The green hypocrites

The IPAC (interparliamentary Alliance for China) was symbolically founded on 4 June 2020. It was probably not by Chance the 31st anniversary of the suppression of the uprising in Beijing’s Tianmen square. The alliance consists of 100 MPs from 18 countries. The Interparliamentary Alliance for China was established to" promote a coordinated response of Democratic states to the challenges posed by the current behavior and future ambitions of the people’s Republic of China, " according to its statement. So it goes against China. In order to reduce the increasing influence of China, IPAC “wants to develop security strategies to address the challenges of the PRC.“She is concerned about human rights in China and Western values.

The co-chairs of the IPAC include the German Bundestag members Michael Brand (CDU) and Margarete Bause (Die Grünen) as well as the Green MEP Reinhard Bütikofer. Simple member of the IPAC is the member of Parliament Gyde Jensen (FDP). The IPAC consists of conservative and (neo)-liberal members worldwide. Of course, the staunchly right-wing American anti-communist and warmonger Marco Rubio must not be missing.

The Greens are once again in illustrious transatlantic society and, at least in Germany, in the company of their preferred coalition partners, as far as their next government participation is concerned.

The Green MEP Reinhard Bütikofer

Once, in the 1970s, Bütikofer was a Maoist and a member of the Communist League of West Germany (KBW), and perhaps at that time he really wanted to improve the world. When the KBW was dissolved in the early 1980s, Bütikofer, like his role model Mao Tse-Tung, took a long march. In contrast to Mao, however, he did not lead him to the province of Shaanxi on the Yellow River, but through the West German institutions and to the levers of power. At every fork on this long march, Bütikofer always turned reliably to the right, because to the right, he knew, was better paid than to the left. The struggle for the liberation of the proletariat was just as much an adacta as the anti-colonial struggle of the peoples against imperialist oppression, which he had still vehemently propagated as a Maoist. In the meantime, he has arrived as a well-paid MEP where money rules the world and idealism no longer exists. Bütikofer has long been silent about communism, even classless society. But Bütikofer is not alone. Like him, countless cadres left the so - called K and Sponti groups at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s, ended up with the Greens and from then on devoted themselves exclusively to their own political careers.

In order to understand the history of the German Maoists, we have to make a historical digression on the events in China as well as in Germany, especially in the years between 1960 and 2000.


On October 1, 1949, Mao Tse-Tung proclaimed the people’s Republic of China. This made China, after North Korea, the second country in Asia to become communist. In December 1949, Mao traveled to Moscow to conclude a treaty of friendship and cooperation with Stalin. Mao admired Stalin and recognized him as the leader of the world proletariat. During the Korean War from 1950 to 1953, both the SU and China supported North Korea.

In 1953, Stalin died. When his successor Nikita Khrushchev criticized Stalin’s crimes and the cult of personality around him on the sidelines of the 20th Party congress of the CPSU in 1956, Mao strongly disagreed and called the criticism of Stalin inappropriate. Indirectly, Khrushchev’s criticism of Stalin was also a criticism of Mao’s own leadership style, which was very similar to that of Stalin. Khrushchev initiated a de-Stalinization, which Mao did not like. After Khrushchev visited President Eisenhower in the United States in 1958, Mao called Khrushchev a “henchman of the United States.” As a result, there was a break between China and the SU and the withdrawal of Soviet advisers from China. In the following years, a competition developed between China and the Soviet Union over the question of who was the real number one in the communist world and who was called to lead the communist camp. In 1957, on the 40th anniversary of the October Revolution, Mao once again took the stage in the struggle for leadership in the communist camp. In contrast to the Soviet Union, in order to strengthen its standing in the world and to find new allies, Mao now turned increasingly to the countries of the third world and called for the support of the anti-colonial liberation struggle of the Peoples.

In addition, China wanted to become a nuclear power in order to consolidate its claims and therefore asked Khrushchev for help in developing its own atomic bomb, which he refused. The nuclear weapons of the USSR would suffice as a security guarantee for China. Mao condemned the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty between the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. In 1964, China detonated its first atomic bomb.

After the catastrophic famine of 1958-1961 caused by the “great leap forward” and Mao’s temporary disappearance from the political scene, Mao returned to Beijing and to power in 1966 and initiated the Cultural Revolution. Young Red Guards were now encouraged to break the” power of the party bureaucracy”. Everywhere “deviants” were denounced and publicly forced to self-criticism. The Cultural Revolution was to create a classless society and a new human being. Old cultural assets were destroyed en masse. The fanatized rebels shouted anti-Soviet slogans and condemned " Soviet imperialism."

There were provocations and clashes on the Soviet-Chinese border. Opponents of Mao were annihilated, terrorism, denunciations and public accusations became everyday life. The cult of Mao no longer knew any boundaries, he was transfigured into the" Great Helmsman", his red book became the Mao Bible. At the end of 1968, a sudden turnaround. In order to let steam out of the boiler again, the excited youth was now banished to the country. To" support the farmers " they had to help with the field work.

At the end of his life, Mao made a U-turn in foreign policy, this time to the former class enemy USA. After Henry Kissinger visited Beijing in 1972, President Nixon visited China and met with Mao.

In 1973, a ceasefire agreement was reached in Paris between Vietnam and the United States. The US then withdrew its troops from Vietnam.

Mao died in 1976. The Cultural Revolution was over, it had cost at least 30 million lives. The “gang of four” were arrested, including Mao’s widow, who was blamed for the failures of the Cultural Revolution.

Mao’s successor was Hua Guofeng, who was ousted from power by Deng Xiao Ping in 1979. Deng Xiao Ping began to put China on an economic modernization and opening course. In February 1979, China went to war against Vietnam, which was ended after 29 days. Deng supported Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge from Pol Pot against Vietnam, which had recently conquered Cambodia and overthrown Pol Pot. Vietnam was supported by the SU and had concluded a friendship treaty with the SU.

Meanwhile in the FRG

The SPD had finally turned away from Marxism in the Godesberg programme in 1959. Parts of the Sozialistischen Deutschen Studentenbund (SDS), the former Higher Education Association of the SPD, rejected this change of course. In addition, the SDS’s displeasure was also directed against the high proportion of former Nazis in German politics and administration in the post-war period (generation of perpetrators). In 1961, the SDS was expelled from the SPD.

In the Federal Republic of Germany, a non-parliamentary Opposition arose in the 1960s against the grand coalition of 1966, against the emergency laws and against the Vietnam War. The German students were part of a new worldwide youth culture and youth movement. Numerous new social movements against nuclear power, the peace movement against armament, nuclear weapons and the Vietnam war, the women’s movement, and for university reform emerged in her environment.

The call for a comprehensive social reform grew louder and louder, circles around everywhere that discussed the transformation of society. From these discussion circles gradually emerged the K-groups, but also the Republican Club and the Sponti groups, which were mainly involved in the squatting scene. After the shooting of student Benno Ohnesorg (June 2, 1967) and the assassination of Rudi Dutschke a year later (April 11, 1968), the APO became increasingly radicalized. On 2. On 14 April 1968, Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin carried out an arson attack on two Frankfurt department stores. after their release from custody on 14 May 1970 in Berlin, the RAF was founded with the assistance of Ulrike Meinhof.

In 1956 the KPD was banned by the Adenauer government. In 1968, the DKP was founded, its successor party, which was oriented towards the countries of “really existing socialism” (which has not yet “really existed” anywhere in the world, author’s note). The dispute in the communist camp between China and the SU also spilled over to the FRG. The Maoist KPD / ML was founded at the end of 1968 only two months after the DKP. In the run-up to and during the self-dissolution of the SDS in March 1970, numerous new “left” organizations emerged, mostly of Maoist background, fighting among themselves for recognition as the true representatives of revolutionary Marxism.

The Maoists called the DKP “revisionist” and in contrast to the DKP they saw China, instead of the SU, as the beacon of the world revolution. We will only mention some of the different organisations of Maoist influence, but we will deal with their similarities further down. This list is far from complete. The largest organization was the Communist League of West Germany (KBW). Furthermore: the KPD / AO (KPD Aufbauorganisation), the Arbeiterbund für den Wiederaufbau der KPD, the KPD / ML (Marxist-Leninist), the kommunistische Arbeiterbund Deutschland, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD), etc.

The heyday of the various K-groups came to an end in 1979. The death of Mao and the catastrophic effects of the Cultural Revolution, the turnaround of Mao in foreign policy towards an understanding with the United States, the turnaround in domestic policy and the arrest of the gang of four, which instead of Mao what is blamed for the 30 million deaths of the Cultural Revolution, brought the Maoists in Europe into a state of explanatory distress. Some turned temporarily to Albania, or even the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia as a new model. The new economic policy under Deng Xiao Ping and the support of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which committed a cruel genocide there, also contributed to the fact that the Maoists lost more and more credibility to the outside world and it became difficult to maintain unity within their own groups. The various K-groups all disintegrated and disbanded between 1979 and 1983.

Structure and ideology of the Mao-groups

In almost all European countries, the so-called ' 68 movement occurred in the 1960s, which emerged synchronously in all countries. The emergence of the mostly Maoist K-groups described above was also not an exclusively German phenomenon.

The K-groups were organized as cadre parties. So you couldn’t buy a party membership card. Although the K-groups were teeming with petty-bourgeois elements, they wanted to keep “petty-bourgeois sentiments” away from the K-groups. Someone therefore had to meet certain conditions in order to be admitted, and the party leadership decided who could be admitted. So was e.g. in the case of the" Arbeiterbund für den Wiederaufbau der KPD", membership in the industrial workforce is required, otherwise a guarantee from two industrial workers for" proletarian sentiments " is required.

The Maoist groups were thoroughly Stalinist in structure. Mao himself was also an ardent supporter of Stalin and his leadership style in China did not differ from that of Stalin. Mao became the Great Helmsman and leader of the party, and the party ruled the fortunes of China through the party hierarchy to the smallest village. Renegades of Mao’s teachings were persecuted, publicly accused, forced to self-criticism, mistreated and thrown into prison, and in many cases executed. All this was hardly different from the Stalinist Terror in the Soviet Union, from the Moscow trials in the 1930s, and from the bureaucratic Stalinist state and party apparatus that determined the fate of the USSR.

In the Maoist groups, the leading party cadres ruled and passed on their instructions to the lower cadres. There were strict rules, rigid morals and partial obedience to the carcass. Dissenters were punished and forced to self-criticism or excluded from the group and bullied. And like the victims of the Moscow trials, most of them let this happen because they believed in a common goal and the group had become their only support. Most probably also sought more support than (political) content. Thus the individual groups became more and more sects, which differed from other sects such as Scientology or the Jehovah’s witnesses only by their political claim, but not by their internal structures.

The author of these lines was friends with a member of an ML group in Luxembourg in the late 1970s. We met regularly for a beer in the relevant pubs, where the great debates about our ideas of a new society were passionately conducted at that time. One day I saw him sitting contrite in one of these pubs. He said he had just come from a cell meeting with his organization and showed me a letter they had given him there. In the letter he was accused of various misconduct as well as a petty-bourgeois “bohemian” way of life. He damaged the Reputation of the party and was therefore excluded from the group. When I asked him if he had already told them that they should lick him on the A…, and why he had not thrown the wipe at their heads, he answered only pettishly that they were right with their accusations. The group to which he belonged did not have 10 members. Since you can do without a comrade because of “bohemian lifestyle”, right? I can not understand this until today.

It is also a joke that it was precisely the bourgeois state that the Maoists wanted to overthrow, which saved them from public accusations and humiliations, even drastic punishments for leftism or rightism. For the Stalinist-inspired party cadres of the ML groups would certainly not have hesitated to apply such rituals in Germany, following the example of Mao and Stalin, if they had had the power to do so. The techniques of power and subjugation and the corresponding rituals within the Maoist groups already bordered on the Perverse.

“They were citizens' children, but not ‘sheltered citizens’ children', but’broken citizens ‘children’. They were seekers. [ … ] Through Marxism and the organizations they founded, they were able to live out fantasies of power or violence, compensate for their own disorientation, satisfy the need for recognition or group membership,” Hinck concludes. Had not Marxism been en vogue ,but Scientology, " they might have joined Scientology en masse or founded similar sects"

The various groups had committed themselves to the world revolution and wanted to be the leaders of the proletariat in an upcoming World Revolution. In the FRG, they wanted to build a “workers' and peasants ‘state”. But the workers did not want to know much about them. And the farmers? Where should they come from, there were hardly any left in the highly industrialized Federal Republic of Germany. In addition, it was just a bad time. By the end of the 1970s, full employment was in place and workers were more concerned with buying a home, a car and a few electrical appliances, washing machine, refrigerator and color TV, rather than making a Revolution. Apart from individual small groups of enterprises, from time to time Maoists were also represented on works councils, they were nowhere able to gain a foothold in the working class. For lack of roots in the working class, there was no struggle against the Bourgeoisie. Competition quickly became more important among themselves over who proclaimed the true doctrine of salvation, who found the red stone of the wise men, than the struggle against the class enemy. The various groups fought to the hilt over ideological hair-splitting and for the correct Interpretation of the words of the Great chairman in distant China.

In 1974, the great helmsman announced his three-world theory. According to this" theory", he divided the countries of the world into three categories: the first world consists of the USA and the USSR, both imperialist powers that exploit the Rest of the world. In between lie the capitalist industrialized nations as a second world and finally the developing countries. China included Mao in the third world. The developing countries should therefore ally themselves with the capitalist industrialized nations against the two superpowers USSR and USA, but above all against the “Soviet imperialists”, the “more cruel, ruthless and devious” of the two powers of the first world and potential source of a new war. Soviet imperialism is a greater danger to China than American imperialism.

To proclaim such political nonsense as Marxist theory, without any class analysis and without taking into account the different economic bases in the respective countries, offends the mind of every politically thinking person, and every author should be ashamed to put such nonsense on paper and sell it as Marxist theory. It must have been clear to every Marxist at the time that the Soviet Union was not seeking world domination, on the contrary. In capitalism, political power is the outflow of monetary wealth and strives for Expansion. But unlike in capitalism, where capitalists determine politics with their wealth, through the transmission belt of Parliament or through a military puppet dictatorship, as in Latin America at that time (Chile, Argentina, Dominican Republic, etc.), the bureaucracy in the non-capitalist states prevails not through their money, but through their political monopoly of power. From this she also derives her privileges, which she naturally seeks to retain.

The political bureaucracy of the SU did not want to undo the property relations, nor did it want to transfer socialism to other countries and to further the world revolution. For new socialist states would only have become competition for them and the transition to a real socialist form of society with democratic structures in other countries would have jeopardized their claim to supremacy as the fatherland of socialism. The Status Quo was the Alpha and Omega for the existence of the Soviet bureaucracy. Stalin had already abandoned the world revolution with his “theory of socialism in one country”. He had dissolved the third International, the Comintern, in 1943, just at the time when the defeat of the Third Reich was already looming and the Comintern could have become an important Instrument for the spread of socialism throughout Europe and beyond after the Second World War. Stalin preferred to make the communist parties in all countries vassals of the SU rather than allow them to become leaders of new socialist states, on an equal footing and in union with the SU in a Communist International. After Lenin’s death in 1924 and Stalin’s assumption of power, but at the latest since the Moscow trials, the world revolution was put aside for the Soviet leadership. And capitalist countries could never have controlled the SU. Moreover, the fate of socialism always depended on that of international capitalism, since the socialist states were also subject to the conditions of the world market in their international economic relations.

Nevertheless, the Maoist groups uncritically pursued Mao’s theory of the three worlds, as they applauded all turns of the people’s Republic of China, even though these were contrary to Marxism and did not serve the proletarian Revolution, but the respective current and temporary domestic and foreign political interests of the Chinese leadership. Right after the three-World theory had made the rounds, the Maoists all over the world increased uncritically in their zeal and hatred against the USSR. In the Federal Republic of Germany they demanded the dismissal of “Moscow-loyal” communists from the civil service, spread nationalist slogans and some even issued election recommendations for the CSU and F. J. Strauß. In addition to the" Soviet imperialists", many Maoists regarded the SPD as" social fascists", whom they sought to" tear the mask off their face".

The author does not want to go into all the abstruse theories of the Maoists. The theories and slogans changed as quickly as the turnaround of the Chinese leadership. The fact is, however, that they had nothing at all to do with a socialist strategy for the liberation of the working class, but only repeated the slogans of the Chinese leadership.

Some K-groups also received support from China itself. Through them, the Chinese leadership tried to gain influence in Europe and establish business relations. Some party cadres from the K-groups travelled to China, where they were received by the Chinese leadership. Whether and how much money has flowed from China, we cannot say here. What is certain, however, is that the Chinese leadership has delivered a lot of propaganda material such as pins, “Mao Bibles”, as well as books with writings by Lenin and Stalin and other things, all in German, to Germany free of charge.

The new social movements

By 1983 at the latest, after 15 years of Maoism in Europe, The Haunting was finally over. The great leap forward had in fact been a leap backwards, hundreds of flowers had never bloomed, and in the Cultural Revolution, the fanatical masses had not only killed millions of people, but had destroyed many of China’s ancient cultural assets. In total, about 70 million people had died in China because of the party’s senseless campaigns since the 1950s. The Great Helmsman was dead and the people’s Republic of China was on its way to capitalism under Deng Xiao Ping. The visit of Hua Guofeng to the Shah of Persia in 1978 and the Chinese support of Mugabe in Zimbabwe since January 1979 also made all China’s anti-colonial assertions implausible. The few factory groups of the Maoists had all long since been dissolved and the workers continued to show the Maoists the cold shoulder. They had achieved nothing, they remained, as long as they existed, only small dogmatic sects. Politically, they faced a shard in 1979.

Since the mid-1970s, representatives of K-groups began to contribute their content to the environmental movement, the peace movement, the women’s movement or the squatters ' movement, seeking influence and new supporters. Even in the early 1970s, isolated Maoists had been active in the anti-nuclear movement. At first they condemned these movements as petty-bourgeois. In the Anti-nuclear and peace movements, they also faced a Problem: the leadership of the people’s Republic of China relied on nuclear power to meet its energy needs, and also built atomic and hydrogen bombs, which the European Maoists welcomed. What was good in China should be bad in capitalism. “Socialist” nuclear power plants and atomic bombs stood for Maoists in the service of the world revolution.

The active party cadres became unemployed after the dissolution of their groups and looked for new followers and new fields of activity. And they found it in the new social movements and civic initiatives that had now sprung up everywhere. These movements were usually organized outside Parliament. No social analyses were made here either. But because the movements were usually always in Opposition to the government, they always somehow had a progressive Flair. This suited the narrative of the former K-groups and their cadres. The Maoists now began to systematically subvert these movements. Although the K-groups had failed politically, they had nevertheless gained experience in the political environment, which they now used and which were gladly accepted by the politically relatively inexperienced activists in the various movements.

Green lists and founding of the Green Party

In order to gain more influence for their cause also at the political level, the call for participation in the elections was soon raised in the movements. In order to provide a platform for the different movements and to unite the different forces, the first colourful and alternative lists were formed, whose candidates were mostly impartial and apolitical, who only stood for their own cause in the elections and initially only applied for municipal and state elections. Nevertheless, a surprising number of former Maoists ran on these lists from the beginning, some of whom would later make their careers with the Greens, although the candidacy of members of the K-groups on the lists was often controversial.

Initially, local electoral alliances emerged. In 1977, the first green and colourful lists ran in Hamburg and Lower Saxony. In October 1978, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, an ex-Maoist and later member of the Green Party, was already a candidate on the green list of Hesse. From 1979, Green candidates moved into local and state parliaments. The first national associations were founded and in 1980 the party “Die Grünen” was founded. At the time, the program was still progressive, “ecological, social, grassroots democratic and nonviolent, according to its own description. Peace and disarmament were still important concerns for the first Greens at that time. The party still saw itself as a movement and an Anti-party party. Their work should not be exclusively parliamentary. In 1983, the Greens sent their first MPs, including Joschka Fischer, to the Bundestag. They also entered the European Parliament in 1984.

At the same time as the founding of the party, however, the intra-party struggles between “Fundis” and “Realos"already began. The Altmaoists now wanted to make a career with the Greens. The course of the Realos was a dispute over posts and government participation, whereby the program of the founding party was constantly watered down beyond recognition. The ex-Maoists played a leading role in this. And Joschka Fischer, Ex-Sponti from the squatter scene, also went this way. Fischer caused a stir by appearing in sneakers at his swearing-in as Environment Minister in the Hessian State Parliament. This was the last remnant of rebelliousness left with him. From now on it became the driving force in the direction of adaptation.

Fischer’s political career took him from the far left to the far right, from left-wing Sponti to right-wing transatlantic and warmonger, in which, as foreign minister in the Schröder cabinet, together with Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping (SPD), he drove the Federal Republic into a war against Yugoslavia that was contrary to international law. To Fischer’s right today are only a few US senators and politicians, such as his girlfriend Madeleine Albright, the Communist-hater and warmonger Marco Rubio or the right-winger and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. But Horst Mahler undoubtedly shot the bird down: from the RAF to the NPD. Here is a list of other former Maoists and turning necks, in their principles for a political career in the bourgeois state tasks.

The former minister of the environment Trittin also used to belong to a K-Group, the KB. In contrast to the other K-groups, however, the KB pursued a more realistic policy and was not oriented towards Maoism. In Schröder’s cabinet, Trittin also always tried to enforce an at least partially effective environmental policy. That is why he became the beating boy of Schröder, who did not want to tolerate environmental measures that could have reduced the profits of the corporations. Trittin was always on the verge of his dismissal as Minister.

We do not want to trace all stages of the green here. It is clear that the red-green Schröder-Fischer government represented a fiasco for the Federal Republic. After Helmut Kohl had led a black government as chancellor for 16 years, people began to hope for an improvement in 1998. Instead, it only got worse under red-green. The welfare state was destroyed and the peace policy was put on file for the benefit of an allegiance to the USA.

The greens today

Without the ‘68 movement, without the SDS, the APO and the new social movements and citizens’ initiatives that developed from it, the Greens might never have existed. And without the influence of the former Maoists, the Greens would not be what they are today. This applies both to their party leadership and structures as well as to their followers and their voters.

Today, the Greens are staunchly committed to Nato and are stirring up sentiment against Russia and China. They demand rearmament and militarization, cut down forests and build highways through nature reserves. They support free trade agreements like TTIP and they support the crazy project Stuttgart 21, just because the green ex-Maoist and car lobbyist Kretschmann is prime minister of Baden-Württemberg. Meanwhile, he warns of” over-demands of the automotive industry " by tightening climate protection. Joschka Fischer calls for more military commitment from Germany and Europe. Cem Özdemir, meanwhile a reliable transatlantic, completed an internship with the Bundeswehr last year and had himself photographed in camouflage uniform. The green group leader Göring-Eckardt calls for the stop of the Nordstream II Pipeline under the pretext that Russia has poisoned Navalny. And the green Annalena Baerbock, currently Party Chairman together with Robert Habeck, was a guest speaker at the birthday party of the “Dear CDU"on the occasion of the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the CDU. She is also vice chairman of the Freundeskreis Berlin–Taipei, a parliamentary group that tries to undermine the one-China policy of the FRG.

By the way, the fact that the Greens have left the peace movement and are in favour of military action is in stark contradiction to their Image as an environmental protection party. Peace and the environment are inextricably linked. Nothing destroys Flora & Fauna more than a war. In the event of a nuclear war, the environmental debate has settled, an atomic Winter as a result of a nuclear war would wipe out all life on Earth. (see: warmongers are climate killers)

While Bütikofer, as a former member of the German-Chinese Friendship Association, is mainly dedicated to combating the influence of China, former Green member of the Bundestag Marie-Luise Beck, together with her green husband Ralf Fücks, Ex-Maoist, former mayor of Bremen and board member of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, has set up a network against Russia. To this end, they have set up the think tank “Center of liberal modernity”, which is dedicated to transatlantic relations, supports the Opposition in Ukraine and, in short, is for everything and everyone when it comes to opposing Russia. In addition, the question arises with these persons to what extent they are not also Agents of influence in the interests of the USA. Even if they are not paid directly by Washington, their work in the service of the United States is obvious and certainly lucrative.

Now one may accuse the turning heads of the Fischer and Bütikofer Generation that they have betrayed their principles. In contrast, the new generation’s Turnhands, such as Habeck and Annalena Baerbock, have entered politics from the very beginning without visions and only for the sake of their careers. If the ex-Maoists initially dreamed of a new proletarian Revolution, the new generation of the Greens never sought a connection with the working class.

The Greens are and have never been a left-wing party. A left party is primarily concerned with the poor and disadvantaged in society, with social problems. The Greens emerged from the Union of different individual movements, which were only concerned about individual aspects, but never cared about the poor, let alone the workers. And those of them, especially the Maoists, who once championed the liberation of the working class, have mercilessly failed through sectarian politics and have given up trying to conform to the working class. When they switched to the greens, they dropped all demands for the emancipation of the working class and devoted themselves only to issues such as the environment, Peace, Women’s issues, etc. The Greens do not want another society, they only want selective improvements, but above all well-paid positions for themselves in politics and the administration of the bourgeois state.

Today, the green Ex-Maoists are as committed to neoliberal views as they were to orthodox communist, or rather vulgar communist, views at the time. Instead of Mao’s slogans, today they are reciting the words of the US government. Instead of Mao’s” revolutionary " caprices, they support today the economic sanctions and international illegal attacks of the USA on other countries, worse still, they demand the participation of the FRG in them. Here a continuity becomes visible both in the authoritarian thinking of the old Maoist structures and in the subservience to a leadership nation. Only now the leadership nation has changed. The old reflexes of subservience on the one hand and authoritarian behaviour towards the “foot people” on the other hand have been preserved.

All this has nothing to do with independent politics, even with progressive politics. The Greens are by no means a” left Alternative " for those who want to free themselves from the domination of the USA and from the exploitation by capitalist, mostly American, large corporations. And just as with the then K-groups, in the meantime also with the greens every internal party discussion is stalled. The party leadership decides that the foot people must comply with the decisions. Long gone are the party conferences of the Greens, ridiculed by the" established " popular parties, where the individual groups often engaged in violent clashes and men knitted sweaters. The Realos have won, the Fundis have disappeared from the party.

The fact that the Greens named their political foundation after Heinrich Böll of all people is also a monstrosity and a disrespect for Böll, who can no longer defend himself as a dead man. If he was still alive, he would never have allowed it, and on the other hand, the green turntables would not have dared to abuse his name in this way.

Heinrich Böll was a left-wing writer, one of the best of the German post-war period, and peace activist. Böll was opposed to the rearmament and the NATO Double Decision and actively supported the peace movement, which the Greens have so sneakily fallen in the back. Heinrich Böll supported the peace policy of Willy Brandt and his initiatives for an understanding of the Peoples, also with the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. In 1983, Böll personally participated in a sit-in blockade of the rocket base in the Mutlanger Heide. Today, the Heinrich Böll Foundation is at the forefront of destroying relations with Russia, potentially posing a threat of war. Its former chairman Ralf Fücks (until 2017) and his wife Beck are the driving forces here and they also partly abused the foundation for their own “centre for liberal modernity”. In case of doubt, the Heinrich Böll Foundation is always reliable on the part of the USA and Israel and for military operations to “defend human rights”.

All the parties, not only the Greens, have in the meantime degenerated into associations of careerists (Albrecht Müller). They have also all drifted to the right. As with the Greens, the Realos, the right wing has always taken over in all other parties. What used to be considered the right wing has now become the “middle”. However, the “centre” is always on the right, because it opportunistically follows the media coverage and avoids controversial discussions. This is especially true for the politicians who lead this center, who mainly care about their career and want to put themselves in the right (pun) light. The media, as Albrecht Müller aptly notes, are used for intra-party disputes. Gerhard Schröder, the comrade of the bosses, had already recognized this and after that he aligned a large part of his policy. His Motto :" to govern I need a picture, bangs and telly.“It is not the political course that is decisive, but the Image. The opinion of the grassroots plays less and less a role in this, the grassroots does not find a hearing in the media, it is the statements of the party leaders in the newspapers and on television that are publicly known and discussed. Thus, the Greens have switched from a former part of the peace movement to a transatlantic course, which has long subordinated international law to the law of thumb of the USA and Nato.