(The following interview in Lund, Sweden, with the Belgian Marxist economist Ernest Mandel was published in the June 11 issue of Mullvaden, organ of the Swedish Trotskyist organization, Revolutionära Marxisters Förbund (RMF — League of Revolutionary Marxists). The translation is by Intercontinental Press.]
Question. What led the West German government to decide to deny you entry into the country, and what are the decisive factors in the struggle against that decision?
Answer. The West German government says that I am not only a professor of Marxist economic theory, but that I am also a revolutionist - which is, of course, true- and that as a revolutionist I intend to overthrow what they call "free democratic law and order." This affair has both its typical and its ominous aspects.
The government bases its allegation on the fact that the Fourth International - and I am, as you know, a leading member of it— is working for a world republic based on workers' control. And it claims that the struggle for workers' control is against the constitution.
It is obvious that not just members of the Fourth International are for workers' control. There are a number of revolutionary organizations -and even left Social-Democratic organizations- and tendencies within the left wing of the trade-union movement that would probably agree that bourgeois parliamentary law and order ought to be replaced with workers' control. What we have here is in fact an attempt to make criminals out of a large section of the left-wing tendencies in the working-class movement and, through administrative measures, to declare them unconstitutional and prevent them from carrying out political activities— or at least any political activity that disagrees with the policies of the West German government. This represents a serious cur- October 2, 1972
tailment of the democratic rights of a large part of the left wing of the German trade-union movement, of the German socialist movement, and of the revolutionary movement as a whole.
It is not illegal or unconstitutional to be a revolutionist according to the West German constitution as it now reads. And so the constitution very clearly states that only legal bodies, courts for instance, can declare a political tendency or organization unconstitutional- the government does not have the right to do this. At the same time that the government is charging me with violating the constitution it is itself committing a violation of this same constitution.
How can we explain this development? We have to analyze the origins of the German constitution. It is the only bourgeois constitution that was written before its own bourgeois state came into existence. At the end of the war Germany was occupied, and before the new German state was set up the constitution had already been written. This reflects a certain relationship of forces that was quite unfavorable to the capitalist class, which at that time was very weak in West Germany. And this was during a period when the struggle for collective ownership of the means of production was still considered a goal that could be attained in the near future. As a result, the constitution is quite peculiar: It does not mention capitalism at all and it does not say a word about parliamentary democracy in the basic, unmodifiable section - it only speaks about the general democratic rights of the individual.
Many revolutionary Marxists in Germany now believe that the German capitalist class seriously wants to change this constitution and adapt it to correspond to the need to defend capitalism. The introduction of emergency powers in 1968 was a step in that direction. The beginning of an attack on the left now involves a further step in the same direction. And each time they wait for the reaction, to see how far they can go.
In this sense, the attack on the Fourth International and upon myself comes at a time when the West German government is attempting to lay the groundwork for a general repression of all the far-left tendencies. Recently the government issued a decree banning the employment of "leftand right-wing radicals" in public service- in reality, this decree is aimed only at communists. This is a flagrant violation of its own constitution, which grants all citizens the same rights. Now Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, or other revolutionaries, can no longer be employed by the state- not even as ordinary teachers. This is a rather harsh measure. And other similar repressive measures are in the offing.
Why is this occurring right now? This is, of course, the most interesting aspect of this affair. Since 1967 we have witnessed a strong student movement in Germany. It had a great deal of influence in the university. But it was completely isolated from other social layers in Germany, especially the working class. Today the student movement is weaker, while at the same time other social layers are becoming radicalized. We are seeing the beginning of the radicalization of the working class, and many former students are now part of the work force-as teachers, doctors, engineers, etc.
I believe that the German capitalist class is getting ready to launch a preventive repression. It is attempting to crush these groups before things develop the way they did in England, France, or Italy, where revolutionary groups that for the most part came out of the student movement were able to make contact with and establish a base of operations in broader social layers, including the working class, intellectuals, and highly trained professional workers. This is what they want to prevent. As a preventive measure, they want to deal a blow to this danger since they themselves do not believe that society is as stable as it has been during the past twenty years and that a radicalization of the working class and broad strata of the population is entirely possible.
Q. This leads to another question. How should revolutionists fight against this kind of repression? What should be their approach? Which groups should they attempt to appeal to? Which organizations and which social layers should they try to work in, in fighting against these repressive measures?
A. The worst error that revolutionists can commit when confronted with the repressive measures of the bourgeois state is to make repression into a question of honor and limit defense and the fight against it to revolutionists alone-to put up a sign at the door to their defense fortress announcing "All who are not revolutionary - Keep Out." That is suicide. One must proceed on the basis of realistic assumptions and realistically assess the relationship of forces.
Revolutionists are stronger in Europe today than they were five years ago; they no longer number only a few hundred or a few thousand, but in the tens of thousands, and perhaps in the hundreds of thousands. But they still represent a very small minority, and if that tiny minority lets itself become isolated and is then attacked by the entire concentrated power of the state machinery, they will be defeated. They will be crushed. I repeat, that is suicide and a terrible error.
It is an error not only because it means defeat. It is a political errorif not a political crime of the greatest magnitude-because it reflects an insullicient understanding of the aims of capitalism.
The capitalists are attempting to use the "salami tactic" against the workers' movement. They want, through small slices, to cut down the capacity for selfdefense and the ability to resist. First they concentrate on far-left groups, which are most vulnerable. If they succeed in crushing them, then they will move on to the left inside the trade-union movement. This is very clear, for example, in Italy, England, or France, where the attack is no longer limited only to groups on the far left, but is also directed at broad left-wing currents within the tradeunion movement. And if and when they succeed in isolating and crush- 1052
ing these lett-wing tendencies in the trade-union movement, they will then begin to attack the broad layers of the workers' movement as a wholenot necessarily with terror or repression, but rather with legislation and political measures, which they will use to the point where it becomes incapable of defending itself.
If we take these two factors - repression as a historical tendency and revolutionary self-defense- as our point of departure, we reach the same conclusion: It is absolutely necessary to build the broadest possible united front against any kind of repression. The basic principle that revolutionists must fight for today in all the imperialist countries is to not allow any fundamental democratic rights to be taken away from any tendency that represents a section - however smallof the workers' movement. We must understand that any concession on this point will later come to be used against broader layers of the working class.
This is why our defense campaign in Germany began from the very start with the approach of a broad united front. We called on everyone-without exception- representing tendencies within the workers' movement to join together, not only to fight against Ernest Mandel's expulsion from Germany, but against the ban on hiring communists and revolutionists as teachers or in other areas of public service, and against all kinds of repressive measures and legislation. The success of that campaign will hinge on the ability to broaden this united front. Revolutionists cannot defend democratic rights for the workers' movement all by themselves. Revolutionists who are able to lead a large part of the workers' movement in this struggle will be able to lead it to success. And a successful struggle-regardless of its dimensions — will mean a big political setback for reactionary and conservative forces and a consolidation of democratic rights for the workers' movement as a whole.
When I was banned from Germany on February 28, 1972, I made two predictions, which unfortunately came true faster than I myself thought they would. I said that it was ominous that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, guaranteeing freedom of movement to all citizens of the six member countries (there are now ten) within the EEC, did not apply in the case of certain revolutionists. I said then that this would come to be used against foreign workers and against official representatives of the tradeunion movement. Many people laughed and said that I was exaggerating.
Less than one month later, an official English trade-union delegation, including Social-Democratic members of the English parliament, was expelled from France when they tried to go to France to hold discussions with their French colleagues on the question of the referendum. This shows that the fight against repression is not only in the interests of small revolutionary groups but of the workers' movement as a whole.
The second example has to do with the other prediction I made on February 28. I said then that the same argument that is being used against me- that I am for workers' control and a socialist revolution - could be used against many left Social Democrats, including left Social Democrats who today hold very high posts in West Germany. Barely one month later, before a crowded parliament, Franz Josef Strauss, one of the leaders of the right wing of the Catholic opposition, attacked the Social-Democratic minister of education, Peter von Oertzen from Lower Saxony. Strauss said that if one went back to this person's earlier writings, one would discover that he had written his doctoral dissertation on workers' control in Germany after 1918 and that he had also written some articles in which he claimed that it was constitutional to struggle for workers' control in Germany, and not unconstitutional.
It is perfectly obvious that all these attacks must be completely repudiated to block the effort to create an atmosphere in which the workers' movement can be cut to pieces through this "salami tactic" and step by step driven back and suppressed.
Wheels of Justice Grind Slow
There are more than 30,000 prisoners jails of Colombia, according to in the the country's minister of justice, Miguel Escobar Menendez. Of these only 6,000 have been sentenced. About 20,000 await trial. This takes time because of lack of judges.
Escobar did not account for the other 4,000.
Perhaps the records do not show the status of their cases or precisely where the prisoners can be located.