This article is machine translated by Google from Norwegian
Why are we publishing this time a full 32 pages of 50-year-old texts from MODERN TIMES' forerunner Orientering?
Precisely in 1973, it was 20 years ago Orientering was founded in 1953, and jubilee texts were written about the visions and history (pages 3–4, 14–15). Also, that year was the political party convention Socialist Election Association (SV) was formed – which led to the establishment of the Socialist Left Party (SV) a couple of years later. Orientering was and remained their newspaper.
But is this only of historical interest? No. For the program to SV (see pages 22–24) was visionary with his anti-militarist policy – with the criticism of NATO (see pages 6–7) as well as by imperialism and the great powers in both East and West (henceforth 'the third way'). With today's warmongering between the West and Russia/Ukraine, we need to reflect on what solidarity and libertarian humanity was advocated at the time. Also because we have had many decades of destabilizing wars (Afghanistan, Syria, Libya) – invasions in which both the USA/NATO (including Norway) and Russia have violated international law.
Orienterings leading editor Sigurd Evensmo was the famous journalist
the list that withdrew from Arbeiderbladet then The Norwegian Labor Party advocated Norwegian NATO membership. I mention this in the context of the fact that our regular commentator Marielle Leraand, who was in the breakaway group from SV when the party advocated the bombing of Libya, and now (see page 3 in the main newspaper) believes Rødt is making the same militaristic mistake – i.e. that both parties has moved away from its peace-politic, anti-militarist foundation (page 22). Evensmo's exit was badly received Arbeiderbladets circuits, which would 'silently' kill Orientering (see page 14). The new one OrienteringThe s-circle was totally ignored by Arbeiderbladet and its party. But people in Norway did not want the newspaper to die – Orientering survived, had
19 subscribers in 000 and became the body behind SV with power in the Storting.
Prime Minister Chr. Hornsrud – ga Orientering the name.
Orienterings editorial line, and fearless journalists, since I became editor in 2015, have been a role model for me and the commentary MODERN TIMES – with the anti-militaristic and internationally oriented line. But also socialism with a human face, "libertarian communism", corresponding to our somewhat more socially liberal or pragmatic-anarchist line with an emphasis on international solidarity and individual freedom. Therefore, here in the newspaper, and in our large Facebook group, you can see a more consequential ethical attitude towards the war in Ukraine – a war that not only leads to hundreds of thousands of wasted Ukrainian and Russian lives, but now risks escalating into nuclear war with consequences for large parts of humanity in our northern hemisphere. And don't get me wrong, because we distance ourselves from totalitarian features Putins politics, with widespread corruption, invasions (Chechnya, Afghanistan), violence as well as imprisonment and liquidations of critics. But Ukraine is also corrupt, and suppresses both parties, media and Russian-speaking groups.
Opposite militarismn we turn around instead Clausewitz upside down and points out that "politics is a continuation of the war, but by other means". Bombing and threats just do not lead to lasting peace – an expanding NATO, militarism and imperialism do not create peace – only legitimate negotiations, distribution and compromises do.
Press history and minorities
But back Orientering 50 years ago: Read the articles by editor Kjell Cordtsen (page 3), Evensmo (page 14) and Toril Skard (page 16) about Orienterings story – an example of a reluctance, independent intellectuality and a critical courage that has rarely been seen or seen in Norwegian press history.
Orienterings editors directed the spotlight (via Jens Bjørneboe on pages 20–21) on how colonialism treated its oppressed, but also on how one oppresses one's minorities at home. Or what about all the countries Norway felt (or feels) allied with, and which torture practices (page 5) they practice, like Erling Borgen rammed up from one Amnesty-rapport i 1973?
Humor and irony were also included at the time, like this Arne Skougen (page 32) dealt with a poor shipowner paying zero tax. Or from him who later became Dagbladet's editor, Jan Olav Egeland (page 24), which reminded readers of Liberta's well pissers, a Norwegian McCarthyism towards SV. Feel free to take it as a foretaste of the hatred and incitement in today's polarized public helped by social media and the new sport of putting stinkers labelis on different thinking.
Europe had to be a neutral buffer zone between the great powers (the USA and the Soviet Union)
Also read Evensmo's article about Soviets treatment of the "dissident" Solzhenitsyn (side 26–27).
Monitoring, philosophy, ecology
Another retrospective we have chosen to reprint is which one surveillance Norway, Sweden and the CIA were involved at the time (page 12). This gives a perspective up to today's technology and the internet (remember Edvard Snowden), where surveillance has become a ubiquitous phenomenon right up to your smartphone – for both the authorities, the military and business. Orientering (page 13) referred to Swedish here Information Agency, who broke in both here and there to survey and monitor, in collaboration with the CIA. "Neutral" Sweden? But not only that, from the Viktoria terrace in Oslo, hundreds of thousands of Norwegian citizens, including the prime minister, were monitored Borten.
Orientering 50 years ago also used column space to discuss Marx and Lenin, where Dag Østerberg (after all, my lecturer and professor at the University of Oslo) pointed out that one had to understand the difference between these two – especially when it came to alienation – for the newly established SV to understand what they were doing (pages 8–9) . Also, what is the difference between reform and revolution (page 25), as well as what Erich Fromm said about Marx and Lenin (side 32)?
You will also be able to read here in the appendix what Orientering in 1973 wrote about the critical Energy solutionsthe question (page 28), or self-sufficient food production (page 29) – as ecological problems.
Peace period
Let me end this introduction to the appendix with another "older" discussion, from 1985, in which our regular MODERN TIMES commentator today, Ola Tunander, as a future peace researcher described the difference between a white and a black fredsdue (The black dove. Essays on Power, Technology and History, Symposium, 1985). The white According to him, the dove of peace "appeared in contrast to the black reality, to give us hope in a hopeless time", a kind of Christian necessary dream of the impossible. At the same time, intellectuals, activists and good politicians are critical of it the military-industrial complex (which today is steadily increasing, now also in Germany and Japan), unfortunately ended up with a Hegelian "unhappy consciousness": as independent critics, one must collaborate with the powerful, militarily rearming and cynical, in order to influence power critically. But can this as Tunander mentions, “unites with anarchistone's notion of autonomy' or freedom and peace movements? The black dove of peace is "soiled by the European city air and soiled by the realities of power. It is colored by the black age of disillusionment and black because it has taken on the role of a rebellious critic of power".
For Tunander, the black dove symbolized both lack of illusion and hope – but also a "future Europe highly characterized by relaxation, criticism and libertarian thinking in contrast to the traditional Europes national assertiveness and revanchism". Just like the many black pigeons in Orientering.
Remember that this was written after almost 30 years without war in Europe: Tunander called at the time for healing Europe had to be a neutral buffer zone between the great powers (the USA and the Soviet Union), where a legitimacy was maintained with policies and activities that were not based on weapons of war and militarization.
Unfortunately have USA today 800 military base stations around the world; NATO has expanded its area of activity eastwards; and with the war in Ukraine – what many call a 'proxy war' to weaken Russia – the EU, with von der Leuven and other Europeans, is now contributing to an escalating spiral in which both an attacking Russia and a warring West kill hundreds of thousands. Rather than pragmatic 'give-and-take' peace negotiations on Eastern Ukraine.
But what role should we in Europe play? Can you follow Orienterings and Evensmo's 'third way' rather than taking sides with the USA? Can Europe's and Norway's leaders come to their senses – and also listen to countries in the global south? Rather than an arms race, bombs and grenades, rather become the critical black dove, a buffer, which stabilizes power when the USA, after threatening China (via Taiwan), realizes its next imperialist stage?
See also the book Orientering – The Rebels' newspaper (Birgitte Kjos Fonn, Pax publishing house, 2011).
