1. These few lines are to explain briefly and schematically the existence of our group, its role and its duties, and to clarify the reality from which the group extends as an active agent. This text intends as well to outline the historical chain of events to which it owes its programmatic basis and the general outlooks we aim at. Amongst those, the publication of the present review in a language... especially conceived for the avant?garde fraction of the proletariat using that language, which will fight for self?organization (or self?reorganization) as a class wherever it is.
2. Our group is the product of a still forming synthesis, of particular and
regional direct experiments by the universal proletariat which annexe themselves
to the ever standing work of the Communists ? duty of directing, of centralising,
etc. of fights, and of a comprehension of the global experience of the universal
working class in its fight against Capital, systemised by the left communist
fractions from which we inherit a materialistic, dialectic comprehension and
a comprehension of the vital necessity to take an organized action towards
the transformation of the world. Explaining our constitution implies:
1° opposing all fables that the bourgeoisie has constructed around the fantom of communism with the central axis of the communist movement that develops within and against Capitalism; outlining the revolution and counter?revolution forces precisely.
2° to show the historical importance of the revolutionaries' action.
3° to characterize the present situation.
4° on this basis, reafirm the permanent duties of Communists, hence ours.
CAPTALISM AND COMMUNISM
COUNTER-REVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION
The history of universal Capitalism is a history of exacerbation of reinforcement
of its contradictions and antagonisms. Each new expansion ends necessarily
with an even more violent crisis that sets the entire planet ablaze. The capitalist
solution to this crisis is always the same: the misery of the working class,
austerity, forcing unemployment, banishment from the immediate process of
production, centralising of State control, war?time economy, democratico?terrorist
fortification of the State, destruction of all productive forces, imperialistic
war. In front and against this, the proletariat fortifies itself by trying
to affirm its communist programme the fight against exploitation, the proletariat
organization in a class, hence as a Party, the destruction of the bourgeois
State, the proletariat dictatorship, the despotic destruction of the bourgeois
production connections, the destruction of the infamous value law.
Each crisis of the capitalistic growth is thus a manifestation of a global social crisis, which materializes itself in the brutal surge of the contradictions between two antagonistic social projects the conservation of Capital, which is necessarily counter?revolutionary, and the revolution, which imposes itself, expands and becomes a general revolution or else it is destroyed.
The bourgeois "solution" to the crisis of Capital is by its very essence partial and limited in time. The development of capitalism that such a "solution" permits necessarily develops the proletariat, fortifies and concentrates it.
The rhythm of the new expansion determines the level of the new crisis, the development of its antagonisms and the affirmation of its decomposition the new revolutionary wave. The communist solution to the crisis is necessarily universal, definite, and it does not imply minimising or abolishing the effects of capitalism but abolishing capitalism in itself. The point is not in proposing an improvement of salaries or a better administration of society, but in developing class warfare in order to abolish the system of paid labour. The communist solution does not pertain to democratize the State but to annihilate it completely. One must ascertain that, despite the proletariat's enormous efforts aiming at extending its revolution, the counter?revolution has succeeded up to now in making that process fail, which simultaneously and inseparably permitted the physical and political destruction of the bastions of the "avant?garde" workers.
Contrarily to what the bourgeoisie wants us to believe about the most glorious class counter class conflict ever conducted by the proletariat in the whole world, there is nothing left to the proletariat but the accumulated experience. If today it is essential to repeat such tautologies (as communists?internationalists), it is because the counter?revolution imposing itself in the whole world (particularly materialised by the butchery that was the second world war) still keeps an enormous dominance at all levels, specifically the ideological one. The ideological reproduction expresses itself in multiple ways. One of them allows to reconcile the interests of all the different fractions of bourgeoisie: it is the "Three Worlds Theory". This ideology aims at dividing the world proletariat. According to this theory, there would exist a first capitalistic and developped world, where the workers do not need to fight for a communist revolution but for the defence of democracy, for "social" institutions and for the reform of structures (nationalization, self?administration, etc.). There would be a second world, a "socialist" one, where there is no need to fight for the socialist revolution either (as it is already accomplished). It would take only to improve socialism by enforcing a series of democratic reforms or strictly political revolutions.
It is evident that in the third world, revolution cannot be accomplished as it refers to "under?developed", "pre?capitalistic" countries, where it would be utopic to desire anything else than to fight for the national liberation, as well as relying on the national democratic fraction of the bourgeoisie in its struggle against under?development and imperialism. In short, submitting the proletariat to "progressive" and "nationalistic" fractions of the capital permanently, thus maintaining its disorganization as a class. All distinctions operating from that mutual basis stem from the fact that the bourgeoisie, by the essence of its regime ? competition ? is confronted non?stop with an inner conflicting of interests.
The bourgeois unification, the centralization, the State, the State constellations, the international under?State control never take their stand on the elimination of contradictions inside the union, but exist only in order to confront, above these divisions and in the best possible conditions, the imperialistic commercial war and the class warfare. Thus, even if the whole bourgeoisie universally agrees with the "Three Worlds Theory" (which implies identifying socialism with nationalization and the atrophied development with extra?capitalism), when the real question is to put workers into the service of one or another organization in under?State control of the world capital (imperialistic constellations), the bourgeoisie always appears divided. Some will defend a socialist country, others will stress the atrocities of the repression in the same country; some will justify the NATO militaristic policy or that of China in the name of national supremacy, of democracy or/and of socialism; others will blame the Russian policy in Afghanistan, the Cuban policy in Africa, or the Vietnamese policy in Cambodia... it will always be in the name of democracy, self?determination of the people and socialism.
In the name of democracy too, some people will justify the policy of the "imperialistic Capital", which through the English, American, French,... governments, guarantees the gruesome order of capitalism in Ireland, Central America, Africa, etc.
Other fighters for democracy will extend military help to the bourgeois fractions that on the occasion adopt the flag of national liberation, just like those who, in their own camps, take charge of maintaining the terrorist order of the organized capital (Poland, Mozambique, Angola,...). In this case, there cannot be any agreement of any kind: each fraction of the capital fights for possessing the mystical flags that gave such good results during the second world war (democracy, national supremacy, antifascism,...). Everyone tries to use the workers as cannon?fodder in his own camp of imperialistic capital. This is why it should be stressed that the capitalistic exploitation regime is universal. Contrarily to the bourgeoisie, the proletariat has no homeland, it has no regional or sectarian interests to defend. It is just as absurd and reactionary to imagine that socialism could exist in one country only as to conceive capitalism in one country only. It is essential to repeat unceasingly that capitalism is only a transitory phase for all humanity and that its destruction will inevitably be universal. Even the denomination of our group contains a deliberate tautology: Internationalist Communist. It is clear that communism, in the true sense, contains internationalist practice, the abolition of money, of merchandise, of all States, of social classes. If today it is still necessary to point it out, it is because the impact of the Stalinist, of the democratic and fascist counter?revolutions is still enormous; and because the communist program, in spite of the large working masses that objectively fight for its affirmation, remains absolutely unknown in its theoretical expression and is burned and disfigured by the quicksand of capitalistic ideologies. Let's repeat what Marx and Engels stated a century ago: Communism is neither an ideal nor a series of receipts to be applied to reality, but a real movement of destruction of all established orders. The communist program does not only consist in arms of criticism but also in criticism through arms. Its affirmation is at the same time the theo?retical comprehension of the action and the action itself; its power is not solely derived from a materialistic comprehension of the world, it also implies a subversive revolution?ary practice against the bourgeoisie society.
The essence of the proletarian fight, in all forms and periods of the capitalistic development, is essentially the same; the antagonism of the capitalistic society remains the same. The resolution of this antagonism cannot be the result of different "programs" but the result of the development and fortification of the movement of decomposition of capitalism: in other words, the communist movement, indivisible unity of objectives and means, practical affirmation of the proletariat as a universal autonomous class.
This is why in the phases of mounting revolutions, the importance of communist tasks can vary, thus assume different relative importances in periods of descending revolution. Still in periods of counter?revolution, the central axis of communists action is always the same: the practical defence of the program, the fight for the proletariat constitution as political force, structurised and centralised organically on the international level, that is to say the proletariat organised as a Party.
The mounting revolution characterises itself through the affirmation of the
communist program in all society, which becomes concrete simultaneously in
a) the brutal burst of the generalizel crisis of the bourgeoisie's society;
b) in the unification and association of the proletariat for the organic centralization of its revolutionary action for which
c) they endow themselves with a communist direction by
d) facing the totality of bourgeois fractions.
The descending phases are characterized by
a) the imposition of social, economic and political conditions, which allow a new phase of capitalistic accumulation, hence the reconstitution of the bourgeoisie's society and the more or less stable surpass of the crisis;
b) the proletariat's disorganization, by which special organic force becomes a conglomerate of "immediate" associations that abandons its class interests progressively, a conglomerate that is joined by a few isolated mass groups that try to even out the balance. So, in these periods, we have a dispersal and physical disorganization (massacre, imprisonment, massive exile) and ideological recomposition of the bourgeoisie's mythology operating on the basis of the contents of the working class fight, in debasing and betraying the real content, in order to use it against the proletariat.
c) the repolarisation of the bourgois society, which tends to use the workers as a manoeuvring mass and cannon?fodder.
To summarize, that is revolution: phase of unification, centralization, fortification of the working forces. And the counter?revolution as a phase of dispersal, atomisation of the same working forces with their consequences, struggle against exploitation or its development, either revolution or war, and the massacre of proletariat.
THE COMMUNIST FRACTIONS AND THEIR HISTORICAL NECESSITIES
Revolution and counter?revolution, both expressions of the two classes of society, are still relative powers and realities until the destruction of capitalism.
The function of democracy, of the bourgeoisie organized as a State, is nevertheless to destroy, to disorganize and to recuperate all tentatives of autonomous association by the proletariat. Its permanent objective is to make organization of the proletariat as a party fail, or to deviate it. Yet it can neither destroy the work power that enables an enlarged reproduction of the capitalistic exploitation, nor eliminate the antagonisms that are deeply entrenched in it. It is therefore impossible to prevent manifestations of decomposition of the regime and the reappearance of the working class associations, constantly stronger, firmer and more efficient. Each affirmation of the proletariat as a political power, in fact each affirmation of the communist program, of the communist revolution, is in general an important step forward. Each defeat inevitably underlines the weaknesses and incoherences of the movement, which are essential to comprehend before they can be surpassed. All failures of the revolution can be explained through absence or lack of material concitions, amongst them one can take into account the absence of "conscience and will", two major distinctive elements in the party.
As to the proletarian point of view, the absence of conditions can be no pretext for inectivity and is not a sufficient explanation to put the blame for our defeat upon our enemies' attitudes (any party, pseudo?working class, "communist", socialist, Trotskyst or maoist has "betrayed" the working class). It is the "A.B.C." of the fight that the enemy always uses any sly way within its power in order to win.
This is the reason why, from the proletarian point of view, the failures have to be explained through the own weaknesses of the movement ? weaknesses achieving themselves through the unfinished affirmation of its constitution as a party. Clarifying such weaknesses and their axis, i.e. the causes, the forces, the mythos that have wrecked the process of constitution as a party, represents, in moments of disorganization and dispersal, in moments when the counter?revolution triumphs, the premises, the indispensable condition for any revolutionary practice.
Actually, the first reason for which revolution affirms itself on a higher level every time (1848, 1871, 1917?23) is that the antagonisms of capital are every time more unbearable while the proletariat is numerically stronger and more concentrated through the development of capital. The second reason is that the voluntary action of one fraction of the proletariat assures a real programmatic continuity between even revolutionary wave in spite of the counter?revolution. If it excluded the voluntary action, which condenses and expresses the counter?revolution, and the revolution program, which assures the premises of the revolutionary staff formation, the proletariat would each time start its history again, repeating the same mistakes.
The policy of proletariat disorganization, of reproduction of the counter?revolutionary
situation, is not only based on the physical and martial repression, but also
l) the falsification and the negation of class struggle
2) using the proletariat leaders' names while distorting the contents of their actions
3) the use of terminology, expressions used by the revolutionaries are distorted as well, for the use of the counter?revolution
4) diffusion as being the revolutionaries' objective of a struggle wave passed the reforms and the democratisation of capital (and not its destruction).
The intellectuals of the regime are specialists in revision, falsification,
in the use of weaknesses in the formulations and explanations inherent in
any failing revolution against its real targets: communism. To this, the proletariat
opposes the work of the communist fractions, which through fighting against
any revisionist falsification hindering the organization of the proletariat
as a party and through pitiless criticizing, work patiently for the reconstitution
of our class. This task of theoretical and programmatic affirmation implies:
l) the reconstitution of the history of the class fight that tends to assure the collective memory of the proletariat.
2) the theoretical formalisation (thesis) of the highest point, of programmatic affirmation, which implies to analyse and to criticize the weaknesses and mistakes.
3) the fortification and development of its own organized form (the nucleus) assuming in actual fact the direct action against capital by deliberately operating in the organization and centralization of that action; in other words, forming, not only in its general orientations, but in the totality of the movement, the most decided part of the class: forming the indispensable nucleus of the communist party direction.
Today, in any part of the world, speaking of organized structure, of party, of centralization, of "avant?garde", brings about, even amongst the most pugnacious proletarians, an immediate negative reaction. They have had enough of hearing those who are the worst enemies of our class and of its fight talking about a "party", about organization and centralization. The necessary fight against those "socialist" and "communist" organizations has been turned by the counter?revolution into allergy against any organization form. But this is the ground of counter?revolution. The pure and simple denying of the organization is nothing but anarchy in the bosom of the working movement, but spontaneous and immediate movements, the predominance of the individual and his freewill, thus the reproduction of democracy with its procession of demagogy, populism, etc. and above all with the permanent terrorist repression against all the proletariat fractions that want to organize themselves against this state of fact. This is always true, but even more in the periods of intense struggle, because "all through the periods of crisis the lack of direction is a crime against the party" (Marx). With their work of disorganization, the anti?parties make the work of the bourgeoisie easier and can be considered as objective part of it (we do not judge the people by what they think of themselves but by their practice).
To leave the ground of counter?revolution, the negation of this negation imposes itself: it is necessary for the criticism to transform itself into destruction, into the fight to death against all the bourgeois forces, and into radically different proletarian organizations (1). The communist organization is only radically different if it differentiates itself, from roots to head, of all the bourgeois organizations. It is the same antagonism that separates communism from those gentlemen's program, which generally consists in nationalizing, putting the production forces under State control, in other words, the capitalist State opposes the proletarian organization as a communist party to all the so?called organizations.
It is true that the lack of party is not a sufficient explanation for the reproduction of counter?revolution, because this "explanation" only displaces the problem, which becomes then: "Why was there no party? Why did the proletariat appear incapable of organizing itself as a party?...". And so, we would find ourselves again in front of the indispensable and ineluctable necessity to understand the material causes that did determine the past defeats and that continue to allow the triumph of the counter?revolution. But all attempts to break the vicious circle of counter?revolution are bound to be organized attempts as well as an indisputable work of the party.
(1) The same generally happens with politics. Disgusted with the permanent
cheating of left and right parties, the proletariat rejects politics. A lot
of proletarians talk about their "abandonment of politics"... as
if we could decide. As if, by not involving ourselves in politics, we could
stop it from working with us and against us... The proletariat is bound to
involve itself in politics, and it will not go one step forward by denying
politics individually. To deny it really, it would be necessary to deny it
socially, in other words, to abolish it. But there is only one way to abolish
it: this is revolution. And it can only be a political action: the social
war, that can permit this revolution. The only way to criticize politics positively
is to realize it. It is not enough to simply deny the bourgeois politics but
it is necessary to deny the negation that is still
imprisoned in its bosom.
The communist fractions and their historical necessities