Internet Statement 2015-60




The Mediterranean concept



Maria Weiss   november 7,11,  2015      

With the current wave of refugees from the Middle East, Europe is confronted with significant problems. This is due to the fact that the results of the Arab Spring could not come to fruition, but reactionary circles, such as the current governance of Turkey, sought to make these successes advantage for themselves - not to mention the international supporters like US imperialism - and even, in some cases, to turn them around to the opposite. It would have to be made up, what has not been performed up to the end, basically, in this Arab Spring, or even one would have to let take place a kind of revolution, a kind of civil revolution, which criticizes religion and ultimately declares it socially a private matter. If that succeeds, then a union of this Mediterranean area could mean a process to be thoroughly considered a progress. One could also, under certain circumstances, achieve a victory against certain international masterminds who want to reach the opposite. Precondition would be, however, that the Islamist influence is opposed in all determination, especially in Europe. It must be considered: Summarizing the whole thing, then you might also turn the matter against the perpetrators and promote emancipation. It must be considered whether this is perhaps possible. Then it would not be so bad, then it could also be summarized in the EU, and, however, there would have to be exercised such an influence, that all these countries are keeping pace. That would mean that, for example, the concept of Erdogan to break into here with his Islam, could not work, but that such an effort, so to speak, would strike back upon himself.

However, a prerequisite for such a development would be in the same time that the progressive social forces will achieve, both in Germany and in other European countries, to oppose this reactionary Islamist influence, which is funded by international capitalism, and that they realize as an opportunity, so to speak, their own achievements of the Enlightenment, of the criticism of religion, rather the criticism of idealism, as well as to handle the national question within Europe in a right way. The European Union is a union of nations, not of regions or landscapes or anything else, as the Greens imagine. This is nonsense. The EU is a union of very different nations, with a very different historical, social and economic development. And these different developments must also be treated in the right way. This must be taken into account, and must not be skipped. If this fails, then Europe threatens to fall apart again and to be the plaything of other international imperialist powers.

Of course, it is possible for a nation of 80 million, such as Germany, to integrate a few million people from other regions of the world. That must also be the intention, that must also be possible, and one must not be the subject to certain aspirations which are themselves of imperialist nature, as they are driven, for example, in undisguised way on the part of Turkey, but also from some other countries on the Arabian Peninsula.

We must oppose such efforts and say: Of course, you can have your own churches, mosques and have your pursue of your religion here. But what is necessary, indispensable, which is a precondition for everything else: that you acknowledge the secular principle of the state.

Small ratio of figures: the EU has 500 million inhabitants. A couple of millions of refugees, for example, should induce them to be scared? That can not be true. Berlin also has about three million inhabitants. And if there are a few tens of thousands to come, or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of refugees. Even that would be to cope. The question is, how to handle it. And therein lies the real crux. First and foremost, it is not even the decision of Merkel, but the handling of the bureaucratic apparatus, which does not work above all. And that shows the clearest in a city like Berlin. If you look at how this is handled here with the central registrar "LaGeSo", what's going on here, then, truly, your hair stands on.

In this country as well as throughout Europe, religion is a private matter and has no place in the state apparatus. It is quite possible and has also long been practiced this way, that in the state apparatus people of different religions are working, as well as people who follow no religion. But they work there in a secular manner, and their respective religion is a private matter and has no place in their public activity . Wearing a cross-pendant or even a headscarf can be accepted and be tolerated certainly, provided it complies with an appearance of a private orientation, but does not constitute part or an expression of the state structure itself or claims such. If in the future some female teachers think that they must always wear headscarves, because of me, let them. But it has nothing to do with their teaching activities which they carry out as part of its state order. If the latter is accepted as a principle on the different sides, then here we come certainly a step further. All right, let them put on the headscarf. When asked by students why they did that, then they can, yes, please, explain to them, that in their religion the woman must submit to the man and therefore must hide her beauty before everyone else. They may like to explain and set in motion a discussion about it. Thus things are progressing, if it happens in this way, and if there is no state compulsion or pressurization behind, when something like this is not exercised. Of course, it can be discussed in schools in this country, whether it is necessary to submit to a God whose existence you can not prove. Thus things are progressing. But this debate must of course be possible and not be suppressed.

Today there are so many changes around the world that the question certainly arises, why you should not enable the Mediterranean region to come to a closer union. And not only that. In the course of this, the possibility of development and emancipation of the whole of Africa could also be brought forward. This question arises certainly, also as a way of socio-economic and political counterweight to other continental and intercontinental powers. Why should we not understand the European Union in a broader sense? For example, with Turkey as a member or Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and so on , why not? I do not know if that particularly fits well in the concept for some other hegemonic powers. But ultimately, that does not matter. The world is growing together anyway and therefore you need to have no such great fear of such a trend. Of course, this did not mean denying our own culture and history, our own achievements in the social field. On the contrary, this can still be thrown in the scales and compared with other things from other countries, and thus we can enter into a competition with these. That can only be positive at all. Why should we be afraid?

The USA, for example, have no inhibitions to spread around the world and to use their influence. Why should Europe have? This does not mean to expand in a one-sided, imperialist bellicose manner, for the purpose of exploitation and utilization. On the contrary, it provides that one is exchanging ideas with the other countries and regions, of what is useful to the progress and what is not, what is good for the economic, cultural and social progress and what is not, so that we enter into a dialogue with other countries, with other cultures, other continents. This is something that brings us forwards, rather than being segregated, with an everlasting looking back into the past, like currently certain forces want to forge ahead here in Germany, for example. note1 Such cultural interstate dialogue would benefit everyone. But not an encapsulation in the interest of certain international exploiters and hegemonists who prefer to push the latter in order to drive their warlike intentions ahead. Today there are more ways to communicate than ever before in history. Why should we not use them, in the interest of progress, in the interests of mutual understanding and to the benefit of all.

One more thing is important. One must learn from historical experiences. The current wave of migration towards Europe, especially to Germany, of course provides the society with significant challenges. However, one thing is absolutely vital: We must not to be played out against each other. This is what has caused the catastrophe of the Second World War in the last century. That should not be repeated, but we have to draw conclusions on how to counteract. And there is such possibility, definitely. One must not be played off against each other, but we must try to tackle the problems together. According to the principle: debate is necessary and good, and it must be done. Discrimination, however, is out. Discrimination must indispensably be combated. Following such principles, it is quite conceivable that in the near future it might be possible to put to an end to this senseless slaughter in the states of the Middle East, and there to push forward the development of various countries and to give people the opportunity to stay there and to face up the development of their own society. This is not unworldly. On the contrary, it is the desire of a large part of the population there. Of course, this would not mean that we can not take a few million of them here and integrate them into society here, provided that people want it also themselves. But a very important goal is also to provide the countries of origin with a perspective.

Certainly, the next capitalist crisis, which is to come inevitably, will introduce significant challenges to the people, both here and there. One can already foresee that now, and you have to think about how you can master this, in a way worthy of the social progress. Of particular importance is attending to keep in mind, that playing everyone off against each other brings benefits for nobody, except mainly the international exploiters, but not the states, both here and those of the Middle East. If you keep that in mind, then there are certainly opportunities to solve the upcoming problems which are arising. If a culture of welcome is deployed in this sense, then it really can be of benefit to all, except those who wish to undermine this and act entirely in this respect in the interest of the international exploiters. Naturally, these are numerically in a significant minority, but this absolutely should remain so.

In this sense, the problems need to be addressed, and all those who are trying in their selfish interest to pit nations against each other, or the population, or anyone else, or incite them against each other, those must be granted a very massive rebuff. Learning from historical experience is quite specifically to grant such cleavage attempts a rebuff. It had not been insignificant for the temporary success of fascism that it had succeeded to incite various segments of the population against each other, in this form, to his advantage, and thereby exploit certain contradictions for itself. From this we need to learn so that this type of thing does not happen again, but not to do the opposite. Cleavage should be pursued where it brings benefits for social progress and is resulting objectively from circumstances, namely between a small group of beneficiaries and exploiters on the one hand, and the vast majority on the other side of a society, but not between different ethnic groups or other cultural or religious groups within society, and in favor of a small clique of beneficiaries. In this sense it must also be advertised in other countries of Europe, that such a division of the population cannot be allowed, which is suitable to be misused, to the advantage of even the most reactionary social forces.

This does not mean that now absolutely all states should be sentenced, in an egalitarian manner, to take an appropriate number of refugees. If they themselves are of the opinion that they can handle it, then it should be done that way. But no provisions should be made, in what way to do it in this regard. That is what they would have to decide for themselves. Only such an approach can prevent Europe from splitting once again, for that it is not degraded as a pawn or even battlefield of other global imperialist-reactionary forces.

Anyway, today's world is growing together, much more than ever before, making it necessary, in fact, that some form of international democracy is accomplished, even if it is initially a bourgeois international democracy, unless such one would ever be capable of maintaining its existence. But you should not a priori give up the attempt, because it is not absolutely impossible, especially since the various powers are dependent on it, even in their own interests in some way, at least temporarily. Why, then, such a thing should not be done? Why should the countries in Asia do not take up those rights for themselves, as they are also claimed by European states or states in America or in Africa? There is absolutely no reason, and regarding the current economic interconnection, which is increasingly developing around the world, it is even more obviously necessary to enforce something like this.

Of course, the development will not stop there. But this has to be seen first of all. First of all it is necessary to enforce it, and then you see more, rather than vice versa. International democracy, and even if it may be of a bourgeois kind, has to be enforced first. Why not, if even the UN Charter suggests something like this. Then we should insist on it, what else? And the good thing is that it is said, that also powers like the US and others must comply to it , kindly, what else? One can only gradually proceed in the development. The leap comes then mostly by itself. And if at first bourgeois democracy is on the agenda internationally, then you just have to try to enforce it. If something else will be developing, then you will recognise that. Then something else is up on the agenda.

The contemporary process, for a long time evolving, of the international growing together among the states on the basis of economic development represents an enormous opportunity that we have to use. And in this regard, the theory of proletarian revolution surely must experience a developing and refining. The right to national independence, the right to self-determination of each country around the world, however, is an integral component and may not be overlooked. When it comes to merger between States, this must always be voluntary, and indeed from both sides. Otherwise, it is not acceptable. And the same goes for the merger of international revolutionary forces and organizations, which also has to go voluntarily by all the two sides and can not be enforced by coercion or any kind of dictation from the dominant side, as the result of the latter will most likely have an opposite effect, with certainty.

The working classes in the most diverse countries in the world are still on different levels of development, such that there is no other way than to concede, that the states themselves are entitled to a certain opportunity for development and freedom in this regard. However, the question "cui bono" is one that has to be put necessarily, because under certain circumstances you would otherwise be subject of the attempts to interference and subversion by the reactionary international powers as well as by the reactionary national forces in the States.

It can be seen under these circumstances, how complicated the question of democracy is currently presenting itself, especially the question of international democracy, and how it is developing. This is a challenge for all revolutionary forces in the various countries around the world to deal with this issue and to take it into account in a proper way. The principle is essential, not to be played off against each other. It applies not only to the forces in the individual states and countries, but it also applies to the international democracy. It is essential to take into consideration the different levels of development of the respective countries and states.

Thus, when the revolutionary forces are able to deal with these contradictions properly, there is a certain chance to hinder the imperialist war mongering and possibly prevent war, to promote a revolutionary development in the world and bring it to victory. So far, every war by the imperialists, no matter where it has taken place, helped to bring about an international breakthrough towards progress for different countries. This will not be different in the future, if we should not be able to prevent an upcoming broader war. We must never forget that the exploiters all over the world are a tiny minority, for whose benefit the vast majority will certainly not be willing to accept their own destruction without a fight . On the contrary. Hardest conflicts and challenges are therefore to be expected in the future. But there is certainly a chance to succeed.

Why, actually, it should not be possible to invest heavily in Syria or in other countries, in Iraq? After all, they need an infrastructure for their own population, for their development. That's at least as necessary as, perhaps, to accommodate here a certain number of people from there for a certain time. Why not? Such international exchange is quite possible and even desirable and welcome. It can set in motion very fruitful developments, if you tackle it properly. The same applies to other countries from this region. The fact that the mass of the population, actually everywhere, is in favor of such development, and wants it, that is demonstrated by the development in all these countries. Suppose only once Nigeria. There it is quite obvious. Also in other countries of Africa. In the vast majority. And those forces who are seeking to prevent that, above all extremist religious forces as the so-called IS or Boko Haram and others, they are nothing else but those who have been raised and nursed by their own respective reactionary cliques in these countries with the support of international imperialists and their henchmen so that they precisely counteract this desired development using regional limitations or ignorance and other reactionary factors. Of course, they are also sponsored by local potentates who fear for their domination, to take only once the example of Saudi Arabia. It is quite obvious that these forces are offering themselves also for subversion and blackmail in European countries. But all this can only be countered effectively, if alternatives in these countries are created and demanded, which are showing to the people: there is another way. The vast majority in these entire countries, especially the local population, wants development, wants progress, wants a look beyond their own noses. Above all, they want an end to the everlasting conflict about the oil, both on the part of their own corrupt cliques and of international capitalists supported by certain major powers. They want clarity both about their own abilities as well as about their history and their different opportunities lying therein, and decide for themselves about their prospects and development opportunities. Here the female part of these societies has an important and very progressive role, as it is the most oppressed part, as you can study very well in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. That's something driving forward history and disturbing the reactionaries in the world. Therefore, they prefer to promote the insistence on the one-time achievements or those forces that represent this. In this respect our own bourgeoisie in Germany and its military and political executive organs play a very inglorious role, throughout all of the established parties.

One should not believe that not even in Israel, the majority of the population gradually is tired of the everlasting conflict with the Palestinian part of the population and their more or less fruitful political exponents, and not perhaps finally wants to find a mode how to integrate this segment of the population and how they can live in an agreement with them. There is no stand still despite dreadfull experiences on both sides. If the exploiters think that the story turns in their favor then they are mistaken.

Also in Turkey the mass of the population is tired of the everlasting religious and ethnic conflicts. They also do not want to be reduced to any religious hierarchy or to an ethnic minority, by whom they are bullied continuously. They want progress, as well as the majority of these minorities themselves. They want to be able to develop further, by dissolving the various contradictions in their own country in an acceptable manner that fits for the majority, and they do not want to be exploited and pitted against the others, permanently, for the purpose of the respective dominant cliques for their respective own separate objectives. It is a mistake (in other words, a goal) of imperialism, as well as of regional potentates, that they eternally can stir up such conflicts and that they can exploit them for their own interests. Sometimes people are fed up. And against this deluge, with respect to this massing power, their drones ultimately become useless as their other increasingly elaborate electronic lethal weapons. This is a law of evolution: Any contradiction comes into play. There's no way around.

What should we do? Should we wait until again anywhere scorched earth has been created and a giant step backwards has been generated? No. We should establish an international coalition to enforce the progress of society in favor of the masses all over the world and show what's what to all those who are opposing. The international proletarian revolution will not be achieved in one fell swoop. Since we also must proceed gradually under certain circumstances. Every country in the world must also itself be ready to defend the progress. Such efforts also lurk everywhere. The problem is to combine them. Perhaps we should establish an international association for social progress. Such a kind of counter-Uno. Let's see what the US government, and other governments of large countries which are feeling invincible, had to say about it. There are so many opportunities for international communication. Why we should not even exploit these means for us?

Of course, all this will initially run within the existing bourgeois barriers. Means of communication are mostly in the hands of the bourgeoisie and its institutions. But, in face of that, what prevents us from establishing our own international communication?

The capital has many faces and many nationalities. It has since long been international. And that zeroing in only on a very specific group always goes haywire. That should not only be learnt from history but even more from the current experience.

What kind of social concept actually represents this political party AFD? On the occasion of certain messages that this party allegedly now reached ten percent in the polls. Apparently this clique, apart from the really unpalatable contacts in the right scene, is just targeted to playing off different sections of the population against each other. That should not be allowed.        
     -back to text -