Marxist Group (Germany)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Marxist Group (Ger.: Marxistische Gruppe/MG) was the largest communist organization of the "New Left" in Germany. The MG published among other things the magazine MSZ — Gegen die Kosten der Freiheit (Opposing the Costs of Freedom), the Marxistische Arbeiterzeitung (Marxist Workers’ Newspaper/MAZ), various university newspapers, as well as the book series Resultate (Results), Abweichende Meinungen (Dissenting Opinions) and Kritik der bürgerlichen Wissenschaft (Critique of Bourgeois Science).
The program of the MG consisted in the abolishment of private property. The free-market economy was to be replaced by a social planning of production for the purpose of best meeting the needs that arise.
The MG emerged from the so-called "Red Cells" (Ger.: Roten Zellen), which arose in the Munich student movement in 1968. The MG proper was only formed from around 1980 on, that is, at a time when the Maoist-oriented communist groups coming predominantly from similar milieus were already mostly on the decline or in the dissolution phase.
The organization, which was watched (and also spied on) by the intelligence office (Ger.: Verfassungsschutz; Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) and rated by it as "left-wing extremist," is thought to have had up to 10,000 members. On basis of data collected by the office, numerous members of the MG — particularly in Bavaria — were dismissed from civil service, and some private employers were informed by the office of MG members employed by them and asked to dismiss them.
In May 1991, the MG announced its dissolution. The reason it stated was that it was expecting intensified reprisals against its members with the appearance of an intelligence office brochure about it. The MSZ was discontinued, but corresponding journalistic work was continued by the publishing house GegenStandpunkt-Verlag and the journal GegenStandpunkt (Opposing Viewpoint).
[edit] The communist theory of the Marxist Group
The MG never based itself on "Marxism-Leninism," but sharply criticized the interpretation of Karl Marx’ theory that was forged by Lenin and handed down by the communist parties. It started out from the new discussion about the conceptual logic of Marx’ Capital that arose only in the 1960s.
On this basis, the MG did not regard the phenomena of bourgeois society as result of the doings of individual capitalists or fractions of capital, but saw capitalists and wageworkers only as "character masks" (Marx) of a relationship of exploitation between capital and wage labor that is inherent in bourgeois society, i.e., based on general commodity production and the commodity character of labor power. While for example the German Communist Party (Ger.: Deutsche Kommunistische Partei/DKP) with its theory of "state monopoly capitalism" criticized the bourgeois state in Germany primarily for letting "monopoly capital" directly influence politics in all kinds of ways and thereby thwart and corrode the at least partly "progressive-democratic" character of the political order formulated in the constitution, the MG rejected such criticisms as "idealistic," because according to their analysis, a bourgeois state is fundamentally nothing other than an "ideal collective capitalist" (Friedrich Engels), quite independently of the actions of individual capitals, and exists for no other purpose than to safeguard the private ownership of the means of production and to guarantee the basic conditions for capital accumulation with the aid of the state monopoly on the use of force. When the DKP and similar groups appealed to "democratic forces" to form alliances against right-wing and fascist tendencies, the MG accordingly rejected this as assuming democracy has nothing but humane purposes that miss the point of its actual reason for being. After all, it claimed, it was completely normal democratic business both to "sort human material into useful and useless" and to wage war to assert the demand that all resources be transformed into objects of capital accumulation, while fascism was especially consistent in realizing the democratic ideal of a national community willing to make sacrifices for the success of the state purpose. Further, democratic pluralism institutionalized the citizens’ renouncement of their needs and interests, and in their differing opinions about government policy, they disputed, without any regard for these needs, the state’s interest as they existed in different variants (political parties). The MG was also sharply polemical about the trade unions, since by fighting for higher wages, they expressed nothing other than the workers’ fundamental agreement with the capitalistic use of their labor power.
The MG adopted from Lenin the concept of the cadre organization made up of trained career revolutionaries, denying however his theory of imperialism as "the highest stage of capitalism," in which capitalism had passed into a state of "rot" and decline — since capitalism was not to be criticized for working badly, but for working far too well. MG's understanding of Marx focusing on "Capital," the Critique of Political Economy, disregarded the elements in the thinking of Marx and Engels involving the philosophy of history, which "Marxism-Leninism" developed into a "world view" ("dialectical and historical materialism").
The aims of the MG could be primarily inferred indirectly from its critique of the states promoting "real socialism." The MG accused these states of not having consistently overcome commodity production and money in favor of a planned production of use-values, but instead invented the nonsense of planning with the help of commodity-money "levers" (a term popular in Soviet economics textbooks); the contradiction between planning and the acceptance of commodity-money relations was the cause of the inconsistencies and malfunctions in the economies of the "revisionist" countries. It can be concluded that the MG assumed that after a revolution based on a correct understanding of Marxist theory and the abolishment of money, supplying the population with use-values could be managed simply through a division of labor.
[edit] Agitational practice
Although the MG distributed newspapers and pamphlets at factory gates on a large scale, out of tactical considerations their emphasis was first of all on the universities. New members were recruited through teach-ins and meetings of sympathizers. (In order to be able to use lecture rooms, the organizers of such meetings sometimes had names like "Association for the Promotion of Scientific and Political Discussion.")
With its positions, the MG fundamentally dissociated itself from all efforts to improve living conditions "within the system": it rejected the view that "fighting for concrete interests of the working population" would give rise to a consciousness of the necessity for overcoming capitalism. Rather, the MG criticized in its publications the false consciousness of the workers regarding state and wage labor, since only the basis of this consciousness was a sustained participation of the exploited to be had.
The critique of bourgeois science was of central significance for the MG. Unlike other communist groups, it did not call for more discussions on workers’ issues, etc. — it did not demand that science be "applied" to "proletarian" issues, and it was not interested in propagating an alternative "Marxist world view" based on a "class standpoint." In written and oral contributions it set out to demonstrate that bourgeois science — from moral philosophy through interpretation of literature to sociological methodologies — did not develop a scientific concept of reality, but served to legitimate bourgeois society and participation in it.
Sympathizers completed extensive training courses centered around the examination of Marx’ Capital. This was intended to lead new adherents to understand the bourgeois world, and thus to develop a scientifically founded position toward it. Sympathizers eventually acquired the status of "candidate," becoming full members after a few more years of training.
Prominent representatives of the MG included Karl Held, Theo Ebel and Herbert Ludwig Fertl, who all came out of the Munich SDS.
As in many organizations, members and sympathizers contributed parts of their income to it. Local associations of the MG also worked in Austria.
Since the dissolution, the Marxist theory of the MG is being published in the journal GegenStandpunkt, which appeared for the first time in 1992. Notes are often attached to the issues indicating dates of public discussion meetings.
