The Red Army Faction, a Documentary History (31 page)

“Imperialist politics now seeks a military solution that cannot be achieved and this leads to the development of total annihilation as a naked concept.” This sentence has the quality of a funhouse mirror.

Seeks, doesn't find, annihilation as a naked concept. What does it mean? Does it perhaps have something to do with the concept of the naked? Who knows what any of this means?

The authors proceed from the assumption that a nuclear war is being prepared in Europe—in order to prevent a “final strategic defeat in the Third World.”

The imperialists would be out of their fucking minds if they attempted to secure their assets in the Third World by destroying Europe, where they have so much more invested. If a “limited nuclear war” were to become possible, it would be because of the U.S. interest in containing the Soviet Union. Were it actually to come to a “limited nuclear war” in Europe—which is unlikely—it would be because U.S. imperialism calculated that a cunning competitor—the European Community—and a strategic opponent—the Soviet Union—could both be decisively weakened without the U.S. itself being directly attacked.

Where the “dissolvers” occupy themselves with problems like “limited nuclear war” and the like, it's as if the solutions will appear out of thin air. Of course, nothing can come of that!

And that, despite the fact that the paper correctly notes that the “decisive stage will, in the final analysis, occur in the metropole.”

Those who want to struggle in the “belly of the beast”—as Che called it—must be familiar with the problems confronting the struggle here and must be able to integrate themselves into that struggle.

In this regard, the
Dissolution Paper
is also the paper illustration of the political crisis the guerilla has drifted into. While reams of paper have been churned out about the international situation, NATO committees, etc., most of the actions in recent years have had nothing to do with the left-wing struggle and even less to do with the people's
everyday resistance. Even the exceptions—actions by the RZ and
Autonomen
—have been unable to prevent the guerilla's subsequent isolation. Admittedly, some comrades have recognized this crisis, and have grasped the fact that the only way to avoid total defeat at the hands of the counterrevolution is to stop conducting politics in a way that is completely divorced from everyday struggle.

Breaking out of this isolation means not only winning the approval of those who already support our politics, but also winning over the people who are not yet on our side.

In this phase of the struggle, that means that we have a lot to learn and a lot to forget, too. We need to look in the dusty corners where we will find the comrades and groups we have long ignored—“they don't want a guerilla movement,” “they're nonviolent,” “they're revisionists,” “they're Green Party,” and so on. We need to clear the table and search out the things that really separate us, the things we disagree about, and the things that connect us.

Nobody—regardless of the state of the broad left in the FRG—can deny the need for political cooperation. Political cooperation doesn't mean betraying one's own position, but rather establishing the solidarity necessary for the given stage of the struggle. Only in this way can we get closer to our goal of winning a real majority of the people over to the side of social revolution.

We are responsible for developing social revolutionary politics—a socialist alternative to social democratic crisis management.

We can anticipate widespread unemployment and high levels of inflation in Western Europe in the eighties, higher than almost anyone imagines. As a result of the development of new technologies—computers, for example—rationalization and increased job insecurity will be spurred on in ways that are not yet clear. The intense competition in a relatively crowded world market will expedite currency devaluation in the imperialist states and lead to a decline in real wages. Because, in pursuing capitalist interests, the state must use more and more social wealth for subsidies and arms expenditures, the “social safety net”— which, in any event, is paid for out of the pockets of all those who might require it—will become ever more threadbare. Broad layers of the population will be declassed/proletarianized and will find themselves slipping below the poverty line.

The ruling class is preparing for the coming conflict—it knows full well that all of this will deepen the contradictions between itself and the people. They are once again refining and upgrading their repressive apparatus, in the time-honored tradition. The social democrats and the technocrats also hope to confuse the people with their reformist slogans
and “dialogue.” This is the way they've used Baum.
⁴
They want to prevent the discontented, the aggrieved, and the oppressed from acting in unity with the left opposition in a way that would be mutually radicalizing. They want to neutralize and buy off the left, so as to head off any movement that might question the legitimacy of this state.

In the final analysis, how successful they will be depends on whether we succeed in intervening in the already developing conflict on the issues which the state cannot resolve or defuse with reforms, forcing them to make direct use of their violent potential. And this is true in regard to every single-issue struggle—be it the antinuclear movement, the housing struggle, the women's movement, antimilitarism, the struggle against unemployment, or the struggle in the factories.

In the final analysis, the fundamental problems that lie behind the facade of the “social state” can only be resolved with violence. For example, a capitalist factory will always remain a source of exploitation and inhumane working conditions—co-management, collective agreements, and factory councils notwithstanding. In this state, profit is still, after all, the point of the exercise.

To this end and for this very reason a few thousand cops will be deployed. Just as Gorleben
⁵
was violently cleared because it was standing in the way of the entire atomic energy program, which the monopolies in the FRG could not allow, because they intend to use their know-how to remain competitive on the world market.

Wherever the economic or political interests of the ruling class have been met with massive opposition, the state has responded with violence—from Grohnde to Brokdorf, from Westend to Dreisameck,
⁶
from the swearing-in ceremony in Bremen to the occupation of America House in West Berlin,
⁷
from the legal rubber-stamping of the lockouts to the clubbing of striking printers.

In all these struggles the state is attempting to protect its monopoly of violence, a precondition for the smooth functioning of exploitation and capitalist production. As a result, they are attempting to eliminate any doubts about the legitimacy of this monopoly of violence.

If we want to break through this monopoly of violence—both practically as well as in the popular consciousness—we must intervene in the people's struggles with militant actions. We must carry out exemplary actions that can be understood and imitated by many people, and which will also make it clear that illegal actions are necessary.

An atomic power plant that couldn't be prevented despite construction site occupations and demonstrations can still be neutralized if the power pylons are knocked over.

A crane is only a useful tool for a real estate speculator until it is torched.

A slumlord that lets a living space be destroyed gets a sense of what it's like when his own digs are “renovated.”

A Municipal Planning and Building Control Office encounters certain difficulties with further deforestation if its offices burn down.

A prison warden learns less about daily life in prison from petitions and protest letters than from a couple of bullets in the leg.

All the small and large enemies of the people can no longer bask in their glory if they are made to fear being held accountable for their scummy behavior!

No aspect of everyday struggle can be overlooked when pursuing the long-term goal of uniting all of the resistance groups. Only in this way can a broad, militant, revolutionary movement develop, and through a protracted process of disruption of all of the ruling structures—economic, political, and military—carry through the social revolution in the metropole.

We can never lose sight of this goal—the social revolution—which today seems so utopian, otherwise we will lose ourselves in sects, transcendental theories, and political irrelevance.

Now a final comment regarding the
Dissolution Paper:

Social revolutionary politics—which are represented by the 2nd of June Movement, among others—cannot be “dissolved” like some petit bourgeois gardening group.

Reinders, Viehmann, Fritzsch
Berlin-Moabit
June 1980

_____________

3
. In 1972 Andreas Baader had affixed his thumbprint to a letter to the press to prove its authenticity. Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 113, 120-121.

4
. A reference to the series of arrests in which many 2nd of June Members were captured, as detailed on
page 58
.

5
.
Gewerkschaft öffentliche Dienste, Transport und Verkehr
(Public Service, Transport, and Transit Union).

6
. Gerhart Baum, the FDP minister of the interior from 1978 to 1982. See
chapter 8
.

7
. The occupation of a projected nuclear waste disposal facility site at Gorleben, in Lower Saxony, had been violently cleared by police earlier in June 1980. The protesters had opted for a course of strict nonviolence, to the disgust of many
Autonomen.

8
. Both Westend in Munich and Dreisameck in Freiburg were sites of militant struggles for affordable housing.

9
. The America Houses are cultural centers funded by the U.S. government that can be found in many cities in Germany. They were repeatedly targeted by militant left protests from the late 1960s through the 1980s.

Wolfgang and Juliane—their deaths are hard for us, especially in such an absurd accident. They had prepared for a different death, not this brutal, daily metropolitan waste.

The bullshit the press is cranking out is really too much. Anyone who ever had anything to do with Wolfgang knows who he was. For him, the most important thing was to learn through and from the attack—living underground, aboveground, or in prison. It was something he also taught others. His clarity about the hows and whys of his undertakings, his militancy, and his political thinking were important to us—the RAF—for eight years.

Juliane wanted the guerilla in the FRG unified, and that's how we came to be with her. She was someone who through her openness and political radicalism could clear the bullshit out of the way. The decisiveness and the enthusiasm with which she embraced this new chapter had a strong effect on us all.

Regarding the filthy way the BAW and the BKA are making use of their deaths, we can only say that Rebmann doesn't concern us right now—he already brags enough about attacks against him—and neither does Späth.
¹
Nor do we intend to blow Schmidt up. Naturally, we're still here, which they know better than they let on in their propaganda. “Proving our capacity to act” and “desperate actions” aren't really our thing. The ‘77 offensive opened up possibilities for a new step. Concretely, it is necessary for us to restructure for the next step in the development of our strategy to create politico-military unity between the armed underground and the legal structures in the anti-imperialist movement. Then we'll decide upon our course of action.

Red Army Faction
July 26, 1980

_____________

1
. A reference to police claims that the RAF were planning an attack at the time of Beer and Plambeck's accident. See
page 134
.

T
HE
AUTONOMEN
HAD BURST ONTO
the scene and the RAF had regained its sense of purpose, but not much had changed in the FRG's tombs, the 1978 and ‘79 hunger strikes notwithstanding. Yet again, it would be the prisoners' struggle that would push developments forward, and win a hearing for anti-imperialist politics among the new generation of radical youth.

After their seventh hunger strike, the prisoners had returned to individual or small-group actions to defend themselves.

For instance, in February 1980, Christine Kuby, Christa Eckes, Inga Hornstein, Anne Reiche, and Brigitte Asdonk were all strip-searched and moved to a new high-security unit in Lübeck-Lauerhof. The women responded by going on hunger strike, demanding their transfer out of the dead wing; at one point, they even escalated to refusing liquids. Over a thousand people demonstrated in solidarity in nearby Hamburg, and the America House in that city was occupied, in an action that was framed not only as support for the prisoners, but also for the politics of the RAF.
¹

After several weeks, the prison administration gave in, promising to relax the women's isolation conditions—a rare victory.

In May, Knut Folkerts's trial for murder began in Düsseldorf. It was a rowdy affair, with supporters chanting slogans against isolation
torture (four would be fined for disrupting the proceedings). Folkerts denounced the spectacle, explaining that so far as he was concerned, his sentence had been decided before proceedings even began. Referring to the presiding judge as a “state security rat” and a “fascist pig,” he told him bluntly, “We don't talk to people like you. We shoot people like you.”
²
He would be found guilty of two counts of murder in connection with the Buback assassination, receiving a sentence of life in prison.
³

In September, also in Düsseldorf, Christof Wackernagel and Gert Schneider were found guilty of membership in a terrorist organization and attempted murder of police officers, stemming from the circumstances of their capture. Removed from the court for heckling during their trial, they each received sentences of fifteen years.
⁴