theme requires a high level of consciousness, and thus seems
to get stuck in limited circles and interests. Perhaps a social-
revolutionary approach could better be followed in neighbourhood,
squatting, or labour struggles ?
RZ : Of course we hope to find a social base for our politics, one
that can possibly broaden. But for us, the question remains : What
content do present-day struggles contain ? Men lack self-criticism
of patriarchal content, and they reproduce these in their
relations, just as whites generally are not willing to take on the
consequences of racist oppression, which is something we also
profit from. This approach requires a consciousness and a
willingness to discuss your own ties to the system. But sadly, this
is not the rule. But that’s why an attempt at thematizing on forms
of oppression is so necessary.
Under certain circumstances, there is a bigger chance that
struggles will develop and broaden from neighbourhood, squatting,
and workers’ struggles, because their perspective implies a
bettering of their own conditions. But such struggles are not by
definition emancipatory. For example, the struggle to keep your job
can be tied to racist relations and racist exclusionism. The racist
consensus in the society makes it clear that we need anti-racist
work to be carried out in all reaches of society.
Radikal : Except for a few analytical notions in some communiques
(Lufthansa Cologne 10/86, Muenster and Dusseldorf 5/89,
administrative office in Boblingen 8/91), the refugee campaign has
not had a real anti-patriarchal outlook and thus has not developed
any forms of practical change. And the one paper on this theme,
"What is Patriarchy ?", came out of nowhere and did not mention the
refugee campaign, and it did not result in any conclusions,
reactions, or discussions among the Revolutionary Cells. Within the
Revolutionary Cells, neither a theoretical nor a practical outlook
was developed, and no attempts were made to take up this theme. The
authors of the paper "The End of Our Politics" characterize their
level of development on this theme as not politically viable. How
do you all see this ? Do you all discuss the possibilities for how
men or mixed groups can make practical attempts and actions against
patriarchal and sexist structures ? And if not, why ?
RZ : In the three communiques you mentioned, the references made to
patriarchy were not very comprehensive. We think they are
indicative of the level of development of the present-days groups
with regard to the anti-patriarchy discussion. As far as women are
concerned, they certainly are not indicative of the level of their
discussions, but rather more of that of the men in the groups.
In our group, the women do not advance positions that the men
themselves have not worked on. That means a permanent political
contradiction for the women in the group. For the men, it means
further advancing their own discussion of patriarchy, to give the
group a better basis for further praxis. The women don’t feel that
a better basis is just discussions of feminist theories and working
with anti-patriarchal themes, but also destroying such relations in
ourselves and in the group.
The reality for the men is that this advance has not really
come about, but rather has hit upon conflicts and confrontations.
Thus, they limit the possibilities for action and expression by the
women in the group. If the women reflect upon all the
contradictions and various differences in starting-points between
the women and men, then there seems to be little basis to justify
a mixed group. The fact that the group does exist is due to our
history and the conditions which have arisen from this. The
contradictions and fragility behind this decision means that our
association is always in question or in crisis.
This has been the case up until today in the patriarchy
discussion between men and women in the left-radical movement
nation-wide, and it has set the conditions for mixed-group
politics. As for the men, the discussion paper "What is
Patriarchy ?" is an example of this. This paper did not advance the
discussion among men very much, because typically the male roles
were left out. This distance was clear to us in the language, among
other things. It did not seem like a group discussion.
A discussion of these problems has put us in a situation of
contradiction and conflict more than once. Not only the theoretical
unclarities, but especially the relations of men and women amongst
themselves often revealed the gaps between an attempt and a lack of
change. We need to take the necessary amount of time for this
discussion. But still, this independent discussion among men needs
to be visible to the women, so that the foundations for mixed-group
politics can continue to exist.
To summarize everything once again : As for the possibilities
for practical initiatives and actions against sexist structures, we
are weighed down by all the uncertainties and reservations. On a
theoretical level, we have arrived at a consensus, which was
nonetheless possible despite the conflicts, but that doesn’t mean
that it has always been a liberating experience for the women.
The objects, structures, and people that can be attacked from
out of feminist associations cannot be proposed as targets for
attack by us, a mixed group, given our present condition. As a
mixed group, we think it’s right to point out the sexist structures
in all attack targets, and there’s much to be done as far as this
is concerned, and this could give a basis which allows for more
possibilities on the perspective level.
These conflicts, which also break out between men and women in
mixed left-radical groups, need to be openly discussed, in order to
make possible a further development of content and praxis.
Radikal : The Revolutionary Cells’ practical targets for attacks
during the refugee campaign were generally the institutions and
organs responsible for state racism against refugee and immigrant
women and men. The theoretical basis of the refugee campaign is
more broadly envisioned. There, links are made between imperialist
exploitation, the plundering of entire continents, the collapse of
subsistence economies, and thereby the basis of life for millions
of people, and these are seen as causes for the global tide of
refugees. These links are not visible in the targets attacked. But
surely there could have been some actions during the refugee
campaign which also made clear the imperialist foundation of state
refugee policies. For example, the Rote Zora action against the
Adler corporation, whose orientation encompassed several different
themes : 1) Productions by a metropolitan corporation in a nation of
the Three Continents. 2) The exploitation of women’s labour. 3)
Intervention in an actual labour struggle.
Have there been discussions about not doing this, seeing it as
too big to handle ? Were there political arguments for concentrating
exclusively on objects and persons responsible for state racism ?
RZ : We can only answer this question in reference to ourselves,
because we did not take part in the internal discussions within the
Revolutionary Cells, nor do we now. In the way in which the refugee
campaign began and further developed, it seemed plausible to us to
concentrate momentarily on state racism as the target for attack.
It was made clear what role the ruling powers’ refugee politics
plays, and how it is pushed through at the different levels, from
the social bureaus to the refugee divisions to the administrative
courts. Along side the structural manner of functioning, the
campaign was also a discussion of those persons who are
responsible, to expose the racism of the typewriter bastards. On a
perspective level, we think this campaign can be expanded, because
it has a theoretical basis. It offers the possibility of dealing
with all exploitative relations and structures of exclusion, both
in terms of their differences as well as how they function
together.
Practical change can only come on the basis of a fundamental
content which gets worked out (see the discussion of patriarchy in
the previous question). Of course there can be attacks against
women traders in the refugee campaign, people who make their money
in the slave trade of refugee and immigrant women. There can also
be attacks on corporations and capitalists, who make capital by
employing the refugee and immigrant women and men who must sell
their labour very cheap here in the metropoles. There can also be
attacks on fascists and their propaganda structures, as well as
attacks on the mainstream media, which carries out racist and
sexist smear-campaigns against refugee and immigrant women and men.
The fact that there haven’t been any such attacks as a part of the
refugee campaign thus far is an illustration of the present state
of the content discussion and its contradictions.
With reference to the Adler action, we have a different view.
The Adler action was developed and carried out from women’s
associations. Therefore, it’s not really possible to compare this
action to ones carried out by mixed groups, for the reasons stated
above. The fact that this action was so well received, we believe,
was due to a combination of public work, an applied method,
extensive damage, and the fact that the demands of the women Korean
workers were fulfilled. We don’t agree that the Adler action dealt
with more themes than actions within the refugee campaign.
An action from within the refugee campaign can expose
capitalist, racist, and sexist exploitation interests all at the
same time. Thus, policies regarding deportations and the
functioning of "foreigner laws" work as a selection instruments in
the capitalist evaluation of refugee and immigrant women and men.
The sexist aspect of these laws is made clear by the fact that
women’s independent reasons for flight are often not accepted, and
this is responsible for the fact that women’s immigration is often
at the level of the marriage market or forced prostitution.
Moreover, thematizing on the grounds for flight exposes the roots
of the corporations in the Three Continents.
Radikal : The orientation of the refugee campaign on the leading
organs of state racism seems to overlook racism "in the people".
Here’s a quotation on that from "Zorn-Extra, 9th newspaper of the
Revolutionary Cells, Oct. ’86" : "Anti-imperialist politics in West
Germany had, until now, focused on solidarity with liberation
struggles in the Third World and on fighting against the war
machine here. We don’t have any illusions that common interests can
be developed between refugee and immigrant women and men in West
Germany and sectors of the West German underclass. Nonetheless,
anti-imperialist politics need to be introduced where racist class
divisions tend to break out."
The authors of this quotation assume, throughout the whole
text, that racism is an instrument of class division which is
utilized by the ruling powers to divide the proletariat. Today, the
proletariat and other strata have shown their own expressions of
racism (like the pogroms in Hoyerswerda, Mannheim, Rostock...) and
have followed their own interests ("Foreigners out !"), and this has
often gone beyond the boundaries which state racism deems
acceptable (the murders in Moelln).
The pogroms, the massive attacks, and the murders of refugee
and immigrant women and men show quite clearly that the proletariat
and other strata of German women and men have internalized forms of
domination, which get expressed as hatred of anything "other" than
themselves. This form of racism, unlike state racism, does not
differentiate between the utility value of foreign people. This
internalized mechanism of domination has not been analyzed that
much in discussions of racism. For much of the left here, the white
metropolitan proletariat is still seen as the hopeful bringer of
revolutionary change, and its racism is made harmless by claims
that they are "manipulated from above".
The refugee campaign has primarily oriented itself towards
state racism. You all assume that the struggle for the right for
residency for refugee women and men will remain isolated from
circumstances of the white proletariat. "We still don’t know
whether anti-imperialist politics can make a link between the
refugee question and lines of conflict in the guaranteed sector,
but the struggle for the right for residency for refugee women and
men is also correct, even if it stays mostly isolated from the
white proletariat here."
How do you all account for the development of the last three
years, where racism has not only been ignored by broad sectors of
the population, but that the population and certainly the
proletariat have shown themselves to be deeply racist ?
RZ : The faults of the refugee campaign up until now have been
self-critically reflected upon in published statements : "Among
other things, we see one short-coming in the fact we have only
focused our struggle on state racism, on the administrative
divisions dealing with foreigners, the courts, and those
responsible for deportations. Only afterwards did we reflect on the
racism present in broad sectors of the population." (from "We Have
to be as Radical as the Reality"). We agree with this self-
criticism, although we think the focused initiatives on state
racism which were made at that time were good.
In ’85/86, the politicians opened a new round of the smear-
campaign against refugee women and men, in an effort to legitimize
new measures of scaring off, heading off, and selecting refugees.
For example, the DDR was tempted with interest-free credit, on the
promise that no refugee women and men would be allowed into
West-Berlin without a visa ; asylum regulations were sharpened, in
that the administrative courts greatly curtailed the recognition
criteria for refugee women and men. The climate within the
population became more heated as well, through the creation of tent
cities. This resulted in attacks and violence against refugee women
and men and their homes.
This dimension of racism within the population has been very
overlooked, not only by the Revolutionary Cells, but also by the
entire left, the Autonomen, and the feminist movement. The notion
of racism was reduced (seen merely as a tool of division utilized
by the ruling powers) or hardly given much content.
In the meantime, we have realized that internalized forms of
racist thoughts, actions, and feelings are organizational
characteristics of the structure of capitalist society, colonialist
history, and Germany’s specific national-socialist past. This
process of internalization is continually reproduced in people. To
what degree the ruling powers are responsible depends on the
person, we believe. That means that one’s own feeling of self-worth
is increased by excluding or devaluing others, in order to protect
one’s own privileges and material interests. In the process, people
are not simply victims or products of social relations, but rather
they are active subjects.
We were not able to predict the degree of the social
developments of the past few years, and the accompanying outbreak
of racism. One fundamental crystallization point for this
development was the "Reunification", and the accompanying outbreak
of racism, anti-Semitism, and nationalism. The existence of two
separate German states was always a visible sign of the defeat of
national-socialism. With "Reunification", the post-war era was
declared to be over. Germany can now wear its brown shirts once
again. The time of restraint and atonement is over. Germany may,
and shall, feel itself to be a full nation once again. But this
national feeling is not easy to recapture after 40 years of
separation. The social and economic differences are too great for
this. The only thing which all these people have in common, given
all of these differences, is their German-ness, their so-called
German identity. This solidifies their status as patriotic German
citizens. It binds them to the alleged superiority of German
culture, norms, and values. If these ideas seem faded in a few
individuals, then there’s always the willing link-up to the ruling
system of domination. The construction of a German identity
requires, at the same time, the construction of less-important
ethnic groups, who are marginalized and seen as strange people.
The "Reunification" broke many taboos. The people are once
again proud to be German, German history is being revised, pogroms,
expulsions, anti-Semitic actions, and racist murders are happening
again, and these are being seen by many people as legitimate
political means and they are openly applauded.
The nationalism of wide sectors of the population allows the
ruling powers to, for example, deploy German military forces
abroad. Thus, German imperialism can use not only its economic, but
also its military power to establish and expand itself within the
EC and across the globe.
The radical-left has been generally helpless in the face of
these developments, because our political theory and praxis up
until now has been too limited. Even militant attacks on
institutions of state racism are only one part of the struggle.
That’s why it’s also necessary to build up legal structures,
which not only make it possible to provide protection from racist
and fascist attacks or their structures, but it also allows for the
possibility to intervene in public discussions. We think it’s wrong
to take a yes-or-no approach to political means when confronting
the general public. We need to win people over to an anti-racist
alternative, even if they don’t agree with every one of our
positions.
Radikal : In addition to "the population’s racism", we also think
that the "left" is not immune to racism. Do you all agree ? If so,
how do you all address a self-criticism of this ?
RZ : In your previous questions, you characterized the proletariat
as "deeply racist", although you then say that leftists are not
free from racism either. This manner of formulation and
differentiation is, to us, an expression of our own unclarities
when dealing with racism.
As leftists, if we say "deeply racist", then we mean nothing
less than the fact that our thoughts, our feelings, and our
relations are tainted with internalized racism. This is often only
subtly expressed. In the discussion concerning white spots in
anti-racist politics, the left is still at the very beginning. In
the refugee campaign, this point has not been addressed at all.
Charges of racism against leftists and feminists are justified.
This should lead to our willingness to address the Eurocentrism of
our own theoretical viewpoints.
We can’t speak of a common front between Kreuzberg, Los
Angeles, and Rio. When we here in the metropoles seek to explain
relations and to derive our politics, we can’t simply take
relations from other societies, especially those of the Three
Continents, and act like the people there. Quickly-formulated
common links overlook the complexities of domination relations.
This is also true when trying to work together with refugee and
immigrant women and men. In the political day-to-day, and in
working together with refugee and immigrant women and men, it is
necessary to test your own relations for racism. Sure, we can
sensitize ourselves to act on a reflex to our own racism, but as
for taking on racist relations in the future, often in a subtle
manner, we are not immune. We often precipitate "positive racism"
by attributing characteristics to refugee and immigrant women and
men that fit with our vision of them. And there’s also the danger
that we leftists will learn to adapt our relations externally based
on criticisms, but without bothering to undertake any fundamental
discussions or change. Men have reacted in the very same way to the
patriarchy discussion, without making any independent thoughts of
their own. But we must do this if we hope to find a basis for
working together with refugee and immigrant women and men. That
means actively thematizing on our own racism.
Radikal : What is your opinion of the triple oppression discussion,
particularly as it is presented in the paper "Three Into One" ?
RZ : We see the triple oppression analysis in "Three Into One" as an
attempt to expose the various different violence relations and
their interconnections. It brings an analysis which has been
developed over the past few years within the black women’s and
lesbian’s movement into the mixed autonomous- and militant-left.
Therefore, it is a very important text.
The fact that it has been so enthusiastically received, which
does not mean that it has also been worked into people’s political
understanding, particularly with men, has surprised us somewhat.
Maybe it causes some relief in the hearts of many men, because it
is one of the few texts in which a serious attempt is made on the
part of men to discuss racism and sexism and to arrive at a
differentiated position. We can’t address the content of "Three
Into One" right now, because we cannot do that in such a short
space, nor would we want to. To make our answer clear, we are not
very far off from this paper in terms of our own analytical
approach. There need to be closer discussions of this analysis, and
we intend to have such discussions.
Radikal : The authors of "The End of Our Politics" linked the
effectiveness of the refugee campaign to the independent resistance
of refugee women and men here, and they say they were frustrated by
the absence of such processes and struggles. Here’s a citation from
the paper "The End of Our Politics" : "We never held the hope that
close ties would be formed between refugees and the proletarian
class here, ties which could bridge racist gaps. But we did
fantasize about the desire of the refugees to demand their share of
the wealth in the metropoles, as a direct anti-imperialist
struggle, combined with experiences of resistance in the Three
Continents - and this would be a possible terrain for our own
politics. When struggles of this type, which we hoped to make
reference to (and which caused us to overlook the "reformist"
demands of asylum-seekers), were absent, we compensated with an
analysis of state refugee policies and attacks on reachable
agents."
In your praxis in the refugee campaign, did you support
yourselves with such expectations, and what role does it play for
you all that refugee women and men don’t display the desired
potential for unrest ? Or that processes of cooperation between
refugee women and men and the social sector and the radical-left
have not amounted to much, although there have been some attempts ?
We don’t want to neglect the experiences of support groups, who
have resisted state oppression and racist attacks alongside refugee
women and men.
RZ : But even the experiences of these support groups and their work
show that we have a Eurocentric outlook and that we produce
positive racism.
Refugee and immigrant women and men are not generally coming
from liberation struggles and positive resistance in their
homelands. But they still often bring with them political
experiences and they live and defend themselves here under
different conditions than we do. The primary interest of most
refugee women and men is not to wage an anti-imperialist struggle
here (with or without us). Many refugee women and men are
supporting the resistance in their countries for the first time.
Often, the main interest of refugee women and men is to live safely
in Europe and to protect their existence. The fact that they often,
in our eyes, follow a reformist and survivalist approach, something
which we are ignorant of and reject, is due to their conditions and
interests. The fact that we immediately view their political work
and resistance as unacceptable, or completely disregard it, is our
problem. This is a white problem. We know this "frustration" from
false expectations all too well, and this is reason enough on its
own to discuss our own racist projections. We need to make the
following differentiations :
between individual refugee interests and reasons for flight and
the fact that increased migration has become a problem for the
ruling powers and the population of the metropoles, namely it has
become a problem for their welfare and control ;
between conditions of living and struggle of refugee women and
men in the Three Continents and here.
Refugee women and men can’t be seen as a homogenous group any
more than the "underclass", the "proletariat", or women can. They
come from different countries and were and are organized in
different political parties, something which even makes cooperation
amongst themselves difficult. The white left often overlooks and
even ignores this fact. When we seek to orient ourselves to refugee
and immigrant women and men, then we need to sincerely question our
own proposals and expectations, because otherwise there’s the
danger that we will exercise a paternalistic and contrived form of
solidarity, instead of developing and supporting genuine solidarity
and resistance together.
Radikal : The RZ that wrote "The End of Our Politics" stated that
many anti-racist structures have fallen apart, and that their
campaign had not achieved its desired resonance. We see things
differently. For one thing, there are, at least in some regions,
far more groups doing work on this theme than there were in ’86,
when the Revolutionary Cells began their campaign. What’s more, we
think that this campaign was an important reason why many
Autonomen, even before the present wave of fascist pogroms, began
to take up this kind of work. We ourselves were made aware of many
things thanks to this campaign. Many actions which were carried out
in ’90 and ’91 would not have been possible without the
"preparations" which were made by the Revolutionary Cells. Do you
all agree ?
RZ : Since ’90/91, many people from the left-radical and feminist
movement have started anti-racist initiatives or have begun
discussing racism. Whether or not the refugee campaign initiated
this anti-racist work is questionable. Certainly, many comrades
took a positive relation to the refugee campaign, but this usually
amounted to little more than expressions of satisfaction after
isolated actions from the Revolutionary Cells. As to what degree
the refugee campaign has influenced contemporary political work,
that is difficult to estimate and is still unclear. There was never
a two-way political discussion. We don’t know of any anti-racist
group that openly voiced agreement with the content orientation of
the refugee campaign.
We think that a far more decisive factor in the mobilization
of the radical-left were the independent struggles which were waged
by refugee women and men themselves. For example, the march of
shame by the Roma through North-Rhein-Westphalia ’90, the church
occupation by the Roma in Tuebingen ’90/91, the church occupations
in Neumuenster ’91, and the Norderstedt-church and TU-university
occupations in Berlin ’91/92. During all of these campaigns, the
left was called upon to turn its slogan "Increase International
Solidarity !" into praxis. And by supporting these campaigns, there
were many experiences, but there were also questions within some
groups of how a continuity of anti-racist work could be achieved.
What we found particularly good and important was that many groups
that did support work then reflected on their political work and
discussed it. But the on-going discussion was only carried out by
anti-racist groups and parts of the radical-left. The Revolutionary
Cells were hardly involved in this. On the contrary, the political
developments of the last few years have been ignored by the
Revolutionary Cells, particularly by the group that wrote "The End
of Our Politics".
Radikal : At the present time, parts of the radical-left are
involved with an anti-racist political initiative which is tied to
antifa work. In response to the fascist offensive and daily attacks
of foreigners and refugee women and men, a practical form of
anti-fascism and anti-racism has been taken up as a broad field of
intervention. Can you all, as an RZ, see yourselves as part of this
movement ?
RZ : Due to overlapping content, the orientation of the refugee
campaign is very close to the antifa-movement. The horror of the
murders and attacks on refugee and immigrant women, men, and
children, homeless people, disabled persons, and leftists has had
practical consequences, especially for antifa associations. For
example, contacts have been made with refugee women and men, there
have protection vigils and hostels, and there have been attacks on
fascists and fascist structures. But the necessity for action tends
to push reflections on mistakes and better strategies to the
background. Racism and anti-Semitism used to generally be discussed
mostly within the fascism discussion, and even was placed in the
back. Even the slogan "Against racism, sexism, and fascism !" has
hardly been fulfilled by mixed groups. In the struggle against
racism, the theme of patriarchal violent relations often falls out
of the picture. There are still no workable strategies to combat
outbreaks of racism and right-wing organizing. The slogan "Attack
the fascists wherever they are !", which is often shouted at
counter-demos to fascist mobilizations, can’t be used to combat
racism within the general population. Other strategies need to be
developed for this. Of course, this requires that the Revolutionary
Cells undergo self-criticism, because attacks on institutions of
state racism don’t do much to counter the racist consensus in the
population.
Whether the antifa associations will develop a continuity of
anti-racist work depends on the content workings and willingness
for discussion of the anti-fascist and anti-racist groups. In the
struggle against the ruling powers’ refugee policies and racism on
the streets, there are plenty of common possibilities, and with
some work, a common basis for resistance can be developed.
Radikal : Soon, the asylum-clause will become more restrictive
(actually, this has already happened, when Germany changed the
asylum-clause, Article 16, in its constitution on July 1, 1993 -
trans.). A "deportation agreement" is being signed between Germany
and Rumania concerning the Roma people. This means that fewer and
fewer refugee women and men may enter Germany legally. Many more
refugee women and men will have to come in and live here illegally.
Will this sharpened situation affect your theory and praxis ?
RZ : The new asylum policies won’t have much effect on our
fundamental outlook. State policies as early as ’86 were already
geared towards illegalizing refugee women and men. Certainly, the
politics of separation are a means of selecting refugee women and
men. A further building-block for this form of politics are the
asylum laws and Article 16 of the constitution, etc. We think that
the agreement with Rumania, and the resulting deportations, will
make possible a cheap detention of a certain number of refugee
women and men and will make a cost-efficient labour force available
at all times. The agreement signed with Rumania will certainly be
a model for other European nations. Those refugee women and men
that simply are not wanted will have to keep on living and working
in Europe illegally.
Refugee women and men, particularly illegals, are seen as good
for temporary, very mobile, and extremely cheap labour, and, at the
same time, they are expendable. The ruling powers in Europe have
relied upon illegal labour for years. Many sectors of capital and
the economy simply cannot do without it. Illegal women must often
sell themselves in the sex industry (pornography, prostitution,
marriage, etc.).
A further goal of racist and sexist market policies in Europe
is to put the illegals under increasing pressure in their
existence, that way the market value for European workers can be
decreased as well. This pressure is increased by attacks on
welfare, living assistance, and social programs, and by increasing
rent and the cost of living at the same time. Through this comes a
further redistribution of social work, to the detriment of women.
After Moelln, the ruling powers wanted people to refrain from
carrying out racist violence against guest workers and immigrants,
because they are needed here. But the illegals could be supplanted
as a "new" object of hatred, who then can count on little support
from social groups. That’s why illegal refugee women and men need
to be focused on in our struggle against racism. The living
conditions and structures of resistance of illegal refugee women
and men in Europe will surely change, and it is against this
background that our praxis of supporting their struggle will be
derived and developed.
The state’s interest is to divide refugee women and men from
immigrant women and men. We need to carry out common anti-racist
actions against this. The clearing of a path for racist selection - even on the part of union, Green, and church circles - must be
offensively and politically opposed. Attacks on state institutions
that organize such selections, as well as on the representatives of
capital who directly profit from the labour of illegals, are
necessary.
Radikal : Street-fighting and looting, the use of molotovs, militant
attacks on police, many things which were once exclusively
practiced by leftists, are now being used by the right-wing in
their political struggle, and thus these means have lost their
clear definition. Some examples which get cited are the massive
firebombings, looting, and rioting by right-wingers (with the
support of the population) in Rathenow (Brandenburg) or the attacks
by right-wing youths on the police-watch in Senftenberg. These
means are no longer the property of the left. There exists the
danger that our actions will be equated with day-to-day right-wing
actions. The attack by the Revolutionary Cells on the refugee
administrative division in Boblingen in August ’91 was reported by
the media as an attack by right-wing extremists. The authors of
"The End of Our Politics" represent the opinion that the use of
fire and flames today is not appropriate.
The actions of the traditional line against Korbmacher and
Hollenberg, or stealing or destroying the files in administrative
offices, these are targets of actions which clearly disrupt the
right-wing apparatus. These are in no way the targets of right-wing
attacks. We would like to see a close and imaginative discussion of
how to reach our goal. When dealing with ZAST, for example, and all
of the files and computer data there, maybe it would be better to
remove the files and computer disks rather than burn down the
building. We think it’s necessary today to carry out actions which
bring into question the "anti-racist consensus of the German
people" which the state and capital falsely propagate. For us, this
is more a question of clarity than of means. Or how do you all see
this ?
RZ : Like we said, a continuity of militant praxis is not only
defined by actions. Conveying the differentiation of our content of
analysis and goals is an important part of our politics, one which
cannot be separated from a militant praxis. That’s why the question
of means cannot be discussed in isolation. With every practical
step, the need and possibility for revolutionary change here needs
to be made visible, and also the experience that resistance is
possible.
So we agree with you when you say that our repertoire of ideas
and means could be expanded, if conditions allow. When certain
actions are justified, and when the goal of revolutionary
counter-power is nearer, that is a political decision which we must
make. The actual social situation needs to be judged, that means
realizing that fascists and right-wingers use the same methods we
do. That does not mean that methods such as firebombings are wrong.
The difference lies in the perception of the action, something
which is dependent on different aspects : The object which is
attacked should, on its own, make it clear which political wing
carried out the attack. Today it’s even more important to establish
a differentiation from fascist attacks. For example, we would never
carry out an attack on an unoccupied tent-city, even thought we’d
like to see such tent-cities abolished. The use of militant method
should correspond to acceptance within the movement. With every
action, it should be certain that no harm will come to uninvolved
persons.
Another important factor is the present strength of the left
and status of society’s impression of the anti-racist movement.
Depending on strength relations, the degree to which the state and
the media seek to take up and channel protest potential is either
great or small. For example, the campaign by the state powers
against hatred and violence is a desensitizing one, in which
left-radical politics and militant praxis are denounced and
isolated. We need to oppose this through political discussion and
praxis (in our opinion, this was successfully done on November 8,
1992, in Berlin during Weizsaecker’s rally).
Radikal : Part of the traditional line wrote the following in "The
End of Our Politics" : "Today we see the consequences of the
realization that the form and structure of our struggle was the
expression of a particular phase of the development of social
contradictions in West Germany after 1968, something which has
changed since the collapse of real-existing socialism and the
resulting processes of destruction, as well as German reunification
and the ’New World Order’ which was sketched out during the Gulf
War. (...) The objective analysis which has taken place
historically since 1989/90 (...) demands a fundamentally different
stage in the organization of militant and revolutionary resistance.
But we can’t merely formulate this as a hollow attempt. In reality,
we have been overrun by history."
The authors, among other things, draw certain consequences
from their militant actions. We assume that you all have not drawn
the same consequences ? Does that mean that you all do not share the
view expressed in the above quotation, or do you all draw other
conclusions ?
RZ : The paper "The End of Our Politics" made us angry, and for the
first time - and it did not have this effect on us alone - it made
us uncertain. This, along with the paper on Gerd Albartus and the
RAF paper (August ’92), was an expression of just how bad the
process of exchange really was between militant and non-militant
groups. We don’t want to ignore the questions and problems which
were raised. We recognize the necessity of a fundamental
examination, like we said before. In any case, we are not at the
end of our politics.
The social contradictions and violent relations have hardly
changed their "character", rather they are the same as ever and
they have not lessened. The erosion of the former so-called
socialist states has a long history, one which began long before
’89. It was always visible, even if the speed of the collapse was
not predicted. At least 10 years prior to this, the Revolutionary
Cells and Rote Zora gave hints in this direction in their
discussion papers (the paper on the peace movement, for example).
And we don’t need to emphasize the fact that no proposals for a
liberated society can be made with that form of socialism.
Of course, the conditions for left-radical politics have
worsened since the collapse. Non-capitalist utopias are now seen as
a viable alternative by fewer and fewer people here. On the
contrary, many more people are now reproducing nationalist and
racist ideas, and they see in these a solution to their problems.
Thus, it has become more difficult for left-radical ideas to work
their way into people’s consciousness, or to find any acceptance
whatsoever. But despite the changed conditions, we must struggle
even more against this feeling of powerlessness.
But neither Germany’s Super Power lust, nor the alignment of
the East, nor the so-called New World Order is anything new. Anyone
who as been overrun by this history has either been keeping their
eyes closed or is using this history as an excuse to stop bothering
with revolutionary politics. There’s no possible way of organizing
the resistance on an entirely different - much less a "higher" -
level, rather we first need a viable resistance. Anyone who as
given up on working on "the exchange between legal and illegal
means of struggle" and who no longer presses for this should not be
surprised if no "de-individualization" takes place.
We don’t think that the crisis of the left-radical movement is
the result of being overwhelmed by the collapse of the former East
Bloc states. Our crisis did not begin with the "Reunification". The
sorrow and mistakes of left-radical politics - a lack of
organization and unified structures - have been criticized for
quite some time.
Much has already been written about all of that. Everyone has
been called on to do their part to improve our conditions. But we
still haven’t reached the point where militant forms of resistance
are accepted from the start. Whether and how leftist politics, and
its strategies and forms of struggle, will develop further will be
played out in future common discussions.
(from Radikal #147)