Nature, Function and Tactics of the Revolutionary Party of the Working Class (1945)

(«Proletarian»; Nr. 16; Spring-Summer 2020)

Back Sumary



This text was written by Amadeo Bordiga at the beginning of 1945, before the end of the war; but it was only published in 1947, in Prometeo n°7 (the theoretical journal of the Party at that time), in the series “The Theses of the Left”.



The question of the party’s tactics is of fundamental importance, and it must be studied in the context of the historical struggles between various tendencies and positions within the 2nd and 3rd Internationals.

It is incorrect to think that this question is secondary and derivative, in the sense that groups in agreement on theory and program might, without comprising these foundations, defend and apply different orientations in action, even only in transitory episodes.

When problems relating to the nature and action of the party are posed, this implies a passage from the stage of mere critical interpretation of social processes to a stage in which an actively operating force can exert an influence on such processes. This passage constitutes the most important and delicate point of the entire Marxist system, and it was formulated in some sentences from Marx’s youth: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it. We must now pass from the arm of criticism to the critique of arms”

This leap from pure knowledge to active intervention is understood by dialectical materialism in a radically different way from the traditional ideologies.

All too often we have seen the adversaries of communism exploit the theoretical arsenal of Marxism in order to sabotage and repudiate its consequences in the area of action and of the proletarian party while refuting and rejecting its principled critical foundations. In all these cases the deviation is a reflection of anti-classist, counter-revolutionary influences, and it manifests itself in crises which, for the sake of brevity, we refer to as opportunism.

Principles and doctrines do not exist in themselves - as a foundation established before action. On the contrary, both are formed in a process parallel to action. Competing material interests compel social groups into practical struggle, and from the action engendered by such material interests is formed the theory which becomes the party’s distinctive heritage. If the relationship between these interests and incentives and the practical orientation of the action are changed, then the party’s doctrine is likewise changed and deformed.

To believe that once it has been codified in a programmatic text and given a strict, disciplined organizational form in the party, the party theory has become intangible and sacred, and that therefore many different orientations and maneuvers are permissible in tactical action, means that one has not understood, in a Marxist sense, the real problem that has to be solved before choosing methods of action.

What is the meaning of determinism? Are social events engendered by irrepressible forces, giving rise to various ideologies, theories and opinions in human beings, or can they be modified by the more or less conscious will of individuals? The method characteristic of the proletarian party resolves this dilemma by means of a radical departure from traditional methods. The problem has always been posed and a solution allegedly given on the basis of the isolated individual, and then a solution was deduced for society as a whole. In fact, the collective, rather than the individual, must be the point of departure. Similarly, “collective” has always been understood that other metaphysical abstraction which comprises the society of all human beings, whereas for Marxism a collective is a concretely defined group of individuals who, in a given historical situation, through their social relations - i.e., their place in production and the economy - have parallel interests; these groups are, precisely, classes.

Not all social classes in human history have the same way of resolving the problem of their ability to understand correctly the process through which they are living, and exert a certain amount of influence on it. Each historical class has had its system of opinions and propaganda; each one has claimed with equal force that it interpreted the meaning of events correctly and was able to orient them toward a more or less vaguely defined objective. Marxism provides a critique and explanation of all these theories, showing that the various ideological generalizations were the mental reflections of the conditions and interests of antagonistic classes.

In this continuous succession of struggles between parties and class states (which are engendered by material interests and find their expression in political and philosophical movements), the modern proletarian class, once the social conditions for its formation have matured, emerges with new, superior abilities, both because it possesses an experimental method for interpreting general historical development and because its social and political action and struggle have a concrete influence on the general progress of this development.

This other fundamental concept was expounded by Marxists in the following classic expressions: “With the proletarian revolution, human society leaves prehistory” and “the socialist revolution constitutes the leap from the kingdom of necessity into the kingdom of freedom”.

This therefore puts an end to the banal traditional terms of the dilemma: Is man master of his will, or is he determined by his environment?

Are the class and its party conscious of their historical mission, do they derive from this theoretical consciousness the strength to accomplish this mission in the interest of a general improvement in social conditions, or are they drawn into struggle, fated to success or defeat by higher, unknown forces? Above all, it is essential to determine what classes and parties are involved, what is the relationship of forces in terms of production and state power, what historical cycle have they just completed and what further cycle remains to be completed according to the results of our critical analysis.

According to religious doctrines, the cause of events lies outside men, in the divine creator, who presumably conjured the world into existence, but felt he had to concede individuals a certain freedom of choice, for which they would be accountable in the hereafter. Suffice to say that this solution of the problem of will and determinism has been completely abandoned by the Marxist social and analysis.

But the solution given by bourgeois philosophy, which claims to have achieved an enlightened critique and eliminated all arbitrary presuppositions and divine revelations, remains just as mendacious, since it always reduces the problem of action to a subject-object relationship. The older (and more recent) idealist systems seek the point of departure in the individual subject, in the Ego, i.e., in the thought mechanism, which manifests itself as the individuals action on the natural and social environment. From this arises the political and juridical deception of the bourgeois system, which declares the individual to be free and grants him, as a citizen, the right to administer civic affairs, and consequently his own interests, in accordance with opinions that sprout in his own head.

The Marxist interpretation of history and human action, while banishing the intervention of any transcendental influence of divine revelation, just as decisively overturns the bourgeois concept of freedom and individual will, showing instead that it is the individual’s needs and interests that explain his movements and actions, and that his opinions and beliefs, and what is called consciousness, are determined only as the final result of the most complex series of influences.

When we move from the metaphysical concept of the Ego’s consciousness and will to the real, scientific concept of theoretical knowledge and the historical and political action of the class party, the problem is finally posed clearly and a solution can be sought.

This solution has an original meaning for the movement and party of the modern proletariat, in that the proletariat is the first class which is not only compelled to break apart the old systems and old political and juridical forms that hinder the development of the productive forces (a revolutionary task of all preceding social classes), but also wages a struggle, not to constitute itself as a ruling class, but to establish relations of production which will enable it to eliminate economic pressure and the exploitation of one class by another.

The proletariat therefore has a clearer historical understanding and a more direct influence on events that the classes that have ruled society until now.

The revisionism of the 2nd International, which appeared as opportunism and collaboration in bourgeois governments, in peacetime and in war, was the manifestation of the influence on the proletariat of the 19th century phase of peaceful and apparently progressive development in the bourgeois world. At that time it appeared that the expansion of capitalism would not lead, as it did in Marx’ classic schema, to the inexorable exacerbation of class antagonisms and to the exploitation and impoverishment of the proletariat. It appeared that, as long as the capitalist world could extend itself without provoking violent crises, the living conditions of the working classes could gradually improve within the bourgeois system itself. In its theory, reformism elaborated this schema of peaceful evolution from the capitalist economy to the proletarian economy, and in its practice, it quite coherently stated that the proletarian arty could develop a positive activity based on the daily accomplishment of partial conquests - of a trade union, cooperative, administrative, and legislative nature - which would then become so many nuclei of the future socialist system inserted into the body of the present system, and which would gradually work a complete transformation.

The conception of the party’s task was no longer of a movement that staked everything on the preparation of a final effort to realize the supreme goal; it was transformed into a substantially voluntarist and pragmatist conception, in the sense that each day’s work was presented as a solid, definitive accomplishment which was contrasted to the vacuity of passively awaiting a great future Victory which would result from the revolutionary clash.

The syndicalist school was no less voluntarist; it spoke of open class conflict and the destruction and abolition of the bourgeois state, which the reformists had wanted to infuse with socialism but in reality, by reducing the social struggles and transformation to isolated productive units, it too found that the proletariat could, through its trade union struggle, conquer a series of advantageous positions which would be so many proletarian islets in the capitalist ocean. The theory of factory councils developed in Italy by Ordine Nuovo was derivative of the syndicalist conception; here the international and historical unity of the movement and social transformation is fragmented into a series of positions conquered in individual productive units - this in the name of a concrete, analytical determination of action.

Just as gradualist reformism now regarded as secondary the realization of the maximum program and gave priority to partial daily conquests, so too it advocated the well-known tactic of alliances and coalitions with political groups and parties which, from time to time, agreed to support partial demands and reforms proposed by the proletarian party.

From that moment on communists made the following substantial critique of this practice: the alignment of the party alongside other political formations on a front that changed according to the momentary problems dividing the political world would necessarily lead to a denaturing of the party, an obscuring of its theoretical clarity and a weakening of its organization, compromising its ability to direct the struggle of the proletarian masses in the phase of the revolutionary conquests of power.

The nature of the political struggle is such that the alignment of forces in two camps separated by opposed solutions to a given contingent problem, polarizing the action of militants around this transitory interest and the immediate objective, becomes detrimental to propaganda for the program and to a continuity with the principles of the movement. It thus creates an orientation among groups of militants that directly reflects the immediate demands which are being fought for.

The party’s task - which was apparently an easy one for the social-democrats of the classic period - should be to reconcile intervention in contingent problems and conquests with the preservation of its programmatic physiognomy and ability to remain on the terrain of its own struggle for the final general objective of the working class. What happens in reality is that reformist activity not only causes the proletarians to forget their classist, revolutionary preparation, but it also induces even the leaders and theoreticians of the movement to reject it openly, and to proclaim that the final revolutionary crisis predicted by Marxism is itself only a utopia, and that only the conquests of each day are important. “The end is nothing; the movement is everything” was the slogan of reformists and trade unionists alike.

The crisis of this method assumed an overt form during the war, which destroyed the postulate of a progressive amelioration under capitalist rule.

The collective wealth accumulated by the bourgeoisie, a small part of which was devoted to an apparent improvement of the masses living conditions, was tossed into the furnace of war. Not only were all the reformist improvements consumed in the economic crisis, but the very lives of millions of workers were also sacrificed. At the same time, while the faction of the socialists that had remained healthy still entertained the hope that this violent manifestation of capitalist barbarism would tear groups of proletarians away from class collaboration and plunge them into the open, general struggle for the destruction of the capitalist system, they instead witnessed the crisis and collapse of almost the entire international proletarian organization.

The shifting of the agitational front and immediate action accomplished during the period of reformist practice revealed an incurable weakness, since the proletarians had forgotten and no longer understood their supreme class objectives. The tactical method of accepting alignments with parties in two distinct coalitions, depending on the country, and the most diverse slogans (for greater freedom of organization, for the extension of the right to vote, for the nationalization of certain sectors of the economy, etc.) was exploited by the ruling class with disastrous consequences culminating in the political alignment of the proletariat’s leaders that constituted the social-patriotic degeneration.

The popularity created for these non-classist positions by the propaganda of the powerful mass organizations of the large social-democratic parties of the 2nd International was cleverly used to pervert their political orientations: it was shown that, in the interest of the proletariat and in the very interest of its march toward socialism, it was, meanwhile, necessary to defend other accomplishments, such as German civilization (against theocratic Czarism) or Western democracy (against Teutonic militarism).

Emerging from the Russian revolution, the 3rd International opposed this orientation, which had been so disastrous for the workers movement. However, it must be said that, if the restoration of revolutionary positions was rigorous and complete with regard to theoretical principles, and positions and the central problem of state power, nonetheless the organizational foundations of the new international and the formation of its tactics, including those of its member parties, were not sufficiently complete.

The critique of the opportunists of the 2nd International was certainly complete and decisive, not only with regard to their total abandonment of Marxist principles, but also in terms of their tactic of coalition and collaboration with bourgeois governments and parties.

It was clearly shown that the particularist and immediatist orientation given to the old socialist parties had by no means secured small advantages and material improvements for the workers in exchange for their renunciation for preparation of the final attack against bourgeois power and its institutions: on the contrary, by compromising both the immediate aims and the historical goal, it had led to an even worse situation, i.e., the use of organizations, proletarian forces, combativeness, persons and lives to accomplish objectives which do not correspond to the political and historical objectives of the class, and indeed even led to a strengthening of capitalist imperialism. The war had enabled the latter, at least for an entire historical phase, to remove the danger created by the contradictions of its productive mechanism, while the taming of the trade union and political apparatus of the enemy class by means of the political method of national coalitions enabled it to overcome the political crisis created by the war and its after-effects.

As the Leninist critique shows, this completely denatured the task and function of the proletarian party, which does not exist to save the bourgeois fatherland or the institutions of so-called bourgeois freedom, but to hold the proletariat’s forces in battle formation on the general historical line of the movement, which must culminate in the total conquest of political power via the overthrow of the bourgeois state.

In the immediate post-war period, while what we are accustomed to calling the subjective conditions of the revolution (i.e., the effectiveness of the proletariat’s organizations and party) appeared unfavorable, and while the crisis of the bourgeois world which was then manifesting itself in full scope offered favorable objective conditions, it became necessary to remedy the first deficiency by means of a rapid reorganization of the revolutionary International.

This process was dominated – and it could not have been otherwise – by the grandiose historical fact of the first proletarian revolutionary victory in Russia, which had given full expression to the major communist directives. But there was a tendency to base the tactics of the communist parties in other countries, which were composed of socialist groups opposed to war opportunism on a direct imitation of the tactics successfully applied by the Bolsheviks when they conquered power in the historical struggle from February to November 1917.

From the very start, this success gave rise to intense debates on the tactical methods of the International, especially the united front tactic, which consisted in addressing frequent invitations to other proletarian and socialist parties to undertake common agitation and coordinated action with the aim of unmasking these parties and turning their traditional influence on the masses to the communists’ advantage.

Yet in spite of urgent warning from the Italian Left and other opposition groups, the leaders of the International did not recognize that this united front tactic, by aligning revolutionary organizations alongside the social-democratic, social-patriotic, opportunist organizations from which they had just separated over irreconcilable differences, not only would disorient the masses and at the same time render the advantages expected from this tactic illusory but – what was much more serious – would end up corrupting the revolutionary parties themselves. Even though the revolutionary party is the finest product of history and is least limited by history, it still remains a product of history, and therefore is subject to changes at every alteration of the social forces. The problem of tactics cannot be regarded as merely brandishing a weapon at will, such that no matter what direction it is pointed, it always remains identical to itself. No tactic can be condemned in the name of an a priori dogma, but all tactics must be analyzed and discussed on the basis of the following criterion; though we may eventually win influence over the masses, is there a danger that we might compromise the character of the party and its ability to guide them toward the final objective?

By adopting the united front tactic the Communist International too embarked on the same opportunist path that had led to the 2nd International to disaster and liquidation. The characteristic of the opportunist tactic has been  the sacrifice of the final victory to contingent and partial successes; the United Front tactic was also revealed to be opportunistic, since it too sacrificed the primordial, irreplaceable guarantee of final victory – the revolutionary capacity of the class party – to contingent actions that were to have secured immediate partial advantages for the proletariat (increase in the party’s influence on the masses and a greater participation by the proletariat in the fight for the gradual improvement of its material conditions and for the protection of any conquests already gained).

In the context of the aftermath of the first world war, which appeared to be objectively revolutionary, the leadership of the international was inspired by the fear – not without foundation – that it would not be ready and without mass following, when explodes a general European movement which might lead to the conquest of power in some of the large capitalist countries. The possibility of a rapid collapse of the capitalist world was so important for the Leninist International that today we can understand how, in the hope of leading the broad masses in the struggle for the European revolution, it went so far as to accept membership of movements that were not real communist parties, and how it sought, through the elastic united front tactic, to maintain contact with the masses who were still following  the apparatus of parties that vacillated between social conservation and revolution.

Had this collapse come about, its consequences for the politics and economy of the first proletarian power in Russia would have been so great that an immediate recovery of the international and national organizations of the communist movement would have been possible.

Unfortunately, the least favorable outcome, a relative stabilization of capitalism, ensured, and the revolutionary proletariat had to resume its fight with a movement that had sacrificed its political orientation and its homogeneous composition and organization, and consequently was exposed to new opportunist degenerations.

However, the error that opened the door of the 3rd International to the new opportunist wave, one more serious than previous waves, was not just an error in estimating the future probability of the proletarian revolution; it was an error of historical orientation and interpretation, i.e., the desire to generalize the experiences and methods of the Russian bolshevism to countries of a much more advanced, capitalist civilization. Pre-1917 Russia was still feudal Russia in which the capitalist productive forces were constricted by the shell of ancient relations of production. Obviously in this situation - analogous to France in 1789 and Germany in 1848 - the political party of the proletariat would have to combat czarism even if it seemed impossible to avoid the creation of a bourgeois, capitalist regime after the overthrow of czarism. It was also obvious that the Bolshevik party would be able to establish contacts with other political groups, since this was necessitated by the struggle against czarism. Between February and October 1917 the Bolshevik party encountered objective conditions favorable for a broader plan: the possibility of grafting the revolutionary conquest of power by the proletariat directly onto the overthrow of czarism. It therefore hardened its tactical positions, fighting from reactionary supporters of the czarist, feudal restoration to the Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. But while there was a real threat of a restoration of the absolutist, theocratic feudal regime, the political state and formations created or influenced by the bourgeoisie continued to lack any stability in the extremely unstable situation at the time, and proved to be unable to attract and absorb the autonomous forces of the proletariat. These conditions made it possible for the Bolshevik party to accept contacts and make temporary agreements with other organizations that had a certain influence among the proletariat, as happened during the Kornilov episode.

By making a united front against Kornilov, the Bolshevik party in reality ought against a real feudal reaction, and furthermore, there was no reason to fear either a reinforcement of the Menshevik and Social-Revolutionary parties (which might have subjected it to their influence) or a state power with sufficient stability that it might take advantage of the temporary alliance with the Bolsheviks and subsequently turn against them.

The situation and the relationship of forces were completely different in the countries of advanced bourgeois civilization. The perspective of a feudal reaction was totally absent (as it is today), and consequently any reason for possible common action with bourgeois parties was lacking.

Moreover, the state power and the logical, natural corollary of the united front tactic. It was applied in Germany, where it resulted in a serious defeat for the German proletariat and its Communist Party.

With the overt progressive degeneration of the International after the 4th Congress, the united front slogan served to introduce the aberrant tactic of forming electoral blocs with parties that were not only not communist, but also non-proletarian, the tactic of popular fronts, and support for bourgeois governments. Or - and this relates to immediate questions - it was claimed that the proletarian party, suspending the fight for its specific goals, should form the left wing of an anti-fascist coalition comprising proletarian as well as democratic and liberal parties, with the aim of combating bourgeois totalitarian regimes and, after their collapse, of forming a coalition government of all parties, both bourgeois and proletarian, opposed to fascism. In this way, beginning with the proletarian united front, unity was gradually extended until it finally included all classes, bourgeois and proletarian, ruling and ruled, exploiting and exploited.

In other words, beginning from a debatable, contingent tactical maneuver which explicitly required absolute autonomy or revolutionary and communist organizations, the effective liquidation of this autonomy was accomplished, along with the negation, not just of Bolshevik revolutionary intransigence, but even of the Marxist notion of class.

This progressive evolution of the Communist International stands in contradiction to the tactical these adopted at the first congresses and to the classic solutions given by Lenin in “Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder”; on the  other hand, it authorizes us to state, after the experience of twenty years of the International’s existence, that such a serious deviation in relation to the initial goal, parallel to the reversals of the revolutionary anti-capitalist struggle, has derived from an originally inadequate method of posing the problems of the party’s political tasks.

Today, without recalling the full range of arguments developed in the discussions at the time, it is possible to conclude that the balance sheet of the too elastic, maneuvering tact was not only negative, but disastrous.

Under the Comintern’s guidance, Communist Parties everywhere tried repeatedly to exploit situations in a revolutionary direction by resorting to the united front, and then by opposing the victory of the bourgeois right, as it was called, with the tactic of left blocs. This tactic resulted only in resounding defeats. From Germany to France, to China, to Spain - nowhere did these coalition attempts draw the masses away from the opportunist parties and bourgeois or petty-bourgeois influences, and steer them in a revolutionary, communist direction. In fact, they led to quite the opposite result, by benefiting the anti-communists. The Communist parties were either mercilessly attacked by their former allies when the coalitions were broken, and suffered severe defeats in their attempts to fight on alone; or, if they were absorbed by the coalition, they gradually became completely denatured to the point that they were practically no different from the opportunist parties.

It is true that between 1928 and 1934 the Comintern, unexpectedly turning against bourgeois left currents and the social-democracy, issued slogans for political autonomy and independent struggle. But this sudden tactical about-face only succeeded in completely disorienting the Communist parties, without producing any historical successes in the fight against the fascist counter-offensives or against concerted actions by the bourgeois anti-proletarian coalitions. The cause of this reversal must be sought in the fact that the series of different tactical slogans were thrust upon the parties and their cadres as so many unexpected improvisations, without each communist organization being prepared for the various outcomes. However, the party’s tactical plans cannot and must not become the exclusive monopoly of leading circles; on the contrary, because they define in advance the attitude to take in the various predictable situations, they must be closely linked to the theoretical cohesiveness, the political consciousness of the militants and the traditions of the movement, and must permeate the organization so that it is always prepared in advance and can foretell what the reaction of the unified structure of the party will be to favorable or unfavorable events in the course of the struggle. To expect anything more or different from the party, and to believe that it can resist unexpected shifts in tactics, is not to have a more complete or revolutionary conception of the party. On the contrary, as the historical facts prove, this is the classic process defined as opportunism, which leads the revolutionary party either to dissolution and shipwreck under the defeatist influence of bourgeois politics, or to vulnerability and disarmament in the face of repression.

When the degree of development of society and the course of events induce the proletariat to make use of causes that are not its own by appearing in the false revolutions the bourgeoisie needs from time to time, it is only opportunism that triumphs. The class party enters into crisis, its leadership is subjected to bourgeois influences, and the return to the proletarian path can only come about through splits from the old parties, the creation of new nuclei and the national and international reconstruction of the proletarian political organization.

In conclusion, the tactic the international proletarian party will apply when it is rebuilt in all countries must be based on the following directives.

The practical experience of opportunist crises and struggles waged by left Marxist groups against the revisionisms of the 2nd International and the progressive deviations of the 3rd International has shown that it is not possible to maintain intact the programmatic positions, the political traditions and organizational solidity of the party if it applies a tactic which, even in its formal positions, contains attitudes and slogans acceptable to opportunist political movements. Similarly, any wavering or tolerance in the area of theory will result in opportunist tactics and action.

The party is therefore distinguished from all other openly hostile or allegedly friendly parties, as well as those that claim to recruit their members from among the working class, by the fact that its political practice is alien to maneuvers, combinations, alliances and blocs traditionally formed on the basis of contingent postulates and slogans shared by many parties.

This party position has an essentially historical value, and in the area of tactics, distinguishes the party from all other parties, precisely as it is distinguished by its original vision of the period now being traversed by capitalist society.

The revolutionary class party is alone in understanding that today the economic, social and political postulates of liberalism and democracy are anti-historical, illusory and reactionary, and that the world has reached the point where, in large countries, the liberal organizational form is disappearing, making way for the more modern, fascist system.

However, in the period in which the capitalist class had not yet begun its liberal phase, and still had to overthrow the feudal power, or where, in large countries, it still had to complete major stages and phases of expansion - phases which were liberal in terms of economics and democratic in terms of state’s role - a transitory alliance of Communist parties with parties which, in the first case, were openly revolutionary, anti-legalitarian and organized for armed struggle, and in the second case, with parties that were still fulfilling a task that secured useful and truly progressive conditions for the capitalist class to advance more quickly along the path to its own overthrow, was both understandable and admissible.

The passage of Communist tactics from one historical epoch to another cannot be diminished to a local or national casuistry, nor be lost in an analysis of the complex uncertainties that the historical cycle of capitalism undoubtedly entails, without culminating in the practice condemned by Lenin in “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back”.

The policy of the proletarian party has been above all international (with distinguishes it from all others) ever since its program was first formulated and the historical need for its effective organization appeared. As the Manifesto states, Communists, by supporting all revolutionary movements against the existing social and political order, put forward and defend, along with the question of property, the interests that are shared by the whole proletariat, independent of nationality.

Insofar as it has not been perverted by Stalinism, the conception of revolutionary communist strategy is that the international tactics of communists is intended to bring about the collapse of the bourgeois front in the countries where the best possibilities for this appear, by mobilizing the proletariat’s resources for that purpose.

Consequently, the tactic of insurrectional alliances against the old regimes was historically closed with the grandiose Russian revolution which eliminated the last major military apparatus of a non-capitalist nature.

After this phase, even the theoretical possibility of the tactic of blocs must be considered as having been rejected by the international revolutionary movement.

The excessive importance attributed during the first years of the 3rd International to the application of Russian tactical positions to countries with stable bourgeois regimes, and also to the extra-European and colonial countries, was the first manifestation of the opportunist danger.

The second imperialist war and its already obvious on sequences were characterized by the preponderant influence, in all areas of the world, even those subjected to the most backward forms of indigenous society, not so much of powerful capitalist economic forms, but of the irresistible political and military control exerted by the large imperialist fortresses of capitalism, presently organized in a gigantic coalition that includes the Russian state.

Consequently, local tactics can only be aspects of the general revolutionary strategy, whose first task is the restoration of the programmatic clarity of the world communist party, followed by the reconstitution of its organizational network in all countries.

This struggle develops in an environment where the illusions and seductions of opportunism hold sway: Propaganda in favor of the crusade for freedom against fascism in the ideological domain, and in the political domain, the practice of coalitions, blocs, fusions and illusory demands presented together by the leaderships of numerous parties, groups and movements.

Proclaiming that history has irrevocably rejected the practice of agreements between parties constitutes an essential and fundamental directive, and not a simple contingent reaction to the opportunist saturnals and acrobatic combinations of politicians. This is the only way for the proletarian masses to understand the need for the reconstruction of the proletarian party as fundamentally different from all others.

Even for transitory phases, none of the movements in which the party participates may be led by a super-party, by a higher organ consisting of a group of allied parties.

In the modern historical phase of world politics, the proletarian masses can only mobilize is a revolutionary manner again by building their class unity around a single party which is compact in its theory, its action, in the preparation for the insurrectionary attack and the management of power.

Every manifestation of the party, however limited, must make it apparent to the masses that this historical solution constitutes the only alternative against the international reinforcement of the economic and political domination of the bourgeoisie and its ability – not definitive, but still growing – to overcome the contradictions and convulsions that threaten the existence of its regime.



International Communist Party


Back Sumary