Revolutionary Cell Communique - Tendency For The International Social Revolution

We are a group belonging to the association known as the Revolutionary Cells. The publication of a piece on the death of Gerd Albartus by another RZ groups forces us to say something in public ourselves, although we don’t approve of taking the route of giving insufficient information.

We also want to comment on the communique from another RZ group who intend to abandon the armed struggle.

In the meantime, it will become clear that there are different tendencies within the RZs. In this and all subsequent public statements, we shall identify ourselves accordingly.

The paper on Gerd’s death was, against our will, signed in the name of all RZs in common. In the preceding discussions, we had made it clear that this paper did not express our outlook and praxis regarding international liberation struggles. Gerd’s obituary was misused as an opportunity to take a self-satisfied look around, at the cost of the fighting peoples in the Three Continents. With the same type of carelessness, the circumstances of Gerd’s death were only hinted at. The responsible organization was not specifically named ; this only leads to speculation, which can only be to the detriment of the Palestinian resistance as a whole. The organization is in fact very small and only struggles on the military level, but it counts itself as part of the international anti-imperialist liberation struggle.

We also refuse to work together with this organization because their actions are often untargeted or falsely grounded and because they fail to also struggle on the political level. We only have a vague idea why the organization in question doubted Gerd’s trustworthiness, but Gerd knew what he was getting into. He knew the requirements of intense military struggle. He understood his cooperation with this group as being part of the struggle by an oppressed people against their misery and political oppression. For him, it was an alternative to the self-satisfaction of many people - leftists included - in the metropoles.

In this sense, we share the political position of the authors of Gerd’s obituary. International solidarity means actively criticising those whom we struggle together with - not acting arrogant, as if the liberation movement and the oppressed classes don’t know about the concrete and historical evolution of the conditions of the struggle.

In the public discussions around the obituary, some significant points of criticism were addressed which we agree with : in ’Arbeiterkampf’ 13.1.92, the piece entitled "Questions and Comments on the RZ-paper", and the piece called "I’m going away, I’m going away...to look for something new", signed "3.February 92".

The revolutionary liberation struggles on the Three Continents
 which are always struggles for social liberation, which we especially support - take place under different, specific conditions. Our analysis of these struggles and our solidarity with them is based both on an examination of the objective conditions and also a reflection on centuries of imperialist exploitation and oppression. The shrunken orientation exclusively on the "local social processes" in the metropoles, without seeing these in their international context, is the expression of a neo-colonialist mindset.

Anyone who is in solidarity with the struggles in the Three Continents must be on the same side of the barricade as those forces which are resisting the destructive imperialist violence and its open and hidden forms of economic, military, and psychological war which is being waged against the peoples of the Three Continents. Solidarity always implies critical solidarity. Only so can a common revolutionary development process make possible an international strength.

The hijacking of the Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris to Entebbe (1976) was designed to win freedom for 53 comrades imprisoned in Israel, West Germany, Kenya, Switzerland, and France by means of holding hostages. Out of these five countries, there were only citizens from two on board the plane. All the passengers from Israel and France, including the French crew, were held, while all other nationalities were released. There was no selection of Jews. The fact that the authors of Gerd’s obituary so critically followed the line of the mainstream media ("Selection of Jews"...), shows not only their political immaturity, but also their mistrust of the comrades involved.

In making a political assessment of the action - we also feel that hijacking planes is problematical - its important to keep in mind the existing conditions of the Palestinian people. In short : life under Israeli occupation or as refugees, the experience of massacres (in Palestine and Lebanon), and even genocide (Jordan 1970). Shortly before the hijacking, 6000 Palestinians in the refugee camp Tel-Al-Zaatar in Beirut were murdered by a fascist Christian militia with help from the Syrian army ; Israel added to this with air and rocket attacks on the camp. The "world public opinion" was silent. The Palestinian resistance found itself in a state of war with Israel. The hijacking of the plane departing from Israel and the taking of hostages was designed to put pressure on the Israeli government.

Renouncing solidarity with the Palestinian resistance on account of this action, without even seeing it in the context of the conditions of that time, is wrong, especially since there was self-criticism within the Palestinian resistance about hijacking as an action form. Militaristic actions of this sort are generally no longer practiced by political organizations, since capturing random inhabitants of imperialist states is not seen as an effective means of advancing the liberation struggle against the ruling classes and the military apparatuses of the imperialist nations.

The existence of the racist Israeli state by definition means denying the Palestinians’ right to existence. Maintaining such a system, which collaborates with reactionary dictators across the globe, is not a solution. The only solution is a revolutionary struggle which affirms everyone’s equal right to existence. The Palestinian resistance formulated this goal decades ago.

In response to the other RZ group, who are giving up the armed struggle :

We see different reasons than you do for the causes of the crisis within the RZs and with armed politics in general :

1. The question of power and revolutionary counter-power.

Armed propaganda, as a means of showing the disapproval of the opposition, has always been central to RZ politics. As for the question of how revolutionary counter-power can be developed, this is being constantly revised. This position is apparently untouchable : clear-cut positions on certain problems are left to the so-called "public arena", to be addressed or not. This can solidify into a ritual, resulting in nothing moving, either personally or socially. No responsibility is taken for further- developing a political process of turning the reduced power of the oppressed into struggles involving lots of people, making possible a class-less, anti-patriarchical society.

Whoever has this as a goal, but doesn’t deal with the central question of how power can be achieved, remains a mere dreamer, oblivious to the existing conditions. It’s important to discuss how a counter-power can be positively developed and how abuses of power can be challenged. But we’ll never get that far if the power- question forever remains a taboo. How can we ever, as you all write, "develop more self-determination", if not through the development of a counter-power ? We will never be handed the means of play and the niches which would corrupt us. The experience of Chile 1973 and Spain 1936-39 should be proof enough for us of what the international bourgeoisie thinks of our dream of "self- determination", because the ruling powers know no boundaries : either politically or militarily.

2. The changing relationship between the guerrilla and the movement

You describe the coordination system which the RZs have used as a straight line : armed opposition - mediation - anchoring - uniformity. But this is quite a claim, because social processes don’t run in such a regular manner. And then you go and cite the failings of armed politics. In other words, establishing correctness was a primary concern of the political stimulus of the RZs. That is quite a generalization.

In contrast to your stated wishes, you display a clearly avant garde pedagogical approach. You relax your trigger-finger and wait for the theme of the public-sphere to be taken up. We think that people can make up their own minds, and at the same time, the guerrilla can judge the reactions to see if their expectations were realistic or not. Being dependent on public opinion turns armed politics into a reformism which no longer seeks to strategically intervene in political matters. At the same time, however, its important to avoid lapsing into a "private war" between the guerrilla and the state.

There are also social situations where the guerrilla cannot insert itself deeper into the oppressed classes, because the political process is stagnant. There are several factors responsible for this. But this doesn’t, to us, mean that armed politics becomes unnecessary, but rather it takes on a greater responsibility which does not aim at immediate attention, but rather develops fixed-points for future struggles. Abandoning the revolutionary armed forces means writing off the revolutionary struggle, because this struggle - more or less - is oriented around these forces. The guerrilla secures and widens the political terrain.

Instead of destroying the guerrilla because of the lack of a following behind the refugee campaign, it would be better to take a closer look at the campiagn’s orientation points. The demand for "open borders" does not address the roots of the problem, but rather its result, that is, the migration movement towards the metropoles. You have to have an anti-imperialist politics that attacks those responsible for the misery of the people in the Three Continents at the same time as you make this demand. Otherwise, the demand is not taken up by society, or it goes in the wrong direction. The prospect of millions of refugees coming into the country worries many people and often just gives rise to increased hatred of foreigners. This demand needs to be coupled with realistic proposals as to how imperialism can be fought and how the living conditions of the people in the Three Continents can be improved. Simple appeals to humanitarianism and suffering do not constitute a revolutionary politics and won’t provide any solutions to social problems.

As for linking this theme to social problems here : this theme is closely tied to the social problems here in the heart of the beast ! We cannot sit idly by and watch the hunger- and exploitation-politics of imperialism, and we have the necessary moral and revolutionary legitimation. The refugee campaign has been a single-issue campaign with very little room for revolutionary political content, in spite of peoples’ intentions. The reason is, things were not orientated towards an active movement, but rather we were all waiting for one to come into being.

Another mistake we have made in our movement politics has been exclusively focusing on the left-radical scene. This scene has hardly been socially relevant over the last 10 years, but instead has languished - largely of its own accord - in a ghetto, without any social ties. It would be quite a task to try and work on changing it.

3. The fall of real-existing socialism and its impact on the German left.

The fall of socialism does not explain why the left has fallen. The left had long since reached its boundaries, was in decline, and needed to address its mistakes and short-comings. Of course it’s bitter, that all of this has come at the same time as imperialism is claiming its victories over Eastern Europe and the Three Continents ; but there’s no use in complaining.

The "New World Order" is cracked and the future offers new opportunities. The order of the day should be re-developing the strategy and tactics of armed politics, not abandoning them.

We accept as self-explanatory the personal reasons various individuals and groups have for giving up on armed struggle so as to operate in more public spaces. But we think it’s false to try and base this decision on strategic concerns.

Revolutionary Cells - Tendency for the International Social Revolution

May 1992